HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016/12/12 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - Study SessionAGENDA
DECEMBER 12, 2016
5:30 p.m. TOUR OF ROC – 3700 Monterey Drive
6:30 p.m. STUDY SESSION – Rec Center Banquet Room
Discussion Items
1. 6:30 p.m. Future Study Session Agenda Planning – December 19, 2016 & January
9, 2017
2. 6:35 p.m. Reilly Superfund Site Update
3. 7:05 p.m. Water Treatment Plant #4 Update
4. 7:35 p.m. Connect the Park Gap Sidewalk Segments
5. 8:20 p.m. Boards & Commissions Annual Appointment Process
6. 8:40 p.m. Vision Steering Committee Appointments
9:10 p.m. Communications/Updates (Verbal)
9:15 p.m. Adjourn
Written Reports
7. History of Housing Code Research and Zoning Amendments 2006-2016
8. Financial Management Policies Update
9. Follow-up: Preservation of Naturally Occurring Affordable Housing (NOAH)
10. Public Art Programs/Contributions
11. Update on 4900 Excelsior Purchase and Redevelopment Contract
12. Wooddale Bridge Improvements
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: December 12, 2016
Discussion Item: 1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Future Study Session Agenda Planning – December 19, 2016 and January 9, 2017
RECOMMENDED ACTION: The City Council and the City Manager to set the agenda for the
Special Study Session scheduled for December 19, 2016 and the regularly scheduled Study Session
on January 9, 2017.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the Council agree with the agendas as proposed?
SUMMARY: At each study session approximately five minutes are set aside to discuss the next
study session agenda. For this purpose, attached please find the proposed discussion items for the
Special Study Session scheduled for December 19, 2016 and the regularly scheduled Study Session
on January 9, 2017.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Tentative Agenda – December 19, 2016 & January 9, 2017
Prepared by: Debbie Fischer, Administrative Services Office Assistant
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of December 12, 2016 (Item No. 1) Page 2
Title: Future Study Session Agenda Planning – December 19, 2016 and January 9, 2017
DECEMBER 19, 2016
6:45 p.m. – Special Study Session – Community Room
Tentative Discussion Items
1. Review Draft 2017 Legislative Priorities & Issues – Administrative Services (30 minutes)
Feedback is requested on the details of the agenda proposed for the Legislative Priorities &
Issues Discussion with our state and county elected representatives, and Met Council
Representative scheduled for January 9, 2017.
Written Reports
2. SWLRT Update – City Cost Agreements and Beltline Station Letter of Intent
JANUARY 9, 2017
6:30 p.m. – Study Session – Community Room
Tentative Discussion Items
1. Future Study Session Agenda Planning – Administrative Services (5 minutes)
2. 2017 Legislative Priorities & Issues – Administrative Services (60 minutes)
In preparation for the upcoming legislative session City Council has had a practice of inviting
our state and county elected representatives and Met Council representative to a study session
to discuss the upcoming session and the City’s legislative agenda. Senator Ron Latz,
Representative Cheryl Youakim, Representative Peggy Flanagan, Hennepin County
Commissioner Marion Greene and Metropolitan Council Representative Gail Dorfman have
been invited to this meeting.
3. 2017 Connect the Park! Bikeways & Sidewalk – Engineering (45 minutes)
Staff will provide City Council with an overview of the recommended design for the 2017
Connect the Park! Bikeways and Sidewalks segments.
Communications/Meeting Check-In – Administrative Services (5 minutes)
Time for communications between staff and Council will be set aside on every study session
agenda for the purposes of information sharing.
End of Meeting: 8:25 p.m.
Meeting: Study Session
Meeting Date: December 12, 2016
Discussion Item: 2
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Reilly Superfund Site Update
RECOMMENDED ACTION: The purpose of this discussion is to provide Council with an update
on the status of the Reilly Site legal process.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: None at this time.
SUMMARY: September 2016 marked the 30th anniversary of the Reilly Consent Decree and its
associated Remedial Action Plan (CD/RAP). In anticipation of this milestone, the City retained the
law firm Lockridge, Grindal, Nauen P.L.L.P. (LGN) in July 2013 to represent the city as our legal
counsel. LGN was tasked with guiding us though the legal proceedings accompanying the 30-year
review of and potential revisions to the 1986 Consent Decree and associated Remedial Action Plan
(CD/RAP). LGN, with the City’s consent, retained the engineering firm Geosyntec to provide the
technical support for the effort. Attorneys Charlie Nauen and David Zoll, from LGN, will provide
council with an update on the legal process and provide a brief explanation of the potential impacts
associated with Vertellus Inc. (formerly Reilly Industries) declaring bankruptcy.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: All City costs to operate the Reilly site are
funded by the Water Utility. With current costs averaging over $500,000 per year, the City’s water
rates are 12-15% higher than would otherwise be the case.
VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to being a leader in environmental
stewardship and will continue to increase environmental consciousness and responsibility in all
areas of city business.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion
Prepared by: Mark Hanson, Public Works Superintendent
Reviewed by: Cynthia S. Walsh, Director of Operations and Recreation
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of December 12, 2016 (Item No. 2) Page 2
Title: Reilly Superfund Site Update
DISCUSSION
Actions/next steps associated with the 30-year Anniversary of the Consent Decree: The City,
MPCA, and EPA have engaged in on-going discussions regarding potential amendments to the CD-
RAP. The goal is to create a CD-RAP that is consistent with current toxicological data and our
understanding of the migration of groundwater near the Reilly site, that reduces the City’s annual
operating costs, and that remains protective of human health and the environment. The current
discussions with the regulatory agencies were made possible by the significant effort over the past
several years to approach consensus regarding the standards to apply to the site and the movement
of groundwater around the Reilly site.
Efforts are proceeding on two tracks – a technical track and a legal track. The technical track is
focused on developing a revised remedial action plan (the long-term plan for addressing the site)
and answering any outstanding questions related to the standards, scope of the groundwater
contamination, and potential remedies. The legal track is focused on integrating the work of the
technical team into a new CD-RAP that is consistent with the current template used by EPA across
the country. The legal teams also are coordinating regarding the Vertellus bankruptcy as addressed
below. Both the technical and legal teams consult with Mark Hanson to ensure that the results of the
technical and legal work can be implemented on the ground.
Much works needs to be completed before the City, MPCA, and EPA are ready to submit a new
CD-RAP to the Court for approval. However, the parties discussed the 31st Anniversary of the
existing CD-RAP, September 2017, as a target for completing the process.
Impacts associated with the Vertellus Bankruptcy: Pursuant to an agreement between the City
and Reilly Tar, Vertellus (Reilly’s successor) is responsible for certain costs related to the Reilly
site. Most significantly, Vertellus would be responsible for the construction and operating costs of
new water treatment equipment if EPA and the MPCA were to require treatment of the drinking
water in neighboring communities (e.g., Edina). While we do not anticipate that such treatment will
be necessary, the potential costs would run in the millions. The bankruptcy will result in the
discharge of all of Vertellus’ potential liabilities related to the Reilly site. This may leave the City
of St. Louis Park as the potentially responsible party for any future response costs. For now,
determination of liability remains an open question that would need to be resolved by the courts.
In consultation with EPA and MPCA, we submitted a bankruptcy claim on behalf of the City (for
on-going costs for which Vertellus would have been responsible). We do not anticipate that any
funds will be available from the liquidation of Vertellus’s assets as such proceeds will be used first
to satisfy the claims of secured creditors. Nonetheless, the City’s claim may improve the prospects
of using proceeds from insurance policies held by Vertellus to offset future costs associated with
the site.
Vertellus’s bankruptcy creditors agreed to establish an environmental response fund which will be
used to continue ongoing environmental remediation at various Vertellus-owned sites across the
country. The creditors also assigned certain insurance policies to EPA and EPA will use a portion
of the environmental response fund to pursue claims under the insurance policies for environmental
response costs. The insurance proceeds will be pooled and allocated among the various sites to cover
a portion of the future environmental response costs. EPA and the bankruptcy creditors are
developing a formula, which will be approved by the Court, for allocating the proceeds between the
various sites.
Study Session Meeting of December 12, 2016 (Item No. 2) Page 3
Title: Reilly Superfund Site Update
We are working with EPA/MPCA to develop a plan for addressing the remediation at the Reilly site
(i.e., whether the City, State, or EPA will be responsible for certain actions) in order to place the
Reilly site in the best position to receive allocations from the insurance proceeds. It is too early to
determine how much money will be recovered from the insurance policies or estimate how much
will be available for the Reilly site.
NEXT STEPS: Staff will continue to work with LGN and Geosyntec as we partner with EPA,
MPCA, and MDH to update the CD/RAP before the September 2017, completion goal. Next steps
include:
Coordinating with the regulatory agencies to assign responsibility for on-going remedial
actions and to position the Reilly Tar site to an allocation of the insurance proceeds.
Reach consensus regarding how current water quality standards will be applied to the site.
Reach consensus regarding remedial actions addressing near surface contamination; shallow
(non-drinking water) aquifers; and deep (drinking water) aquifers.
Complete any technical analyses necessary to support proposed remedial actions and update
records of decisions as necessary.
Draft revised CD-RAP incorporating new standards and remedial actions.
Submit proposed Amended CD-RAP to the court for approval.
Meeting: Study Session
Meeting Date: December 12, 2016
Discussion Item: 3
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Water Treatment Plant #4 Update
RECOMMENDED ACTION: The purpose of this discussion is to provide Council with an update
on the recent sampling results associated with the interim modifications at Water Treatment Plant
#4 as well as discuss potential timing options for the construction of the long term upgrade.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: None at this time.
SUMMARY: Staff has been working on two major efforts associated with Water Treatment Plant
#4 (4701 41st Street West) to ensure St. Louis Park continues to provide high quality, safe drinking
water:
1) Although repeated testing by the Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) has confirmed
that our water is safe to drink and meets all drinking water standards, staff has partnered with
the MDH to develop an interim solution to lower the VOC levels at WTP4. The current
interim modifications have been in place since October 24, 2016. Initial test results were
positive in lowering VOC levels but subsequent guidance from MDH has highlighted a new
concern over our Trichloroethene (TCE) levels. Staff will provide council with an update on
the latest test results and how they may impact future decision making.
2) Staff has also partnered with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) to design
permanent upgrades to WTP4 and WTP6 (42nd and Zarthan Avenue) such that identified
contaminants can be treated down to published advisory levels. Although both designs are
anticipated to be completed in June 2017, staff will provide Council with an update on
possible construction options for WTP4 since, as an active drinking water well, there may
be benefits to moving up its construction.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: The planning for improvements is being paid
for by the MPCA. The permanent upgrades are currently included in the City’s Capital
Improvements Program for 2018/2019 as an unfunded expense. Funding would have to come from
City funds, state bonding money, MPCA grants or a combination thereof.
VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to being a leader in environmental
stewardship and will increase environmental consciousness and responsibility in all areas of city
business.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion
Prepared by: Mark Hanson, Public Works Superintendent
Reviewed by: Cynthia S. Walsh, Director of Operations and Recreation
Debra Heiser, Engineering Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of December 12, 2016 (Item No. 3) Page 2
Title: Water Treatment Plant #4 Update
DISCUSSION
BACKGROUND: For the November 14, 2016 Study Session, staff provided Council with a report
on the status of the levels of Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) at WTP4 (4701 41st Street West).
Certain VOCs, especially Vinyl Chloride (VC), were approaching the allowable maximum
Contaminant Levels (MCLs) as set by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Staff then
updated Council on two major efforts in the works to ensure St. Louis Park continues to provide
high quality, safe drinking water:
1) Partnering with the Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) to implement an interim
solution to lower the VOC levels at WTP4, and
2) Partnering with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) to design permanent
upgrades to WTP4 and WTP 6 such that identified contaminants can be treated down to
MDH’s published advisory levels (known as Health Based Values, HBVs, or Health Risk
Limits, HRLs).
The interim and permanent solutions described above are proactive measures being taken to ensure
we continue to produce high quality, safe drinking water.
PRESENT CONSIDERATIONS:
WTP4 Interim Modifications: Although repeated testing by the Minnesota Department of Health
(MDH) has confirmed that our water is safe to drink and meets all drinking water standards, staff
has partnered with the MDH to develop an interim solution to lower the VOC levels at WTP4 (4701
41st Street West).
The current interim modifications have been in place since October 24, 2016. Initial test results were
positive but subsequent guidance from the MDH has highlighted a new concern over the levels of
Trichloroethene (TCE), another VOC. The following table lists recent sample results:
**assumed to be bad samples as we have never had VC results below 1.0
The table above shows that our TCE numbers have recently increased, which concerns the MDH.
Although the MCL for TCE is 5.0, MDH has set their HRL at 0.4. MDH would really like to see
this number below the HRL of 0.4, but the enforceable standard (the MCL), remains at 5.0, which
we are well within. MDH has hinted that repeated TCE levels above 0.6 to 0.7 may trigger another
health advisory letter.
Trichloroethene (TCE), ug/L Vinyl Chloride (VC), ug/L
Lab Date Raw Pre-GAC Post-GAC Raw Pre-GAC Post-GAC
MDH 06/01/2016 X 0.39 0.33 X 0.93 1.8
MDH 08/25/2016 X 0.33 0.7 X 0.79 1.9
Pace 09/06/2016 0.54 ND 0.61 1.2 0.78 1.3
Pace 11/01/2016 0.65 0.59 X <.5* <.5* X
MDH 11/08/2016 X X 0.67 X X 1.7
Pace 11/14/2016 0.66 0.65 X 1.8 1.4 X
Pace 11/30/2016 0.7 0.57 X 1.8 0.91 X
Study Session Meeting of December 12, 2016 (Item No. 3) Page 3
Title: Water Treatment Plant #4 Update
The Vinyl Chloride (VC) results, however, are very favorable. MDH would like to see an average
below 1.0. The VC results listed above average to 1.09 so we are very close to the desired 1.0. Staff
remains hopeful that additional testing will show an average below 1.0. City staff are continuing to
send samples in for analysis bi-weekly. MDH has been taking samples quarterly, but we have asked
them to move to monthly sampling until the effectiveness of the interim modifications (including
our TCE levels) can be determined.
WTP4 Permanent Upgrades: As discussed back in July, Staff has also been partnering with the
MPCA and MDH on designs for permanent upgrades to WTP4. These upgrades are intended to treat
the same VOCs previously discussed as well as proactively treat other contaminants that may be of
concern in the future.
The MPCA is funding and managing the design for the permanent solution at WTP4. Design plans
for the permanent solution at WTP4 are at the 60% stage. Final construction plans for WTP4 are
expected to be complete June 2017. The current construction cost estimate for the permanent
solution at WTP4 is $3.5M. Engineering and Administration cost is estimated as $875,000 for a
total cost of $4.375M. Several possible options for construction of WTP4 exist:
1) 2017 Construction: If needed to support construction in 2017, it is likely the plans for
WTP4 could be moved up as early as April 2017. Since WTP4 requires very little exterior
work, it is possible the project could be let in May/June of 2017 with construction complete
as early as spring 2018.
2) 2018 Construction: Another option is to wait until spring 2018 so the majority of the heavy
construction vehicles can be scheduled during the summer months when school is out. Since
recent test results are so close to desired results, staff recommends taking the time to collect
additional samples so a well-informed decision can be made with regards to construction
options.
3) Future Construction: If continued testing shows the interim modification to be successful
in lowering both our TCE and VC levels to within MDH goals, it may be prudent to pursue
funding from external sources such as state bonding or MPCA grants. This option could be
pursued for several years as long as effluent sampling confirms our VOCs are within MDH
advised levels (<0.5 for TCE and <1.0 for VC). As a planning factor, it is safe to assume that
it would likely take one year from decision to completion to upgrade the plant should Council
choose to fund the construction at a later date.
The Engineering Department would take the lead to deliver this project. If the city were to proceed
with either Option 1 or Option 2 we need ensure that we have adequate staff time available to
manage the construction project. It would require that other projects in the CIP are delayed.
NEXT STEPS: Staff will continue taking bi-weekly samples and coordinating with MDH for their
sampling needs. We will also continue to work with MDH personnel to better understand their
concerns with the recent rise in TCE levels. TCE and VC results, along with any additional guidance
received from MDH, will be summarized in a February 2017 update to council so a final decision
can be made.
Meeting: Study Session
Meeting Date: December 12, 2016
Discussion Item: 4
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Connect the Park Gap Sidewalk Segments
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Discuss Connect the Park gap sidewalk segments and provide
policy 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 city-wide network of sidewalks, trails, and
bikeways that provides local and regional connectivity, improves safety and accessibility, and
enhances overall community livability.
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. As a part of this amendment process, the City Council has directed
that staff identity gap sidewalk segments and bring them forward for consideration as a part of the
annual Pavement Management and Connect the Park construction contracts. During the public
process for the 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park construction projects a number
of policy questions have come up in the form of feedback from residents. Staff would like the
City Council to consider these questions prior to the next public input meeting. The following
report will provide a summary of the questions that staff has received. Staff will be presenting
these questions in greater depth at the study session and provide examples to illustrate the various
scenarios.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: The estimated cost for implementing the
entire 10 year plan is $24 million dollars. The addition of the gap segments being considered for
2017 are estimated to cost approximately $2,200,000 and are included in the 2017 CIP. The cost
for the gap segments were not included in the original estimated cost for Connect the Park. These
improvements would be funded using General Obligation bonds.
VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged
community.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion
Area 4 Location Map
Utica Avenue Location Map
Yosemite Avenue Layout
Prepared by: Jack Sullivan, Senior Engineering Project Manager
Reviewed by: Debra Heiser, Engineering Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of December 12, 2016 (Item No. 4) Page 2
Title: Connect the Park Gap Sidewalk Segments
DISCUSSION
BACKGROUND: To ensure the City is being responsive to the momentum caused by the
Connect the Park 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.
As a part of this amendment process Council asked staff to take a look at every construction project
to identify opportunities to construct gap sidewalk segments. For purposes of this 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 located adjacent to a street being
rehabilitated as a part of the annual pavement management project.
The gap segments would be constructed at no cost to the property owners. 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; for community sidewalks
snow removal is the City’s responsibility.
The sidewalk segments that were included in the Connect the Park plan are designated community
sidewalks. The majority of gap sidewalk segments are designated neighborhood sidewalks.
Attached are maps showing the sidewalks proposed for construction in 2017 as a part of our
Pavement Management and Connect the Park construction project.
Public Process
The public process for the 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park construction project
started in August. We have had two public meetings that have been well attended. We also have
met with a number of property owners in the field to discuss the project and address questions
regarding what is proposed. The purpose of the public process is seek feedback to inform the
design. Our message to the public regarding all of the proposed sidewalks is that the decision to
construct the sidewalk segments will be made by the City Council at the conclusion of the public
process.
Policy Questions
A number of policy questions have come up in the form of feedback from residents. The majority
of these questions are about the proposed sidewalks. In order to prepare for the next public
meeting, where staff will present the recommended design for the project, staff is requesting policy
direction from the City Council on the following questions. At the study session staff will go over
the attached examples to better illustrate the various scenarios identified.
1. How should we treat sidewalk segments with gaps, if the decision is made to not fill in the
gaps?
For the 2017 project, there are a number of segments of watermain being replaced. When
watermain is replaced, we also replace the services from the main to the curb stop. Where
there is existing sidewalk, this will mean that 8 to 10 feet of sidewalk will be removed for
this work. Also, as a part of our projects, we replace segments of sidewalk that are damaged
or hold water.
Study Session Meeting of December 12, 2016 (Item No. 4) Page 3
Title: Connect the Park Gap Sidewalk Segments
If the City Council does not approve the construction of a gap sidewalk segment staff has
identified the following options on how to treat the existing sidewalks that would remain
disconnected from the network:
Option #1: Status quo
If the City Council does not approve the construction of an existing gap sidewalk
segment, the construction project would replace and repair the sidewalk segments
impacted by the water main/service work regardless of their connection to the
network.
Option #2: Remove
If the City Council does not approve the construction of an existing gap sidewalk,
the construction project would not replace or repair the sidewalk segments impacted
by the water main/service work. In addition, any existing sidewalk that is not
continuous would be removed.
1. Should we be creating gaps in the sidewalk network?
Depending on the decisions made regarding the various gap sidewalk segments, it is
possible that approving one segment of new sidewalk, may create a new gap in the sidewalk
network.
Should the construction of a gap sidewalk segment end at the end of the block or continue
on until it connects to an existing sidewalk/ trail?
2. Should there be continuous sidewalks on both sides of every street in the City?
In next year’s Sorenson Neighborhood project the following scenarios exist:
One side of the street has a proposed gap sidewalk segment and there is already a
continuous sidewalk on the other side of the street.
The sidewalk on both sides of the street are not continuous.
There are some street segments where there is no sidewalk on either side of the
street.
As a result of these unique circumstances, staff has been asked about the necessity of
having sidewalks on both sides of every street in the City.
The city subdivision code Sec. 26-153 (j)(1) states “Location. Sidewalks or multipurpose
trailways shall be provided on both sides of existing and new streets internal to the
subdivision, and on the side of existing or new streets adjacent to the subdivision.
Sidewalks shall be provided on at least one side of all dead end streets and private streets.
Multipurpose trailways shall be installed in areas identified by the Sidewalk and Trailway
Plan, in some instances, the trailway may not be located adjacent to a street.”
NEXT STEPS:
The following is the public process schedule for the 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the
Park Project
City Council Study Session January 9, 2017
Public Meeting- staff recommended design January 10, 2017
Public Hearing February 21, 2017
")5
¬«7
MINNETONKA BLVD
WO
O
D
D
A
L
E
A
V
E VERNONAVESBLACKSTONEAVESLAKE ST W
32ND ST W
YOSEMITEAVESDAKOTAAVESEDGEWOODAVESG
E
O
R
GIA
A
V
E
S ZARTHANAVESXENWOODAVESW ALKERSTSBHWY100STOWBHWY733RD ST W
31ST ST W
35TH ST W
MIN
NETO
N
KABLVDWEBSTERAVES
CAMERATA WAY
WALKERST33RD ST W
HAMILTON ST
34TH ST W
32ND ST W
DAKOTAAVESUTICA A VESALABAMAAVESBLACKSTONEAVESWEBSTERAVESBRUNSWICKAVESW O O D D A LE A V E TO E B H WY
7
W B H W Y 7 T O W O O D D AL E A V E
S E R V IC E D R
H IG H W A Y 7COLORADOAVESBRUNSWICKAVESBRUNSWICKAVES
1,000
Feet±
Legend
Proposed City Sidewalks
(3,656 ft.)
Proposed Property Owner
Sidewalks (10,132 ft.)
Existing City Sidewalks
Existing Property Owner
Sidewalks
2017 Sidewalks
Area 4 (Sorenson Neighborhood)
Study Session Meeting of December 12, 2016 (Item No. 4)
Title: Connect the Park Gap Sidewalk Segments Page 4
¬«100VERNONAVE SWEBSTERAVESUTICAAVESMINNETONKABLVD TOLEDOAVES28TH ST W
27TH ST W
29TH ST W
28TH ST W
29TH ST W
27TH ST W
SALEMAVESALLEY2921
2913
29172916
2828282928302829
2910
2712
5622 5600
2939
5524
5530
2953
5500
5600
29452943
2940
5612
5703
29342941
2924
2925
2931
5621
2948
2944
2925
2908
29122913
2936
56392905 2900
2900
2909
2901
2847
28402840
2846
2841
2845
2930
2920
2918
2839
2835
2904
2848
28362833
2825
2816 2814
2824
28212820
2821 2820
2834
2817 2812
2807
280828082809
2804
28242825
2817
2813
2801
2813
2805
2800
2804
2729 2729
2724
2720
2728
27162716
2720
2717
2725
2712
2721
27052705
27242725
2721
2717
2713
2704
2657 2657 2656
2800
2656
2801
2749
2757 27562757
2748
27442747
2737
2746
2736
2732
2741
2733
2709
2708
2701
2737
2733
2708
2700
2709
2700
2756
2753
2745 2744
2740 2736
2732
2701
2737 2704 27012701273227002733
27162717 26492648 2650
264326442709
2729
2724 2657
2648
26442708
2701 2634
27052738
2728
2720
2631 2630262826242624
2620 262126202651
2632
2655 26222622
2713
26382637
2704 2704
27002700
2725 2656 265626572656
2647
2712
26402645
26362700 2635
2625
2625
2937 2936
2934
2955
2925
2926
29402939
293029332933
2929
29242922
2910
2904
2930
292029192918
29152916
2937
2855
2851 5210
2847
5124
2843
2839
29212949
2917
2908
2900
29012900
2856
2909 2907
2925
2913 5116
2851
2901
2831
2829
28422842
2835 28342834
2829
2925
29162943
2816
2841 282428232822
2835
51175123
520152072785 5200 5100
2747
2743
2772
2845
2808
2815
2831 51012801
2801
2780
2913
2908
29042931 29002901
2919 2848
510052005132
2840
2907
28182819
2804
27512788 2751
2748
5100
27402773 2741
2768 2736
2764 2725
51245224
2777 2745 2744
2728
2757 2727
2753
2722
2716 2719
2744
2769
2736
2731 2730
2724
2715 2724
2715
2745
2716
2742 2710
2750 2716
2709
28392832
28352824
28302828
2823
2819
2816
51055217
5112
2800
2750 5118
2744
2735 27382737
2765
2758
2749
2708 27082709
0 250 500 750 1,000
Feet±
Legend
2017 Proposed Sidewalks
Sidewalk Removed from 2017
CTP!
Sidewalk Gaps
Existing Sidewalks
Pavement Management &
Watermain Segments
Parcels
2017 Sidewalks
Area 4 (Utica Avenue. S.)
Study Session Meeting of December 12, 2016 (Item No. 4)
Title: Connect the Park Gap Sidewalk Segments Page 5
3344 YOSEMITE AVE S
3341 YOSEMITE AVE S
3340 YOSEMITE AVE S
3337 YOSEMITE AVE S 3331 YOSEMITE AVE S
3332 YOSEMITE AVE S 3328 YOSEMITE AVE S
3327 YOSEMITE AVE S
3316 YOSEMITE AVE S
3345 YOSEMITE AVE S
3304 YOSEMITE AVE S
3320 YOSEMITE AVE S
3317 YOSEMITE AVE S 3313 YOSEMITE AVE S 3305 YOSEMITE AVE S
3308 YOSEMITE AVE S
3301 YOSEMITE AVE S
3300 YOSEMITE AVE S 3260 YOSEMITE AVE S
3324 YOSEMITE AVE S
3312 YOSEMITE AVE S
3267 YOSEMITE AVE S
3401 YOSEMITE AVE S
3369 YOSEMITE AVE S
3360 YOSEMITE AVE S
3357 YOSEMITE AVE S
3356 YOSEMITE AVE S
3368 YOSEMITE AVE S
3348 YOSEMITE AVE S3350 YOSEMITE AVE S
3349 YOSEMITE AVE S
3400 YOSEMITE AVE S
5720 34TH ST W
3372 YOSEMITE AVE S 3364 YOSEMITE AVE S
3365 YOSEMITE AVE S
49505152
53 54 55 56 57 5869D SSSS4+00 5+00 6+00 7+00 8+00 9+00 10+00 11+00 12+00 13+00
14+002+003+004+0016+0017+0018+00X
OO X O OX
XXXO34TH ST W33RD ST WYOSEMITE AVE S
YOSEMITE AVE S
DRAFT - 12/6/16
2017 PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT
LEGEND
WATERMAIN REPLACEMENT AND PAVEMENT REPLACEMENT
PAVEMENT REPLACEMENT
PROPOSED CONCRETE SIDEWALK
CONCRETE DRIVEWAY PAVEMENT
BITUMINOUS DRIVEWAY PAVEMENT
GRAVEL DRIVEWAY
PROPOSED CURB & GUTTER REPLACEMENT
REMOVE OR RELOCATE LANDSCAPING
REMOVE TREE
TREE PROTECTION UNDER REVIEW
INSTALL RETAINING WALL
WATERMAIN REMOVAL
CONSTRUCTION LIMITS
X
O
60' R/W
28' (F-F)YOSEMITE AVENUERIGHT OF WAY (TYP)
RIGHT OF WAY (TYP)
RIGHT OF WAY (TYP)
TREE PROTECTION
UNDER REVIEW
12" SILVER MAPLE
(2' FROM SIDEWALK)
REMOVE
16" OAK
(IN SIDEWALK)
5' WALK
6' BLVD
B/C - R/W
14.5'
TREE PROTECTION
UNDER REVIEW
8" HONEY LOCUS
(1.5' FROM SIDEWALK)
INSTALL RETAINING
WALL
TREE PROTECTION
UNDER REVIEW
24" TREE
(2' FROM SIDEWALK)
REMOVE
LANDSCAPING
REMOVE
LANDSCAPING
REMOVE
LANDSCAPING
5' WALK
8.5' BLVD
B/C - R/W
14.5'
TREE PROTECTION
UNDER REVIEW
20" NORWAY MAPLE
(1.5' FROM SIDEWALK)
TREE PROTECTION
UNDER REVIEW
8" GREEN ASH
(2.0' FROM SIDEWALK)
5' WALK
6' BLVD
B/C - R/W
14.5'
INSTALL RETAINING
WALL
REMOVE
15" NORWAY MAPLE
(DUE TO HEALTH)
6' WALK
8' BLVD
B/C - R/W
16.5'
60' R/W 28' (F-F)
60' R/W 28' (F-F)
60' R/W
28' (F-F)5' WALK5' BLVDB/C - R/W17'5' WALK6' BLVDB/C - R/W13.5'ROADWAY NARROWING
(30' F-F TO 28' F-F)
REMOVE
26" TREE
(IN SIDEWALK)
60' R/W
28' (F-F)5' WALK8' BLVDB/C - R/W17'5' WALK6' BLVDStudy Session Meeting of December 12, 2016 (Item No. 4)
Title: Connect the Park Gap Sidewalk Segments Page 6
Meeting: Study Session
Meeting Date: December 12, 2016
Discussion Item: 5
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Boards & Commissions Annual Appointment Process
RECOMMENDED ACTION: No action at this time. The purpose of this item is to provide
information on the process that will be followed in 2017 for annual appointments to the city’s
Advisory Boards and Commissions.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the City Council agree with the plan for the annual
appointment process for boards and commissions?
SUMMARY: In 2016 the City Council approved revisions to the Rules & Procedures for Boards
and Commissions. The revisions included updates to the annual recruitment, application and
appointment processes to make them more transparent, efficient, and accessible to the public. The
following changes were implemented for the 2016 appointment cycle:
Set uniform term expiration dates for all board and commission members and make all
terms a period of three (3) years, with the exception of the Housing Authority.
Developed an online application process with standard questions for all applicants.
Required all applicants, including those seeking reappointment, to complete an application.
Standardized the process by which the council evaluates candidates and selects candidates
for interviews
Retain applications for the period of one (1) year to create a candidate pool for future
recruitment.
The current practices in place will be used for the annual appointment process in 2017, with a few
minor adjustments based on Council feedback. The following boards and commissions would be
subject to the process: Board of Zoning and Appeals, Environment & Sustainability Commission,
Housing Authority, Human Right Commission, Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission,
Planning Commission, Police Advisory Commission, and Telecommunications Advisory
Commission.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: None at this time.
VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion
Annual Appointment Process Schedule
Projected Commission Vacancies
Prepared by: Melissa Kennedy, City Clerk
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of December 12, 2016 (Item No. 5) Page 2
Title: Boards & Commissions Annual Appointment Process
DISCUSSION
How long is a membership term?
With the exception of the Housing Authority, terms are set at 3 years for all board and
commission members unless otherwise determined by the City Council.
The terms for members of the Housing Authority are regulated by Minnesota Statutes
Section 469.003, Subd. 6, and are set for a period of 5 years.
Youth commissioners serve one (1) year terms.
When do membership terms expire?
Membership terms expire annually on May 31st.
Is there a limit on the number of terms an individual can serve on a board or commission?
There are no term limits for board and commission members.
What constitutes a vacancy on a board or commission?
All upcoming term expirations and any existing open positions are considered vacancies.
Applications are required from all individuals interested in serving on a board or
commission, including existing members seeking appointment to another term.
Please see the attached table outlining the projected openings expected to be filled during
the annual appointment process in 2017.
When does recruitment take place?
Recruitment will begin in the first week of January, 2017. Advertisements will continue
through the end of February to coincide with the application deadline.
What methods does the City use to recruit applicants?
The Rules and Procedures require advertisement of all vacancies using the following
methods:
o Post all vacancies on City’s website
o Post all vacancies on our social media outlets (Facebook, Twitter, Nextdoor)
o Posting of notice at City Hall
o Notice to all neighborhood organizations
o Published notice in the Sun Sailor
o Published notice in Park Perspective (February issue)
How does someone apply to serve on a board or commission?
Interested individuals will apply using our online application system. A document link is
also available on our website for those that require or prefer a paper application.
All candidates will complete the same application.
Individuals can apply for up to 3 boards/commissions, and are asked to rank their choices
in order of preference.
Upon submission of a completed application, the applicant will receive an email
confirmation.
Staff will use the online application tool to provide status updates to applicants, schedule
interviews, and retain applications for one (1) year.
How are applications reviewed?
Completed applications will be provided to the Council for review and scoring.
Applications will be provided to the Council for review and scoring during the week of
March 6th.
Council scores will be due the week of April 3rd.
Study Session Meeting of December 12, 2016 (Item No. 5) Page 3
Title: Boards & Commissions Annual Appointment Process
Who determines which candidates are interviewed?
The City Council will select the candidates to be interviewed, based on application scores.
Candidates will be notified of their application status no later than April 7th.
Interviews will be scheduled with selected candidates.
When will interviews be held?
Based on Council feedback regarding the interview process that was conducted during the
last appointment cycle, staff suggests scheduling interviews on a Saturday in April (April
22 or April 29).
This will allow the Council to spend more time interviewing each applicant (15 minutes),
provide an opportunity for Council discussion regarding candidates, and will eliminate the
need to hold interviews during multiple study sessions when other business is also
scheduled for discussion.
Establishing the interview date ahead of time will allow candidates to hold that date on
their calendar in the event they are invited to an interview.
When will appointments be considered?
Appointments will be formally approved at the second regular meeting in May
What is the process for making appointments to a board or commission?
Following candidate interviews, the City Council will inform the Administrative Services
department of the candidates they would like to appoint to each board or commission.
How does a current member of a board or commission seek reappointment?
Current members of a board or commission seeking appointment to another term will be
required to complete an application. Candidates seeking reappointment may be asked, at
the discretion of the Council, to participate in the interview process. All individuals
seeking reappointment will be considered by the Council in the same pool as new
candidates seeking appointment to a board or commission.
NEXT STEPS:
Preparation of recruitment materials and advertisements to be released in the first week of
January, 2017
Notification of upcoming term expiration and options for reappointment to existing board
and commission members.
Study Session Meeting of December 12, 2016 (Item No. 5) Page 4
Title: Boards & Commissions Annual Appointment Process
Annual Appointment Process Schedule
Date Action
January – February, 2017 1. Advertisement & recruitment activities
2. Application System available online
February 28 Application Deadline
March 6 Applications provided to Council for
review & scoring
April 3 - 5 Council scores due to Admin Services & selection
of candidates for interview
April 7 Notify candidates of application status, and begin
scheduling of candidate interviews
April 22 or April 29 Candidate interviews at City Hall
May 8 Council discussion on appointment
recommendations (if necessary)
May 15 Formal approval of appointments
Study Session Meeting of December 12, 2016 (Item No. 5) Page 5
Title: Boards & Commissions Annual Appointment Process
Projected Board & Commission Vacancies
Commission Vacancies Terms
Board of Zoning Appeals
Regular Member -
Susan Bloyer, James Gainsley, Henry Solmer 3 3 year terms
Environment & Sustainability Commission
Regular Member –
Chris Anderson, Nancy Rose, Judy Voigt
Regular Member - VACANT
Business Member – VACANT
Residential Tenant Member – VACANT
3
1
1
1
3 year terms
1 year term
1 year term
1 year term
Housing Authority
Commissioner (Program Participant) –
Catherine Johnson 1 5 year term
Human Rights Commission
Commissioner – Greg Gidden, David Hamm,
Vacant
Commissioner – VACANT
3
1
3 year terms
1 year term
Parks & Recreation Advisory Commission
Commissioner – Sarah Foulkes, Elizabeth Griffin
2
3 year terms
Planning Commission
Commissioner –
Claudia Johnston-Madison, Carl Robertson
2
1
3 year terms
Police Advisory Commission
Commissioner - VACANT
Commissioner - VACANT
1
3
3 year term
1 year terms
Telecommunications Advisory Commission
Commissioner –
Bruce Browning, Maren Anderson,
Cindy Hoffman
Commissioner - VACANT
3
1
3 year terms
2 year term
*Subject to change if any current vacancies are filled prior to appointment cycle.
Meeting: Study Session
Meeting Date: December 12, 2016
Discussion Item: 6
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Vision Steering Committee Appointments
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Provide guidance regarding Vision Steering Committee
appointments
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Who should be on the Vision Steering Committee?
SUMMARY: The Vision Steering Committee will serve as a liaison between the community and
the City Council throughout the Vision process. Steering Committee members are ideally
visionary, entrepreneurial and innovative in approaching the future; able to think outside the box;
and positive about St. Louis Park’s future. The City Council asked that the Steering Committee
include a diverse group of individuals representing a range of demographics and sectors in the city.
A Communications and Outreach staff committee identified potential Steering Committee
members; the City Council also suggested additional potential members. Invitations were sent
asking individuals to submit a “Statement of Interest.” Twenty-three statements were received; the
attached table shows the names and affiliations of the applicants, and as well as other information.
A map showing the neighborhoods/wards of the applicants is also attached.
RECOMMENDATION: The Communications & Outreach committee recommends the Council
choose two members from each ward in order to provide a geographical distribution and
representation of different areas within the community, plus one youth member to achieve nine
members. The applicants are evenly distributed in gender also. Sectors represented include:
neighborhood leaders, schools, business owners, faith, recreation, health, arts and multi-family
housing. Many have been volunteers on various city committees and/or for other projects.
Community Engagement: Individuals not appointed to the Steering Committee will be invited to
participate in other aspects of the visioning process, including town hall meetings, training for
facilitating neighbor-to-neighbor conversations, Facebook Live meetings, and on-line surveys.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: The Vision update contract amount is
$120,000 and the source of funding is the Development Fund.
VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged
community.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion
Vision Steering Committee List
Map of Vision Steering Committee Applicants
Applications from Steering Committee Applicants
Prepared by: Meg J. McMonigal, Principal Planner
Jacqueline Larson, Communications and Marketing Manager
Reviewed by: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of December 12, 2016 (Item No. 6) Page 2
Title: Vision Steering Committee Appointments
DISCUSSION
BACKGROUND: At the November 21, 2017, City Council Study Session, the Council agreed
to submit any additional names for consideration by November 28, 2017. Eleven additional names
were submitted and staff invited the individuals to submit a Statement of Interest; nine of these
submitted statements.
The attached table shows the entire list of those who submitted Statements of Interest. The attached
map shows the neighborhoods and wards where applicants live. Three applicants do not live in St.
Louis Park, however one owns a business, one is a Church Pastor and one is a Director at
Perspectives in St. Louis Park. Attached are copies of the Statements of Interest that were
submitted. Private data was redacted from the applications.
Included in the Statement of Interest was a request of availability. Tuesday evenings were shown
to be the time when most could meet, and staff followed up with those that did not initially indicate
Tuesday evenings, and asked if they could make it work. All except one applicant can make
Tuesday evening meetings; Tuesdays fit the consultant’s schedule as well.
Recommendations from the Communications and Outreach Committee
The City Council initially asked that members be chosen based on the following considerations:
Representation of different sectors including neighborhoods, businesses, schools, youth,
faith, recreation and arts
Geographic location within the city
Gender balance
Racial diversity
RECOMMENDATION:
The Communications & Outreach Committee recommends choosing two members from each
ward, plus one youth member. The applicants by Ward are:
Ward 1 Emily Crook
Lisa Genis
Barb Martin
Frank Ross
Amaya Fokuo – Youth
Ward 2 Lynette Dumalag
Chris Hanson
Larry North
Curt Rahman
Adebisi Wilson
Ward 3 Jodi Dezale
Matt Flory
Rachel Harris
Dan Salmon
Julie Sweitzer
Lindsay Thompson
Ward 4 Jim Brimeyer
Justin Grays
George Hagemann
Tracy Just*
Not in SLP Eric Hoffer
Nene Matey-Keke
Christina Woodlee
*Unable to meet on Tuesdays
Study Session Meeting of December 12, 2016 (Item No. 6) Page 3
Title: Vision Steering Committee Appointments
Please Note: On December 8th, Adebisi Wilson withdrew from consideration because of other
work/time commitments.
NEXT STEPS:
1. The City Council officially appoints the nine member Steering Committee at the regular
Council meeting on 12-19-16.
2. The initial meeting of the Steering Committee will take place in January and be followed
by regular monthly meetings through May or June.
3. The first Town Hall meeting is expected to be on February 22, 2017. Additional Town Hall
meetings, including two Facebook Live meetings, will be scheduled shortly.
4. The “Train the Facilitator” training date is tentatively set for February 21, 2017. The
Communications and Outreach Committee is beginning to work on recruiting for the
“Train the Facilitator” session on February 21, 2017.
a. The goal is to recruit 40-60 people who would be willing to host and facilitate a
local meeting about the future of St. Louis Park. We are compiling a list of groups
and people who we will invite to become facilitators; we can share it with the
Council later this month.
b. At the January 19, 2017, Neighborhood Leaders Forum, we will present
information on Vision to the group and request that they become facilitators, or
recruit someone from their neighborhoods to be trained to host and facilitation a
neighborhood meeting.
c. We hope to have 10-15 city staff trained as facilitators as well, in order to reach any
sectors or groups in the community that will not be reached otherwise.
d. The Vision consultant will provide “meeting in a tube” materials to host and
facilitate local meetings.
When the Steering Committee is selected and notified, dates for meetings and the specific Vision
events can be set. The Communications and Outreach Committee will be reaching out and
involving people to work with the consultant to publicize activities and events.
Vision St. Louis Park Steering Committee – Statements of Interest
Vision Steering Committee Applicants December 12, 2016
NAME Affiliations Live in
SLP
N’hood Gender Available
Tuesday
Evenings
Most important issue in SLP
right now
Brimeyer Jim Former City Manager, City Council;
Charter Commission; Vision SLP
Chair ’95 and ’05; SWLRT PAC
Y Westwood
Hills
M X* except
February
2017
Access to LRT and overall
efficient transportation system
Crook Emily SLP Teacher Y Sorensen F X Racial equity
Dezale Jodi Aquila N’hood Board; Fare For all
Site leadership team
Y Aquila F X Community engagement
Dumalag Lynette Citizen Y Minikahda
Oaks
F X Development and concern
about elimination of affordable
housing at Meadowbrook
Flory Matt Former Lenox N’hood board;
Charter Commission; PSI PTO; HIP;
SWLRT Citizen Adv Comm
Y Lenox M X More community engagement
Fokuo Amaya High School student, HIP Y Birchwood F X Diversity
Genis Lisa City volunteer – solid waste Y Lake Forest F X Environment
Grays Justin Citizen Y Eliot View M X Diversity
Hageman George Parks and Rec, Friends of the Arts
Board; 2006 Vision Sidewalk and
Trails Committee; former small
business owner; 2006 Vision
Y Westwood
Hills
M X Good communication about
community initiatives
Hanson Chris Business owner, Twin West Y Browndale M X More active neighborhoods
Harris Rachel HIP, Former ERC member Y Texa Tonka F X Transportation options
Hoffer Eric Pastor Prince of Peace; Children
First, Tree House; Fore for All;
Partners for a Strong Park
N N/A M X Maintaining a vibrant, cohesive
community
Just Tracy City volunteer – parks Y Shelard Park F Gentrification
Martin Barb Union Church Pastor; Pathways to
Partnership
Y Sorensen F X Affordable housing
Matey-Keke Nene Small business owner in Sorenson,
(real estate brokerage)
N N/A M X Managing population growth
and change
Study Session Meeting of December 12, 2016 (Item No. 6)
Title: Vision Steering Committee Appointments Page 4
Vision St. Louis Park Steering Committee – Statements of Interest
Vision Steering Committee Applicants December 12, 2016
NAME Affiliations Live in
SLP
N’hood Gender Available
Tuesday
Evenings
Most important issue in SLP
right now
North Larry Exc & Grand resident and condo
board president; Beltline LRT
Station Adv Comm; Design
Guidelines South Side of Excelsior
Adv Committee
Y Wolfe Park M X SWLRT – access and new
development
Rahman Curt Business owner; SWLRT Business
Adv Comm; STEP Board member
and Treasurer; School Foundation
Board; Scout leader
Y Browndale M X Poverty and affordable housing
Ross Frank Citizen Y Birchwood X Sustainable ecosystem and
environment
Salmon Dan Resident and Apartment building
owner; several citizen adv.
committees
Y Minnehaha M X Success of SWLRT
Sweitzer Julie Former School Bd member; High
School Academy Bd; SLT/Hopkins
Adult Basic Education English; Kids
Voting; Children First Champion
Y Cobblecrest F X Equitable distributed housing
Thompson Lindsey Aquila N’hood Leader Y Aquila F X Infrastructure to meet the
needs of the next generation
Wilson Adebisi Citizen WITHDREW 12-8-16 Y Elmwood F X Growth and development that
keeps city character
Woodlee Christina Perspectives – Director of Donor
Relations
N N/A F X Affordable housing
Study Session Meeting of December 12, 2016 (Item No. 6)
Title: Vision Steering Committee Appointments Page 5
5
5.Minikahda Oaks
Shelard
Park
Kilmer
Pond
Blackstone
Westdale
Westwood
Hills
Eliot
Pennsylvania
Park
Crestview
Cedarhurst
Lake
ForestEliot
View
Willow
Park Birchwood
Cedar
Manor
Bronx
Park Fern
Hill
Texa
Tonka
Cobblecrest
Lenox
Sorensen
Oak Hill
Aquila
Triangle
Wolfe
Park
MinnehahaAmhurst
Elmwood
Minikahda
Vista
South
Oak Hill
BrooklawnsMeadowbrook
BrowndaleBrooksideCreekside
1.
1
2.
2
3.
3
4.
4
Ward 4
Ward 1
Ward 2
Ward 3
´
Vision Steering Committee Applicants
0 2,500
Feet
SLP Visioning Steering Committee Applicants 2017
Study Session Meeting of December 12, 2016 (Item No. 6)
Title: Vision Steering Committee Appointments Page 6
Vision St. Louis Park Steering Committee
Statement of Interest
Name: James Brimeyer
Please list all of your connections to St. Louis Park (resident, business owner, organization/faith
community member, employee of St. Louis Park business, etc.):
City Manager, 1980-88; City Council, 1996-2003; Board member-Community Foundation, 2002-Present;
Charter Commission, 2011-Present; Chair, Steering Committee, Vision St Louis Park, 1995;
Chair, Steering Committee, Vision St Louis _Park, 2005; Member, Policy Advisory Committee for SWLRT,
2002-2010; Member, Metropolitan Council, 2011-2015;
List three words you'd use to describe St. Louis Park currently.
Vibrant;
Creative with some risk taking;
Forward thinking
List three words you'd like to be able to use to describe St. Louis Park in 2026.
Inclusive to a fault;
Technologically relevant;
Stronger more active neighborhoods
What do you think is the most important issue in St. Louis Park right now? (100 words or less)
Access to LRT and an efficient overall transportation system. Combine this with creative lifetime housing
options provides an acceptable quality of life for all residents.
What do you think will be the most important issue in St. Louis Park in 2026? (100 words or less)
Modern and relevant use of technology enables strong lines of connectivity throughout the community
and the involvement of all residents in the governance of government and other institutions within the
community.
What perspective would you bring to the Vision Steering Committee? (100 words or less)
Have lived here for 36 years, served as City Manager for eight years and on the City Council for eight
years.
Chaired the Steering Committee in 1995 and 2005. Responsible for suggesting the writing and
publication of the Book of Dreams in 2006.
Study Session Meeting of December 12, 2016 (Item No. 6)
Title: Vision Steering Committee Appointments Page 7
Study Session Meeting of December 12, 2016 (Item No. 6) Title: Vision Steering Committee AppointmentsPage 8
IFF St. Louis Park I.././ M I N N E S O T A
�pe.v-ie-nu. L.--lf"� in fhe, fay(<:,
Vision St. Louis Park Steering Committee
Statement of Interest
Name: Emily Crook
Please list all of your connections to St. Louis Park (resident, business owner, organization/faith
community member, employee of St. Louis Park business, etc.):
Resident, St. Louis Park Schools employee/teacher
List three words you'd use to describe St. Louis Park currently.
Proud, Dynamic, Vibrant
List three words you'd like to be able to use to describe St. Louis Park in 2026.
Accessible, Inclusive, Visionary
What do you think is the most important issue in St. Louis Park right now? {100 words or less)
St. Louis Park is proud, consistently lifting up those who have roots in our community. St. Louis
Park is dynamic, its changing demographics is a testament to its history of welcoming, and lends itself to
more communities of color choosing to live in a city where the schools and citizens are accepting of new
perspectives. St. �ouis Park has more and more younger citizens moving into the community as well -
this changing community needs intentional Racial Equity work. Racial Equity is a vital conversation in the
future success of St. Louis Park. The intersectionality of race in the community is apparent, and needs to
be addressed. Historically speaking, race has had an integral part of guiding St. Louis Park's
transportation, housing, education and government affecting its community disproportionately. St. Louis
Park needs to intentionally engage in conversations around race, as it will not only benefit our
communities of color but our white community, building a safe city for all.
What do you think will be the most important issue in St. Louis Park in 2026? (100 words or less)
In 2066, St. Louis Park will be a racially conscious community -one that makes an effort to be
more racially conscious. Its schools will provide the foundation for our future through mature racial
consciousness, which in turn, will make the city more visionary knowing that lifting the spirit of our
youngest member's key to our success. St. Louis Park will be inclusive to all who decide to live here,
where everyone will feel safe. The more St. Louis Park is aware, the better it will be at serving the needs
of all members of the community, and the more accessible it will be for each other.
What perspective would you bring to the Vision Steering Committee? {100 words or less)
I am a proud and committed St. Louis Park resident. I love living and teaching in a community
that not only looks to improve in the short-term, but has the consciousness to look forward into the
future, and think about ways it can better support citizens. I have a unique perspective in that, daily I
interact with St. Louis Park's youngest and their families. I am constantly a part of conversation which
Study Session Meeting of December 12, 2016 (Item No. 6)
Title: Vision Steering Committee Appointments Page 9
Study Session Meeting of December 12, 2016 (Item No. 6) Title: Vision Steering Committee AppointmentsPage 10
IFF St. Louis Park III M I N N E S O TA
�pe.V'1e-t1.u. 1.-IY:e. in the. PaV'/�.
Name: Jodi Dezale
Vision St. Louis Park Steering Committee
Statement of Interest
Please list all of your connections to St. Louis Park (resident, business owner, organization/faith
community member, employee of St. Louis Park business, etc.): I am a resident, member of the Aquila
Neighborhood Association board, and active participant in a number of community services and
activities including: library use, rec center, community education, and Fare For all Site leadership team.
List three words you'd use to describe St. Louis Park currently.
Diverse, supportive, aware
List three words you'd like to be able to use to describe St. Louis Park in 2026.
Welcoming, inclusive, engaging
What do you think is the most important issue in St. Louis Park right now? (100 words or less)
Building on current activities to allow more people to be comfortable engaging should be a priority. We
are increasingly connecting and I see people reaching out through social media. A number of valuable
things are happening such as the community conversation about culturar diversity and the recent
conversations regarding mental health that NAMI set up at the library but I feel as if creating more
options and providing platforms for more people to engage in different ways should be a priority.
What do you think will be the most important issue in St. Louis Park in 2026? (100 words or less)
Over time I feel the focus will need to be on maintaining city infrastructure and services. Continuing with
move up programs to encourage people to improve older housing stock and maintaining affordable
rental options with supports for community participation and to promote stability.
What perspective would you bring to the Vision Steering Committee? (100 words or less) I am a long
time St. Louis Park resident with a passion for providing lifelong education opportunities and supporting
people with disabilities. I am helping to provide support and manage resources for my elderly mother. I
support projects such as SLP seeds and feel that making fresh foods available is important to the·
community. I am well connected within my neighborhood, which positions me to get input from many
stakeholders.
Steering committee members must commit to attending a monthly two-hour meeting from December
2016-May 2017. Please check all days/times you would be available to meet:
Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday
Mornings X X X X X X
7-9 a.m.
Lunchtime X
11 a.m.-1 p.m.
Evening X X X
6-8 p.m.
Study Session Meeting of December 12, 2016 (Item No. 6)
Title: Vision Steering Committee Appointments Page 11
Study Session Meeting of December 12, 2016 (Item No. 6) Title: Vision Steering Committee AppointmentsPage 12
lfF St. Louis Park I.IJ M I N N E S O TA
t:1pe.v-ie-nu. f...l� in the. FM�.
Vision St. Louis Park Steering Committee
Statement of Interest
Name: Lynette Dumalag
Please list all of your connections to St. Louis Park (resident, business owner, organization/faith
community member, employee of St. Louis Park business, etc.):
Resident; have worked with clients located in St. Louis Park.
List three words you 1 d use to describe St. Louis Park currently.
Convenient, young (median age 35),
List three words you 1 d like to be able to use to describe St. Louis Park in 2026.
Thoughtful, forward, welcoming
What do you think is the most important issue in St. Louis Park right now? {100 words or less)
I think an important issue is managing the development, especially along Excelsior Boulevard. With
transit, older buildings that are functionally obsolete, and the elimination of naturally occurring
affordable housing at Meadowbrook Manor.
What do you think will be the most important issue in St. Louis Park in 2026? (100 words or less)
I see the need to be a welcoming community to the estimated changing demographics. Are we
welcoming and sensitive to the needs of this growing immigrant population? Do we have enough
affordable housing for young families that might have recently come to our state?
What perspective would you bring to the Vision Steering Committee? {100 words or less)
I believe I bring unique perspective to the Vision Steering Committee. I work in commercial real estate
and I often deal with clients who are concerned with issues like parking, amenities, access, and location.
I also serve on the board of Aeon, a nonprofit affordable housing developer and owner of apartment
homes. Issues such as neighborhood & city, access to capital (cash or via tax credits), and the elimination
of naturally occurring affordable housing is something we discuss at every board meeting and task force.
I am also the daughter of immigrants. I understand the risk and the uncertainty of being from another
country and moving to a community that does not look like you or understand you, despite the fact that
you might be proficient in the English language.
I have also been involved with the creation of the Minneapolis Downtown Council 2025 Plan. I was part
of the Vision Committee that was responsible for the Education/Health/Faith/Human Services aspect of
downtown Minneapolis. I currently serve on the Ending Street Homelessness Committee that is
addressing the 2025 Plans1 of Ending Street Homelessness.
Study Session Meeting of December 12, 2016 (Item No. 6)
Title: Vision Steering Committee Appointments Page 13
Study Session Meeting of December 12, 2016 (Item No. 6) Title: Vision Steering Committee AppointmentsPage 14
Vision St. Louis Park Steering Committee
Statement of Interest
Name: Matthew Louis Flory
Please list all of your connections to St. Louis Park (resident, business owner, organization/faith
community member, employee of St. Louis Park business, etc.):
Resident, Charter Commission member, SLP PSI PTO
Past President Lenox Neighborhood Association, Former Member of Health In the Park, SWLRT CAC
List three words you'd use to describe St. Louis Park currently.
Safe (Minimal Crime), Connected (Community), Green (Parks)
List three words you'd like to be able to use to describe St. Louis Park in 2026.
Active (Physically), Engaged (More Citizen Action), Networked (Different people/populations interacting)
What do you think is the most important issue in St. Louis Park right now? (100 words or less)
There are a broad range of people that live in Saint Louis Park and too few actually get to know anyone
unlike themselves. Some consider it a small town, others a suburb of Minneapolis. Some people have
lived here a long time (20+ years) and others have recently purchased a home. This is to say nothing
about the growing ethnic and cultural diversity. When local issues come up, people rarely imagine that
anyone thinks about them differently than they do. We need a city that encourages people to meet and
engage with each other. We need more common spaces.
What do you think will be the most important issue in St. Louis Park in 2026? (100 words or less)
We have many SLP assets including engaged community partners and beautiful parks and trails, but
sometimes these connections are strained by the development of business areas and community
resources that can be reached by car but not necessarily by transit or foot/bike traffic. Incomplete
streets may not be a crisis today but they are important to many potential homeowners and they could
improve the health and quality of life of existing residents. Current construction projects could be
leveraged to improve walk/bike/transit connections and create more spaces which feel open to all
residents. Wayfinding and historical markers should be explored.
What perspective would you bring to the Vision Steering Committee? (100 words or less)
I am the father of young children in a family that walks/bikes/runs and frequently visits many local
parks. I have been active enough in my first decade here to observe community strengths and
weaknesses. I have spent enough time at the Nature Center, the Community pool and local businesses
Study Session Meeting of December 12, 2016 (Item No. 6)
Title: Vision Steering Committee Appointments Page 15
Study Session Meeting of December 12, 2016 (Item No. 6) Title: Vision Steering Committee AppointmentsPage 16
Name: Amaya Fokuo
Vision St. Louis Park Steering Committee
Statement of Interest
Please list all of your connections to St. Louis Park (resident, business owner, organization/faith
community member, employee of St. Louis Park business, etc.):
•Resident•Student
List three words you'd use to describe St. Louis Park currently.
•Peaceful
•Caring
•clean
List three words you'd like to be able to use to describe St. Louis Park in 2026.
•Healthy
•Strong
•Creative
What do you think is the most important issue in St. Louis Park right now? (100 words or less)
The most important issue in St. Louis Park at this current time is, having a community
that is accepting to all of the diversity that's within St. Louis Park.
What do you think will be the most important issue in St. Louis Park in 2026? (100 words or less)
The most important issue in St. Louis Park in 2026 will be population growth. I say that because
St. Louis Park schools are at a constant growth in student enrollment that by the year of 2026 the
ratio of student to teacher will grow from 19: I to a number that we can't even predict at this
moment.
What perspective would you bring to the Vision Steering Committee? (100 words or less)
I would bring a younger perspective to the Vision Steering Committee. I believe that my
age young age balanced with my high maturity level could give the committee advantage
for what we would like to achieve as a committee.
Study Session Meeting of December 12, 2016 (Item No. 6)
Title: Vision Steering Committee Appointments Page 17
Study Session Meeting of December 12, 2016 (Item No. 6) Title: Vision Steering Committee AppointmentsPage 18
IIF St. Louis Park III M I N N E S O TA
�pe.vie.t1u. l,lf"IS'.- ltl the- fay/::.
Vision St. Louis Park Steering Committee
Statement of Interest
Name: Lisa Genis
:
Please list all of your connections to St. Louis Park (resident, business owner, organization/faith community member, employee
of St. Louis Park business, etc.):
Resident
List three words you'd use to describe St. Louis Park currently.
Friendly, proud, hardworking
List three words you'd like to be able to use to describe St. Louis Park in 2026.
Friendly, forward thinking, sustainably minded
What do you think is the most important issue in St. Louis Park right now? (100 words or less)
The environment. We need to continue working hard to solve our issues surrounding solid waste and recycling, clean water (and
air and soil) and better resource management. We only have this one planet and we need to take better care of it if we still want
it to be here for future generations. This is an issue we can't just kick down the road and say we'll deal with later. It is later
NOW.
What db you think will be the most important issue in St. Louis Park in 20267 (100 words or less)
I'd like to believe that my answer to the previous question won't still be true 10 years from now, but sadly I think it still will and
we will have greater challenges to deal with as we start to be further affected by global warming.
What perspective would you bring to the Vision Steering Committee? (100 words or less)
I am a proud "tree hugger". Starting with our first compost bin 23 years ago and the planting of our prairie garden 21 years ago,
I have been doing my best to be a good environmental steward. Being both a Master Recycler/Composter and Master Water
Steward has given me even more tools and resources to work with. Though I am not naturally extroverted, my passion has
helped make it easier for me to talk to people about these issues. I want to live in a time where the world we live in is respected
and well cared for.
Steering committee members must commit to attending a monthly two-hour meeting from December 2016-May 2017. Please
check all days/times you would be available to meet:
Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday
Mornings X X X
7-9 a.m.
Lunchtime X X X X
11 a.m.-1
p.m.
Evening X X
6-8 p.m.
Please return your application by November 1, 2016 to the city staff person who invited you to apply. We will notify you by
the end of November 2016 if you are selected to serve on the Vision Steering Committee. Thank you!
Study Session Meeting of December 12, 2016 (Item No. 6)
Title: Vision Steering Committee Appointments Page 19
lfF St. Louis Park I.II M I N N E S O TA
�pe-v-ie-nu-!.--If'� in the-F;wk.Vision St. Louis Park Steering Committee
Statement of Interest
Name: Justin Edward Grays
Please list all of your connections to St. Louis Park (resident, business owner, organization/faith
community member, employee of St. Louis Park business, etc.): Resident
List three words you'd use to describe St. Louis Park currently.
Changing, quiet, friendly
List three words you'd like to be able to use to describe St. Louis Park in 2026.
Welcoming, friendly, diverse
What do you think is the most important issue in St. Louis Park right now? (100 words or less)
Diversity in the city -the population of Saint Louis Park is about 83% White, whereas the population of
the United States is about 72% White, according to the Census.gov website. Encouraging diversity in the
government and emergency services to reflect the city is very important.
What do you think will be the most important issue in St. Louis Park in 2026? (100 words or less)
The economy -there are further changes in technology and industry that changes how we have to look
at staffing and worker needs, and our current system is not setup to reflect how the workforce will fit in
with it.
What perspective would you bring to the Vision Steering Committee? (100 words or less)
Being that I am a minority, both as being African-American and GSM, I would have a unique perspective
that might not be recognized by the average demographic within SLP. Also, I have a BA in Gender
Studies, am under-employed, and survive with the support of friends and loved ones.
Steering committee members must commit to attending a monthly two-hour meeting from December
2016-May 2017. Please check all days/times you would be available to meet:
Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday
Mornings X X X X X X X
7-9 a.m.
Study Session Meeting of December 12, 2016 (Item No. 6)
Title: Vision Steering Committee Appointments Page 20
Study Session Meeting of December 12, 2016 (Item No. 6) Title: Vision Steering Committee AppointmentsPage 21
IIF St. Louis Park II.I M I N N E 5 0 TA
e:xpG-VIG-t1U, 1..-l'f'e: lt1 the, f;iyf::_
Name: George P. Hagemann
Vision St. Louis Park Steering Committee
Statement of Interest
Please list all of your connections to St. Louis Park (resident, business owner, organization/faith
community member, employee of St. Louis Park business, etc.):
Married, homeowner, retired business owner.
25 year resident in 3 houses, in 3 neighborhoods, 2 as owner, 1 as renter
25 year small business owner/operator, 17 years in St Louis Park
10+ year Park and Rec. Adv. Comm. Member, 2 as chair
10+ year St Louis Park Friends of the Arts Board Member
9 year Arts and Culture Grant Review Committee member, 3 as chair
2006 Visioning, Sidewalks and Trails Committee
Various public art review committees
List three words you'd use to describe St. Louis Park currently.
Diverse, stable, convenient
List three words you'd like to be able to use to describe St. Louis Park in 2026.
Contemporary, thoughtful, creative
What do you think is the most important issue in St. Louis Park right now? {100 words or less}
The city is implementing a number of initiatives to, among other things, improve housing stock, repair
and upgrade public works, and implement prior Visioning goals such as the environment and Connect
the Park. These initiatives can be expensive, sometimes intrusive, and are a change in the status quo.
Council, staff and residents are all working hard at having them be successful for local/impacted
residents and the community at large. We need to continue to work at having the best communication
and discussion models, as well as follow up and feedback.
What do you think will be the most important issue in St. Louis Park in 2026? (100 words or less}
Keeping the aging population safe and able to live independently as long as they wish, in St Louis Park,
while making the city welcoming and desirable to younger and more diverse populations of renters and
owners alike and renewing the associated aging infrastructure
What perspective would you bring to the Vision Steering Committee? {100 words or less}
A diversity of successful membership in, or experience with, numerous Councils, commissions,
committees, boards and residents, as outlined in connections above. I've been active about reaching out
to affected groups and getting them involved in both the communication process and the solution (2006
Visioning, dog park users group, Connect the Park, Mpls Golf Club theft/fencing issues}. It is important
that all sides have an opportunity to be heard, have a reasonable way to be involved, and understand
the outcomes, whether they agree or disagree.
Study Session Meeting of December 12, 2016 (Item No. 6)
Title: Vision Steering Committee Appointments Page 22
Study Session Meeting of December 12, 2016 (Item No. 6) Title: Vision Steering Committee AppointmentsPage 23
IFF St. Louis Park III M I N N E S O TA
�pe.vie.nu:-f....lFis:. in -the. fay/;:.
Vision St. Louis Park Steering Committee
Statement of Interest
Name: Chris Hanson
Please list all of your connections to St. Louis Park (resident, business owner, organization/faith
community member, employee of St. Louis Park business, etc.):
Resident, Business owner to be -Summer 2017, member of Twin West Chamber, soon to be member of
a philanthropic group like rotary club.
List three words you'd use to describe St. Louis Park currently.
Vibrant, Family-oriented, Home
List three words you'd like to be able to use to describe St. Louis Park in 2026.
Connected, Community-oriented, Safe
What do you think is the most important issue in St. Louis Park right now? {100 words or less)
There are several business sectors that are in need of face lifts and the different neighborhoods vary
greatly across the city. I think the most important issues are ensuring the more active neighborhoods
become the model for the city and not the other way around.
What do you think will be the most important issue in St. Louis Park in 2026? {100 words or less)
Transportation, liveability and accessibility especially considering the public transit. Traffic is currently
an issue in several the nodes throughout the city-partly due to construction. Ensuring the light rail and
many of the construction projects boost the cities desirability is a must for the future of life in the park.
What perspective would you bring to the Vision Steering Committee? {100 words or less)
My experience community organizing in Northeast Minneapolis will allow me to understand what it
takes to connect a community utilizing social platforms. Public participation is difficulty if the means
aren't easily established for community members. My training in toastmasters and group organization
will help to keep the meetings fruitful and effective.
Study Session Meeting of December 12, 2016 (Item No. 6)
Title: Vision Steering Committee Appointments Page 24
Study Session Meeting of December 12, 2016 (Item No. 6) Title: Vision Steering Committee AppointmentsPage 25
IFFSt. Louis Park II../ M I N N E S O TA
�pe.v1e.t1.u. 1..-lf"e. in the. Pav/:::.
Name: Rachel Harris
Vision St. Louis Park Steering Committee
Statement of Interest
Please list all of your connections to St. Louis Park (resident, business owner, organization/faith
community member, employee of St. Louis Park business, etc.):
Resident. Founding member and Active Living Champion with Health in the Parl<. Founding member
and former Chairperson of Environment and Sustainability Commission.
List three words you'd use to describe St. Louis Park currently.
Dynamic. Changing. Jewel.
List three words you'd like to be able to use to describe St. Louis Park in 2026.
Diverse. Engine. Destination.
What do you think is the most important issue in St. Louis Park right now? {100 words or less)
St. Louis Park continues to make strides in being a great place to live, work and play. The most important
issue facing St. Louis Park right now is integrating modes of transportation and shifting away from a car
centric culture. This is an equity issue as it affects access to work, housing, wealth and wellbeing options.
Rather than focusing on multi-modal transportation, I'd like to see St. Louis Park shift intent to inclusive
transportation with options for all users. Much like a good education and a range of housing options,
inclusive transportation empowers people of diverse cultures, ages and wealth to gain access to a better
quality of life.
What do you think will be the most important issue in St. Louis Park in 2026? (100 words or less)
In 2026, our world may look vastly different with new weather patterns, added diversity, shift in
transportation modes and changing work patterns. The important issue will be the ability to respond
nimbly and continue to ensure high quality of education, housing, and employment base. St. Louis Park
has an opportunity to position itself as a medical care destination and bourgeoning food scene. Both
avenues will spur the economic engine and boost tourism. Further, I'd like to see an increasing emphasis
on technology and collaborations between students, businesses and tourism. I have reached out to
Discover St. Louis Park to launch such an idea.
What perspective would you bring to the Vision Steering Committee? (100 words or less)
After graduating from St. Louis Park, I moved Copenhagen, Denmark and later Tanzania and Sweden.
These experiences impressed upon me methods successful societies deployed to ensure multi-modal
transportation and environmental welfare, and plethora of ways there are to create economic
development, and social structure in highly functioning cities. I bring worldly perspective, dialogue and
discourse skills, and city planning experience in the visioning process. A BA in Geography, MA in
Organizational Leadership, and authoring half of a comprehensive plan for the City of Fridley contribute
Study Session Meeting of December 12, 2016 (Item No. 6)
Title: Vision Steering Committee Appointments Page 26
Study Session Meeting of December 12, 2016 (Item No. 6) Title: Vision Steering Committee AppointmentsPage 27
Sto Louis Park
M 1 N NE so TA Vision St. Louis Park Steering Committee
6-xpcxiG-nl-<=- 1.-w� ,n the- Pav1c, Statement of Interest
�). l \ N tv"S,mv ,, 1 ame: \
i
Please list all of your connections to St. Louis Park (resident, business owner, organization!
faith community member, employee of St. Louis Park business, etc.):
[) t (.: p''I+·\ \) u/\: \Jv4.¥'\ l. .) ' ! ·· C VT (,L.:r ( List three words you'd use to describe St. Louis Park currently. �
-
I
List three words you'd like to be able to use to describe St. Louis Park in 2026.
J
What do you think is the most important issue in St. Louis Park right now? (100 words or leSS) ,�C\.t�i ,jf"\:,v.J?' /"ct.. \
What do you think will be the most important issue in St. Louis Park in 2026? (100 words orless) ("'--·�t � ' 1 .-'\ �t'\/\ e.,, +;__ lcL
Mornings 7·9 a.m.
Lunchtime 11 a.m.-1 p.m.
\}6
Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday
-·-·-······················"·-·····---1-----+-------�---1--------+------------·-----------------l--------�»----4
Evening
6-8 p.m.
Please return your application by November 1, 2016 to the city staff person who invited
you to apply. We will notify you by the end of November 2016 if you are selected to serve on the Vision Steering Committee. Thank you!
Study Session Meeting of December 12, 2016 (Item No. 6)
Title: Vision Steering Committee Appointments Page 28
lfF St. Louis Park I.I../ M I N N E S O T A
�pe.v,uiu. l,..f'Fe. it1 the. �Yk.
Vision St. Louis Park Steering Committee
Statement of Interest
Name: Tracy Just
Please list all of your connections to St. Louis Park (resident, business owner, organization/faith
community member, employee of St. Louis Park business, etc.):
I'm a resident and I do volunteer work for the city.
List three words you'd use to describe St. Louis Park currently. vibrant, active, growing
List three words you'd like to be able to use to describe St. Louis Park in 2026. vibrant, active, growing
What do you think is the most important issue in St. Louis Park right now? (100 words or less)
Beginnings of gentrification -while it's great that our city is growing so fast, there are some early
negative impacts that concern me. New large homes that are intruding on smaller ones, trees removed
for new apartments, etc.
What do you think will be the most important issue in St. Louis Park in 2026? (100 words or less)
The progression of gentrification -rents and real estate are already on the rise, will people be forced to
move? Continued destruction of nature and home owners negatively impacted by new construction of
big homes.
What perspective would you bring to the Vision Steering Committee? {100 words or less)
I'm a fairly typical resident of the neighborhood. I've been in the digital marketing profession for many
years, so that may come in handy. I spend a lot of time outdoors and in the city's parks. I'm really not a
big "idea" person or a leader, but I'm a pretty good organizer and researcher, and I care about this city
and its future!
Study Session Meeting of December 12, 2016 (Item No. 6)
Title: Vision Steering Committee Appointments Page 29
Study Session Meeting of December 12, 2016 (Item No. 6) Title: Vision Steering Committee AppointmentsPage 30
IIF St. Louis Park I.I.I M I N N E S O TA
�pt:-vit:-11u. l-t'f"is:. i11 tht:- Pav/::,
Vision St. Louis Park Steering Committee
Statement of Interest
Name: Barbara Martin
Please list all of your connections to St. Louis Park (resident, business owner, organization/faith
community member, employee of St. Louis Park business, etc.):
Resident, constituent, pastor of Union Congregational United Church of Christ, active member of
Pathways to Partnership (clergy action group)
List three words you'd use to describe St. Louis Park currently.
Broadminded, diverse, vibrant
List three words you'd like to be able to use to describe St. Louis Park in·2026.
Green, multi-cultural, inclusive
What do you think is the most important issue in St. Louis Park right now? {100 words or less)
SLP is growing and expanding which brings increased cost for housing and cost of living. In order to be a
more inclusive and healthy community we must address the overwhelming need of affordable housing -
it's a community asset. Our community is stronger when the city includes households from a wide-range
of income levels, racial and ethnic backgrounds, faith traditions, and sexual orientations. I don't want to
live or participate in a homogenous city that values money over people.
What do you think will be the most important issue in St. Louis Park in 2026? {100 words or less)
Climate change affects everyone. SLP could make a renewable energy plan to dramatically reduce our
carbon footprint, and to make renewable energy affordable. Rochester. MN made the commitment to
be 100% electricity renewable by 2031. Why couldn't SLP set the standard for the Twin Cities?
What perspective would you bring to the Vision Steering Committee? {100 words or less)
I would bring a social justice perspective through the lens of the Protestant progressive faith
community. I am passionate about equality and equity, sustainable living with renewable resources,
challenging the status quo where power gets centralized, and promoting opportunities to be our best
and whole selves. I am not a proselytizer, but instead put feet on my faith.
Steering committee members must commit to attending a monthly two-hour meeting from December
2016-May 2017. Please check all days/times you would be available to meet:
Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday
Mornings X
7-9 a.m.
Lunchtime X X X
Study Session Meeting of December 12, 2016 (Item No. 6)
Title: Vision Steering Committee Appointments Page 31
Study Session Meeting of December 12, 2016 (Item No. 6) Title: Vision Steering Committee AppointmentsPage 32
lfF St. Louis Park IIJ M 1 N N E s o r A
Vision St. Louis Park Steering Committee
Statement of Interest
Name: Nene Matey-Keke
Please list all of your connections to St. Louis Park (resident, business owner, organization/faith
community member, employee of St. Louis Park business, etc.): Small business owner (real estate
brokerage)
List three words you'd use to describe St. Louis Park currently.
1 . Community
2.Recreation
3.Excellence
List three words you'd like to be able to use to describe St. Louis Park in 2026.
1 . Progressive
2.Inclusive
3.Influential
What do you think is the most important issue in St. Louis Park right now? (100 words or less)
I believe the most pressing issue in St. Louis Park is figuring out how to effectively manage
population growth and changes, which include everything from an aging population to affordable
housing.
What do you think will be the most important issue in St. Louis Park in 2026? {100 words or less)
In 2026, I believe St. Louis Park will be facing the issue of density, which can be affected by cultural
shifts and will affect the proximity of neighbors and living space.
What perspective would you bring to the Vision Steering Committee? (100 words or less)
As a real estate broker and having a past career in nonprofit real estate development, I have a
unique perspective to understand the challenges cities face in their management of citizens and
residents. Since my company covers both residential and commercial real estate, I can speak from
both sides of the table when it comes to what consumers want/need and what cities can reasonably
provide.
Steering committee members must commit to attending a monthly two-hour meeting from December
20 6 20 I h k II d / . Id b ·1 bl 1 -May 17.P ease c ec a ays times you wou e ava1 a
Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday
Mornings
7-9 a.m.
Lunchtime X X X X
11 a.m.-1 p.m.
Evening
6-8 p.m.
e to meet:
Friday Saturday Sunday
X X X
X
Study Session Meeting of December 12, 2016 (Item No. 6)
Title: Vision Steering Committee Appointments Page 33
IIF St. Louis Park II../ M I N N E S O TA
�pc-vie:-t1u- L..-lf"� it1 the-f.ivf;:.
Vision St. Louis Park Steering Committee
Statement of Interest
Name:
Larry North
Please list all of your connections to St. Louis Park (resident, business owner, organization/faith
community member, employee of St. Louis Park business, etc.):
•Resident
•Recent condo board president
•Served on the Beltline Station Area Advisory Committee
•Served on the Design Guidelines for the South Side of Excelsior Boulevard Advisory Committee
List three words you'd use to describe St. Louis Park currently.
•built-out
•aging population
•automobile-dependent
List three words you'd like to be able to use to describe St. Louis Park in 2026.
•good public and private transit
•walkable neighborhoods
•diverse -population, housing, employment
What do you think is the most important issue in St. Louis Park right now? {100 words or less)
I believe that it is important to make beneficial use of the three Southwest LRT stations that will be here
five years from now. There should be convenient access to the stations from throughout St. Louis Park.
High-density residential and commercial development should be encouraged in the station areas;
maybe even some nearby light industrial development, too.
What do you think will be the most important issue in St. Louis Park in 2026? {100 words or less)
It's hard to know, but I'll say it'll be maintaining a diverse population. In particular, St. Louis Park must
not become overloaded with elderly baby boomers (I'll be one by then). It must be attractive to young
people and young families.
What perspective would you bring to the Vision Steering Committee? {100 words or less)
Study Session Meeting of December 12, 2016 (Item No. 6)
Title: Vision Steering Committee Appointments Page 34
Study Session Meeting of December 12, 2016 (Item No. 6) Title: Vision Steering Committee AppointmentsPage 35
llf St. Louis Park I.I.I M I N N E S O T A
E:1pc-v1e,nu-1.-l'f'e:. 111 the-Pav/::.
Vision St. Louis Park Steering Committee
Statement of Interest
Name: Curt Rahman
Please list all of your connections to St. Louis Park (resident, business owner, organization/faith
community member, employee of St. Louis Park business, etc.): Resident, Commercial Real Estate owner,
Business owner, BAC member of the SWLRT, Board member and Treasurer of STEP, School Foundation
board 8 years, 10 years as a scout leader
List three words you1 d use to describe St. Louis Park currently.
Driven, Progressive, Inclusive
List three words you1 d like to be able to use to describe St. Louis Park in 2026.
Driven, Progressive, Inclusive
What do you think is the most important issue in St. Louis Park right now? (100 words or less)
Poverty and affordable housing
What do you think will be the most important issue in St. Louis Park in 2026? (100 words or less)
Poverty and affordable housing
What perspective would you bring to the Vision Steering Committee? (100 words or less)
I was a Peace Corps volunteer, so I bring an international and volunteer perspective. I worked in
Corporate environments for 15 years, have run my own small business of 25 employees in St. Louis Park
and own Commercial and residential real estate in Park, so I bring a business perspective. I raised two
kids in Park schools and was a scout leader and on the School Foundation board, so I know the schools in
Park. I worked for Park on the BAC for the SWLRT line, I understand the importance of transit. I am
currently the treasurer of STEP so I understand the poverty issues, housing issues and the hunger issues
we have as a community.
Steering committee members must commit to attending a monthly two-hour meeting from December
2016-May 2017. Please check all days/times you would be available to meet:
Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday
Mornings X X X X X X X
7-9 a.m.
Lunchtime X X X X X X X
11 a.m.-1 p.m.
Evening X X X X X X X
6-8 p.m.
Please return your application by November 1, 2016 to the city staff person who invited you to apply.
We will notify you by the end of November 2016 if you are selected to serve on the Vision Steering
Committee. Thank you!
Study Session Meeting of December 12, 2016 (Item No. 6)
Title: Vision Steering Committee Appointments Page 36
Vision St. Louis Park Steering Committee
Statement of Interest
Name: Frank Ross
Please list all of your connections to St. Louis Park (resident, business owner, organization/faith
community member, employee of St. Louis Park business, etc.): resident
List three words you'd use to describe St. Louis Park currently.
Convenient, disconnected, and congested
List three words you'd like to be able to use to describe St. Louis Park in 2026.
Vibrant, responsible, and inspiring
What do you think is the most important issue in St. Louis Park right now? (100 words or less)
Given the unique connection the city shares witll its neighbors, the arteries of transportation that
convene within its borders and its historical relationship with Minneapolis, maintaining a balanced and
sustainable ecosystem and environment consistent with the cultivation of a healthy citizenry is of
paramount importance at this time. The decisions our community makes now with respect to water
resource management will shape our future and substantively influence the arc of prosperity for future
generations of Saint Louis Park residents and businesses.
What do you think will be the most important issue in St. Louis Park in 20267 (100 words or less)
A focus on the city's infrastructure will likely be the most prominent area of concern in the future. With
housing density continuing to expand commensurate with an ever increasing population, the capacity of
the and the integrity of the city's public works will need to be evaluated and addressed.
What perspective would you bring to the Vision Steering Committee? (100 words or less)
Having volunteered in various different capacities, helping people across a multitude of socioeconomic,
ethnic, and age demographics, I have experience connecting with ana having empathy for the needs of
people across all spectrums of society. Additionally, I believe that I would bring a unique view to the
committee given my experience in risk management, specifically my focus on identifying vulnerabilities
in systems. Finally, I am excited about the potential to influence the vision for the future development of
our community and the opportunity to bring insight inconsistent with the status quo.
Study Session Meeting of December 12, 2016 (Item No. 6)
Title: Vision Steering Committee Appointments Page 37
Study Session Meeting of December 12, 2016 (Item No. 6) Title: Vision Steering Committee AppointmentsPage 38
lfF St. Louis Park I.I.I M I N N E S O TA
fi1pc-v1c-nu:.- L..-ff"� in thc- Park
Name: Dan Salmon
Vision St. Louis Park Steering Committee
Statement of Interest
Please list all of your connections to St. Louis Park (resident, business owner, organization/faith
community member, employee of St. Louis Park business, etc.):
My wife, 3 children and I have lived in SLP for 14 years. All three of our children were born at Methodist
Hospital and currently attend the St. Louis Park Public Schools. They play on many city and school
sponsored sports teams. As entrepreneurs, we own and manage a multifamily apartment building
located on the east side of St. Louis Park. My wife and I are both active volunteers in the schools and
with our kids' sports associations. I have also participated in several community events and Citizen
Advisory Committee roles. We love St. Louis Park and have made long term commitments with our
home and business decisions. Our plan is to be here and participate in the city for many years to come.
List three words you'd use to describe St. Louis Park currently.
Progressive, growing and family friendly
List three words you'd like to be able to use to describe St. Louis Park in 2026.
Transportation friendly, top destination and diverse
What do you think is the most important issue in St. Louis Park right now? {100 words or less)
The most important issue in St. Louis Park right now is the success of SWLRT. This project has been in
the making for many years and will bring and provide many benefits to the city. It not only solidifies St.
Louis Park as a critical 1st ring suburb but will also bring many people to and through the city for
shopping and visiting our great restaurants. The SWLRT will provide easy access to great living
accommodations and facilitate traveling to many parts of the Metro without the need for driving.
Alternative transportation modes are what we need.
What do you think will be the most important issue in St. Louis Park in 2026? (100 words or less)
The most important issue in St. Louis Park in 2026 will be balancing density with di versity, traffic and
accessibility. As the older properties continue to age and turn over to new buildings, traffic control and
ensuring the ability to still get around the city will be paramount. Traffic has continued to worsen over
the last couple of years. Diversity in what the City Council approves to be built will also be important as
Study Session Meeting of December 12, 2016 (Item No. 6)
Title: Vision Steering Committee Appointments Page 39
Study Session Meeting of December 12, 2016 (Item No. 6) Title: Vision Steering Committee AppointmentsPage 40
ITF St. Louis Park I.If M I N N E S OT A
f:'...xpe-vie-l'lu:- /..-If"� in fhe, r;iy(c..
Vision St. Louis Park Steering Committee
Statement of Interest
Name: Julie Sweitzer
Please list all of your connections to St. Louis Park (resident, business owner, organization/faith
community member, employee of St. Louis Park business, etc.): Resident, parent (raised two daughters
to adulthood here), 12 years on St. Louis Park School Board, volunteer with SLP High School Academy
Advisory Board, SLP/Hopkins Adult Basic Education English language classes for adults, Kids Voting on
election day, and Children First Asset Champion.
List three words you'd use to describe St. Louis Park currently.
Energetic, livable, consultative
List three words you'd like to be able to use to describe St. Louis Park in 2026.
Connected, equitable, great education for all (ok, one is a phrase)
What do you think is the most important issue in St. Louis Park right now? (100 words or less)
Keeping our housing equitably distributed across the city. One of the greatest risks to our schools is any
increased concentration of housing for people with low incomes near Aquila, or Peter Hobart. Assuring
there are places to go and things to do for all of our youth, not just those who can afford to pay for
extracurricular activities, is close behind.
What do you think will be the most important issue in St. Louis Park in 2026? (100 words or less)
The housing issue will likely still be a concern, as it ever changing. Part of my interest in this process is
learning what other residents and community members think is and will be critical.
What perspective would you bring to the Vision Steering Committee? (100 words or less)
My priority is always education and developing future citizens, whether our youth or our immigrants.
Fair housing is a critical element of that goal. In addition, I live on the west side, which has fewer
transportation options and feels somewhat forgotten by all of the development focus on the east side.
Steering committee members must commit to attending a monthly two-hour meeting from December
2016-May 2017. Please check all days/times you would be available to meet:
Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday
Mornings X X X X X X X
7-9 a.m.
Lunchtime Possible Possible Possible Possible Possible Possible Possible
11 a.m.-1 p.m.
Evening X X X X X X
6-8 p.m.
Study Session Meeting of December 12, 2016 (Item No. 6)
Title: Vision Steering Committee Appointments Page 41
Study Session Meeting of December 12, 2016 (Item No. 6) Title: Vision Steering Committee AppointmentsPage 42
IFf St. Louis Park I.I../ M I N N E S O TA
�pe.vie.nu-l,...lf"e: rn the- Pavk..
Vision St. Louis Park Steering Committee
Statement of Interest
Name: Lindsey Thompson
Please list all of your connections to St. Louis Park (resident, business owner, organization/faith
community member, employee of St. Louis Park business, etc.):
Resident, Neighborhood Leader
List three words you'd use to describe St. Louis Park currently.
Location, engaged, community
List three words you'd like to be able to use to describe St. Louis Park in 2026.
Community, engaged, sustainable
What do you think is the most important issue in St. Louis Park right now? (100 words or less)
Adapting infrastructure to fit the needs of the community.
Determining what attracts the next generation of residents to ensure St. Louis Park stays a vital
and safe community.
What do you think will be the most important issue in St. Louis Park in 2026? (100 words or less)
Accessibility of the community, businesses, and resources.
Safety: even more emphasis than now -safe schools, safe neighborhoods, safe roads.
What perspective would you bring to the Vision Steering Committee? (100 words or less)
Young(ish} professional with focus on establishing a plan for an exciting, sustainable, diverse,
and friendly community.
Steering committee members must commit to attending a monthly two-hour meeting from December
2016-May 2017. Please check all days/times you would be available to meet:
Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday
Mornings
7-9 a.m.
Lunchtime
11 a.m.-1 p.m.
Evening X X
6-8 p.m.
Please return your application by November 1, 2016 to the city staff person who invited you to apply.
We will notify you by the end of November 2016 if you are selected to serve on the Vision Steering
Committee. Thank you!
Study Session Meeting of December 12, 2016 (Item No. 6)
Title: Vision Steering Committee Appointments Page 43
IFF St. Louis Park I.If M I N N E S O TA
�pe-Y-ic.nu- t..-lf"� in the- Par'/::,
Name: Adebisi A. Wilson
Vision St. Louis Park Steering Committee
Statement of Interest
Please list all of your connections to St. Louis Park (resident, business owner, organization/faith
community member, employee of St. Louis Park business, etc.):
Resident
List three words you1d use to describe St. Louis Park currently.
Accessible
Improving
Diverse
List three words you'd like to be able to use to describe St. Louis Park in 2026.
Inclusive
Thriving
Desirable
What do you think is the most important issue in St. Louis Park right now? (100 words or less)
I first moved to St. Louis Park given the neighborhoods cleanliness, safety, and diversity. l1 ve also come
to appreciate the connectivity within the neighborhood and surrounding communities via the great
infrastructure. The most important issue we1 re facing today is growth. Specifically, it1 s important to
develop a plan to spur growth and development, while maintaining the key characteristics of our city.
Anytime a city undergoes growth and development, there is a risk losing an identity. I want to ensure
that we continue to grow and become more inclusive, while maintaining the cleanliness, safety, and
diversity that first attracted me to this city.
What do you think will be the most important issue in St. Louis Park in 2026? (100 words or less)
The most important issue in St. Louis Park will be workforce. Based upon the Greater MSP Regional
Indicators Dashboard, our region faces significant challenges in educational disparities. Without
addressing these disparities, we will not have a workforce that is ready to be employed. Furthermore, it
is our regions talent that attracts employers to our region. Ifs imperative that we address our
educational system to prepare today1 s youth for tomorrow1 s workforce.
What perspective would you bring to the Vision Steering Committee? (100 words or less)
I bring the perspective of a mother, black woman, wife, lawyer, businesswoman, and racial minority in
St. Louis Park. While I don't speak for everyone, I believe St. Louis Park can benefit from my perspective
Study Session Meeting of December 12, 2016 (Item No. 6)
Title: Vision Steering Committee Appointments Page 44
Study Session Meeting of December 12, 2016 (Item No. 6) Title: Vision Steering Committee AppointmentsPage 45
Vision St. Louis Park Steering Committee
Statement of Interest
Name: Christina Woodlee, Director of Donor Relations @ Perspectives, Inc.
Please list all of your connections to St. Louis Park (resident, business owner, organization/faith
community member, employee of St. Louis Park business, etc.): Director of Donor Relations @
Perspectives, Inc., a non-profit in St. Louis Park.
List three words you’d use to describe St. Louis Park currently.
- Stagnant
- Quirky
- Growing
List three words you’d like to be able to use to describe St. Louis Park in 2026.
- Alive
- Modern
- Diverse
What do you think is the most important issue in St. Louis Park right now? (100 words or less)
Affordable Housing. As a first ring suburb, it’s disappointing to see the exponential, yet balanced growth
of luxury and affordable housing taking place in surrounding communities while slower growth occurs in
St. Louis Park. Changes at Meadowbrook generated awareness and have started a new dialogue in this
space, which is a start, but there’s a long way to go to see actual changes occur. Limited housing
options, no doubt will impact economic development and with the LRT coming soon – so many
possibilities!
What do you think will be the most important issue in St. Louis Park in 2026? (100 words or less)
Education. The LRT will no doubt spur economic and residential development, likely increasing the
diversity and overall number of families and students. Without intentional conversations and planning
to accommodate demographic changes, educational gaps will only continue to grow amongst white and
non-white students.
What perspective would you bring to the Vision Steering Committee? (100 words or less)
St. Louis Park has an incredible opportunity before them – to embrace and reflect the changing
demographics in an inclusive way while at the same time preserving the historic charm and character
that is St. Louis Park. Perspectives’ families arrive in St. Louis Park, where they live 2-3 years; their
children attend the schools and it becomes home. However, once they complete our program, with
limited options for affordable housing, many of these families leave St. Louis Park. If selected for the
Steering Committee, I would bring a unique lens – representing the 65 families & 163 children we serve
annually, the majority of which are non-white and living at or below the poverty level. Sharing their
experiences arriving to the City - likes, dislikes, - and their experiences that cause them to ultimately
leave St. Louis Park.
Study Session Meeting of December 12, 2016 (Item No. 6)
Title: Vision Steering Committee Appointments Page 46
Steering committee members must commit to attending a monthly two-hour meeting from December
2016-May 2017. Please check all days/times you would be available to meet:
Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday
Mornings
7-9 a.m.
x x x x x x
Lunchtime
11 a.m.-1 p.m.
x x x x x x
Evening
6-8 p.m.
x x x x x x
Please return your application by November 1, 2016 to the city staff person who invited you to apply.
We will notify you by the end of November 2016 if you are selected to serve on the Vision Steering
Committee. Thank you!
Study Session Meeting of December 12, 2016 (Item No. 6)
Title: Vision Steering Committee Appointments Page 47
Meeting: Study Session
Meeting Date: December 12, 2016
Written Report: 7
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: History of Housing Code Research and Zoning Amendments 2006-2016
RECOMMENDED ACTION: None. City Council requested information regarding zoning
research and amendments the city has done related to single family housing.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: None at this time.
SUMMARY: During the last decade, the Twin Cities Metro has seen an increase in single-family
residential tear downs and reconstructions, and large residential additions. The City Council has
emphasized the importance of retaining neighborhood character in St. Louis Park while at the same
time encouraging move up housing to retain existing and attract future residents.
The following report is an analysis of housing research and zoning code amendments from 2006
to 2016 in St. Louis Park. Included in this report is historical data on:
Cluster Housing in R1, R2, and R3 Districts
2005-2006 Housing Summit
o Front yard setbacks
o Accessory structures (including detached garages)
o Ground Floor Area Ratio
o Yard encroachments
R-1 Zoning District study of lot sizes
Design Standards
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: None at this time.
VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis park is committed to providing a well-maintained and
diverse housing stock.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion
Cluster Housing Staff Report and Presentation
Housing Summit Staff Report and Presentation
R-1 Study
Prepared by: Jennifer Monson, Planner
Reviewed by: Sean Walther, Planning and Zoning Supervisor
Michele Schnitker, Deputy Community Development Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of December 12, 2016 (Item No. 7) Page 2
Title: History of Housing Code Research and Zoning Amendments 2006-2016
DISCUSSION
In recent years, the Twin Cities Metro has seen an increase in single-family residential tear downs
and reconstructions, and large residential additions. In order to retain existing and attract new
residents, St. Louis Park has adopted regulations that encourage move up housing, while trying to
prevent drastic changes to neighborhood character. Prior to the code amendments being adopted
there were a large number of variance requests for construction in single-family neighborhoods to
accommodate larger homes. From 1996 to 2006 St. Louis Park reviewed 177 variances. Not all of
those variances pertained to single-family homes, but once the changes discussed below were
adopted, the number of variance requests dramatically decreased. During the last decade (2007 to
2016) the city has reviewed 27 variances, two of which pertained to single-family homes.
Included in this report is a summary of housing research and zoning amendments pertaining to
single-family homes from 2006 to 2016. Topics include the following:
Cluster Housing in R1, R2, and R3 Districts
2005-2006 Housing Summit
o Front yard setbacks
o Accessory structures (including detached garages)
o Ground Floor Area Ratio
o Yard encroachments
R-1 Zoning District study of lot sizes
Design standards
Cluster Housing: In 2005, the City of St. Louis Park amended the Zoning Ordinance language
pertaining to cluster housing. In practice, St. Louis Park cluster housing was used as a way to
obtain duplex and townhome developments in single family neighborhoods while providing for
the preservation of natural features and open space. The ordinance stated that “density shall not
exceed that of the applicable zoning district” and was defined as:
Dwelling units attached in a single structure, each having a separate private outdoor
entrance. Dwelling units may be located on individual lots or on a lot in common. Density
shall not exceed that of the applicable zoning district. Characteristics may include a larger
building mass and scale and larger concentrations of paved surfaces than single-family
detached dwellings.
The cluster development ordinance allowed for special permits for the development of otherwise
undevelopable land due to lot size, unusual lot shape, and access difficulties. One such example is
the cluster development located at 7749 13 ½ Street W. The underlying zoning is R-2, and due to
access challenges, City Council approved a 5 unit cluster development in 1984. The cluster
development allowed for one single-family home and two two-family homes. The two family
homes are significantly larger structures than the single-family homes in the surrounding
neighborhood, but retain a similar overall ground floor area ratio.
Development pressures and resident concerns prompted City Council to re-evaluate the cluster lot
ordinance. Staff research showed that there were 33 cluster lots in the R-1 district, 10 cluster lots
in the R-2 district, and 481 cluster lots in the R-3 district. The cluster lot ordinance required
attached town home construction, and did not allow for the clustering of detached single-family
homes.
Study Session Meeting of December 12, 2016 (Item No. 7) Page 3
Title: History of Housing Code Research and Zoning Amendments 2006-2016
Planning Commission recommended an amendment to the zoning ordinance to allow detached
townhomes or single family cluster developments in all residential districts and to prohibit
attached, townhome style cluster developments in R1, R2 and R3 districts.
Traditional Lots Cluster Single-Family Lots Cluster Townhome Lots
City Council decided to amend the zoning code to remove “cluster lots” as conditionally allowed
uses from the R-1, R-2, and R-3 zoning districts except for those existing prior to August 11, 2005.
Cluster style, or conservation developments, are currently only allowed in R4 and RC districts.
Housing Summit: In 2005 and 2006, St. Louis Park conducted a housing summit that consisted
of a series of meetings attended by the city’s policy makers to revisit and consider changes to the
city’s current housing policies, strategies and goals. One of the resulting housing goals focused
on the idea that the city should encourage and allow for the expansion of single family homes.
Planning Commission and City Council met several times to discuss the city’s policies for house
expansions and changes to the zoning ordinance that would clarify, simplify, and provide more
ease to citizens in remodeling and expanding homes and garages. Some of the items analyzed
included: front and side yard setbacks, detached garage regulations, and required backyard open
space. The City Council adopted Ordinance 2312-06 in response to many months of research,
meetings, and public input. A summary of changes included in Ordinance 2312-06 is provided
below.
Front Yards: Prior to 2006, city code was ambiguous regarding front yards, and required residents
to survey neighboring properties within 150 feet of the lot in question to obtain an average front
yard depth. Code gave the advantage to every new home in the area, slowly moving the front
building lines closer to the front property line because of the varying front yard widths on every
street. Every home that was constructed in an area, slowly decreased the front yard setback
average.
Staff researched the front setback of nearly every block in the city and found the front yard depth
varied greatly from block to block. The zoning ordinance in the 1940’s allowed the first house
constructed on each block to set the depth of the front yard, contributing to each neighborhood’s
unique character. The practice of taking the average setback within 150 feet slowly changed the
character of block frontage in some of the city’s neighborhoods. City Council amended the
language as follows to help retain the existing neighborhood character. The amendment also made
the code somewhat less cumbersome for property owners to interpret, and somewhat easier for
staff to apply.
Study Session Meeting of December 12, 2016 (Item No. 7) Page 4
Title: History of Housing Code Research and Zoning Amendments 2006-2016
Front Yard Setbacks
Originally 1992 2006 (existing)
R‐1 District 35 feet 30 feet or the average front
setback of homes within 150
feet of the property.
30 feet or the front wall of
the closest house on the
block front, whichever is
greater.
R‐2 District 30 feet 25 feet or the average front
setback of homes within 150
feet of the property.
25 feet or the front wall of
the closest house on the
block front, whichever is
greater.
Accessory Structures (including detached garages): Prior to the 2006 code amendment, standards
for accessory structures and garages were specified in each residential zoning district. It was
determined that several requirements were redundant, interpretations were complicated, and the
regulations prohibited residents from building moderate sized two-car garages. Accessory
structure setbacks were dictated by the height and the size of the structure, and the structure size
was regulated by open lot requirements. These criteria made it very difficult to determine what
size an accessory structure could be and where it could be located. It also hampered property
owner’s ability to construct a two-stall garage and have room for additional storage.
City Council decided to remove the accessory structure language from within each residential
district, and created standards that were easier to interpret. The amendment specified the sizes and
location allowed for accessory buildings on single-family lots and non-conforming two-family
lots. The ordinance set the cumulative ground floor maximum accessory building size at 800
square feet or 25 percent of the backyard, whichever is smaller. However, it allows for a detached
garage to be 576 square feet, even if that exceeds 25% of the backyard.
City Council also amended the zoning ordinance to clarify the language for accessory buildings,
and to make it easier for staff to interpret the code pertaining to garages, and so residents were able
to construct two-stall detached garages. The ordinance required larger garages to match the
architectural style of the principal building, and clarified the height of garages.
The ordinance also amended the side setbacks for accessory structures, including garages. Prior to
the amendment, the side setbacks varied by zoning district. The adopted amendment reduced the
side setbacks for all accessory structures to 2 feet in R1, R2, and R3 Districts. This standard is
easier to apply and allows a greater number of property owners to construct two-stall garages.
Ground Floor Area Ratio: Dimensional standards and densities in the R-1 and R-2 district were
amended by Ordinance 2312-06 to increase the ground floor area ratio from 0.3 (30%) to 0.35
(35%). This change emphasized the desire to attract move up housing in St. Louis Park by
accommodating larger footprints, while still discouraging oversized homes that do not fit the
existing character of city neighborhoods. A study was completed that compared St. Louis Park’s
ground floor area ratios with the City of Minneapolis and the City of Edina. Minneapolis allows
50% lot coverage while Edina allowed a lot coverage of 30% or 2,250 square feet, whichever is
greater. 2,250 square feet is approximately 32% of the average St. Louis Park lot.
Yard Encroachments: City Council amended the zoning ordinance to update the language for
principal building yard encroachments. The Zoning Ordinance Amendment 2320-06 amended
Study Session Meeting of December 12, 2016 (Item No. 7) Page 5
Title: History of Housing Code Research and Zoning Amendments 2006-2016
Section 36-73 Yard Encroachments to allow for entryways 5ft. in depth and less than or equal to
40 square feet to encroach into any yard.
The ordinance as adopted reduced the required side yard widths for lots less than 60ft in width that
abut a street from 15ft to 9ft.
The amendment allowed for balconies, bays and window wells not exceeding a depth of three feet
and containing an area of less than 20 square feet.
R-1 Zoning District Study: In 2006, City Council, Planning Commission, and staff completed
the R-1 Zoning District Study to review lot sizes in the R-1 zoning district to determine the number
of St. Louis Park lots that could be subdivided based on the minimum R-1 lot size of 9,000 square
feet.
Staff analyzed the lot size, lot frontage, and floor area ratios of the 3,447 single-family R-1 lots.
The study found 63 lots were potentially eligible for subdivision. Of those 63 lots, 9 lots were
impacted by the 100-year floodplain, restricting their ability to be subdivided. That left a total of
55 sub-dividable lots in the R-1 zoning district. Of those 55 lots, 34 would require the removal of
a home in order to subdivide.
Concentrations of the 55 lots were predominantly found in the Cobblecrest (7 lots), Crestview (10
lots), and Lake Forest (16 lots) neighborhoods. Staff analyzed the average lots size in each of these
neighborhoods, and developed three options for Planning Commission and Council consideration.
The options included: a) keeping the 9,000 square foot minimum lot size; b) increasing the
minimum lot size to 13,500 square feet in those areas; or c) increasing the minimum lot size to
18,000 square feet in these areas.
Public input was received primarily from residents living in the Lake Forest and Crestview
neighborhoods. The input received was mixed, with some property owners wanting a change to
the R-1 lot size and some requesting it stay at the 9,000 square foot minimum.
The Planning Commission recommended that the R-1 zoning lot size remain as is. While not
unanimous, reasons given for the recommendation were that the current minimum lot size does
not appear to be a major issue; few lots are suitable to be subdivided; and they were concerned
about creating special zoning districts on a neighborhood-by-neighborhood basis.
The City Council reviewed the R-1 Zoning District Study during a study session in October, 2006.
The Council discussed the three alternatives, and did not request that Staff bring forward any
amendments to the Zoning Code pertaining to lot size.
Since this study was completed, St. Louis Park has approved 6 single-family residential
subdivisions creating 23 new single-family homes in St. Louis Park.
Design Standards: In 2014, City Council looked into the idea of adding design standards for
single-family homes. Staff researched other cities, and found that design standards are generally
reserved for historically designated neighborhoods or multi-family and commercial development.
Staff research showed that the city’s housing policies, goals and strategies have promoted the
provision of a range of housing choices to meet the needs of its residents through all stages of life
Study Session Meeting of December 12, 2016 (Item No. 7) Page 6
Title: History of Housing Code Research and Zoning Amendments 2006-2016
including the creation of large homes suitable for families and children. It was also determined
that the city already offers design incentives through city programs including the Remodeling and
Architectural Design Services, the annual Home Remodeling Fair and the annual Home
Remodeling Tour.
City Council decided to not pursue any design guidelines for single-family homes at that time.
Construction Management Meetings: To help increase transparency with new construction in
city neighborhoods, City Council adopted standards for construction management practices in
2014. The ordinance requires a construction management plan for the demolition, new
construction or a major addition to any buildings within the city. The ordinance requires an
application, written neighborhood notification of the proposed activity and general construction
schedule to all neighbors within two hundred feet of the construction property, and a neighborhood
meeting before demolition or new construction begins. The ordinance also requires site signage
posted on the property prior to any demolition or construction and it must remain on site until the
project is complete.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: Cluster Amendment Staff Report
Page 1
8c. Zoning Ordinance Amendment to remove Cluster Housing from the R-1, R-2
and R-3 zoning districts as a conditional use, while allowing existing cluster
housing developments to continue as a conforming use.
Case Nos. 05-23-ZA
Recommended
Action:
Motion to approve first reading of Zoning Ordinance
amendment, and set second reading for July 18th.
Description of Proposal
It is proposed to remove the Cluster Housing provision from the R-1, R-2 and R-3 zoning
districts into the future, while allowing the existing Cluster Housing developments to remain as
conforming uses in the Zoning Ordinance.
Background
On April 25, 2005, the City Council discussed zoning changes at a study session and directed
staff to change the zoning ordinance to not allow future Cluster Housing in R-1, R-2 or R-3
zoning districts, while keeping the existing developments in a conforming status.
Cluster Housing is now permitted by Conditional Use Permit in the R-1, R-2, R-3, and R-4
zoning districts, and is a permitted use in the RC zoning district. It is proposed that Cluster
Housing would remain as a conditional use in the R-4 district and a permitted use in the RC
district.
Attached are maps showing the location of existing cluster housing developments in the City.
Proposed Ordinance Language
In order to keep the existing units conforming (legally permitted) and not allow any future
development in the R-1, R-2 and R-3 districts, we are recommending the following language
additions shown below:
Section 36-163. R-1 single-family residence district; Section 36-164. R-2 single-family
residence district; Section 36-165. R-3 two-family residence district:
(d) Uses permitted by conditional use permit.
Cluster housing developments in existence on August XX, 2005 [bolded and underlined is new
language].
The date will be included to show the date the ordinance officially takes effect.
Study Session Meeting of February 2, 2016 (Item No. 7)
Title: History of Housing Code Research and Zoning Amendments 2006-2016 Page 7
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: Cluster Amendment Staff Report
Page 2
What is Cluster Housing?
Cluster housing is described in the City’s Zoning Ordinance as:
“dwelling units attached in a single structure, each having a separate private outdoor
entrance. Dwelling units may be located on individual lots or on a lot in common.
Density shall not exceed that of the applicable zoning district. Characteristics may
include a larger building mass and scale and larger concentrations of paved surfaces than
single-family detached dwellings.”
Cluster housing includes townhouses and has also been applied for “detached” townhomes;
detached townhomes are single family homes on smaller lots than required by the Zoning
Ordinance. Attached is a drawing that further illustrates Cluster Housing concepts.
For approval, the Ordinance requires that a “superior” development would result by clustering.
The intent is that a subdivision could be designed and built in an arrangement designed with
respect to the land, and natural features or amenities would be preserved.
“Superior” development is determined by the following criteria in the City’s Ordinance:
“1. The presence and preservation of topographic features, woods and trees,
waterbodies and streams, and other physical and ecological conditions.
2. Suitable provisions for permanently retaining and maintaining the amenities and
open space.
3. Building location, building groupings, landscaping, views to and from the units,
building forms and materials, recognition of existing development and public
facilities, and city goals and policies including the comprehensive plan as well as
specific plans for the area.”
In Cluster Housing, density cannot exceed that of the applicable zoning district. Typically a
developer would have to lay out single family lots according to the zoning district, with respect
to wetlands and steep slopes to determine the allowable density/
Where is Cluster Housing?
The attached maps show where cluster housing is located in the city by zoning district. The
number of units by zoning district is as follows:
R-1 R-2 R-3 Total R-1, R-2
and R-3
33 units 10 units 481 units 524 units
In addition there are 185 units in the R-4 zoning district and 18 units in the R-C zoning district.
Study Session Meeting of February 2, 2016 (Item No. 7)
Title: History of Housing Code Research and Zoning Amendments 2006-2016 Page 8
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: Cluster Amendment Staff Report
Page 3
Planning Commission Recommendation
On June 1, 2005, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the proposed ordinance
changes, and recommended a change to continue to allow detached townhomes or single family
cluster developments (#2 in drawing), without allowing townhome style cluster developments.
This would likely occur in the case of a newly developing area where preserving existing natural
features (hills, water, woods) would be highly desirable for the city.
To adopt the Planning Commission recommendation, a new land use description single family
cluster housing would be needed, as well as the addition of “single family cluster housing” into
the R-1, R-2 and R-3 zoning districts.
Recommendation
Staff recommends the approval of the Zoning Ordinance Amendment to remove Cluster Housing
from the R-1, R-2 and R-3 zoning districts as a conditional use, while allowing existing cluster
housing developments to continue as a conforming use.
If, alternatively, the City Council chooses to adopt the Planning Commission’s recommendation,
the recommended action is to direct staff to prepare the appropriate language in ordinance form
for the next regular City Council meeting.
Attachments:
Ordinance
Planning Commission Minutes (unapproved)
Maps showing existing Cluster Housing locations
Illustrative drawing
Prepared By: Meg J. McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor
Reviewed By: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved By: Nancy Gohman, Deputy City Manger
Study Session Meeting of February 2, 2016 (Item No. 7)
Title: History of Housing Code Research and Zoning Amendments 2006-2016 Page 9
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: Cluster Amendment Staff Report
Page 4
ORDINANCE NO.______
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ST. LOUIS PARK
ORDINANCE CODE RELATING TO ZONING BY
AMENDING SECTIONS 36-163, 36-164, 36-165
THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK DOES ORDAIN:
Sec. 1. The City Council has considered the advice and recommendation of the Planning
Commission (Case No. 05-23-ZA)
Sec. 2. The St. Louis Park Ordinance Code, Sections 36-163, 36-164, 36-165 are hereby
amended by adding the following underlined language:
Section 36-163. R-1 single-family residence district.
(d) Uses permitted by conditional use permit.
(1) Cluster housing developments in existence on August XX, 2005.
Section 36-164. R-2 single-family residence district.
(d) Uses permitted by conditional use permit.
(1) Cluster housing developments in existence on August XX, 2005.
Section 36-165. R-3 two-family residence district.
(d) Uses permitted by conditional use permit.
(1) Cluster housing developments in existence on August XX, 2005.
Sec. 3. The contents of Planning Case File 05-23-ZA are hereby entered into and
made part of the public hearing record and the record of decision for this case.
Sec. 4. This Ordinance shall take effect fifteen days after its publication.
Adopted by the City Council
Reviewed for Administration
City Manager Mayor
Attest: Approved as to Form and Execution:
City Clerk City Attorney 00-12-ZA/N/res/ord
Study Session Meeting of February 2, 2016 (Item No. 7)
Title: History of Housing Code Research and Zoning Amendments 2006-2016 Page 10
Zoning Text Amendment
Cluster Housing in the
R-1, R-2 and R-3
zoning districts
Study Session Meeting of February 2, 2016 (Item No. 7)
Title: History of Housing Code Research and Zoning Amendments 2006-2016 Page 11
Cluster Housing
•Proposal to remove Cluster Housing
from R-1, R-2 and R-3 zoning districts
•Existing Cluster Housing developments
would remain as conforming uses
Study Session Meeting of February 2, 2016 (Item No. 7)
Title: History of Housing Code Research and Zoning Amendments 2006-2016 Page 12
Cluster Housing
What is Cluster Housing?
•Dwelling units in a single structure, with a private
outdoor entrance
–Townhomes and single family homes may be allowed
•Density may not exceed the zoning district
allowance
•A “superior” development is required:
–Environmental features retained
–Permanent preservation
–Close attention to site design
Study Session Meeting of February 2, 2016 (Item No. 7)
Title: History of Housing Code Research and Zoning Amendments 2006-2016 Page 13
Illustrative Cluster Housing Concepts
Single-Family
Cluster –2 acre
•11 New Single-
Family detached
homes
Traditional Development
–2 acre
•11 New Single-Family
detached homes
Townhome Cluster
2 acre
•11 New Single-
Family attached
homes
Study Session Meeting of February 2, 2016 (Item No. 7)
Title: History of Housing Code Research and Zoning Amendments 2006-2016 Page 14
Cluster Housing
Study Session Meeting of February 2, 2016 (Item No. 7)
Title: History of Housing Code Research and Zoning Amendments 2006-2016 Page 15
Cluster Housing
Planning Commission Recommendation
On June 1, 2005, the Planning Commission recommended to allow
detached townhomes or single family cluster developments without
allowing attached, townhome style cluster developments.
Single-Family
Cluster –2 acre
•11 New Single-
Family detached
homes
Study Session Meeting of February 2, 2016 (Item No. 7)
Title: History of Housing Code Research and Zoning Amendments 2006-2016 Page 16
Cluster Housing
Recommended language change:
In R-1, R-2 and R-3 zoning districts,
(d)Uses permitted by conditional use permit.
Cluster housing developments in existence on
August XX, 2005.(date will be 15 days following
the day of publication)
Study Session Meeting of February 2, 2016 (Item No. 7)
Title: History of Housing Code Research and Zoning Amendments 2006-2016 Page 17
Cluster Housing Amendment
•City Council Amendment
–The zoning code was amended to remove “cluster lots” as
conditionally allowed uses from the R-1, R-2, and R-3 zoning
districts except for those existing prior to August 11, 2005.
–Cluster style, or conservation developments, are currently only
allowed in R4 districts.
Study Session Meeting of February 2, 2016 (Item No. 7)
Title: History of Housing Code Research and Zoning Amendments 2006-2016 Page 18
Planning Commission Study Session
Discussion Item: 111605 - Zoning Code Updates
1. Zoning Code Amendments
PURPOSE OF DISCUSSION:
To discuss proposed zoning code changes.
Proposed Order of Discussion:
1. Places of Assembly
At your last meeting a hearing was held on a proposed ordinance for “Places of Assembly.”
The Commission requested that we discuss the proposal in more detail at a study session.
City Attorney Tom Scott will be present to help with the discussion. A copy of the draft
ordinance is attached.
2. Amendments related to expanding homes.
An outcome of the Housing Summit process included the idea of encouraging the expansion
of existing single family homes. The Planning Staff has been looking into possible zoning
code changes that would smooth the ability for homeowners to expand their homes. Attached
is a list of proposed amendments (#1 - #6). We have reviewed these at joint meetings of the
City Council and Planning Commission and would like to review these in more detail with
the Planning Commission prior to setting a public hearing.
3. Proposed changes to zoning process.
Items #7 and #8 on the list refer to zoning process changes.
Next Steps
Following the discussion, the Planning Staff will prepare the appropriate text amendments to the
Zoning Code in order to continue or set the appropriate public hearings for formal consideration.
Prepared by: Meg J. McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor
Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator
Study Session Meeting of February 2, 2016 (Item No. 7)
Title: History of Housing Code Research and Zoning Amendments 2006-2016 Page 19
Planning Commission Study Session
Discussion Item: 111605 - Zoning Code Updates
LIST OF POTENTIAL CHANGES TO ZONING CODE RELATED TO EXPANSION OF
SINGLE FAMILY HOMES
1. ISSUE: The required front yard setback is difficult to ascertain. It requires measurement of
the front yard setback of all of the homes within 150 feet. This is time consuming
and often requires hiring professional surveyors to determine the front yard setback.
It becomes a large obstacle to overcome when considering expanding a home.
Current front
setback
Proposed
R-1 Average of
neighboring homes or
30’
Keep 30’, delete averaging
R-2 Average of
neighboring homes or
25’
Keep 25’, delete averaging
Benefits of change:
Homeowners can easily understand buildable area.
Extensive time and cost of surveying and measuring of surrounding lots would
be unnecessary.
Expansion in front yards may be an option for some homeowners.
City can clearly help homeowners with setback requirements.
2. ISSUE: Side yard setback requirements are inconsistent between the R-2 and R-3 zoning
districts even though requirements for lot size and lot width for single family homes
are the same.
Single Family Homes
Side setback not abutting a street
Existing Proposed
R-1 9’/6’ 9’/6’
R-2 7’/5’ 7’/5’
R-3 9’/6’ 7’/5’
Benefits of change:
Additional room for expansion in R-3 zoning district.
Single family home setbacks in R-2 and R-3 are consistent.
Ease of understanding and administration.
Study Session Meeting of February 2, 2016 (Item No. 7)
Title: History of Housing Code Research and Zoning Amendments 2006-2016 Page 20
Planning Commission Study Session
Discussion Item: 111605 - Zoning Code Updates
3. ISSUE: Side yard setbacks for lots from 40 to 60 feet wide are 9 feet for the corner side;
however the city requires a 15 foot corner side yard setback on lots with less than 40
feet in width. The proposed change would allow all lots smaller than 60 feet to have
a side yard setback of 9 feet versus 15 feet.
Corner Side Setbacks
Requirement Proposed
Lot width Setback Lot width Setback
R-1 75’+ 15’ 60’+ 15’
0 – 74’ 15’ 0 – 59’ 9’
R-2 60’+ 15’ 60’+ 15’
40- 59’ 9’ 40- 59’ 9’
0 – 39’ 15’ 0 – 39’ 9’
R-3 60’+ 15’ 60’+ 15’
40- 59’ 9’ 40- 59’ 9’
0 – 39’ 15’ 0 – 39’ 9’
Benefits of change:
Clarification of ordinance.
Lots smaller than 40 feet wide would have a 9’ corner side setback versus 15’.
Allows more room to expand on narrow lots.
4. ISSUE: Garage Issues - Staff receives requests on a daily basis for garages and garage
additions. Our garage rules can be confusing, making it difficult to evaluate whether
or not someone could expand or build a garage on their property, and our rules in
many cases limit the ability to place a two-car garage on the property. The main
hurtles presented by our regulations is the requirement for increased setbacks for
larger and taller garages, limiting garage area to a maximum of only 25% of the back
yard and limiting the ability to construct a detached garage that is architecturally
compatible to the home by restricting windows and the height of the garage.
Propose: Simplify the regulations by:
Creating one standard garage setback for side and rear property lines.
Setting a maximum limit to garage size.
Allowing an increase in height if it is in order to match the roof pitch of
the existing house.
Study Session Meeting of February 2, 2016 (Item No. 7)
Title: History of Housing Code Research and Zoning Amendments 2006-2016 Page 21
Planning Commission Study Session
Discussion Item: 111605 - Zoning Code Updates
Benefits of change:
Consistency and clarification of regulations.
Super size garages would not be allowed.
Allows more storage room in garage.
5. ISSUE: Underlying lots - Currently many existing parcels consist of more than one
underlying platted lot. Confusion exists as to whether a parcel with underlying lots
can be split without replatting or subdividing. This limits development of some
existing parcels.
Propose: Allow existing parcels consisting of multiple existing lots of record to be
split into the original lots if the lots conform to lot width and size requirements (lots
of record that are 2/3rds of the minimum width are considered buildable lots by the
Zoning Ordinance).
Benefits of change:
More new single family homes could be built.
New homes would be on lots comparable to the existing neighborhood.
6. ISSUE: Infill subdivision and irregular lots - Irregular or odd shaped lots often have
sufficient area to accommodate development but their shape makes it difficult to
apply our zoning and subdivision standards. Subtle changes to our ordinances
would make it easier to apply our codes.
Propose: Change the subdivision ordinance to require side lot lines to be
approximately at right angles to “right-of-way” versus “street” lines; and, allow the
City to choose which lot frontage on a corner lot is considered the front yard
regardless of whether it is the longer or shorter lot dimension.
Benefits of change:
Easier to evaluate whether a lot is buildable.
Lots shapes could be more logical.
7. ISSUE: Combining Comprehensive Plan and zoning applications with
PUD/CUP/Plat/Variance applications - Typically requests for Comprehensive Plan
changes or rezoning are driven by the property owners desire to build a specific
project. Currently our Zoning Ordinance requires that a Comprehensive Plan or
zoning amendment process must be completed prior to accepting application(s) for a
Conditional Use Permit, Planned Unit Development or a variance. This means the
city must evaluate the requested Comprehensive Plan or zoning change without
benefit of a complete development proposal application, or the ability to place
conditions on the development approvals at the time of the Comp Plan and zoning
change approvals are made. Typically the city needs some understanding of the
Study Session Meeting of February 2, 2016 (Item No. 7)
Title: History of Housing Code Research and Zoning Amendments 2006-2016 Page 22
Planning Commission Study Session
Discussion Item: 111605 - Zoning Code Updates
proposed development project to make even an initial assessment of the impacts
changing the land use will have, such as a traffic analysis. While we can request a
concept plan and complete some initial analysis, a thorough review of the site and
building plans cannot occur without an actual development application.
Once the Comprehensive Plan and zoning are changed, the City has much less
control over site and building plans, and may end up with a development plan that
meets the code yet is not what was expected at the time the property was rezoned
and the Comp Plan amended.
Propose: Revise the zoning code to allow applications to be considered at the same
time as Comprehensive Plan and Rezoning requests.
Benefits of change:
The specific development project would be known at the time of Comprehensive
Plan amendment and rezoning is under consideration and specific conditions can
be placed on the development project at the time of the Comprehensive Plan and
Rezoning approval.
Strengthens ability to condition project approvals.
Allows more control over use, as well as other project specifics.
Applications could still be separated; Rezoning and Comp Plan amendment
requests could still be considered separately if desired.
Could expedite approval process.
8. ISSUE: PUD (Planned Unit Development) Provisions – Currently our PUD requirements are
incorporated in each individual zoning district. They essentially function like
conditional use permits with extra requirements. This reduces greatly the discretion
the City has to approve or disapprove PUD requests. Extracting the City’s PUD
requirements from individual districts and creating a true PUD overlay zoning
district would give the City much greater control over PUD requests. Approval
would be the equivalent of a rezoning, an action that is purely at the discretion of the
City.
Propose: Revise the zoning code to create a PUD zoning overlay district element.
Benefits of change:
PUD actions would be equivalent to rezoning property, giving the City full
discretion to approve or deny requests for PUDs.
Zoning action gives City discretion to approve or deny.
Strengthens ability to use PUD as a development tool.
Allows more control over uses, height and other zoning standards.
Study Session Meeting of February 2, 2016 (Item No. 7)
Title: History of Housing Code Research and Zoning Amendments 2006-2016 Page 23
Zoning Code Updates
City of St. Louis Park
Planning Department
Study Session Meeting of February 2, 2016 (Item No. 7)
Title: History of Housing Code Research and Zoning Amendments 2006-2016 Page 24
Fr ont Yard Setback
Front Yard = 30 feet or 5 feet less than the average required
front yard of all properties within 150 feet.
Prior to
1992
1992 Recommendation
R-1 35’ 30’ or 150 feet
average.
Delete averaging
R-2 30’ 25’ or 150 feet
average.
Delete averaging
Study Session Meeting of February 2, 2016 (Item No. 7)
Title: History of Housing Code Research and Zoning Amendments 2006-2016 Page 25
Detached Garages
Existing Regulations
Permitted up to 800 s.f. (3-car g arage)
Cannot exceed 25% of the back yard
400 –600 s.f. open lot area
CUP over 800 s.f.
Must not be larger than the house footprint
Increased setbacks are required for garages that
exceed 26’ x 26’ x 15’ high
Study Session Meeting of February 2, 2016 (Item No. 7)
Title: History of Housing Code Research and Zoning Amendments 2006-2016 Page 26
Detached Gara ge Area (lot coverage)
Garag e cannot exceed 25% of back yard &
house cannot exceed 30% of lot.
T hese two provisions compete, resulting in a small
g arag e, or small addition
Study Session Meeting of February 2, 2016 (Item No. 7)
Title: History of Housing Code Research and Zoning Amendments 2006-2016 Page 27
5 feet
30 feet
8 feet
20 feet
Open Covered
Porch 10 x 35
R-2 Zoning District with 16% lot coverage for house.Lot Size:
45 x 128 feet
5,760 sf
68 feet
16% coverage
960 sf
30 x 32 feet
Slide #1
16 % coverage
960 sf
30 x 32 feet
Study Session Meeting of February 2, 2016 (Item No. 7)
Title: History of Housing Code Research and Zoning Amendments 2006-2016 Page 28
5 feet
30 feet
8 feet
20 feet
Open Covered
Porch 10 x 35
R-2 Zoning District with 30% lot coverage for house.Lot Size:
45 x 128 feet
45 feet
30 % coverage
1,715 sf
53 x 32 feet
Slide #2
30% coverage
1,715 sf
53 x 32 feet
Study Session Meeting of February 2, 2016 (Item No. 7)
Title: History of Housing Code Research and Zoning Amendments 2006-2016 Page 29
5 feet
30 feet
8 feet
20 feet
Open Covered
Porch 10 x 35
R-2 Zoning District with 30% lot coverage for house.
Back yard is 2,025 sf, 25% of back yard is 506 sf
Today's code allows a 22 x 23 sf garage.
Lot Size:
45 x 128 feet
45 feet
30 % coverage
1,715 sf
53 x 32 feet
20 feet
Slide #3
30% coverage
1,715 sf
53 x 32 feet
Study Session Meeting of February 2, 2016 (Item No. 7)
Title: History of Housing Code Research and Zoning Amendments 2006-2016 Page 30
5 feet
30 feet
8 feet
20 feet
Open Covered
Porch 10 x 35
R-2 Zoning District with 16% lot coverage for house.Lot Size:
45 x 128 feet
5,760 sf
68 feet
16% coverage
960 sf
30 x 32 feet
Slide #4
16% coverage
960 sf
30 x 32 feet
Study Session Meeting of February 2, 2016 (Item No. 7)
Title: History of Housing Code Research and Zoning Amendments 2006-2016 Page 31
5 feet
30 feet
8 feet
20 feet
Open Covered
Porch 10 x 35
R-2 Zoning District with 16% lot coverage for house.
Back yard is 3,060 sf, 25% of back yard is 765 sf
Today's code allows a 26 x 29 sf garage.
Lot Size:
45 x 128 feet
5,760 sf
68 feet
16% coverage
960 sf
30 x 32 feet
26 x 26
Garage 40 feet
Slide #5
16% coverage
960 sf
30 x 32 feet
Study Session Meeting of February 2, 2016 (Item No. 7)
Title: History of Housing Code Research and Zoning Amendments 2006-2016 Page 32
5 feet
30 feet
8 feet
20 feet
Open Covered
Porch 10 x 35
R-2 Zoning District with 30% lot coverage for house.
Back yard is 2,025 sf, 25% of back yard is 506 sf
Today's code allows a 22 x 23 sf garage.
A 26 x 26 garage is 676 sf, and 34% of the backyard.
Lot Size:
45 x 128 feet
45 feet
30 % coverage
1,715 sf
53 x 32 feet
20 feet
17 feet
Slide #6
30 % coverage
1,715 sf
53 x 32 feet
Study Session Meeting of February 2, 2016 (Item No. 7)
Title: History of Housing Code Research and Zoning Amendments 2006-2016 Page 33
5 feet
30 feet
8 feet
20 feet
R-2 Zoning District with 26 x 26 sf garage.
The 960 sf home can construct a 292 sf addition
for a total of 1,252 sf (21% of the lot).
Lot Size:
45 x 128 feet
60 feet
21 % coverage
1,252 sf32 feet
9 feet
Slide #7
21 % coverage
1,252 sf
Study Session Meeting of February 2, 2016 (Item No. 7)
Title: History of Housing Code Research and Zoning Amendments 2006-2016 Page 34
Back yard Open Space
Redundant requirements:
Max 25% of back yard area can be occupied with
g arag e
400 s.f. of open space is also required
Study Session Meeting of February 2, 2016 (Item No. 7)
Title: History of Housing Code Research and Zoning Amendments 2006-2016 Page 35
Alter natives for Area Requirements
Amend code to more readily accommodate 2-car
g arag es
Eliminate 400-600 sf open lot area requirement; and
Allow 24 x 24 garage as exception; or
Increase lot coverage from 25% to 35% for rear yards
Limit the size of garages to a maximum
Eliminate CUP option
Study Session Meeting of February 2, 2016 (Item No. 7)
Title: History of Housing Code Research and Zoning Amendments 2006-2016 Page 36
Less than 26’w x 26’d x 15’h
2 foot min rear yard
Less than 25% of backyard
No windows upstairs
These Gara ges Typically Meet Code
Study Session Meeting of February 2, 2016 (Item No. 7)
Title: History of Housing Code Research and Zoning Amendments 2006-2016 Page 37
More than 26’w x 26’d x 15’h (Greater than 15’ height)
2 foot min rear yard (Less than required 25’ rear yard)
Less than 25% of backyard (More than 25% of back yard)
No windows upstairs (Windows upstairs)
These Garages Typically Do Not Meet Code
Study Session Meeting of February 2, 2016 (Item No. 7)
Title: History of Housing Code Research and Zoning Amendments 2006-2016 Page 38
Height
Garag es over 15’ in height require greater
setbacks
Limits the ability to match the architecture and
character of the home
Can’t match the roof slope
Can’t add amenities such as windows and dormers.
Limits storage options
Study Session Meeting of February 2, 2016 (Item No. 7)
Title: History of Housing Code Research and Zoning Amendments 2006-2016 Page 39
Recommendation for Setbacks
Create one standard setback for side and rear
property lines
Preser ves usable yard area
Allows more height for storage space
Preser ves ability to architecturally match the
home
Study Session Meeting of February 2, 2016 (Item No. 7)
Title: History of Housing Code Research and Zoning Amendments 2006-2016 Page 40
Summar y for detached garages
Create one standard garage setback for side and
rear proper ty lines (2 feet)
Eliminate open lot area requirement
Allow 2-car g arag es for single family homes by:
allowing 24 x 24 garages as an exception; or
Increasing 25% to 35% coverage for rear yards
Allow an increase in height if it is to match the
roof pitch of the existing house
Limit the size of garages to a maximum of 800
sf
Study Session Meeting of February 2, 2016 (Item No. 7)
Title: History of Housing Code Research and Zoning Amendments 2006-2016 Page 41
!!"#$!$!
#!!
Study Session Meeting of February 2, 2016 (Item No. 7)
Title: History of Housing Code Research and Zoning Amendments 2006-2016 Page 42
%
%&#’#(’#
’)*’##($(#+
!
"#$%&
&’%(!
) !
***
+ ! !
,!
,,’$!’$!’’(
#!!!$’(
!$#’(’#"$(((#!
$$"#’!-!##(
’’’,’$!’!
,##’!’(’’$’
# ’$’’)( .
’’$’"(’’*’$
$#+/ $’01!!!#)-/
’!!!#)231-/’
!!!#)41
#$($!#!)’ ."(
’’-’!(’’’("’!#
$!’!$’)(
$"!!%$(!5(’!$$
((’’#)!1’
01!!!
Study Session Meeting of February 2, 2016 (Item No. 7)
Title: History of Housing Code Research and Zoning Amendments 2006-2016 Page 43
6’ ’#244"#$##
’244$#2778#’*’$!
(’’#!#’!-’("’#’#
’’$ ##’*’$#
$’!$"$!##’’’(
’$’
Study Session Meeting of February 2, 2016 (Item No. 7)
Title: History of Housing Code Research and Zoning Amendments 2006-2016 Page 44
*"$$’)’#
1!(#1#3#(’#
41#1’"
1!,#1#9#
(’
,"(###(’’’2$##
"##"*’2"
’’’-’("#5*’#
(#’51
’(’$#’
Study Session Meeting of February 2, 2016 (Item No. 7)
Title: History of Housing Code Research and Zoning Amendments 2006-2016 Page 45
’#$#!(
!(’’#!$’#$#
.!’#(!’4’2#!$
’#$#’#"*’’!
#$##"##"
Study Session Meeting of February 2, 2016 (Item No. 7)
Title: History of Housing Code Research and Zoning Amendments 2006-2016 Page 46
%’#$#’#(#$
(’!(’’#$##"##
"*’#’’27#’33#
(’’’#’’"# #(’
!"’’*’###$##"##
"((’(’%’
’$’#33#(’!
!#! $#"!
’23#
Study Session Meeting of February 2, 2016 (Item No. 7)
Title: History of Housing Code Research and Zoning Amendments 2006-2016 Page 47
*’(#’*’’("
#$’#"(’’’
.’’’’’#’
.:##;(#!!
’# !’’#$$#(’
()#
Study Session Meeting of February 2, 2016 (Item No. 7)
Title: History of Housing Code Research and Zoning Amendments 2006-2016 Page 48
*’$’#’’’("(’
’###; <#"*"#
9’; <#"!.#,"’
#’((##
Study Session Meeting of February 2, 2016 (Item No. 7)
Title: History of Housing Code Research and Zoning Amendments 2006-2016 Page 49
*’#"’(’#)(’’$’#’’
=’#’$’’’)*’##(
$$#’$#+
•,"#)+3431
•;#)+441
•;+,$$5!#1
•;5!!#)+078001
•;!!#)+0401
*’$’#’’#’####
#; <#"#’’’($#
033-’(""#(#$#’!6’#’
"####; <#"’!#’!
$#)’
’8#"##"’7(!$(’’
#5’!###(!$’#’
#$#*’$#’("’#
#
<’#’#’’(#!!’;
$##(#!# ’!’!
’"( .’’
Study Session Meeting of February 2, 2016 (Item No. 7)
Title: History of Housing Code Research and Zoning Amendments 2006-2016 Page 50
*’$’"(’’’("(’’
1’*’"#)"
15!$#*’"’#"##’
"#!###)’’!’’
Study Session Meeting of February 2, 2016 (Item No. 7)
Title: History of Housing Code Research and Zoning Amendments 2006-2016 Page 51
*’’"’(’#)(’’$’"(
’’=’#’$’’
’)*’##($$#’$"(+
•,"#)+781
•;#)+2881
•;+,$$5!#71
•;5!!#)+23080
•;!!#)+34
’#"##"##’(!$’
’##*’#$$’##’’
#’#’’’!$’
#$#
,’’$!#!##’#’
03#0*’($#073’
’"##’!
Study Session Meeting of February 2, 2016 (Item No. 7)
Title: History of Housing Code Research and Zoning Amendments 2006-2016 Page 52
*’ .’’’("(’#
!#$##"##"#"#)
#$##"##"*’"#)
.41#!#!"#
#!$#!#"##(!)#
Study Session Meeting of February 2, 2016 (Item No. 7)
Title: History of Housing Code Research and Zoning Amendments 2006-2016 Page 53
*’’"’(’#)(’’ .’’
=’#’$’’’)
*’##($$# .+
•,"#)+41
•;#)+3031
•;+,$$5!#31
•;5!!#)+31
•;!!#)+41
*’ .’’!$’#’
#$#"###"#’$##"##
"!!$’#$#*’##’
!!$’#’5’’#
*’ .’’"’##
#*’$#(#’-’ .
,.*(#020 ., #*
(#076,"’(’
’’03
Study Session Meeting of February 2, 2016 (Item No. 7)
Title: History of Housing Code Research and Zoning Amendments 2006-2016 Page 54
*’$’$"!’#$# .,
1 ’#!!’$#!"##
"’!(#)
*’#’(’#1’#,(#’"
"#$!’#%’
#$#(#!""(#1!’#
’#$#(#!$’!#"##"#$!
%’!$’#$#’0##’##$#
!#
Study Session Meeting of February 2, 2016 (Item No. 7)
Title: History of Housing Code Research and Zoning Amendments 2006-2016 Page 55
*’$’$"!’’#$# .,
1 ’#!!’$#!"##
"’!(#)
*’#’(’#1’#,(#’"
"#$!’#%’
#$#(#!""(#1!’
#’#$#(#!$’!#"##
##"#$’#’
#$#>#####3’#$#=5##3’#
"’##’$#’##$#’!#
Study Session Meeting of February 2, 2016 (Item No. 7)
Title: History of Housing Code Research and Zoning Amendments 2006-2016 Page 56
*’5$’"#"#"’"#$!#"
#)’*’##(#"(!’
## ’’(’’"+
•501#?1
•(’231!!!#),’
!!!"#5$#’
81@"/
•(’41!!!#),’
!!!"#5$#’
21
Study Session Meeting of February 2, 2016 (Item No. 7)
Title: History of Housing Code Research and Zoning Amendments 2006-2016 Page 57
*’"#"#’##(’"(
’’+
•0+ #"##$#"
•23+2#"##$#"
•4+#"##"
Study Session Meeting of February 2, 2016 (Item No. 7)
Title: History of Housing Code Research and Zoning Amendments 2006-2016 Page 58
*’"#"#’##(’ .’’+
•0 + #"##$#"
•23+ #"##$#"
•4+ #"##"
Study Session Meeting of February 2, 2016 (Item No. 7)
Title: History of Housing Code Research and Zoning Amendments 2006-2016 Page 59
*’#!!!!’’)#)!
7"6’#!"’!!
(’’!!!#)$$!A-(
##"-’(
$#)’’’’
!"#$% &&% %%%
’()*++,-&.) %%% &&%
/ % & 0%&&11’$1& &
&. .%#$ /&$%2-
Study Session Meeting of February 2, 2016 (Item No. 7)
Title: History of Housing Code Research and Zoning Amendments 2006-2016 Page 60
Meeting: Study Session
Meeting Date: December 12, 2016
Written Report: 8
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Financial Management Policies Update
RECOMMENDED ACTION: No formal action is requested at this time. At some point in the near
future the Council will be asked to formally approve the policy document
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the City Council desire to update the financial management
policies to current best practices and State Statutes?
SUMMARY: The City financial management policies are one of the most important aspects of long-
term financial planning and continued financial management planning. Many of the updated policies
were first adopted in 2008 and a few have been updated subsequently. The policies have all been
incorporated into a single source document for ease of reference and updating. Financial management
policies play a vital role in the cities credit rating. Directors, our investment advisor, our Municipal
Advisor (Ehlers), and the City attorney have reviewed the updated policies.
Here is a summary of the recommended polices from the Government Financial Officers Association
(GFOA)
NEXT STEPS: Updated policies will be on a future consent agenda and going forward will be updated
on an annual basis.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion
Updated Financial Management Policies
Prepared by: Tim Simon, Chief Financial Officer
Reviewed by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Relative Importance of Financial Policy Types (GFOA, financial policies pg 29)
Essential policies Highly advisable policies
Fund balance and reserves Accounting and financial reporting
Operating budget Revenues
Capital budgeting and planning Internal Controls
Debt management Expenditures
Long‐range financial planning Purchasing
Investment Risk Management
Economic Development
Study Session Meeting of December 12, 2016 (Item No. 8) Page 2
Title: Financial Management Polices Update
DISCUSSION
BACKGROUND: Many of the City’s financial policies were updated in 2008 with some minor
modifications subsequently. While the policies did cover all the essential policies, many of the
recommended polices where not formally included into a financial management policies document.
Similar to a “Personnel Policy” Manuel having all our financial policies included in a single source
document allows for ease of reference and updating. All changes are updates from best practices/state
statutes/city charter that work into the City’s operating practices. Our Municipal Advisor, Investment
Advisor, City Attorney and staff have reviewed the financial management policies.
SUMMARY OF PROPOSED FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT POLICY CHANGES:
Purpose: Added summary statement on why we have financial policies.
Objectives: Added objectives that we achieve with financial policies.
Revenue and Expenditures: Added procedures on how we estimate revenue and expenditures and
future forecasting. In addition, included a long-standing best practice of using one-time revenues for
one-time expenditures.
Cash Management: Added section that it is our goal to forecast expenditure needs to maximize
interest earnings as we currently make daily deposits.
Investments: Policy adopted in 2008, updated to current statutes and added section on safe keeping
requirements while keeping with the primary objective-safety of principal. Recommending extending
the maturity of investment to be increased to up to 7 years from the current policy of 5 years. This will
allow for us to go a little longer on the yield curve on our core portfolio that is not needed for daily
cash flow. In addition, working with our investment advisor we updated the investment diversification
chart to reduce the exposure risk on different market sectors.
Fund Balance: Policy adopted in 2008 and revision in 2013 to reflect classifications of fund balance
and definitions. The General Fund previously had an unassigned fund balance range of 35-50% with
a target of 40%. The updated policy adjusts the range to 40-50% to more align with AAA rated cities
and the cash flow needs of the city. In addition, the fund balance target was increased to 45% to reflect
the practice that has been in place for some time. Added section on the use of excess fund balance for
one-time expenditures; likewise we added a section describing the process to follow if fund balance
falls below the 40% range and the plan to bring it back. Maintained the fund balance policy on
enterprise funds, but added sections on special revenue, capital project and debt service funds. The
special revenue, capital project, and enterprise funds relate to our long range financial management
plan.
Debt: Policy adopted in 2008, with revision in 2013 for post issuance compliance policy. Added
section on refunding to provide guidance and benchmarking practices on when certain minimums are
maintained to move forward with advance and cross over refunding opportunities. Changed Financial
Advisor to Municipal Advisor through the various sections. Updated Debt Administration section to
include current practices of continuing disclosure requirements, arbitrage, communication and
reporting.
Study Session Meeting of December 12, 2016 (Item No. 8) Page 3
Title: Financial Management Polices Update
Capital Improvements: Policy documents the capitalization thresholds that are used in preparation
of the financial statements. In addition, the policy mentions the ten-year capital improvement plan that
Council reviews on an annual basis.
Risk Management: Discusses our risk management program and the relationship between deductibles
and premiums.
Accounting, Auditing, and Financial Reporting: Policy discusses the goal to maintain the highest
standard of accounting practices, in conformity with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles
(GAAP). In addition, we will have an annual independent audit which is required by state statute and
the charter.
Operating Budget: The Policy identified current practices regarding the operating budget of the
City. Including presenting a balanced budget, monthly financial reporting to Council, and budget
amendments each December.
Purchasing: Policy adopted in 2008, with revision in 2012 for updated bidding thresholds. Added
reference and link to the environmentally preferable purchasing policy when considering purchasing.
The updated policy incorporates the Federal grants requirements regarding purchasing, which is
required to be adopted by Council.
Financial Management Policies
Study Session Meeting of December 12, 2016 (Item No. 8)
Title: Financial Management Polices Update Page 4
i
Table of Contents
Purpose .......................................................................................................................................................................... 1
Objectives ...................................................................................................................................................................... 1
Revenue and Expenditure .............................................................................................................................................. 1
Cash Management ......................................................................................................................................................... 2
Investments .................................................................................................................................................................... 2
Fund Balance ................................................................................................................................................................. 7
Debt ............................................................................................................................................................................. 11
Capital Improvements .................................................................................................................................................. 19
Risk Management ........................................................................................................................................................ 20
Accounting, Auditing, and Financial Reporting .......................................................................................................... 20
Operating Budget ......................................................................................................................................................... 20
Purchasing ................................................................................................................................................................... 21
Study Session Meeting of December 12, 2016 (Item No. 8)
Title: Financial Management Polices Update Page 5
1
Purpose
The City of Saint Louis Park is responsible to its citizens to manage its resources wisely and
adopting financial policies is an important step to ensure that resources are managed responsibly.
The policies provide the framework for the overall fiscal management of the city and guide the
decision-making process.
Most of the policies represent long standing principles, traditions and practices which have guided
the city in the past and have helped maintain financial stability over the past years. These financial
policies will be reviewed periodically to determine if changes are necessary.
Objectives
Providing sound principles to guide the decisions of the City Council and management.
To provide both short-term and long-term financial stability to city government by ensuring
adequate funding for providing and protecting infrastructure needed by the community
today and for years to come.
Protecting and enhancing the city’s credit rating and prevent default on any municipal
obligations.
To protect the City Council’s policy-making ability by ensuring that important policy
decisions are not constrained by financial problems or emergencies.
To create a document that staff and Councilmembers can refer to during financial planning,
budget preparation and other financial management issues.
Revenue and Expenditure
The city will provide long-term financial stability through sound short and long term
financial planning.
The city will estimate its annual revenues and expenditures in a conservative manner so as
to reduce exposure to unforeseen circumstances.
The city will project revenues and expenditures for the next ten years and will update these
projections each budget process.
Whenever user charges and fees are determined to be appropriate and the direct benefits
are identifiable, the city will establish user charges and fees at a level related to the cost of
providing the service (operating, direct, indirect, and capital). Fees will be reviewed
annually.
To the extent feasible, one-time revenues will be applied toward one-time expenditures or
placed into reserves.
Study Session Meeting of December 12, 2016 (Item No. 8)
Title: Financial Management Polices Update Page 6
2
Cash Management
It is the policy of the city to pool cash balances from all funds to maximize investment
earnings. Exceptions include legal and specific practical requirements that demand
segregation of funds.
Funds received are to be deposited into an interest bearing account with the city’s currently
designated official depository by the next business day.
Cash on hand is to be kept to the minimum required to meet daily operational needs.
Investments
It is the policy of the City of St. Louis Park to establish guidelines for the investment of all public
funds. This policy is designed to ensure the prudent management of public funds, the availability
of operating and capital funds when needed and providing the highest investment return with
maximum security and minimum risk.
I. SCOPE
This policy applies to all financial assets of the City of St. Louis Park. While separate
investment funds are created to accommodate reporting on certain bonded indebtedness,
individual investments are purchased using a pooled approach for efficiency and maximum
investment opportunity. The City’s funds are defined in the City’s Comprehensive Annual
Financial Report and include:
General Fund;
Special Revenue Funds;
Debt Service Funds;
Capital Project Funds;
Proprietary Funds;
Internal Service Funds.
II. OBJECTIVES
The primary objectives in priority order of the City’s investment activities will be:
A. Safety of Principal
Safety of principal is the foremost objective of the investment program.
Investments shall be undertaken in a manner that seeks to ensure preservation of
capital in the overall portfolio. The objective will be to mitigate credit risk by
purchasing only highly rated securities with adequate collateral and interest rate
risk by matching maturities to cash flow needs.
B. Liquidity
The investment portfolio will remain sufficiently liquid to enable the City to meet
all operating and capital requirements that might reasonably be anticipated. A
portion of the portfolio may be placed in money market mutual funds or local
government investment pools which offer same-day liquidity.
Study Session Meeting of December 12, 2016 (Item No. 8)
Title: Financial Management Polices Update Page 7
3
C. Yield
The investment portfolio shall be designed with the objective of attaining a market
rate of return throughout budgetary and economic cycles, taking into account
investment risk constraints and liquidity needs. Yield is of secondary importance
compared to the safety and liquidity objectives described above.
III. STANDARDS OF CARE
The prudent person standard shall be applied to the management of the portfolio. This
standard states: “Investments shall be made with judgment and care, under circumstances
then prevailing, which persons of prudence, discretion, and intelligence exercise in the
management of their own affairs, not for speculation, but for investment, considering the
probable safety of their capital as well as the expected income to be derived.”
Investment officers acting in accordance with written procedures and this investment
policy and exercising due diligence shall be relieved of personal responsibility for an
individual security’s credit risk or market price changes, provided deviations from
expectations are reported in a timely fashion and the liquidity and the sale of securities are
carried out in accordance with the terms of this policy.
IV. INVESTMENT AUTHORIZATION
The City Treasurer is designated as the Investment Officer of the City and is responsible
for investment management decisions and activities. The Treasurer shall carryout
established written procedures and internal controls for the operation of the investment
program consistent with this investment policy. The Treasurer is authorized, as allowed
under the State Statute, to designate depositories and broker-dealers for City Funds.
V. CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Any city official involved in the investment process shall refrain from personal business
activity that could conflict with proper execution of the investment program or which could
impair his/her ability to make impartial investment decisions. Employees shall disclose
any material interests in financial institutions with which they conduct business.
Employees and officers shall refrain from undertaking personal investment transactions
with the same individual with which business is conducted on behalf of the City.
VI. AUTHORIZED FINANCIAL DEALERS AND INSTITUTIONS
The City Treasurer will maintain a list of financial institutions authorized to provide
investment services to the City. All broker/dealers who desire to become qualified bidders
for investment transactions must supply the Treasurer with:
Audited financial statements and proof of National Association of Security Dealers
(NASD) certification;
Study Session Meeting of December 12, 2016 (Item No. 8)
Title: Financial Management Polices Update Page 8
4
Proof of Minnesota Registration Broker Notification and Certification form required
by Minnesota Statutes 118A prior to any investment transactions with the City. The
Broker Notification must be updated annually.
The Official Broker/Dealer Questionnaire must be on file for each broker the City is
currently doing business with.
Certification of having read the City’s investment policy and agreement to conduct
investment transactions in accordance with the policy and objectives, as well as state
statutes.
Written agreement to disclose potential conflicts of interest or risk to public funds that
might arise out of business transactions between the firm and the City.
VII. AUTHORIZED INVESTMENTS
The City will be permitted by this policy to invest funds in those security types that are
permitted by Minnesota Statue 118A. Further investment parameters can be found in
section X.
VIII. COLLATERALIZATION
Full collateralization will be required on non-negotiable certificates of deposit. All
deposits will be insured or collateralized in accordance with Minnesota Statutes Chapter
118A.
IX. SAFEKEEPING
All trades of marketable securities will be executed (cleared and settled) on a delivery vs.
payment (DVP) basis to ensure that securities are deposited in the City of St. Louis Park’s
safekeeping institution prior to the release of funds.
If investments are held in safekeeping at a broker/dealer, they shall be kept at the
broker/dealer in the City’s name. Certificates will be held at the financial institution in the
City’s name. All securities should be a risk category one according to the Government
Accounting Standard No.3
Investments may be held in safekeeping with:
1. Any Federal Reserve Bank;
2. Any bank authorized under the laws of the United States or any state to exercise
corporate trust powers, including, but not limited to, the bank from which the
investment is purchased;
3. A primary reporting dealer in United States government securities to the Federal
Reserve Bank of New York; or
4. A securities broker-dealer or an affiliate of it, that is registered as a broker-dealer
under chapter 80A or is exempt from the registration requirements; is registered by
the securities and exchange commission; and maintains insurance through the
Security Investor Protection Corporation (SIPC) or excess insurance coverage in
an amount equal to or greater than the value of the securities held.
Study Session Meeting of December 12, 2016 (Item No. 8)
Title: Financial Management Polices Update Page 9
5
X. INVESTMENT PARAMETERS
The City’s investments shall be diversified as to specific maturity, issuer and institution in
order to minimize the risk to the portfolio. Investments should be purchased to match
expected cash flow needs, minimizing the market risk associated with the early sale of the
investments.
The following diversification parameters have been established and will be reviewed
periodically by the City Treasurer for all funds:
Sector
Sector
Maximum
(%)
Per Issuer
Maximum
(%)
Minimum Ratings Requirement1 Maximum
Maturity
U.S. Treasury
100%
100%
N/A
7 Years
(7 year avg.
life
for GNMA)
GNMA 40%
Other U.S. Government
Guaranteed (e.g. AID,
GTC)
10%
Federal Agency/GSE:
FNMA, FHLMC, FHLB,
FFCB 75%
40%4
N/A 7 Years
Federal Agency/GSE
other than those above 5%
Municipals (Revenue)
25% 5%
Highest ST or Two Highest LT Rating Categories
(SP-1/MIG 1, AA-/Aa3, or equivalent) 7 Years Municipals (General
Obligations)
Highest ST or Three Highest LT Rating Categories
(SP-1/MIG 1, A-/A3, or equivalent)
Collateralized Bank
Deposits 50% None, if fully
collateralized None, if fully collateralized. 7 Years
FDIC-Insured Bank
Deposits 100% FDIC limit
for insurance None, if fully FDIC-insured. 7 Years
Commercial Paper (CP) 25%2 5%3 Highest ST Rating Category by two NRSROs
(A-1/P-1, or equivalent) 270 Days
Bankers Acceptances (BA) 15% 5%3 Highest ST Rating Category by two NRSROs
(A-1/P-1, or equivalent) 270 Days
Intergovernmental Pools
(LGIPs) 100% 100%
Highest Fund Quality and Volatility Rating
Categories by all NRSROs, if rated
(AAAm/AAAf, S1, or equivalent)
N/A
Notes:
1 Rating by at least one SEC-registered Nationally Recognized Statistical Rating Organization (“NRSRO”), unless otherwise
noted. ST=Short-term; LT=Long-term.
2 Maximum allocation to all corporate and bank credit instruments is 25% combined.
3 Maximum across all non-government permitted investment sectors (excluding Treasuries, U.S. Federal Agencies and Agency
MBS) is 5% combined per issuer.
4 Maximum exposure to any one Federal agency, including the combined holdings of Agency debt is 40%.
Study Session Meeting of December 12, 2016 (Item No. 8)
Title: Financial Management Polices Update Page 10
6
XI. REPORTING AND REVIEW
A. The investment portfolio will be managed in accordance with the parameters
outlined in this policy. The portfolio will be designed with the objective of
obtaining a rate of return throughout budgeting and economic cycles,
commensurate with the investment risk constraints and cash flow needs.
B. The City’s investment policy shall be adopted by resolution by the City Council.
The City’s investments shall be reported to the City Council quarterly. The
information reported to the City Council should include:
1. A listing of individual securities held at end of reporting period.
2. A listing of investments by maturity date.
3. The percentage of the total portfolio in each type of investment.
4. Rate of return for quarter.
5. Market to market analysis.
C. Interest earned on investments shall be allocated to various funds based on each
fund’s average monthly cash balance.
XII. STATUTORY AUTHORITY
Specific investment parameters for the investment of public funds by the City are found in
Minnesota Statutes Chapters 118A.
XIII. POLICY CONSIDERATIONS
A. Interest Allocation
The general fund shall be allocated a management fee equal to three percent of the
total net investment earnings of the investment pool, excluding investments related
to the Economic Development Authority.
B. Amendments
Any changes must be approved by City Council.
Study Session Meeting of December 12, 2016 (Item No. 8)
Title: Financial Management Polices Update Page 11
7
Fund Balance
The purpose of the fund balance policies is to establish appropriate fund balance levels for each
fund that is primarily supported by property tax revenues or user fees. These policies will ensure
that adequate resources are available to meet cash flow needs for carrying out the regular
operations of the City, as well as to meet the fund balance requirements identified in the City’s
Long Range financial Management Plan.
The City Council authorizes the Chief Financial Officer and/or City Manager to assign fund
balance that reflects the City’s intended use of those funds. When both restricted and unrestricted
resources are available for use, it is the City’s policy to first use restricted resources, and then use
unrestricted resources as they are needed. When unrestricted resources are available for use, it is
the City’s policy to use resources in the following order; 1) committed 2) assigned 3) unassigned.
These fund balance classifications apply only to Governmental Funds, not Enterprise Funds.
A. Classification of Fund Balance/Procedures
1. Nonspendable
Amounts that cannot be spent because they are not in a spendable form or are legally
or contractually required to be maintained intact. Examples are inventory or prepaid
items.
2. Restricted
Amounts subject to externally enforceable legal restrictions. Examples include
grants, tax increment and bond proceeds.
3. Unrestricted
The total of committed fund balance, assigned fund balance, and unassigned fund
balance:
Committed fund balance – amounts that can be used only for the specific
purposes determined by a formal action of the government’s highest level of
decision-making authority. Commitments may be changed or lifted only by the
government taking the same formal action that imposed the constraint originally.
Assigned fund balance – amounts intended to be used for a specific purpose;
intent can be expressed by the government body or by an official or body to which
the governing body delegates the authority.
Unassigned fund balance – residual amounts that are available for any purpose
in the general fund. The General fund should be the only fund that reports a
positive unassigned fund balance amount. This classification is also used to
account for deficit fund balances in other governmental funds.
Study Session Meeting of December 12, 2016 (Item No. 8)
Title: Financial Management Polices Update Page 12
8
A. General Fund
The city will maintain an unassigned General fund balance of not less than 40-50%
of subsequent year’s budgeted expenditures with a target of 45%; however, this need
could fluctuate with each year’s budget objectives.
Annual proposed General fund budgets shall include this benchmark policy. Council
shall review the amounts in fund balance in conjunction with the annual budget
approval, and make adjustments as necessary to meet expected cash-flow needs.
In the event the unassigned General fund balance will be calculated to be less than
the minimum requirement at the completion of any fiscal year, the city shall plan to
adjust budget resources in the subsequent fiscal years to bring the fund balance into
compliance with this policy.
The City Council may consider appropriating (for authorized purposes) year-end
fund balance in excess of the policy level or increasing the minimum fund balance.
An example of preferred use of excess fund balance would be for one-time
expenditures, such as:
1. to fund one-time capital items
2. to fund a one-time (non-recurring) expenditure or grant match
opportunity
3. to provide catch-up funding or long-term obligations not previously
recognized
4. to fund a one-time unplanned revenue shortfall
5. to fund an unplanned expenditure due to an emergency or disaster
6. to retire existing debt
7. to fund policy shifts by other governmental entities having a negative
impact on the city
Appropriation from the minimum fund balance shall require the approval of the City
Council and shall be used only for non-recurring expenditures, unforeseen
emergencies or immediate capital needs that cannot be accommodated through
current year savings. Replenishment recommendations will accompany the decision
to utilize fund balance.
At the discretion of the City Council, fund balance may be committed for specific
purposes by resolution designating the specific use of fund balance and the amount.
The resolution would need to be approved no later than the close of the reporting
period and will remain binding unless removed in the same manner.
Study Session Meeting of December 12, 2016 (Item No. 8)
Title: Financial Management Polices Update Page 13
9
B. Enterprise Funds
These funds were established to account for the operation of Water, Sewer, Solid Waste,
and Storm Water operations which are designed to be self-supporting from user charges.
1) Water Utility
This fund is used to account for the provision of water services to the customers of the
City related to administration, operations, maintenance, billing and collection. This
fund is financed predominantly through user charges.
The City will strive to maintain an unrestricted net position in the Water Utility Fund
in the range of 35-50% of the subsequent year’s budgeted expenditures. Since a
significant source of revenue in the Water Utility Fund comes from user charges,
maintaining an unrestricted net position that is equal to at least 35-50% of the
subsequent year’s expenditures ensures that sufficient resources are available to fund
basic City functions between receipts of user charges. In addition, due to the mature
water infrastructure within the City, a higher percentage of fund balance is prudent to
address any potential issues.
2) Sewer Utility
This fund is used to account for the provisions of sewer services to the customers of
the City. All activities necessary to provide this utility to the customers are
administration, operations, maintenance, billing and collection. This fund is financed
predominantly through user charges.
The City will strive to maintain an unrestricted net position in the Sewer Utility Fund
in the range of 35-50% of the subsequent year’s budgeted expenditures. Since a
significant source of revenue in the Sewer Utility Fund comes from user charges,
maintaining an unrestricted net position that is equal to at least 35-50% of the
subsequent year’s expenditures ensures that sufficient resources are available to fund
basic City functions between receipts of user charges. In addition, due to the age of
sewer infrastructure within the City, a higher percentage of fund balance is prudent to
address any potential issues.
3) Solid Waste Utility
This fund is used to account for the provisions of solid waste services to the customers
of the City related to collection, disposal and recycling of solid waste. This fund is
financed predominantly through user charges and investment income.
The City will strive to maintain an unrestricted net position in the Solid Waste Utility
Fund in the range of 25-40% of the subsequent year’s budgeted expenditures. Due to
less volatility, an unrestricted net position percentage is justifiable. This will ensure
that sufficient resources are available to fund basic Solid Waste activities.
Study Session Meeting of December 12, 2016 (Item No. 8)
Title: Financial Management Polices Update Page 14
10
4) Storm Water Utility
This fund is used to account for the provision of storm water to the customers of the
City related to administration, operations, maintenance, billing and collection. This
fund is financed predominantly through user charges and investment income.
The City will strive to maintain an unrestricted net position in the Storm Water Utility
Fund in the range of 25-40% of the subsequent year’s budgeted expenditures. Due to
less volatility, an unrestricted net position percentage is justifiable. This will ensure
that sufficient resources are available to fund basic Storm Water activities.
C. Special Revenue Funds
The city will maintain reserves in the Special Revenue funds at levels sufficient to
provide working capital for current expenditure needs plus an amount that is estimated
to be needed to meet legal restrictions, requirements by external funding sources and/or
pay for future capital projects. Future capital projects must be identified and quantified
in a written plan for the fund, which shall be included in the city’s annual CIP and in
congruence with the long range financial management plan.
D. Debt Service Funds
The city will maintain reserves in the Debt Service funds at levels sufficient to provide
working capital for current debt service expenditure needs plus an amount that is
estimated to be needed to meet legal restrictions and requirements by external funding
sources.
E. Capital Project Funds
The city will maintain reserves in the Capital Project funds at levels sufficient to provide
working capital for current expenditure needs plus an amount that is estimated to be
needed to meet legal restrictions, requirements by external funding sources and/or pay
for future capital projects. Future capital projects must be identified and quantified in a
written finance plan for the fund, which shall be included in the city’s annual CIP and in
congruence with the long range financial management plan.
Study Session Meeting of December 12, 2016 (Item No. 8)
Title: Financial Management Polices Update Page 15
11
Debt
It is the policy of the City of St. Louis Park to establish guidelines for the use of debt in financing
capital acquisitions, repayment of debt, and management of the overall level of debt in the city.
A. Credit Ratings: The City of St. Louis Park seeks to maintain the highest possible credit
ratings for all categories of short- and long-term General Obligation debt that can be achieved
without compromising delivery of basic City services and achievement of adopted City policy
objectives.
The City recognizes that external economic, natural, or other events may from time to time
affect the creditworthiness of its debt. Nevertheless, the Mayor and City Council are
committed to ensuring that actions within their control are prudent and consistent with the
highest standards of public financial management, and supportive of the creditworthiness
objectives defined herein.
B. Financial Disclosure: The City is committed to full and complete financial disclosure, and
to cooperating fully with rating agencies, institutional and individual investors, City
departments and agencies, other levels of government, and the general public to share clear,
comprehensible, and accurate financial information. The City is committed to meeting
disclosure requirements on a timely and comprehensive basis.
Official statements accompanying debt issues, Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports, and
continuing disclosure statements will meet (at a minimum) the standards articulated by the
Municipal Standards Rulemaking Board (MSRB), the Government Accounting Standards
Board (GASB), the National Federation of Municipal Analysts, the Securities and Exchange
Commission (SEC), and Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP). The Finance
Department shall be responsible for ongoing disclosure to established national information
repositories (NRMSRs) and for maintaining compliance with disclosure standards
promulgated by state and national regulatory bodies.
C. Debt Capacity: The City will keep outstanding debt within the limits prescribed by State
statute and at levels consistent with its creditworthiness objectives.
D. Purposes and Uses of Debt
The City will normally rely on existing funds, project revenues, and grants from other
governments to finance capital projects such as major maintenance, equipment acquisition,
and small development projects. Debt may be used for capital projects only when a project
generates revenues over time that are used to retire the debt, when debt is an appropriate
means to achieve a fair allocation of costs between current and future beneficiaries.
a. Asset Life: The City will consider the use of debt for the acquisition, development,
replacement, maintenance, or expansion of an asset only if it has a useful life of at
least five years. Debt will not be issued for periods exceeding the useful life or
average useful lives of the project or projects to be financed.
Study Session Meeting of December 12, 2016 (Item No. 8)
Title: Financial Management Polices Update Page 16
12
b. Project Financing: In general, the City expects to make a cash contribution to any
project with an expected useful life of less than 10 years, rather than relying on
100% debt financing.
c. Debt Standards and Structure
Debt will be structured for the shortest period consistent with a fair allocation of
costs to current and future beneficiaries or users. Debt will be structured to achieve
the lowest possible net cost to the City given market conditions, the urgency of the
capital project, net revenues expected from the project (if any), and the nature and
type of security provided. Moreover, to the extent possible, the City will design the
repayment of its overall debt so as to recapture rapidly its credit capacity for future
use. The City shall strive to repay at least 50 percent within ten years.
d. Backloading: The City will seek to structure debt with level principal and interest
costs over the life of the debt. "Backloading" of costs will be considered only when
natural disasters or extraordinary or unanticipated external factors make the short-
term cost of the debt prohibitive, when the benefits derived from the debt issuance
can clearly be demonstrated to be greater in the future than in the present, when
such structuring is beneficial to the City’s overall amortization schedule, or when
such structuring will allow debt service to more closely match project revenues
during the early years of the project’s operation.
E. Refundings:
a. Advance refunding bonds shall not be utilized unless present value savings of
4% to 5% of refunded principal is achieved and unless the call date is within 3
years. The state law minimum is 3% of refunded principal. Bonds shall not be
advance refunded if there is a reasonable chance that revenues will be sufficient
to pre-pay the debt at the call date.
b.Current refunding bonds shall be utilized when present value savings of 3% of
refunded principal is achieved or in concert with other bond issues to save costs
of issuance.
c. Special assessment or revenue debt will not be refunded unless the Chief
Financial Officer determines that special assessments or other sufficient revenues
will not be collected soon enough to pay off the debt fully at that call date.
F. Debt Administration and Practices
In general, City debt will be issued through a competitive bidding process. Bids will be
awarded on a true interest cost basis (TIC), providing other bidding requirements are
satisfied. In the event that the City receives more than one bid with identical TICs, the tie
may be broken by a flip of a coin.
a. Municipal Advisor: The City will retain an external municipal advisor, selected
by the City’s Finance Division of the Administrative Services Department. The
utilization of the municipal advisor for particular bond sales will be at the discretion
of the Chief Financial Officer on a case by case basis and pursuant to the municipal
Study Session Meeting of December 12, 2016 (Item No. 8)
Title: Financial Management Polices Update Page 17
13
advisory services contract. The municipal advisors will have comprehensive
municipal debt issuance experience with diverse financial structuring requirements
and pricing of municipal securities.
b. Bond Counsel: The City will retain external bond counsel for all debt issues. No
debt will be issued by the City without a written opinion by bond counsel affirming
that the City is authorized to issue the debt, stating that the City has met all state
constitutional and statutory requirements necessary for issuance, and determining
the debt’s federal income tax status.
c. Fiscal Agents: The Finance Division will utilize a fiscal agent on all City
indebtedness. Fiscal agent fees for outstanding bonds will be paid from the Bond
Interest and Redemption Fund, unless specified otherwise by the Chief Financial
Officer.
d. Disclosure: The city shall comply with SEC rule 15(c)2(12) on primary and
continuing disclosure. Continuing disclosure reports shall be filed no later than 180
days after receipt of the city’s annual financial report.
e. Arbitrage: The city shall complete an arbitrage rebate report for each issue no less
than every five years after its date of issuance.
f. Communication: The city will maintain frequent and regular communications
with bond rating agencies about its financial condition and will follow a policy of
full disclosure in every financial report and bond prospectus. The city will comply
with Securities Exchange Commission (SEC) reporting requirements.
g. Reporting: The City will report at least annually the outstanding bonds to the City
Council.
G. Post Issuance Debt Compliance Policy
The City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota (the “Issuer”) issues tax-exempt governmental bonds
(“TEBs”) to finance various public projects. As an issuer of TEBs, the Issuer is required by
the terms of Sections 103 and 141-150 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended
(the “Code”), and the Treasury Regulations promulgated thereunder (the “Treasury
Regulations”), to take certain actions after the issuance of TEBs to ensure the continuing tax-
exempt status of such bonds. In addition, Section 6001 of the Code and Section 1.6001-1(a)
of the Treasury Regulations impose record retention requirements on the Issuer with respect
to its TEBs. This Post-Issuance Compliance Procedure and Policy for Tax-Exempt
Governmental Bonds (the “Policy”) has been approved and adopted by the Issuer to ensure
that the Issuer complies with its post-issuance compliance obligations under applicable
provisions of the Code and Treasury Regulations.
1. Effective Date and Term. The effective date of this Policy is the date of approval
by the City Council of the Issuer (November 5, 2012) and this Policy shall remain in effect
until superseded or terminated by action of the City Council of the Issuer.
Study Session Meeting of December 12, 2016 (Item No. 8)
Title: Financial Management Polices Update Page 18
14
2. Responsible Parties. The City’s Chief Financial Officer of the Issuer (the
“Compliance Officer”) shall be the party primarily responsible for ensuring that the Issuer
successfully carries out its post-issuance compliance requirements under applicable
provisions of the Code and Treasury Regulations. The Compliance Officer will be assisted
by the staff of the Issuer and other officials when appropriate. The Compliance Officer of
the Issuer will also be assisted in carrying out post-issuance compliance requirements by the
following organizations:
(a) Bond Counsel (as of the date of approval of this Policy, bond counsel for the Issuer
is Kennedy & Graven, Chartered);
(b) Municipal Advisor (as of the date of approval of this Policy, the municipal advisor
of the Issuer is Ehlers & Associates, Inc.);
(c) Paying Agent (the person, organization, or officer of the Issuer primarily
responsible for providing paying agent services for the Issuer); and
(d) Rebate Analyst (the organization primarily responsible for providing rebate analyst
services for the Issuer).
The Compliance Officer shall be responsible for assigning post-issuance compliance
responsibilities to members of the Finance Department and other staff of the Issuer, Bond
Counsel, Paying Agent, and Rebate Analyst. The Compliance Officer shall utilize such other
professional service organizations as are necessary to ensure compliance with the post-
issuance compliance requirements of the Issuer. The Compliance Officer shall provide
training and educational resources to Issuer staff responsible for ensuring compliance with
any portion of the post-issuance compliance requirements of this Policy.
3. Post-Issuance Compliance Actions. The Compliance Officer shall take the
following post-issuance compliance actions or shall verify that the following post-issuance
compliance actions have been taken on behalf of the Issuer with respect to each issue of
TEBs:
(a) The Compliance Officer shall prepare a transcript of principal documents (this
action will be the primary responsibility of Bond Counsel).
(b) The Compliance Officer shall file with the Internal Revenue Service (the “IRS”),
within the time limit imposed by Section 149(e) of the Code and applicable Treasury
Regulations, an Information Return for Tax-Exempt Governmental Obligations, Form 8038-
G (this action will be the primary responsibility of Bond Counsel).
(c) The Compliance Officer shall prepare an “allocation memorandum” for each issue
of TEBs in accordance with the provisions of Treasury Regulations, Section 1.148-6(d)(1),
that accounts for the allocation of the proceeds of the tax-exempt bonds to expenditures not
later than the earlier of:
Study Session Meeting of December 12, 2016 (Item No. 8)
Title: Financial Management Polices Update Page 19
15
(i) eighteen (18) months after the later of (A) the date the expenditure is paid, or (B) the
date the project, if any, that is financed by the tax-exempt bond issue is placed in service; or
(ii) the date sixty (60) days after the earlier of (A) the fifth anniversary of the issue date of
the tax-exempt bond issue, or (B) the date sixty (60) days after the retirement of the tax-
exempt bond issue.
Preparation of the allocation memorandum will be the primary responsibility of the
Compliance Officer (in consultation with the Municipal Advisor and Bond Counsel).
(d) The Compliance Officer, in consultation with Bond Counsel, shall identify
proceeds of TEBs that must be yield-restricted and shall monitor the investments of any
yield-restricted funds to ensure that the yield on such investments does not exceed the yield
to which such investments are restricted.
(e) In consultation with Bond Counsel, the Compliance Officer shall determine
whether the Issuer is subject to the rebate requirements of Section 148(f) of the Code with
respect to each issue of TEBs. In consultation with Bond Counsel, the Compliance Officer
shall determine, with respect to each issue of TEBs of the Issuer, whether the Issuer is eligible
for any of the temporary periods for unrestricted investments and is eligible for any of the
spending exceptions to the rebate requirements. The Compliance Officer shall contact the
Rebate Analyst (and, if appropriate, Bond Counsel) prior to the fifth anniversary of the date
of issuance of each issue of TEBs of the Issuer and each fifth anniversary thereafter to arrange
for calculations of the rebate requirements with respect to such TEBs. If a rebate payment
is required to be paid by the Issuer, the Compliance Officer shall prepare or cause to be
prepared the Arbitrage Rebate, Yield Reduction and Penalty in Lieu of Arbitrage Rebate,
Form 8038-T, and submit such Form 8038-T to the IRS with the required rebate payment. If
the Issuer is authorized to recover a rebate payment previously paid, the Compliance Officer
shall prepare or cause to be prepared the Request for Recovery of Overpayments Under
Arbitrage Rebate Provisions, Form 8038-R, with respect to such rebate recovery, and submit
such Form 8038-R to the IRS.
4. Procedures for Monitoring, Verification, and Inspections. The Compliance Officer
shall institute such procedures as the Compliance Officer shall deem necessary and
appropriate to monitor the use of the proceeds of TEBs issued by the Issuer, to verify that
certain post-issuance compliance actions have been taken by the Issuer, and to provide for
the inspection of the facilities financed with the proceeds of such bonds. At a minimum, the
Compliance Officer shall establish the following procedures:
(a) The Compliance Officer shall monitor the use of the proceeds of TEBs to:
(i) ensure compliance with the expenditure and investment requirements under the temporary
period provisions set forth in Treasury Regulations, Section 1.148-2(e); (ii) ensure
compliance with the safe harbor restrictions on the acquisition of investments set forth in
Treasury Regulations, Section 1.148-5(d); (iii) ensure that the investments of any yield-
restricted funds do not exceed the yield to which such investments are restricted; and
Study Session Meeting of December 12, 2016 (Item No. 8)
Title: Financial Management Polices Update Page 20
16
(iv) determine whether there has been compliance with the spend-down requirements under
the spending exceptions to the rebate requirements set forth in Treasury Regulations,
Section 1.148-7.
(b) The Compliance Officer shall monitor the use of all bond-financed facilities in
order to: (i) determine whether private business uses of bond-financed facilities have
exceeded the de minimis limits set forth in Section 141(b) of the Code as a result of leases
and subleases, licenses, management contracts, research contracts, naming rights
agreements, or other arrangements that provide special legal entitlements to
nongovernmental persons; and (ii) determine whether private security or payments that
exceed the de minimis limits set forth in Section 141(b) of the Code have been provided by
nongovernmental persons with respect to such bond-financed facilities. The Compliance
Officer shall provide training and educational resources to any Issuer staff who have the
primary responsibility for the operation, maintenance, or inspection of bond-financed
facilities with regard to the limitations on the private business use of bond-financed facilities
and as to the limitations on the private security or payments with respect to bond-financed
facilities.
(c) The Compliance Officer shall undertake the following with respect to each
outstanding issue of TEBs of the Issuer: (i) an annual review of the books and records
maintained by the Issuer with respect to such bonds; and (ii) an annual physical inspection
of the facilities financed with the proceeds of such bonds, conducted by the Compliance
Officer with the assistance with any Issuer staff who have the primary responsibility for the
operation, maintenance, or inspection of such bond-financed facilities.
5. Record Retention Requirements. The Compliance Officer shall collect and retain
the following records with respect to each issue of TEBs of the Issuer and with respect to the
facilities financed with the proceeds of such bonds: (i) audited financial statements of the
Issuer; (ii) appraisals, demand surveys, or feasibility studies with respect to the facilities to
be financed with the proceeds of such bonds; (iii) publications, brochures, and newspaper
articles related to the bond financing; (iv) trustee or paying agent statements; (v) records of
all investments and the gains (or losses) from such investments; (vi) paying agent or trustee
statements regarding investments and investment earnings; (vii) reimbursement resolutions
and expenditures reimbursed with the proceeds of such bonds; (viii) allocations of proceeds
to expenditures (including costs of issuance) and the dates and amounts of such expenditures
(including requisitions, draw schedules, draw requests, invoices, bills, and cancelled checks
with respect to such expenditures); (ix) contracts entered into for the construction,
renovation, or purchase of bond-financed facilities; (x) an asset list or schedule of all bond-
financed depreciable property and any depreciation schedules with respect to such assets or
property; (xi) records of the purchases and sales of bond-financed assets; (xii) private
business uses of bond-financed facilities that arise subsequent to the date of issue through
leases and subleases, licenses, management contracts, research contracts, naming rights
agreements, or other arrangements that provide special legal entitlements to
nongovernmental persons and copies of any such agreements or instruments; (xiii) arbitrage
rebate reports and records of rebate and yield reduction payments; (xiv) resolutions or other
actions taken by the governing body subsequent to the date of issue with respect to such
Study Session Meeting of December 12, 2016 (Item No. 8)
Title: Financial Management Polices Update Page 21
17
bonds; (xv) formal elections authorized by the Code or Treasury Regulations that are taken
with respect to such bonds; (xvi) relevant correspondence relating to such bonds; (xvii)
documents related to guaranteed investment contracts or certificates of deposit, credit
enhancement transactions, and financial derivatives entered into subsequent to the date of
issue; (xviii) copies of all Form 8038-Ts and Form 8038-Rs filed with the IRS; and (xix) the
transcript prepared with respect to such TEBs.
The records collected by the Issuer shall be stored in any format deemed appropriate by
the Compliance Officer and shall be retained for a period equal to the life of the TEBs with
respect to which the records are collected (which shall include the life of any bonds issued
to refund any portion of such TEBs or to refund any refunding bonds) plus three (3) years.
6. Remedies. In consultation with Bond Counsel, the Compliance Officer shall
become acquainted with the remedial actions under Treasury Regulations, Section 1.141-12,
to be utilized in the event that private business use of bond-financed facilities exceeds the de
minimis limits under Section 141(b)(1) of the Code. In consultation with Bond Counsel, the
Compliance Officer shall become acquainted with the Tax Exempt Bonds Voluntary Closing
Agreement Program described in Notice 2008-31, 2008-11 I.R.B. 592, to be utilized as a
means for an issuer to correct any post-issuance infractions of the Code and Treasury
Regulations with respect to outstanding tax-exempt bonds.
7. Continuing Disclosure Obligations. In addition to its post-issuance compliance
requirements under applicable provisions of the Code and Treasury Regulations, the Issuer
has agreed to provide continuing disclosure, such as annual financial information and
material event notices, pursuant to a continuing disclosure certificate or similar document
(the “Continuing Disclosure Document”) prepared by Bond Counsel and made a part of the
transcript with respect to each issue of bonds of the Issuer that is subject to such continuing
disclosure requirements. The Continuing Disclosure Documents are executed by the Issuer
to assist the underwriters of the Issuer’s bonds in meeting their obligations under Securities
and Exchange Commission Regulation, 17 C.F.R. Section 240.15c2-12, as in effect and
interpreted from time to time (“Rule 15c2-12”). The continuing disclosure obligations of the
Issuer are governed by the Continuing Disclosure Documents and by the terms of Rule 15c2-
12. The Compliance Officer is primarily responsible for undertaking such continuing
disclosure obligations and to monitor compliance with such obligations.
8. Other Post-Issuance Actions. If, in consultation with Bond Counsel, Municipal
Advisor, Paying Agent, Rebate Analyst, or the City Council, the Compliance Officer
determines that any additional action not identified in this Policy must be taken by the
Compliance Officer to ensure the continuing tax-exempt status of any issue of governmental
bonds of the Issuer, the Compliance Officer shall take such action if the Compliance Officer
has the authority to do so. If, after consultation with Bond Counsel, Municipal Advisor,
Paying Agent, Rebate Analyst, or the City Council, the Compliance Officer determines that
this Policy must be amended or supplemented to ensure the continuing tax-exempt status of
any issue of governmental bonds of the Issuer, the Compliance Officer shall recommend to
the City Council that this Policy be so amended or supplemented.
Study Session Meeting of December 12, 2016 (Item No. 8)
Title: Financial Management Polices Update Page 22
18
9. Taxable Governmental Bonds. Most of the provisions of this Policy, other than the
provisions of Section 7, are not applicable to governmental bonds the interest on which is
includable in gross income for federal income tax purposes. On the other hand, if an issue
of taxable governmental bonds is later refunded with the proceeds of an issue of tax-exempt
governmental refunding bonds, then the uses of the proceeds of the taxable governmental
bonds and the uses of the facilities financed with the proceeds of the taxable governmental
bonds will be relevant to the tax-exempt status of the governmental refunding bonds.
Therefore, if there is any reasonable possibility that an issue of taxable governmental bonds
may be refunded, in whole or in part, with the proceeds of an issue of TEBs, then for purposes
of this Policy, the Compliance Officer shall treat the issue of taxable governmental bonds as
if such issue were an issue of TEBs and shall carry out and comply with the requirements of
this Policy with respect to such taxable governmental bonds. The Compliance Officer shall
seek the advice of Bond Counsel as to whether there is any reasonable possibility of issuing
TEBs to refund an issue of taxable governmental bonds.
10. Qualified 501(c)(3) Bonds. If the City issues bonds to finance a facility to be owned
by the City but which may be used, in whole or in substantial part, by a nongovernmental
organization that is exempt from federal income taxation under Section 501(a) of the Code
as a result of the application of Section 501(c)(3) of the Code (a “501(c)(3) Organization”),
the City may elect to issue the bonds as “qualified 501(c)(3) bonds” the interest on which is
exempt from federal income taxation under Sections 103 and 145 of the Code and applicable
Treasury Regulations. Although such qualified 501(c)(3) bonds are not governmental bonds,
at the election of the Compliance Officer, for purposes of this Policy, the Compliance Officer
shall treat such issue of qualified 501(c)(3) bonds as if such issue were an issue of tax-exempt
governmental bonds and shall carry out and comply with the requirements of this Policy with
respect to such qualified 501(c)(3) bonds. Alternatively, in cases where compliance activities
are reasonably within the control of the relevant 501(c)(3) Organization, the Compliance
Officer may determine that all or some portion of compliance responsibilities described in
this Policy shall be assigned to the relevant organization.
Study Session Meeting of December 12, 2016 (Item No. 8)
Title: Financial Management Polices Update Page 23
19
Capital Improvements
The city will maintain buildings, infrastructure, utilities, parks, facilities, and other assets in a
manner that protects the investment and minimizes future maintenance and replacement costs.
The Chief Financial Officer will annually prepare and submit to the City Council a Capital
Improvements Plan (CIP) for the next ten fiscal years and in congruence with the Long Range
Financial Management Plan.
At a minimum, the CIP will include a description of the proposed improvement, the estimated cost,
timing and potential sources of funding. If applicable, the CIP will identify implications for the
operating budget created by the proposed improvement.
The city will maintain a system of capital charges for sanitary sewer, storm water, and water
services. The charges will be collected when undeveloped land is platted and when new users
connect to the system. Revenues from the capital charges will be accumulated and used to pay for
the capital investment related to the maintenance and expansion of the utility systems.
The city will strive to maximize the revenues collected from capital charges in order to protect
existing utility users from bearing the costs associated with growth.
The city will maintain an equipment acquisition and replacement program. The city will annually
update the plan to provide funding for all equipment purchases over $25,000 to be made in the
next ten fiscal years. The city shall attempt to fund the program without the use of debt. It is
recognized that State imposed levy limits may create the need to incur debt for equipment
acquisition.
The city will prepare an on-going plan for the reconstruction of all city streets. The city will
provide a sustainable source of funding for the street reconstruction program. The city will
annually prepare cash flow projections for street reconstruction projects to ensure adequate and
ongoing funding.
Capital Assets and Capitalization Thresholds
A capital asset is a tangible asset that has a life expectancy of more than one year. For financial
statement reporting purposes, the city reports capital assets in the following categories and has
established a capitalization threshold for each category:
Capitalization
Category Threshold__
Land All
Buildings $5,000
Other Improvements $25,000
Machinery and equipment $10,000
Vehicles $10,000
Infrastructure $250,000
Construction in progress Accumulate all costs and capitalize
if over $100,000 when completed
Other assets $5,000
Study Session Meeting of December 12, 2016 (Item No. 8)
Title: Financial Management Polices Update Page 24
20
Another criterion for recording capital assets is capital-related debt. Capital assets purchased with
debt proceeds should be capitalized and depreciated over their estimated useful life.
The amount to record for a capital asset is any cost incurred to put the asset into its usable
condition. Donated capital assets should be reported at fair value at the time of acquisition.
Risk Management
1. The city will maintain a Risk Management Program that will minimize the impact of legal
liabilities, natural disasters or other emergencies through the following activities:
Loss Prevention. Prevent negative occurrences.
Loss Control. Reduce or mitigate expenses of a negative occurrence.
Loss Financing. Provide a means to finance losses.
Loss Information Management. Collect and analyze relevant data to make prudent
loss prevention, loss control and loss financing decisions.
2. The city will maintain an active Safety Committee comprised of city employees.
3. The city will periodically conduct educational safety and risk avoidance programs, through
its Safety Committee and with the participation of its insurers, within its various
departments.
4. The city will maintain the highest deductible amount, considering the relationship between
cost and the city’s ability to sustain the loss.
Accounting, Auditing, and Financial Reporting
The city will establish and maintain the highest standard of accounting practices, in
conformity with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP).
The city will attempt to maintain the GFOA Certificate of Excellence in Financial
Reporting.
The city will arrange for an annual audit of all funds and account groups by independent
certified public accountants or by the State Auditor’s Office.
Regular monthly reports present a summary of financial activity by major type of funds as
compared to budget. Department directors will review monthly reports comparing actual
revenues and expenditures to the budgeted amounts. Any negative variance in any revenue
or spending category (Personal Services, Supplies, Other Charges and Services, Capital
Outlay) for their department as a whole projected to exceed $10,000 by year-end will be
reported in writing to the Chief Financial Officer and the City Manager.
Operating Budget
The City Manager, when submitting the proposed budget to the City Council, will submit
a balanced budget in which appropriations will not exceed the total of the estimated
General fund revenue and the fund balance available after applying the General Fund
Reserve Policy.
The city may annually appropriate a contingency appropriation in the General fund budget
to provide for unanticipated expenditures of a non-recurring nature.
In the event there is an unanticipated shortfall of revenues in a current year budget, the
Chief Financial Officer may recommend the use of a portion of the General fund balance,
not to exceed the amount of available cash or reserved for working capital or already
appropriated to the General fund current budget.
Study Session Meeting of December 12, 2016 (Item No. 8)
Title: Financial Management Polices Update Page 25
21
The budget will provide for adequate maintenance of buildings and equipment, and for
their orderly replacement.
The Chief Financial Officer will prepare regular monthly reports comparing actual
revenues and expenditures to the budgeted amount. All significant variances will be
summarized in a written report to the City Manager and City Council.
The operating budget will describe the major goals to be achieved and the services and
programs to be delivered for the level of funding provided.
Before adding a new program or service, the city will consider the cost benefit analysis of
using outside contractors versus in-house provided services.
The city will not sell assets or use one-time accounting principle changes to balance the
budget for any fund.
The city will provide ample time and opportunity for public input into its budget setting
deliberations each year, including any required public hearings.
Directors will be responsible for administration of their departmental operating budget.
Requests for budget adjustments must be submitted and approved before any program
incurs cost overruns for the annual budget period.
The budget shall be adjusted as needed to recognize significant deviations from original
budget expectations. The council shall consider budget amendments each December.
Budget amendments are intended to recognize changes made by the council during the
year, to reflect major revenue and expenditure deviations from budgeted amounts, and to
consider year-end budget requests. Budget amendments are not intended to create a budget
that matches budgeted revenues and expenditures to actual revenue and expenditures.
Administrative budget amendments may be made throughout the year by department
directors to adjust line item budgets within their department as long as the total
departmental budget does not change. These line item budget changes exclude personal
service and capital outlay categories. Administrative budget admendments must be
requested in writing and approved by the City Manager and Chief Financial Officer.
Purchasing
Purpose
To provide a guide for general purchasing, contracts and professional services. Purchasing for the
City of St. Louis Park is established by the City Council under the City Charter, the City Code and
State Statute. This is intended as a guide; questions regarding this document should be directed to
the Chief Financial Officer or City Manager.
Policy
To ensure that the goods and services required by the City are obtained using established
procedures that comply with all legal requirements for public purpose expenditures while
promoting fair and open competition to ensure public confidence in the procurement process,
ensure fair and equitable treatment of vendors who transact business with the City, and provide
safeguards for the maintenance of a procurement system of quality and integrity.
Study Session Meeting of December 12, 2016 (Item No. 8)
Title: Financial Management Polices Update Page 26
22
I. Responsibility
a. The City Manager is the chief purchasing agent of the City and has the authority to
approve purchases up to $100,000 per the City Charter and State Statute. The City
Manager has delegated the authority to approve purchases up to $50,000 to the
Chief Financial Officer and Directors. Purchases in excess of $100,000 typically
require Council approval and usually require competitive bid letting.
b. The City Manager shall identify Directors or other staff who shall be responsible
for each fund or department in the annual budget. These individuals shall be
responsible for compliance with the annual budget and for all expenditures for their
departments and funds. The responsibility lies with each department to keep the
City Manager and Chief Financial Officer informed of purchases.
c. Directors or their designee are responsible to follow purchasing regulations and
procedures such as, but not limited to: obtaining bids or quotes, maintain records
of bids or quotes in accordance with records retention requirements, place actual
orders, receive and verify deliveries, and approve invoices for payment.
General Purchasing Required Approvals
Contract or
purchase
amount
Documentation Director Chief
Financial
Officer
City
Manager
Council
Less than
$5,000
Open Market Or
Designee
Less than
$25,000
2 or more quotes if
practical
X X
$25,000-
$50,000
2 or more quotes or
sealed bids –
competitive bidding
is allowed but not
required.
X X
$50,000-
$100,000
2 or more quotes or
sealed bids –
competitive bidding
is allowed but not
required.
X X X
$100,000+ Competitive bids
required
X X X X
Study Session Meeting of December 12, 2016 (Item No. 8)
Title: Financial Management Polices Update Page 27
23
II. General purchasing
a. Under City Charter and Ordinance, it has been determined purchasing will follow
the Uniform Municipal Contracting Law, Minnesota Statutes Chapter 471.345.
This allows the City Manager the authority to incorporate changes to our
purchasing limitations in accordance with MN Statutes. City Manager may develop
a process which may be more restrictive than State Law, but may not be less
restrictive. A "contract" (general purchasing) means an agreement entered into by
a municipality for the sale or purchase of supplies, materials, equipment or the
rental thereof, or the construction, alteration, repair or maintenance of real or
personal property.
b. Capital item purchases that have been authorized by the City Council through either
the budget process or the Capital Improvement Plan approval may be made using
these guidelines. If an item has not been specifically approved during these annual
processes, then they must be taken back for explicit approval.
c. When purchasing use the Environmentally Preferable Purchasing Policy. The
policy can be found at the following link: O:\CITYWIDE\SHARE\EP3
Environmentally Preferable Purchasing Policy .
III. Purchases less than $5,000.
If the amount is below $5,000, the purchase may be made in the open market. Department
Directors may authorize any person in their department to make purchases at this level.
IV. Purchases less than $25,000.
If the amount is estimated to be greater than $5,000 up to $25,000, the contract may be
made by quotation or in the open market. If the contract is made upon quotation it shall
be based, so far as practicable, on at least two quotations.
V. Purchases from $25,000-$100,000.
If the amount is estimated to exceed $25,000 but not to exceed $100,000, the contract may
be made either by upon sealed bids or by direct negotiation, by obtaining two or more
quotations for the purchase or sale when possible and without advertising for bids or
otherwise complying with the requirements of competitive bidding.
VI. Purchases in excess of $100,000.
Sealed bids shall be obtained by public notice for major purchases with final award by the
City Council. Bids must be advertised in the city’s legal newspaper, publicly opened and
approved by Council resolution. There are some exceptions to this law, including contracts
that are funded in part by special assessments as set forth in M.S, 429.041, subd.1.
Questions about this process or thresholds should be directed to the City’s Chief Financial
Officer.
Study Session Meeting of December 12, 2016 (Item No. 8)
Title: Financial Management Polices Update Page 28
24
Exceptions to Competitive Bidding
The following are some of the more common exceptions to the competitive bidding
requirements:
Contracts less than $100,000
Cooperative purchasing organizations
Intergovernmental contracts
Noncompetitive supplies and equipment
Real estate purchases
Professional services including:
o Architectural
o Auditing
o Engineering
o Legal
o Group Insurance
o Banking Services
o Investment Services
o Financial Service Providers
o Construction Management
o Surveying
o Emergency Purchases
Contractor’s Bond
The city is required to obtain both a payment and performance bond for all public work
contracts over $100,000. Payment and performance bonds protect the city as well as
subcontractors and persons providing labor and materials. When the public work contract
is let, the amount of the bond needs to be equal to the contract price. If the contract price
increases due to change orders, unforeseen conditions, cost overruns or any other reason
after the contract is signed, the city has the option of increasing the amount of the
contractor’s bond. Consideration may be given for the percentage of the contract that is
complete in relation to the contractor’s bond and the increase in the contract price.
VII. Professional Services
Contracts for professional services in excess of $100,000 shall be submitted to the City
Council for approval. The term “Professional Services” applies to all advisory services
such as, but not limited to: auditing, engineering, financial, legal, personnel, technical,
training, or other services. Contracts for professional services shall be made only with
responsible consultants who have the capability to successfully fulfill the contractual
requirements. Consideration shall be given to their past performance and experience, their
financial capacity to complete the project, the availability of personnel, and other
appropriate criteria. The nature of the professional service is typically written as a request
for proposals (RFP).
Study Session Meeting of December 12, 2016 (Item No. 8)
Title: Financial Management Polices Update Page 29
25
Required Approvals
Professional
service
Documentation Director City
Manager
Council
Up to $50,000 2 or more quotes if possible X
$50,000-$100,000 Multiple quotes recommended X X
$100,000+ Multiple quotes recommended X X X
VIII. Emergency Purchases
Minnesota Statute §12.37 gives the City the ability to declare an emergency situation for a
limited period of time. During such an emergency, the City is not required to use the
typically mandated procedures for purchasing and contracts. Emergency purchases require
approval by the City Manager, Chief Financial Officer and, when necessary
because of the dollar amount, formal City Council action. An emergency purchase is
defined as one where an immediate response is required to protect the health, welfare or
safety of the public or public property.
IX. Conflicts of Interest
Minnesota State Statutes §471.87 and §471.88 prohibit the purchase of goods and services
wherever a conflict of interest may exist. City of St. Louis Park Personnel Rules require
employees to disclose to their immediate supervisor any personal financial interest in the
selling or buying of goods or services for the City of St. Louis Park. No
purchase orders, contracts or service agreements shall be given to an employee of the City
or to a partnership or corporation of which an employee is a major stockholder or principal.
No employee shall enter into the relationship with a vendor where the employee's actions
are, or could reasonably be viewed as, not in the best interests of the City. If any employee
becomes involved in a possible conflict situation, the employee shall disclose the nature of
the possible conflict to his or her supervisor and to the City Manager. The City Manager
shall promptly notify the individual in writing of an approval or disapproval of the activity.
If disapproved, the employee shall remove himself or herself from the conflict situation.
X. Federal purchases
Under uniform grant guidance (2 CFR 200.317–326) there are additional procurement
requirements that need to be considered when making purchases related to a federal
program. Five procurement methods are identified including: micro-purchase (<$3,500),
small purchase procedures (<$150,000), sealed bid (>$150,000), competitive proposal
(>$150,000), and noncompetitive proposal (>$3,500). The general purchasing policy
addresses many of these requirements and the City will also consider the full requirements
in relation to each method as described in 2 CFR. The micro-purchase threshold which is
set by Federal Acquisition Regulation at 48 CFR Subpart 2.1 is subject to change with
inflation. The City will follow changes to thresholds as modifications occur. When
practicable, micro-purchasing will be distributed among qualified suppliers.
Study Session Meeting of December 12, 2016 (Item No. 8)
Title: Financial Management Polices Update Page 30
26
XI. Other
This document is not intended to cover all purchasing situations and regulations. For
instance, purchases needed for emergency operations should follow procedures set out in
the Emergency Plan and other regulations as approved by the City Manager or designee.
If there are questions regarding purchasing, they should be directed to your Director or the
Chief Financial Officer.
Study Session Meeting of December 12, 2016 (Item No. 8)
Title: Financial Management Polices Update Page 31
Meeting: Study Session
Meeting Date: December 12, 2016
Written Report: 9
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Follow-up: Preservation of Naturally Occurring Affordable Housing (NOAH)
RECOMMENDED ACTION: No action at this time. The purpose of this report is to present a
recap of the study session discussion related to the preservation of NOAH and summarize the
strategies and tools to address the issue identified by the council for further exploration.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: What is the role for SLP in preserving and expanding the
affordable housing supply in SLP? Are the strategies and tools identified in the report those that
the council would like to explore further to determine the impact and feasibility of implementing
on a local, regional or state level? Are there other potential strategies or tools that the council
wishes to explore?
SUMMARY: At the November 14 2016 study session, council discussed the housing topic related
to preservation of naturally occurring affordable housing. The council examined the issue
regarding the recent increase in sales of Class B and C apartment complexes in the Twin Cities
apartment market to investors that are renovating units and increasing rents resulting in a potential
loss of affordable units.
Most of the multifamily properties in St. Louis Park are Class B and C properties built prior to
1990 which offer lower rents at levels affordable to low and moderate income households. Class
B and C unsubsidized properties provide the majority of affordable housing in our city as well as
throughout the region. The conversion of these properties to higher rents puts the displacement of
low income families and individuals at risk.
Following a review of the city’s multifamily housing stock, the current affordability of this housing
and recent sales data, the council reviewed a number of potential housing strategies and tools to
both preserve and expand affordable housing opportunities in St. Louis Park. The council
identified a number of strategies and tools warranting further research.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to providing a well-maintained and
diverse housing stock.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion
Prepared by: Michele Schnitker, Deputy CD Director and Housing Supervisor
Reviewed by: Kevin Locke, CD Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of December 12, 2016 (Item No. 9) Page 2
Title: Follow-up: Preservation of Naturally Occurring Affordable Housing (NOAH)
DISCUSSION
BACKGROUND: Over the past several months the council identified a number of housing
related topics to explore further at future Study Sessions. One topic gaining concern region wide
is the preservation of NOAH. This issue is also one that has impacted St. Louis Park directly as a
result of the recent majority ownership transition of Meadowbrook Manor is the preservation of
NOAH.
At the November 14 study session, council discussed concerns related to the preservation of
NOAH. The council reviewed information regarding the recent increase in sales of Class B and C
apartment complexes in the Twin Cities market to investors that are renovating units and
increasing rents. According to a recent study by the Minnesota Housing Partnership (MHP) the
pace and scale of the sale of apartment buildings has accelerated since 2010 as the region began
pulling out of the Great Recession. The report states that the metro area experienced a 165 percent
increase in sales of apartment buildings between 2010 and 2015 and that the number of units sold
went from 3,124 in 2010 to 9,217 in 2015.
St. Louis Park has approximately 8700 multifamily units. Most of St. Louis Park’s multifamily
properties are Class B and C properties built prior to 1990. These buildings offer lower rents
affordable to low and moderate income households and provide the majority of affordable housing
in the city. The conversion of these properties to higher rents puts low income families and
individuals at risk of displacement.
From 2011 to 2016, 26 qualified multi-family parcels with a total of 1,634 units sold in St. Louis
Park. Although the data did not support a pattern of increased sales in Class B and C properties,
St. Louis Park’s location makes it a desirable place to live creating a market that will support
higher rents. As a result of the recent ownership transition of Meadowbrook Manor, rents were
increased for all existing residents and increased further for units that were renovated.
Strategies and Tools: Since the NOAH properties are privately owned and not subject to rent or
income restrictions associated with subsidized housing, there is a limit to what can be done to
retain affordability in these developments.
Following a presentation by Greater MN Housing Fund regarding the NOAH Impact Fund the
council reviewed and discussed a number of policies, strategies and tools being explored as
possible initiatives to expand the region’s housing supply and preserve the current stock of
affordable rental housing. The council identified a number of strategies and tools for further
exploration including:
Preservation Initiatives
Advance Notice Period: Require advance notice prior to sale of buildings
Rehab Financing in Exchange for Affordability Commitments
Support NOAH Impact Fund Initiative: Rental Building Acquisition
Property Tax Reduction/Financial Incentive: Expand 4d property tax classification/tax
rebates
Just Cause Tenant Protection, Exclusionary Admission Standards and Discrimination
Protections for Housing Choice (Section 8) Voucher Tenants.
Create New Affordable Housing Opportunities
Expand Inclusionary Housing Policy
Expand Supply of Senior Affordable
Expand Supply of Affordable Single Family Homeownership
Study Session Meeting of December 12, 2016 (Item No. 9) Page 3
Title: Follow-up: Preservation of Naturally Occurring Affordable Housing (NOAH)
NEXT STEPS: The City of Minneapolis is facilitating a workgroup to explore proposed policies
that could be achieved through state legislation or city ordinance to address the loss of NOAH
properties, including the initiatives identified by council listed above. The intent of the workgroup
is to undertake a region wide approach that will increase the opportunity to leverage resources and
provide support in examining the feasibility of the various strategies and tools. Representatives
from the City of Minneapolis, City of St. Paul, Hennepin County, Family Housing Fund, Housing
Justice Center and Homeline, as well as others, will be participating in the workgroup. The initial
meeting of the workgroup is being held December 12, 2016. Staff will also continue to consult
with the city’s legal counsel as we consider the viability of the various strategies and tools.
There are also three remaining housing related topics previously identified by the council for
further discussion. Two of the three were also identified for further review at the November 14th
study session. The three remaining topics identified include:
1. Expanding our Inclusionary Housing Policy/creation of new affordable housing units:
Should our policy require developments beyond those requesting financial assistance from
the city to include affordable housing units in their development?
2. Senior Housing: How do we increase the supply of senior housing, especially affordable
senior housing?
3. Market Trends: What are the new multi-family construction trends? What is the outlook
for apartment development – how much and where? Who is renting?
Staff proposes to present the Inclusionary Housing Policy topic for further discussion at a study
session in early 2017. Staff will also provide an update to the council on progress being made at
the local and regional level on the additional strategies and tools identified by the council.
Meeting: Study Session
Meeting Date: December 12, 2016
Written Report: 10
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Public Art Programs/Contributions
RECOMMENDED ACTION: No action at this time. The purpose of this report is to inform the
City Council of information it requested.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the City Council need any additional information on this
item?
SUMMARY: At the November 7th budget work session Council asked staff to provide a copy of
the SLP Friends of the Arts budget for 2017 and a summary of other public art programs.
SLP Friends of the Arts budget is attached with the proposed city contribution for 2017.
Funding Source: Development Fund ($40,000). 2016 budget amount was $20,000.
The City also does Arts and Culture grants to enhance art opportunities for residents. The
Arts and Culture Grant Committee reviews grant requests on an annual basis. Funding
Source: Development Fund ($20,000). This amount remains the same for 2017.
The City also participates actively in privately owned public arts projects. For example,
the Central Park West and 4800 Excelsior development sites will incorporate a public art
element on each property. The artwork at both sites are privately owned and maintained
and located within the privately owned and publicly accessible civic space on the property.
Funding Source: Private Development.
The City strives to incorporate a public art component into public improvement projects
throughout the community, including bridges, park shelters, and bus shelters. Funding
Source: Incorporated in project budgets.
The City may from time to time do smaller miscellaneous projects such as wrapping the
utility boxes in the park. Funding Source: CVB or operating budgets.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: The development fund is the primary funding
source.
VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to promoting an integrating arts,
culture and community aesthetics in all City initiatives, including implementation where
appropriate.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: 2017 Friends of the Arts Budget
Prepared by: Tim Simon, Chief Financial Officer
Reviewed by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Programs1 2016 2017
Our Town $16,266 $21,000
Arts for Life $6,500 $8,500
Arts and Culture Grants $0 $0
Gift of Music $3,750 $6,000
Partner Programs2 $1,500 $2,000
General Operations
City Funding3 $20,000 $40,000
Business Donations $500 $2,000
Individual Donations $4,000 $5,000
Other
Fiscal Agencies4 $18,000 $20,000
$70,516 $104,500 `
Programs 2016 2017
Our Town $29,516 $30,500
Arts for Life $7,500 $8,750
Arts and Culture Grants $3,250 $5,500
Gift of Music $3,750 $6,250
Partner Programs $9,250 $13,250
General Operating
Communications $2,892 $4,292
Business $3,528 $5,778
Other
ED Benefits Stipend $0 $4,000
Fiscal Agencies4 $16,920 $18,800
$76,607 $97,121
Net Income ‐$6,091 $7,379
Expenses
Income
3 2017 City funding is estimated/not yet secured.
SLP Friends of the Arts Annual Budget
4 Fiscal agency income is a restricted fund. It is a pass thru less a 6% fee.
1 A majority of program income is projected and will be restricted and not for use on operational
expenses, fundaising, or new programming.
2 Partner programs include collaborations (Children First Ice Cream Social, Parktacular, etc.) and
past successful programs that we may relaunch (poetry jams, art exhibit, etc.)
Study Session Meeting of December 12, 2016 (Item No. 10)
Title: Public Art Programs/Contributions Page 2
Meeting: Study Session
Meeting Date: December 12, 2016
Written Report: 11
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Update on 4900 Excelsior Purchase and Redevelopment Contract
RECOMMENDED ACTION: None. The purpose of this report is to inform the EDA of a
request for a Subordination Agreement as allowed under the 4900 Excelsior Purchase and
Redevelopment Contract.
SUMMARY: On December 7, 2015 the EDA entered into a Purchase and Redevelopment
Contract with 4900 Excelsior, LLC. Under the agreement, the EDA agreed to subordinate its rights
to the holder of any mortgage securing construction or permanent financing, so long as the
subordination is in substantially the form provided in the Contract. The Redeveloper has recently
requested that the EDA subordinate its rights under the Contract to U.S. Bank National Association
which is providing the permanent financing for the now 4800 Excelsior project. The proposed
Subordination Agreement is in substantially the form that was included as an exhibit to the
Contract and is similar to other subordination agreements the EDA has previously approved for
other projects. The proposed Agreement requires formal approval by the EDA which has been
scheduled for December 19th.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: All costs associated with the preparation of
the proposed agreement (Kennedy & Graven) are to be paid by 4900 Excelsior, LLC.
VISION CONSIDERATION: None
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: None
Prepared by: Greg Hunt, Economic Development Coordinator
Reviewed by: Michele Schnitker, Housing Supervisor and Deputy CD Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, EDA Executive Director and City Manager
Meeting: Study Session
Meeting Date: December 12, 2016
Written Report: 12
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Wooddale Bridge Improvements
RECOMMENDED ACTION: None at this time. A contract for services will be brought to the
Council for its consideration at the December 19 meeting.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the City Council wish to proceed with modifications to the
Wooddale Bridge?
SUMMARY: The construction of the Southwest Light Rail line and the Wooddale LRT Station in
2017-2019 will result in corridor modifications along Wooddale Avenue that include the ramp
terminals of Highway 7 and the intersection of Wooddale Avenue and the South Service Road.
Staff hired the consulting firm of Short Elliott Hendrickson (SEH) to help explore ways to leverage
the programmed improvements of the SWLRT to enhance pedestrian and bicyclist safety, traffic
operations, and allow for future growth of the Wooddale corridor. In late October of 2015 the City
convened a design workshop that was attended by staff from SWLRT, MnDOT, Hennepin County,
and the City. In addition, the PLACE development team and our consultant SEH were in
attendance. The desired outcome from this workshop was to find a cost effective solution that
balances the needs of all users of this multimodal corridor with a high level of safety and livability.
Since that time, the SWLRT project has completed final plans and PLACE Development is in the
process of completing their preferred site layout. Construction of the SWLRT is expected to begin
in the second half of 2017. Staff will coordinate the timing and scope of the Wooddale Bridge
improvements with the construction activities of the SWLRT.
Staff has asked SEH for a proposal to complete final design plans and receive approvals from
MnDOT to widen Wooddale Bridge over Highway 7. The improvements are intended to construct
safe and comfortable pedestrian and bicycle facilities across the bridge and to increase sight lines
for vehicles at the ramp terminals. The estimated total project cost for the modifications to the
Wooddale Bridge is estimated at $2.2 million.
FINANCIAL CONSIDERATION: A contract for approximately $250,000 will be presented to
Council on December 19, 2016 for approval.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: None
Prepared by: Jack Sullivan, Senior Engineering Project Manager
Reviewed by: Debra Heiser, Engineering Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager