HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015/08/24 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - Study SessionAGENDA
AUGUST 24, 2015
6:30 p.m. SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING -- Community Room
1. Call to Order
1a. Pledge of Allegiance
2. Resolutions, Ordinances, Motions and Discussion Items
2a. SWLRT Funding Agreements
Recommended Action:
• Motion to approve an Amendment to the SWLRT Master Funding Agreement
(MFA) between the City and Metropolitan Council to provide for the transfer of
funds between the agencies.
• Motion to approve a Subordinate Funding Agreement (SFA)
3. Adjournment
6:35 p.m. CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION – Community Room
Discussion Items
1. 6:35 p.m. Future Study Session Agenda Planning – September 8 & September 28, 2015
2. 6:40 p.m. 2016 Budget, CIP and Utility Rates
3. 8:10 p.m. Mayor, City Council and Economic Development Authority Compensation
8:30 p.m. Communications/Updates (Verbal)
8:35 p.m. Adjourn
Written Reports
4. Cable TV and Franchise Fee Trends
5. July 2015 Monthly Financial Report
6. 2015 Semi-Annual Housing Programs Activity Report
7. Homes Within Reach: City Funded Revolving Line of Credit to Assist w/ Acquisition
and Rehab Costs of Affordable Homeownership Units
8. Comprehensive Plan Amendment for Future SWLRT Joint Development
9. The Shoreham PUD Amendment
10. Westwood Hills Nature Center Master Plan Update
11. Extension of Franchise Agreements with CenterPoint Energy and Xcel Energy
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: Special City Council
Meeting Date: August 24, 2015
Action Agenda Item: 2a
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: SWLRT Funding Agreements
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
• Motion to approve an Amendment to the SWLRT Master Funding Agreement (MFA)
between the City and Metropolitan Council to provide for the transfer of funds between the
agencies.
• Motion to approve a Subordinate Funding Agreement (SFA) between the City and
Metropolitan Council for the Louisiana Station Trail Underpass.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Action on these agreements is to formalize the action taken by
the resolutions passed by the Council on July 20, 2015 stating the City will contribute funds to
the general project and to the Louisiana Station Trail Underpass.
SUMMARY:
In July the City Council passed two resolutions, one to agree to contribute $2 million to the
general SWLRT project and one to fund the Louisiana Station Trail Underpass as a part of the
base project (shown on attached drawing). The proposed agreements with the Metropolitan
Council include an amendment to our current Master Funding Agreement (MFA), and a new
Subordinate Funding Agreement (SFA). These agreements reflect the City’s commitments made
in the resolutions to provide funding for the project in general and inclusion of the trail underpass
at Louisiana Station specifically. The attached SFA agreement formalizes the city’s commitment
for the design and environmental portion of the underpass (up to $78,000).
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Up to $78,000 would be committed by this agreement at this time for design and environmental
review by the attached SFA. The remaining $222,000 for the trail underpass would be
contributed during construction in 2017-20, and the subject of an additional funding agreement.
Additional SFAs will be processed for the general contribution of $2 million, expected in the
2016-20 timeframe.
VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged
community.
ATTACHMENTS: Discussion
Master Funding Agreement with Amendments
Amendment #1 to Master Funding Agreement
Subordinate Funding Agreement for Louisiana Trail Underpass
Louisiana Station Trail Underpass Drawing
Lynn Avenue Extension Drawing
Prepared by: Meg McMonigal, Principal Planner
Reviewed by: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Special City Council Meeting of August 24, 2015 (Item No. 2z) Page 2
Title: SWLRT Funding Agreements
DISCUSSION
The amendment to the MFA opens the door for the City to contribute funds to the base project
and for the Met Council to accept and use those funds. It also states that separate Subordinate
Funding Agreements will be required for the actual transfer of funds. Those future agreements
would spell out the specifics of any transfers of funds.
The amended MFA does state that upon completion of the project, the Council shall refund to the
City its proportionate share of local funding for the project subject to administrative and
management adjustments.
The Subordinate Funding Agreement is specifically for the Louisiana Station trail underpass
design and environmental review costs. It does not include funding of actual construction
costs. A separate SFA will be prepared for construction costs. This is a similar approach to how
our LRCIs are structured; we are only committed to cover design and environmental costs so
far. Construction costs will be covered by separate future agreements. The amount of the design
and environmental costs for the trail underpass is $78,000. That amount is based on the total
estimated cost for the underpass of $600,000 half of which ($300,000) would be SLP’s cost. The
City will reimburse the Met Council for the actual design and environmental review costs up to a
maximum of $78,000.
Potential Future Funding for Additional SWLRT Items
Lynn Avenue Extension LRCI
The City previously requested inclusion of the Extension of Lynn Ave and construction of a
backage road at Beltline Station as a LRCI. Staff has been working with the SPO on the
possibility of putting the Lynn Avenue Extension LRCI into the base LRT project (please see
attached drawing), thereby benefitting from the FTA funding match of 50% of the cost.
The much smaller park and ride lot as shown in the Municipal Consent plans for the Beltline
Blvd Station changes the LRCI somewhat and means it would be more costly to construct than
previously projected. The access provided on the Municipal Consent plan does not leave
particularly good access for future development, which means the LRCI is now more important
for providing effective access to the park and ride and the EDA redevelopment property.
A solution to both of these problems would be to incorporate the Lynn Avenue Extension LRCI
into the Base SWLRT project design. If the Lynn Avenue Extension is part of the base project,
much of its cost would be covered by FTA matching funds. Incorporating the Lynn
Ave/Backage Road into the SWLRT Base project would keep SLP’s cost essentially the same
($1.6 million) as projected for the original LRCI. Staff has told the SPO that they should assume
for now SLP supports inclusion of the Lynn Avenue Extension LRCI in the base SWLRT
project. The City will need to take formal action on its commitment at a future meeting, most
likely when the City officially approves the Municipal Consent Plans September 21st.
Including the LRCI into the base project at this time will solidify the street plans for the area, and
set the table to move forward with development in this area. Our work has shown that creating
appropriately sized blocks within the area would be much more conducive to preparing the area
for transit-oriented development and with more certainty, development could occur sooner.
Special City Council Meeting of August 24, 2015 (Item No. 2a) Page 3
Title: SWLRT Funding Agreements
Stairways to Regional Trail
Hennepin County and Three Rivers Park District along with federal grant funds are providing the
local funding for inclusion of the trail grade separations at Beltline, Wooddale and Blake
Road. The designs for these grade separations include ramp connections to the Wooddale and
Beltline but not stairways. Considering the importance of these crossings to SLP, adding stairs
to maximize the grade separations usability seems like a wise investment. Much of the cost of
adding the stairs can be covered by the grants and FTA matching funds. There is a funding gap
of $100-135,000 for the stairs in SLP’s grade separations. We have directed the SPO to assume
for now that SLP would cover this shortfall. Formal action on this commitment will be needed at
a future City Council meeting, would also occur on September 21st.
Special City Council Meeting of August 24, 2015 (Item No. 2a) Page 4
Title: SWLRT Funding Agreements
Reference Numbers:
SWLRT Project: 61001
Metropolitan Council: 14I061
City of St. Louis Park:
PROJECT: SOUTHWEST LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT PROJECT
AGREEMENT NAME: Master Funding Agreement – City of St. Louis Park
PARTIES: • Metropolitan Council
• City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota
This Master Funding Agreement (“Agreement”) is entered into by and between the Metropolitan
Council (“Council”), a public corporation and political subdivision of the State of Minnesota,
and the City of St. Louis Park (“City”), a Minnesota municipal corporation, herein collectively
referred to as the “Parties” and individually as a “Party”. This Agreement pertains to the
Council’s proposed Southwest Light Rail Transit (“SWLRT”) Project, referred to hereafter as the
“Project”.
WHEREAS:
1. The Council, metropolitan area cities, public agencies, and transit funders are engaged in
activities to develop the Project, an approximately 16 14.5 mile proposed extension of the
METRO Green Line which will operate from downtown Minneapolis through the cities of
St. Louis Park, Hopkins, Minnetonka, and Eden Prairie.
2. The Council has received appropriations from the State of Minnesota for the purpose of
conducting environmental studies, completing project development, and designing the
Project. The Council also expects to receive future appropriations from the State of
Minnesota for engineering and construction of the Project.
3. The Council anticipates receiving grants from the Federal Transit Administration (“FTA”)
for engineering and construction of the Project under a Full Funding Grant Agreement
(“FFGA”) with the FTA.
4. The Council has received a grant from the Counties Transit Improvement Board (“CTIB”)
for project development for the Project. The Council also expects to receive future grants
from the CTIB for engineering and construction of the Project.
5. The Council is a party to a Cooperative Funding Agreement for project development with
the Hennepin County Regional Railroad Authority (“HCRRA”) for the Project. The
Council expects to enter into future Cooperative Funding Agreement(s) with HCRRA for
engineering and construction of the Project.
6. The City may be involved in certain activities, provide funding, and/or possibly provide
materials in connection with and in support of the Project, and the Council may desire to
pass through federal, state, CTIB or other local funds to the City for costs associated with
such Project activities and/or materials.
Special City Council Meeting of August 24, 2015 (Item No. 2a) Page 5
Title: SWLRT Funding Agreements
7. The City may provide funding for certain non-FFGA components, including Locally
Requested Capital Investments, through the transfer of City funds to the Council.
8. This Agreement is entered into between the Parties to provide a mechanism for the transfer
of Project funds from the Council to the City for activities undertaken by the City for the
Project (Part One), and for the transfer of City funds to the Council for activities
undertaken by the Council for the Project and activities undertaken by the Council
components related to, but not currently part of, the Project (Part Two). In addition, this
Agreement establishes general provisions applicable to transfers from either Party to the
other (Part Three).
NOW, THEREFORE, the Parties hereby agree as follows:
PART ONE
ARTICLE 1. PURPOSE
The purpose of Part One of this Agreement is to provide:
a. A method for the transfer of funds from the Council to the City for activities performed
or materials supplied by the City in connection with and in support of the Project; and
b. Contractual provisions that address compliance with federal and state laws and
regulations as well as Council procedures including, without limitation, federal
requirements for the monitoring of the City's Project activities using federal grant
funds.
ARTICLE 2. SUBORDINATE FUNDING AGREEMENTS TRANSFERRING FUNDS
FROM COUNCIL TO CITY
2.01 Transfer of Funds from Council to City. The Council will transfer Project
funds to the City for the Project activities performed by the City. The transfer of funds from the
Council to the City shall be in accordance with Subordinate Funding Agreements executed
pursuant to this Article 2, each of which shall state the specific purpose for the funds, state the
City’s responsibility with respect to those funds, and establish who will own any assets
constructed or remaining upon completion of the work. Each such Subordinate Funding
Agreement, in conjunction with this Agreement, shall be determined by the Council to constitute
a subrecipient or vendor agreement with the Council for the purposes of any federal grant funds
transferred to the City. The Council shall bear no responsibility for any costs incurred by the
City for the Project that exceeds the amounts committed by Subordinate Funding Agreements as
such agreements may from time to time be amended.
2.02 Subordinate Funding Agreements. In accordance with Section 2.01, the
Parties shall enter into Subordinate Funding Agreements in order to facilitate the funding by the
Council of Project activities to be performed by the City. The Parties anticipate there may be
multiple such Subordinate Funding Agreements between them in connection with the Project.
Each Subordinate Funding Agreement shall be in a form substantially similar to that attached as
Exhibit A and shall follow and be subject to the terms of Part One and Part Three of this
Agreement, unless expressly agreed to in writing otherwise. Notwithstanding any other
Special City Council Meeting of August 24, 2015 (Item No. 2a) Page 6
Title: SWLRT Funding Agreements
provisions of this Agreement, this Agreement itself is not intended to create a specific financial
obligation for either Party or to require either Party to enter into any specific Subordinate
Funding Agreements, and no liability shall attach to either Party under this Agreement for
refusing to enter into one or more subsequent Subordinate Funding Agreements.
2.03 Implementation of Subordinate Funding Agreements. The Council will only
reimburse the City for Project activities that are the subject of a Subordinate Funding Agreement.
Prior to entering into a contract with any third party (including for the acquisition of property
rights) to accomplish the City’s reimbursable activities, or prior to authorizing any City
employees to proceed with any reimbursable activities, the City shall present a work scope
(including a work schedule), staffing plan, and detailed budget for such services or expenditures
to the Council for review and approval.
2.04 Council Determination of Vendor or Subrecipient Relationship. The Council
shall determine whether each Subordinate Funding Agreement is a subrecipient or vendor
agreement. The Council shall state its determination in the Subordinate Funding Agreement.
For subrecipient agreements, the City will be responsible to FTA for compliance with applicable
federal laws, regulations, and deliverables. For vendor agreements, the Council will be
responsible for compliance with applicable federal laws, regulations, and deliverables.
2.05 Modifications of Subordinate Funding Agreements. The following provisions
apply to modifications of any Subordinate Funding Agreement:
a. Rebudgeting within an approved budget is allowable as long as the budget is within the
maximum amount of authorized funding.
b.Modifications in work scope, if within the approved budget, are authorized when
approved in writing by the Project Directors.
c. Any other modifications to a Subordinate Funding Agreement shall require a written
amendment of the Subordinate Funding Agreement executed by the Parties.
d. Modification requests should be sent to the Project Directors.
2.06 Transfer of Project Funds to the City Under Subordinate Funding
Agreements. The Council shall pay the City under Subordinate Funding Agreements as
follows:
a. Unless specifically agreed to by the Parties in and for a particular Subordinate
Funding Agreement, payment to the City for Project costs under each Subordinate
Funding Agreement shall be on a reimbursement basis based upon the submittal of
invoices evidencing the expenditure of funds by the City for the Project.
b. Unless specifically agreed to otherwise by the Parties in and for a particular
Subordinate Funding Agreement, the City shall submit separate monthly invoices for
each outstanding Subordinate Funding Agreement to the following address:
Attn: Accounts Payable
Southwest LRT Project Office
6465 Wayzata Blvd, Suite 500
St. Louis Park, MN 55426
or to such other address or person as the Council may designate by notice in writing.
Special City Council Meeting of August 24, 2015 (Item No. 2a) Page 7
Title: SWLRT Funding Agreements
c. Each invoice shall reference the sequential number of the Subordinate Funding
Agreement under which the invoice is to be paid.
d. Each invoice shall include the following if the corresponding Subordinate Funding
Agreement was determined by the Council to create a subrecipient relationship:
i. Subrecipient Payment Request Form (Form C-22A-SPO) as shown in Exhibit B,
ii. Subrecipient Monthly Progress Report (Form SPO P1) as shown in Exhibit B,
and
iii. Itemization of the expenditures for which payment is requested using the
Subrecipient Invoice Detail (Form SPO F1) as shown in Exhibit B, along with
supporting documentation.
e. Each invoice shall include the following if the corresponding Subordinate Funding
Agreement was determined by the Council to create a vendor relationship:
i. SPO Payment Request Form (either Engineering-Consultant or Construction)
1) Engineering-Consultant Payment Request Form (Form C22A) as shown in
Exhibit B for engineering related expenses, or
2) Construction Payment Request Form (Form C21A) as shown in Exhibit B
for construction related expenses,
ii. A description of activities undertaken in accordance with the Subordinate
Funding Agreement, and
iii. An itemized list of the expenditures for which payment is requested, along with
any supporting documentation.
f. If a Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (“DBE”) goal applies to the work performed
under a Subordinate Funding Agreement, invoices shall include a DBE Reporting
Form as shown in Exhibit B, or such other format as may be prescribed by the
Council, and shall include the information required by Section 4.06(e) of this
Agreement.
g. After receipt of an invoice, the Council may request additional information from the
City regarding the invoice in order to verify the accuracy and appropriateness of the
expenditures for which reimbursement is requested or as required by the FTA for
reporting purposes.
h. Upon receipt of an invoice, the Council will make prompt payment of undisputed
amounts as required by Minnesota Statutes, Section 471.425. Under either 49 C.F.R.
§ 18.22 or Minnesota State Statutes Section 471.425, the Council may dispute or deny
part or all of any invoice payment request if it reasonably believes that the requested
payment does not conform to the terms of this Agreement and the applicable
Subordinate Funding Agreement. The Parties will promptly meet to review and
discuss any disputed or denied payment requests and the dispute resolution process
outlined in Section 6.11 of this Agreement will ensue if the Parties cannot agree. If
the Council does not pay the invoiced amount within 35 days of its receipt, the
Council shall pay interest on the non-disputed amount at the rate of 1-1/2 percent per
month.
Special City Council Meeting of August 24, 2015 (Item No. 2a) Page 8
Title: SWLRT Funding Agreements
i. No invoice payment shall be made by the Council without prior written amendment
to the applicable Subordinate Funding Agreement, which would cause distribution of
Project funds to exceed, cumulatively through such payment, the maximum amount
of authorized funding under the applicable Subordinate Funding Agreement.
j. Distribution of any funds to the City pursuant to an invoice, or approval of any report,
shall not be construed as a Council waiver of any City noncompliance with this
Agreement or the applicable Subordinate Funding Agreement.
2.07 Repayment of Unauthorized Use of Project Funds. Upon a finding by the
Council that the City has made an unauthorized or undocumented use of Project funds, and upon
a demand for repayment issued by the Council and supported by the reason for the finding, if the
City agrees, the City shall promptly repay such amounts to the Council. If the City disagrees, the
Parties will promptly meet to review and discuss any challenged use of funds already paid and
the dispute resolution process outlined in Section 6.11 will ensue if the Parties cannot agree.
Neither Party shall be deemed to have waived any rights or remedies available under state law,
federal law, common law, or otherwise.
2.08 Prompt Payment to Subcontractors. Consistent with Minnesota Statutes, Section
473.142(f), if the City subcontracts any portion of the work under this Agreement or Subordinate
Funding Agreements, the City shall pay such subcontractor within 10 Days of City's receipt of
payment from the Council for undisputed services provided by the subcontractor. The City shall
not, by reason of said payments, be relieved from responsibility for work done by the subcontractor
and shall be responsible for the entire work under this Agreement or Subordinate Funding
Agreement until the same is finally accepted by Council.
ARTICLE 3. REQUIREMENTS FOR PROJECT FUNDED WORK
3.01 Allowable Costs; Unspent Funds. The City is authorized to use funds provided
by the Council under this Agreement and per the terms of the Subordinate Funding Agreements
only for allowable costs directly incurred for the Project. Allowable costs will be determined in
accordance with the documents referenced in Section 4.05. Funds provided by the Council in
Subordinate Funding Agreements may only be used for costs directly incurred:
a. within the authorized work scope,
b.during the project activity period, and
c. in accordance with the approved budget for the funds.
Any funds provided to the City under this Agreement and applicable Subordinate Funding
Agreements which remain unspent after completion of the relevant Project activity shall be
promptly repaid to the Council.
3.02 Documentation of Project Costs. All costs charged to the
Project by the City must be supported by proper documentation, including
properly executed payrolls, time records, invoices, contracts, receipts for
expenses, or vouchers, evidencing in detail the nature and propriety of the
charges per the requirements of Section 4.02 of this Agreement.
Special City Council Meeting of August 24, 2015 (Item No. 2a) Page 9
Title: SWLRT Funding Agreements
3.03 Establishment of Capital Assets. If Capital Assets, as
defined by FTA and determined by the Council in a Subordinate Funding
Agreement, are procured by or provided to the City under a Subordinate
Funding Agreement, invoices shall include an Asset Tracking Log as shown
in Exhibit B, or such other format as may be prescribed by the Council.
3.04 Establishment and Maintenance of Project Information.
The City agrees to establish and maintain accurate, detailed, complete, and
separate books, accounts, financial records, documentation, and inspection
and quality assurance reports produced by City staff and/or contractors, and
other evidence relating to the receipt and expenditure of all Project funds.
All such Project information shall be established and maintained in
accordance with generally accepted government accounting principles and
practices and shall be retained intact by the City until the latest of:
a. complete performance of this Agreement and all Subordinate Funding Agreements
entered into pursuant thereto;
b. six years following the term of this Agreement and all Subordinate Funding
Agreements entered into pursuant thereto;
c. six years following the close out of the Project by the Council and the FTA; or
d. if any litigation, claim, or audit is commenced during any such periods, when all such
litigation, claims or audits have been resolved.
If the City engages any contractors to perform any part of the Project activities, the City agrees
that the contract for such services shall include provisions requiring the contractor to establish
and maintain Project information in accordance with the provisions of this Article and to allow
audit of such information in the same manner provided with respect to the City in Section 3.05.
The provisions of this Section 3.04 shall survive termination of this Agreement.
3.05 Reimbursed Costs Audit. The accounts and records of
the City relating to the reimbursable costs for the Project shall be audited in
the same manner as all other accounts and records of the City are audited.
During the time of maintenance of information under section 3.04,
authorized representatives of the Council, the Legislative Auditor and/or
State Auditor in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 16C.05,
subdivision 5, the United States Secretary of Transportation, the FTA
Administrator, and the United States Comptroller General in accordance
with 49 U.S.C. Section 5325(g) will have access to all such books, records,
documents, accounting practices and procedures, and other information for
the purpose of inspection, audit, and copying during normal business hours.
Proper facilities for such access and inspection shall be provided by the
City.
The provisions of this Section 3.05 shall survive termination of this Agreement.
3.06 Subcontractor Provisions. In addition to the requirements
of section 4.06, if the City engages any contractors to perform any part of
the Project activities, the City agrees that the contract for such services shall
Special City Council Meeting of August 24, 2015 (Item No. 2a) Page 10
Title: SWLRT Funding Agreements
include, to the fullest extent allowed by law, all of the following provisions.
These requirements are in addition to other requirements for such contracts
set forth in this Agreement.
a. The contractor must maintain all records and provide all reporting as required by this
Agreement.
b. The contractor must defend, indemnify, and save harmless the Council from all
claims, suits, demands, damages, judgments, costs, interest, and expenses arising out
of or by reason of the performance of the contracted work, caused in whole or in part
by any act or omission of the contractor, including acts or omissions by any of its
employees, subcontractors, or anyone for whose acts any of them may be liable.
c. The contractor must provide and maintain insurance in amounts and types of
coverage appropriate to the contracted work and naming the Council, the Counties
Transit Improvement Board, and other funding partners as requested by the Council,
as additional insureds, and shall provide to the City prior to commencement of the
contracted work a certificate of insurance evidencing such insurance coverage.
d. The contractor must be an independent contractor for the purposes of completing the
contracted work.
e. The contractor must acknowledge that the contract between the City and the
contractor does not create any contractual relationship between the Council and the
contractor.
f. The contractor shall perform and complete the contracted work in full compliance
with this Agreement and all applicable laws, statutes, rules, ordinances, and
regulations issued by any federal, state, or local political subdivisions having
jurisdiction over the contracted work.
3.07 Contract Information. The City shall, in connection with
any contract entered into for the Project:
a. Keep the Council informed as to the progress of such contract;
b. Allow authorized representatives of the Council access to all meetings and
documentation related to such contract; and
c. Upon request, promptly provide the Council with copies of correspondence between
the City and the contractor related to such contract.
ARTICLE 4. FEDERAL REQUIREMENTS
4.01 Federal Requirements. Monies that may be provided to the City by the Council
pursuant to this Agreement may be funded in whole or in part by the FTA. The requirements in
this Article 4 are in addition to and, unless inconsistent and irreconcilable, do not supplant
requirements found elsewhere in this Agreement. If any requirement in this article is
inconsistent with a provision found elsewhere in this Agreement and is irreconcilable with such
provision, the requirement in this Article 4 shall prevail.
4.02 Incorporation of Federal Grant. As the Council receives federal grants,
including a potential Full Funding Grant Agreement, with respect to the Project, the Council will
provide the City with a copy of each grant. The terms of each grant and any amendments shall
Special City Council Meeting of August 24, 2015 (Item No. 2a) Page 11
Title: SWLRT Funding Agreements
be automatically incorporated by reference into this Agreement without further action by the
Parties. These grants are collectively referred to in this Agreement as the “Federal Grants.”
When performing work or expending funds for Project activities, the City agrees to comply with
all applicable terms and conditions of the Federal Grants received by the Council with respect to
the Project.
4.03 Incorporation of Specific Federal Requirements. Specifically, and
without limitation, the City agrees to comply with the federal requirements set forth
in Exhibit C and agrees to require, unless specifically exempted, third party
contractors at every tier to comply with the same.
4.04 Federal Certifications and Assurances; Execution and Incorporation. The
City agrees to comply with and to certify compliance with the most recent version of the federal
Annual List of Certifications and Assurances for Federal Transit Administration Grants and
Cooperative Agreements if determined by the Council to be a subrecipient in a Subordinate
Funding Agreement. The City must certify compliance with the applicable provisions by signing
the appropriate certification(s) and returning the signed certification(s) as part of the execution of
an applicable Subordinate Funding Agreement. During the term of the applicable Subordinate
Funding Agreement, the Council shall provide to the City the annual Federal Certifications and
Assurances document, which the City shall execute and return to the Council.
4.05 Compliance with Federal Requirements; Incorporation of Specific
Documents by Reference. The City agrees to comply with all federal statutes, rules, FTA
Circulars, and Executive Orders which may be applicable to the Federal Grants. In particular,
the City agrees to comply with the terms and conditions of the current version of the following
documents when performing work or expending funds for Project activities under this
Agreement or any Subordinate Funding Agreement:
a. FTA Master Agreement
b.Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements to State
and Local Governments, 49 C.F.R. Part 18
c. Grant Management Requirements, FTA Circular 5010.1D
d.Full-Funding Grant Agreements Guidance, FTA Circular 5200.1A
e. Third Party Contracting Requirements, FTA Circular 4220.1F
f. Cost Principles for State, Local and Indian Tribal Governments, OMB Circular A-87
g. Audits of States, Local Governments, and Non-Profit Organizations, OMB Circular A-
133
as such statutes, rules, circulars, and executive orders may hereafter be amended or modified.
The listed documents are incorporated by reference into this Agreement. Copies of these
documents are available on the FTA website or, upon request by the City, from the Council.
4.06 Third Party Contracts. If the City decides to fulfill any of its obligations or
duties under a Subordinate Funding Agreement through a third party contract to be paid for by
funds received under this Agreement, the City agrees to the following provisions. These
requirements are in addition to other requirements for such contracts set forth in this Agreement.
Special City Council Meeting of August 24, 2015 (Item No. 2a) Page 12
Title: SWLRT Funding Agreements
a. Compliance with Federal Procurement Requirements. The City will comply with
all applicable federal law, rules, and guidance relating to such procurement including,
without limitation, the provisions of the most current version of the Third Party
Contracting Requirements, FTA Circular 4220.1F, which document is incorporated
by reference into this Agreement. A copy of this document is available on the FTA
website or, upon request by the City, from the Council.
b. Certification of City’s Procurement System. The City certifies that its procurement
system complies with the standards described in the previous paragraph.
c. Council Approval of Contracts. The City shall not execute any third party contract
or otherwise enter into a binding agreement until it has first received written approval
from the Council. The Council’s approval of any such third party contract is solely
for the benefit of the Council and shall not relieve the City of the responsibility to
ensure that such contracts are in the proper form and include all state and federal
requirements. Additionally, a Subrecipient Contract Initiation Memo, as shown in
Exhibit B, is required to be executed prior to any procurement over $50,000.
Requests to enter into agreements should be sent to the Project Director.
d. Inclusion of Provisions in Lower Tier Contracts. The City agrees to include
adequate provisions to ensure compliance with applicable federal requirements in
each lower tier subcontract financed in whole or in part with monies from the Project
provided under this Agreement including all applicable provisions of this Agreement.
Provisions to be included in such subcontracts include the provisions in Exhibit C.
e. Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Requirements. For all work performed under
Part One of this Agreement, the City will comply with the Council's DBE Program.
In particular, the City agrees to comply with the requirements of the Council's
"Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Pass Through Agreement and Program"
document which is attached to and made a part of this Agreement as Exhibit D. For
the purpose of Exhibit D, the following provisions apply:
i. The Metropolitan Council DBE Liaison Officer, or designated staff, shall act
as the City DBE Liaison Officer for the purposes of work under Part One of
this funding Agreement.
ii. The City agrees to submit to the Council for review, approval, and
establishment of the appropriate DBE goal a Subrecipient Contract Initiation
Memo, as shown in Exhibit B, for all procurements in excess of $50,000.
Noncompliance with DBE requirements may result in sanctions, including
ineligibility for reimbursement pursuant to 49 C.F.R. § 18.22.
iii. The City will provide reports to the Council reflecting all invoices paid on
procurements for which a DBE goal has been established and identifying all
DBE activity on such procurements.
iv. The City will report DBE activity, on the Disadvantaged Business Enterprise
Reporting Form, to the Council on other purchase orders and invoices not
included above with each Request for Payment.
v. DBE eligibility will be based on the most recent DBE Directory from the
Minnesota Unified Certification Program.
Special City Council Meeting of August 24, 2015 (Item No. 2a) Page 13
Title: SWLRT Funding Agreements
f. Federal Procurement Basics. The City remains responsible for conforming its
procurement processes to all applicable federal requirements for funds received from
the Council under this Agreement and any Subordinate Funding Agreement.
4.07 Provisions Subject to Change. The City acknowledges that federal requirements
in this Article 4 are subject to change and agrees that the most recent of these requirements shall
govern this Agreement at any particular time.
4.08 No Federal Obligation. Monies provided under this Agreement may be financed
in whole or in part by federal funds. However, payments to the City will be made by the
Council. Pursuant to the Federal Transit Administration Master Agreement Section 2(f), the
United States is not a party to this Agreement and no reference in this Agreement to the United
States, the United States Department of Transportation, the FTA, or any representatives of the
federal government makes the United States a party to this Agreement. The City shall include
this clause in any contracts or agreements entered into pursuant to this Agreement.
4.09 Special Reporting Requirements. The Council is required to report to
the FTA regarding the Project activities. Accordingly, the City agrees to provide the
Council with any additional or follow-up information reasonably requested by the
Council, in order to meet the Council’s FTA reporting requirements.
PART TWO
ARTICLE 5. SUBORDINATE FUNDING AGREEMENT TRANSFERRING FUNDS
FROM CITY TO COUNCIL
5.01 Purpose. The purpose of Part Two of this Agreement is to provide a method for
the transfer of City funds to the Council for activities undertaken by the Council for the Project
and activities undertaken by the Council components related to but currently not part of the
Project, should any such payment be authorized by the City.
5.02 Transfer of Funds Requires Subordinate Funding Agreement. The City may
provide funding for components for related to but not part of activities undertaken by the Council
for the Project and activities undertaking by the Council not part of the Project through the
transfer of funds to the Council. Each such transfer of funds to the Council from the City shall
be in accordance with one or more duly executed Subordinate Funding Agreements, each of
which shall define the amount of funds committed by the City to the Council, specify the
purpose for the funds, and establish who will own the asset constructed or remaining upon
completion of the work.
5.03 Subordinate Funding Agreements. To facilitate funding by the City in
accordance with Section 5.01, the Parties shall enter into Subordinate Funding Agreements.
Subordinate Funding Agreements shall be in a form similar to Exhibit A and shall follow and be
subject to the terms of Parts Two and Three of this Agreement, unless expressly agreed to in
writing otherwise. Notwithstanding any other provisions of this Agreement, this Agreement
itself is not intended to create a specific financial obligation for either Party or to require either
Party to enter into any specific Subordinate Funding Agreements, and no liability shall attach to
Special City Council Meeting of August 24, 2015 (Item No. 2a) Page 14
Title: SWLRT Funding Agreements
either Party under this Agreement for refusing to enter into one or more subsequent Subordinate
Funding Agreements.
5.04 Implementation of Subordinate Funding Agreements. The City will only
reimburse the Council for components related to the Project that are the subject of a Subordinate
Funding Agreement. Prior to entering into a contractual obligation with any third party
(including for the acquisition of property rights) to accomplish the Council’s obligations
reimbursable by the City, or prior to authorizing any Council employees to proceed with any
reimbursable actions, the Council shall present a work scope (including a work schedule),
staffing plan, and detailed budget for such services or expenditures to the City for review and
approval.
5.05 Modifications of Subordinate Funding Agreements. The following provisions
apply to any modifications in a particular Subordinate Funding Agreement:
a. Rebudgeting within an approved budget is allowable as long as the budget is within the
maximum amount of authorized funding.
b.Modifications in work scope, if within the approved budget, are authorized when
approved in writing by the City Manager or designee, or such other person as the City
may designate by notice to the Council.
c. Any other modifications in a particular Subordinate Funding Agreement, including any
increase in the maximum amount of authorized funding or changes in the applicable
activity period, shall require a formal amendment of the Subordinate Funding
Agreement executed by the Parties.
5.06 Transfer of Funds to the Council Under Subordinate Funding Agreements.
The City shall pay the Council under Subordinate Funding Agreements as follows:
a. Unless specifically agreed to otherwise by the Parties in and for a particular
Subordinate Funding Agreement, payment to the Council for costs under each
Subordinate Funding Agreement shall be on a reimbursement basis after the submittal
of invoices evidencing the expenditure of funds by the Council.
b. The Council shall submit separate monthly invoices for each outstanding
Subordinate Funding Agreement to the following address:
or to such other City address or person as the City may designate in writing.
c. Unless the Parties otherwise agree, the Council shall submit each invoice to the City
in the standard Council format and shall reference the sequential number of the
Subordinate Funding Agreement under which the invoice is to be funded.
d. Each invoice must include:
i. A description of activities undertaken in accordance with the Subordinate
Funding Agreement;
Ms. Debra Heiser
Engineering Director
City of St. Louis Park
5005 Minnetonka Blvd
St. Louis Park, MN 55416
Special City Council Meeting of August 24, 2015 (Item No. 2a) Page 15
Title: SWLRT Funding Agreements
ii. An itemized list of the expenditures for which payment is requested; and
iii. Any supporting documentation.
e. The Council shall add an administrative fee to each invoice to be paid by the City.
For design and environmental professional services the fee shall be up to 3% of the
actual professional service cost. If the City requests the Council to construct locally
funded components related to, but currently not part of the Project, the City shall pay
the following fees, which is a percentage of actual construction costs, for each
professional service provided:
i. Contract Administration 3%
ii. Construction inspection 2%
iii. Survey and staking 2%
iv. Materials inspection 1%
The above applicable fees and costs for professional services will be specified in
Subordinate Funding Agreements. The Council reserves the right to adjust the fee
percentages on an annual basis as amended in a Subordinate Funding Agreement. In
the event this Agreement or the Subordinate Funding Agreement is terminated, the
City shall be entitled to reimbursement of any unused portions of the above fee.
f. After receipt of an invoice, the City may request additional information from the
Council regarding the invoice in order to verify the accuracy and appropriateness of
the expenditures for which reimbursement is requested.
g. The City shall pay the Council the approved invoice amount within 30 days of its
receipt. The City may dispute all of or any part of an invoice if it reasonably believes
that the requested payment does not conform to the terms of this Agreement or the
applicable Subordinate Funding Agreement. If disputed, the Parties will promptly
meet to review and discuss the disputed or denied payment requests and the dispute
resolution process outlined in Section 6.11 of this Agreement will ensue if the Parties
cannot agree. Unless the City has disputed the payment of an invoice, if the City does
not pay the invoiced amount within 30 days of its receipt, the Council shall charge
and the City shall pay interest on the non-disputed amount at the rate of 1-1/2 percent
per month.
h. No invoice payment shall be made by the City without prior written amendment to
the applicable Subordinate Funding Agreement, which would cause the distribution
of funds to exceed, cumulatively through such payment, the maximum amount of
authorized funding under the applicable Subordinate Funding Agreement.
i. The City’s payment of any invoices or approval of any reports shall not constitute a
waiver of any Council noncompliance with this Agreement or the applicable
Subordinate Funding Agreement.
5.07 Repayment of Unauthorized Use of Funds. Upon a finding by the City that the
Council has made an unauthorized or undocumented use of City funds, and upon a demand for
repayment issued by the City and supported by the reason for the finding, if the Council agrees,
the Council shall promptly repay such amounts to the City. If the Council disagrees, the Parties
will promptly meet to review and discuss any challenged use of funds already paid and dispute
resolution pursuant to Section 6.11 will ensue if the Parties cannot agree. Neither Party shall be
Special City Council Meeting of August 24, 2015 (Item No. 2a) Page 16
Title: SWLRT Funding Agreements
deemed to have waived any rights or remedies available under state law, federal law, common
law or otherwise.
5.08 Use of Funds; Allowable Costs. The Council is authorized to use funds provided
by the City under this Agreement only for costs directly incurred under a specific Subordinate
Funding Agreement. Funds provided by the City under Subordinate Funding Agreements may
only be used for costs directly incurred:
a. Within the authorized work scope;
b.During the specified activity period; and
c. In accordance with the approved budget for the funds.
Upon completion of the Project, the Council shall refund to the City its proportionate share of
local funding for the Project, subject to administrative and management adjustments.
5.09 Documentation of Costs. All reimbursable costs charged to the City by the
Council must be supported by proper documentation, including properly executed payrolls, time
records, invoices, contracts, receipts for expenses, or vouchers, evidencing in detail the nature
and propriety of the charges.
5.10 Establishment and Maintenance of Information. The Council agrees to
establish and maintain accurate, detailed, complete, and separate books, accounts, financial
records, documentation, and other evidence relating to the receipt and expenditure of all funds
from the City. All such information shall be established and maintained in accordance with
generally accepted government accounting principles and practices and shall be retained intact
by the Council until the latest of:
a. Complete performance of this Agreement and all Subordinate Funding Agreements
entered into pursuant thereto;
b. Six years following the term of this Agreement and all Subordinate Funding
Agreements entered into pursuant thereto;
c. Six years following the close out of the Project by the Council and the FTA; or
d. If any litigation, claim, or audit is commenced during any such periods, when all such
litigation, claims or audits have been resolved.
If the Council engages any contractors to perform any part of the activities reimbursable by the
City, the Council agrees that the contract for such services shall include provisions requiring the
contractor to establish and maintain information in accordance with the provisions of this Article
and to allow audit of such information in the same manner provided with respect to the Council
in this Section 5.10.
The provisions of this Section 5.10 shall survive termination of this Agreement.
5.11 Audit. The accounts and records of the Council relating to costs reimbursable by
the City shall be audited in the same manner as all other accounts and records of the Council are
audited. During the time of maintenance of information under Section 5.10, authorized
representatives of the City; the Legislative Auditor and/or State Auditor in accordance with
Minnesota Statutes, Section 16C.05, subdivision 5; the United States Secretary of
Special City Council Meeting of August 24, 2015 (Item No. 2a) Page 17
Title: SWLRT Funding Agreements
Transportation; the FTA Administrator, and the United States Comptroller General in accordance
with 49 U.S.C. Section 5325(g); will have access to all such books, records, documents,
accounting practices and procedures, and other information for the purpose of inspection, audit,
and copying during normal business hours. Proper facilities for such access and inspection shall
be provided by the Council.
The provisions of this Section 5.11 shall survive termination of this Agreement.
5.12 Use of Contractors. If the Council engages any contractors to perform any
activities reimbursable by the City under Part Two of this Agreement, the Council agrees that the
contract for such services shall include, to the fullest extent allowed by law, all of the following
provisions. These requirements are in addition to other requirements for such contracts set forth
in this Agreement.
a. The contractor must maintain all records and provide all reporting as required by this
Agreement.
b. The contractor must defend, indemnify, and save harmless the City from all claims,
suits, demands, damages, judgments, costs, interest, and expenses arising out of or by
reason of the performance of the contracted work, caused in whole or in part by any
negligent act or omission of the contractor, including negligent acts or omissions of
its employees, subcontractors, or anyone for whose acts any of them may be liable.
c. The contractor must provide and maintain insurance in amounts and types of
coverage appropriate to the contracted work and naming the City as an additional
insured, and provide to the Council a certificate of insurance evidencing such
insurance coverage.
d. The contractor must be an independent contractor for the purposes of completing the
contracted work.
e. The contractor must acknowledge that the contract between the Council and the
contractor does not create any contractual relationship between the City and the
contractor.
f. The contractor shall perform and complete the contracted work in full compliance
with this Agreement and all applicable laws, statutes, rules, ordinances, and
regulations issued by any federal, state, or local political subdivisions having
jurisdiction over the contracted work.
5.13 Contract Information. The Council shall, in connection with any contract
entered into for reimbursable work under Part Two of this Agreement:
a. Keep the City informed as to the progress of such contract;
b. Allow authorized representatives of the City access to all meetings and
documentation related to such contract; and
c. Upon request, promptly provide the City with copies of correspondence between the
Council and the contractor related to any such contract.
PART THREE
ARTICLE 6. GENERAL PROVISIONS
Special City Council Meeting of August 24, 2015 (Item No. 2a) Page 18
Title: SWLRT Funding Agreements
6.01 Purpose. The purpose of Part Three of this Agreement is to establish the general
provisions that apply to this Agreement and each Subordinate Funding Agreement executed by
the Parties hereafter.
6.02 Independent Contractors. The Parties agree that any and all persons employed
by or on behalf of a Party to perform any work or duties as an agent of a Party under this
Agreement shall not be considered employees of the other Party. Any and all claims that may or
might arise under the Workers Compensation Act of Minnesota on behalf of said employees or
persons while so engaged, and any and all claims made by any third person as a consequence of
any act or omission on the part of said employees or persons while so engaged in any of the work
contemplated in this Agreement, shall not be the obligation or responsibility of the other Party.
This Agreement is not intended to constitute an interchange of government employees within the
meaning of Minnesota Statutes, Section 15.51, et seq.
6.03 Entire Agreement. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between
the Parties and supersedes all oral agreements and negotiations between the Parties relating to the
subject matter of this Agreement. As stated herein, this Agreement depends upon one or more
Subordinate Funding Agreements for the actual authorization of work or transfer of any
reimbursements and the terms of any subsequent Subordinate Funding Agreements shall be
considered together with this Agreement.
6.04 Non-Waiver of Immunity and Limits. Nothing in this Agreement shall be
construed to waive the immunities or liability limits provided in Minnesota Statutes, Chapter
466, or other applicable state or federal law. The provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Section
471.59, subdivision 1a, specifically apply to this Agreement.
6.05 Amendments. The terms of this Agreement may be changed only by mutual
agreement of the Parties. Such changes shall be effective only upon the execution of written
amendments signed by authorized officers of the Parties to this Agreement.
6.06 Non-Waiver. The failure of either Party at any time to insist upon the strict
performance of any or all of the terms, conditions, and covenants in this Agreement shall not be
deemed a waiver by that Party of any subsequent breach or default in the said terms, conditions,
or covenants by the other Party.
6.07 Severability. The provisions of this Agreement shall be deemed severable. If
any part of this Agreement is rendered void, invalid or unenforceable, such rendering shall not
affect the validity and enforceability of the remainder of this Agreement unless the part or parts
which are void, invalid or otherwise unenforceable shall substantially impair the value of the
entire Agreement with respect to either Party.
6.08 Assignment Prohibited. Neither Party shall assign their obligations under this
Agreement without receiving the express written consent of the other Party.
6.09 Time. The Parties agree that all obligations undertaken under this Agreement,
and with respect to any subsequent Subordinate Funding Agreements entered into by the Parties,
will be diligently performed in a manner consistent with the proper exercise of professional care
and with due consideration to project timelines and constraints.
Special City Council Meeting of August 24, 2015 (Item No. 2a) Page 19
Title: SWLRT Funding Agreements
6.10 Notices. Except as otherwise expressly provided in this Agreement, all requests,
notices, demands, authorizations, directions, consents, waivers or other communications required
or permitted under this Agreement shall be in writing and shall either be:
a. Delivered in person;
b. Deposited postage prepaid in the certified mails of the United States, return receipt
requested;
c. Delivered by a nationally recognized overnight or same-day courier service that
obtains receipts; or
d. Delivered via email attachment.
Such communications shall be directed to the individuals specified below or to such other
persons and at such other addresses as either Party may at any time or from time to time
designate for itself by notice in accordance with this Section. Each such request, notice, demand,
authorization, direction, consent, waiver or other document shall be deemed to be delivered to a
Party when received at its address set forth or designated as above provided.
For the Council:
Project Director
Southwest LRT Project Office
6465 Wayzata Blvd, Suite 500
St. Louis Park, MN 55426
Phone: 612-373-3820
For the City:
City Manager
City of St. Louis Park
5005 Minnetonka Blvd
St. Louis Park, MN 55416
6.11 Dispute Resolution. A dispute resolution process shall be used for any
unresolved issue, dispute or controversy between the parties before any legal remedies are
exercised. The dispute resolution process contains a three level dispute resolution ladder that
escalates a dispute from the project management level through the executive management level.
The City is represented by the City Manager or designee. The Council is represented from Level
1 to 3 in the following order: Deputy General Manager, General Manager, and Regional
Administrator. At each level, representatives of the Parties shall meet and continue to explore
resolution until either party determines, in good faith, that effective resolution is not possible at
the current level, and notifies the other party that the process is elevated to the next level. If
either or both parties make such a determination at any point during issue resolution at Level 3,
then the dispute resolution process has been exhausted.
6.12 Project Director. The Council's Project Director for purposes of administration
of this Agreement, and any Subordinate Funding Agreements entered into pursuant to this
Agreement, is the person whose title is listed in Section 6.11, or such other person designated in
writing by the Council's Regional Administrator. The City's Project Director for purposes of
administration of this Agreement and any Subordinate Funding Agreements entered into
Special City Council Meeting of August 24, 2015 (Item No. 2a) Page 20
Title: SWLRT Funding Agreements
pursuant to this Agreement is the person whose title is listed in Section 6.10, or such other
person designated in writing by the City. The City's Project Director shall:
a. Coordinate the carrying out of the City's obligations under this Agreement;
b. Coordinate Subordinate Funding Agreement work scope activities with the Council's
Project Director;
c. Attend meetings called by the Council's Project Director for Southwest Light Rail
Project; and
d. Complete training to be provided by the Council with respect to Council and federal
requirements under this Agreement and any Subordinate Funding Agreements entered
into pursuant to this Agreement.
6.13 Applicable Law and Venue. This Agreement shall be interpreted in accordance
with the laws of the State of Minnesota. Venue for all legal proceedings arising out of or relating
to this Agreement or any associated Subordinate Funding Agreements, or breach thereof, shall be
in the state or federal court with competent jurisdiction in Hennepin County, Minnesota.
6.14 Effective Date and Termination. This Agreement shall be effective on February
3, 2015. This Agreement or a Subordinate Funding Agreement shall terminate upon the earliest
of:
a. Completion of construction of the Project and reimbursement of all costs provided for
in this Agreement and all Subordinate Funding Agreements entered into pursuant
thereto;
b. A determination by the Council that the Project or Subordinate Funding Agreement
cannot proceed;
c. A determination by the City that a Subordinate Funding Agreement transferring City
funds to the Council cannot proceed, however, this Agreement may not be terminated
if a Subordinate Funding Agreement is outstanding; or
d. A determination by the Council that sufficient funds do not exist, or are not
reasonably projected to exist, in order to complete the Project or a Subordinate
Funding Agreement.
The City agrees that Project closeout or termination of this Agreement or any particular
Subordinate Funding Agreement does not invalidate continuing obligations imposed on the City
by this Agreement or such Subordinate Funding Agreements or any agreements entered into
pursuant to this Agreement or a Subordinate Funding Agreement. Project closeout or
termination of this Agreement does not alter the Council's authority to disallow costs and recover
funds on the basis of a later audit or other review, and does not alter the City's obligation to
return any funds determined to be due to the Council.
The Council agrees that Project closeout or termination of this Agreement or any particular
Subordinate Funding Agreement does not invalidate continuing obligations imposed on the
Council by this Agreement or such Subordinate Funding Agreements or any agreements entered
into pursuant to this Agreement or a Subordinate Funding Agreement. Project closeout or
termination of this Agreement does not alter the City’s authority to disallow costs and recover
funds on the basis of a later audit or other review, and does not alter the Council's obligation to
return any funds determined to be due to the City.
Special City Council Meeting of August 24, 2015 (Item No. 2a) Page 21
Title: SWLRT Funding Agreements
6.15 Exhibits. All attached exhibits are deemed to be incorporated into this
Agreement.
[THE REMAINDER OF THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK;
SIGNATURE PAGE TO FOLLOW.]
Special City Council Meeting of August 24, 2015 (Item No. 2a) Page 22
Title: SWLRT Funding Agreements
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have caused this Agreement to be executed by
their duly authorized representatives on the dates indicated below. Furthermore, this Agreement
may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall be deemed to be an original, but all of
which, taken together, shall constitute one and the same agreement.
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
By: ________________________________
Its: Mayor
Date: ______________________________
By: ________________________________
Its: City Manager
Date: ______________________________
METROPOLITAN COUNCIL
By:
_____________________________
Its:
Date: ___________________
Special City Council Meeting of August 24, 2015 (Item No. 2a) Page 23
Title: SWLRT Funding Agreements
LIST OF EXHIBITS
Exhibit Description
A Form of Subordinate Funding Agreement
B Sample Forms
C Specific Federal Clauses
D Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Pass Through Agreement and
Program
Special City Council Meeting of August 24, 2015 (Item No. 2a) Page 24
Title: SWLRT Funding Agreements
Reference Numbers:
SWLRT Project: 61001
Metropolitan Council: 14I061
City of St. Louis Park:
PROJECT: SOUTHWEST LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT PROJECT
AGREEMENT NAME: Amendment No. 1 to the Master Funding Agreement
PARTIES: • Metropolitan Council
• City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota
WHEREAS, The Metropolitan Council (“Council”) and the City of St. Louis Park (“City”)
collectively (“Parties”) entered into a Master Funding Agreement (“Agreement”), effective
February 3, 2015, to address financial and staff support matters.
WHEREAS, the Parties desire to amend the Agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Parties agree that the Agreement is amended in the following
particulars effective as of August 24, 2015:
1. Whereas No. 1 is deleted in its entirety and the following is inserted in its place:
The Council, metropolitan area cities, public agencies, and transit funders are engaged in
activities to develop the Project, an approximately 14.5 mile proposed extension of the
METRO Green Line which will operate from downtown Minneapolis through the cities of
St. Louis Park, Hopkins, Minnetonka, and Eden Prairie.
2. Whereas No. 6 is deleted in its entirety and the following is inserted in its place:
The City may be involved in certain activities, provide funding, and/or materials in
connection with and in support of the Project, and the Council may desire to pass through
federal, state, CTIB or other local funds to the City for costs associated with such Project
activities and/or materials.
3. Whereas No. 8 is deleted in its entirety and the following is inserted in its place:
This Agreement is entered into between the Parties to provide a mechanism for the transfer
of Project funds from the Council to the City for activities undertaken by the City for the
Project (Part One), and for the transfer of City funds to the Council for activities
undertaken by the Council for the Project and activities undertaken by the Council not part
of the Project (Part Two). In addition, this Agreement establishes general provisions
applicable to transfers from either Party to the other (Part Three).
4. Article 5. Section 5.01 is deleted in its entirety and the following is inserted in its
place:
Special City Council Meeting of August 24, 2015 (Item No. 2a) Page 25
Title: SWLRT Funding Agreements
Purpose. The purpose of Part Two of this Agreement is to provide a method for the
transfer of City funds to the Council for activities undertaken by the Council for the Project
and activities undertaken by the Council not part of the Project, should any such payment
be authorized by the City.
5. Article 5. Section 5.02 is deleted in its entirety and the following is inserted in its
place:
Transfer of Funds Requires Subordinate Funding Agreement. The City may provide
funding for activities undertaken by the Council for the Project and activities undertaken by
the Council not part of the Project through the transfer of funds to the Council. Each such
transfer of funds to the Council from the City shall be in accordance with one or more duly
executed Subordinate Funding Agreements, each of which shall define the amount of funds
committed by the City to the Council, specify the purpose for the funds, and establish who
will own the asset constructed or remaining upon completion of the work.
6. Article 5. Section 5.08 is deleted in its entirety and the following is inserted in its
place:
Use of Funds; Allowable Costs. The Council is authorized to use funds provided by the
City under this Agreement only for costs directly incurred under a specific Subordinate
Funding Agreement. Funds provided by the City under Subordinate Funding Agreements
may only be used for costs directly incurred:
d. Within the authorized work scope;
e. During the specified activity period; and
f. In accordance with the approved budget for the funds.
Upon completion of the Project, the Council shall refund to the City its proportionate share
of local funding for the Project, subject to administrative and management adjustments.
[THE REMAINDER OF THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK;
SIGNATURE PAGE TO FOLLOW.]
Special City Council Meeting of August 24, 2015 (Item No. 2a) Page 26
Title: SWLRT Funding Agreements
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have caused this Agreement to be executed by
their duly authorized representatives on the dates indicated below. Furthermore, this Agreement
may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall be deemed to be an original, but all of
which, taken together, shall constitute one and the same agreement.
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
By: ________________________________
Its: Mayor
Date: ______________________________
By: ________________________________
Its: City Manager
Date: ______________________________
METROPOLITAN COUNCIL
By:
_____________________________
Its:
Date: ___________________
Special City Council Meeting of August 24, 2015 (Item No. 2a) Page 27
Title: SWLRT Funding Agreements
Reference Numbers:
SWLRT Project: 61001
Metropolitan Council: 14I061F
City of St. Louis Park: ___________
PROJECT: SOUTHWEST LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT PROJECT
MASTER AGREEMENT: Master Funding Agreement – City of St. Louis Park
PARTIES TO AGREEMENT: • Metropolitan Council (“Council”)
• City of St. Louis Park (“City”)
SUBORDINATE FUNDING AGREEMENT
City of St. Louis Park – 06 (Louisiana Station Underpass & Trail)
This Subordinate Funding Agreement (“SFA”) with the City of St. Louis Park is entered into by
and between the above named Parties.
WHEREAS:
1. The Parties entered into a Southwest Light Rail Transit Project (“Project”) Master Funding
Agreement (“MFA”), effective February 3, 2015, and amended effective August 24, 2015.
2. The Parties provided in the MFA that certain aspects of funding for the Project or
components related to but not part of the Project would be determined in subsequent SFAs.
3. The Parties desire to enter into this SFA to transfer City funds to reimburse the cost for
Council activities for professional services and the Council’s administrative fee to produce
design plans and environmentally review proposed Project components.
4. The Parties acknowledge that the planning of the Project will require numerous federal, state
and local processes, approvals and funding commitments. The environmental review and
other processes for the Project are ongoing and the Project is subject to change to address
those processes. The outcomes of those processes may affect whether the components
requested in this SFA will ultimately be constructed.
NOW, THEREFORE, in reliance on the statements in these recitals, the Parties hereby agree as
follows:
1. Maximum Amount of Authorized Funding. The cost for the Council’s professional
services and administration activities authorized by this SFA shall not exceed $78, 000 unless
authorized in a subsequent agreement or an amendment to this SFA. The Maximum Amount
of Authorized Funding is subject to amendment based on, but not limited to, additional
environmental documentation, as determined necessary.
2. SFA Budget. The budget for the Council’s activities described in this SFA is provided as
Exhibit A. City funds provided for this SFA may only be used for reimbursing the Council’s
costs for activities directly incurred within the Description of Activities and as detailed in the
MFA.
Special City Council Meeting of August 24, 2015 (Item No. 2a) Page 28
Title: SWLRT Funding Agreements
3. Description of Activities. The activities to be performed by the Council and reimbursed by
the City includes the development of design plans and completing required federal, state, and
local environmental documentation for a new underpass of the Bass Lake Spur/Cedar Lake
LRT Regional Trail at proposed Louisiana Station with pedestrian and bicycle connections to
the Cedar Lake LRT Regional Trail in the City (“Louisiana Station Underpass & Trail”). See
Exhibit B for a general depiction and location of the Louisiana Station Underpass & Trail.
The Louisiana Station Underpass & Trail is anticipated to be constructed by the Project and
includes excavation, temporary shoring, utility relocations, retaining walls, pavement,
lighting, fencing, and bridges for the pedestrian/bike trail and freight railroad tracks.
4.
The Council will incorporate the Louisiana Station Underpass & Trail design plans in the
proposed Project construction bid documents if: a) the environmental review of the Project
and the components described in this SFA allow the construction of the Louisiana Station
Underpass & Trail; and b) the Project is permitted to proceed to construction. The Louisiana
Station Underpass & Trail construction specifications will be incorporated in the overall
specifications within the Project construction bid documents. No separate or stand alone
specifications for the Louisiana Station Trail design plans will be created.
5. Environmental Documentation. The Federal Transit Administration (“FTA”) is the
Project’s lead federal agency under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(“NEPA”) and the Council is the Responsible Governmental Unit under the Minnesota
Environmental Policy Act of 1973 (“MEPA”). The FTA and the Council will complete the
environmental review process for the Project, including the components described in this
SFA proposed to be constructed as part of the Project. Notwithstanding any contrary
language in the MFA or this SFA, the disclosure of draft environmental documents are
subject to the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, Minn. Statutes, Chapter 13, and
applicable federal law and the Council in its sole discretion shall determine when such
documents can or will be shared with the City.
6. Project Activity Periods. The term of this SFA shall be effective as of August 24, 2015 and
shall terminate on the date all costs under this SFA have been reimbursed, unless terminated
earlier consistent with the terms of the MFA. Notwithstanding the terms of this SFA or the
MFA, the City agrees that it shall not terminate this SFA.
7. No Guarantee of Construction. This SFA describes terms requiring the City to reimburse
the Council’s cost for design activities associated with the requested Louisiana Station
Underpass & Trail. It does not guarantee that the Louisiana Station Underpass & Trail will
satisfy environmental review or be constructed. The City and the Council acknowledge that
nothing in this Agreement shall require the Council to take any action or make any decision
that will prejudice or compromise any review or decision-making processes required under
state and federal environmental review laws, regulations or rules. The Parties intend this
Agreement to be interpreted consistent with statutory and other legal authorities, including
but not limited to the MEPA and the NEPA. The Parties agree that this SFA does not limit
the alternatives or mitigative measures that the Council may undertake in the development
and construction of the Project. The Council retains the right to make decisions and
necessary approvals associated with Project requirements.
8. Incorporation. The terms, conditions, and definitions of the MFA are expressly
incorporated into this SFA.
Special City Council Meeting of August 24, 2015 (Item No. 2a) Page 29
Title: SWLRT Funding Agreements
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK METROPOLITAN COUNCIL
By: By:
Its:
Its:
Date: Date:
By:
Its:
Date:
Special City Council Meeting of August 24, 2015 (Item No. 2a) Page 30
Title: SWLRT Funding Agreements
Exhibit A
SFA Budget – Louisiana Station Underpass & Trail
Item Cost
Professional Services
Design Cost $60,000
Environmental Documentation Cost1 18,000
Professional Services Subtotal $78,000
Administrative Fee (up to 3% of Professional Services) 0
Maximum Amount of Authorized Funding $78,000
1Additional environmental documentation (e.g., cultural resources survey,
contaminated property investigation, etc.) may be required and authorized in
a subsequent agreement or by amending this SFA, as determined necessary.
Page 1 of 1
Exhibit B
Louisiana Station Underpass & Trail
Special City Council Meeting of August 24, 2015 (Item No. 2a)
Title: SWLRT Funding Agreements Page 31
Special City Council Meeting of August 24, 2015 (Item No. 2a) Title: SWLRT Funding AgreementsPage 32
Special City Council Meeting of August 24, 2015 (Item No. 2a) Title: SWLRT Funding AgreementsPage 33
Meeting: Study Session
Meeting Date: August 24, 2015
Discussion Item: 1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Future Study Session Agenda Planning – September 8 and September 28, 2015
RECOMMENDED ACTION: The City Council and the City Manager to set the agenda for a
Special Study Session on September 8, 2015 and the regularly scheduled Study Session on
September 28, 2015.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the Council agree with the agendas as proposed?
SUMMARY: At each study session approximately five minutes are set aside to discuss the next
study session agenda. For this purpose, attached please find the proposed discussion items for a
Special Study Session on September 8, 2015 and the regularly scheduled Study Session on
September 28, 2015.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Future Study Session Agenda Planning - September 8 & 28, 2015
Prepared by: Debbie Fischer, Administrative Services Office Assistant
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of August 24, 2015 (Item No. 1) Page 2
Title: Future Study Session Agenda Planning – September 8 and September 28, 2015
Special Study Session, September 8, 2015 – 6:30 p.m.
Tentative Discussion Item
1. 2016 Budget Discussion: General Fund, CIP, Utility Rates, Solid Waste, Storm Water and
Other Funds – Administrative Services (55 minutes)
Staff will provide information on 2016 budget requests and review CIP, Utility Rates, Storm
Water, Solid Waste and other funds. Directors will be present to provide information or
answer questions as needed. This discussion is to provide information and answer questions
prior to setting the preliminary levy on September 21.
Reports
2. Connect the Park! – 2015 Bikeways
3. Arlington Row West Update
End of Meeting: 7:25 p.m.
Study Session, September 28, 2015 – 6:30 p.m.
Tentative Discussion Items
1. Future Study Session Agenda Planning – Administrative Services (5 minutes)
2. Corridor-Wide Housing Strategy SWLRT – Community Development (30 minutes)
County & Urban Land Institute staff will review the SWLRT Corridor–wide Housing
Strategy developed SW Community Works Housing Workgroup. The strategy includes a plan
to support and encourage a full range of housing choices along the SW Corridor station areas.
3. Boards & Commissions Annual Meeting w/ Council Program – Administrative Services (30
minutes)
Staff will present a draft of a new program requested by Council for annual commission
reporting. The proposed program would require that all commissions meet at the same time
with council each year to provide a brief overview of previous year work and upcoming goals.
4. Boards & Commissions Appointment Process – Administrative Services (30 minutes)
Council directed staff to make recommendations on changes to the appointment and
reappointment process for Boards & Commissions. Information will include possible updates
to the application, as well as gathering supplemental information from candidates.
5. Off-Sale Intoxicating Liquor Discussion – Administrative Services (30 minutes)
This is a continued discussion from July 13, 2015. Staff will present information on size
limitation options for off-sale intoxicating liquor establishments.
6. Microdistillery Discussion – Administrative Services (15 minutes)
Staff will provide an overview of new MN regulations regarding Microdistilleries and allow
time to discuss if Council is interested in adding this type of establishment and license category.
Communications/Meeting Check-In – Administrative Services (5 minutes)
Time for communications between staff and Council will be set aside on every study session
agenda for the purposes of information sharing.
Reports
7. August 2015 Monthly Financial Report
End of Meeting: 8:55 p.m.
Meeting: Study Session
Meeting Date: August 24, 2015
Discussion Item: 2
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: 2016 Budget, CIP and Utility Rates
RECOMMENDED ACTION: No formal action required. This report is to assist with the
Study Session discussion regarding 2016 Budget recommendations, to receive direction for
further conversation at the September 8th Special Study Session, and in preparation for setting the
2016 Preliminary Property Tax Levies on September 21, 2015.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
• Is the Council able to identify at this time what it might want to certify as a preliminary
levy on September 21, 2015? If not, what would the Council like staff to bring back for
discussion on September 8, 2015?
• Does the Council want to certify the maximum HRA levy amount for the 2016 levy?
• Does the Council have any questions or suggested changes to the attached CIP?
• Is the Council in support of the proposed utility rate adjustment plans?
• Is there other information that Council would like to review in more detail?
• Are there any other service delivery changes Council would like to have considered?
SUMMARY: Included is information pertaining to the 2016 Budget and 2016 Preliminary
General Property Tax and HRA levies. City Manager Tom Harmening and staff are currently
analyzing submitted budgets for 2016. Also included in the report are some items of significance
that are being considered. In addition, staff would like direction on any other major changes,
programs, or policies that should be evaluated during the preparation of the 2016 Budget. The
2016 – 2025 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) is attached as well for the City Council to review.
Finally, there is a brief discussion on utility rates and recommended rate changes.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Information regarding the budget, tax
levies, CIP, and utility rates are provided in this report.
VISION CONSIDERATION: All Vision areas are taken into consideration and are an
important part of our budgeting process.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion
2016 Budget Calendar
2016 – 2025 CIP Funding Source Summary
2016 – 2025 CIP Projects by Dept and Funding Source
2016 Proposed Utility Rates – Impact on a Property
Prepared by: Brian A. Swanson, Controller
Reviewed by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of August 24, 2015 (Item No. 2) Page 2
Title: 2016 Budget, CIP and Utility Rates
DISCUSSION
BACKGROUND: On June 22, 2015, staff met with the City Council to discuss the 2016
Budget Process. Council agreed that staff should follow recommendations from the “2016
Budget Production Guidelines” when preparing the 2016 Budget. Assumptions for the 2016
Budget included a pattern similar to past years; a levy increase, modest increase in other fees and
charges where appropriate to fit with business costs, maintain high quality and responsive service
delivery, hold expenditures flat where possible with adjustments for some modest growth based
on essential business needs, funding for a wage and benefit contribution increase, utility rate
increases, and continued long range financial planning. At that time the Council also indicated
that as a target it desired any levy adjustment for 2016 to be consistent with the 10 year average
of 4.56%
Discussion Topics – Monday, August 24th:
The purpose of the Study Session discussion is to make sure service delivery and business needs
are congruent with Council expectations in preparing the 2016 Budget. For 2016, staff used the
budget guiding principles, as well as Vision, and the new key organizational cultural behaviors
of Collaboration, Quality and Responsiveness for preparing budget recommendations. The
Study Session discussion is intended to be at the higher/big bowl level to allow Council, if
possible, to provide levy direction to staff as well as identify other initiatives they would like
staff to add or explore. Based upon this discussion, staff can then prepare more information to
bring back to the City Council as needed at a later date.
Below is the order of the budget presentation and discussion for this Study Session:
1. Discussion on overall budget, requests and council requested items for staff to explore.
2. Answer any City Council questions on the 2016 – 2025 CIP (Capital Improvement Plan).
3. 2016 Preliminary Property Tax Levy range discussion.
4. 2016 Preliminary HRA Levy discussion.
5. 2016 Utility Rates and impact.
6. Council questions, comments, expectations, and data requests for upcoming meetings,
including the budget calendar.
The 2016 Preliminary Budget Items of Significance:
Legislative directives:
• There are no levy limits in place for 2016.
• Local Government Aid has been approved to be issued in accordance with a formula set
by the state. Currently the City is scheduled to receive $539,434 in 2016, which is
$26,965 more than the $512,466 allocated in 2015. These dollars go into the Capital
Replacement Fund as in previous years.
Staffing Costs & Wages: Funds for staffing are the largest expenditure of the City’s operating
budget. In building the 2016 budget recommendations, a wage adjustment of 2.5% is being used
as an assumption. As a reminder, all 5 union contracts are open for 2016.
Benefits: For 2016 the City has received a favorable renewal from HealthPartners for an
average premium increase of 12%. Staff continues to work with the City’s benefits consultant
and internal benefits committee on cost containment on claims. Based on last year’s input from
staff, and the philosophy adopted by the City to fund coverage differently for employee only
Study Session Meeting of August 24, 2015 (Item No. 2) Page 3
Title: 2016 Budget, CIP and Utility Rates
versus employees who cover dependents, we recommend $319,200 be set aside in 2016 for an
increased benefit contribution (this averages to an additional $100 per employee per month to
cover increased premium costs). Staff plans to bring more information to Council in the near
future on recommended plan design and employer contribution. The wellness incentive benefit
for 2015 and beyond was set at $40 per employee per month ongoing until a change is
recommended (this will remain at $40 per employee per month for 2016).
PERA Coordinated Plan: Employee contribution of 6.50% of salary and employer
contribution of 7.50% of salary in 2015 will remain the same in 2016.
PERA Police and Fire: Employee contribution of 10.8% and employer contribution of 16.2%
in 2015 will remain the same in 2016.
Summary of Significant 2016 Budget Personnel Requests That Are Included:
The most significant requests received from departments in the 2016 budget relate to staffing.
Original requests from departments for additional staff range from approximately $751,000 to
$973,000 depending on the staffing model being proposed ($101,000 of this is reserved for any
other compensation adjustment, if needed, for market or other changes related to basic
compensation program). This amount does not include the cost of the standard adjustment for
wages and benefits. All requests are in the process of being reviewed by the City Manager with
each applicable Department Head. We anticipate some changes will be made to the staffing
requests and the City Manager will bring the Council more detailed information and
recommendations this fall. In order to determine the final recommendations staff will continue to
review business needs and funding and also look at alternatives for service delivery with some
requests and moving some requests to future year(s) for consideration. Below is the summary of
staffing requests and funding recommendations. Note – these are the staffing requests made by
Department Directors and do not constitute at this time a recommendation from the City
Manager.
What staffing additions or changes are requested at this time for 2016?
• Administrative Services - Election Judges - $36,000 – Cyclical for Presidential election.
General Fund is funding source.
• Engineering - Civil Engineer – FT benefit earning - $90,288 – The position would spend
time working on Connect the Park, Pavement Management and transportation planning
initiatives. Funding would come from the General Fund and utilize temporary salaries of
$25,000 currently budgeted with the remaining funded via the Pavement Management
Fund and Connect the Park (Sidewalk and Trails Fund) for approximately $32,600 each.
• Fire Department - Overtime - $5,000 – Increase suggested based on call volume and
covering shift work. Funding is the General Fund.
• Fire Department - Paid on Call (POC) - $70,912 – Increase in POC volume and staffing.
Funding is the General Fund.
• Fire Department provided 2 staffing options for consideration. The City Manager and
Fire Chief will continue discussions on operations, business needs and future staffing
models for consideration and anticipate a final recommendation from the City Manager
this fall.
o Option 1 – Add a career 24/7 Firefighter slot (3 FTE = 1 firefighter slot) and
Community Risk Reduction Intern - $334,750 – Positions requested for increased
Study Session Meeting of August 24, 2015 (Item No. 2) Page 4
Title: 2016 Budget, CIP and Utility Rates
service needs in the community, being more proactive and more resilient. The
career firefighter slot actually requires the hiring of 3.45 firefighters to fill the one
slot at approximately $89,800 per full FTE. – Funding is the General Fund.
o Fire Department – Option 2 – FT Fire Inspector (1 FTE) and Community Risk
Reduction Intern - $113,500 – Positions requested for increased service needs in
the community, and being more proactive and more resilient. Funding is the
General Fund.
• Inspections – Temporary Construction Codes Inspector - $31,000 – To allow for
increased inspection services next spring or summer, if needed, assuming construction
continues or grows from the current pace. General Fund is the funding source.
• Inspections – Property Maintenance Intern - $3,904 – Conduct city wide assessment of all
single family properties related to property maintenance and take follow up action as
necessary. General Fund is the funding source.
• Operations and Recreation – Organized Rec., Rec. Center and Pool - $47,190 – Minimum
wage increases. General Fund is the funding source.
• Operations and Recreation – Rec. Center – Overtime – $(5,000) – Decrease in overtime
due to rink renovations for the General Fund. Overtime costs will return to 2015 levels in
2017.
• Police - Officer – FT benefit earning - $85,172 - To continue to support moving from 4
districts to 5 districts as undertaken in 2015 to meet patrol staffing levels. As discussed
in 2015, one position was added this year and this second positon was held for 2016.
Given the strong growth occurring in the community and the anticipated growth
associated with SWLRT, it is important to remain proactive versus reactive to community
needs. General Fund is the funding source.
• Operations and Recreation – Utility Funds - Public Service Worker FT benefit earning -
$70,000 - To support Utilities operations, storm water initiatives, plowing and sidewalk
maintenance. To assist staff with overall maintenance operations and work in
coordination with other maintenance divisions. This was discussed in the 2015 budget
process for addition in 2016. Utility Funds will fund this position.
• Operations and Recreation – Solid Waste – Intern - $15,600 – Request due to increase
demands in the Solid Waste Programs funded via the Solid Waste Fund. It is also
recommended to add an additional full time employee in this area to help with education,
programs and outreach in solid waste including working on multi-family programs. The
recommended funding level for this position is $71,613.
• Community Development – Development Fund – Economic Development Specialist
increase from 0.8 FTE to 1.0 FTE - $19,200 – Request due to increase redevelopment
support small business initiatives and projects within the City.
Summary of Significant 2015 Budget Non-personnel Requests That Are Included:
• Administrative Services – Increased expenditure projections came in for estimated
property, liability and casualty insurance and recording fees for minutes totaling
approximately $35,000.
• Engineering – Increase of $30,000 for MN State Statute required traffic signal timing
optimization.
Study Session Meeting of August 24, 2015 (Item No. 2) Page 5
Title: 2016 Budget, CIP and Utility Rates
• Fire – A cumulative increase in revenues of approximately $70,000 based on historical
receipts for fire and sprinkler alarm permits, Fire Insurance Premium Tax and a new
potential revenue for Park Nicollet Post Discharge Program. The cumulative increase in
expenditures is approximately $77,000 for supplies, small tools, repairs, increased
compliance testing or equipment, CERT member training, professional development and
wellness.
• Information Resources – Increase of $16,360 for computer services for LOGIS,
Hennepin County and Zuercher Tech.
• Inspections – Proposed increase of permit revenues of approximately $170,000 based on
historical and projected projects in 2016.
• Operations and Recreation – Revenues are projected to decline by $230,000 due to rink
renovation in 2016 from March to October. This one time decrease will be offset with
revenue from fund balance from the General Fund. On the expenditure side, the
cumulative increase of these proposed changes is $4,000 for required inspections,
equipment for the pool and reductions based on historical costs.
• Police - The cumulative increase for the budget changes submitted is $14,700 and
encompasses items such as Taser replacements, ammunition increase costs, postage and
software licenses.
• Cable TV Fund – Staff recommends continuing with the plan to reduce the transfer from
the Cable TV Fund to the General Fund by $25,000 per year. Reducing the annual
transfer by $25,000 each year through 2019 and by $34,506 in 2020 will improve
sustainability in the fund until the franchise fee agreement expires in 2021. At that point,
if no new agreement is available, the fund could operate through 2022 and into early
2023 before running out of resources as currently budgeted.
• Development Fund – Proposed Park the Street III event totaling approximately $25,000.
• Housing Rehabilitation Fund – Aggregate decrease of $13,000 for the Discount Loan,
Foreclosure and Move-up Programs based on historical costs.
• Utility Funds – Proposed increases of approximately $4,600 for estimated insurance
increases.
Fees, Charges and Other Revenues - Staff will continue to review current fee data based on
cost analyses and other communities before making recommendations for the 2016 Fee
Schedules for the Council to consider later this year.
CIP (Capital Improvement Plan) - Staff has completed the first and second round work on the
CIP, and a report is attached. This information has been programmed into the LRFMP, and
Accounting is analyzing the results in an effort to create long-term sustainability in funds and is
also looking at where changes in funding or expenditures/expenses need to occur for the City
Council and City Manager to consider.
Study Session Meeting of August 24, 2015 (Item No. 2) Page 6
Title: 2016 Budget, CIP and Utility Rates
LRFMP (Long Range Financial Management Plan): This document will be presented at
future meetings with Council to assist in setting property tax levies, fees, utility rates and
budgets.
2016 Preliminary Property Tax Levy
In working to develop a 2016 Preliminary Property Tax Levy for the City Council to consider,
there are some important key items to keep in mind:
• Funding challenges in several funds impacting long-term sustainability
• As in past years, the 2016 Preliminary Property Tax Levy adopted by the City Council on
September 21, 2015, can be decreased, but cannot be increased after that date.
Trends in Valuations and Possible Property Tax Implications:
For the 2015 assessment, St. Louis Park’s taxable market value increased by 8.0% with all of the
dominant property types increasing in value. Composition of the change is summarized as
+4.9% for single-family homes, +9.9% for condos and townhomes, +14.1% for apartments, and
the commercial-industrial sectors at +8.6%. As can be surmised by the above figures, there will
be a shift of the property tax burden to commercial and apartment properties for the Payable
2016 tax period. This shift will be mitigated somewhat when considering all taxing jurisdictions
that make up the typical property tax bill (in the aggregate, other County jurisdictions increased
at higher rates for single-family homes but at lower rates for apartments and commercial properties).
Fiscal Disparities:
The City’s proposed net contribution decreased by $710,663 or approximately 18.3% for 2016.
The City is a net contributor to the pool of $3,168,815, or approximately 5.1% of the City’s total
tax capacity for 2016.
2015 City Final Levy and 2016 City Preliminary Levy Range
A synopsis of prior year levy information and the 2016 Proposed Preliminary Levy Range is shown
below:
1. The 2015 Final Levy was $26,985,377, which was 5.50% or $1,407,469 more than 2014.
2. Based on the assumptions noted below, at this point in time the budgets which have been
submitted would require a 2016 Preliminary Property Tax Levy range increase of
approximately 5.50% - 6.50% more than the 2015 Final Levy.
a. The 5.50% levy increase would allow the tax levy supported staffing adjustments
noted earlier in this report, including Option 2 for the Fire Department, changes in
business related expenditures as noted in this report, but no substantial changes to
existing programs, nor adding any new programs or initiatives.
b. A 6.50% levy increase would allow Council to fund the staffing adjustments and
business related expenditures noted earlier in this report including Option 2 for
the Fire Department. In addition, this levy amount would allow for additional
property tax dollars to be allocated to the Capital Replacement Fund of
approximately $325,000. These additional dollars would help stabilize financial
needs in this fund or they could also be utilized entirely or in part for other new
initiatives or programs the Council would like to undertake.
Study Session Meeting of August 24, 2015 (Item No. 2) Page 7
Title: 2016 Budget, CIP and Utility Rates
HRA Levy
Based on current and future infrastructure needs, the HRA Levy is recommended to be set at the
maximum allowed of 0.0185% of estimated market value for the 2016 Budget, which is
consistent with previous years. This levy is committed to pay back a loan from the Development
Fund that helped cash flow the City’s obligation for Highway 7 and Louisiana and is expected to
be paid off in 2021. By law these funds could also be used for other housing and redevelopment
purposes but considering the significant infrastructure needs within the City, the proceeds have
not been used for housing. Therefore, staff has calculated the maximum HRA Levy for 2016 to
be $1,011,208 based on valuation data from Hennepin County. This is an increase of $57,970 or
6.08% from 2015. Staff is recommending the 2016 Preliminary HRA Levy be set at the
maximum.
Utility Funds: All utility funds will be presented during the budget process as in previous years
with a review of rates in accordance with the City’s Long Range Financial Management Plan
(LRFMP). As in previous years, all utility rates are analyzed and adjusted as needed to meet
operational and capital needs, while also working to meet appropriate cash position guidelines.
• Water: For 2016, the City will be in the sixth year of the ten year plan for increasing the
fixed rate charges to reduce volatility in the fund due to seasonality usage fluctuations.
Usage rates will also be increased to meet more aggressive demands for infrastructure
replacement within the City’s aging system. Significant expenses for this fund are
capital, staffing, the Reilly Superfund site and debt service.
• Sewer: Rates are also expected to increase due to the City’s more aggressive
infrastructure replacement plan. Sewer costs are mainly to support the Metropolitan
Council of Environmental Services charge (MCES), staffing and capital costs.
• Solid Waste: Rates for this fund are expected to remain flat or increase very slightly
depending on any enhanced or new initiatives the Council would like to pursue with
multi-family recycling and organics. The major expenses for this fund are the contract
charges and staffing.
• Storm Water: Based on Council direction to place more emphasis on storm water
management, along with increasing regulations, rates will need to continue to increase
significantly over the next three to four years. These increases will help meet the
increased capital needs and debt service obligations when debt is most likely issued in
2016. Significant expenses for this fund currently are capital and staffing.
What do the possible proposed utility rate increases mean to a typical homeowner?
Based on operational and capital needs being anticipated in the utility funds, the increase will be
$50 - $60 per year for a typical homeowner. A typical homeowner in this scenario is a family of
four who uses 30 units of water per quarter (22,500 gallons), and has 60 gallon service, which is
consistent with prior year scenarios. Staff will bring back specific recommendations on
September 8th when it receives final MCES charges for the Sewer Fund in the next week or two.
Based on those recommendations, Council can request modifications in utility rates leading up
the October 19, 2015 meeting where Council will be asked to adopt the 2016 utility rates which
will be in place for consumption or services provided beginning on January 1, 2016.
Study Session Meeting of August 24, 2015 (Item No. 2) Page 8
Title: 2016 Budget, CIP and Utility Rates
NEXT STEPS: As the 2016 budget process continues, the following preliminary schedule
snapshot has been developed for Council:
September 8 (Tues) High level 2016 Budget, CIP, fees, and utility rates discussion.
Department Directors or their designees will also be in attendance. This
meeting will be more of a proposed preliminary levy discussion with
direction provided to staff to prepare information for the September 21st
meeting adopting preliminary levies.
September 21 Council and EDA establish 2016 preliminary property tax levies.
(Levies can be reduced, but not increased for final property tax levies.)
October 5 Public Hearing – 1st Reading on Fees.
October 12 Review and discussion of 2016 budget, CIP, utility rates and LRFMP.
Directors or their designees in attendance as needed.
October 19 Adoption of 2016 Utility Rates and 2nd Reading of Fees on Consent.
November 9 (If necessary) Final budget or CIP discussion prior to Truth in Taxation
Public Hearing and budget presentation.
December 7 Truth in Taxation Public Hearing and budget presentation
December 14 (If necessary) Continuation of Public Hearing and any budget discussion.
December 21 Council adopts 2015 Revised Budget, 2016 Budgets, final tax levies (City
and HRA), and 2016 - 2025 CIP.
City of St. Louis Park
2016 Preliminary Budget Calendar
Date Department(s) Description
March 30, 2015 All 2016–2025 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) is available for update.
May 5, 2015 @ 4:30 pm All CIP access restricted to Read-Only
June 22 CM/Admin/Acctg. Study Session with Council to discuss 2016 Budget and assumptions.
June 23 @ 11am-noon All
Meet with Departments to discuss any significant changes in business
or staffing after meeting with City Council.
June 23 @ 4:30 pm All
All 2016 Budget worksheets available in Insight to all departments.
All revenues and expenditures are to be budgeted including review of
fee schedule and Utility Rate Analyses.
July 6 – 17 @ 4:30pm All 1st Review/Edit of 2016 – 2025 CIP by Departments
July 28 @ 4:30pm All Staffing requests and major changes in programs due to Accounting.
July 28 @ 4:30 pm Inspections Building revenue projections due to Accounting
July 28 @ 4:30 pm All 2016 Proposed Budget worksheets and fees due. Access to Read-Only.
Aug. 10 – 21 Each Department Individual review of budgets – CM, Dep. CM, Director, and Acctg.
August 24 C.M./Accounting High level 2016 Budget, CIP, Utility Rates discussion.
September 8 (Tues)
City Manager,
Directors & Acctg.
High level 2016 Budget, CIP, Utility Rates discussion with City
Manager, Department Directors and Accounting in attendance.
Sept. 9 – 18 @4:30 pm All 2nd and Final Review/Edit of 2016 – 2025 CIP by Departments
September 21 C.M./Accounting
Approval of Preliminary 2016 Budgets, Tax Levies and Franchise
Fees (if applicable) by Council and/or EDA.
By September 30 Accounting
Certification of 2016 Preliminary Property Tax Levy due to Hennepin
County and levy reports due to State of Minnesota
October 5 Accounting/Clerk Public Hearing – 1st Reading for Fees – To Sun by 9/17 for publication
October 12
C.M., Directors and
Accounting
Review and discussion of 2016 Budget, CIP, Utility Rates and
LRFMP review and discussion by City Council.
October 12 – 20 All
Final review of all 2016 revenues and expenditures for all funds. In
addition, review of the CIP, Utility Rates and LRFMP.
October 19 Accounting Adoption of 2016 Utility Rates and 2nd Reading of Fees on Consent.
October 20 @ 4:30 pm All Final changes submitted to City Manager/Deputy C.M. and Controller
November 9 (if needed) CM/Admin/Acctg. Final Budget or CIP Discussion with City Council prior to TNT.
December 7, 2015 Accounting Truth in Taxation Public Hearing and Budget Presentation
December 14 (if needed) C.M./Accounting Council discussion of any 2016 Budget related items (if necessary)
December 21, 2015 C.M./Accounting
2016 Budget, Final Property Tax Levies (City and HRA), and 2016 –
2025 CIP approved by Council.
By December 28, 2015 Accounting Certification of tax levy and other required forms – Due 12-30-15
By December 31, 2015 Accounting 2016 Budgets uploaded from Insight into JDE.
January, 2016 Admin Services Budget completed, printed (if necessary) and on City website.
January, 2016 Accounting Summary Budget Report to OSA - due 1/31/2016.
Note: Items in blue are meetings with the City Council
Study Session Meeting of August 24, 2015 (Item No. 2)
Title: 2016 Budget, CIP and Utility Rates Page 9
Capital Improvement Program
City of St. Louis Park, MN
FUNDING SOURCE SUMMARY
2016 2025thru
Total20162017201820192020Source20212022202320242025
Cable TV - Time Warner Equipment Grant 545,900156,550 10,250 14,100 79,600 285,400
Capital Replacement Fund 37,388,8974,853,013 3,974,757 3,785,861 8,073,729 3,243,483 2,215,218 3,370,620 3,046,664 2,275,464 2,550,088
E-911 Funds 663,25036,325 111,325 36,325 106,325 36,325 36,325 116,325 36,325 111,325 36,325
EDA Development Fund 275,000185,000 45,000 45,000
G.O. Bonds 23,444,1251,017,000 1,538,625 5,062,000 6,314,000 5,747,000 1,913,000 1,052,500 100,000 600,000 100,000
Hockey Association 1,041,660104,166 104,166 104,166 104,166 104,166 104,166 104,166 104,166 104,166 104,166
HRA Levy 1,012,5421,012,542
Municipal State Aid 14,328,000882,000 1,522,000 1,770,000 3,381,000 908,000 816,500 908,500 1,380,000 1,380,000 1,380,000
Park Improvement Fund 16,570,5005,786,500 1,690,000 1,498,000 1,051,000 1,183,500 1,062,000 877,500 1,050,000 1,412,000 960,000
Pavement Management Fund 26,260,4282,162,500 3,324,250 2,581,390 2,233,750 2,951,788 3,198,250 2,105,750 2,564,250 2,564,250 2,574,250
Police & Fire Pension 3,302,000720,000 135,000 279,500 156,500 82,000 33,000 150,000 106,500 1,489,500 150,000
PW Engineering Budget 68,00065,000 3,000
PW Operations Budget 3,644,901356,388 362,364 322,605 375,547 343,008 347,489 357,500 405,500 360,500 414,000
Reilly Industries 17,50017,500
Sanitary Sewer Utility 8,462,3381,876,333 721,333 741,333 791,333 841,001 808,335 779,001 809,001 829,001 265,667
Solid Waste Utility 110,00010,000 45,000 10,000 45,000
Special Assessments 2,944,625121,000 675,625 158,000 30,000 690,000 1,200,000 70,000
State of Minnesota 1,040,0001,040,000
Stormwater Utility 10,678,6703,443,667 1,441,667 744,667 718,667 588,667 1,574,667 577,667 859,667 348,667 380,667
Tax Increment - Elmwood 3,026,5093,026,509
Tax Increment Financing 75,00075,000
U.S. Government 800,000800,000
Unfunded 6,900,000100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 6,100,000 100,000
Water Utility 27,313,5771,558,582 3,501,332 1,849,332 2,091,832 2,263,999 3,906,334 2,394,000 2,456,000 4,712,500 2,579,666
23,259,024 20,087,694 24,191,330 25,590,449 18,798,337 189,913,422GRAND TOTAL 16,805,284 12,893,529 13,018,073 23,514,873 11,754,829
Thursday, August 20, 2015
Study Session Meeting of August 24, 2015 (Item No. 2)
Title: 2016 Budget, CIP and Utility Rates Page 10
Total20162017201820192020Source20212022202320242025
Report criteria:
All Address data
All Categories
All Departments
All Priority Levels
All From Street data
All Projects
All Source Types
All Street Name data
All To Street data
Status: Active or Completed or Pending
Thursday, August 20, 2015
Study Session Meeting of August 24, 2015 (Item No. 2)
Title: 2016 Budget, CIP and Utility Rates Page 11
Capital Improvement Program
City of St. Louis Park, MN
PROJECTS & FUNDING SOURCES BY DEPARTMENT
2016 2025thru
Total20162017201820192020Department20212022202320242025
Buildings
31150001 30,000City Hall Garage Overhead Doors 30,000
31160001 100,000City Hall Roof Top AC Units (two units)100,000
31160003 20,000City Hall Garage Unit Heaters 20,000
31170001 700,000City Hall Council Chambers Remodel 700,000
31170002 30,000City Hall Remodel 2nd and 3rd floor
restrooms
30,000
31190001 15,000City Hall Electric Vehicle Charger 15,000
31200001 60,000City Hall Timber Retaining Walls 60,000
31210001City Hall/Police Campus Landscaping 15,00015,000
31230001City Hall ITE & Gould Elect Panel
Replacement
25,00025,000
31250001CH Windows, Wall Coatings and
Caulking Replacement
200,000200,000
32160002 20,000PD Dispatch Kitchen Remodel 20,000
32170001 60,000Police Station replace boiler system 60,000
32180002Police Station - Replace office
furnishings
210,000210,000
32180004Police Station Concrete Sidewalk 15,00015,000
32180005Police Station Replace Window Blinds 25,00025,000
32190001Police Station Remodel Restrooms 75,00075,000
32190002 45,000Police StationShooting Range Exhaust 45,000
32200001 7,000Police Station Water Heaters 7,000
32230001Police Station Replace Light Fixtures 80,00080,000
32230003Police- Replace Ceiling Tiles 40,00040,000
33140002 15,000 15,000MSC & Fire Stations CO Nox Sensor
Replacement
75,00015,000 15,000 15,000
33160001 20,000MSC Bay'sConvert HVAC to Digital
Controls
20,000
Thursday, August 20, 2015
Study Session Meeting of August 24, 2015 (Item No. 2)
Title: 2016 Budget, CIP and Utility Rates Page 12
Total20162017201820192020Department20212022202320242025
33160002 20,000MSC Pavement and Curb Repair 20,000
33170001 20,000MSC Convert Exterior HID to LED 20,000
33170002 75,000MSC Service Bay Sealant and Stripping 75,000
33170003 12,000MSC Manual Wash Replacement 12,000
33180001MSC Service Bays-Striping 00
33180002MSC Fuel Station Pump Controls 25,00025,000
33190001 15,000MSC Air Compressor Replacement 15,000
33190002 50,000MSC 3rd Bay Sealant and Stripping 50,000
33190003 180,000MSC Car Wash Unit Replace with
Automatic
180,000
33200003 50,000MSC 2nd Bay-Sealant 50,000
33210001MSC 2nd Floor Office Carpeting/Floor
Covering
15,00015,000
33210002MSC Paint Booth Maintenance 25,00025,000
33220001MSC Bays 1, 2 & 3 Roofing 400,000400,000
33220002MSC Campus Landscaping 10,00010,000
33240001MSC Interior Light Fixtures Replacment 100,000100,000
33250001MSC Fuel Station Replacement 50,00050,000
34160002 100,000Fire Stations 1 & 2 Apparatus bay floor
coating
100,000
34160003 20,000Fire Stations 1 & 2 Garage Door Loops
Closing Sys
20,000
34170001 65,000Fire Station 1 & 2 Fire Truck Exhaust
Capture
65,000
34180001Fire Station 1 & 2 audio/visual
replacements
10,00010,000
34190001 50,000Fire Station #1 Training Tower
modifications
50,000
3424001FS #1 and #2 Carpet Replacement 35,00035,000
35240001Fire Station #1 and #2 Landscaping 15,00015,000
3525001Fire Station #2 Replace light fixtures 45,00045,000
36190002 5,000,000Westwood Naturce Center new building 5,000,000
37170001 60,000Rec Center Remodel Offices 60,000
40181600Parking Lot - City Hall East 110,000110,000
40181601Parking Lot - Westwood Nature Center 34,02034,020
40181602Parking Lot - MSC 70,62070,620
40201600 38,588Parking Lot - City Hall Lower 38,588
40201601 17,850Parking Lot - Fire Stn #1 17,850
40201602 12,600Parking Lot - Fire Stn #2 12,600
Thursday, August 20, 2015
Study Session Meeting of August 24, 2015 (Item No. 2)
Title: 2016 Budget, CIP and Utility Rates Page 13
Total20162017201820192020Department20212022202320242025
8,314,000345,000 1,022,000 300,000 5,310,000 177,000Capital Replacement Fund 130,000 425,000 195,000 165,000 245,000
283,678214,640 69,038Pavement Management Fund
8,597,678345,000 1,022,000 514,640 5,310,000 246,038Buildings Total 130,000 425,000 195,000 165,000 245,000
8,597,678345,000 1,022,000 514,640 5,310,000 246,038Buildings Total 130,000 425,000 195,000 165,000 245,000
Cable TV
11151001 120,000Van Cameras 120,000
11161001 750Announcer Headsets 750
11161002 500Shotgun mics 500
11161003 300Hand-held mics 300
11161004 35,000Replacement edit systems 35,000
11171001 2,000Wireless mic systems 2,000
11171002 7,000CG 7,000
11171003 250CD Player 250
11172006 1,000Announcer intercom,1,000
11181001300-foot audio snake & reel 2,0002,000
11181002Announcer Monitor 300300
1118100350-foot audio snake 400400
11181004Behringer Audio Equipment 1,5001,500
11181005Camcorders 7,5007,500
11181006DVD recorders 1,5001,500
11181007Unit pro light kit 900900
11191001 500DVD Recorders 500
11191002 30,000Slow-motion replay 30,000
11191003 70012-channel audio mixer 700
11191004 500Shotgun mics 500
11191005 300Hand-held mics 300
11191006 10,200NLE stations 10,200
11191007 900Microphones 900
11191008 1,500Tripods 1,500
11191009 35,000Replacement edit systems 35,000
11201001 120,000Van Cameras 120,000
11201002 20,000Van Camera Cases 20,000
Thursday, August 20, 2015
Study Session Meeting of August 24, 2015 (Item No. 2)
Title: 2016 Budget, CIP and Utility Rates Page 14
Total20162017201820192020Department20212022202320242025
545,900156,550 10,250 14,100 79,600 285,400Cable TV - Time Warner Equipment
Grant
545,900156,550 10,250 14,100 79,600 285,400Cable TV Total
11201003 13,000Van Camera Cables 13,000
11201004 15,000LCD monitors 15,000
11201005 15,000Studio cameras 15,000
11201006 900Microphones 900
11201007 900Camera monitors 900
11201008 2,500Hard-Drive Video Recorder 2,500
11201009 6,000Conveter for Recorder 6,000
11201010 36,000Tripods for On Location 36,000
11201011 4,200SD/HD converter 4,200
11201012 16,500Video Switcher 16,500
11201013 1,500DVD recorder 1,500
11201014 28,200Playback systems 28,200
11201015 4,500Production switcher 4,500
11201016 1,200Teleprompter 1,200
545,900156,550 10,250 14,100 79,600 285,400Cable TV Total
Engineering
40144000 2,250,000 650,000Storm Water- Bass Lake Preserve
Rehab
2,900,000
40151600 121,000 110,000 37,500Parking Lot Rehabilitation Project 564,000158,000 5,500 10,000 2,000 120,000
40154001 300,000Storm Water- MCWD Cold Storage Site 300,000
40160003 463,500Concrete Replacement- SW-C&G-CB 463,500
40161000 2,964,250Street - Local Street Rehab (Area 5)2,964,250
40161100 782,000Street - MSA Street Rehab (Flag &
Quentin)
782,000
40161200 269,388Street Mt Proj - Sealcoat Streets (Area
1)
269,388
40161300 47,500 46,500Traffic Signal - Repl Control Cabinets 146,50052,500
40162000 917,000CTP! Sidewalk - Trail - Bikeway
Installations 2016
917,000
40163000 420,000Sanitary Sewer- Mainline Rehab (Area
5)
420,000
Thursday, August 20, 2015
Study Session Meeting of August 24, 2015 (Item No. 2)
Title: 2016 Budget, CIP and Utility Rates Page 15
Total20162017201820192020Department20212022202320242025
40164000 500,000Storm Water- Walker Pond Expansion 500,000
40170003 279,250Concrete Replacement- SW-C&G-CB 279,250
40171000 6,144,000Street - Local Street Rehab (Area 4)6,144,000
40171001 431,250Street - Reconstruction (Utica Avenue)431,250
40171100 1,119,500Street - MSA Street Rehab (Louisiana
Ave)
1,119,500
40171101 402,500Street - MSA Street Rehab (Texas S of
Mtka)
402,500
40171200 642,364Street Mt Proj - Sealcoat Streets (Area
2 & 3)
642,364
40171300 75,000Traffic Signal- CLR at Louisiana 75,000
40171700 1,150,000Bridge - W 37th St @ Minnehaha Creek 1,150,000
40172000 1,223,000CTP! Sidewalk - Trail - Bikeway
Installations 2017
1,223,000
40173000 440,000Sanitary Sewer- Mainline Rehab (Area
6)
440,000
40174000 450,000Storm Water- Louisiana Oaks Pond
Rehab
450,000
40175000 275,000Water- Rehab WTP 16 Reservior 275,000
40180003Concrete Replacement- SW-C&G-CB 279,250279,250
40181000Street - Local Street Rehab (Area 6)4,223,5004,223,500
40181100Street - MSA Street Rehab (CLR W of
Lou)
1,380,0001,380,000
40181200Street Mt Proj - Sealcoat Streets (Area
4)
272,105272,105
40181700Bridge - Louisiana Ave @ Minnehaha
Creek
1,495,0001,495,000
40182000CTP! Sidewalk - Trail - Bikeway
Installations 2018
4,962,0004,962,000
40183000Sanitary Sewer- Mainline Rehab (Area
7)
460,000460,000
40184000Storm Water- Oregon Pond Basin
Rehab
400,000400,000
40186000Street- W36th Street Reconstruction 2,039,0512,039,051
40186001Street- Wooddale Ave Reconstruction 2,000,0002,000,000
40190003 279,250Concrete Replacement- SW-C&G-CB 279,250
40191000 3,269,000Street - Local Street Rehab (Area 7)3,269,000
40191100 1,380,000Street - MSA Street Rehab (CLR E of
Lou)
1,380,000
40191101 1,000,500Street - MSA Street Rehab (Ottawa)1,000,500
40191102 1,000,500Street - MSA Street Rehab (Beltline
Blvd)
1,000,500
Thursday, August 20, 2015
Study Session Meeting of August 24, 2015 (Item No. 2)
Title: 2016 Budget, CIP and Utility Rates Page 16
Total20162017201820192020Department20212022202320242025
40191200 278,047Street Mt Proj - Sealcoat Streets (Area
5)
278,047
40192000 6,214,000CTP! Sidewalk - Trail - Bikeway
Installations 2019
6,214,000
40193000 480,000Sanitary Sewer- Mainline Rehab (Area
8)
480,000
40194000 270,000Storm Water- Browndale Pond Rehab 270,000
40194001 90,000Storm Water- Sumter Pond Rehab 90,000
40195000 935,000Water - Recoat Reservoir 2 @ WTP #6 935,000
40197000 3,000Street - Excelsior Blvd Resurfacing 3,000
40200003 279,250Concrete Replacement- SW-C&G-CB 279,250
40201000 5,158,500Street - Local Street Rehab (Area 8)5,158,500
40201100 808,000Street - MSA Street Rehab (Texas Ave
N of Mtka)
808,000
40201200 284,008Street Mt Proj - Sealcoat Streets (Area
6)
284,008
40201300 100,000Railroad - Whistle Quiet Zones 100,000
40202000 5,647,000CTP! Sidewalk - Trail - Bikeway
Installations 2020
5,647,000
40203000 510,000Sanitary Sewer- Mainline Rehab (Area
1)
510,000
40204000 109,000Storm Water- Lamplighter Pond Rehab 109,000
40204001 109,000Storm Water- Otten Pond Rehab 109,000
40209000 0SWLRT - Xenwood Underpass 0
40210003Concrete Replacement- SW-C&G-CB 279,250279,250
40211000Street - Local Street Rehab (Area 1)5,519,0005,519,000
40211100Street - MSA Street Rehab (W28th St)816,500816,500
40211101Street - MSA Street Rehab
(Edgewood/Cambridge)
690,000690,000
40211200Street Mt Proj - Sealcoat Streets (Area
7)
289,989289,989
40212000CTP! Sidewalk - Trail - Bikeway
Installations 2021
1,813,0001,813,000
40213000Sanitary Sewer- Mainline Rehab (Area
2)
520,000520,000
40214000Storm Water- Twin Lakes Sed Basin
Rehab
1,242,0001,242,000
40215000Water- Recoat Elevated Water Tower
#2
1,540,0001,540,000
40220003Concrete Replacement- SW-C&G-CB 279,250279,250
40221000Street - Local Street Rehab (Area 2)4,476,5004,476,500
40221100Street - MSA Street Rehab (Shelard 908,500908,500
Thursday, August 20, 2015
Study Session Meeting of August 24, 2015 (Item No. 2)
Title: 2016 Budget, CIP and Utility Rates Page 17
Total20162017201820192020Department20212022202320242025
Pkwy)
40221200Street Mt Proj - Sealcoat Streets (Area
8)
290,000290,000
40222000CTP! Sidewalk - Trail - Bikeway
Installations 2022
952,500952,500
40223000Sanitary Sewer- Mainline Rehab (Area
3)
540,000540,000
40224000Storm Water- Westdale Sed Basin
Rehab
248,000248,000
40230003Concrete Replacement- SW-C&G-CB 279,250279,250
40231000Street - Local Street Rehab (Area 3)4,975,0004,975,000
40231100Street - MSA Street Rehab (TBD)1,380,0001,380,000
40231200Street Mt Proj - Sealcoat Streets (Area
1)
300,000300,000
40233000Sanitary Sewer- Mainline Rehab (Area
4)
570,000570,000
40234000Storm Water- Cedar Manor Lake Rehab 528,000528,000
40240003Concrete Replacement- SW-C&G-CB 279,250279,250
40241000Street - Local Street Rehab (Area 4)5,025,0005,025,000
40241100Street - MSA Street Rehab (TBD)1,380,0001,380,000
40241200Street Mt Proj - Sealcoat Streets (Area
2)
300,000300,000
40243000Sanitary Sewer- Mainline Rehab (Area
5)
580,000580,000
40244000Storm Water- Flood Area #24 1,200,0001,200,000
40246000Street - I394 Ramp / CD Road
Improvement
3,000,0003,000,000
40247000Street - Excelsior Blvd (Lou - W City
Lim)
3,000,0003,000,000
40247001Traffic Signal Project - CSAH 25 @
Beltline Blvd.
500,000500,000
40250003Concrete Replacement- SW-C&G-CB 279,250279,250
40251000Street - Local Street Rehab (Area 5)5,025,0005,025,000
40251100Street - MSA Street Rehab (TBD)1,380,0001,380,000
40251200Street Mt Proj - Sealcoat Streets (Area
3)
310,000310,000
53245500Water Project - WTP #6 GAC Upgrade 2,190,0002,190,000
53245501Reilly Site - Install Monitor Well (W413)35,00035,000
121,493,7029,034,638 13,391,864 17,668,906 15,245,797 13,042,258Engineering Total 12,715,239 7,704,750 8,084,750 17,491,250 7,114,250
Thursday, August 20, 2015
Study Session Meeting of August 24, 2015 (Item No. 2)
Title: 2016 Budget, CIP and Utility Rates Page 18
Total20162017201820192020Department20212022202320242025
22,444,125917,000 1,438,625 4,962,000 6,214,000 5,647,000G.O. Bonds 1,813,000 952,500 500,000
1,012,5421,012,542HRA Levy
14,228,000782,000 1,522,000 1,770,000 3,381,000 908,000Municipal State Aid 816,500 908,500 1,380,000 1,380,000 1,380,000
25,976,7502,162,500 3,324,250 2,366,750 2,233,750 2,882,750Pavement Management Fund 3,198,250 2,105,750 2,564,250 2,564,250 2,574,250
68,00065,000 3,000PW Engineering Budget
1,702,401186,888 187,364 142,105 189,547 151,508PW Operations Budget 150,489 155,000 197,500 147,000 195,000
17,500Reilly Industries 17,500
6,720,000640,000 660,000 680,000 700,000 730,000Sanitary Sewer Utility 740,000 760,000 790,000 800,000 220,000
2,944,625121,000 675,625 158,000 30,000Special Assessments 690,000 1,200,000 70,000
1,040,0001,040,000State of Minnesota
9,951,0003,380,000 1,375,000 675,000 635,000 493,000Stormwater Utility 1,517,000 523,000 803,000 275,000 275,000
3,026,5093,026,509Tax Increment - Elmwood
75,00075,000Tax Increment Financing
800,000800,000U.S. Government
6,000,000Unfunded6,000,000
25,487,250845,250 3,334,000 1,771,000 1,889,500 2,200,000Water Utility 3,790,000 2,300,000 2,350,000 4,607,500 2,400,000
121,493,7029,034,638 13,391,864 17,668,906 15,245,797 13,042,258Engineering Total 12,715,239 7,704,750 8,084,750 17,491,250 7,114,250
Fire
65160001 87,000SCBA Fill Stations 87,000
65170001 77,300SCBA Radio Integration 77,300
65180001UAV 10,00010,000
65990001 8,000 8,000 8,000Thermal Imagers 88,00016,000 8,000 8,000 8,000 16,0008,000
65990002 20,000 20,000Outside Warning Sirens 80,00020,000 20,000
65990003 324,594SCBA 697,877373,283
65990004Hydraulic Rescue Tool 30,00030,000
65990005 32,000 32,000Auto-CPR Device 64,000
65990006 125,000Turnouts 275,000150,000
65990007 30,000Helmets/Boots 65,00035,000
65990008 5,250 5,500Air Monitors 23,2506,000 6,500
65990009 30,000AED's 30,000
1,527,427549,844 197,300 26,000 33,500 32,000Fire Total 178,000 14,000 436,283 8,000 52,500
Thursday, August 20, 2015
Study Session Meeting of August 24, 2015 (Item No. 2)
Title: 2016 Budget, CIP and Utility Rates Page 19
Total20162017201820192020Department20212022202320242025
1,527,427549,844 197,300 26,000 33,500 32,000Capital Replacement Fund 178,000 14,000 436,283 8,000 52,500
1,527,427549,844 197,300 26,000 33,500 32,000Fire Total 178,000 14,000 436,283 8,000 52,500
Operations & Recreation
20130080 5,000 5,000Oak Hill Park Northern Lights (LED)10,000
2020xxxx 0Parking Lot Seal Coat - Oak Hill Park 0
20225007Rec Center Arenas Rubber Floor
Replacement
250,000250,000
2023xxoxParking Lot Seal Coat - Dakota Park 00
2023xxxxParking Lot Seal Coat - Aquila Park 00
21160201 17,000Aquila Park Building Locks and
Security Camera
17,000
21161103 60,000Carpenter Park Ball Field Fence
Replacement
60,000
21161304 12,000Cedar Knoll Park/Carlson Field
Scoreboard
12,000
21162706 48,500Playground Eqpt Repl - Jersey Park 48,500
21162907 48,500Playground Eqpt Repl - Justad Park 48,500
21163618 34,000Louisiana Oaks Park Bldg Cameras &
Door Lock Add.
34,000
21164205 58,500Playground Eqpt Repl - Nelson Park 58,500
21164420 13,500Trail Seal Coat - Oak Hill Park 13,500
21165220 40,000Trail Reconstruction - Shelard Park 40,000
21166408 98,500Playground Eqpt Repl - Wolfe Park 98,500
21166421 13,500Trail Seal Coat - Wolfe Park 13,500
21166425 16,000Trail Lights (LED) at Wolfe Park 16,000
21170302 450,000Aquila Park Fields 1-4 Lights and Poles
Upgrade
450,000
21170507 60,000Playground Eqpt Repl - Bass Lake Park 60,000
21172106 17,500Parking Lot Seal Coat - Fern Hill Park 17,500
21174402 20,000Oak Hill Park Additional Shelter near
Splash Pad
20,000
21174404 60,000Oak Hill Park Splash Pad Feature
Replacement
60,000
21174422 50,000Oak Hill Park Central Shelter
Replacement
50,000
21174908 50,000Playground Eqpt Repl - Rainbow Park 50,000
21175809 60,000Playground Eqpt Repl - Twin Lakes
Park
60,000
Thursday, August 20, 2015
Study Session Meeting of August 24, 2015 (Item No. 2)
Title: 2016 Budget, CIP and Utility Rates Page 20
Total20162017201820192020Department20212022202320242025
21175921 10,000Victoria Lake Landscaping 10,000
21176110 60,000Playground Eqpt Repl - Webster Park 60,000
21176424 10,000Wolfe Park Pergola Work 10,000
21179919 30,000Trail Sealcoat - Various Trails 30,000
21180301Court Resurface (BB) Aquila Park 7,5007,500
21180305Parking Lot Resurface - Aquila Park 35,00035,000
21180321Repaint Park Building - Aquila Park 7,0007,000
21180611Playground Eqpt Repl - Birchwood Park 62,50062,500
21180622Repaint Park Building - Birchwood Park 7,0007,000
21181023Repaint Park Building - Browndale Park 7,0007,000
21181124Repaint Park Building - Carpenter Park 6,0006,000
21181306Parking Lot Resurface - Cedar Knoll
Park
8,0008,000
21181325Repaint Park Building - Cedar Knoll
Park
2,0002,000
21181707Parking Lot Resurface - Creekside Park 8,0008,000
21181826Repaint Park Building - Dakota Park 4,0004,000
21182127Repaint Park Building - Fern Hill Park 5,0005,000
21183628Repaint Park Building - Louisiana Oaks
Park
7,0007,000
21184208Parking Lot Resurface - Nelson Park 8,0008,000
21184229Repaint Park Building - Nelson Park 7,0007,000
21184309Parking Lot Resurface - Northside Park 35,00035,000
21184312Playground Eqpt Repl - Northside Park 62,50062,500
21184330Repaint Park Building - Northside Park 6,0006,000
21184431Repaint Park Building - Oak Hill Park 9,0009,000
21185102Court Resurface (BB) Roxbury Park 2,0002,000
21185113Playground Eqpt Repl - Roxbury Park 62,50062,500
21185203Court Resurface (BB) Shelard Park 2,0002,000
21185214Playground Eqpt Repl - Shelard Park 62,50062,500
21186210Parking Lot Resurface - Westwood Hills
NC
35,00035,000
21186404Court Resurface (BB) Wolfe Park 3,0003,000
21190304 20,000Parking Lot Seal Coat - Aquila Park 20,000
21190613 10,000Trail Reconstruction - Birchwood Park 10,000
21190714 10,000Trail Reconstruction - Blackstone Park 10,000
21191002 85,000Browndale Park Hockey Rink Lights 85,000
Thursday, August 20, 2015
Study Session Meeting of August 24, 2015 (Item No. 2)
Title: 2016 Budget, CIP and Utility Rates Page 21
Total20162017201820192020Department20212022202320242025
21191805 20,000Parking Lot Seal Coat - Dakota Park 20,000
21191815 75,000Trail Reconstruction - Dakota Park 75,000
21192116 45,000Trail Reconstruction - Fern Hill Park 45,000
21195406 65,000Playground Eqpt Repl - Sunshine Park 65,000
21195607 65,000Playground Eqpt Repl - Texa-Tonka
Park
65,000
21196308 65,000Playground Eqpt Repl - Willow Park 65,000
21199901 20,000ADA Connections to Picnic
Shelter/Playgrounds
20,000
21199917 30,000Trail Sealcoat - Various Trails 30,000
21200419 13,500Trail Seal Coat - Bass Lake 13,500
21200912 15,000Trail Reconstruction - Bronx Park 15,000
21203013 20,000Trail Reconstruction - Keystone Park 20,000
21204314 20,000Trail Reconstruction - Northside Park 20,000
21204502 65,000Playground Eqpt Repl - Oregon Park 65,000
21205403 65,000Playground Eqpt Repl - Sunset Park 65,000
21206204 100,000Playground Eqpt Repl - Westwood Hills
NC
100,000
21209901 15,000ADA Compliance Picnic Tables 15,000
21210411Trail Reconstruction - Bass Lake Park 100,000100,000
21211712Playground Eqpt Repl - Parkview Park 60,00060,000
21213614Trail Reconstruction - Louisiana Oaks
Park
65,00065,000
21213801Playground Eqpt Repl - Meadowbrook
Manor Park
60,00060,000
21214002Playground Eqpt Repl - Minikahda
Vista Park
60,00060,000
21214415Trail Reconstruction - Oak Hill Park 75,00075,000
21214803Playground Eqpt Repl - Pennsylvania
Park
60,00060,000
21216416Trail Reconstruction - Wolfe Park 85,00085,000
21219912Trail Reconstruction - Franklin 45,00045,000
21219913Trail Reconstruction - Jordan 45,00045,000
21220902Playground Eqpt Repl - Bronx Park 65,00065,000
21221403Playground Eqpt Repl - Cedar Manor
Park
60,00060,000
21221604Playground Eqpt Repl - Center Park 65,00065,000
21222401ADA Trail Compliance - Cedar Manor
Park Trail
60,00060,000
21224109Trail Reconstruction - Minnehaha Creek 50,00050,000
Thursday, August 20, 2015
Study Session Meeting of August 24, 2015 (Item No. 2)
Title: 2016 Budget, CIP and Utility Rates Page 22
Total20162017201820192020Department20212022202320242025
21230301Playground Eqpt Repl - Aquila Park 85,00085,000
21231102Playground Eqpt Repl - Carpenter Park 65,00065,000
21231503Playground Eqpt Repl - Cedarhurst
Park
65,00065,000
21234611Trail Reconstruction - Otten Pond 30,00030,000
21235112Trail Reconstruction - Roxbury Park 10,00010,000
21235813Trail Reconstruction - Twin Lakes Park 10,00010,000
21240101Playground Eqpt Repl - Ainsworth Park 65,00065,000
21240130Repaint Park Building - Cedar Knoll
Park
2,0002,000
21240306Repaint Park Building - Aquila Park 7,0007,000
21240317Trail Reconstruction - Aquila Park 75,00075,000
21240607Repaint Park Building - Birchwood Park 7,0007,000
21241002Playground Eqpt Repl - Browndale Park 65,00065,000
21241008Repaint Park Building - Browndale Park 7,0007,000
21241109Repaint Park Building - Carpenter Park 6,0006,000
21241118Trail Reconstruction - Carpenter Park 50,00050,000
21241811Repaint Park Building - Dakota Park 4,0004,000
21242112Repaint Park Building - Fern Hill Park 5,0005,000
21242719Trail Reconstruction - Jersey Park 30,00030,000
21243613Repaint Park Building - Louisiana Oaks
Park
7,0007,000
21244214Repaint Park Building - Nelson Park 7,0007,000
21244315Repaint Park Building - Northside Park 6,0006,000
21244416Repaint Park Building - Oak Hill Park 9,0009,000
21253401Trail Reconstruction - Lamplighter Park 40,00040,000
21256202Trail Reconstruction - Westwood Hills
NC
30,00030,000
21256403Wolfe Park Amphitheater Pavers 100,000100,000
21259903Trail Reconstruction 100,000100,000
21259904Playground Equipment Replacement 200,000200,000
21259905Park Shelter Replacement 150,000150,000
21259906Trail Lighting 100,000100,000
21994401 5,000 5,000Oak Hill Park Northern Lights (LED)10,000
21999902 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000Playground Woodchips 200,00020,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,00020,000
21999903 100,000 100,000 60,000Minnehaha Creek Trail Repayment 360,000100,000
22164126 17,500Minnehaha Creek Revegitation 17,500
Thursday, August 20, 2015
Study Session Meeting of August 24, 2015 (Item No. 2)
Title: 2016 Budget, CIP and Utility Rates Page 23
Total20162017201820192020Department20212022202320242025
22173203 25,000Knollwood Canoe Landing - Dredge
and Rebuild
25,000
22193603 10,000Louisiana Canoe Landing Landscape 10,000
22206115 15,000Webster Park Community Garden 15,000
22999901 68,000 70,000 70,000 70,000Tree Replacement 698,00070,000 70,000 70,000 70,000 70,00070,000
23166203 6,000Westwood Hills NC Climbing Rock
Phase II
6,000
23166222 16,000Westwood Hills NC Key Fob for Pavilion 16,000
23166223 60,000Westwood Hills NC Ravine Bridge
Replacement
60,000
23166224 55,000Westwood Hills NC Storge Garage
(30'x30')
55,000
23166228 14,000Westwood Hills NC Gate Camera
Addition
14,000
23176222 10,000Westwood Hills NC North Staircase
Overlook
10,000
23176223 20,000Westwood Hills NC-Prairie Deck
Rebuild
20,000
23196218 50,000Westwood Hills NC Boardwalk Deck
Repl, Phase 2
50,000
23196219 6,000Westwood Hills NC Brick House
Furniture Repl
6,000
23196220 150,000Westwood Hills NC Interpretive Exhibit
Repl
150,000
23206216 40,000Westwood Hills NC Staircase Rebuild 40,000
23216217Westwood Hills NC Furniture Repl 10,00010,000
23226210Westwood Hills NC Water Garden,
Phase 2
45,00045,000
23236214Westwood Hills NC Trail Bench
Replacement
15,00015,000
23246220Westwood Hills NC Boardwalk Deck
Repl, Phase 3
50,00050,000
23256203Westwood Hills NC Boardwalk Deck
Repl, Phase 1
100,000100,000
23256204Westwood Hills NC Waterfall 50,00050,000
23996227 15,000 30,500Westwood Hillls NC Master
Revegetation Plan
68,00022,500
24145019 5,650,000Outdoor Refrigerated Ice Rink 5,650,000
24165011 30,000Rec Center Banquet Room Carpet &
Floor Replacement
30,000
24165012 55,000Rec Center Fire Alarm System Upgrade 55,000
24165013 35,000Rec Center Gallery & Hallway Flooring 35,000
24165014 4,400,000Rec Center Arena Refrigeration
Replacement
4,400,000
Thursday, August 20, 2015
Study Session Meeting of August 24, 2015 (Item No. 2)
Title: 2016 Budget, CIP and Utility Rates Page 24
Total20162017201820192020Department20212022202320242025
24165015 110,000Rec Center Parking Lot Resurface 110,000
24165016 105,000Rec Center Rubber Floor
Replacement - East & West
105,000
24165017 10,000Rec Center West Arena Press Area 10,000
24175013 15,000Rec Center Banquet Room/Gallery
Furniture Repl
15,000
24175014 200,000Rec Center Pneumatics 200,000
24175016 20,000Rec Center Hot Water Heater Tank
Replacement
20,000
24175017 50,000Rec Center Programming Office AC
Replacement
50,000
24175018 17,000Rec Center Programming Office Carpet 17,000
24185015Rec Center Banquet & Gallery Remodel 50,00050,000
24185016Rec Center Door Replacement (Front &
Arena)
120,000120,000
24185017Rec Center Landscaping 15,00015,000
24185018Rec Center Roof Rplc-East
Arena/Front Office
500,000500,000
24185019Rec Center Upstairs Bthrm&Ctrng
Kitchn Remodel
100,000100,000
24185020Rec Center West Arena Window
Replacement
40,00040,000
24195010 15,000Rec Center Banquet Room & Gallery
Chair Repl.
15,000
24195011 50,000Rec Center East Arena Locker Room
Remodel
50,000
24195012 75,000Rec Center Front Office AC
Replacement
75,000
24195013 30,000Rec Center East Arena Score Boards 30,000
24205005 300,000Rec Center Aquatic Park Amenity
Replacement
300,000
24205006 50,000Rec Center Banquet Room PA Upgrade 50,000
24205008 200,000Rec Center Marquee 200,000
24205009 60,000Parking Lot Seal Coat - Rec Center 60,000
24205010 75,000Rec Center Aquatic Park Sun Shelter
Repl
75,000
24205011 10,000Rec Center Rental Skate Replacement
(Ph 1)
10,000
24215006Rec Center Arena Compressor Rebuild 15,00015,000
24215007Rec Center Arena Rubber Floor 250,000250,000
24215008Rec Center Dasher Board
Repair/Replacement
12,00012,000
24215009Rec Center Landscaping 15,00015,000
Thursday, August 20, 2015
Study Session Meeting of August 24, 2015 (Item No. 2)
Title: 2016 Budget, CIP and Utility Rates Page 25
Total20162017201820192020Department20212022202320242025
242150110Rec Center Rental Skate Replacement
(Ph 2)
10,00010,000
24225006Rec Center East Arena Painting 60,00060,000
24225008Rec Center Scoreboard Replacement 32,50032,500
24235007Rec Center Arena Compressor Rebuild 15,00015,000
24235008Rec Center Arena Water Treatment
Repl
75,00075,000
24235009Rec Center West Arena Painting 75,00075,000
24235010Rec Center West Arena Roof
Replacement
500,000500,000
24245003Rec Center East Arena
Dehumidification
400,000400,000
24245004Rec Center Generator Replacement 500,000500,000
24245005Rec Center Landscaping 20,00020,000
25160209 45,000Rec Center Aquatic Park Drp Slide &
Dvg Brd Repl
45,000
25160210 20,000Rec Center Aquatic Park Umbrellas 20,000
25170211 200,000Rec Center Aquatic Park Filter
Replacement
200,000
25170212 20,000Rec Center Aquatic Park Pump Rebuild 20,000
25170215 5,000Rec Center Concession Eqpt.
Replacement
5,000
25200217 25,000Rec Center Aquatic Park Main Drain
Replacement
25,000
25205007 5,000Rec Center Concession Eqpt.
Replacement
5,000
25220205Rec Center Aquatic Park Locker Room
Remodel
100,000100,000
25230204Rec Center Concession Eqpt.
Replacement
5,0005,000
25990212 5,000Rec Center Aquatic Park Deck Furniture 20,0005,000 10,000
40161103 100,000Street - MSA Retaining Wall (Hwy 7
SFR)
100,000
50150001 1,800,000Meter Replacement 1,800,000
50164101 155,000Street Light Annual Replacement (2016)155,000
50164301 14,500Traffic Signal Annual Painting (2016)14,500
50174101 160,000Street Light Annual Replacement (2017)160,000
50174301 15,000Traffic Signal Annual Painting (2017)15,000
50184101Street Light Annual Replacement (2018)165,000165,000
50184301Traffic Signal Annual Painting (2018)15,50015,500
50194101 170,000Street Light Annual Replacement (2019)170,000
Thursday, August 20, 2015
Study Session Meeting of August 24, 2015 (Item No. 2)
Title: 2016 Budget, CIP and Utility Rates Page 26
Total20162017201820192020Department20212022202320242025
50194301 16,000Traffic Signal Annual Painting (2019)16,000
50204101 175,000Street Light Annual Replacement (2020)175,000
50204301 16,500Traffic Signal Annual Painting (2020)16,500
50214101Street Light Annual Replacement (2021)180,000180,000
50214301Traffic Signal Annual Painting (2021)17,00017,000
50224101Street Light Annual Replacement (2022)185,000185,000
50224301Traffic Signal Annual Painting (2022)17,50017,500
50234101Street Light Annual Replacement (2023)190,000190,000
50234301Traffic Signal Annual Painting (2023)18,00018,000
50244101Street Light Annual Replacement (2024)195,000195,000
50244301Traffic Signal Annual Painting (2024)18,50018,500
50254101Street Light Annual Replacement (2025)200,000200,000
50254301Traffic Signal Annual Painting (2025)19,00019,000
53165001 30,000Water Well Rehab (SLP4)30,000
53165002 67,000Water Treatment Plant GAC
Replacement (WTP1)
67,000
53165101 20,000Sanitary Sewer LS Maint (LS #11)20,000
53165301 21,000Storm Sewer LS Maint (LS #1)21,000
53165302 42,000Annual Catch Basin Repairs (2016)42,000
53175001 32,000Water Well Rehab (SLP8)32,000
53175002 68,000Water Treatment Plant GAC
Replacement (WTP4)
68,000
53175003 51,000Water Well Rehab (SLP13)51,000
53175101 30,000Sanitary Sewer LS Maint (LS #13)30,000
53175102 15,000Sanitary Sewer LS Maint (LS #23)15,000
53175301 22,000Storm Sewer LS Maint (LS #7)22,000
53175302 44,000Annual Catch Basin Repairs (2017)44,000
53185001Water Well Rehab (SLP11)52,00052,000
53185101Sanitary Sewer LS Maint (LS #9)45,00045,000
53185301Storm Sewer LS Maint (LS #8)23,00023,000
53185302Annual Catch Basin Repairs (2018)46,00046,000
53195001 34,000Water Well Rehab (SLP14)34,000
53195002 71,000Water Treatment Plant GAC
Replacement (WTP4)
71,000
53195003 71,000Water Treatment Plant GAC
Replacement (WTP1)
71,000
53195101 45,000Sanitary Sewer LS Maint (LS #21)45,000
Thursday, August 20, 2015
Study Session Meeting of August 24, 2015 (Item No. 2)
Title: 2016 Budget, CIP and Utility Rates Page 27
Total20162017201820192020Department20212022202320242025
16,544,7522,534,553 1,638,991 2,219,395 1,636,263 1,982,349Capital Replacement Fund 952,750 2,006,486 1,442,947 1,067,530 1,063,488
1,041,660104,166 104,166 104,166 104,166 104,166Hockey Association 104,166 104,166 104,166 104,166 104,166
100,000100,000Municipal State Aid
16,435,5005,651,500 1,690,000 1,498,000 1,051,000 1,183,500Park Improvement Fund 1,062,000 877,500 1,050,000 1,412,000 960,000
1,942,500169,500 175,000 180,500 186,000 191,500PW Operations Budget 197,000 202,500 208,000 213,500 219,000
1,443,0001,220,000 45,000 45,000 60,000 47,000Sanitary Sewer Utility 26,000
601,00063,000 66,000 69,000 73,000 50,000Stormwater Utility 52,000 54,000 56,000 58,000 60,000
1,512,000697,000 151,000 52,000 176,000Water Utility 74,000 75,000 77,000 76,000 134,000
39,620,41210,539,719 3,870,157 4,168,061 3,286,429 3,558,515Operations & Recreation Total 2,467,916 3,319,652 2,938,113 2,931,196 2,540,654
53195102 15,000Sanitary Sewer LS Maint (LS #4)15,000
53195301 25,000Storm Sewer LS Impr (Add SCADA to
Stns 1/5/7/8/9)
25,000
53195302 48,000Annual Catch Basin Repairs (2019)48,000
53205101 47,000Sanitary Sewer LS Maint (LS #22)47,000
53205301 50,000Annual Catch Basin Repairs (2020)50,000
53215001Water Treatment Plant GAC
Replacement (WTP4)
74,00074,000
53215100Sanitary Sewer LS Maint (LS #15)26,00026,000
53215301Annual Catch Basin Repairs (2021)52,00052,000
53225002Water Treatment Plant GAC
Replacement (WTP1)
75,00075,000
53225301Annual Catch Basin Repairs (2022)54,00054,000
53235001Water Treatment Plant GAC
Replacement (WTP4)
77,00077,000
53235301Annual Catch Basin Repairs (2023)56,00056,000
53245001Water Well Rehab (SLP10)38,00038,000
53245002Water Well Rehab (SLP4)38,00038,000
53245301Annual Catch Basin Repairs (2024)58,00058,000
53255001Water Well Rehab (SLP12)54,00054,000
53255002Water Treatment Plant GAC
Replacement (WTP4)
80,00080,000
53255301Annual Catch Basin Repairs (2025)60,00060,000
E - XX01 2,534,553 1,638,991 1,636,263 1,982,349Annual Equipment Replacement
Program
16,544,7522,219,395 952,750 2,006,486 1,067,530 1,063,4881,442,947
44,228,75216,085,553 3,765,991 4,063,895 3,182,263 3,454,349Operations & Recreation Total 2,363,750 3,215,486 2,833,947 2,827,030 2,436,488
Thursday, August 20, 2015
Study Session Meeting of August 24, 2015 (Item No. 2)
Title: 2016 Budget, CIP and Utility Rates Page 28
Total20162017201820192020Department20212022202320242025
Police
68,40010,700 10,700 26,200 5,200 5,200Capital Replacement Fund 5,200 5,200
145,00070,000E-911 Funds 75,000
213,40010,700 10,700 26,200 75,200 5,200Police Total 5,200 5,200 75,000
PD - 1 10,700 10,700 5,200 5,200Laser/Radar and Message Board 68,40026,200 5,200 5,200
PD - 2 70,000911 Server Replacement 145,00075,000
213,40010,700 10,700 26,200 75,200 5,200Police Total 5,200 5,200 75,000
Technology
13125001 25,000IT: Security Audit, PCI Re-Assessment
/ Training
50,00025,000
13125002IT: Server Farm / UPS Enhancements 35,00035,000
13135001 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000IT:LOGIS Hosted / Managed Services 250,00025,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,00025,000
13135003OR / Utilities: SCADA Solution 20,00010,000 10,000
13135004 20,000OR: AVL / GPS 40,00020,000
13145010Police: New CAD/RMS/Mobile Suite 550,000550,000
13145011 30,000OR: Banquet Rm Multiple Monitor /
Projector
60,00030,000
13145012 10,000OR: Rec Center Gallery / Prog Office
Monitors
20,00010,000
13155002 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000IR: Fiber - Sidewalks / Hwy 100 /
Citywide
2,000,000200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000200,000
13155004 5,000IT: Public Kiosks (City Hall, other sites)5,000
13155005 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000Admin Serv: Agenda Management
Software/Hardware
90,00010,000 10,000 10,000 10,00010,000
13155006 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000Admin Serv:Agenda Doc Mgmt
System/Microfilm Conver
150,00015,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,00015,000
13155007 17,500 17,500 17,500 17,500IR: MyStLouisPark CRM 175,00017,500 17,500 17,500 17,500 17,50017,500
13155008 100,000IR: City Hall Fl 2/3 Cabling/Chambers
AV Upgrade
100,000
13155009 20,000IR: Portable Web Cams 40,00020,000
13155010 10,000Insp: Scanner 20,00010,000
13155012 3,000 12,000Insp / OR (2016): Field iPads 15,000
13155013 20,000IR: GIS Public / Application Server 20,000
13155014 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000Admin Serv / Utilities: Infinity BI Service 20,0002,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,0002,000
13155016Eng: Survey GPS 15,00015,000
Thursday, August 20, 2015
Study Session Meeting of August 24, 2015 (Item No. 2)
Title: 2016 Budget, CIP and Utility Rates Page 29
Total20162017201820192020Department20212022202320242025
13155017Police: ZuercherTech FBR Tablet Add-
On Module
39,00013,000 13,000 13,000
13155018 43,750 3,100 3,100 3,100Admin: DocuSphere A/P Management 75,1503,100 6,600 3,100 3,100 3,1003,100
13155020 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000Police: ZuercherTech Crime Analysis
Add-On Module
100,00010,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,00010,000
13165001OR: RecTrac / WebTrac Replacement 75,00075,000
13165002 85,000IR: Study - Park Nicollet Fiber 85,000
13165003 135,000OR: Parks Facilities Fiber 135,000
13165004 100,000IR: New City Website Platform 100,000
13165006 15,000OR: Aquila Park Building Fiber 15,000
13165007 16,000 4,000 4,000 4,000Admin Serv: HR Time Management
System
52,0004,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,0004,000
13165008 100,000Fire: Zuercher Integration of Fatpot
Upgrade
100,000
13165009 200,000 20,000 20,000 20,000Insp: Electronic Plans Review Software 380,00020,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,00020,000
13175001 21,000Insp: Permits / E-Permits System
Replacement
21,000
13175002 30,000OR: Rec Banquet Rm
Smartboard/Video Conferencing
60,00030,000
13175003 125,000Fire: Station Alerting Upgrade 125,000
13185001Admin Serv: Financial / HR/Payroll App
Replacement
205,000205,000
13185002Fire: Zuercher Mobile Solution 150,000150,000
13185003Fire: Additional Station Cameras 100,00050,000 50,000
13195001 203,000Admin Serv: Utility Billing App
Replacement
203,000
13205001 50,000Fire: VHF Paging Upgrade 50,000
13215001OR: MSC Smartboard 15,00015,000
13995001 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000IT: On-going Software Licenses, Mtce,
Development
2,000,000200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000200,000
13995002 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000IT: On-going Network Adds &
Replacement
1,000,000100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000100,000
13995003 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000IT: On-going Hardware/Telephone
Adds & Replacement
1,500,000150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000150,000
13995004 600,000Police/Fire: 800 MHz Radio/Console
Replacements
1,500,000900,000
13995006 100,000 125,000Police: Mobile Replacements 475,000125,000 125,000
13995007 75,000Fire / Police: Dispatch Voice Recorders 155,00080,000
13995008 8,000OR: Square Rigger Mobile Devices 16,0008,000
13995009 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000IR / Communications: Reverse 911 -
ParkAlert
150,00015,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,00015,000
13995010Eng: Engineering Total Station 25,00025,000
Thursday, August 20, 2015
Study Session Meeting of August 24, 2015 (Item No. 2)
Title: 2016 Budget, CIP and Utility Rates Page 30
Total20162017201820192020Department20212022202320242025
13995011 46,998 46,998 46,998 55,001OR: Asset Mgmt Software 518,00346,998 110,004 55,002 55,00255,002
13995012Fire: Fire Department Mobiles
Replacement
30,00010,000 10,000 10,000
13995013 10,000 15,000Fire: EOC Computer / Phone
Equipment Replacement
55,00015,000 15,000
13995014Admin Serv: Council Tablets 55,00015,000 20,000 20,000
13995015 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000IT: Tablet / Smartphone Hardware and
Services
2,000,000200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000200,000
13995016Facilities: City Hall Cameras 54,00027,000 27,000
13995017 16,000 16,000 16,000 16,000Admin Serv - Insight Budgeting Annual
Maintenance
160,00016,000 16,000 16,000 16,000 16,00016,000
13995019OR: Nature Center Surveillance
Cameras
110,00055,000 55,000
13995020 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000IT: Network Switches 225,00025,000 25,000 25,000 25,00025,000
13995021Police: Jail Cameras 46,00023,000 23,000
13995022Police: Exterior Cameras 24,00012,000 12,000
13995023Police: Booking and Intox Room
Cameras (2)
13,0006,500 6,500
13995024Police: Dispatch Camera Viewing
Workstations
110,00055,000 55,000
13995025 35,000OR: Rec Center / Outdoor Rink
Cameras
160,00045,000 35,000 45,000
13995026 16,000 16,000 16,000 16,000IT: Surveillance Camera Maintenance 160,00016,000 16,000 16,000 16,000 16,00016,000
13995027 10,000OR: Point of Sale Equipment
Replacements
20,00010,000
13995029 7,500 7,500IT: Plotter Replacements 37,5007,500 7,5007,500
13995030OR: Rec Center PA / Sound 50,00050,000
13995031 45,000OR: MSC Cameras 90,00045,000
13995034 225,000IT: Server/Backup/UPS/DR/Storage
Infrastructure
450,000225,000
13995035 100,000IT: Telephone Handset / Handless
Upgrades
200,000100,000
13995036 10,000Eng: Large Scanner / Plotter / Copier 20,00010,000
13995037 100,000Fire: Stations Media Package 200,000100,000
13995039 8,000Admin Serv: UB Meter Reading
Handhelds (if no AMR)
8,000
13995040 6,500Police: Interview Room Cameras 13,0006,500
13995041 10,000 10,000IT: Wireless Hotspots 50,00010,000 10,00010,000
13995042 21,325 21,325 21,325 21,325Police: Zuercher CAD Module Annual
Fees
213,25021,325 21,325 21,325 21,325 21,32521,325
13995043 20,000 100,000Police: Comm Van Upgrades / EOC
Media Package
240,000120,000
Thursday, August 20, 2015
Study Session Meeting of August 24, 2015 (Item No. 2)
Title: 2016 Budget, CIP and Utility Rates Page 31
Total20162017201820192020Department20212022202320242025
10,934,3181,412,916 1,105,766 1,214,266 1,088,766 1,046,934Capital Replacement Fund 949,268 919,934 972,434 1,034,934 1,189,100
518,25036,325 111,325 36,325 36,325 36,325E-911 Funds 36,325 116,325 36,325 36,325 36,325
275,000185,000 45,000EDA Development Fund 45,000
1,000,000100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000G.O. Bonds 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000
135,000135,000Park Improvement Fund
3,302,000720,000 135,000 279,500 156,500 82,000Police & Fire Pension 33,000 150,000 106,500 1,489,500 150,000
299,33816,333 16,333 16,333 31,333 64,001Sanitary Sewer Utility 42,335 19,001 19,001 29,001 45,667
110,00010,000 45,000Solid Waste Utility 10,000 45,000
126,67066766766710,667 45,667Stormwater Utility 5,667 667 667 15,667 45,667
900,000100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000Unfunded 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000
314,32716,332 16,332 26,332 26,332 63,999Water Utility 42,334 19,000 29,000 29,000 45,666
17,914,9032,622,573 1,585,423 1,773,423 1,559,923 1,628,926Technology Total 1,308,929 1,424,927 1,363,927 2,844,427 1,802,425
61990001 22,000Police-LPR replacement 22,000
17,914,9032,622,573 1,585,423 1,773,423 1,559,923 1,628,926Technology Total 1,308,929 1,424,927 1,363,927 2,844,427 1,802,425
28,804,858 19,983,528 24,087,164 25,486,283 18,694,171Grand Total 194,521,76216,701,118 12,789,363 12,913,907 23,410,707 11,650,663
Thursday, August 20, 2015
Study Session Meeting of August 24, 2015 (Item No. 2)
Title: 2016 Budget, CIP and Utility Rates Page 32
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
ESTIMATED QUARTERLY UTILITY BILL
ACTUAL 2015 AND PROPOSED 2016
August 24, 2015
Household Size 4
Units per quarter 30
Solid Waste Service 60-gallon
Meter size 3/4 inch
Actual Proposed Dollar Percent
Service Type 2015 2016 Change Change Notes
Water
Per unit rate - Tier 1 1.55$ 1.66$ 0.11$ 7.10%
Service charge 19.91$ 22.35$ 2.44$ 12.26%
State testing fee 1.59$ 1.59$ -$ 0.00%
Consumption 46.50$ 49.80$ 3.30$ 7.10%
Sewer
Service charge 14.52$ 15.54$ 1.02$ 7.02%
Per unit 2.84$ 3.04$ 0.20$ 7.04%
Consumption 85.20$ 91.20$ 6.00$ 7.04%
Storm Drainage
Service charge 19.36$ 21.30$ 1.94$ 10.02%
Bassett Creek Fee*1.93$ 1.93$ -$ 0.00%Bassett Creek fee
Solid Waste (includes tax)68.05$ 67.50$ (0.55)$ -0.81%
Total Bill without Bassett*255.13$ 269.28$ 14.15$ 5.55%Not including BCWMC
Increase per quarter (dollars)14.15$
Increase per year (dollars)56.60$
* Since not all property owners would be charged this fee, it is not included in the dollar or percentage change in total bill.
Study Session Meeting of August 24, 2015 (Item No. 2)
Title: 2016 Budget, CIP and Utility Rates Page 33
Meeting: Study Session
Meeting Date: August 24, 2015
Discussion Item: 3
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Mayor, City Council and Economic Development Authority Compensation
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Council is asked to review the information in this report and
inform staff if any changes to the compensation levels for Mayor, City Council and Economic
Development Authority members are recommended.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
• Does Council wish to change the compensation of Mayor, Council or EDA members?
• Does Council want to add iPad ownership as part of the compensation package?
SUMMARY: Minnesota Statute 415.11 states that Council can set their own salaries in such
amount that they deem reasonable. Any increases to salaries must take effect after the next
municipal election but any decreases to salaries can take effect anytime.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Funds for Mayor and Council salaries are
in the general fund. Funds for EDA Commissioner and President salaries are from the EDA
(non-general fund).
VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion
Prepared by: Ali Timpone, HR Coordinator
Reviewed by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of August 24, 2015 (Item No.3) Page 2
Title: Mayor, City Council and Economic Development Authority Compensation
DISCUSSION
BACKGROUND: Minnesota Statute 415.11 states that Council can set their own salaries in
such amount that they deem reasonable. Any increases to salaries must take effect after the next
municipal election but any decreases to salaries can take effect anytime.
A history of Mayor, Council and EDA salaries:
EDA
Year Council Mayor EDA President
2014 – Present $6,807 $11,796 $4,385 $4,385
2010-2013 $6,807 $11,796 $4,299 $4,299
2008-09 $7,165 $12,417 $4,299 $4,299
2006-07 $7,165 $10,985 $4,299 $5,731
2002-05 $6,365 $ 9,760 $3,819 $5,092
2000-01 $6,000 $ 9,000 $3,600 $4,800
1985-99 $4,800 $ 7,200 $2,400 $3,600
Other metro area suburbs with a population between 25,000 – 90,000 have salaries as shown in
the table below:
City Mayor
Salary
Council
Salary Notes Additional
Pay Notes
Andover $9,500.00 $7,500.00
$1 per meeting - avg 12 mtgs/year
Apple Valley $11,784.00 $8,436.00
$0
Receives benefits contribution same as FT EES;
pay effective January 1, 2016
Blaine $14,313.60 $10,500.00
$0
Bloomington $26,400.00 $12,396.00
$0
Brooklyn Center $11,846.00 $9,070.00
$0
Brooklyn Park $17,100.00 $11,400.00
$0
Burnsville $12,000.00 $8,400.00
$0 Receives benefits contribution same as FT EES
Coon Rapids $14,000.00 $12,250.00 at
large $0
Coon Rapids
$10,500.00 wards $0
Cottage Grove $9,216.00 $6,780.00
$0
Eagan $13,625.00 $10,000.00
$0 Receives benefits contribution same as FT EES
Eden Prairie $13,500.00 $10,740.00
$0
Edina $13,500.00 $10,740.00
$0
Auto increases every odd year
Fridley $10,688.53 $8,779.42 at
large $0 Receives benefits contribution same as FT EES
Fridley $7,761.85 wards $0 Receives benefits contribution same as FT EES
Inver Grove
Heights $11,400.00 $8,200.00
$0
Lakeville $9,996.00 $8,664.00
$25 per meeting - avg 2 mtgs/year
Maple Grove $15,500.00 $13,500.00
$0 Effective January 1, 2016
Maplewood $12,855.00 $11,314.00
$0
Minnetonka $12,000.00 $9,000.00
$0
Plymouth $14,478.96 $10,484.04
$0
Health & Dental benefits made available on a pre-
tax basis in an amount equal to the entire cost
Richfield $10,379.00 $10,379.00
$0
Study Session Meeting of August 24, 2015 (Item No.3) Page 3
Title: Mayor, City Council and Economic Development Authority Compensation
Roseville $9,300.00 $7,020.00
$0
Shakopee $15,000.00 $7,500.00
$0
Shoreview $9,348.00 $6,936.00
$0
Woodbury $13,344.00 $9,660.00
$0
Average $12,961.42 $9,535.01
Note: Average does not include value of health
insurance contribution.
SLP $11,796.00 $6,807.00
$4,385 Annual EDA pay, applies to mayor and all council
SLP w/ EDA $16,181.00 $11,192.00
iPad Discussion: Council has asked to discuss keeping their City-issued iPads as part of their
compensation package. This would need to be included in a resolution as part of the approved
compensation package. No other city in our survey market provides equipment as a part of
compensation; this would be unique to St. Louis Park.
NEXT STEPS:
• Council will notify staff if there is to be a change in compensation, including adding iPads as
part of the compensation package.
• If there is to be a change to Mayor and/or Council salaries, a public hearing along with 1st
and 2nd readings are required to pass an ordinance to make the change effective.
• If there is to be a change to EDA Commissioner and/or EDA President salaries, a resolution
is required to make the change effective.
Meeting: Study Session
Meeting Date: August 24, 2015
Written Report: 4
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Cable TV and Franchise Fee Trends
RECOMMENDED ACTION: None at this time. However, several actions could emerge in the
future as a result of Next Steps discussed below.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: What efforts should the City of St. Louis Park undertake in
order to understand and respond to emerging offerings, technologies, and markets in the Cable
TV and related fields? What can the City of St. Louis Park do to address questions around
sufficient franchise fees to continue to meet community needs around Cable TV services?
SUMMARY: Cable TV franchise fees received from Comcast continue to increase; however,
this trend may not continue much longer based on emerging technology and service options.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: On-going health and stability of the Cable
TV Fund, which relies exclusively on franchise fees to support programming and customer
service, as well as much internal staff A/V support.
VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged
community.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion
Prepared by: Reg Dunlap, Civic TV Coordinator
Reviewed by: Jacque Larson, Communications & Marketing Manager
Through: Clint Pires, Chief Information Officer
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of August 24, 2015 (Item No. 4) Page 2
Title: Cable TV and Franchise Fee Trends
DISCUSSION
BACKGROUND: Council requested an update on the status and trend of Cable TV franchise
fee revenues as well as Cable TV itself. While trends may tell us something about what to expect
in the future, the entertainment industry is one where things can change quickly, especially when
disruptive technologies are part of the mix. Tracking and responding appropriately to changes is
important, especially as St. Louis Park’s franchise agreement with Comcast expires in January of
2021.
The 2015 second quarter franchise fee payment was a record high, following a record high first
quarter payment. Comcast continues to increase cable television revenue in St. Louis Park,
which means City franchise fees are still going up. Here’s a snapshot of what has occurred since
2005.
Comcast Franchise Fees last 10 years, rounded to the nearest dollar
Year Quarter 1 Quarter 2 Total for the year
2005 $104,614 $108,068 $421,959
2006 $116,167 $119,791 $477,344
2007 $124,992 $131,365 $522,881
2008 $141,053 $146,424 $585,800
2009 $145,759 $149,819 $581,928
2010 $141,083 $145,298 $581,473
2011 $144,115 $151,542 $594,662
2012 $150,020 $157,454 $618,375
2013 $156,533 $161,296 $642,141
2014 $160,475 $164,255 $650,354
2015 $161,897 $166,522 $328,419 YTD
$659,000 projection*
* Every year since 2010, second half franchise fees have been slightly higher than first half.
During the recession, franchise fees dropped in 2009 and 2010 but have increased every year
since 2011. The rate of increase slowed last year and will likely be about the same in 2015.
Staff has been conservatively estimating franchise fees since 2010, but Comcast has managed to
grow revenues despite cord-cutting, over-the-top (OTT) services, and the trend in younger
consumers using smart phones and tablets to watch video instead of standard cable TV.
Staff believes that franchise fees will probably peak this year and that it’s appropriate to hold
conservative expectations for franchise fee revenues in the Cable TV fund going forward.
Why has Comcast been so successful at bucking heavily publicized trends?
Large cable companies like Comcast and Time Warner invest heavily in new technologies and
position products to add value to the cable subscription rather than steal customers from their
own services. For popular sporting events like the World Cup or the Olympics, cable customers
can watch any of numerous live video streams for free if they are a cable customer. Customers
with a smart phone or tablet can watch live streams from numerous cable channels via a Comcast
app, play videos or display pictures from their mobile devices to a Comcast-connected TV, or
find a free Xfinity wi-fi hot spot via another free app. The many useful apps add much more
value to the cable customer with a smart phone.
Study Session Meeting of August 24, 2015 (Item No. 4) Page 3
Title: Cable TV and Franchise Fee Trends
Comcast’s cable TV business has slowly increased its revenue due to increased prices and
ancillary fees, while their Internet business has been growing rapidly and this year passed cable
in total customers. However, per Federal rules, Internet based revenues are excluded from the
base revenues used to calculate City franchise fees.
One example of Comcast introducing a new Internet service that may affect their cable TV
service: by early 2016, Comcast Internet customers will be able to stream HBO and local
broadcast channels for about the same price as Basic Cable TV ($15 per month). The tag line is,
“for those who watch more TV on the screen on their lap than the screen on the wall.” The
sketchy details are here:
http://corporate.comcast.com/comcast-voices/a-new-streaming-tv-service-from-
comcast#.VaMfon61qlo.twitter
Comcast has clearly had success at maximizing revenues, even in challenging times. Here’s a
look at a few of the pressures on Comcast revenues in St. Louis Park.
Comcast price bundling
Customers often call City staff to complain about Cable TV prices and ask about cheaper
alternatives and competition. Staff advises contacting Comcast to request a discount for a
specified term or to consider bundling services for a discount. Usually, customers are able to
negotiate one of those options.
When the City conducted a franchise fee audit in 2014, the auditor reported that far fewer St.
Louis Park customers were grouped in bundles than in other cities. This means that aggressive
marketing by Comcast, motivated by competition with CenturyLink, could move more
customers to those discounts.
Over-the-top services more widely available and cord-cutting
Netflix, Roku, HBO, Showtime, Hulu and Amazon Prime are all examples of services that sell
programming directly to customers via the internet, referred to as over-the-top services or OTT.
Cord cutting refers to customers discontinuing Cable TV service but keeping their internet
service. Many articles in the popular press advocate cord-cutting and adding an OTT service as a
way to save money, but at this point it has not affected revenues of cable companies.
Some of these OTT services, such as HBO and Showtime, pay fees to the cable companies. This
will be considered cable TV revenue when the City does the next franchise fee compliance
review in three years.
A wide range of opinions exist on how long it will take the traditional cable bundle (hundreds of
cable channels, supported by ad revenue) to break apart. Some have predicted massive defections
to OTT for several years, but so far this hasn’t happened. In a July 27, 2015, article on
www.cnbc.com, Walt Disney chief Bob Iger said, “…he sees ESPN as a media property that
could be eventually sold directly to consumers like Time Warner's HBO, but not in the next five
years.” Disney owns ESPN, and many analysts credit live sports as one of the compelling
reasons customers continue to subscribe to Cable TV. The full article is available at:
http://www.cnbc.com/2015/07/27/disney-ceo-iger-espn-could-one-day-be-sold-direct.html
Study Session Meeting of August 24, 2015 (Item No. 4) Page 4
Title: Cable TV and Franchise Fee Trends
Nielsen recently suggested that cable subscribers who also have an over-the-top subscription
video-on-demand (SVOD) service are actually more likely to drop the SVOD than they are
cable. In fact, 93% of homes who had both services were more likely to keep the cable and
instead drop broadband or SVOD offerings. “Cable may have a little more staying power than
it’s actually being given credit for recently,” said Glenn Enoch, Nielsen’s senior vice president of
audience insights.
Expected impact if CenturyLink enters the market
In communities with a choice of Cable TV providers, the competing companies commonly
discount prices and lock customers into contracts of varying lengths. If the number of total cable
customers stays the same in the city, the discounts for customers means franchise fees could
decrease. Customers would receive two benefits: a choice between two providers, and service
discounts for a specified term.
However, anecdotal reports suggest that a new entrant to the market will NOT lower franchise
fees. Staff posed this question to the National Association of Telecommunications Officers and
Advisors (NATOA) email list, and all five responses said franchise fees increased in their cities
when the telephone company began offering cable TV services. It is suspected that heavy
advertising of the new entrant often lures customers from satellite TV as well as from the
incumbent cable operator. Also, both cable operators look to build revenues by introducing new
ancillary fees.
PRESENT CONSIDERATIONS: Cable TV franchise fee revenues continue to be generated at
significant rates. Comcast continues to be successful in revenue generation. Although their
success at Internet sales does not directly affect franchise fees, there may be an indirect effect
from customers who do bundle with franchise-eligible services. Contrary to a significant
imminent demise of Cable TV service, we are currently witnessing the first ever addition of a
second Cable TV provider in St. Louis Park. At the same time, it is also true that alternative
forms of receiving video entertainment are emerging, especially with continued growth in
Internet-based services. We expect the environment in the Cable TV entertainment and other
related industries to remain turbulent as innovation continues and disruptive technologies are
introduced. We also expect many technologies to co-exist for periods as older ones yield to ones
that consumers prefer. They will likely continue to overlap, with different technologies preferred
by different consumer groups. Video entertainment services, in whatever evolving forms
delivered, are expected to remain in strong demand for the foreseeable future.
Comcast’s revenue: Fourth Quarter, 2014
Traditional cable $5.5 billion
Internet $3.3 billion
Telephone $1.3 billion
Advertising $.7 billion
Other $.5 billion
Total $11.3 billion
Study Session Meeting of August 24, 2015 (Item No. 4) Page 5
Title: Cable TV and Franchise Fee Trends
NEXT STEPS: There are several significant steps that staff recommends St. Louis Park either
continue or start regarding the future of Cable TV, franchise fees, and related issues:
• Monitor, report, and consider appropriate responses to industry and technology trends in
the Cable TV and related industries.
• Create a regulatory environment that encourages provider alternatives in the Cable TV
and video entertainment services market. In other words, diversify so that options for
service exist and we avoid an “all eggs in one basket” approach.
• Specifically, work diligently to successfully complete an acceptable franchise agreement
with CenturyLink, per the current process.
• Minimize any unnecessary barriers to entry, while encouraging top level customer and
product service offerings by Cable TV providers.
• Create a regulatory environment that encourages investment in high speed wired (e.g.,
fiber optic) and wireless infrastructure that can best deliver Cable TV and other services.
• Make determinations on what kinds of future Cable TV and related services will be in
demand, and will be developed by the industry based on that demand.
• Start early on preparations for the next Cable TV franchise negotiations, ensuring that
both customer and community needs are met, and that sufficient franchise fees are
generated to support desired services and rights-of-way use. Since the current franchise
with Comcast expires in January 2021, it is currently anticipated that negotiations will
ensue starting sometime in 2018.
• Implement the City Council Priorities and Goals (including action plans in St. Louis Park
being a Technology Connected Community) to enable best use of all evolving
technologies, including Cable TV, and keep St. Louis Park vibrant, attractive, and
competitive.
Meeting: Study Session
Meeting Date: August 24, 2015
Written Report: 5
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: July 2015 Monthly Financial Report
RECOMMENDED ACTION: No action required at this time.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: None at this time.
SUMMARY: The Monthly Financial Report provides a summary of General Fund revenues
and departmental expenditures and a comparison of budget to actual throughout the year.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Actual expenditures should generally run at
about 58% of the annual budget in July. General Fund expenditures are under budget through
July at approximately 55% of the adopted budget. Revenues are harder to measure in this same
way due to the timing of when they are received, examples of which include property taxes and
State aid payments (Police & Fire Aid, DOT/Highway User Tax, PERA Aid, etc.).
A few brief comments on specific variances are noted below.
Revenues:
License and permit revenues continue to run well ahead of budget at 83%. As in previous years,
this is due in part that 98% or $790,000 of the 2015 business and liquor license payments have
been received. Permit revenues are at 78.6% of the annual budget through July.
Expenditures:
Administration expenditures are at 60% of budget due to overages in legal and other contractual
services. Accounting has a minor expenditure variance of less than 1% due to the contractual
payment for audit services. Human Resources is showing a variance of about 5% due to Health
in the Park expenditures, however, because this program is offset by revenue, there is no net
effect to the overall budget. Organized Recreation currently has a variance of approximately
10% due in part to normal seasonal expenditures and also because the full Community Education
contribution of $187,400 was paid to the school district in June.
VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Summary of Revenues & Expenditures
Prepared by: Darla Monson, Senior Accountant
Reviewed by: Brian A. Swanson, Controller
Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Summary of Revenues & Expenditures - General Fund As of July 31, 2015 20152015201320132014201420152015 Balance YTD Budget BudgetAudited BudgetAudited Budget July YTD Remaining to Actual %General Fund Revenues: General Property Taxes20,657,724$ 21,987,968$ 21,157,724$ 21,176,542$ 22,364,509$ 11,664,860$ 10,699,649$ 52.16% Licenses and Permits2,481,603 3,069,088 2,691,518 3,413,682 3,248,158 2,710,277 537,881 83.44% Fines & Forfeits335,150 311,882 320,150 369,545 320,200 147,617 172,583 46.10% Intergovernmental1,300,191 2,031,355 1,282,777 1,423,642 1,292,277 648,342 643,935 50.17% Charges for Services1,837,976 1,779,259 1,857,718 1,852,274 1,907,292 1,091,093 816,199 57.21% Miscellaneous Revenue1,092,381 1,067,210 1,112,369 1,302,160 1,196,018 638,456 557,562 53.38% Transfers In1,816,563 1,805,223 1,837,416 1,827,564 1,851,759 1,071,443 780,316 57.86% Investment Earnings150,000 14,180 150,000 119,831 140,000 - 140,000 0.00% Other Income36,650 10,756 17,950 13,306 17,900 5,631 12,269 31.46% Use of Fund Balance286,325 - 286,325 0.00%Total General Fund Revenues29,708,238$ 32,076,921$ 30,427,622$ 31,498,546$ 32,624,438$ 17,977,719$ 14,646,719$ 55.11%General Fund Expenditures: General Government: Administration877,099$ 890,883$ 939,391$ 980,087$ 979,183$ 590,895$ 388,288$ 60.35% Accounting827,320 819,458 876,216 873,987 912,685 536,767 375,918 58.81% Assessing543,855 543,202 559,749 560,979 602,299 346,732 255,567 57.57% Human Resources678,988 731,634 693,598 788,823 805,929 505,438 300,491 62.71% Community Development1,094,517 1,090,213 1,151,467 1,118,444 1,245,613 706,518 539,095 56.72% Facilities Maintenance1,074,920 1,058,127 1,053,715 1,039,699 1,094,836 566,763 528,073 51.77% Information Resources1,770,877 1,597,993 1,456,979 1,406,187 1,468,552 773,424 695,128 52.67% Communications & Marketing201,322 170,013 566,801 562,063 635,150 331,054 304,096 52.12% Community Outreach8,185 (22,450) 8,185 6,680 24,677 14,395 10,282 58.33% Engineering303,258 296,383 506,996 223,491 492,838 188,190 304,648 38.18%Total General Government7,380,341$ 7,175,456$ 7,813,097$ 7,560,440$ 8,261,762$ 4,560,174$ 3,701,588$ 55.20% Public Safety: Police7,443,637$ 7,225,579$ 7,571,315$ 7,769,592$ 8,511,557$ 4,806,664$ 3,704,893$ 56.47% Fire Protection3,330,263 3,246,162 3,458,161 3,535,716 3,722,396 2,139,477 1,582,919 57.48% Inspectional Services1,928,446 1,932,021 2,006,200 1,867,618 2,139,325 1,128,356 1,010,969 52.74%Total Public Safety12,702,346$ 12,403,762$ 13,035,676$ 13,172,927$ 14,373,278$ 8,074,497$ 6,298,781$ 56.18% Operations & Recreation: Public Works Administration393,054$ 288,207$ 222,994$ 236,304$ 232,437$ 116,722$ 115,715$ 50.22% Public Works Operations2,698,870 2,720,563 2,625,171 2,571,496 2,763,735 1,380,990 1,382,745 49.97% Organized Recreation1,280,117 1,256,678 1,290,038 1,277,046 1,304,470 897,819 406,651 68.83% Recreation Center1,449,930 1,501,627 1,543,881 1,561,224 1,591,115 909,305 681,810 57.15% Park Maintenance1,431,825 1,424,139 1,445,813 1,412,612 1,550,033 893,845 656,188 57.67% Westwood520,554 503,309 531,853 508,576 564,055 316,334 247,721 56.08% Environment430,876 434,297 433,750 379,193 472,049 167,949 304,100 35.58% Vehicle Maintenance1,240,325 1,268,559 1,285,489 1,323,358 1,333,520 666,489 667,031 49.98%Total Operations & Recreation9,445,551$ 9,397,379$ 9,378,989$ 9,269,808$ 9,811,414$ 5,349,453$ 4,461,961$ 54.52% Non-Departmental: General -$ 256,627$ 4,000$ 7,562$ -$ 40,798$ (40,798)$ 0.00% Transfers Out- 60,000 - 1,050,000 - - - 0.00% Tax Court Petitions180,000 53,345 195,860 13,834 177,984 - 177,984 0.00%Total Non-Departmental180,000$ 369,972$ 199,860$ 1,071,396$ 177,984$ 40,798$ 137,186$ 22.92%Total General Fund Expenditures29,708,238$ 29,346,569$ 30,427,622$ 31,074,572$ 32,624,438$ 18,024,923$ 14,599,515$ 55.25%Study Session Meeting of August 24, 2015 (Item No. 5) Title: July 2015 Monthly Financial ReportPage 2
Meeting: Study Session
Meeting Date: August 24, 2015
Written Report: 6
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: 2015 Semi-Annual Housing Programs Activity Report
RECOMMENDED ACTION: The purpose of this report is to update Council on housing
programs and activity. This report is informational and no action is required.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: None at this time.
SUMMARY: The Annual Housing Programs Report including the Housing Matrix has been
presented to Council since 2005. The Executive Summary provides a quick review of the
detailed report and the report provides historical trends, program descriptions, affordable housing
and additional information on housing programs in St. Louis Park.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to providing a well-maintained and
diverse housing stock.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: 2015 Semi-Annual Housing Programs Activity Report
Prepared by: Marney Olson, Assistant Housing Supervisor
Reviewed by: Michele Schnitker, Housing Supervisor
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
2015 Semi - Annual Housing Programs Activity Report
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this report is to apprise City policy makers of housing program activity during
the first half of 2015. The report provides historical trends, program descriptions, and additional
information. Below are the key points with details following this summary.
1. Remodeling Activity
a. Housing rehab projects (general remodeling) in the first half of 2015 is generally
on pace with previous activity. Most projects were financed without using city
loans.
b. The city’s Architect Design Services and Remodeling Advisor Services continue
to be great tools for residents; however, the usage is slightly down over the first
half of 2014.
c. 56 home energy visits were conducted through the Home Energy Squad Enhanced
program. Staff is working with CEE and Communications to continue to promote
this valuable program.
d. Major remodeling projects and home additions are on pace with previous years.
e. Discount Loan use the first half of 2015 is relatively low; however, we are on
pace with the first half of 2014.
f. NEW: The new Construction Management Plan program has been in place since
November 2014. During the first half of 2015 the following neighborhood
notification letters were sent regarding CMP projects: 16 major additions, 12
demo/rebuilds, 1 demo only and 2 new construction (on parcels that did not
previously have a home). A map is included in the report showing the location of
these projects.
2. Affordable Home Ownership and Public Housing Update
a. Two homebuyers used the Live Where You Work program so far in 2015.
Nineteen homebuyers have used the program since it began in spring 2009.
b. The SLP Housing Authority affordable rental housing and rental assistance
programs continue to have high occupancy and long waiting lists. Over 500
households received rental assistance in the first half of 2015.
c. The SLP Housing Authority has continued administering the new Stable HOME
rental assistance program for Suburban Hennepin County which provides housing
assistance to homeless or previously homeless individuals and families in
Suburban Hennepin County.
3. Housing Matrix
a. Owner occupied (homestead) properties now comprise 53% of the housing market
with rental (non-homestead) at 47%. This is consistent with 2014 and the single
family home ownership rate continues to be high at 90%.
b. No new multi-family units were added during the first half of 2015; however,
several new projects are in the planning stages including Shorehan, Arlington
Row, Oppidan, Bridgewater, and Central Park West Phase 1.
c. NEW: The Housing Development Project List is included in the report showing
residential projects since 2003.
4. Foreclosures
a. The 2015 foreclosure rate remains low with only 27 residential foreclosures the
first half of 2015.
Study Session Meeting of August 24, 2015 (Item No. 6)
Title: 2015 Semi-Annual Housing Programs Activity Report Page 2
1. REMODELING ACTIVITY
Residential permitted activity measures remodeling and maintenance activity; this section shows
historical trends of remodeling activity.
Permit Trends
• “Alteration Residential” or General Remodeling
The chart below shows the trend line of general remodeling activity over time. This work
includes projects with permit valuations less than $37,500 (the average value per job for
2015 is approximately $7,090) and includes such items as:
o remodeling of bathrooms and kitchens;
o finishing of basement and attic spaces;
o conversion of existing spaces;
o window and door replacements, insulation; and
o drain tile, step, and foundation work.
The trend line below reflects residents’ willingness to preserve and update housing, the
impact of the city’s proactive housing improvement assistance, and the ongoing needs of
older housing stock. The first half of 2015 is off to a strong start with 524 permits.
Chart 1: Trend of Maintenance & Minor Remodeling Permits Since 2005
• Roofing and Siding Activity
Reroofing and residing permits are tracked separately. This chart illustrates the impact of
storm damage in 2008-9 and again in 2011. Almost 60% of the homes in the city had roofs
replaced between 2008 and 2011. It is likely the number of reroofs will remain relatively low
for the next decade or so. 25 houses were resided and 48 roof replacements were permitted in
the first half of 2015.
517
785 797
971 869
1129
1011 1091 1084
524
0
500
1000
1500
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 First
half
2015Number of Permits Issued Year
Maintenance & Minor Remodeling Permits
Alteration Residential (Minor)
Study Session Meeting of August 24, 2015 (Item No. 6)
Title: 2015 Semi-Annual Housing Programs Activity Report Page 3
Chart 2: Reroofing and Residing Permits Since 2005
*Spike in reroofing due to 2008 storms.
• Additions and Major Remodeling
The number of Major Remodeling permits (valued at more than $37,500) is on pace with
previous years. The increase in additions beginning in 2012 may be an indication that
homeowners think that the housing market is recovering and recent homebuyers who
purchased at the low end of the market are now investing in their homes.
The average permit valuation for additions during the first half of 2015 is $112,754 and the
average for major remodels is $66,671. There were 38 major remodels and 31 additions
during the first half of 2015.
Chart 3: Number of Addition and Major Remodeling Permits Since 2005
• Permit Valuation, 2005 – first half of 2015
The valuation for single family remodeling activity in the first half of 2015 is on track for
another good year and currently on pace to exceed 2012 and 2013. The following chart
202 216 355
845
201
761
140 161 131 48 85 66 84
573
332
117 117 73 83 70 25 0
500
1000
1500
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 First
half
2015Number of Permits Issued Year
Reroofing and Residing Permits
Reroof Reside
55
86
102
89
55
40
48
71 67 73
31 45 50 50 46 50
53
46 44
53
69
38
0
40
80
120
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 First
half
2015Number of Permits Issued Year
Addition and Major Remodel Permit Activity
Addition Residential Major Remodels
4828
Study Session Meeting of August 24, 2015 (Item No. 6)
Title: 2015 Semi-Annual Housing Programs Activity Report Page 4
shows historical remodeling permit valuation for additions, major remodels, remodeling and
maintenance, garages/decks, reroofs, and siding. Additional permits with additional
valuations were issued for plumbing, heating, and electrical work (not shown here). As the
chart illustrates, permit valuation varies significantly from year to year; however, with the
exception of the “year of the hail damage repairs” (2008), valuation has ranged between $14
and $27 million.
Chart 4: Permitted Residential Remodeling Since 2005
City Housing Improvement Services, Loans Trends and Program Descriptions
• Home Improvement Services.
The city’s architectural design service and remodeling continue to be great programs for
residents. The numbers of visits are down over previous years, but the feedback we’ve
received from residents indicates it is a valuable service. The home energy visits (Home
Energy Squad Enhanced) started slowing down during the second half of 2014 and remain at
a lower pace than previous years with 56 visits. There were 39 Remodeling Advisor visits
and 12 Architectural Design service during the first half of 2015.
Chart 5: Technical, Design and Home Energy Visits Since 2005
$13.9
$15.2
$22.5
$68.5
$26.6
$17
$26
$16.8 $21
$25
$11 0
20
40
60
80
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 First
half
2015Permit Valuation - Million $ Year
Residential Remodeling Permit Valuation
68
102
62 48 32 30 29
29 37 41
12
221
157 179
130 126
89 82
69 69
95
39
122 153
173
56
0
50
100
150
200
250
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 1st
half
2015Number of Visits Year
Technical Home Improvement Services
Architect Services Remodeling Advisor Home Energy Visits
Study Session Meeting of August 24, 2015 (Item No. 6)
Title: 2015 Semi-Annual Housing Programs Activity Report Page 5
Construction Management Plan
Effective November 15, 2014, major additions (second story additions or additions of 500 square
feet or more), demolitions and new construction will need to comply with a Construction
Management Plan (CMP). In the first half of 2015, the following neighborhood notifications
were sent: 16 major additions, 12 demo/rebuilds, 1 demo only and 2 new construction (on
parcels that did not previously have a home). Map 1:
Study Session Meeting of August 24, 2015 (Item No. 6)
Title: 2015 Semi-Annual Housing Programs Activity Report Page 6
• Home Remodeling Fair and Tour Trend
Both the Home Remodeling Fair and Tour continue to be popular events with residents. 200-
400 residents visited each of the six tour homes in May and the attendance at the Annual
Remodeling Fair in February was approximately 1000.
• City Loan and Rebate Trends
The following chart shows the number of Move Up Loans, Discount Loans and Energy
Rebates issued in recent years. The number of Discount Loans, nine, is relatively low;
however it is on pace with 2014. CEE notes that home improvement loan use is slow in their
service area. The four Move Up loans during the first half of 2015 is consistent with the pace
during the first half of previous years. The energy rebate program is down from 2013 and
2014, but on pace with 2011 and 2012 with 43 rebates in the first half of 2015.
Chart 6: Use of City Financial Incentives Since 2005
Summary of Move-Up Activity Loan and Service Costs Since 2005
Through 2012, for every dollar the City invested in move-up and discount loans, technical and
design services, rebate programs, and administrative costs, residents invested five dollars,
resulting in a 1:5 ratio of public to private investment with an increase to 1:5.2 for 2013 and
1:5.8 for 2014.
The ratio of public to private investment in the first half of 2015 was 1:6.4 – for every dollar the
city invested, residents invested roughly six dollars and forty cents. The City invested
approximately $175,000 the first half of 2015 which leveraged $1,124,500 worth of private
investments. One Move-Up loan contributed funding to a project valued at over $400,000 which
increased the ratio of public to private investment.
Move-Up in the Park loans are deferred until the sale of the home or forgiven after thirty years.
The following loans have been paid off during the last few years:
• 2012, three loans were paid off in the amount of $59,360
• 2013, three loans paid off in the amount of $52,249
• 2014, two loans paid off in the amount of $23,957
• First half of 2015, two loans paid off in the amount of $37,537
7
28 20 17 17 8 10 6 6 6 4
76 88
50 55 52 64
22 26 22 17 9 22 42
83 73
113
166
43
0
25
50
75
100
125
150
175
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 1st
half
2015Number Loans - Rebates Year
Loans and Rebates
Move up loans Discount loans Energy Rebates
Study Session Meeting of August 24, 2015 (Item No. 6)
Title: 2015 Semi-Annual Housing Programs Activity Report Page 7
Table 1: Move-Up Participation and Costs Since 2005
Move-Up Participation and Costs
YEAR
Move-Up
Loans
Discount
Loans
Architectural
Design
Services
Remodeling
Advisor
Services
Remodeling
Tour & Fair
Green
Rebates
Home Energy
Squad
Enhanced
Visits
Total City
Cost
2005 7 $182,806 76 $45,636 68 $15,300 221 $28,730 $272,472
2006 27 $591,264 88 $186,205 102 $22,950 157 $20,410 1 $5,000 $825,829
2007 27 $620,000 50 $74,000 62 $12,400 179 $23,270 1 $5,000 $734,670
2008 18 $330,937 55 $114,129 49 $11,025 130 $16,900 1 $5,000 $477,991
2009 17 $329,650 52 $106,000 12 $7,200 126 $16,380 1 $5,000 22 $4,092 $468,322
2010 9 $209,769 64 $86,263 30 $6,750 89 $11,510 1 $5,000 42 $7,820 $327,112
2011 10 $226,877 22 $29,213 29 $6,525 82 $10,250 1 $5,000 83 $15,465 $293,330
2012* 6 $106,232 26 $31,276 29 $6,525 69 $8,970 1 $5,505 73 $13,748 122 $7,320 $179,576
2013 6 $145,071 22 $33,063 37 $8,325 69 $8,970 1 $8,271 113 $26,000 153 $10,650 $240,350
2014 6 $138,740 17 $26,079 41 $9,225 95 $12,350 1 $12,350 166 $37,575 173 $11390 $243,573
First
half
2015 5 $124,000 9 $10,860 12 $2,700 39 $8,775 1 $10,084 43 $10,618 56 $2,790 $145,827
*The Remodeling Advisor fee increased from $130 to $225 in 2015. This
fee had not increased since the program started. The fee is for a two hour in
home consultation.
Study Session Meeting of August 24, 2015 (Item No. 6)
Title: 2015 Semi-Annual Housing Programs Activity Report Page 8
2. AFFORDABLE HOME OWNERSHIP, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK
GRANTS AND PUBLIC HOUSING UPDATE
Live Where You Work
The Live Where You Work Homebuyer Assistance Program began in spring 2009. The goal is
to promote home ownership within the City among employees of St. Louis Park businesses.
The city provides a deferred loan of $2,500 to an eligible employee and an additional $1,000 is
provided to employees purchasing vacant lender-owned foreclosed properties. Employers are
invited to contribute a matching or lesser amount to the City’s contribution. The deferred loan
will be forgiven after 3 years if the employee continues to work for the employer and meets
other qualification requirements. The City contracts with CEE for loan administration. Two
homebuyers used the program during the first half of 2015. Total participation to date is 19.
Housing Improvement Area (HIA)
The HIA is a finance tool to assist with the preservation of the city’s existing townhome and
condominium housing stock. An HIA is a defined area within a city where housing
improvements are made and the cost of the improvements are paid in whole or in part from fees
imposed on the properties within the area. The Association borrows low interest money from the
City, improvements are completed and unit owners repay the loan through fees imposed on their
properties and collected with property tax payments.
To date, seven HIA’s have been established and over twelve million dollars of improvements has
been made to 1100 units. There are no HIA’s currently in process.
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
Activity completed in the first half of 2015 was funded with FY2014 CDBG funds. $195,859
funded the following projects: rehab for SLP Housing Authority single family home, the single
family low-income homeowner’s emergency repair and loan programs, Homes Within Reach
home acquisition/rehab/sale, PPL and Perspectives for water main replacement at Louisiana
Court, and Park & Rec Summer Youth Programming.
West Hennepin Affordable Housing Land Trust, aka Homes Within Reach (HWR).
Homes Within Reach is a program of West Hennepin Affordable Housing Land Trust that
purchases properties, rehabilitates and then sells the home to qualified low to moderate income
households. Buyers pay for the cost of the home only and lease the land for 99 years. City funds
are leveraged with CDBG, Hennepin County Affordable Housing Incentive Fund (AHIF),
HOME Partnership, Metropolitan Council, Minnesota Housing and other funds. Since the
program began in 2007 twelve homes have been purchased and sold to low to moderate income
families.
Homes Within Reach creates and preserves affordable homeownership opportunities for working
households in the western suburbs of Hennepin County by using the Community Land Trust
practice, which takes the cost of the land out of the real estate transaction, making the home
more affordable. This means that families can more easily purchase a home where they work or
live, retain it for generations, and not over burden their incomes in becoming homeowners. As a
result, both the families and communities can rely on affordable homeownership option, which
expands homeownership, sustains community resources, supports residential stability, preserves
affordability housing and supports a stronger local workforce. No homes were purchased in the
beginning of 2015; however, an offer has been accepted on a house to purchase in the fall of
2015.
Study Session Meeting of August 24, 2015 (Item No. 6)
Title: 2015 Semi-Annual Housing Programs Activity Report Page 9
Twin Cities Habitat for Humanity
The city has partnered with Habitat over the years to acquire nine blighted properties for rehab
or tear-down for new construction. In 2011 the city assisted Habitat with the purchase of one
property, construction was completed in the fall 2012 and the home was sold to a low income
family.
3. HOUSING MATRIX
The housing matrix shows at a glance the numbers and percentages of housing types, tenure
(owner or non-homesteaded), affordable units, senior designated units and large single family
homes. The matrix is a guide to evaluate future housing development proposals.
• The percentage of owner occupied (homesteaded) units is consistent with 2014. The citywide
ratio of homestead to non-homestead property currently stands at 53/47. The overall ratio of
homestead to non-homestead property is decreasing due to the increase in new multi-family
rental properties; however it remains the same as 2014.
• The chart shows percentages of homesteaded residential units over time and the ownership
rate increased in 2014. 2014 had 90% of single family detached homes were owner occupied
and 67% of condos/townhomes were owner occupied.
Chart 7: Percentage of Owner Occupied Units since 2006
• The May 2013 Maxfield Research Inc. Comprehensive Housing Needs Analysis reports the
overall vacancy rate in St. Louis Park was 3.0% as of May 2013. The overall Metro Area
vacancy rate is also very low at 2.8%.
• Rental of duplexes remains strong and reflects a strong rental market – 65% of the duplex
units are currently rental (non-homestead).
Large Single Family Homes
One of the City’s housing goals is to increase the number of larger homes available in the city.
“Large single family homes” are being defined as exceeding 1,500 square feet of living space,
97 97 96 93 93 93 91 89 89 90 91 92 89 89
80 75 70 67 66 67
0
50
100
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 1st
half
2015Percentage YEAR
% Owner Occupied (Homesteaded) Units
Single Family Detached Homes Condos & Townhomes
Study Session Meeting of August 24, 2015 (Item No. 6)
Title: 2015 Semi-Annual Housing Programs Activity Report Page 10
having 3 or more bedrooms, 2 or more baths, and at minimum a 2 car garage. According to SLP
Assessing Department, 2,173 – or 19% – of SLP single family homes meet this threshold. This
is an increase of 22 homes since 2013 (due to new construction and additions). Although this
size home is not considered large when compared to newly constructed housing, it is when
compared to all SLP homes where 75% of single family homes have a foundation size less than
1,200 square feet. 48% of single family homes have 1,200 square feet above ground.
Affordable Housing
Fifty-six percent of the total city housing stock is considered affordable. The Met Council’s
affordable guidelines changed in 2015 for homeownership and increased from 60% area median
income (AMI) to 80% AMI ($65,800 for a family of four). Rental housing is still considered
affordable to households with incomes at or below 60% AMI ($51,950 for a family of four)
paying thirty percent of their income for housing costs whether renting or owning.
Owner Occupied
• The 2015 affordable ownership purchase price is $240,500 or less. The housing matrix also
shows the data for home ownership at the 60% AMI rate and that purchase price is $186,500.
• In the 2015, 7903 owner occupied homes are considered affordable which is 50% of the
owner occupied housing stock and 27% of the total housing units. This is a large increase
from 2014 because of the increase in AMI to 80% and the subsequent increase to the
purchase price.
Rental –
• The Housing Authority is in the process of conducting a new Rental Survey. At this time
2013 data is the most current, but we will have updated info for the 2015 year-end report.
• The 2013 affordable monthly rent including utilities for a 2 bedroom apartment for a family
of four is $1,111 at 60% MAI. In 2014 the affordable rent was increased by $10; however,
we do not have the 2014 rental survey completed yet.
• There were an estimated 5,941 (25%) affordable rental units – including known subsidized
units and estimated market rate units in 2013.
• The estimated number of market rate affordable rental units is based on the SLPHA Rental
Study and the Maxfield Research Inc Study. The Maxfield Research study surveyed
apartment properties with 8 units and larger with an 84% participation rate. The number of
affordable single family detached, duplex, condos and townhome units is from the SLPHA
Rental Study. The overall response rate from the SLPHA Rental Study was 86.7%. Although
the response rate was high this does not represent all rentals in the City.
Study Session Meeting of August 24, 2015 (Item No. 6)
Title: 2015 Semi-Annual Housing Programs Activity Report Page 11
St. Louis Park Housing Matrix
June 30, 2015
Housing Units by Type Large Single Family Homes, Affordable, and Senior Housing
Housing
Type Housing Units
Net
Units
added
in
2015
Owner
Occupied
(Homestead)
Non
Homesteaded
and/or Rental
Large Single
Family
Homes
2015
Affordable
Market Rate
Owner
Occupied
Units
60% | 80%
2013
Reported
Affordable
Market Rate
Rental Units**
Public
Subsidized
Affordable
Units,
Includes
Section 8
Housing
Units
Senior
Designated
Single
Family
Detached 11,614 47% 0 10,448 1166 2,173 1812 5903 58 55 0
Duplex 434 2% 0 150 284 8 41 82 0 0
Condos
and
townhomes 3513 14% 0 2363 1150 1729 1961 111 0 0
Apartments
* 8,832 36% 0 0 8,832 4,557 957 1018
COOPs 114 <1% 0 114 0 42 106
Totals 24,507 100% 0 13,075 53% 11,432 47% 2,173 19%
3549
27%
7905
50% 4,909 45% 994 9% 1124 5%
% of SF
Homes
% of
Homestead
% of Non-
Homestead
% of Non-
Homestead
% of Total
Housing Units
The percentage of owner occupied (homesteaded) units to rental or non-owner occupied (non-homesteaded) units has shifted from the 60 homesteaded/40 non-
homesteaded ratio of the early 2000's. This is due in part to a change in homestead status of approximately 1,200 condominium and townhouse units since the early
2000s and the addition of new multi-family rental units.
In 2011 the Met Council revised the affordable housing income standard. Rather than using 50% MAI for rental and 80% MAI for ownership, the revised affordable
definition for 2012-2014 was that housing is affordable to households with incomes at or below 60% AMI ($51,950 for a family of 4 in 2015) paying thirty percent of their
income for housing costs whether renting or owning. For 2015 the Met Council increased the affordable homeownership back to 80% AMI ($65,800 for a family of four in
2015). For 2013, a monthly rent of $1,111 or less for a 2 bedroom apartment for a family of four is considered affordable.
** Reported Affordable Market Rate Rental Units based on SLPHA Rental Study and 2013 Maxfield Research Study. 2013 data is the most comprehensive affordable rental data
currently available. We are in the process of conducting the 2015 Rental Survey. Updated information will provided in the 2015 Annual report.
Data source: SLP Community Development, Development Activity in St. Louis Park, SLP Inspections and Assessing.
Study Session Meeting of August 24, 2015 (Item No. 6)
Title: 2015 Semi-Annual Housing Programs Activity Report Page 12
Housing Development Project List since 2003
Project Developer Planning
Approval Type Total Units Status/ Completion
Parkside Urban Flats
460 Ford Rd Lovering Johnson 2003 Condo 48 Condos (70 units approved)Completed
E&G Phase 1 TOLD Apartment 320 Completed 03
E&G Phase 2 TOLD Condo 120 Completed 04
Aquila Commons
8200 W 33rd St Brad Friez 2004 Condo 106 Completed 07
Brookside Lofts
4100 Vernon Ave S Master Development 2004 Condo & Single Family 27 Condos /14 Twnhms / 5 SF Completed 07
E & G - E (phase 3)
3820 Grand Way TOLD 2004 Condo 86 Completed 06
Village in the Park
3600 Wooddale Ave S Rottlund Homes 2004 Condo & Townhome 66 Condos /60 Sr. Condo / 78 Twnhms Completed 07
Westmarke Condos (Lurie)
1155 Ford Rd Brad Friez 2004 Condo 65 Completed 07
E & G NW (phase 4)
3820 Grand Way Bob Cunningham TOLD 2005 Condo 96 Completed 07
West Oak Condos
3251 Louisiana Ave Mendota Homes 2005 Condo 75 Completed 2007
McGurgan (owner)
4525 W 4th St
Cornerstone Custom Const.
(Builder)2006 Single-Family 1 Completed 2007
Hoigaard Village Harmony Vista &
Camerata 5650 W 36th St Frank Dunbar 2006 Apartment 78 Unit Apt / 220 Unit Apt Completed 2008
Inglewood Condos
3125 Inglewood Ave Andrew Brenner 2006 Condo 6 Completed 2008
Park Place II Apartments "The Gables"
1361 Hampshire Ave S Bigos 2006 Apartment 49 Constructed 2008
Anna & Joel Thompson(owner)
4515 W 42nd St C.B. Hadley (Builder)2007 Single-Family 1 Completed 2008
Richard & Adrienne Harrison (Owner)
2600 Natchez
Creek Hill Custom Homes
(Builder)2008 Single-Family 1 Completed 2009
Ellipse
3920 Excelsior Blvd Bader 2008 Condo 132 Complete 2011
TowerLight
3601 Wooddale Ave S Greco 2008 Senior Apartment 115 Completed 2013
The Flats at West End
5310 16th St West The Excelsior Groups 2010 Apartment 119 Completed 2013
Shaun Smith (Owner)
2005 Louisiana
Andrew Hewey Const.
(Builder) 2010 Single-Family 1 Completed 2011
Hoigaard Village Medley Row & The
Adaigo 5650 W 36th St Frank Dunbar 2011 Apartment & Rowhomes 22 Rental Rowhomes / 100 unit Apt Completed 2013
36 Park (Park Summit)
3601 Park Center Blvd EJ Plesko 2011 Apartment 192 Unit Apt Completed 2012
Eldridge 1st Addition Rob Eldridge 2011 Single-Family 4 new SF lot
(5 SF lots total) Constructed 2012
Fretham 12th Add Curt Fretham 2011 Single-Family 5 new SF lots
(6 SF lots total)Constructed 2013
Gateway Assisted Living
7115 Wayzata Blvd Viren Gori 2012 Assisted Living 22 Complete 2014
Calhoun Apt Homes
Cty Rd 25 & Inglewood Ave Andrew Brenner 2012 Apartment 7 Completed 2014
E2
3920 Excelsior Blvd Bader 2012 Apartment 58 Completed 2013
Kaiser Subdivision Rob Eldridge 2012 Single-Family 2 Constructed 2013
Eliot
6800 Cedar Lake Rd Dan Hunt 2013 Apartment & Single-
Family 138 Apt units / 3 SF Under Construction
Wooddale Flats
3998 Wooddale Ave S Gatehouse Prop Ltd 2013 Condos 33 Under Construction
Fretham 14th Addition Curt Fretham 2013 Single-Family 1 new lot created (2 SF lots total)Completed 2014
Millenium at West End
1621 West End Blvd DLC Residential 2014 Apartment 158 Under Constuction
Eldridge 5th Addition
7701 Edgebrook Rob Eldridge 2014 Single-Family 1 Constructed 2015
5609 Wood Ln Gavin May 2014 Single-Family 1 Constructed 2015
4101 31st St Apts
4101 31st St Josh Brandsted 2014 Apartment 13 Under Construction
4106 Forest Lane ALTUS Architect/Sunny &
Tiffiny Han 2015 Single-Family 1 Under Construction
4300 Brookside JP Brooks 2015 Single-Family 1 Under Construction
Total Units Added since 2003
Single Family 28
Condo 860
Townhome Ownership 92
Townhome Rental 22
Apartments 1452
Senior Apartments 115
Senior Assisted Living 22
Senior Condos 60
Total Units Added since 2003 2651
Housing Development Project List
Study Session Meeting of August 24, 2015 (Item No. 6)
Title: 2015 Semi-Annual Housing Programs Activity Report Page 13
4. RELATED ISSUES
Foreclosures
Foreclosures are measured by the number of sheriff sales. The number of residential foreclosures
in St. Louis Park and throughout Hennepin County has been declining since 2010. The chart
below shows foreclosures since 2006. Foreclosures remain low during the first half of 2015.
Chart 8: St. Louis Park Residential Foreclosures by Year, 2006 – first half of 2015
The trend chart below shows foreclosure by housing type over time.
Chart 9: Residential Foreclosures by Housing Type
*Townhome & DB = Townhome and Double Bungalow/Duplex
76 87
133
92
191
163
122
59 54
27
0
40
80
120
160
200
240
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 First
half
2015Number of Sherrif Sales Year
Residential Foreclosures by Year
56
78
93
63
106 109
82
45 39
15 20 9
30 27
54
40
30
9 14 9
0
0 10 2
31
8 10 5 1 3 0
40
80
120
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015Number Sherrif Sales Year
Residential Foreclosures by Housing Type
Single Family Detached Condos Townhome & DB
Study Session Meeting of August 24, 2015 (Item No. 6)
Title: 2015 Semi-Annual Housing Programs Activity Report Page 14
5. ST. LOUIS PARK HUD FEDERALLY FUNDED HOUSING PROGRAMS: UPDATE
The Housing Authority administers programs that ensure the availability of safe and desirable
housing options in the St. Louis Park community. These programs include the Public Housing
program, Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher rental assistance program, Shelter Plus Care rental
assistance program, Louisiana Court Max 200 Rental Assistance Program, and TRAILS family
self-sufficiency program. The Authority currently serves over 500 eligible, low-income
households through their housing programs.
Public Housing
The HA owns a low-rise apartment building (108 one-bedroom units and 2 two-bedroom
caretaker units) built in 1975, and 37 scattered site single-family units (3 to 5 bedrooms)
acquired and constructed between 1974 and 1996. Although the low-rise building is designated
for general occupancy, priority is given to elderly and disabled. The single-family scattered units
house families with children. The HA also holds the HUD Annual Contributions Contract (ACC)
and maintains a waiting list for 12 two-bedroom Public Housing apartment units located at
Louisiana Court. These units are owned and managed by Project for Pride in Living. The units
and occupancy rates for the Public Housing units are noted in the table.
Public Housing Total
Units
1-BR 2-BR 3-BR 4-BR 5-BR Occupancy
June 30,
2015
Hamilton House 108 108 100%
Scattered Site Single
Family
37 0 0 17 17 3 100%
Louisiana Court,
Metropolitan Housing
Opportunity (MHOP) Units
12
12
100%
Total (bedroom size) 108 12 17 17 3
Total 157 100%
Housing Choice Voucher Program (HCV)/Section 8 The HA is funded to administer up to 268
Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers. This rent assistance program provides rent subsidies for
low-income individuals and families in privately owned, existing market rate housing units. The
rent subsidy is paid directly to the owner of the rental property by the HA with funds provided by
HUD. The HA offers both tenant-based and project-based vouchers. Forty vouchers of the HA’s
allocation are designated for use in three privately owned developments (Excelsior & Grand,
Vail Place, and Wayside) and are referred to as project-based vouchers.
Shelter Plus Care (Permanent Rental Assistance)
The Shelter Plus Care Program is designed to link rental assistance with supportive services for
hard-to-reach homeless persons with disabilities (primarily those who are seriously mentally ill
or have chronic problems with alcohol, drugs or both) and their families. Grants are provided to
be used for permanent housing which must be matched with supportive services that are equal in
value to the amount of rental assistance and appropriate to the needs of population to be served.
St. Louis Park is the grant recipient and we partner with three sponsor organizations that
administer supportive housing programs. The Housing Authority administered 43 units of Shelter
Plus Care assistance through May of 2015; however, CIP did not receive the Shelter Plus Grant
renewal beginning June 1, 2015.
Study Session Meeting of August 24, 2015 (Item No. 6)
Title: 2015 Semi-Annual Housing Programs Activity Report Page 15
Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers
(HUD Approved)
Units Utilization YTD
June 30, 2015
Tenant-Based (63 are Port-Outs) 223 98%
Tenant-Based Port - Ins 66 Avg./month
Project-Based: 40
Wayside Supportive Housing 15 87%
Excelsior & Grand 18 100%
Vail Place 7 100%
Shelter Plus Care Rental Assistance: 27 in SLP
Perspectives Inc. 11 100%
Community Involvement Program (CIP) –
Scattered Site
11
81%
**Wayside Supportive Housing 5 94%
Total 330
Shelter Plus Care Units administered by SLP HA but located outside of St. Louis Park
CIP- Clear Spring Road 8 80%
Project for Pride In Living (PPL)/Camden 8 105%
**Beginning in 2012, CIP and Perspective grants provide funding for up to five units of Shelter Plus Care
Rental Assistance at Wayside House. Wayside House’s Project Based units were decreased by five units to
fifteen. CIP did not receive a renewal Shelter Plus Care grant beginning June 2015.
Waiting Lists
Assisted Housing Waiting List as of June 30, 2015
Public
Housing
1-BR 2-BR 3-BR 4-BR 5-BR Total
478 334 106 113 36 1067
Section 8 332
Excelsior &
Grand
33
MAX 200 78
1510
The one bedroom public housing waiting list at Hamilton House will be opened in September
2015. The Housing Choice Voucher waiting list will be opened late 2015 or 2016.
Stable HOME Rental Assistance Program
The Stable HOME program provides rent assistance throughout suburban Hennepin County to
low income singles and families who were homeless or would otherwise be at risk of
homelessness. This program is funded with federal HOME funds allocated to the county. Single
participants are also participants in the county’s Employment Pays program and families are also
in the Stable Families Initiative program. For both groups the rent assistance participation is
limited to 2 years, during which time they establish good rental histories and relationships and
work with direct assistance from service providers to improve their earnings to the point where
they do not need rent assistance. The program is administered by the St. Louis Park Housing
Authority, but participants are free to choose a rental unit anywhere in suburban Hennepin
County. There are currently 18 participant families under contract throughout suburban
Hennepin County.
Study Session Meeting of August 24, 2015 (Item No. 6)
Title: 2015 Semi-Annual Housing Programs Activity Report Page 16
6. PROGRAM DESCRIPTIONS
Technical, Design, and Conservation Services
Architectural Design Service
This service provides an architectural consultation for residents to assist with brainstorming
remodeling possibilities and to raise the awareness of design possibilities for expansions.
Residents select an approved architect from a pool developed in conjunction with the MN
Chapter of the American Institute of Architects. All homeowners considering renovations are
eligible for this service regardless of income; however, to ensure committed participants,
residents make a $25 co-pay.
Remodeling/Rehab Advisor
The intention of this service is to help residents improve their homes (either maintenance or
value added improvements) by providing technical help before and during the construction
process. All homeowners are eligible for this service regardless of income. Resident surveys
indicated that homeowners valued the service and would recommend it to others. The City
contracts with the Center for Energy and Environment (CEE) for this service.
Home Energy Squad Enhanced Visit
Home Energy Squad Enhanced program is a comprehensive residential energy program designed
to help residents save money and energy and stay comfortable in their homes. The cost per
resident was decreased to $50 per enhanced visit in 2013. The home energy squad consultant
evaluates energy saving opportunities and installs the energy-efficiency materials the homeowner
choses including: door weather stripping, water heater blanket, programmable thermostat,
compact fluorescent light bulbs, high efficiency shower heads and faucet aerators. They will also
perform diagnostic tests including a blower door test to measure the home for air leaks, complete
an insulation inspection, safety check the home’s heating system and water heater and help with
next steps such as finding insulation contractors. All single family and duplex homeowners are
eligible. Renters qualify for the installed visit ($30) without diagnostic tests. The Home Energy
Squad Enhanced visits qualified residents for CEE’s low interest financing and utility rebates
and they also notify residents of the city loan and rebate opportunities.
The program which began in March, 2012, is administered by the Center for Energy and
Environment (CEE). The city pays $70 per resident visit which is leveraged with funds from
Xcel Energy, Center Point Energy and CEE.
Annual Home Remodeling Fair
The cities and school district community education departments of St. Louis Park, Hopkins,
Minnetonka, and Golden Valley co-sponsor the annual home remodeling fair. The fair provides
residents an opportunity to attend seminars, talk with vendors and city staff about permits,
zoning, home improvement loans, and environmental issues related to remodeling. The fair is a
self-sustaining event and vendor registration fees cover the costs.
Home Remodeling Tour
The annual tour is designed to meet the housing goal to remodel and expand single family owner
occupied homes. The self-guided tour of six homes provides a showcase of a variety of home
remodeling projects to provide ideas, information, and inspiration to other residents considering
remodeling.
Study Session Meeting of August 24, 2015 (Item No. 6)
Title: 2015 Semi-Annual Housing Programs Activity Report Page 17
Construction Management Plan
The city recognizes that many households are looking for larger homes. As a result, significant
additions and/or tearing down of existing homes and rebuilding larger homes is becoming more
common. Because St. Louis Park is a fully built community, these major additions and
construction of new homes impacts the surrounding neighbors.
Effective November 15, 2014, major additions (second story additions or additions of 500 square
feet or more), demolitions and new construction will need to comply with a Construction
Management Plan (CMP) per City Code 6-71. Major additions, tear downs and new construction
will be required to send a written neighborhood notification to neighbors within 200 feet of the
property. Demolitions and/or new construction will also require a neighborhood meeting and
signage. Two additions and one demolition fell under the CMP requirement in 2014.
Financial Programs
Discount Loan Program
This program encourages residents to improve their homes by “discounting” the interest rate on
the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency (MN Housing) home improvement loans. Residents
with incomes of $69,200 or less qualify for a greater discount than those with incomes of
$99,500 or less. Eligible improvements include most home improvement projects with the
exception of luxury items such as pools and spas. The City contracts with CEE for loan
administration. Implementation of discounting of MHFA loans began in late 1999 as a pilot
project.
Move – Up Transformation Loan
The purpose of this loan is to encourage residents with incomes at or below 120% of median area
income ($103,900 for a family of four) to expand their homes. The program provides deferred
loans for 25% of the applicant’s home expansion project cost, with a maximum loan of $25,000.
The revolving loan pool will continue to fund future expansions.
This loan requires significant upfront work by the residents, from deciding on the scope of the
project to selecting contractors. Loan guidelines are:
• Only residents making significant expansions are eligible. The minimum project cost must
exceed $35,000.
• The maximum loan amount is $25,000.
• The loan has 0% interest with a carrying cost fee of 3% paid by the borrower which covers
the lender’s administrative fee.
Green Remodeling Program & Energy Rebates
The Green Remodeling Program includes the Home Energy Squad Enhanced home visit
program, use of energy rebates, and access to CEE’s Home Energy Loan. The city provides a
match of 50% of gas and electric utility rebates for energy efficient furnaces, water heaters, air
conditioners and qualifying air sealing and insulation. The average rebate in the first half of 2015
was approximately $250 for a total City cost of $10,618. Air sealing and insulation is a new
rebate program that began in 2013 and rebates average $500. CEE also provided low interest
loans to residents making qualifying energy improvements. This energy improvement loan has
no income restrictions and there is no cost to the City.
Study Session Meeting of August 24, 2015 (Item No. 6)
Title: 2015 Semi-Annual Housing Programs Activity Report Page 18
Meeting: Study Session
Meeting Date: August 24, 2015
Written Report: 7
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Homes Within Reach: City Funded Revolving Line of Credit to Assist w/ Acquisition
and Rehab Costs of Affordable Homeownership Units
RECOMMENDED ACTION: None at this time. Staff is proposing that the City Council
consider a request from Homes Within Reach (HWR), also known as West Hennepin Affordable
Housing Land Trust (WHAHLT), to increase the revolving line of credit that the City previously
approved from the current amount of $250,000 to $500,000.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: What will be the source of funds for the increased line of
credit? What risk does the City have with providing a line of credit?
SUMMARY: West Hennepin Affordable Housing Land Trust, doing business as Homes Within
Reach, purchases properties, rehabilitates and then sells the home to qualified low to moderate
income households with incomes at or below 80% of the median area income. Buyers pay for the
cost of the home only and lease the land for 99 years. City funds are leveraged with CDBG,
Hennepin County Affordable Housing Incentive Fund (AHIF), HOME, Metropolitan Council,
Minnesota Housing and other funds. Since the program began in 2007 twelve homes have been
purchased and sold to low to moderate income families.
In 2009 the council approved a line of credit for HWR and they have accessed the line of credit
on seven home purchases. The funds from the line-of-credit provide financial assistance for the
cost of the acquisition, maintenance/repair and rehab prior to the sale of the home to a
homebuyer. The line-of-credit saves HWR the cost of accessing funds through an interest
bearing line-of-credit with a financial lender. The line-of-credit is repaid upon the sale of the
home in accordance with the Agreement between the city and HWR.
Increasing the line of credit to a maximum of $500,000 would provide HWR the ability to
purchase and rehab two properties simultaneously if the opportunity presents itself. Increasing
the line of credit would be a helpful tool to allow HWR to react to new opportunities that can be
hindered by project timelines and 12 month funding constraints from sources such as CDBG. On
average HWR has paid back the line of credit six months from the purchase date.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: The Housing Rehab fund will be the source
of funds utilized to establish the revolving line-of-credit. In addition to the line-of-credit, the City
will continue to provide financial assistance through the allocation of Housing Rehab funds and
CDBG funds as available to facilitate the purchase of new affordable homes in St. Louis Park.
VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to providing a well-maintained and
diverse housing stock.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion
Prepared by: Marney Olson, Assistant Housing Supervisor
Reviewed by: Michele Schnitker, Housing Supervisor/CD Deputy Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of August 24, 2015 (Item No. 7) Page 2
Title: HWR: City Funded Revolving Line of Credit to Assist w/ Acquisition & Rehab Costs of Affordable Homes
DISCUSSION
BACKGROUND: For over a decade, several west metro communities including St. Louis Park
have been partnering with Homes Within Reach (HWR) to create long term affordable home-
ownership.
The goal of this private non-profit is to provide ownership opportunities for working households
in suburban Hennepin County at or below 80% of Area Median Income. Buyers pay for the cost
of the home only and lease the land for 99 years. In addition, if a family wants to sell the
property, the home may be purchased by HWR to ensure the long term affordability of the home.
City funds are leveraged with CDBG, Hennepin County Affordable Housing Incentive Fund
(AHIF), HOME, Metropolitan Council, Minnesota Housing and other funds. Since the program
began in 2007 twelve homes have been purchased and sold to low to moderate income families.
Since its inception, HWR has sold 118 homes and placed 135 families across 11 suburban
communities including 12 homes in St. Louis Park over the last 9 years. In 2009 the council
approved a line of credit for HWR and they have accessed the line of credit on seven home
purchases. The funds from the line-of-credit provide financial assistance for the cost of the
acquisition, maintenance/repair and rehab prior to the sale of the home to a homebuyer. The
line-of-credit saves HWR the cost of accessing funds through an interest bearing line-of-credit
with a financial lender. The line-of-credit is repaid upon the sale of the home in accordance with
the Agreement between the city and HWR. The following chart profiles the 12 projects in St.
Louis Park:
Categories 2002-6/15
HWR Totals
2002-6/15
SLP Totals Comments
Total HWR Parcels 121 12
HWR Households 118 11
HWR Resales 17 3
HWR Total Families Served 135 13
HWR Average Income Served $42,283 $44,328
HWR Area Median Income Served
(%) 60.8% 61.9% Income and family size
drives AMI calculation
HWR Average Final Mortgage
Amount $906 $945 Includes PITI
HWR Average Sale Price $125,502 $126,125
HWR Number Persons Served 459 51 Includes 3 resales
Number of Communities Served 11 1
Increasing the line of credit to a maximum of $500,000 would provide HWR the ability to
purchase and rehab two properties simultaneously if the opportunity presents itself. This increase
is comparable to what some of our neighboring communities have provided HWR. Minnetonka
currently has a line of credit of $750,000 and in the past Eden Prairie has had a $500,000 line of
credit when HWR was producing more than one property per year in this community. Increasing
the line of credit would be a helpful tool to allow HWR to react to new opportunities that can be
hindered by project timelines and 12 month funding constraints from sources such as CDBG. On
Study Session Meeting of August 24, 2015 (Item No. 7) Page 3
Title: HWR: City Funded Revolving Line of Credit to Assist w/ Acquisition & Rehab Costs of Affordable Homes
average HWR has paid back the line of credit six months from the purchase date. Each draw will
be interest free, except that any interest HWR earns on the funds must be paid to the city. The
City Manager will have full discretion to approve or deny funding for each housing unit and the
funds will be designated to fund acquisition, rehab and repair costs. HWR will be required to
submit a written request to the city that includes the property’s address and estimated market
value. Purchase price and a closing statement will be submitted following the closing. A portion
of the funds will be repaid to the city upon sale of the home to a homebuyer with the remaining
balance due within 90 days. HWR has promptly paid back the line of credit each time it has been
accessed and on average HWR has paid back the line of credit 6 months from the date they
accessed the line of credit.
PRESENT CONSIDERATIONS: HWR has a purchase agreement in place to purchase the
13th home in St. Louis Park with a closing planned for October. HWR’s community land trust
model approach helps families purchase an affordable home in St. Louis Park and continues to
be a great resource for our community.
NEXT STEPS: If Council supports increasing the line of credit, staff will revise the Agreement
between HWR and the city incorporating the increased line of credit. Staff will prepare a report
for Council to approve the increased line of credit at a future council meeting.
Meeting: Study Session
Meeting Date: August 24, 2015
Written Report: 8
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Comprehensive Plan Amendment for Future SWLRT Joint Development
RECOMMENDED ACTION: No action at this time. The purpose of this report is to inform
the City Council of the requested amendment of the Comprehensive Plan for 4601 Highway 7,
4725 Highway 7, and 3130 Monterey Ave from BP – Business Park to MX – Mixed Use; action
will be requested on September 8, 2015.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Is the proposed amendment consistent with the long range land
use plans for the area in question?
SUMMARY: City Staff proposes a Comprehensive Plan Amendment for the properties located
at 4601 Highway 7, 4725 Highway 7, and 3130 Monterey Ave from BP – Business Park to MX –
Mixed Use. Staff is seeking a change to the land use designation in order to better reflect future
planning for the site. The FTA has also indicated the amendment is needed in order to allow this
area to be considered for its Joint Development program. A zoning change is not proposed at this
time.
City Staff has been working on background studies and information with the Southwest Project
Office (SPO) over the past several years for the site that is the subject of this proposed
Comprehensive Plan amendment. This site includes the Vision Bank site and the 4601 Highway
7 (and 3130 Monterey Ave) site to east that the City has purchased in the Beltline station area as
shown in the attached maps.
The Comprehensive Plan currently designates the area as “Business Park,” and the proposal is to
change its land use designation to “Mixed Use” to reflect the future intent for the area. Over the
past six or so years since the property was designated Business Park, work in the station area has
pointed to more of a mixed use with residential uses, versus just office and industrial. Because
Business Park does not include residential, the intent is to make the change to allow mixed use
with residential as well as other uses.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: None.
VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged
community.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion
Map of Amendment
Municipal Consent Drawing – Beltline Station Area
Prepared by: Meg McMonigal, Principal Planner
Reviewed by: Michele Schnitker, Housing Supervisor/Community Development Deputy Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of August 24, 2015 (Item No. 8) Page 2
Title: Comprehensive Plan Amendment for Future SWLRT Joint Development
DISCUSSION
BACKGROUND: City Staff proposes a Comprehensive Plan Amendment for the properties
located at 4601 Highway 7, 4725 Highway 7, and 3130 Monterey Ave from BP – Business Park
to MX – Mixed Use. Staff is seeking a change to the land use designation in order to better
reflect future planning for the site. A zoning change is not proposed at this time.
Current Comprehensive Plan: BP – Business Park
Proposed Comprehensive Plan: MX – Mixed Use
Current Zoning: I-G – General Industrial
Surrounding uses: Office/warehouse to the east; Industrial to the west;
trail, rail, vacant land, and office to the south; school and
residential across Highway 7/CSAH #25 to the north
SWLRT Plans:
The base SWLRT plans currently show a surface parking lot on the Vision Bank site with
additional right-of-way owned by the city (see attached Municipal Consent plan for the Beltline
Station). Ideally, this area would not be a surface parking lot in the long term, as it is a very
visible site that could be more fully utilized to serve both park & ride and development.
As a part of the planning for SWLRT, the City has been working with the Metropolitan Council
on a Federal Transit Administration (FTA) program call “Joint Development.” Joint
Development is a program that has the intent of integrating the transit project with commercial,
residential or mixed-use (transit-oriented) development into the surrounding area to increase
Study Session Meeting of August 24, 2015 (Item No. 8) Page 3
Title: Comprehensive Plan Amendment for Future SWLRT Joint Development
density and transit ridership, create and retain jobs, and enhance the vitality and overall
economic health of the area.
As we continue to pursue the idea of Joint Development and incorporate transit-oriented
development (TOD) at the Beltline Station area, the FTA has indicated that the Comprehensive
Plan land use designation should reflect this planning, and in this case, “Mixed Use” is the best
category indicating that intent. The FTA needs this designation to continue to allow this area to
be considered for its Joint Development program.
Other Planning:
Included with this overall planning, the city has applied for and received a federal grant that
would help to construct a parking ramp in this location, thereby allowing more land use
efficiencies and the opportunity for more transit-oriented development to occur. The parking
ramp would ideally serve both park & ride and surrounding development.
Staff also continues to work on the Form-Based Code (FBC) District for this area. “Mixed Use”
as a category in the Comprehensive Plan is consistent with the FBC. In a little longer range
picture we are pursuing a new Comprehensive Plan chapter for the LRT corridor, which would
set the table for development, the form-based code, and other goals and policies we have pursued
and/or adopted. This is expected to occur over approximately the next year.
Analysis:
Comprehensive Plan Goals:
The proposed amendment for these parcels is consistent with the City’s “Vision for Land Use”
and “Mixed Use” goals adopted into the Comprehensive Plan. These goals include:
15. Pursue redevelopment of future transitway station area as transit-oriented mixed-use
centers.
16. Expand the development of mixed-use areas within St. Louis Park to create a more
livable and connected community
Mixed Use:
In the Mixed Use land use category, the goal is to create pedestrian-scale mixed-use buildings,
typically with a portion of retail, service or other commercial uses on the ground floor and
residential or office uses on upper floors. Mixed use buildings typically have approximately 75
to 85 percent of the building for residential use and 15 to 25 percent for commercial or office
uses. Taller buildings may be appropriate in some areas and net residential densities between 20
and 50 units per acre are allowed, or more with a Planned Unit Development.
The proposed amendment suits the site by allowing a mix of uses, residential uses, higher
densities and efficiency of land uses that are transit-oriented. The Mixed Use category best
serves this area by promoting new development opportunities that work well with the adjacent
SWLRT station.
The complete Comprehensive Plan can be found at: http://www.stlouispark.org/comprehensive-
plan.html
Study Session Meeting of August 24, 2015 (Item No. 8) Page 4 Title: Comprehensive Plan Amendment for Future SWLRT Joint Development
Study Session Meeting of August 24, 2015 (Item No. 8) Page 5
Title: Comprehensive Plan Amendment for Future SWLRT Joint Development
Municipal Consent Plan – Beltline Station
Meeting: Study Session
Meeting Date: August 24, 2015
Written Report: 9
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: The Shoreham PUD Amendment
RECOMMENDED ACTION: No action required at this time. The purpose of this report is to
provide the Council with information on this amendment prior to formal City Council action.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: None
SUMMARY: City staff is requesting an amendment to the Shoreham Planned Unit
Development (PUD), 36-268-PUD 1, established by Ordinance 2471-15 to correct a technical
error discovered in the Ordinance text. The amendment in no way changes the previously
approved project but rather corrects an error within the Ordinance text so that the PUD text is
consistent with the approved development plans and the neighborhood, Planning Commission
and City Council intentions. The proposed change will correct and clarify that multiple-family
residential only, is permitted on the southern portion of the property and that mixed-use
development is permitted on the northern portion of the property.
Although this is a technical and housekeeping matter, the amendment is still considered to be a
major amendment to the Shoreham PUD Ordinance. A public hearing before the Planning
Commission is scheduled for August 19, 2015. The First Reading of the amendment is
tentatively scheduled to be presented to the Council on the consent agenda at the September 8
meeting and the Second Reading is tentatively scheduled for the September 21 Council meeting.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: None.
VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion
Draft Ordinance
Official Exhibit Sheet AS100
Prepared by: Ryan Kelley, Planner
Reviewed by: Sean Walther, Planning & Zoning Supervisor
Michele Schnitker, Deputy Community Development Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of August 24, 2015 (Item No. 9) Page 2
Title: The Shoreham PUD Amendment
DISCUSSION
BACKGROUND: The Shoreham PUD was recommended for approval by the Planning
Commission on May 6, 2015 and approved by the City Council June 1, 2015. The approved
PUD consists of a mixed-use building that includes up to 150 residential units, and 20,000 square
feet of general office and medical office uses. The approved building would be five stories along
the County State Aid Highway (CSAH) 25 Frontage Road and three stories along 31st Street
West. The site plan includes a driveway that runs through the site, connecting between France
Avenue on the east and Glenhurst Avenue on the west. This driveway, which provides access to
the on-site parking, divides the site approximately in half, with the north portion of the site
having the five-story building and the southern portion of the site, along 31st Street West, having
the three-story building. The approved plans additionally included only multiple-family
residential units on the southern portion of the site and the mixed-use development on the
northern portion of the site.
The neighborhood expressed their support for this arrangement of uses on the site, and
appreciated the smaller-scale building on 31st Street with only multiple-family residential units.
Staff, as well as the Planning Commission and City Council also supported this site plan. The
staff report that accompanied the PUD ordinance included the following paragraph to this point:
The PUD for this district will limit uses along W 31st St to multiple-family
dwelling units. General commercial, retail, office and medical office uses will be
permitted north of the driveway through the property. Specific uses on the site are
governed by the PUD Zoning Ordinance. The ordinance is attached to this report.
For the purpose of writing the ordinance, under the City’s recently adopted PUD Ordinance, and
to clearly illustrate the development regulations for different portions of the site, the site was
divided into two zones; Zone A, which is the northern portion of the site, and Zone B, which is
the southern portion. Sheet AS100 of the Official Exhibits, referenced in the Ordinance,
illustrated this site division, and the Ordinance 2471-15, has a text description of this same
division which is consistent with the Official Exhibit. The Ordinance uses these zones to regulate
such items as the height of buildings within each zone, the permitted uses within each zone, and
the façade requirements of each zone.
After the Ordinance was adopted by the Council on June 1, 2015 and the Summary Ordinance
subsequently published, an error was discovered regarding how the permitted uses were assigned
to each zone and the reference to those zones for façade requirements. The uses that were to be
permitted in Zone B were listed under Zone A, namely the multiple family residential use, and
the uses that were to be permitted in Zone A were listed under Zone B. The PUD amendment is
to correct this error and list the uses under the appropriate zones and reference the appropriate
zone for façade requirements. The amendment does not change the approved development plans
previously shown to the neighborhood, Planning Commission or City Council.
NEXT STEPS: Staff intends to provide the Ordinance amendment to the Council on the
consent agenda for approval at the September 8, 2015 meeting. The second reading is tentatively
scheduled for the September 21, 2015 meeting, also on the consent agenda.
Study Session Meeting of August 24, 2015 (Item No. 9) Page 3
Title: The Shoreham PUD Amendment
ORDINANCE NO. ____-15
ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 2471-15
RELATING TO ZONING BY
CREATING SECTION 36-268-PUD 1
AS A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT ZONING DISTRICT
FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3907 AND 3915 HIGHWAY 7,
3031 GLENHURST AVENUE, AND 3914 AND 3918 31ST STREET WEST
THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK DOES ORDAIN:
Findings
Sec. 1. The City Council has considered the advice and recommendation of the Planning
Commission (Case No. 15-11-S, 15-12-PUD and 15-13-VAC) for amending the Zoning
Ordinance to create a new Planned Unit Development (PUD) Zoning District.
Sec. 2. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Mixed Use.
Sec. 3. The Zoning Map shall be amended by reclassifying the following described lands
from C-2 General Commercial and R-4 Multiple Family Residence to PUD 1:
Lot 1, Block 1, The Shoreham Addition; Hennepin County, Minnesota; and
to the center line of all adjacent right-of-way.
Sec. 4. The City Council has considered the advice and recommendation of the Planning
Commission (Case No. 15-35-PUD) for amending Ordinance 2471-15 to correct a text error in
said Ordinance related to the permitted uses within specific portions of the redevelopment site.
Sec. 5. The St. Louis Park Ordinance Code, Section 36-268 is hereby amended to add the
following Planned Unit Development Zoning District:
Section 36-268-PUD 1.
(a) Development Plan
The site shall be developed, used and maintained in conformance with the following
Final PUD signed Official Exhibits:
1. G000 – Cover Sheet
2. C1.01 – Title Sheet
3. C2.01 – Preliminary Plat
4. C2.02 - Construction Route/Parking
5. C3.01 – Site Plan
6. C4.01 – Grading and Erosion Control
7. C6.01 – Utility Plan
8. C8.01 – France Avenue Plan and Profile
9. L000 – Tree Preservation Plan
10. L100 – Landscape Site Plan
11. L101 – Planting Details
Study Session Meeting of August 24, 2015 (Item No. 9) Page 4
Title: The Shoreham PUD Amendment
12. AS100 – Architectural Site Plan
13. A100 – Level P1 Floor Plan
14. A110 – Level 1 Floor Plan
15. A120 – Level 2 Floor Plan
16. A130 – Level 3 Floor Plan
17. A140 – Level 4 Floor Plan
18. A150 – Level 5 Floor Plan
19. A160 – Roof Plan
20. A200 – Elevations
21. A201 – Elevations
22. A202 – Elevations
23. A310 – Building Sections
24. Site Lighting Photometric Plan
25. Final Plat
26. Zoning Map Amendment Exhibit
The site shall also conform to the following requirements:
1) The property shall be divided into two zones, as indicated on Sheet AS100 of the
Official Exhibits. The zones shall be established by dividing the site into a north
side and south side. The north side shall be called Zone A and the south side shall
be called Zone B.
2) Parking will be provided off-street in a surface lot and structured parking, and
on-street in the circular driveway on the north side of the property. A total of
two-hundred-ninety-one (291) parking spaces will be provided: 203 spaces for
residential units and 88 spaces for non-residential uses.
3) The maximum building height in Zone A shall not exceed 65 feet and five
stories. The maximum building height in Zone B shall not exceed 35 feet and
three stories.
4) The development site shall include a minimum of 12 percent designed outdoor
recreation area based on private developable land area.
(b) Permitted Uses
Zone A
(1) Multiple-family dwellings. Dwelling units are not permitted on the first floor. Uses
associated with the multiple-family dwellings, including, but not limited to the
residential office, fitness facility, mail room, assembly rooms or general amenity
space are limited to a maximum of 50% of the building first floor.
(2) Commercial uses. Commercial uses are only permitted on the first floor, and are
limited to the following: office, medical or dental office, adult day care, group day
care/nursery school, group home/nonstatutory, banks without drive-up facilities,
food service, private entertainment (indoor), retail shops, service, showrooms and
studios.
Study Session Meeting of August 24, 2015 (Item No. 9) Page 5
Title: The Shoreham PUD Amendment
a. All parking requirements must be met for each use.
b. Hours of operation for commercial uses shall be limited to 6 a.m. to 12 a.m.
c. No drive up facilities are allowed.
(3) Civic and institutional uses. Civic and institutional uses are limited to the
following: education/academic, library, museums/art galleries, indoor public
parks/open space, police service substations, post office customer service facilities,
public studios and performance theaters.
Zone B
(1) Multiple-family dwellings. Dwelling units are not permitted on the first floor. Uses
associated with the multiple-family dwellings, including, but not limited to the
residential office, fitness facility, mail room, assembly rooms or general amenity
space are limited to a maximum of 50% of the building first floor.
(2) Commercial uses. Commercial uses are only permitted on the first floor, and are
limited to the following: office, medical or dental office, adult day care, group day
care/nursery school, group home/nonstatutory, banks without drive-up facilities,
food service, private entertainment (indoor), retail shops, service, showrooms and
studios.
a. All parking requirements must be met for each use.
b. Hours of operation for commercial uses shall be limited to 6 a.m. to 12 a.m.
c. No drive up facilities are allowed.
(3) Civic and institutional uses. Civic and institutional uses are limited to the
following: education/academic, library, museums/art galleries, indoor public
parks/open space, police service substations, post office customer service facilities,
public studios and performance theaters.
(c) Accessory Uses
Accessory uses are as follows:
(1) Incidental repair or processing which is necessary to conduct a permitted use and
not to exceed ten percent of the gross floor area of the associated permitted use.
(2) Home occupations complying with all of the conditions in the R-C district.
(3) Catering, if accessory to food service, delicatessen or retail bakery.
(4) No outdoor uses or storage allowed.
(d) Special Performance Standards
Study Session Meeting of August 24, 2015 (Item No. 9) Page 6
Title: The Shoreham PUD Amendment
(1) All general zoning requirements not specifically addressed in this ordinance shall
be met, including but not limited to: outdoor lighting, architectural design,
landscaping, parking and screening requirements.
(2) All trash handling and loading areas shall be inside of the building and screened
from view.
(3) Signage shall be allowed in conformance with the approved redevelopment plan or
final PUD site plan and development agreement in accordance with the following
conditions:
a. Pylon signs are prohibited;
b. Freestanding monument signs shall utilize the same exterior materials as
the principal buildings and shall not interfere with pedestrian, bicycle or
automobile circulation and visibility;
c. Pedestrian-scale signs visible from public sidewalks shall be no more than
three feet in vertical dimension unless flush with the building wall; and
d. Maximum allowable number, sizes and heights of signs shall be regulated
by section 36-362, C-2 requirements, except as may be specifically
modified by the final PUD.
e. Wall signs of non-residential uses shall only be placed on the ground
floor, exterior wall of the occupied tenant lease space, and/or a monument
sign.
f. Wall signs shall not be included in calculating the aggregate sign area on
the lot if they meet the following outlined conditions:
1. Non-residential wall signs permitted by this section that do not
exceed seven percent of the exterior wall area of the ground floor
tenant lease space.
2. The sign is located on the exterior wall of the ground floor tenant
lease space from which the seven percent sign area was derived.
3. No individual wall sign shall exceed 80 square feet in area.
(4) Façade. The following façade design guidelines shall be applicable to all ground
floor non-residential facades located in Zone BA:
a. For street-facing facades, no more than 10% of total window and door area
shall be glass block, mirrored, spandrel, frosted or other opaque glass,
finishes or material including window painting and signage. The remaining
90% of window and door area shall be clear or slightly tinted glass, allowing
views into and out of the interior.
b. Visibility into the space shall be maintained for a minimum depth of three
feet. This requirement shall not prohibit the display of merchandise.
(5) Awnings.
a. Awnings must be constructed of heavy canvas fabric, metal and/or glass.
Plastic and vinyl awnings are prohibited.
b. Backlit awnings are prohibited.
Sec. 6. The contents of Planning Case File 15-11-S, 15-12-PUD and 15-13-VAC are
hereby entered into and made part of the public hearing record and the record of decision for this
case.
Study Session Meeting of August 24, 2015 (Item No. 9) Page 7
Title: The Shoreham PUD Amendment
Sec. 7. This Ordinance shall take effect fifteen days after its publication.
Public Hearing August 19, 2015
First Reading September 8, 2015
Second Reading September 21, 2015
Date of Publication September 24, 2015
Date Ordinance takes effect October 9, 2015
Reviewed for Administration Adopted by City Council September 21, 2015
City Manager Mayor
Attest: Approved as to Form and Execution:
City Clerk City Attorney
13,822 SF
14%
ZONE A
ZONE B
Study Session Meeting of August 24, 2015 (Item No. 9)
Title: The Shoreham PUD Amendment Page 8
Meeting: Study Session
Meeting Date: August 24, 2015
Written Report: 10
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Westwood Hills Nature Center Master Plan Update
RECOMMENDED ACTION: The purpose of this report is to provide City Council an update
of Westwood Hills Nature Center’s Master Plan Study that is about to commence.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: None at this time. Please let staff know of any questions or
concerns you may have.
SUMMARY: Last year funding was allocated for the City to undertake a master planning
process for the Westwood Hills Nature Center. After undertaking a Request for Proposal
process, staff has selected the firm of Miller Dunwiddie Architecture, who will partner with SRF
Consulting Group, Inc. The consultant will provide professional services related to the study
and development of a comprehensive master plan for the Westwood Hills Nature Center. The
master plan will serve the City as the vision, guiding principles, resource allocation and action
plan to meet the identified needs of the community and to assist the City in planning for the
future of the Westwood Hills Nature Center.
The first step in the planning process will be the assessment of current facilities and programs we
offer by collecting input through a public process including focus groups, surveys, open house
meetings and interviews with staff, stakeholders and community members. This information will
be utilized to help create a master plan.
The master plan concept design for Westwood Hills Nature Center is scheduled to be completed
in late November. A presentation of the findings will be presented to the City Council in
December with updates along the way.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: The project is budgeted at $50,000 and was
approved in the 2015 budget.
VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged
community. St. Louis Park is committed to being a leader in environmental stewardship.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: None
Prepared by: Mark Oestreich, Manager of Westwood Hills Nature Center
Jason T. West, Recreation Superintendent
Reviewed by: Cindy S. Walsh, Director of Operations and Recreation
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting: Study Session
Meeting Date: August 24, 2015
Written Report: 11
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Extension of Franchise Agreements with CenterPoint Energy and Xcel Energy
RECOMMENDED ACTION: No action at this time. The purpose of this report is to inform
the City Council of the upcoming extensions to the franchise agreements with CenterPoint
Energy and Xcel Energy.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: None at this time.
SUMMARY: In 2013, the City Council adopted an extension to the franchise agreements with
CenterPoint Energy and Xcel Energy. These agreements are set to expire on December 31,
2015. City staff has been in contact with both utilities regarding this upcoming deadline, and
there is mutual interest in an extension. Passing an extension through the City Council and
Public Utilities Commission takes approximately 5 months.
City staff has expressed a desire to negotiate some changes to the agreements with the utilities,
primarily with Xcel Energy, and has already begun discussions with them and the City Attorney.
Because of these desired changes and the lengthy approval process, staff is proposing a 1 year
extension to the current agreements, allowing for the proper negotiations on long-term
agreements. Both utilities have agreed to this extension and share a mutual interest in coming to
a long-term agreement.
NEXT STEPS: Staff will bring these items back to the City Council on September 8, 2015 for
the first reading, followed by the second reading on September 21, 2015. Staff will continue
negotiations on long-term extensions.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: The City’s Pavement Management
Program is currently funded by franchise fee revenues, collected by both Xcel and CenterPoint.
Based on the current fees, total franchise fees generate approximately $2.3 million annually
(CenterPoint - $889,524; Xcel - $1,420,116). It is important to keep these agreements in place to
insure continued funding of our pavement management initiative.
VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: None
Prepared by: Steven Heintz, Finance Supervisor
Debra Heiser, Engineering Director
Reviewed by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager