The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2015/09/28 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - Study SessionAGENDA SEPTEMBER 28, 2015 (Mayor Jacobs Out) 6:30 p.m. CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION – Community Room Discussion Items 1. 6:30 p.m. Future Study Session Agenda Planning – October 5 and October 12, 2015 2. 6:35 p.m. SWLRT Housing Gaps Analysis Findings & Draft Southwest LRT Corridor- wide Housing Strategy 3. 7:20 p.m. Board and Commission Annual Meeting with Council Program 4. 7:50 p.m. Boards & Commissions Rules and Procedures 5. 8:20 p.m. Off-Sale Intoxicating Liquor Licensing 6. 8:50 p.m. Microdistillery Licenses 9:05 p.m. Communications/Meeting Check-In (Verbal) 9:10 p.m. Adjourn Written Reports 7. Highway 169 – W. 16th Street Access Closure (West Side) 8. CenturyLink Cable TV Franchise Proposal 9. August 2015 Monthly Financial Report 10. 2016 Fees 11. Update: Oppidan’s Application for Tax Increment Financing (TIF) Assistance Related to 4900 Excelsior 12. Hockey Association Contribution Agreement & Skate Park Relocation Update 13. 2016 Employer Benefits Contribution 14 2016 Budget & Service Charges for Special Service District (SSD) Nos. 1 - 6 and Extension of SSD 4 through 2025 Auxiliary aids for individuals with disabilities are available upon request. To make arrangements, please call the Administration Department at 952/924-2525 (TDD 952/924-2518) at least 96 hours in advance of meeting. Meeting: Study Session Meeting Date: September 28, 2015 Discussion Item: 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: Future Study Session Agenda Planning – October 5 and October 12, 2015 RECOMMENDED ACTION: The City Council and the City Manager to set the agenda for a Special Study Session on October 5, 2015 and the regularly scheduled Study Session on October 12, 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 October 5, 2015 and the regularly scheduled Study Session on October 12, 2015. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Future Study Session Agenda Planning – October 5 & 12, 2015 Prepared by: Debbie Fischer, Administrative Services Office Assistant Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Study Session Meeting of September 28, 2015 (Item No. 1) Page 2 Title: Future Study Session Agenda Planning – October 5 and October 12, 2015 Special Study Session, October 5, 2015 – 6:30 p.m. Tentative Discussion Item 1. Debrief on Plastic Bags Ban Listening Session – Operations & Recreation (30 minutes) Staff would like to discuss with the City Council what they heard at the listening session on September 2 and talk about next steps. 2. Update on 40th & France Acquisition – Administrative Services (25 minutes) Staff desires to provide a status report on this acquisition and discuss changes to the draft purchase agreement as proposed by the City of Minneapolis. End of Meeting: 7:25 p.m. Listening Session: Polystyrene Food & Beverage Containers, October 12, 2015 – 5:30 p.m. Study Session, October 12, 2015 – Immediately Following Listening Session Tentative Discussion Items 1. Future Study Session Agenda Planning – Administrative Services (5 minutes) 2. Review & Discussion of 2016 Budget, CIP, Utility Rates & LRFMP w/ Directors – Administrative Services (90 minutes) Overview of CIP and comments by Directors for key upcoming projects. Also, overview of Long Range Financial Management Plan and 2016 Budget, and final discussion on 2016 Proposed Utility Rates before adoption on December 21. 3. Designation - Neighborhood vs. Community Sidewalks – Engineering (45 minutes) The sidewalks in the City are either designated Neighborhood or Community. This designation is primarily used to determine winter maintenance. Staff has reviewed the existing definitions and will be providing City Council with recommended updates. Staff from Operations and Engineering has reviewed the overall sidewalk network and has some recommendations to modify some of the designations. 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 4. Water Supply 5. Update on Proposed EDA Revolving Loan Fund 6. Update on Proposed Grant Submissions 7. Community Solar Garden Meeting: Study Session Meeting Date: September 28, 2015 Discussion Item: 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: SWLRT Housing Gaps Analysis Findings & Draft Southwest LRT Corridor-wide Housing Strategy RECOMMENDED ACTION: None at this time. The purpose of this presentation is to inform the Council of the results of the Southwest Housing Gaps Analysis and review and seek input on the draft Southwest LRT Corridor-wide Housing Strategy. POLICY CONSIDERATION: None at this time. The goal of the Southwest Community Works is to seek support in the future for the corridor-wide housing strategy from the cities along the Southwest LRT corridor. SUMMARY: In May 2012, the Southwest Community Works Steering Committee approved a process to develop a corridor-wide housing strategy for the Southwest LRT Corridor. The outcome of the strategy is to help achieve the Southwest Community Work's vision and guiding principle for providing a full range of housing choices specifically within ½ mile of the Green Line Extension station areas. Southwest Corridor Community Works and their funding partners have been working together since 2012 to inventory existing housing options in the corridor, understand what the future housing demand may be and the likely demographics of people interested in living along the corridor. In addition, the work includes an understanding of the current and potential local, county, state and federal technical and financial resources to support a full range of housing choices. Additionally, cities along the corridor have undertaken housing studies, outlined tools and strategies in comprehensive plans and set individual housing goals. These efforts, along with other resources and technical assistance, including the findings in the Gaps Analysis, have been compiled and considered to form the basis for a Southwest LRT Corridor-wide Housing Strategy. At the meeting on September 28, Cathy Bennett of the Urban Land Institute-Minnesota, and Kerri Pearce Ruch, of the Hennepin County Southwest Community Works will present an overview of the SWLRT Housing Gaps Analysis, review and discuss the draft Southwest LRT Corridor-wide Housing Strategy and detail next steps. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to providing a well-maintained and diverse housing stock. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion Draft Southwest LRT Corridor-Wide Housing Strategy Prepared by: Michele Schnitker, CD Deputy Director & Housing Supervisor Reviewed by: Kevin Locke, CD Director Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Study Session Meeting of September 28, 2015 (Item No. 2) Page 2 Title: SWLRT Housing Gaps Analysis Findings & Draft Southwest LRT Corridor-wide Housing Strategy DISCUSSION BACKGROUND: The Southwest Corridor Housing Inventory was completed in November 2013 and the findings were presented to the City Council at the November 25, 2013 Study Session. The purpose of the housing inventory was to identify the current housing stock along the Southwest Corridor at various intervals from the specific station areas. The inventory did not provide future projections related to housing demand, future market supply, potential housing gaps and how those gaps could be addressed through the use of specific tools and strategies. The Housing Gaps Analysis which was completed in September 2014 specifically answered those questions and more including: • What housing types and values are missing from the Corridor? • What are the strengths and weaknesses along the SWLRT line? • Where are the optimal sites for housing development within ¼ mile of station areas? • Where is the greatest risk of gentrification? • What tools and strategies will be most useful in achieving the goal of a full range of housing choices? Based upon the findings in the gaps analysis and the recommendation on ways that those gaps could be addressed, the Southwest Corridor Community Works prepared a draft Corridor-wide Housing Strategy in March 2015 (attached). The complete SWLRT Housing Gaps Analysis can be accessed on the Southwest Transit way website at: http://www.swlrtcommunityworks.org/beyond-rails/planning-information/housing-inventory Southwest Corridor Community Works is now seeking input from stakeholders including the cities along the corridor and various interest groups; residents, developers, finance organizations, schools and housing advocates. St. Louis Park Housing staff participated on the SW Housing Committee assisting in the review of the Housing Inventory and Gaps Analysis and providing input in the development of the draft SW Corridor-wide Housing Strategy. The SW Community Work’s guiding principal to provide a full range of housing choices along the SWLRT corridor closely aliens with the City’s overall housing vision to promote a balanced and enduring housing stock that offers a continuum of diverse life-cycle housing choices suitable for households of all income levels. Also, the objectives and many of the implementation strategies included in the Strategy are consistent with both the City’s current housing goals and housing related initiatives already being undertaken in the City. The Strategy will not take the place of each City’s need to identify and implement Housing goals specific to meeting their communities housing needs, but it will guide and support communities in promoting a shared vison to create sustained healthy communities with a full range of housing choices along the corridor. NEXT STEPS: Throughout September/October, Southwest Corridor Community Works will continue to seek stakeholder input on the draft Strategy. A final draft of the Strategy will presented to the Community Works Steering Committee for action in November. Following approval by the Steering Committee, the SW Corridor Community Works will be seeking support from Southwest Corridor Cities for the implementation of the Corridor Wide Housing Strategy. SOUTHWEST LRT Corridor-wide Housing Strategy A plan to support and encourage a full range of housing choices along the Southwest Corridor (Green Line Extension) station areas DRAFT - March 9, 2015 Prepared for: Southwest Community Works Steering Committee Study Session Meeting of September 28, 2015 (Item No. 2) Title: SWLRT Housing Gaps Analysis Findings & Draft Southwest LRT Corridor-wide Housing Strategy Page 3 Partners This document was prepared by the Southwest Community Works Housing Workgroup. The Workgroup is comprised of partner staff from all six Corridor cities, Family Housing Fund, Twin Cities LISC, Minnesota Housing, Metropolitan Council, the Southwest Corridor Project Office and ULI-Minnesota. Workgroup members have collaborated on background research and funding to support development of a corridor-wide housing strategy for the Southwest Corridor (Green Line extension). Housing Workgroup Members Tara Beard, Metropolitan Council Cathy Bennett, ULI-Minnesota Theresa Cunningham, City of Minneapolis Margo Geffen, Hennepin County Elise Durbin, City of Minnetonka Kathryn Hansen, Southwest Project Office Margaret Kaplan, Minnesota Housing Molly Koivumaki, City of Eden Prairie Tania Mahtani, City of Eden Prairie Alysen Nesse, City of Eden Prairie Gretchen Nicholls, Twin Cities LISC Kerri Pearce Ruch, Hennepin County Joyce Repya, City of Edina Elizabeth Ryan, Family Housing Fund Brian Schaffer, City of Minneapolis Michele Schnitker, City of St. Louis Park Libby Starling, Metropolitan Council Stacy Unowsky, City of Hopkins Katie Walker, Hennepin County For additional information on Southwest Community Works, its members, partners and initiatives, as well as contact information, please visit: www.swlrtcommunityworks.org • Economic competitiveness and job growth - promote opportunities for business and employment growth • Housing choices - position the Southwest LRT communities as a place for all to live • Quality neighborhoods - create unique, vibrant, safe, beautiful, and walkable station areas • Critical connections – improve affordable regional mobility for all users. “providing a full range of housing choices – positioning the Southwest LRT communities as a place for all to live” “collaborate and partner so that Southwest Corridor becomes a premier destination that is accessible, livable and vibrant” Southwest Community Works Adopted Goals Southwest Community Works Vision Southwest Community Works Guiding Principle – Housing Study Session Meeting of September 28, 2015 (Item No. 2) Title: SWLRT Housing Gaps Analysis Findings & Draft Southwest LRT Corridor-wide Housing Strategy Page 4 Background In May 2012, the Southwest Community Works Steering Committee approved a process to develop a corridor-wide housing strategy for the Southwest LRT Corridor. The outcome of the strategy is to help achieve the Southwest Community Work's vision and guiding principle for providing a full range of housing choices specifically within ½ mile of the Green Line Extension station areas. Southwest Corridor Community Works and their funding partners have been working together since 2012 to inventory existing housing options in the corridor, understand what the future housing demand may be and the likely demographics of people interested in living along the corridor. In addition, the work includes deep understanding of the current and potential local, county, state and federal technical and financial resources to support a full range of housing choices. Some of the Southwest-specific studies and resources that inform this work include: • Southwest Corridor- wide Housing Inventory (2013), which chronicles existing housing and demographics along the corridor; • Southwest LRT New Starts Affordable Housing Rating Evaluation Summary, MZ Strategies (2013), which outlines existing SW Corridor Cities plans and programs that support affordable and workforce housing that can be applied to the LRT Corridor. • Southwest Corridor Investment Framework (2013), which provides Transitional Station Area Action Plans (TSAAPs) for each of the 17 station areas, including recommendations on likely sites for housing development. • Southwest Corridor Housing Gaps Analysis (2014), which projects future housing demand, provides market analysis and outlines recommendations and tools to achieve a full range of housing choices. • Southwest LRT New Starts Submittal (2014), which provides updated information on costs, ridership and land use/economic development both presently and looking into the future, as part of the Federal LRT Funding process. Additionally, cities have undertaken housing studies, outlined tools and strategies in comprehensive plans and set individual housing goals. These efforts, along with other resources and technical assistance, have been compiled and taken into consideration to inform a Southwest Community Works Corridor-wide Housing Strategy along the Green Line Extension. ` Study Session Meeting of September 28, 2015 (Item No. 2) Title: SWLRT Housing Gaps Analysis Findings & Draft Southwest LRT Corridor-wide Housing Strategy Page 5 Why a coordinated housing strategy? Recent studies by the Dukais Center for Urban and Regional Policy of 42 neighborhoods and 12 metropolitan areas revealed that when transit is added, housing stock becomes more expensive. These and other studies overwhelmingly indicate that existing and future housing located strategically near light rail experience a rise in value and rents at a more rapid pace than the general market. This increase helps to spur economic development and at the same time has a tendency to reduce the opportunities for lower to moderate income people and transit dependent individuals that may desire and benefit most by living near station areas. Rising housing costs generally hit working households the hardest, which elevates the risk of involuntary displacement of people already living in those areas who may no longer be able to afford to own or rent due to the increase in values. Why work together? Creating a full range of housing choices is a difficult challenge yet is critical to the success of Southwest LRT (Green Line Extension) and the surrounding communities. In order to adequately address the challenges, particularly in developing affordable housing, collaboration is key. A collaborative approach increases the corridor’s ability to be competitive, adds leverage to secure public and philanthropic resources, sends a positive message to the development community that the corridor is “all-together” in supporting a mix of housing choices along the Southwest Corridor, and creates alignment to achieve regional housing goals. Successful collaboration creates shared benefits and enables cities to do more – better - together than they can do alone. By coming together to create a Corridor-Wide Housing Strategy for Southwest Corridor, the cities, Hennepin County and other public and private partners will be better able to: • Create and sustain healthy communities: By providing a full range of housing choices all along Southwest Corridor, cities will be able to create and sustain the livable, vibrant neighborhoods that contribute to overall city well-being. Housing that is affordable to a mix of incomes around “Ensuring that there is a full range of housing choices with access to transit in our cities builds economic prosperity and competitiveness by attracting and retaining residents to support key employers. “ -Family Housing Fund “… we must act now to ensure that the housing built in these locations provides for a mix of incomes or a once-in-a- lifetime opportunity will be lost.” – Center for Transit Oriented Development Study Session Meeting of September 28, 2015 (Item No. 2) Title: SWLRT Housing Gaps Analysis Findings & Draft Southwest LRT Corridor-wide Housing Strategy Page 6 all station areas increases choices for residents looking to live near work, family or educational opportunities, reduces transportation costs and creates equity in communities. • Provide lifecycle housing for existing residents: Whether it’s housing for young people just out of college, move-up housing for growing families or housing options for seniors looking to age in place, cities know that retaining residents helps to build strong, stable communities. A Corridor- wide Housing Strategy will help cities respond to the needs of their existing residents and accommodate community needs. • Achieve individual city goals: The Corridor-wide Housing Strategy will assist cities in meeting their individually adopted housing goals for their community and may allow them to increase their Housing Performance Score for resources from the Metropolitan Council’s LCDA program. • Leverage Resources: The Corridor-wide Housing Strategy will enable Southwest cities and Hennepin County to leverage additional public and private resources, compete better for limited grant funds and philanthropic dollars and attract greater private development than may be possible acting individually. • Increase Economic Competitiveness: There is an economic case for providing the best opportunities for access to quality housing for those with modest incomes. If the essential workers along the corridor cannot afford to live there anymore, it impacts not just each individual city but the economic growth and competitiveness of the corridor and region as a whole. • Provide Consistency of Approach: Quality development capacity to pursue projects is limited. The pursuit of capital developers endure when there are inconsistencies of visions, goals and processes adds to the costs of a project. Developers will be drawn to an area that has a collaborative housing approach , a consistency of vision and is redevelopment ready. This reduces the complexities of development, helps to solve problems and manages development risks. A Corridor-wide Housing Strategy will provide clarity and consistency to the local and national development community, allowing cities and the County to take full advantage of the unique TOD opportunities and to be creative in development near transit that will grow the tax base now and into the future. • Sustain and improve the Southwest LRT New Starts Score: The Federal Transit Administration considers policies, planning and programs that support development and retention of affordable housing along transit corridors. In the most recent New Starts ranking, FTA spoke highly of the coordinated planning efforts and programs along Southwest Corridor, noting that “The region appears to have one of the most comprehensive set of affordable housing initiatives in the country.” FTA ranked Southwest LRT “high” based on coordination and planning efforts around affordable housing but the line only ranked “medium-low” based on the formula for counting legally-binding affordable housing along the corridor. In order to make the LRT project as competitive as possible for federal funding, FTA will be looking for further action, such as adoption of a corridor-wide housing strategy, when it reviews Southwest LRT for the Full Funding Grant Agreement. Study Session Meeting of September 28, 2015 (Item No. 2) Title: SWLRT Housing Gaps Analysis Findings & Draft Southwest LRT Corridor-wide Housing Strategy Page 7 Corridor-wide Housing Goal: Provide a full range of housing choices • New Construction: Add 11, 200 new units within ½ mile of the Corridor, including 3520 that are affordable to lower (<60% AMI) to moderate income (60% - 80% AMI) households by 2030. • Preservation: Preserve 3800 unsubsidized affordable (<60% AMI) rental units by 2030, out of 6700 unsubsidized units within ½ mile of the Corridor. Affordability targets for new construction*: % of Area Median Income (AMI) Salary for a family of four (HUD, 2014) Affordable monthly housing payment (30% of income) 30% AMI $24,850 $621 60% AMI $49,740 $1244 80% AMI $63,900 $1598 100% AMI $82,833 $2071 120% AMI $99,400 $2485 *Building on the Southwest Community Works investment guiding principle of providing a full range of housing choices, the Housing Gaps Analysis examined each station area and suggested development scenarios. These included potential unit numbers for new construction as well as identified existing rental units in need of preservation. These scenarios form the baseline for unit targets along Southwest Corridor. 6% 6% 10% 13% 65% New Construction - Rental Affordability Targets 0% -30% AMI 30% -60% AMI 60 % -80% AMI 80% -100% AMI 100%+ AMI 36% 64% New Construction - Homeownership Affordability Targets 120% AMI or less 120% AMI + Study Session Meeting of September 28, 2015 (Item No. 2) Title: SWLRT Housing Gaps Analysis Findings & Draft Southwest LRT Corridor-wide Housing Strategy Page 8 Why set corridor affordability targets? Each of the diverse cities along the corridor are individually taking steps to plan for land uses along the corridor, and have housing strategies and goals outlined within their comprehensive plans. All of the cities work toward housing goals that were negotiated with the Metropolitan Council. So what is the benefit of setting affordability targets together? • Respond to regional and federal funders. o Federal Sustainable Communities Grant. In 2011, Hennepin County was a sub- recipient of a federal Sustainable Communities Grant. Combined with Living Cities resources through Corridors of Opportunity, the Southwest Corridor was tasked with developing a set of measurable unit goals for housing along the Corridor. o Corridors of Opportunity Transit Recipients need to address Fair and Affordable Housing. In September 2011, the Corridors of Opportunity Policy Board adopted several recommendations on how regional transit corridors should address Fair and Affordable Housing in their overall TOD strategies. The primary recommendation was for the adoption of measurable, corridor-wide goals and strategies to ensure sufficient housing, both new production and preservation, to serve a full range of incomes. The Sustainable Communities grant and Corridors of Opportunity program have both ended. However, their guidance and best practices are still applicable for work in the corridor. There are also important funding opportunities in the future, both for the LRT project and for competitive development resources. • Competitiveness for FTA Funding of Infrastructure. In 2013, the Federal Transit Administration released new guidance for scoring transit projects that included existing and future plans for affordable housing. FTA is seeking to “ensure that as service is improved over time, there is a mix of housing options for existing and future residents.” In anticipation of application to the FTA for the Full Funding Grant Agreement (FFGA) for Southwest Corridor, commitment and progress toward meeting affordable housing goals is essential to be viewed competitively against other regions seeking the same limited funds. • Alignment with Metropolitan Council Housing Policies: A coordinated strategy along the Corridor that aligns with Metropolitan Council's housing policies, including the Housing Policy Plan (2014), will help cities in planning, tracking progress and addressing regional housing needs. Metropolitan Council will be allocating new affordable housing need numbers, along with negotiating affordable and life-cycle housing goals with Study Session Meeting of September 28, 2015 (Item No. 2) Title: SWLRT Housing Gaps Analysis Findings & Draft Southwest LRT Corridor-wide Housing Strategy Page 9 participating cities in the future. A corridor-wide housing strategy that aligns with regional housing policies will help cities improve their competitiveness when seeking Council resources. • Align development policies and resources throughout the corridor Corridor-wide affordable housing targets, developed in collaboration and tied to existing city plans and Metropolitan Council housing goals, will allow partners to focus efforts and public resources to identified gaps. Collaboration between partners will allow sharing of tools and information, while preserving each entity’s unique identity and role in housing creation. • Track progress over time Similar to the work being done on Central Corridor, a Corridor-wide affordable housing target will allow cities, Hennepin County and funders to track progress over time to ensure that the corridor is moving towards its policy goals. Having specific numeric targets allows measurement against a baseline and can also help identify where targets may need adjustment due to market trends or development activity. Study Session Meeting of September 28, 2015 (Item No. 2) Title: SWLRT Housing Gaps Analysis Findings & Draft Southwest LRT Corridor-wide Housing Strategy Page 10 Achieving the Goal: Corridor-wide Objectives To achieve the Corridor-wide goal and the unit targets, Southwest LRT Community Works supports four Corridor-wide objectives. These objectives will only be achieved through public/private partnerships, utilizing strategies and implementation steps detailed below: 1) Development of new housing opportunities o Create new housing that includes a mix of unit types with values and rents affordable to people with a full range of incomes. 2) Preservation of existing housing opportunities o Preserve and enhance existing subsidized and unsubsidized housing stock to reduce the involuntary displacement of low to moderate income residents. o Maintain opportunities to use Section 8 vouchers in corridor units. 3) Resources: Technical, Financial and Regulatory tools o Utilize existing resources and develop new resources to achieve corridor housing targets by seeking funding sources and technical expertise to support the development and preservation of full range of housing choices. o Modify regulatory tools to support housing development and preservation. 4) Market the Corridor - "Tell our Story to the World" o Attract developers and new residents and retain existing residents and employees to TOD neighborhoods and a TOD lifestyle. Study Session Meeting of September 28, 2015 (Item No. 2) Title: SWLRT Housing Gaps Analysis Findings & Draft Southwest LRT Corridor-wide Housing Strategy Page 11 Achieving the Goal: Implementation Strategies The following implementation strategies, divided between corridor-wide and city/county specific actions, are recommended in support of the Corridor-Wide objectives: Corridor-wide implementation strategies: • Develop Coordinated Mixed Income (Inclusionary Housing) policy language o This language would apply to new housing development within corridor cities, particularly in areas targeted for new transit oriented development. o Seek support for policy adoption by Corridor Cities. • Evaluate existing agreements (subsidized properties) o Determine length of contracts, develop policies and engage owners early in maintaining and extending legally binding affordable housing units along the Corridor. o Monitor use of Section 8 vouchers along the corridor to preserve units accepting vouchers. • Maintain and improve the quality of existing aging rental and ownership housing stock o Particularly focus on properties that are at values and rents affordable to low- moderate income people. o Develop programs together, with regional partners, that provide for strategic acquisitions, low-interest loans and public-private partnerships o Work with owners to match lower income residents with unsubsidized affordable housing units and create a structure to maintain that affordability. • Leverage private and philanthropic investments locally, regionally and nationally, along the corridor through a TOD Housing Fund. o Link development prospects to Regional Pre-development Funders Roundtable to connect corridor goals to appropriate funding sources. Study Session Meeting of September 28, 2015 (Item No. 2) Title: SWLRT Housing Gaps Analysis Findings & Draft Southwest LRT Corridor-wide Housing Strategy Page 12 o Participate in the evaluation of private/public TOD Housing fund. • Engage large corridor employers to strategically invest in the preservation and production of housing opportunities for low-to-moderate income employees. o Engage the Southwest Investment Partnership. o Support efforts to create a privately capitalized TOD Housing fund. • Evaluate corridor cities interest in exploring the cost/benefits, mechanics and legislative authority for joint financing mechanisms such as corridor- wide TIF, fiscal disparities sharing, and other forms of value capture. • Provide marketing resources and expertise to promote the Corridor and its housing vision to developers, employers, schools and future residents. • Develop metrics to track progress towards unit targets over time, using existing partners and resources. City/County implementation strategies: • Develop and adopt a clear and consistent vision, goals and affordability targets for housing development within ½ mile of station areas. • Maintain and enhance policies around station areas to promote increased density and include a mix of uses consistent with federal and regional transportation policies. • Implement infrastructure recommendations from the Investment Framework to provide connectivity in and around station areas and maximize development potential at station sites. Study Session Meeting of September 28, 2015 (Item No. 2) Title: SWLRT Housing Gaps Analysis Findings & Draft Southwest LRT Corridor-wide Housing Strategy Page 13 Achieving the Goal: Next Steps • Seek city/county support for the four key Corridor-wide Objectives o Encourage integration of strategy tools within zoning and development plan review. o Encourage use of strategy goals in funding allocation decisions • Determine mix of unit types and affordability for the corridor o Ask cities to identify station area mix of housing units, types and values • Seek city goals for preservation and new construction at various affordability levels for each station area, to apply to corridor targets o Adopt corridor targets that are consistent with city goals • Develop Housing Workgroup work plan to track progress on Corridor-wide strategy implementation. • Engage regularly with policymakers and stakeholders to ensure that Corridor-wide strategy reflects current goals and market conditions. Study Session Meeting of September 28, 2015 (Item No. 2) Title: SWLRT Housing Gaps Analysis Findings & Draft Southwest LRT Corridor-wide Housing Strategy Page 14 Meeting: Study Session Meeting Date: September 28, 2015 Discussion Item: 3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: Board and Commission Annual Meeting with Council Program RECOMMENDED ACTION: None at this time. The purpose of this item is to inform the City Council of a proposed “Annual Meeting with Council Program” where each of the City’s various boards and commissions will be invited to present their annual reports to City Council. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the City Council have any questions or concerns or need more information regarding the Annual Meeting with Council Program night? Does the Council have other changes to this process? SUMMARY: Earlier this year, Council directed staff to develop a process whereby all Commissions would meet collectively to present their annual report to Council. The purpose of this report is to outline a process for the proposed “Annual Meeting with Council Program.” Under the current “Rules and Procedures for Boards and Commissions”, each board or commission shall prepare a draft written report for the Council which includes activities undertaken in the past year, a progress report on the previous year’s goals, and goals for the coming year. After reviewing the report, the Council may meet with the group in a study session to discuss the report and other issues of concern to the Commission prior to approving the report and, as needed, may request the Commission to also provide a mid-year progress report. If approved by Council, the proposed “Annual Meeting with Council Program” would take place at the beginning of each calendar year. Current procedures would be revised for the annual meeting where each Board or Commission would be afforded a total of 15 minutes with 5 minutes of the presentation dedicated to their presentation, and the remaining 10 minutes reserved for discussion with the City Council. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged community. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion List of Current Commissions Prepared by: Anisha Murphy, Administrative Intern Reviewed by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/ HR Director Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Study Session Meeting of September 28, 2015 (Item No. 3) Page 2 Title: Board and Commission Annual Meeting with Council Program DISCUSSION BACKGROUND: Pursuant to the current Rules and Procedures for Boards and Commissions, each board or commission prepares a draft written report for the Council which includes activities undertaken in the past year, a progress report on the previous year’s goals, and goals for the coming year. After reviewing the report, the Council may meet with the group in a study session to discuss the report and other issues of concern to the commission prior to approving the report and, as needed, may request the Commission to also provide a mid-year progress report. On Jan 26th, 2015 Council directed staff to modify the annual reporting for Commissions and develop a process where all come together on an annual basis to hold the annual report out at a study session. • Currently, there are twelve (12) Boards or Commissions represented throughout the City of St. Louis Park. • Eight (8) Boards or Commissions follow the procedures to complete the annual reports to City Council at the Annual Meeting with Council Program. • Based on the nature of the work of these commissions and past practice these 4 Boards and Commissions do not have annual reporting or presentations: Charter Commission, Fire Civil Service Commission, Bassett Creek Water Management Commission (BCWMC), and Community Education Advisory Commission. New Annual Board and Commission Meeting Program Process Written Reports: • For each calendar year, each board or commission shall prepare a draft written report for the Council which includes activities undertaken in the past year, a progress report on the previous year’s goals, and goals for the coming year. • Each board or commission must submit an electronic copy of their annual reports to the staff liaison for each Board or Commission no later than December 31 each year. • Reports are submitted to the Council prior to the annual board and commission meeting. Presentation Instructions • Each board or commission will select one (1) representative from their respective organization’s to report out the annual report. • Each Commission is allowed 15 minutes total for presentation and discussion o 5 minutes for presentation of their annual report o 10 minutes allotted to City Council for any questions, comments, and follow-up requests. The following Boards and Commissions will participate: 1. Board of Zoning Appeals (BOZA)- 5 members (6:00-6:15PM) 2. Planning Commission-8 Members (6:15-6:30PM) 3. Environment and Sustainability Commission- 13 members (6:30-6:45PM) 4. Housing Authority- 5 members (6:45-7:00PM) 5. Human Rights Commission- 8 Members (7:15-7:30PM) 6. Parks and Recreations -8 Members (7:30-7:45PM) 7. Police Advisory Commission- 12 members (7:45-8:00PM) 8. Telecommunications Advisory Commission- 8 members (8:00-8:15PM) Study Session Meeting of September 28, 2015 (Item No. 3) Page 3 Title: Board and Commission Annual Meeting with Council Program The tentative schedule for Boards and Commissions Night is as follows: • 5:30PM o Check-in & welcome o Food/ refreshments provided • 6PM- 8:30: PM (1:15 minutes in total for presentations) o Five (5) minutes per annual report o Ten(10) minutes for questions, comments, and follow-up requests from City Council • 8:30 - 9 PM- Wrap-up/Adjourn Next Steps • Formal approval of changes of Rules and Procedures for Boards and Commissions. • Provide information to each Board and Commissions. Each Board or Commission shall alignment their oral and written annual reports in accordance with the Rules and Procedures for Boards and Commissions, and each organization’s bylaws. • Set Annual Board and Commission Meeting. 2015 St. Louis Park Boards and Commissions Membership Commission Membership Appointed by Council Terms Bassett Creek Water Management Commission 1 commissioner 1 alternate commissioner 1 technical advisor (all appointed by resolution) 3 year terms ending 1/31 Board of Zoning Appeals (BOZA) 5 members 3 year terms ending 12/31 Community Education Advisory Commission 4 commissioners 2 Council representatives 3 year terms ending 6/30 No term expiration Environmental & Sustainability Commission: Sustainable SLP 8 regular members 2 business members 1 residential tenant member 2 youth members 3 year terms ending 12/31 3 year terms ending 12/31 3 year term ending 12/31 1 year terms ending 8/31 Fire Civil Service 3 commissioners 3 year terms ending 12/31 Housing Authority 4 commissioners 1 program participant commissioner 5 year terms ending 6/30 Human Rights Commission 6 commissioners 1 attorney commissioner 1 youth commissioner 3 year terms ending 12/31 3 year term ending 12/31 1 year term ending 8/31 Parks & Recreation Advisory Commission 4 commissioners 1 youth commissioner 3 year terms ending 12/31 1 year term ending 8/31 Planning Commission 6 commissioners 1 youth commissioner 3 year terms ending 12/31 1 year term ending 8/31 Police Advisory Commission 11 commissioners 1 youth commissioner 3 year terms ending 12/31 1 year term ending 8/31 Telecommunications Advisory Commission 6 commissioners 1 youth commissioner 3 year terms ending 12/31 1 year term ending 8/31 Study Session Meeting of September 28, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Board and Commission Annual Meeting with Council Program Page 4 Meeting: Study Session Meeting Date: September 28, 2015 Discussion Item: 4 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: Boards & Commissions Rules and Procedures RECOMMENDED ACTION: No action at this time. The purpose of this item is to provide information for Council review as directed, and discussion on proposed modifications to the rules and procedures currently in place for advisory boards and commissions. POLICY CONSIDERATION: • Does the City Council want to modify the current rules and procedures for the City’s advisory boards and commissions? • Does the Council wish to consider the imposition of term limits for commissioners? SUMMARY: In early 2015, Council directed staff to review the current rules and procedures for the City’s advisory boards and commissions and provide a recommendation for changes to improve the application and appointment processes, and give time for Council to review information and consider instituting term limits for board and commission members. The following boards and commissions use the standard application and appointment process: Board of Zoning and Appeals, Human Rights Commission, Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission, Planning Commission, Police Advisory Commission, Telecommunications Advisory Commission, Housing Authority, Environment & Sustainability Commission, Fire Civil Service Commission, and Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission, and Community Education Advisory Commission The following boards and commissions use a different process and would not be governed by this process: Charter Commission, and advisory appointments by the Council to various outside boards or agencies. Earlier this year, Council asked staff to set aside time to allow them to discuss the Board and Commission application and reappointment process and have time to consider changes or modifications. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: None at this time. VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion Current Rules and Procedures for Boards and Commissions Prepared by: Melissa Kennedy, City Clerk Reviewed by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Study Session Meeting of September 28, 2015 (Item No. 4) Page 2 Title: Boards & Commissions Rules and Procedures DISCUSSION BACKGROUND: The rules and procedures for boards and commissions were last updated in 2012. At that time the City Council approved the following modifications: - Addition of a rule prohibiting a person from serving on more than one board or commission concurrently (with the exception of the Charter Commission). - Addition of a rule prohibiting board or commission members from serving on the same board or commission as another member of the immediate family (with the exception of student or youth members). - Expansion of the list of boards and commissions covered by the adopted rules and procedures to include CEAC, Housing Authority, and other boards and commissions created or determined by the Council. The current rules and procedures related to the application and appointment process are attached. A considerable amount of staff time is currently devoted to monitoring and managing the overall process to keep track of term expirations, vacancies, reappointments, recruitment, new application review, scheduling of interviews, and appointments. How long is a membership term? • Currently terms are set at 3 years for all boards and commissions with the exception of the Housing Authority (5 year term). Additionally, youth commissioners serve 1 year terms. Membership requirements would continue to be set by the City Council, and all board and commission members would continue to be appointed by the Council or, in some cases, by the School Board. When do membership terms expire? • Currently some terms expire at different times throughout the year. • It is recommended to adjust membership terms to expire annually on December 31st rather than at different points throughout the year for certain boards or commissions. o The three year terms of board and commission members would continue to be staggered. Council can provide direction regarding modifications to the length of term for the Housing Authority and Youth Commissioners. o Any current terms set to expire on a different date would simply be adjusted to expire on December 31st of the same year to make all term expiration dates uniform. This change would make it easier for staff and the public to track and prepare for when the City Council will consider appointments. The change would also allow for the establishment of a more transparent annual process involving advertisement of vacancies, recruitment, acceptance of applications, scheduling of interviews, and Council appointments. Is there a limit on the number of terms an individual can serve on a board or commission? • Currently there are no term limits in place for boards and commissions. • If Council would like to pursue a rule related to term limits, the following language could be used: “No commission member may be appointed to more than one, (two or three or four or …) full consecutive terms, except by a unanimous vote of the Council”. Alternatively, the City Council could choose to set a specific term limit or timeframe in number of consecutive years without the option to extend beyond the set limit. Study Session Meeting of September 28, 2015 (Item No. 4) Page 3 Title: Boards & Commissions Rules and Procedures Do other cities have established term limits? City Term Limit Length of Term Bloomington Yes Varies depending on commission; terms cannot exceed 3 years; no member can serve more than 6 years consecutively on any one commission Brooklyn Center No 2-3 year terms depending on board/commission Brooklyn Park Yes* 3 year terms; *no member of Budget Advisory Commission can serve more than two consecutive 3 year terms Eden Prairie Yes 3 year terms; no member may be appointed to more than two consecutive terms w/o unanimous Council approval Edina Yes 3 year terms; cannot serve more than two terms, except Planning Commissioners can serve up to three terms Golden Valley No Varies; 1-3 year terms depending on board/commission Hopkins Yes 2 year terms; no citizen member can serve more than two consecutive terms Maple Grove No 2-3 year terms depending on board/commission Minnetonka No Varies; 2-4 year terms depending on board/commission Plymouth No 3-year terms, except HRA has 5-year terms Richfield No 3 year terms When does recruitment take place? • Under current practices, active recruitment is only conducted when a known vacancy occurs. This means that if a board or commission member’s term is set to expire and that individual seeks reappointment, no other applicants are actively recruited and no notices or advertisements are posted or published. • Council could amend this process to require recruitment to take place when any term limit is up and if a current member is interested in reappointment, they would need to reapply along with others. What constitutes a vacancy on a board or commission? • Generally, what currently happens is that a vacancy occurs when a member does not apply for reappointment or leaves the board or commission mid-term. At times there is a vacancy if a member is not reappointed. • This could change so that all upcoming term expirations would be considered vacancies. Applications would be required from all interested parties, in addition to those individuals seeking reappointment. What methods does the City use to recruit applicants? • Current recruitment methods are somewhat arbitrary in that staff can choose which methods to use if and when recruitment is performed. • Additional methods for advertisement of all vacancies could include the following: o Post all vacancies on City’s website o Post all vacancies on our social media outlets o Posting of notice at City Hall o Mailed notice to all neighborhood organizations Study Session Meeting of September 28, 2015 (Item No. 4) Page 4 Title: Boards & Commissions Rules and Procedures o Published notice in the Sun Sailor (extends the amount of time needed in the application process due to publication deadlines), • If all terms are set to expire at the same time each year, recruitment information could be published in the summer/fall issue of Park Perspective. The article would detail the openings on each commission, a brief description of the commission, and the application process. This would provide residents with the opportunity to learn more about the commissions they may be interested in serving on and to carefully consider the time commitment before submitting an application. How does someone apply to serve on a board or commission? • Currently, residents wanting to apply to serve on a board or commission are able to download an application from the City website. The applicant must print off the application, fill it out by hand, and then return it to City Hall for consideration. • On line application process: Staff will be making changes to improve this process by moving to online applications on our website. Do all boards and commissions have a supplemental application? • No. A supplemental application is currently only required for the Environment and Sustainability Commission. • If Council desires, standard supplemental applications can be developed and tailored to each specific commission, similar to what was developed for the Environment and Sustainability Commission. This would allow applicants to provide more in-depth information specifically related to their qualifications for, and interest in serving on a specific commission. If this is added, all applicants would be required to complete both the application and supplemental information. • Council would need to determine what type of application and supplemental information they would like for those seeking reappointment. How are applications reviewed? • The current rules and procedures call for written applications to be forwarded to the Council for review as openings occur. • If there are changes to the reappointment process, Council would need to provide guidance to determine how those seeking reappointment will be handled. Who determines which candidates are interviewed? • Currently, the members of the City Council are asked to inform the Administrative Services department of the candidates they wish to interview following their review of the applications. Typically Council does not interview those who are seeking reappointment. • If desired, all applicants, including those seeking reappointment, would be invited to an interview with the City Council. All interviews would take place on the same night, such as a Monday night normally reserved for a Study Session. Interviews would be the only thing on the agenda for that evening and would be scheduled in 10-15 minute intervals. Applicants would be asked to sign up for a specific interview time well in advance of the meeting. When will appointments be considered? • Currently appointments are made at a Council meeting as determined by Council. Reappointments are done as a group and set up by city staff. Study Session Meeting of September 28, 2015 (Item No. 4) Page 5 Title: Boards & Commissions Rules and Procedures • If a change is made, with the exception of mid-term vacancies, appointments would be considered annually at the same meeting rather than at multiple meetings throughout the year. What is the process for making appointments to a board or commission? • Currently Council reviews applications, interviews and selects candidates. If a change is made to the process, there are a number of options. Examples of options Council could use as part of the selection process could be: • Institute a balloting method whereby the Council would vote for candidates to fill open positions on a board or commission. Ballots would be presented to the Council on a commission by commission basis. The names of all candidates who submitted applications for consideration would appear on the ballot. The Council would then go through several rounds of voting for each board or commission until the number of candidates was reduced to the number of positions to be filled. The rules or details of the voting process could be further defined if there is a desire on the part of the Council to consider such a procedure. The voted ballots would be considered public information. • Another method is to develop score sheets for Council to complete. Once scored, a rank would be developed allowing Council to determine their selection. • Another option would be to ask the Council, following applicant interviews, to inform the Administrative Services Department of which candidates Council would like to be brought forward for appointment. This option more closely resembles the current procedure followed. Staff would then prepare an item for Council action that would recommend for appointment only those applicants selected or identified by the Council. How does a current member of a board or commission seek reappointment? • Currently those seeking reappointment need to fill out a brief reappointment status form containing a statement regarding why they wish to be reappointed. • If desired by Council, current members of a board or commission whose term is set to expire would be asked to complete an application (and supplemental) seeking reappointment and participate in the interview process with the Council. All applicants seeking reappointment would be considered by the Council in the same pool as new applicants seeking appointment. How are resignations or unexpected vacancies handled? Whenever a vacancy occurs within the midst of a term (by resignation or unexpected circumstances such as illness or death), the Administrative Services Department would initiate the recruitment process. This is our current process and it would continue. NEXT STEPS: If Council chooses to proceed with amendments to the rules and procedures for Boards and Commissions the next steps would be: • Changes need to be discussed and defined by Council • Changes would be brought back as a report to Council for final review • Resolution approving the proposed changes would be prepared for Council consideration • Once the changes are approved, each commission would update its by-laws accordingly Study Session Meeting of September 28, 2015 (Item No. 4) Page 6 Title: Boards & Commissions Rules and Procedures R ules and Procedures for Boards and Commissions Amended by City Council May 7, 2012 Resolution No. 12-069 A. Boards The St. Louis Park City Charter grants the Council authority to form various boards and commissions by ordinance. Boards and commissions serve in an advisory capacity to the City Council and are conferred various degrees of decision making power. The City Council is the sole policy making body of the city. Some boards and commissions include in their membership persons appointed by the school board. Boards and commissions of the city which are governed by the provisions of these rules and procedures are as follows: • Board of Zoning Appeals • Human Rights Commission • Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission • Planning Commission • Police Advisory Commission • Telecommunications Advisory Commission • Housing Authority • And other boards as created by or determined by Council In addition, other ad hoc groups may be formed as needed by resolution of the council. B. Staff Liaisons Each board and commission is assigned a staff liaison. Duties of the staff liaison are, in general, to facilitate or assist in the meetings, to record attendance and to provide information and direction as requested by the commission. It is also the responsibility of the staff liaison to inform the city council of any problems or issues that may arise. C. Membership and Terms Membership requirements are set by Council. All board and commission members are appointed by the Council or, in some cases, by the school board. Youth members may be appointed and are conferred voting status except in the case of the Planning Commission and Board of Zoning Appeals. The City Council will not appoint a Board and or Commission member to serve concurrently on more than one board or commission (not including the Charter Commission), and commissioners may only serve one consecutive year as chair. Board and commission members cannot serve on the same commission as a member of the immediate family, registered domestic partner or members of the same household. Definition for immediate family - The immediate family includes the following individual and the spouse or registered domestic partner: mother, father, siblings, spouse or registered domestic partner, children, step relatives, grandparents and also includes members of the same household. Youth are exempt from this provision. Study Session Meeting of September 28, 2015 (Item No. 4) Page 7 Title: Boards & Commissions Rules and Procedures D. Qualifications Members must be St. Louis Park residents, but need not have expertise in any particular area. Willingness to serve and be involved are the most important attributes of members. Per Resolution No. 01-078, the city council will not consider applications for appointment to advisory commissions from regular full-time or part-time St. Louis Park employees (as defined in the city’s personnel manual). City Council will not consider applications for appointment to commissions from other employees working for the city such as seasonal, temporary, part time, paid on call firefighters or contract employees if such appointment could cause a conflict of interest. E. Attendance Regular attendance at meetings is a requirement for continued membership on any board or commission. Irregular attendance and frequent absences are detrimental to the entire group and put undue pressure on those members who do attend meetings. Regular attendance allows members to learn about and discuss issues in depth which contributes to more effective decision making. Continued absenteeism is considered grounds for dismissal by the council. F. By-Laws Each board and commission shall create by-laws and meeting procedures. By-laws must be consistent with the City Code and should follow the Council’s template for by-laws. Whenever changes are made, copies of the by-laws should be forwarded to the Administrative Services department for the Council’s review. Council has 30 days to review and amend the by-laws per the City Code. G. Meetings Meeting times and locations are set according to each commission’s by-laws. Each commission should defer to the Council’s meeting policy for meetings which occur on or near holidays. A quorum of the board is made up of a majority of members currently appointed. All meetings will be conducted in accordance with the Minnesota Open Meeting Law, the City Charter and the Municipal Code of Ordinances. The proceedings of the meetings should be conducted using standard parliamentary procedure. The City Council has adopted The Standard Code of Parliamentary Procedure, as their guide and that publication is available in the Administrative Services department. A simplified summary of these procedures is also available for use by commission chairs and staff liaisons. H. Minutes and other Records Minutes of each meeting should be prepared and maintained by the staff liaison or designee. Following commission approval minutes should be forwarded to the Administrative Services department for placement on the city council agenda. All board and commission records must be maintained in accordance with the city’s records retention policy. Please contact the Administrative Services department if you have questions regarding retention and preferred storage medium. Study Session Meeting of September 28, 2015 (Item No. 4) Page 8 Title: Boards & Commissions Rules and Procedures I. Annual Report Each board or commission shall prepare a draft written report for the Council which includes activities undertaken in the past year, a progress report on the previous year’s goals, and goals for the coming year. Every effort should be made to submit the report to the Council by January 1. After reviewing the report, the Council may meet with the group in a study session to discuss the report and other issues of concern to the commission prior to approving the report and, as needed, may request the Commission to also provide a mid-year progress report. J. Recruitment When a vacancy occurs it is the responsibility of the staff liaison to inform the Administrative Services department of the vacancy. Recruitment is typically done using any combination of advertising opportunity available. Local newspaper, Park Perspective, direct mailing, neighborhood newsletter, the city’s website, etc. are all acceptable forms of advertisement. Applications are maintained by the Administrative Services department and are forwarded to interested citizens upon request. In certain instances a supplemental application may be created to determine suitability of candidates. Upon receipt of the application a representative of the Administrative Services department will contact the applicant to acknowledge receipt of the application and to discuss the interview and appointment process. Applications will be retained in the active file six months following receipt. K. Candidate Review Process Written applications are forwarded to Councilmembers for review as openings occur. Councilmembers will inform the Administrative Services department of the candidates they wish to interview based upon their review of written materials within two weeks of receiving the materials. Interviews are conducted by the City Council, usually prior to a Monday evening meeting. Following the interview, the Mayor will inform the Administrative Services department about the status of each applicant. The Administrative Services department will mail a thank you letter to each applicant with information regarding next steps in the process. L. Appointment Appointments are made by the City Council at a regular meeting of the council. Council will inform the Administrative Services department when an appointment is to be made so that the appointment can be added to the council agenda. Following the appointment the Administrative Services department will contact the new member and inform them of their appointment. A copy of the application will also be forwarded to the staff liaison. The staff liaison will provide the new member with meeting information and discuss expectations and pertinent issues with them prior to the next meeting of the board or commission. Study Session Meeting of September 28, 2015 (Item No. 4) Page 9 Title: Boards & Commissions Rules and Procedures Appointments are sometimes made to unexpired terms, and often more than one vacancy exists on a commission. In that case, the specific term occupied by the new member is determined by the commission and communicated to the Administrative Services department. M. Rosters The staff liaison is responsible for keeping an updated roster of the commission which should include contact information, term of office and date of appointment. The liaison is responsible for notifying the Administrative Services department about roster changes. N. Reappointment Reappointments are made as needed by the city council. Performance and attendance by Board and Commission members requesting reappointment will be considered by the Council. Council may choose to re-interview any commission member as a means to determine whether the commission member should continue to serve. A member may continue to serve beyond their expiration date until a reappointment is made. O. Resignation When a resignation occurs, the staff liaison should contact the Administrative Services department and forward a copy of any correspondence that may have been received. Administrative Services will then initiate recruitment to fill the vacant position. A member may continue to serve beyond their expiration date until a successor is appointed. Members may be removed with or without cause by the City Council. P. Recognition At the beginning of each year the Council will recognize members who have left their position during the prior year. Appreciation activities will be planned for all commission members on a regular basis. Q. Orientation The Administrative Services department and the staff liaisons will provide orientation for new board and commission members as well as new staff liaisons. R. Conflict of Interest No commissioner shall: (1) Enter into any contractual arrangement with the city during the term serving as an appointed board or commissioner member and for a period of one year after leaving office, unless authorized by Minnesota statutes § 471.88. (2) Use their position to secure any special privilege or exemption for themselves or others. (3) Use their office or otherwise act in any manner which would give the appearance of or result in any impropriety or conflict of interest. Meeting: Study Session Meeting Date: September 28, 2015 Discussion Item: 5 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: Off-Sale Intoxicating Liquor Licensing RECOMMENDED ACTION: No formal action required. The purpose of this report is to provide the City Council with requested information regarding the establishment of size limitations on off-sale intoxicating liquor stores. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the Council want to create size limitations on off-sale intoxicating liquor establishments? What other information would the Council like to review regarding off-sale intoxicating liquor licensing? SUMMARY: • On January 12, 2015, the City Council discussed off-sale intoxicating liquor licenses and locations. It was the consensus of the majority of the Council to direct staff to prepare a resolution imposing a limit on off-sale liquor licenses to allow time to study this topic. • On January 20, 2015, the City Council adopted a resolution limiting the number of off-sale intoxicating liquor licenses that applied to all pending and future applications with an expiration date of December 31, 2015. • On April 20, 2015 the City Council discussed this topic and reviewed zoning, business locations, regulations, public safety, licenses per capita, and data regarding existing establishments. At this meeting, Council directed staff to review information on limiting store square footage and research legal issues related to such a regulation. • On July 13, 2015 the City Council discussed size limitations on off-sale intoxicating liquor operations, and directed staff to return with options. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion Map of Off-Sale Intoxicating Liquor Establishments Prepared by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Study Session Meeting of September 28, 2015 (Item No. 5) Page 2 Title: Off-Sale Intoxicating Liquor Licensing DISCUSSION BACKGROUND: At the July 14, 2015 Study Session the Council continued the discussion regarding limiting square footage of off-sale intoxicating liquor establishments and legal issues related to such a regulation. At this meeting, Council directed staff to prepare options on size limitations. How does a city create limitations on square footage (size) of off-sale intoxicating liquor establishments? Staff consulted City Attorney Soren Mattick on this question. The research focused on a city’s ability to regulate square footage requirements utilizing the controls provided to the city through zoning and liquor licensing. The City Attorney stated size limitations can be established with development of certain criteria: • The Council would need to establish a sound rationale for the regulation for the maximum square footage that is being established. Ideally the Council would describe how the regulation benefits the health, safety and welfare of the community. • Any size limitations on off-sale intoxicating liquor stores are more appropriate to the liquor licensing code, rather than the zoning code. What are some options for size limitation? Potential size limitation options: 1. 10,560 square foot limit (current size of largest establishment) 2. 5,000 square foot limit (rounded up), average square footage of establishments is 4,768 3. No change What needs to be done to set size limitations; what are examples? In order to set a square foot limitation, size limit needs to be determined and criteria need to be developed. Below are some examples of criteria that could be used for size limitation: • First, the Council should determine if it wants criteria regulating establishment size. If yes, the Council could then set the limitation as follows: at the average square footage of current establishments or at the maximum square footage of the current business (if over the new limitation) or other limit. • Set up information on limitation of square footage for off-sale liquor business as part of the criteria set out in our liquor license. • Provide rationale for the regulation such as: o Limiting this would support small businesses for off sale intoxicating liquor. o Smaller retailers typically are local. Smaller businesses typically are more unique, not generic, and add to the character of the business community. o Other as determined by Council. • Finally, if a size limit is put in place, no existing business could exceed the limit when building or remodeling (additional square footage could not be added if grandfathered in at existing square footage maximum). Are there examples of size limitations in other cities? Staff has found a couple examples through its research and inquiries. One local example is in Hopkins, which very recently established an ordinance limiting the size of off-sale liquor stores to 5,000 square feet. Victoria, BC, Canada has city policies limiting the size of liquor stores to 2,200 square feet, but has recent examples where they have considered or allowed stores that are Study Session Meeting of September 28, 2015 (Item No. 5) Page 3 Title: Off-Sale Intoxicating Liquor Licensing Off Sale Intoxicating Liquor Licensed Establishments Address Development, Mall or Shopping area Premises CURRENT approx Sq Ft Liquor Violations past 5 years Year Business Began Total Years in business 1 St. Louis Park Liquors 6316 Minnetonka Blvd Minnetonka Park Mall 1,200 2 (2013, 2014)2001 14 2 Target Liquor Store T-2189 8900 Highway 7 near Knollwood Mall 1,850 0 2015 less than 1 3 Jennings’ Liquor Store 4631 Excelsior Blvd Excelsior & Grand 2,600 2 (2011, 2013)1946 69 4 Trader Joe’s #710 4500 Excelsior Blvd Excelsior & Grand 2,600 0 2006 10 5 Vintage Wine & Spiritz 8942 Highway 7 Knollwood Village 2,800 0 2006 10 6 Supervalu CUB liquor store 5370 16th Street W West End 3,400 0 2009 6 7 Costco Wholesale #377 5801 W 16th St West End 3,884 0 2001 14 8 Westwood Liquors 2304 Louisiana Ave S 4,100 0 1963 52 9 Liquor Barrel 5111 Excelsior Blvd Miracle Mile 4,500 1 (2011)2005 9 10 Texas-Tonka Liquor 8242 Minnetonka Blvd 4,772 1 (2011)1962 53 11 Knollwood Liquor 7924 Hwy 7, Suite A Knollwood Mall 5,367 1 (2013)1967 48 12 Byerly’s Wine & Spirits 3777 Park Ctr Blvd 6,000 0 1979 36 13 MGM 8100 Highway 7 Knollwood Mall 8,891 0 Nov 2014 less than 1 14 Liquor Boy 5620 Cedar Lake Rd Park Place Plaza West 9,000 1 (2013)2012 3 15 Sams Club 3745 Louisiana 10,560 0 1986 29 Liquor Stores CLOSED Napa Jacks 4200 Mtka Blvd wine store 3,800 0 May-Dec 2006 8 mos Vino 100 5601 Wayzata Blvd Excelsior & Grand 1,795 0 2006 - 2008 1.5 Cedar Lake Wine & Spirits 5330 Cedar Lake Rd Cedar Point Business Complex West End 1,280 0 2012 - 2013 1 Four Firkins-Lagers Ales Wine 5630 West 36th Street Harmony Vista Shopping Center 1,800 1 (2012)2008-2015 7 7,200 to 13,800 square feet in size contrary to the policy. Additional research can be conducted on this if Council desires more to be done. If a size limitation is established, can a waiver be granted? No waivers could be granted. Council would need to take formal action to amend the ordinance to change this size limitation if put in place. What is the current square footage of our off-sale intoxicating liquor stores? Study Session Meeting of September 28, 2015 (Item No. 5) Page 4 Title: Off-Sale Intoxicating Liquor Licensing Are there any comments from the Police Department on off-sale intoxicating liquor stores? The Police Department previously did not feel there was any direct relationship between the number and/or location of off-sale establishments and any particular outcomes, either positive or negative. Police Management reviewed this question along with store size and stated the current number of liquor stores has had no direct effect on public safety. Are there limits set by the State of Minnesota on the number of liquor licensed establishments? No. Currently, State law and City Code do not contain provisions limiting the actual number of off-sale intoxicating liquor licensed establishments in St. Louis Park; and the Council has the power to limit the number of liquor licenses. City Ordinance Sec. 3-72 states the City Council may, by resolution, restrict the number of any type of liquor license issued. MN Statute 340A.413 subd.5 limits off-sale intoxicating liquor licenses in cities of the 1st class (over 100,000 population) to not more than one license for each 5,000 population, and in all other cities the limit is determined by the governing body of the city. What are the current regulations relating to intoxicating liquor locations for the City? • City Ordinance Sec. 3-110 (f) states that no initial license to sell intoxicating liquor may be issued within 300 feet of a school or place of worship as measured from the property line of the site to receive the proposed license to property line of the school or place of worship. (Adopted June 2007) • Zoning Code Sec. 36-194 (d) (19) states liquor stores are allowed in the C-2 General Commercial zoning district by Conditional Use Permit with the following conditions: The liquor store must be at least 1,000 feet from the property line of a site containing a pawnshop, currency exchange, payday loan agency, firearms sales or sexually-oriented business. (Adopted November 2013) Comment: Currency exchange and payday loan businesses are licensed by MN State Department of Commerce. The City of St. Louis Park does not have any licensed classifications of currency exchange or payday loan through the State Department of Commerce at this time. • In the case of a shopping center or multi-use building, the distance shall be measured from the portion of the center or building occupied by the liquor store. (Adopted November 2013) Excelsior Bl v d Minnetonka Blvd Lake StLouisiana AveWo o d d a l e A v e 36th St W Cedar Lake R d 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 115 14 13 12 11 10 On & Off Sale Liquor Establishments Liquor Establishments Off Sale Intox (15) On Sale Intox; Off Sale Brew/Pub (1) On Sale Brewery Taproom & Off Sale Brew/Pub (1) Off Sale 3.2 (3) Places of Worship Private/Public Schools Fire Arm Sales Pawn Shop C2 Zoning District September 2015 # Establishment # Establishment 1 Lunds & Byerly's - St. Louis Park 9 Sam's Club #6318 2 Costco Wholesale #377 10 St. Louis Park Liquor 3 Cub Liquor 11 Texas-Tonka Liquor 4 Jennings' Liquor Store 12 Trader Joe's #710 5 Knollwood Liquor 13 Vintage Wine & Spiritz 6 Liquor Barrel 14 Westwood Liquors 7 Liquor Boy 15 Target 8 MGM Wine & Spirits Study Session Meeting of September 28, 2015 (Item No. 5) Title: Off-Sale Intoxicating Liquor Licensing Page 5 Meeting: Study Session Meeting Date: September 28, 2015 Discussion Item: 6 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: Microdistillery Licenses RECOMMENDED ACTION: No action at this time. The purpose of this item is to provide background information to the Council regarding microdistilleries and to seek direction regarding updates to the City Code. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the City Council want to update current City Code provisions to add microdistillery cocktail room and microdistillery off-sale license classifications? SUMMARY: At the regular Council meeting on August 17, 2015 staff proposed the first reading of an ordinance to amend St. Louis Park City Code Chapter 3. Included in the proposed amendments were provisions that would allow the City to issue a cocktail room license or a microdistillery off-sale license to the holders of a state issued microdistillery license. Following discussion by Council, staff was directed to remove the provisions related to microdistilleries from the proposed ordinance and to bring back additional information for Council to review and discuss at a future study session. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: None at this time. VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion Prepared by: Melissa Kennedy, City Clerk Reviewed by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Study Session Meeting of September 28, 2015 (Item No. 6) Page 2 Title: Microdistillery Licenses DISCUSSION BACKGROUND: What is a Microdistillery? Minnesota Statute § 340A.101, subdivision 17a, defines a microdistillery as a “distillery operated within the state producing premium, distilled spirits in total quantity not to exceed 40,000 proof gallons in a calendar year”. Microdistilleries are required to be licensed through the State of Minnesota. To obtain licensure, a manufacturer of 20,000 to 40,000 proof gallons of distilled spirits in a calendar year is required to pay the State a license fee of $2,000 and submit a surety bond in the amount of $3,000. A manufacturer of less than 20,000 proof gallons of distilled spirits in a calendar year is required to pay the State a license fee of $1,000 and submit a surety bond in the amount of $2,000. Are there Microdistilleries in St. Louis Park? Yes. Millers and Saints Distillery is currently located at 4848 West 35th Street. Additionally, a new microdistillery is in the early stages of construction at 6311 Cambridge Street. Staff has received 3 other general inquiries from parties interested in opening a microdistillery and cocktail room in St. Louis Park; however no specific details or locations were discussed. What is a Cocktail Room? A municipality may issue the holder of a state issued microdistillery license a microdistillery cocktail room license. A cocktail room license authorizes the on-sale of distilled liquor produced by the distiller for consumption on the premises of or adjacent to one distillery location owned by the distiller. A cocktail room is a similar concept to that of a taproom. Nothing in State law precludes the holder of a microdistillery cocktail room license from also operating a restaurant at the distillery. However, the City currently does not allow a restaurant at a taproom and Council may want to consider imposing a similar restriction on cocktail rooms to keep regulations uniform and consistent. State law does not allow a distiller to hold more than one cocktail room license. No single entity may hold both a cocktail room and taproom license, and a cocktail room and taproom may not be co-located. What Hours can a Cocktail Room be Open for Business? Minnesota Statute § 340A.504 regulates the hours and days of sale. No sale of intoxicating liquor or 3.2 percent malt liquor may be made between 2:00 a.m. and 8:00 a.m. on the days of Monday through Saturday, nor between 2:00 a.m. and 8:00 a.m. on Sunday. In order to obtain a Sunday license, there would have to be a restaurant with the capacity to serve at least 30 people and sales would have to be in conjunction with the sale of food. Additionally, no licensee may sell intoxicating liquor or 3.2 percent malt liquor on-sale between the hours of 1:00 a.m. and 2:00 a.m. unless the licensee has obtained a permit from the Commissioner of Public Safety. A municipality may further limit the hours of sale of alcoholic beverages. A city may not permit the sale of alcoholic beverages during hours when the sale is prohibited by State law. What Other Cities have Cocktail Rooms? Minneapolis currently has 3 cocktail rooms open for business – Du Nord Craft Spirits, Tattersall Distilling, and Wander North Distillery. The City of Minneapolis has a tiered license fee structure for cocktail room licenses ranging from $1,179 to $5,384 annually based on the class of entertainment being offered at the establishment. The hours of operation are limited to those allowed by State law. The hours of operation for each establishment are as follows: Study Session Meeting of September 28, 2015 (Item No. 6) Page 3 Title: Microdistillery Licenses Du Nord Craft Spirits: Monday-Thursday 4 p.m. – 10 p.m., Friday 4 p.m. – 12 a.m., Saturday 12 p.m. – 12 a.m. Tattersall Distilling: Wednesday – Thursday 4 p.m. – 11 p.m., Friday 4 p.m. – 12 a.m., Saturday 12 p.m. – 12 a.m. Wander North Distillery: Wednesday – Thursday 4 p.m. – 10 p.m., Friday 3 p.m. – 11 p.m., Saturday 12 p.m. – 12 a.m. Duluth currently has 1 cocktail room, Vikre Distillery. The City of Duluth charges an annual license fee of $213.00 for a microdistillery cocktail room. The hours of operation at Vikre Distillery are: Monday, Wednesday, and Thursday from 5 p.m. – 10 p.m., Friday and Saturday from 12 p.m. – 10 p.m., and Sunday from 12 p.m. – 5 p.m. The City of Duluth limits the hours of operation to those allowed by State law. What is a Microdistillery Off-Sale License? A microdistillery may be issued a license by the local licensing authority for the off-sale of distilled spirits. The license may allow the sale of one 375 milliliter bottle per customer per day of product manufactured on-site, subject to the following requirements: - Off-Sale hours of sale must conform to hours of sale for retail off-sale licensees in the licensing municipality. - No brand may be sold at the microdistillery unless it is also available for distribution by wholesalers. What Hours can a Microdistiller sell Distilled Liquor at Off-Sale? Minnesota Statute § 340A.504 regulates the hours and days of sale. No sale of intoxicating liquor may be made by an off-sale licensee: - On Sundays - Before 8:00 a.m. or after 10:00 p.m. on Monday through Saturday - On Thanksgiving Day - On Christmas Day, December 25 - After 8:00 p.m. on Christmas Eve, December 24 The off-sale provision included in the omnibus liquor bill related to the sale of growlers on Sundays by licensed breweries does not apply to holders of a microdistillery off-sale license. What License Fees are Proposed for Each Type of License? Minnesota Statute provides that a municipality shall impose a licensing fee on a distiller holding a microdistillery cocktail room license subject to limitations applicable to license fees set forth in M.S. § 340A.408, Subd. 2(a). The license fee is intended to cover the costs of issuing and inspecting and other directly related costs of enforcement. In order to keep this fee consistent with that of an On-Sale Taproom license, a $600 license fee will be proposed as an addition to the 2016 fee schedule. Minnesota Statute provides that the annual license fee for an off-sale intoxicating liquor license issued by a city may not exceed $380 for cities over 10,000 population other than cities of the first class or cities located outside of the seven-county metropolitan area. The City of St. Louis Park currently charges an annual fee of $380 for off-sale intoxicating liquor licenses, and the same fee will be proposed for a microdistillery off-sale license as an addition to the 2016 fee schedule. Study Session Meeting of September 28, 2015 (Item No. 6) Page 4 Title: Microdistillery Licenses What Types of Licenses Does the City Currently Issue? Liquor License Type Fee Hours of Operation Current # of Licenses in St. Louis Park Food/Beverage Regulations Brewpub Off- Sale Malt Liquor $200 M-Sun 8 am – 10 pm 1 N/A Brewers Off-Sale Malt Liquor $200 M-Sun 8 am – 10 pm 1 N/A Off-Sale 3.2 Malt Liquor $200 M-Sat. 8 am – 10 pm 3 No Off-Sale Intoxicating $380 M-Sat. 8 am – 10 pm 15 No On-Sale 3.2 Malt Liquor $750 M-Sat. 8 am – 1 am Sun 10 am – 1 am 1 No On-Sale Intoxicating $8,750 M-Sat. 8 am – 1 am 24 Yes – 50% of gross receipts attributable to sale of food 2 am License – STATE ISSUED N/A M – Sun. 1 am – 2 am 12 N/A On-Sale Brewer’s Taproom $600 M-Sat. 8 am – 1 am Sunday 10 am – 1 am 1 No restaurant allowed at taproom; State statute allows Sunday sales w/o restaurant On-Sale Sunday $200 Sun 8 am – 1 am 27 License only permitted in conjunction with sale of food On-Sale Wine $2,000 M – Sun 8 am – 1 am 15 Yes – 60% of gross receipts attributable to sale of food Club (#members) M-Sat. 8 am – 1 am Yes – 50% of gross receipts attributable to sale of food 1-200 $300 201-500 $500 2 501-1000 $650 1001-2000 $800 2001-4000 $1,000 4001-6000 $2,000 6,000+ $3,000 NEXT STEPS: If Council chooses to proceed with amendments to the City Code, an ordinance amendment would be prepared and presented to the Council for consideration of a first reading on October 19th. Meeting: Study Session Meeting Date: September 28, 2015 Written Report: 7 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: Highway 169 – W. 16th Street Access Closure (West Side) RECOMMENDED ACTION: No action requested. The purpose of this report is to update Council on MnDOT’s proposal to close the ramp access to Highway 169 at W. 16th Street on the west side of Highway 169. POLICY CONSIDERATION: None at this time. Please inform staff of any question or concerns you might have regarding this item. SUMMARY: MnDOT has scheduled a construction project for Highway 169 between Highway 62 and Highway 55. A summary of the scope of work is attached (Figure 2). The proposed project would begin in the fall of 2016 with impacts to traffic beginning in 2017 and final completion in 2018. The work in the City of St. Louis Park includes, pavement rehabilitation, highway widening under the Cedar Lake Road Bridge to improve merging onto and off of the highway for the ramps, and the potential closure of the W. 16th Street to / from southbound Highway 169. The proposed closure of the W. 16th Street southbound ramp requires Municipal Consent from the City of St. Louis Park. The Public Hearing for this proposed closure is scheduled for the November 16 City Council Meeting. As additional information is available, staff will provide it to the City Council. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: The closure of the Highway 169 ramp access at W. 16th Street is a MnDOT led project and an estimated cost is not available at this time. Both the ramp closure and the visual barrier wall would be fully paid for by MnDOT. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion Figure 1 - 16th Street Graphic Figure 2 – Highway 169 Project Summary Prepared by: Joseph Shamla, Senior Engineering Project Manager Reviewed by: Debra M. Heiser, Engineering Director Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Study Session Meeting of September 28, 2015 (Item No. 7) Page 2 Title: Highway 169 – W. 16th Street Access Closure (West Side) DISCUSSION BACKGROUND: In March 2011, MnDOT presented the City Council with various options for future noise walls and access closures along Highway 169. The locations were based on noise abatement studies and traffic safety initiatives. The plan that was presented included the proposed access closure at W. 16th Street (Figure 1). At the January 13, 2014 Study Session staff provided a brief update on this matter. MnDOT held an open house for the upcoming Highway 169 Project in Hopkins mid-August inviting the adjacent communities to attend. A summary of the work is attached (Figure 2). The proposed project would begin in the fall of 2016 with impacts to traffic beginning in 2017 and final completion in 2018. The impacts to the City of St. Louis Park include the replacement of the Nine Mile Creek Bridge which will close Highway 169 in this section of road for one year, improvements to the highway under the Cedar Lake Road bridge to improve merging onto and off of the highway at these ramps, and the potential closure of the W. 16th Street to / from southbound Highway 169. MnDOT has reached out to the cities of St. Louis Park and Minnetonka to inform them of the potential closure of the W. 16th Street exit and has held open houses for each community. Approximately 40 to 50 residents attended this meeting in St. Louis Park. Residents had a mixed reaction to the closure with some in favor of the closure and some against it. MnDOT is currently compiling all the comments from the open house in Hopkins, Minnetonka, and St. Louis Park. A summary of all the comments will be provided as an attachment to the October 5th Council staff report to order the public hearing for this proposed closure. The proposed closure is a part of MnDOT’s long term safety initiative (Toward Zero Deaths) for Highway 169. The current 16th Street access has substandard merge and acceleration lanes. Alterations to improve this entrance / exit are not feasible due to the close proximity to the Highway 394 and Cedar Lake Road ramps. MnDOT is asking for municipal consent from the City of St. Louis Park since this ramp is located within our City. In the future, if an accident were to occur in this location or if MnDOT had a larger scale project, they could close this access without consent from St. Louis Park. The closure at W. 16th Street includes the installation of a 10 ft. high visual barrier wall along the west side of Highway 169 from W. 16th Street north to the ramp of Highway 394. (Figure 1). This would be similar to the closure that occurred at W. 22nd and 23rd Streets along Highway 169 in 2012. Both the ramp closure and the visual barrier wall would be fully paid for by MnDOT. If the closure does not move forward and the ramp remains open – no visual barrier will be constructed. NEXT STEPS: The proposed closure of the W. 16th Street southbound ramp requires Municipal Consent from the City of St. Louis Park. The schedule for this process is shown below: Order Public Hearing October 5, 2015 Public Hearing November 16, 2015 No schedule is available at this time for the construction of the visual barrier or the physical closure of the exit it were to move forward. As additional information is available, staff will provide it to the City Council. !? Minneapolis Golf Club §¨¦394 £¤169 GENERALMILLSBLVD1 6 T H S T W WAYZ ATA B L V D WAYZATA BLVD W E S T M O R E L A N D LN 16TH S TWNBHWY 169TOEBI3941 8 T H S T W RUNNYMEADE LN F R A N K L I N A V E WFLAG AVE SW B I 3 9 4 T O S B H W Y 1 6 9 S S B H W Y 1 6 9 S T O E B I 3 9 4 NB H W Y1 69 S T O W B I 3 9 4 E B I39 4 T O S B HWY169E B I 3 9 4 T O N B H W Y 1 6 9 S FORD RDFORD RDINDEPENDENCEAVESHILLSBOROAVESPARKERR D FAIRWAY LNFLAGAVESINDEPENDENCEAVESFRONTAGERDKILMERAVEJORDANAVESKILMERAVE11551155 1155 1155 16211624 1615 1618 1414 1415141014101423 1415 1415 1414 1410 14001401 134414011400141314011344 1620 1429 1411 1400 1614 1611 1610 180016121607 1605 16051600 9701 981196119506 14409520 1606 9601 98219721 95129830 1441 9610 1440 14351430 1430 9720 98201435 97109700 1430 1435 1430 143114241425 1425 14211420 1421 14141414 1431 1424 1425 1421 1431 1604 9831 97119621 140514041405 1411 1404 1400140414191404 9800 1434 98101434 14311433 14241424142014201420 14101411 1405 93019311 8712 1801 13411330941694261 3 4 0 1800 133194069400943694201326 9321 871594309410 9321 8521 85159331144693119301 1440 1441 1441143514301431 1436 14761436 1451 1446 1431 1450 1436 14451470 14401430 2032 2026 9411 1841 8512 9401 8527 9310 8600 1820 1831 1830 86151820 8601 860818201821 1811 870018111810 87071805 8701 1800 1640 8721 87271631 2001 1640 1631 1801 1641 8718 872493221630 16301631 9001 8801 20209421 85079431 1840 9400 1830 18301831 86071821 8614 1810 1810 1811 8706 9021 8901 8825 8730 9109 8800 9000 8920 88101608 9011 8911 8809 9101 1621 1610 9020 882288281611 88061600 8816 8910 87338921 88171621 8736 1621 1620 90109117 8900 1601 14601455 1426 1425 1607 1601 1600 912516051604 1415 1415 1411 1416 1456 145094069416 1440 1425 1431 14351421 14211426 1420 1321 13151320 13 2 4 13321321 9116 9400 145694101460 1451 14261435 1311 1304 1311 1304 131513 1 6 1316 1300 83008300 1301 1290 1430 1420 1425 1415 1416 1416 14211420141014111410 140514061410 1401 1437 13 4 5 1406 94051405 9435 94011400 1335 14111406 9425 1401 1325 1308 13051312 13001308 1835 1866186018701832 1838 1856184618761833 1831 1871186118451865 1815 1825 1841 18401830185518511824 1835182518211816 18411820 184018611826181518201810 1810 1800 1845 182118051801 1851 1806981198051800 18059814 1835 1811 166418011647 16801660 1653 167498049800981016551650 9794 1644 9812 1837 18501836165416511654 1635 9818 1631 1341 1340 1634 1640164116429828 133613251325 1629 1624 13311336 1625 13301335 1337 13341328 13301333 1329 1880 1828 1826 18561821 18311850183618301811 1855 1805 1811 18161806 18311841 18251815 1324 13081300 1330 1310 1325 1313 130913051301130013211306 1670982016609806 1645 1648 1630 98241636 1630 1320 1319 1322 132413161318 1317 1312 9920 9808 99500 175 350 525 700Feet ² Proposed Closure of16th Street Ramp on Highway 169 Southboundand Construction of Visual Barrier Legend !?Proposed Ramp Closure Proposed Visual Barrier Parcels City Limits Study Session Meeting of September 28, 2015 (Item No. 7) Title: Highway 169 – W. 16th Street Access Closure (West Side)Page 3 Study Session Meeting of September 28, 2015 (Item No. 7) Title: Highway 169 – W. 16th Street Access Closure (West Side)Page 4 Meeting: Study Session Meeting Date: September 28, 2015 Written Report: 8 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: CenturyLink Cable TV Franchise Proposal RECOMMENDED ACTION: None at this time. POLICY CONSIDERATION: None at this time. SUMMARY: City staff and CenturyLink have negotiated a Cable TV franchise over the summer that would allow a new cable TV competitor in St. Louis Park. The franchise is similar to the Comcast franchise, as required by Minnesota statute, but has some changes at the request of CenturyLink. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. 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: Jacqueline Larson, Communications & Marketing Manager Through: Clint Pires, Chief Information Officer Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Study Session Meeting of September 28, 2015 (Item No. 8) Page 2 Title: CenturyLink Cable TV Franchise Proposal DISCUSSION BACKGROUND: CenturyLink submitted an application for a cable television (TV) franchise in St. Louis Park on June 8, 2015, and submitted a $10,000 franchise application fee. As required by Minnesota statute, the St. Louis Park City Council held a public hearing July 6, 2015. CenturyLink attended and answered Council’s questions. Over the summer, CenturyLink has met multiple times with the city’s franchise negotiating team including Telecommunications Advisory Commissioners Bruce Browning, Toby Keeler and Maren Anderson; City staff members Jacqueline Larson, Reg Dunlap and John McHugh; and Moss & Barnett Attorney Brian Grogan, who has been in regular contact with City Attorney Joel Jamnik. A key constraint on the cable TV franchise negotiations is this section of Minnesota Statute 238.08: (b) No municipality shall grant an additional franchise for cable service for an area included in an existing franchise on terms and conditions more favorable or less burdensome than those in the existing franchise pertaining to: (1) the area served; (2) public, educational, or governmental access requirements; or (3) franchise fees. Wherever possible, the city’s negotiating team has insisted on parity with the existing Comcast franchise to avoid a legal challenge. Since there are some Comcast commitments that CenturyLink cannot agree to meet, they have made other commitments that are not required of Comcast. The sections of the franchise that address enforcement, the letter of credit or bond requirements are all the same as what is required of Comcast. There are two key topic areas that are different in the two franchises: build out requirements (area served) and Public, Education and Government (PEG) access requirements. Build out requirements: CenturyLink has standard language in many of their franchises around the country that describes their market-based approach to offering service to a franchise area. Language in the St. Louis Park franchise, addresses the City team’s concerns about redlining and build out to the entire City: 1) Initial Build Out. No later than the second anniversary of the Effective Date of this Franchise, Company shall be capable of serving a minimum of fifteen percent (15%) of the City’s households with Cable Service, provided, however, Company will make its best efforts to complete such deployment within a shorter period of time. This initial minimum build-out commitment shall include a significant number of households below the median income in the City. City shall provide detailed maps of such areas. Nothing in this Franchise shall restrict Company from serving additional households in the City with cable service. 2) Quarterly Meetings. In order to permit the City to monitor and enforce the provisions of this section and other provisions of this Franchise Ordinance, the Company shall, upon demand, promptly provide to the City maps and other documentation showing exactly where within the City the Company is currently providing Cable Service either through FTTN or FTTH. Study Session Meeting of September 28, 2015 (Item No. 8) Page 3 Title: CenturyLink Cable TV Franchise Proposal 3) Additional Build-Out Based on Market Success. If, at any quarterly meeting, including any quarterly meeting prior to the second anniversary of the Effective Date of this Franchise as referenced in Section 28-5-1 (5) herein, Company is actually serving twenty seven and one-half percent (27.5%) of the households capable of receiving Cable Service, then Company agrees the minimum build-out commitment shall increase to include all of the households then capable of receiving Cable Service plus an additional fifteen (15%) of the total households in the City, which Company agrees to serve within two (2) years from the quarterly meeting; provided, however, the Company shall make its best efforts to complete such deployment within a shorter period of time. For example, if, at a quarterly meeting with the City, Company shows that it is capable of serving sixty percent (60%) of the households in the City with Cable Service and is actually serving thirty percent (30%) of those households with Cable Service, then Company will agree to serve an additional fifteen percent (15%) of the total households in the City no later than two (2) years after that quarterly meeting (a total of 75% of the total households). This additional build-out based on market success shall continue until every household in the City is served. There is no guarantee that CenturyLink will have enough market success to build out to serve every household in St. Louis Park. However, CenturyLink has an important incentive for market success, which is that the franchise term is five years from an effective date beginning about December 16, 2015. If CenturyLink has market success and is in compliance with all franchise terms, including build out, the city has the unilateral right to extend the franchise no less than five years and no more than ten years. If CenturyLink has very little market success and few customers, the franchise ends after five years. Please note that the initial term of the proposed franchise with CenturyLink would end within about one month of the current franchise with Comcast. Having a second cable TV company in the City provides a competitor to the incumbent company, Comcast. The city handles dozens of complaints from residents each year, and not having a second choice for cable TV is a frequent complaint. There is evidence that having competition keeps rates from rising as quickly and can result in better customer service. The policy decision will be whether this franchise commitment is enough for the City Council to approve. Public, Education and Government (PEG) access requirements: The PEG channels are collectively called Park TV in St. Louis Park and include channels 14, 15, 16, 17 and 96. Park TV is funded by Comcast franchise fees of 5% of the gross revenues from cable TV services in St. Louis Park, in exchange for use of the public right-of-way. In addition, Comcast committed to a series of equipment grants over the life of its franchise: $800,000 in 2006; $200,000 in 2011; and $100,000 in 2016. Comcast has a 15-year franchise that ends in January 2021. The CenturyLink franchise does not require lump sum payments but requires a PEG fee of $1.12 per month for each subscriber. This is the exact same amount Comcast charges customers each month to pay for their lump sum equipment grants. Another key difference is that CenturyLink uses what they call a “mosaic” channel for local PEG channels. For example, if a viewer tuned to channel 17 on the CenturyLink system, they would see a miniature version of all five Park TV channels. They would hear the sound for channel 17, and could listen to, for example, a Council meeting while watching all five Park TV channels. Study Session Meeting of September 28, 2015 (Item No. 8) Page 4 Title: CenturyLink Cable TV Franchise Proposal When they decide to go to another Park TV channel they would use their CenturyLink remote control to select that preview image and switch to that channel. The actual channel assignments would be in the 8000 range, so direct tuning to the local channels would not be as easy as on the Comcast cable system. However, staff has experimented with the CenturyLink equipment and believes Park TV users will quickly learn how to use the “last channel” feature on the remote control to switch to the channel 17 mosaic channel to preview all Park TV channels. In addition, while tuned to channel 8017, for example, CenturyLink will have a program guide that will show the adjacent five channels. CenturyLink customers will benefit in that almost 200 local PEG channels around the metro area will be available. This means that when St. Louis Park High School plays at a Bloomington school, or in Richfield, and the game is carried on CenturyLink cable TV in those cities, the St. Louis Park CenturyLink customer could watch it on that community’s PEG channel. Currently, Park TV typically covers home games and as many regional playoff games as possible. Many other events are covered around the metro area that St. Louis Park customers could watch, like Edina or Minnetonka city council meetings, Hopkins Center for the Arts concerts, parades, performances or weekly news programs. Another area where CenturyLink’s commitments exceed those of Comcast is in providing high definition (HD) channels. Without negotiations, Comcast will not offer HD channels for Park TV before the end of its franchise in 2021. CenturyLink will carry all Park TV channels in HD as soon as the city offers their channels in HD. This is a real benefit, since virtually all new TV production equipment is HD or Ultra HD so eventually all Park TV programs will be recorded in HD. Customers that have only SD TV’s will be able to see the Park TV channels in SD, since the CenturyLink system will automatically convert the HD channels to SD. Channels 16 and 17 could be fairly easily converted to be fully HD within one year, but channels 14, 15 and 96 will still have to show standard definition (SD) programming for several years. Currently, all of the van productions are in HD and converted to SD to play on the cable channel, so channel 16 could convert to HD as soon as control room equipment is upgraded to HD, which is budgeted for 2016. Camcorders and edit systems used by most Park TV staff have been HD since 2009, with the programs converted to SD to play on the cable channels. Currently, Comcast allows the City to provide up to 20 hours per month of SD of video of demand (VOD) programming on their system, or five hours of HD programming. CenturyLink would allow up to 20 hours of HD programming on their VOD system. Comcast does not allow access to the electronic program guide (EPG) to allow customers to see the exact program listings for the Park TV channels. All Park TV channels are simply described as “Pub17,” and the specific program listing is “community programming” in the Comcast guide. In contrast, CenturyLink would: • Use City branding information on channel descriptions, for example, Civic TV 17. • Allow the city to provide the generic description language seen in the program listing area. For example: “Civic TV 17: City topic programs, City Council and Planning Commission meetings.” • Supply contact information so the city could pursue the option of paying the third party responsible for the detailed program listings/This is very important when many cable TV customers are using digital video recorders (DVRs) to record programs to watch later. Study Session Meeting of September 28, 2015 (Item No. 8) Page 5 Title: CenturyLink Cable TV Franchise Proposal Comcast’s obligations are greater than those of CenturyLink in two areas Comcast provides fiber connections to allow live programming from five locations: • City Hall control room (for Council Chambers and eventually, Community Room productions) • School Board meeting room, • High School football field, • The Rec Center (which areas?) • Wolfe Park Veterans Amphitheater. These sites are used for dozens of TV productions each year. CenturyLink will not duplicate links to these sites. However if any of the sites were to become unavailable, CenturyLink would then step in and provide the fiber, equipment and maintenance to those sites. Also, CenturyLink would provide fiber, equipment and maintenance for any new live locations the city might decide to add. Finally, Comcast provides free cable TV service and three digital adapters (DTAs) at 19 city or school district buildings. This is a very significant benefit. CenturyLink will provide service to those locations but only if they are not served by Comcast, with these exceptions: City Hall, so Park TV staff can monitor the City channels on the CenturyLink system, and the Police Station and Fire Station #1 Emergency Operations Centers for a redundant connection in case of emergency. Here’s a summary of the differences in the franchise obligations: Comcast obligations CenturyLink obligations Up-front capital equipment grants totaling $1.1 million Match the amount Comcast charges to each customer per month, $1.12 Free cable TV service to 19 city and school district buildings Free cable TV service to any city or school district building not served by Comcast, including those the city chooses to switch to CenturyLink’s Prism TV service. 20 hours of standard definition (SD) video on demand (VOD) programs; or five hours of high definition (HD) VOD programs. 20 hours of HD VOD Five SD cable TV channels. No HD Park TV channels before the end of the franchise (2021) unless negotiated. Will carry Park TV channels in HD when the City is prepared to deliver them. The city will eventually convert all Park TV channels to HD, but could be ready for two HD channels within one year. No City control over electronic program guide (EPG) City control over EPG channel descriptions and generic program listing description Live production from four remote sites (high school football field, school board meeting room, The Rec Center and Wolfe Park Amphitheater) and City Hall control room, for Council Chambers events. Will provide fiber link from City Hall control room. If the four remote sites are no longer available for whatever reason, will provide links to the sites. If any additional live remote sites are needed to schools or other locations, would provide the fiber, equipment and maintenance to those sites. Study Session Meeting of September 28, 2015 (Item No. 8) Page 6 Title: CenturyLink Cable TV Franchise Proposal Brian Grogan has said that this franchise negotiation is relatively straight-forward because the City’s franchise is shorter than most other franchises that he is working with because we are five years away from renewal with Comcast. Other city’s franchises require a higher PEG fee, for example, or have other Comcast commitments that St. Louis Park’s franchise doesn’t cover. However, because of the possibility of legal challenge by Comcast, the franchise negotiation team has strived to keep the obligations of Comcast and CenturyLink as similar as possible to comply with the State law requirement for a level playing field. Additionally, the franchise agreement includes the same indemnification obligations as for Comcast. If Comcast challenges the city franchise award to CenturyLink, CenturyLink will indemnify the city for legal costs. PRESENT CONSIDERATIONS: No action required by council yet; staff and CenturyLink are in the final stages of negotiating the franchise. The Telecommunications Advisory Commission held a special meeting September 23, 2015 to review these franchise proposal points and to make a recommendation to the council. Brian Grogan gave a PowerPoint presentation about the franchise’s key points, and CenturyLink’s Director of State Regulatory and Legislative Affairs, Patrick Haggerty, answered Commission questions. Commissioner Rolf Peterson made a motion, and Commissioner Maren Anderson seconded, to direct staff to complete franchise negotiations with CenturyLink and to recommend that the City Council adopt the proposed franchise ordinance to allow CenturyLink to offer Cable TV services in St. Louis Park. The motion passed 6-0. NEXT STEPS: CenturyLink has been granted one franchise in Minnesota, with the City of Minneapolis in May, 2015. St. Louis Park would be the second CenturyLink franchise, if approved on this timeline: September 28: City Council Study Session, with a written report from staff. November 2: City Council meeting with public hearing and first reading of proposed CenturyLink franchise. Brian Grogan and CenturyLink rep available. November 16: City Council second reading of CenturyLink franchise ordinance. Meeting: Study Session Meeting Date: September 28, 2015 Written Report: 9 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: August 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 67% of the annual budget in August. General Fund expenditures are currently under budget through August at approximately 64% 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 91.7%. As in previous years, this is due in part that nearly all or 98.6% of the 2015 business and liquor license payments have been received. Permit revenues are running more than 20% higher than budget at 89.4% through August. Expenditures: Human Resources is showing a variance of about 7% 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 11% due in part to normal seasonal expenditures which tend to be higher during the summer months and also because the full Community Education contribution of $187,400 was paid to the school district in June. The Rec Center Division is also running a seasonal expenditure variance of about 4%, which is common for August after the pool season ends. VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Summary of Revenues & Expenditures Prepared by: Darla Monson, Senior Accountant Reviewed by: Brian A. Swanson, Controller Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Summary of Revenues & Expenditures - General Fund As of August 31, 2015 20152015201320132014201420152015 Balance YTD Budget BudgetAudited BudgetAudited BudgetAug YTD Remaining to Actual %General Fund Revenues: General Property Taxes20,657,724$ 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 2,978,450 269,708 91.70% Fines & Forfeits335,150 311,882 320,150 369,545 320,200 164,247 155,953 51.30% Intergovernmental1,300,191 2,031,355 1,282,777 1,423,642 1,292,277 673,650 618,627 52.13% Charges for Services1,837,976 1,779,259 1,857,718 1,852,274 1,907,292 1,226,066 681,226 64.28% Miscellaneous Revenue1,092,381 1,067,210 1,112,369 1,302,160 1,196,018 832,507 363,511 69.61% Transfers In1,816,563 1,805,223 1,837,416 1,827,564 1,851,759 1,224,506 627,253 66.13% 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 5,535 12,365 30.92% 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$ 18,769,821$ 13,854,617$ 57.53%General Fund Expenditures: General Government: Administration877,099$ 890,883$ 939,391$ 980,087$ 979,183$ 649,914$ 329,269$ 66.37% Accounting827,320 819,458 876,216 873,987 912,685 610,549 302,136 66.90% Assessing543,855 543,202 559,749 560,979 602,299 398,124 204,175 66.10% Human Resources678,988 731,634 693,598 788,823 805,929 593,524 212,405 73.64% Community Development1,094,517 1,090,213 1,151,467 1,118,444 1,245,613 811,898 433,715 65.18% Facilities Maintenance1,074,920 1,058,127 1,053,715 1,039,699 1,094,836 649,577 445,259 59.33% Information Resources1,770,877 1,597,993 1,456,979 1,406,187 1,468,552 888,936 579,616 60.53% Communications & Marketing201,322 170,013 566,801 562,063 635,150 378,739 256,411 59.63% Community Outreach8,185 (22,450) 8,185 6,680 24,677 16,051 8,626 65.04% Engineering303,258 296,383 506,996 223,491 492,838 226,054 266,784 45.87%Total General Government7,380,341$ 7,175,456$ 7,813,097$ 7,560,440$ 8,261,762$ 5,223,365$ 3,038,397$ 63.22% Public Safety: Police7,443,637$ 7,225,579$ 7,571,315$ 7,769,592$ 8,511,557$ 5,551,989$ 2,959,568$ 65.23% Fire Protection3,330,263 3,246,162 3,458,161 3,535,716 3,722,396 2,447,477 1,274,919 65.75% Inspectional Services1,928,446 1,932,021 2,006,200 1,867,618 2,139,325 1,313,096 826,229 61.38%Total Public Safety12,702,346$ 12,403,762$ 13,035,676$ 13,172,927$ 14,373,278$ 9,312,562$ 5,060,716$ 64.79% Operations & Recreation: Public Works Administration393,054$ 288,207$ 222,994$ 236,304$ 232,437$ 135,917$ 96,520$ 58.47% Public Works Operations2,698,870 2,720,563 2,625,171 2,571,496 2,763,735 1,557,467 1,206,268 56.35% Organized Recreation1,280,117 1,256,678 1,290,038 1,277,046 1,304,470 1,020,250 284,220 78.21% Recreation Center1,449,930 1,501,627 1,543,881 1,561,224 1,591,115 1,126,119 464,996 70.78% Park Maintenance1,431,825 1,424,139 1,445,813 1,412,612 1,550,033 1,066,608 483,425 68.81% Westwood520,554 503,309 531,853 508,576 564,055 365,305 198,750 64.76% Environment430,876 434,297 433,750 379,193 472,049 209,467 262,582 44.37% Vehicle Maintenance1,240,325 1,268,559 1,285,489 1,323,358 1,333,520 761,190 572,330 57.08%Total Operations & Recreation9,445,551$ 9,397,379$ 9,378,989$ 9,269,808$ 9,811,414$ 6,242,323$ 3,569,091$ 63.62% Non-Departmental: General -$ 256,627$ 4,000$ 7,562$ -$ 66,695$ (66,695)$ 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$ 66,695$ 111,289$ 37.47%Total General Fund Expenditures29,708,238$ 29,346,569$ 30,427,622$ 31,074,572$ 32,624,438$ 20,844,945$ 11,779,493$ 63.89%Study Session Meeting of September 28, 2015 (Item No. 9) Title: August 2015 Monthly Financial ReportPage 2 Meeting: Study Session Meeting Date: September 28, 2015 Written Report: 10 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: 2016 Fees RECOMMENDED ACTION: None at this time. This report is provided to Council for information on recommended changes to 2016 fees for services that the City provides. Some of the fee changes proposed will need to come back to the Council for formal approval. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does Council agree with the proposed revisions to the fee schedule to reflect adjustments to fees charged for programs and services set by ordinance? SUMMARY: Each year City fees are reviewed by departments prior to renewal and as part of the annual budget process. Some fees must be set and adjusted in accordance with City ordinance; other fees are allowed to be set administratively. All fees are reviewed each year based on comparison to other cities in the metro area, changes in regulations, and to make sure City business costs are covered for services. Sec. 1-19 of the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code states that fees called for within individual provisions of the Code are to be set by ordinance and listed as Appendix A of the Code. Fees must also be reviewed and reestablished annually. The Administrative Services Department has worked with individual departments to complete this review and its recommendations are included in the attached proposed fee schedule. A public hearing notice was published September 17, 2015 informing interested persons of the City’s intent to consider fees. Fees, rates and charges called for by resolution or set by a department are not required by law to be included in the Appendix A City Code fee schedule. Next Steps • First reading of this ordinance is scheduled for October 5, 2015. • Second reading of this ordinance is scheduled for October 19, 2015. If approved, the fee increases will be effective January 1, 2016. • Utility fees for 2015 water, sewer, storm water, and solid waste rates are scheduled for approval October 19, 2015. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: The proposed fee increases will be incorporated into the proposed 2016 budget. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Proposed 2016 Fee Schedule Prepared by: Patricia A. Sulander, Accountant Reviewed by: Melissa Kennedy, City Clerk Brian Swanson, Controller Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager SERVICE 2015 ADOPTED FEES 2016 PROPOSED/NEW FEES NOTES ACCOUNTING Bassett Creek Watershed Management District (property pass-through charge) Residential monthly $0.64 per residential equivalent unit $0.64 per residential equivalent unit Residential quarterly $1.93 per residential equivalent unit $1.93 per residential equivalent unit Land uses other than residential (Acreage * REF * 1.60 * 5) = quarterly rate (Acreage * REF * 1.93 * 5) = quarterly rate MN Dept of Health state testing fee Residential and multi-family $1.59 per quarter $1.59 per quarter Commercial $0.53 per month $0.53 per month Returned Check Fee $30 $30 Sanitary Sewer Base Charge Residential and multi-family $14.52 per quarter $15.68 per quarter Commercial $4.84 per month $5.23 per month Sewer and Service Charges Sanitary Sewer Usage Rate $2.84 per unit $3.07 per unit Solid Waste Service Collection Cost per quarter (Residential) Organics $10.00 $10.00 20 gallon service (excluding tax)$31.93 $28.47 30 gallon service (excluding tax)$49.75 $46.98 60 gallon service (excluding tax)$64.58 $64.06 90 gallon service (excluding tax)$87.14 $93.95 120 gallon service (excluding tax)$111.24 $136.66 150 gallon service (excluding tax)$134.42 $170.82 180 gallon service (excluding tax)$157.59 $204.99 270 gallon service (excluding tax)$222.48 $307.48 360 gallon service (excluding tax)$315.18 $409.98 450 gallon service (excluding tax)$417.15 $511.52 540 gallon service (excluding tax)$500.58 $614.96 Solid Waste Service (Residential) Additional 30 gallon cart $60 $60 Additional 60 gallon cart $60 $60 Additional 90 gallon cart $60 $60 Cart Changes - over 1 per cart type per 12 month period $20 $20 Extra Refuse Stickers $2/sticker $2/sticker Recycling Bin No Charge No Charge Yard Waste Opt-Out $3 credit/quarter $3 credit/quarter Solid Waste Service (Business) Business Recycling Collection $30 per quarter $30 per quarter Business Organics Collection $35 per quarter $35 per quarter Storm Sewer Rate Residential quarterly $19.36 per residential equivalent unit $21.30 per residential equivalent unit Commercial monthly $32.27 per residential equivalent unit $35.50 per residential equivalent unit Land uses other than residential (Acreage * REF * 16.00 * 5) = quarterly rate (Acreage * REF * 21.30 * 5) = quarterly rate Water Meter Charges Commercial Monthly Fee 5/8" meter $6.64 $7.45 3/4"$6.64 $7.45 1"$9.29 $10.43 1.5"$11.95 $13.41 2"$19.25 $21.61 3"$73.00 $81.95 4"$92.91 $104.30 6"$139.37 $156.45 Residential/Multi-family Quarterly Fee 5/8" meter $19.91 $22.35 3/4"$19.91 $22.35 1"$27.87 $31.29 1.5"$35.84 $40.23 2"$57.74 $64.82 3"$219.01 $245.85 4"$278.74 $312.90 6"$418.11 $469.35 2" compound $57.74 $64.82 3" compound $219.01 $245.85 Water Rates per unit (1 unit = 100 cu ft or 750 gallons) Tier 1 0-40 units* (0-30,000 gallons)$1.55 $1.66 Tier 2 41-80 units* (30,001-60,000 gallons)$1.93 $2.07 Tier 3 >80 units (>60,000 gallons)$2.89 $3.09 Commercial All units $1.55 $1.66 Irrigation All units $2.89 $3.09 City of St. Louis Park - 2016 FEES Schedule Page 1 2016 FEES Study Session Meeting of September 28, 2015 (Item No. 10) Title: 2016 Fees Page 2 SERVICE 2015 ADOPTED FEES 2016 PROPOSED/NEW FEES NOTES City of St. Louis Park - 2016 FEES Schedule ADMINISTRATIVE PENALTIES Chapter 4 – Animal Regulations $50 $50 Chapter 6 – Buildings & Building Regulations Chapter 6, Article V – Property Maintenance Code $100 $100 Chapter 8 – Business and Business Licenses $100 $100 Chapter 12 – Environment $50 $50 Chapter 12, Section 1 – Environment & Public Health Regulations Adopted by Reference $100 $100 Chapter 12, Section 157 – Illicit Discharge and Connection $100 $100 Chapter 12, Section 159 – Wetland Protection $100 $100 Chapter 14 – Fire and Fire Prevention $50 $50 Chapter 14, Section 75 – Open burning without permit $100 $100 Chapter 20 – Parks and Recreation $50 $50 Chapter 22 – Solid Waste Management $50 $50 Chapter 22, Section 35b – Contagious Disease Refuse $200 $200 Chapter 24 – Streets, Sidewalks & Public Places $50 $50 Chapter 24, Section 24-43 – Household Trash & Recycling Containers blocking public way $25 $25 Chapter 24, Section 50 – Public Property: Defacing or injuring $150 $150 Chapter 24, Section 51 – Sweeping leaves into street prohibited $100 add snow into street @ $100 New for 2016 Chapter 24, Section 151 – Work in public right-of-way without a permit $100 $100 Chapter 26 – Subdivision $100 $100 Violation of a condition associated with a Subdivision approval.$750 $750 Chapter 32 – Utilities $50 $50 Chapter 36 – Zoning $50 $50 Chapter 36, Section 37 – Conducting a Land Use not permitted in the zoning district $100 $100 Violation of a condition associated with a Conditional Use Permit, Planned Unit Development, or Special Permit approval $750 $750 Repeat Violations within 24 Months Previous fine doubled up to a maximum of $2,000 Previous fine doubled up to a maximum of $2,000 Double the amount of the fine imposed for the previous violation, up to a maximum of $2,000. For example, if there were four occurrences of a violation that carried a $50 fine, the fine for the fourth occurrence would be $400 (first: $50; second: $100; third: $200; fourth: $400). Fines in addition to abatement and licensing inspections Fines listed above may be in addition to fees associated with abatement and licensing inspections. CITY CLERK'S OFFICE Copies No Charge 0-9 pages; 10 pages $2.50; $0.25/page thereafter up to 100 pages No Charge 0-9 pages; 10 pages $2.50; $0.25/page thereafter up to 100 pages Domestic Partnership Registration Application Fee $50 $50 Amendment to Application Fee $25 $25 Termination of Registration Fee $25 $25 Liquor Licenses Brewpub Off-sale Malt Liquor $200 $200 Brewer's Off-sale Malt Liquor $200 $200 Brewer's On-sale Taproom $600 $600 Club (per # members) 1 - 200 $300 $300 201 - 500 $500 $500 501 - 1000 $650 $650 1001 - 2000 $800 $800 2001 - 4000 $1,000 $1,000 4001 - 6000 $2,000 $2,000 6000+$3,000 $3,000 New License Applicant (non-refundable) $500 in-state applicant; actual costs for out-of- state applicant may be billed up to a maximum of $10,000 $500 in-state applicant; actual costs for out-of- state applicant may be billed up to a maximum of $10,000 New Store Manager $500 $500 Off-sale 3.2 Malt Liquor $200 $200 Off-sale Intoxicating Liquor $380 $380 Off-sale Intoxicating Liquor fee, per M.S. 340A.480-3(c )$280 $280 On-sale 3.2 Malt Liquor $750 $750 On-sale Culinary Class Limited $100 $100 On-sale Intoxicating Liquor $8,750 $8,750 On-sale license renewal per 340A.412, Subd. 2 $500 $500 On-sale Sunday Liquor $200 $200 On-sale Wine $2,000 $2,000 Temporary On-sale Liquor Investigation Fees $100/day $100/day Proclamations Framed Proclamation $15 $15 Page 2 2016 FEES Study Session Meeting of September 28, 2015 (Item No. 10) Title: 2016 Fees Page 3 SERVICE 2015 ADOPTED FEES 2016 PROPOSED/NEW FEES NOTES City of St. Louis Park - 2016 FEES Schedule COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Comprehensive Plan Amendments $2,050 $2,050 Conditional Use Permit $2,050 $2,050 Major Amendment $2,050 $2,050 Minor Amendment $1,050 $1,050 Fill or excavation only $525 $525 Fence Permit Installation $15 $15 Numbering of Buildings (New Addresses)$50 $50 Official Map Amendment $525 $525 Parking Lot Permit Installation/Reconstruction $75 $75 Driveway Permit $25 $25 Planned Unit Development Preliminary PUD $2,050 $2,050 Final PUD $2,050 $2,050 Prelim/Final PUD Combined $2,400 $2,400 PUD - Major Amendment $2,050 $2,050 PUD - Minor Amendment $1,050 $1,050 Recording Filing Fee Single Family $50 $50 Other Uses $120 $120 Registration of Land Use $50 $50 Sign Permit Erection of Temporary Sign $30 $30 Erection of Real Estate, Construction Sign 40+ ft $75 $75 Installation of Permanent Sign without footings $75 $75 Installation of Permanent Sign with footings $100 $100 Special Permits Major Amendment $2,050 $2,050 Minor Amendment $1,050 $1,050 Street, Alley, Utility Vacations $800 $800 Subdivision Dedication Fee Park Dedication Fee (in lieu of land) Commercial/Industrial Properties 5 percent of current market value of unimproved land as determined by city assessor 5 percent of current market value of unimproved land as determined by city assessor Multi-family Dwelling Units $1,500 per dwelling unit $1,500 per dwelling unit Single-family Dwelling Units $1,500 per dwelling unit $1,500 per dwelling unit Trails $225 per residential dwelling unit $225 per residential dwelling unit Subdivisions/Replats Preliminary Plat $850 plus $90 per lot $850 plus $90 per lot Final Plat $525 $525 Combined Process and Replats $950 plus $90 per lot $950 plus $90 per lot Exempt & Administrative Subdivisions $300 $300 Tax Increment Financing Application Fee $3,000 $3,000 Temporary Use Carnival & Festival over 14 days $1,500 $1,500 Mobile Use Vehicle Zoning Permit (Food or Medical)$50 $50 Time Extension $150 $150 Traffic Management Plan Administrative Fee $0.10 per sq ft gross floor $0.10 per sq ft gross floor Tree Replacement Cash in lieu of replacement trees $130 per caliper inch $135 per caliper inch Variances Commercial $500 $500 Residential $300 $300 Zoning Appeal $300 $300 Zoning Letter $50 $50 Zoning Map Amendments $2,050 $2,050 Zoning Permit Accessory Structures, 120 ft or less $25 $25 Zoning Text Amendments $2,050 $2,050 Page 3 2016 FEES Study Session Meeting of September 28, 2015 (Item No. 10) Title: 2016 Fees Page 4 SERVICE 2015 ADOPTED FEES 2016 PROPOSED/NEW FEES NOTES City of St. Louis Park - 2016 FEES Schedule ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT Installation/repair of Sidewalk, Curb Cut or Curb and Gutter Permit $12 per 10 linear feet $12 per 10 linear feet Administrative Fee (all permits)$60 $60 Permit Parking- High School & Medical need No Charge No Charge Work in Public Right-of-Way Permit Administrative Fee (all permits)$60 $60 Hole in Roadway/Blvd (larger than 10" diameter)$60 per hole $60 per hole Trenching in Roadway $400 per 100 linear feet minimum $400) $400 per 100 linear feet minimum $400) Trenching in Boulevard $200 per 100 linear feet (minimum $200) $200 per 100 linear feet (minimum $200) Temporary No Parking signs (for right- of- way permit work)$60 minimum per project $60 minimum per project Temporary Private Use of Public Property $150 $150 FIRE DEPARTMENT Car Seat Inspections $25 for the first car seat or base inspection and a $10 fee for each additional car seat or base inspection $40 for the first car seat or base inspection and a $20 fee for each additional car seat or base inspection Fire Alarms (False)Residential/ Commercial Residential/ Commercial 1st offense w/in year $0/$0 $0/$0 2nd offense w/in year $100/$100 $100/$100 3rd offense w/in year $150/$200 $150/$200 4th offense w/in year $200/$300 $200/$300 5th offense w/in year $200/$400 $200/$400 Each subsequent in same year $200/$100 increase $200/$100 increase Fire Protection Permits (sprinkler systems, etc.)See Inspections Dept - Construction Permits See Inspections Dept - Construction Permits Fireworks Display Permit Actual costs incurred Actual costs incurred Inspections After Hours $65 per hour (minimum 2 hrs.)$65 per hour (minimum 2 hrs.) Recreational Fire Lifetime Permit $25 $25 Service Fees Service Fee for fully-equipped and staffed vehicles $500 per hour for a ladder truck $500 per hour for a ladder truck $325 per hour for a full-size fire truck $325 per hour for a full-size fire truck $255 per hour for a rescue unit $255 per hour for a rescue unit Service Fee of a Chief Officer $100 per hour $100 per hour Tent Permit Tent over 200 sq. ft.$75 $75 Canopy over 400 sq. ft.$75 $75 INFORMATION RESOURCES Cable TV Duplicate DVD, 1 to 4 copies $15/each $15/each Duplicate DVD, 5+ copies $10/each $10/each Digital GIS Data Requests 2ft Contours - per sq. mile $10 $10 2006 Aerial Photography - per section $25 $25 Base Map Data - citywide data (Parks, Lakes, Trails, Roads, Zoning, City Limits, Neighborhoods, Benchmarks) $60 $60 GIS Services Custom Mapping Fee - per hour minimum $50 $50 Custom GIS Analysis Fee - per hour minimum $50 $50 Printing 8.5 x 11 (per copy)$0.25 $0.25 17 x 22 $5 $5 24 x 36 $10 $10 36 x 36 $15 $15 INSPECTIONS DEPARTMENT Building Demolition Deposit 1 & 2 Family Residential & Accessory Structures $2,500 $2,500 All Other Buildings $5,000 $5,000 Building Demolition Permit 1 & 2 Family Residential & Accessory Structures $160 $160 All Other Buildings $250 $250 Building Moving Permit $500 $500 Business Licenses Billboards $150 per billboard $155 per billboard 3.3%; $115 Commercial Entertainment $280 $285 1.75%; $15 Courtesy Bench $50 $55 per bench 10%; $250 Dog Kennel $150 $155 3.3%; $15 Environmental Emissions $310 $320 3.175; $110 Massage Therapy Massage Therapy Establishment $340 $350 3%; $410 Massage Therapy License $110 $115 4.5%; $500 Therapists holding a Massage Therapy Establishment License $30 $35 11%; $25 Page 4 2016 FEES Study Session Meeting of September 28, 2015 (Item No. 10) Title: 2016 Fees Page 5 SERVICE 2015 ADOPTED FEES 2016 PROPOSED/NEW FEES NOTES City of St. Louis Park - 2016 FEES Schedule INSPECTIONS DEPARTMENT Pawnbroker Investigation Fee $1,000 $1,000 License Fee $2,000 $2,000 Penalty $50 per day $50 per day Per Transaction Fee $1.50 $1.50 Sexually Oriented Business Investigation Fee (High Impact)$500 $500 High Impact $4,500 $4,500 Limited Impact $125 $125 Tobacco Products & Related Device Sales $550 $565 2.7%; $465 Vehicle Parking Facilities Enclosed Parking $225 $230 2.2%; $350 Parking Ramp $175 $180 3%; $100 Public Sanitary - Tanning Facilities $285 $290 1.75% ; $20 Certificate of Occupancy For each condominium unit completed after building occupancy $100 $100 Change of Use (does not apply to 1 & 2 family dwellings) Up to 5,000 sq ft $400 $450 5,001 to 25,000 sq ft $600 $750 25,001 to 75,000 sq ft $800 $950 75,001 to 100,000 sq ft $1,000 $1,250 100,000 to 200,000 sq ft $1,400 $1,550 above 200,000 sq ft $1,800 $1,950 Temporary Certificate of Occupancy $60 $80 Certificate of Property Maintenance Certificate of Property Maintenance Extension $60 $60 Change in Ownership Condominium Unit $145 $150 3.4% Duplex (2 Family dwellings)$310 $320 3.2% Multi-Family (apartment) Buildings $250 per building + $12 per unit $255/$13 2% / 8% Single Family Dwellings $225 $230 2.2% All Other Buildings: Up to 5,000 sq ft $400 $450 5,001 – 25,000 sq ft $600 $750 25,001 to 75,000 sq ft $800 $950 75,001 to 100,000 sq ft $1,000 $1,250 100,000 to 200,000 sq. ft $1,400 $1,550 above 200,000 sq. ft $1,800 $1,950 Temporary Certificate of Property Maintenance Single Family/Duplex $75 $80 6% Other Occupancies* $200 New for 2016 - Processing Fee for Commercial Construction Permits (building, electrical, fire protection, mechanical, plumbing, pools, utilities) Building and Fire Protection Permits Valuation Up to $500 Base Fee $55 Base Fee $55 $500.01 to $2,000.00 Base Fee $55 plus $2 for each additional (or fraction thereof) $100 over $500.01 Base Fee $55 plus $2 for each additional (or fraction thereof) $100 over $500.01 $2,000.01 to $25,000.00 Base Fee $85 plus $15 for each additional (or fraction thereof) $1,000 over $2,000.01 Base Fee $85 plus $15 for each additional (or fraction thereof) $1,000 over $2,000.01 $25,000.01 to $50,000.00 Base Fee $430 plus $10 for each additional (or fraction thereof) $1,000 over $25,000.01 Base Fee $430 plus $10 for each additional (or fraction thereof) $1,000 over $25,000.01 $50,000.01 to $100,000.00 Base Fee $680 plus $7 for each additional (or fraction thereof) $1,000 over $50,000.01 Base Fee $680 plus $7 for each additional (or fraction thereof) $1,000 over $50,000.01 $100,000.01 to $500,000.00 Base Fee $1,030 plus $6.00 for each additional (or fraction thereof) $1,000 over $100.000.01 Base Fee $1,030 plus $6.00 for each additional (or fraction thereof) $1,000 over $100.000.01 $500,000.01 to $1,000,000.00 Base Fee $3,430 plus $5.00 for each additional (or fraction thereof) $1,000 over $500,000.01 Base Fee $3,430 plus $5.00 for each additional (or fraction thereof) $1,000 over $500,000.01 $1,000,000.01 and up Base Fee $5,930 plus $4.50 for each additional (or fraction thereof) $1,000 over $1,000,000.01 Base Fee $5,930 plus $4.50 for each additional (or fraction thereof) $1,000 over $1,000,000.01 Single Family Residential Exceptions: Reroofing – asphalt shingled, sloped roofs only House or House and Garage $140 $140 Garage Only $70 $70 Residing House or House and Garage $140 $140 Garage Only $70 $70 Electrical Permit Installation, Replacement, Repair $50 + 1.75% of job valuation $50 + 1.75% of job valuation Installation of traffic signals per location $150 $150 Single family, one applicance $50 $50 Erosion Control Permit Application and Review $200 $200 Page 5 2016 FEES Study Session Meeting of September 28, 2015 (Item No. 10) Title: 2016 Fees Page 6 SERVICE 2015 ADOPTED FEES 2016 PROPOSED/NEW FEES NOTES City of St. Louis Park - 2016 FEES Schedule INSPECTIONS DEPARTMENT Mechanical Permit Installation, Replacement, Repair $50 + 1.75% of job valuation $50 + 1.75% of job valuation Single Family Exceptions: Replace furnance, boiler or furnance/AC $65 $65 Install single fuel burning applicance with piping $65 $65 Install, replace or repair single mechanical appliance $50 $50 Plumbing Permit Installation, Replacement, Repair $50 + 1.75% of job valuation $50 + 1.75% of job valuation Single Family Exceptions: Repair/replace single plumbing fixture $50 $50 Private Swimming Pool Permit Building permit fees apply Building permit fees apply Public Swimming Pool Permit Building permit fees apply Building permit fees apply Sewer and Water Permit (all underground private utilities) Installation, Replacement, Repair $45 + 1.75% of job valuation $45 + 1.75% of job valuation Single Family Exceptions: Replace/repair sewer or water service $80 $80 Water Access Charge $750 $750 Competency Exams Fees Mechanical per test $30 $30 Renewal - 3 year Mechanical $30 $30 Contractor Licenses Mechanical $100 $100 Solid Waste $200 $200 Tree Maintenance $95 $95 Dog Licenses 1 year $25 $25 2 year $40 $40 3 year $50 $50 Potentially Dangerous Dog License – 1 year $100 $100 Dangerous Dog License – 1 year $250 $250 Interim License $15 $15 Off-Leash Dog Area Permit (non-resident)$55 $55 Penalty for no license $40 $40 Inspections After Hours Inspections $65 per hour (minimum 2 hrs.)$70 per hour (minimum 2 hrs.) Installation of permenant sign w/footing inspection Based on valuation using building permit table Based on valuation using building permit table Re-Inspection Fee (after correction notice issued has not been corrected within 2 subsequent inspections $130 $130 Insurance Requirements A minimum of:A minimum of: Circus $1,000,000 General Liability $1,000,000 General Liability Commercial Entertainment $1,000,000 General Liability $1,000,000 General Liability Mechanical Contractors $1,000,000 General Liability $1,000,000 General Liability Solid Waste $1,000,000 General Liability $1,000,000 General Liability Tree Maintenance & Removal $1,000,000 General Liability $1,000,000 General Liability Vehicle Parking Facility $1,000,000 General Liability $1,000,000 General Liability ISTS Permit Sewage treatment system install or repair $125 $125 License Fees - Other Investigation Fee $300 per establishment requiring a business license $300 per establishment requiring a business license Late Fee 25% of license fee (minimum $50) 25% of license fee (minimum $50) License Reinstatement Fee $250 $250 Transfer of License (new ownership)$75 $75 Plan Review Building Permits 65% of Permit Fee 65% of Permit Fee Repetitive Building 25% of Permit Fee for Duplicate Structure 25% of Permit Fee for Duplicate Structure Electrical Permits 35% of Permit Fee 35% of Permit Fee Mechanical Permits 35% of Permit Fee 35% of Permit Fee Plumbing Permits 35% of Permit Fee 35% of Permit Fee Sewer & Water Permits 35% of Permit Fee 35% of Permit Fee Single Family Interior Remodel Permits 35% of Permit Fee 35% of Permit Fee Rental Housing License Condominium/Townhouse/ Cooperative $85 per unit $90 5.8%; $2,645 Duplex both sides non-owner occupied $160 per duplex $170 3.1%; $740 Housing Authority owned single family dwelling units $15 per unit $15 Multiple Family Per Building $200 $220 2.5%; $1,710 Per Unit $14 $15 7%; $8,699 Single Family Unit $110 per dwelling unit $120 4.5%; $3,785 Temporary Noise Permit $60 $65 8.3%; $50 Page 6 2016 FEES Study Session Meeting of September 28, 2015 (Item No. 10) Title: 2016 Fees Page 7 SERVICE 2015 ADOPTED FEES 2016 PROPOSED/NEW FEES NOTES City of St. Louis Park - 2016 FEES Schedule INSPECTIONS DEPARTMENT Temporary Use Permits Amusement Rides, Carnivals & Circuses $260 $260 Commercial Film Production Application $100 $100 Petting Zoos $60 $60 Temporary Outdoor Retail Sales $110 $110 Vehicle Decals Solid Waste $25 $25 Tree Maintenance & Removal $10 $10 OPERATIONS & RECREATION Operations Block Party Application (MSC at 7305 Oxford St)No Charge No Charge Cone deposit (refundable)$10/cone $10/cone Bulk Water Filling Station (Pre-purchase at MSC)$4/1,000 gallons New for 2016 Fire Hydrant Use Permit (MSC - approval only by PW/Utilities)$100 connection fee, $3/1,000 gallons $100 connection fee, $4/1,000 gallons Permit to Exceed Vehicle Weight Limitations (MSC)$30 each $30 each Service Fees (Stop Box Repairs, Water Shut-off Service) - MSC Utility Shop Public Service Worker Regular Business Hours $50.00 $50.00 After Hours $150.00 $150.00 Utility Fee RPZ (Reduced Pressure Zone) Registration Fee $50 for 5 years $50 for 5 years Winter Parking Permit Caregiver parking $25 $25 No off-street parking available No Charge No Charge Off-street parking available $125 $125 Recreation Aquatic Park Daily Entrance Rates: Under 1 year old Free Free 1 to 5 years old $5 $5 6 to 54 years old $9.50 $9.50 55+ years old $5 $5 Twilight (after 5 p.m.)$5 $5 Gazebo Rental (Daily entrance rate/season pass required) Non-resident $45 $45 Resident $35 $35 Private Aquatic Park Rental $400/hour $400/hour Season Pass (Non-Resident & Purchased before June 3rd) Under 1 year old Free Free 1 to 5 years old $55 $57 6 to 54 years old $60 $62 55+ years old $45 $47 Twilight (after 4:30 p.m.)$45 $47 Caretaker/Nanny $60 $62 Season Pass (Resident & Purchased before June 3rd) Under 1 year old Free Free 1 to 5 years old $45 $47 6 to 54 years old $50 $52 55+ years old $35 $37 Twilight (after 4:30 p.m.)$35 $37 Caretaker/Nanny $50 $52 Season Pass (Non-Resident & Purchased after June 3rd) Under 1 year old Free Free 1 to 5 years old $57 $62 6 to 54 years old $62 $67 55+ years old $47 $52 Twilight (after 4:30 p.m.)$47 $52 Caretaker/Nanny $62 $67 Season Pass (Resident & Purchased after June 3rd) Under 1 year old Free Free 1 to 5 years old $47 $52 6 to 54 years old $52 $57 55+ years old $37 $42 Twilight (after 4:30 p.m.)$37 $42 Caretaker/Nanny $52 $57 Tuesday Night Discount 1 free child admission (under 15) with each paying adult Removed for 2016 Aqua Obstacle Course $100 per use $100 per use Lap Lane Rental $50 per hour $50 per hour Page 7 2016 FEES Study Session Meeting of September 28, 2015 (Item No. 10) Title: 2016 Fees Page 8 SERVICE 2015 ADOPTED FEES 2016 PROPOSED/NEW FEES NOTES City of St. Louis Park - 2016 FEES Schedule OPERATIONS & RECREATION Facility Rental Amphitheater Non-Resident (2 hr. minimum)$80/hr $80/hr Resident (2 hr. minimum)$70/hr $70/hr Amphitheater & Park Building Non-Resident (2 hr. minimum)$115/hr $115/hr Resident (2 hr. minimum)$95/hr $95/hr Farmer's Market Application per stall (one market site)$60 $60 per stall (both market sites)$90 $90 Mobile Food Truck Vendor Permit $40/per day - 3 day maximum $40/per day - 3 day maximum Mobile Stage Rental (per hour) Basic Unit - 4 hr. minimum (non-resident)$230/hr $240/hr Basic Unit - 4 hr. minimum (resident)$200/hr $210/hr Large Mixing Board w/Additional Speakers (non-resident)$120/hr $130/hr Large Mixing Board w/Additional Speakers (resident)$100/hr $110/hr Oak Hill Park Splash Pad, 3201 Rhode Island Ave Residents Free Free Non-Resident $1 per person $1 per person Groups of 7-30 must pre-register $2 per person $2 per person Park Building Rental (per hour) Damage Deposit $300 $300 Birchwood Non-Resident (2 hr. minimum)$60 $65 Resident (2 hr. minimum)$50 $55 Browndale Non-Resident (2 hr. minimum)$60 $65 Resident (2 hr. minimum)$50 $55 Louisiana Oaks Non-Resident (2 hr. minimum)$60 $65 Resident (2 hr. minimum)$50 $55 Nelson Park Non-Resident (2 hr. minimum)$60 $65 Resident (2 hr. minimum)$50 $55 Oak Hill Park Non-Resident (2 hr. minimum)$60 $65 Resident (2 hr. minimum)$50 $55 Wolfe Park Non-Resident (2 hr. minimum)$65 $70 Resident (2 hr. minimum)$55 $60 Picnic Shelter Rental (per block: 11 AM - 4 PM or 4:30 - 9 PM) Damage Deposit $100 $100 Additional Hours (before 11 a.m.) Non-resident $20/hr $25 Resident $15/hr $20 Fern Hill Park Non-resident $90 $90 Resident $70 $70 Oak Hill Park Central (non-resident)$90 $90 Will raise fee if/when upgraded Central (resident)$70 $70 Main (non-resident)$125 $130 Main (resident)$95 $100 Rustic (non-resident)$50 $50 Rustic (resident)$40 $40 Wolfe Park East (non-resident)$85 $95 East (resident)$65 $75 West (non-resident $85 $95 West (resident)$65 $75 Professional Photo & Park Video Shoot Non-resident $175/hr $175/hr Resident $125/hr $125/hr Page 8 2016 FEES Study Session Meeting of September 28, 2015 (Item No. 10) Title: 2016 Fees Page 9 SERVICE 2015 ADOPTED FEES 2016 PROPOSED/NEW FEES NOTES City of St. Louis Park - 2016 FEES Schedule OPERATIONS & RECREATION Recreation Facilities Court Rental (Tennis, Basketball, Sand Volleyball & Pickle Ball) Non-resident $20/hr $25/hr Resident $15/hr $20/hr Field Lights $20/hr $20/hr Field Maintenance Non-resident $85/hr, one maintenance person $85/hr, one maintenance person Resident $65/hr, one maintenance person $65/hr, one maintenance person Field Rental (Baseball & Softball) Non-resident $60/hr $70/hr Resident $50/hr $60/hr Field Rental (Soccer) Non-resident $70/hr $80/hr Resident $60/hr $70/hr Rec Center Banquet Room Rates Damage Deposit $700 $700 Non-resident Sun-Thurs. rental (2 hr minimum)$70/hr $70/hr Non-resident Saturday rental - 8 a.m. to midnight $700 $700 Police Officer (after 9 p.m. events where alcohol is served)$245 $280 Rate dependent on contract with officers Resident Sun-Friday rental (2 hr minimum)$60/hr $60/hr Resident Saturday rental - 8 a.m. to midnight $600 $600 Gallery Room Rates Damage Deposit $100 $100 Maintenance Fee $30 $30 Non-resident $55/hr $55/hr Residents & Non Profit Groups (2 hour minimum)$45/hr $45/hr Skate Park (outdoor)Free admission Free admission Skating (Recreation Outdoor Complex)$125/hr plus tax If project moves forward Skating (Indoor) Indoor Ice Rink Rental $190/hr plus tax $195/hr plus tax Indoor Ice Skating Party - 2 hr room rental Non-resident $65 $65 Resident $55 $55 Skate rental $0 $0 Contracted with Park Pro Shop Skate sharpening $0 $0 Contracted with Park Pro Shop Skating Admission - adult $4 $4 Skating Admission - youth & senior $3.50 $3.50 Ten Punch Pass - adult $35 $35 Ten Punch Pass - youth & senior $30 $30 Open Hockey Admission $5 $5 Open Hockey Ten Punch Pass $45 $45 Special Equipment Rental 16 Folding Tables and 40 Chairs (resident)$140 $140 16 Folding Tables and 40 Chairs (St. Louis Park Organization)$110 $110 8 Folding Tables and 20 Chairs (resident)$70 $70 8 Folding Tables and 20 Chairs (St. Louis Park Organization)$55 $55 Picnic Table rental/delivery up to 4 $55 Removed for 2016 No longer offered Trees - DED Fees Private 10%10% Public 15%17% Vegetation Maintenance Native Vegetation Permit valid for 5 yrs $25 $0 Warming House Rental Non-resident (after hours)$55 $55 Resident (after hours)$45 $45 Non-resident & Resident (during hours)$20 $20 Weed Elimination Non-compliance of Weed Nuisance Notice $135 $140 Westwood Hills Nature Center Birthday Party (12 or fewer children) Each additional child $7 $7.50 Non-Resident $100 $105 Resident $90 $95 Westwood Hills Nature Center Brick House Rental Damage Deposit $500 $500 Non-Resident - per hour $65 $70 Resident - per hour $55 $60 Westwood Hills Nature Center Park Building (lower) Rental Damage Deposit $300 $300 Non-Resident - per hour (2 hr min.)$60 $65 Resident - per hour (2 hr min.)$50 $55 Westwood Hills Nature Center Waterfall Deck Rental Non-Resident - per hour $75 $75 Resident - per hour $50 $50 Westwood Hills Nature Center Watergarden Rental Non-Resident - per hour $150 $150 Resident - per hour $100 $100 Wood Chips 2-2.5 cubic yards (residents only)$70 $70 5 cubic yards (residents only)$130 $130 Page 9 2016 FEES Study Session Meeting of September 28, 2015 (Item No. 10) Title: 2016 Fees Page 10 SERVICE 2015 ADOPTED FEES 2016 PROPOSED/NEW FEES NOTES City of St. Louis Park - 2016 FEES Schedule POLICE DEPARTMENT Animals Animal Impound Initial impoundment $35 $35 2nd offense w/in year $60 $60 3rd offense w/in year $85 $85 4th offense w/in year $110 $110 Boarding Per Day $25 $25 Dangerous Dog Annual Review Hearing $250 $250 Potentially Dangerous Dog Annual Review Hearing $100 $100 Copies & Reports Accident Photo $10/disk $10/disk Arrest Synopsis Report $5 $5 Audio Recording $10 $10 Police Report $0.25 page $0.25 page Weekly Accident Report $0.50/page $0.50/page Crime Free Multi-Housing Training $35/class $35/class Criminal Background Investigation Volunteers & Employees $5 $5 False Alarm Residential/ Commercial Residential/ Commercial 1st offense w/in year $0/$0 $0/$0 2nd offense w/in year $100/$100 $100/$100 3rd offense w/in year $100/$125 $100/$125 4th offense w/in year $100/$150 $100/$150 5th offense w/in year $100/$175 $100/$175 Each subsequent in same year $100/ $25 increase $100/ $25 increase Late payment fee 10%10% Fingerprinting St. Louis Park residents & business needs $25 $25 Solicitor/Peddler Registration $150 $150 Lost ID replacement fee $25 $25 Vehicle Forfeiture Administrative fee in certain cases $250 $250 Page 10 2016 FEES Study Session Meeting of September 28, 2015 (Item No. 10) Title: 2016 Fees Page 11 Meeting: Study Session Meeting Date: September 28, 2015 Written Report: 11 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: Update: Oppidan’s Application for Tax Increment Financing (TIF) Assistance Related to 4900 Excelsior RECOMMENDED ACTION: No formal action required at this time. On October 5 the City Council and EDA will be asked to schedule a public hearing on the creation of a TIF district for the 4900 Excelsior project. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Is the request for tax increment assistance consistent with the City’s TIF policy and should the EDA consider providing tax increment assistance for Oppidans 4900 Excelsior project in an amount up to $2.6 million? If so, on October 5 the EDA and City Council will be asked to call for a public hearing on the establishment of a TIF district for the project. SUMMARY: Oppidan Investment Company’s revised redevelopment plans and application for tax increment assistance for 4900 Excelsior (the Bally block) were reviewed at the August 17th Special Study Session. The City Council/EDA was supportive of Oppidan’s revised site and building plans and concurred that the proposed redevelopment met the City’s objectives for the provision of Tax Increment Financing as specified in the City’s TIF Policy. It was the consensus of the EDA to continue to consider the Developer’s request for tax increment assistance generated by the project assuming the proposed amount did not change significantly given the revised building plans. Oppidan was asked to submit an updated project proforma to augment its original TIF application. Upon review, it was determined that the project costs did not increase sufficiently to warrant an adjustment in the proposed amount of tax increment assistance. Thus Ehlers recommends that the amount of tax increment proposed for the project remain unchanged at $2.6 million. As a result, the EDA will be asked to begin the formal process of establishing the proposed 4900 Excelsior TIF District, the first step of which is to call for a public hearing. A resolution calling for a public hearing for the establishment of the proposed TIF district is scheduled for October 5th. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: The cost to construct the proposed 4900 Excelsior project is approximately $47.7 million. The proposed project is not financially feasible due to more than $7.1 million of extraordinary site preparation costs. These include: environmental investigation & reporting, asbestos abatement, building demolition, site preparation, shoring, and structured underground parking. It is proposed that the EDA consider entering into a redevelopment contract with Oppidan under which the Developer would be reimbursed for qualified site preparation costs up to $2.6 million in pay-as-you -go tax increment generated by the project for a term of approximately 6.5 years. That level of assistance would overcome enough of the extraordinary site costs described above such that it allows the project to achieve a rate of return sufficient to attract the necessary equity capital to enable the project to proceed. VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to providing a well-maintained and diverse housing stock. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: None Prepared by: Greg Hunt, Economic Development Coordinator Reviewed by: Michele Schnitker, Housing Supervisor Kevin Locke, Community Development Director Approved by: Tom Harmening, EDA Executive Director and City Manager Meeting: Study Session Meeting Date: September 28, 2015 Written Report: 12 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: Hockey Association Contribution Agreement & Skate Park Relocation Update RECOMMENDED ACTION: No action necessary at this time. This report is intended to provide the Council with an update on the outdoor rink project. POLICY CONSIDERATION: None at this time. SUMMARY: Staff has been working with the St. Louis Park Hockey Association to finalize an agreement for the Hockey Association’s financial commitment to the outdoor rink project. A copy of the agreement that has been agreed to by the Hockey Association and reviewed by city staff and by the city attorney is attached. Staff has reviewed several options for the skate park relocation. The location that makes the most sense from an operational and user perspective is across the street from the Rec Center on the EDA property located south of Park Nicollet’s Melrose Institute. Staff conducted an extensive public process interviewing skate park users throughout the summer and also at a public meeting. Through these interactions, it was confirmed that the users would like to keep the skate park close its current location and prefer the EDA site. Staff met with Park Nicollet’s representatives to let them know that our preferred relocation is at the corner of Beltline and Monterey Drive on the EDA. The representatives from Park Nicollet thought that a skate park at that location may not be compatible with the adjacent eating disorders clinic. Park Nicollet then suggested the skate park be placed south of the existing tennis court at Bass Lake Park. Although this site could work, it is smaller than the preferred site and would require relocating a utility box and moving the existing trail to an area directly in back of the curb. Staff has done some cost estimates on relocating the skate park to the area suggested by Park Nicollet south of the existing tennis courts. To make that happen, we would need to demo the existing trail and relocate it closer to the street and move the street light utility box. Because of these changes, it would cost approximately $33,000 more to construct a skate park in this location. Park Nicollet indicated that are not able to pay any of the additional costs to move the skate park to this area. NEXT STEPS: The agreement with the Hockey Association will be on the October 5 City Council meeting for approval. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not applicable at this time VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Draft of Hockey Association Outdoor Rink Financial Agreement Prepared by: Jason Eisold, Rec Center Manager Reviewed by: Cindy Walsh, Director of Operations and Recreation Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK AND THE ST. LOUIS PARK HOCKEY ASSOCIATION RELATING TO OUTDOOR HOCKEY RINK ADDITION WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park is exploring the feasibility of constructing a multi-use facility addition to the Recreational Center which includes a seasonal covered and refrigerated outdoor hockey rink at an estimated cost of $5.83 million. (“Project”); WHEREAS, the St. Louis Park Hockey Association, a/k/a St. Louis Park Hockey Boosters Inc., d/b/a the St. Louis Park Hockey Association (“SLPHA”) has contributed $300,000 to the City for capital improvements at the Recreational Center to be determined jointly by the City; and WHEREAS, SLPHA is willing to pledge an additional One Million, Two Hundred Thousand Dollars ($1.2 million) and make a commitment to pledging $50,000 towards an item(s) in the project to be named later; and NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows: 1. Contingency. This agreement is contingent upon the City approving the Project by December 1, 2015. 2. $300,000 Contribution. The parties acknowledge that a portion of the $300,000 previously donated by SLPHA for Recreational Center capital improvements has been expended on consultant expenses relating to the feasibility analysis of the Project. The balance of the $300,000 will be used for the Project. a. 3. Additional $1.2 Million Contribution. SLPHA will contribute $1.2 million, in addition to the $300,000 previously donated to the City, toward the Project costs payable to the City in twelve (12) annual payments of at least $100,000 commencing prior to December 31, 2015 and annually thereafter in two installments of at least $50,000 each on or before June 30 and December 31 of each subsequent year until a total of $1.2 million has been paid.. SLPHA may prepay any portion or all of the $1.2 Study Session Meeting of September 28, 2015 (Item No. 12) Title: Hockey Association Contribution Agreement & Skate Park Relocation Update Page 2 million at any time. Any such prepayment shall count towards the next year’s unpaid obligation.The City of St. Louis Park will invoice the SLPHA annually $100,000for up to twelve (12) years or until the balance of the $1.2 million contribution is paid, for payments due pursuant to paragraph 3, above. 4. SLPHA Statement Regarding Funding and priority. a. The SLPHA raises funds through a variety of sources, including but not limited to a pull tab charitable gambling operation. These additional fundraising sources allow the SLPHA to offer its youth members below market rates for participation in its programs, a key component of the health and purpose of the SLPHA. While the SLPHA does not anticipate any adverse changes to its fundraising ability, factors outside the control of the SLPHA, including government actions, changes in law, changes in control of its charitable gambling partner(s), natural disasters and other unforeseen events could make meeting its obligations under this agreement and still maintaining its current, relative level of cost structure and programming difficult or impossible to achieve. b. Notwithstanding the forgoing, the SLPHA and the City agree that any gambling proceeds in excess of lawful expenditures by SLPHA for the operation of its charitable gambling enterprise and payment of reasonable and historical expenses of operation of its youth hockey programming (surplus funds), shall first be paid to the City to satisfy the obligations of paragraph 3 of this agreement. Nothing in this agreement shall be interpreted as requiring the SLPHA to increase any other source of income in order to create surplus Study Session Meeting of September 28, 2015 (Item No. 12) Title: Hockey Association Contribution Agreement & Skate Park Relocation Update Page 3 funds, however, the SLPHA shall be required to maintain its fees and dues at the same relative level as used for the 2014-15 season. i. Reasonable and historical expenses of operation of the youth hockey programming of the SLPHA includes, but is not limited to such things as: Ice time, coaching, uniforms and spirit wear, advertising, promotions, support of St. Louis Park High School Blue Line Clubs, expenses for leagues, tournaments, and travel, administrative costs, equipment maintenance and replacement and such other incidental costs as may, in the judgment of the SLPHA board be necessary for the operation of the hockey programming. ii. Reasonable and historic expenses of operation of the youth hockey programming does not include, for purposes of this agreement, donations to non-hockey youth organizations, general community charity or similar expenditures. Such expenditures are allowed by this agreement once the payments made pursuant to paragraph 3 are made for any given year. iii. The City and SLPHA agree, that in the event that the SLPHA Board, acting through its President, gives notice prior to December 1 of any given year of its intent not to meet its obligation under this agreement, the City and SLPHA shall, prior to any legal action, negotiate in good faith for resolution of the issue, and if resolution cannot be achieved by January 30 of the following year shall engage in mediation. Failure Study Session Meeting of September 28, 2015 (Item No. 12) Title: Hockey Association Contribution Agreement & Skate Park Relocation Update Page 4 to resolve the dispute in mediation shall entitle either party to demand arbitration with a three person arbitration panel (each side selecting one arbitrator and the two arbitrators select a third) whose decision shall be binding on both parties. 5. Ice Time Purchase and Usage Rights. a. It is anticipated that the City will operate the hockey rink in the Addition from approximately Mid-October through Mid-March of each year weather permitting. During this period, except for certain times set aside for public use for open skating and/or open hockey and City sponsored programs and events, the SLPHA will be given the right of first refusal for all weekday ice times between 5:00 p.m. and 10:00 p.m., as well as all weekend times between 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m.; weekdays which are not St. Louis Park school days will constitute as weekends for purposes of this provision. b. Commencing with the 2016-2017 season for a total of ten years, SLPHA will each year purchase a minimum of 150 hours of ice time on the Project outdoor rink at the overall usage rate established by the City less $5.00 per hour. The initial request for ice time by the SLPHA shall be made annually by September 1st. After this date all remaining Project outdoor ice time shall be made available to the general public for purchase. c. SLPHA and the City intend to discuss, in good faith, naming and advertising rights for the addition, and the City shall not award naming or advertising rights without first engaging in an interactive process with SLPHA. d. ST, LOUIS PARK HOCKEY BOOSTERS, INC. A/K/A ST. LOUIS PARK HOCKEY ASSOCIATION Dated:_________________ By:__________________________________________ Paul Wandmacher, President By:__________________________________________ Christian Barry, Treasurer Study Session Meeting of September 28, 2015 (Item No. 12) Title: Hockey Association Contribution Agreement & Skate Park Relocation Update Page 5 CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK Dated:___________________ By:__________________________________________ Jeffrey W. Jacobs, Mayor By:__________________________________________ Thomas K. Harmening, City Manager Study Session Meeting of September 28, 2015 (Item No. 12) Title: Hockey Association Contribution Agreement & Skate Park Relocation Update Page 6 Meeting: Study Session Meeting Date: September 28, 2015 Written Report: 13 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: 2016 Employer Benefits Contribution RECOMMENDED ACTION: No action at this time. This report is for informational purposes. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does Council need any other information prior to approving an employer contribution amount at the next regular council meeting? SUMMARY: Staff would like to update Council on benefits programs for 2016 and the recommended employer contribution that is scheduled for Council approval on October 5, 2015. Most recently, Council was given a report with current status of benefits, compensation, and personnel programs on April 27, 2015. Benefits programs found in this report are consistent with the direction established by staff and approved by Council last year. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Funds for this recommendation have been included in the 2016 budget projections. 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 September 28, 2015 (Item No. 13) Page 2 Title: 2016 Employer Benefits Contribution DISCUSSION Benefit Overview The City has a Benefits Committee that consists of employees represented by all departments and all union groups. The purpose of the committee is to educate staff on benefits and to get feedback on what staff is interested in seeing in our benefits design. As in past years, all information below has been reviewed with the Benefits Committee and they have recommended City participation in the 2016 plans outlined here. Benefits Committee assists with gathering information on potential benefit designs, they do not provide input on specific funding amounts for employer contribution. Medical Insurance The City has been insured through HealthPartners since 2012. We went for a formal bid for 2014 in accordance with state statute, which requires this every five years (we will need to do another formal bid no later than 2018 for 2019 plans). For 2016, we requested a renewal quote from HealthPartners, rather than pursuing formal bids. Based on underwriting development, our experience called for an 18.8% increase. Our benefits consultant worked with HealthPartners and was able to revise this and secure a 12% renewal. After analysis and review by our benefits consultant and the employee committee, it is recommended to accept this renewal package for 2016. New Health Plan Option Added After several employee task force meetings held during the summer of 2014, several requests were made by employees to explore for 2016. One was to offer a lower premium plan with a lower benefit coverage level (equivalent to a bronze level plan in the Affordable Care Act) to allow employees another affordable health care option. The consultant and committee reviewed the new plan (a $4500 deductible plan) and recommend offering this for 2016. Medical Insurance Monthly Premiums (12% average increase for 2016, plus new plan option added) $30-Copay 2015 2016 Employee $744.00 $817.00 Employee + Spouse $1,637.50 $1,797.50 Employee + Child(ren) $1,562.00 $1,714.50 Family $2,083.00 $2,286.50 $2500 High Deductible (with VEBA) 2015 2016 Employee $578.50 $654.00 Employee + Spouse $1,273.00 $1,439.50 Employee + Child(ren) $1,214.00 $1,373.00 Family $1,619.00 $1,831.00 NEW $4500 High Deductible (with VEBA) 2015 2016 Employee n/a $537.00 Employee + Spouse n/a $1,181.50 Employee + Child(ren) n/a $1,127.00 Family n/a $1,503.00 Study Session Meeting of September 28, 2015 (Item No. 13) Page 3 Title: 2016 Employer Benefits Contribution VEBA Refresher The City continues to offer a Health Reimbursement Arrangement (HRA) with a VEBA funding mechanism in coordination with the High Deductible Health Plans. The deductibles vary depending on plan chosen (from $2500 per person with a $5000 family maximum to $4500 per person with a $9000 family maximum). Employer contributions to the VEBA will be placed in a trust in an individual’s name and funds will be available for reimbursement of eligible medical expenses. VEBA funds not spent will stay with the individual and roll over each year for future expenses. VEBA funds are set aside tax-free, earn tax-free interest, and are reimbursed tax-free. The VEBA account stays with the individual after they leave employment and can be used for reimbursement of qualified medical expenses. Dental Insurance After several years of no increase in our dental premiums, Delta has provided us with a renewal for 2016 at a 3.75% increase in rates, which also includes a 2 year rate guarantee. This is a voluntary plan for our employees. Dental Insurance Monthly Premiums (3.75% increase for 2016 and 2017) 2015 2016 & 2017 Employee $ 43.65 $ 45.28 Employee + Spouse $ 87.75 $ 91.04 Employee + Child(ren) $ 82.50 $ 85.60 Family $105.80 $109.76 Life Insurance We are pleased to continue our life insurance program through Prudential Life with no rate increase for 2016. In our basic life insurance plan, all employees purchase a mandatory benefit of $10,000 and the option to purchase additional supplemental insurance (up to $500,000), and spouse and dependent life insurance as well. Exempt employees are provided with an additional basic life insurance amount of 1.5 times their salary. Long Term Disability (LTD) We are pleased to continue to offer LTD to all staff at no cost to the employee. This benefit provides income continuation at 60% of pre-disability earnings for anyone who becomes ill or injured and unable to resume work after a six month waiting period. Long Term Care (LTC) LTC is a voluntary benefit that was first offered in September, 2010 to our staff. Long term care insurance provides coverage for employees and spouses who may need nursing home, assisted living, home health, or other care. Coverage is provided through the Municipal Pool and rates are set for the entire group. Employees who voluntarily participate in this program are required to pay the full premium. Because the LTC market has changed so drastically in recent years, our current carrier is getting out of the market and will no longer accept new applicants after 12/31/15. Current enrolled participants will be able to continue their coverage and new enrollees will be accepted through the end of the year. We have tried to find an alternative equivalent plan but no other carriers currently have a similar plan option available. Human Resources will continue to work with consultants and the Benefits Committee to explore ways to provide benefits that meet employee needs in long term care insurance coverage. Study Session Meeting of September 28, 2015 (Item No. 13) Page 4 Title: 2016 Employer Benefits Contribution Deferred Compensation The City offers several deferred compensation programs (457 plans). Deferred compensation is a program that allows employees to invest today for retirement. This is a voluntary program for employees, with an employer match of $10 per pay period to non-union staff with a minimum employee contribution of $50 per pay period (Resolution 12-044). This has also been negotiated into union contracts. 2016 Employer Contribution Recommendation An extensive employee task force was convened in the summer of 2014 to review employee input on employee benefit programs. The result of those meetings was a recommendation to provide tiered employer contribution funding which provided more funding to those who need to insure dependents. The following explains how the funding is developed. How is the “Employee Only” employer contribution calculated? In 2015, the new funding structure that was implemented based on employee input provided for 100% coverage of the $2500 high deductible premium with leftover funds available so that employees could purchase voluntary benefits. The monthly calculation for 2016 is as follows: 100% premium for $2500 HDHP $654.00 100% premium for dental insurance $ 45.28 $60k in supplemental life insurance $ 11.69 (at staff average age/salary) $50/pay period in deferred compensation $108.33 TOTAL EMPLOYER CONTRIBUTION: $819.30 ROUNDED TO NEAREST $5: $820.00 $820 is the recommended employer contribution for all employees who choose “employee only” coverage for health insurance, except those who choose the co-pay plan will receive $885 per month (frozen contribution from 2014 so that employees do not receive less). How is the “Employee Only” VEBA contribution calculated? The VEBA contribution only applies to employees who choose to participate in a high deductible health plan. The employer contribution to the VEBA is recommended to be 100% of the employee only deductible in the $2500 high deductible plan. This is $2500 per year, or $208.34 per month. Why are there leftover funds recommended for “Employee Only” coverage? “Employee Only” coverage is the choice of a majority of our employees; over 70% of employees choose this level of coverage. In order to encourage this group to voluntarily purchase a comprehensive benefits package, the contribution level provides enough funds to do so. Employees may choose to not use leftover funds to purchase dental, life, or deferred compensation if their needs in these areas are already met. In those circumstances, employees may choose to save these funds to pay for deductibles, co-insurance payments, flexible spending accounts, or other needs. Study Session Meeting of September 28, 2015 (Item No. 13) Page 5 Title: 2016 Employer Benefits Contribution How is the employer contribution calculated for those who choose to cover dependents? In 2015, the new funding structure provided 65% employer funding for the $2500 high deductible plan premium as employer contribution. The ultimate goal was to reach 70% employer funding based on funds available in the citywide budget. The 2016 recommendation achieves the 70% employer funding level. Employer Employer Paid % of Tier of Coverage Contribution $2500 Deductible Plan Premium Employee + Child(ren) $ 960/month 70% Employee + Spouse $1,010/month 70% Family $1,280/month 70% How is the VEBA contribution calculated for those who choose to cover dependents? The VEBA contribution only applies to employees who choose to participate in a high deductible health plan. The employer contribution to the VEBA is recommended to be 70% of the “employee plus dependent” deductible in the $2500 high deductible plan, which is $5,000. 70% of $5000 is $3500 per year, or $291.67 per month. What is the big picture for 2016 employer contribution recommendation? The chart below shows total employee and employer cost of the plan options offered. The “Employee Cost” noted on the right is the difference between the “Employer Contribution” and the “Premium”. The VEBA contribution cannot be used to offset premium costs. 2016 PLANS Premium Employer Contribution Employer VEBA Contribution Total Employer Cost Employee Cost Co-Pay Employee $ 817.00 $ 885.00 -- $ 885.00 $ +68.00 Emp+Child $ 1,714.50 $ 960.00 -- $ 960.00 $ (754.50) Emp+Spouse $ 1,797.50 $1,010.00 -- $1,010.00 $ (787.50) Family $ 2,286.50 $1,280.00 -- $1,280.00 $ (1,006.50) $2500 Employee $ 654.00 $ 820.00 $ 208.34 $1,028.34 $ +166.00 HDHP Emp+Child $ 1,373.00 $ 960.00 $ 291.67 $1,251.67 $ (413.00) Emp+Spouse $ 1,439.50 $1,010.00 $ 291.67 $1,301.67 $ (429.50) Family $ 1,831.00 $1,280.00 $ 291.67 $1,571.67 $ (551.00) $4500 Employee $ 537.00 $ 820.00 $ 208.34 $1,028.34 $ +283.00 HDHP Emp+Child $ 1,127.00 $ 960.00 $ 291.67 $1,251.67 $ (167.00) Emp+Spouse $ 1,181.50 $1,010.00 $ 291.67 $1,301.67 $ (171.50) Family $ 1,503.00 $1,280.00 $ 291.67 $1,571.67 $ (223.00) Benefit-earning part-time employees regularly scheduled to work 20-29 hours per week will be eligible to receive a pro-rated (50%) employer contribution, and full 100% employer VEBA contribution. Employees who choose to waive coverage will be eligible for a reduced employer contribution that may be used to purchase other supplemental benefits in the amount of $216 (pro-rated for part-time employees). The waiving contribution is designed to provide funds for employees who may have their health insurance needs met through another source to purchase voluntary benefits such as dental, life, or deferred compensation. Study Session Meeting of September 28, 2015 (Item No. 13) Page 6 Title: 2016 Employer Benefits Contribution How does the 2016 employer contribution differ from 2015? The chart below shows 2015 premiums and employer contributions: 2015 PLANS Premium Employer Contribution Employer VEBA Contribution Total Employer Cost Employee Cost Co-Pay Employee $ 744.00 $ 885.00 -- $ 885.00 $ +141.00 Emp+Child $ 1,562.00 $ 885.00 -- $ 885.00 $ (677.00) Emp+Spouse $ 1,637.50 $ 885.00 -- $ 885.00 $ (752.50) Family $ 2,083.00 $1,050.00 -- $1,050.00 $ (1,033.00) HDHP Employee $ 578.50 $ 740.00 $ 208.34 $ 948.34 $ +161.50 Emp+Child $ 1,214.00 $ 790.00 $ 270.83 $1,060.83 $ (424.00) Emp+Spouse $ 1,273.00 $ 825.00 $ 270.83 $1,095.83 $ (448.00) Family $ 1,619.00 $1,050.00 $ 270.83 $1,320.83 $ (569.00) What is the latest on the Affordable Care Act and Cadillac Tax? Human Resources, the Benefits Committee, and our benefits consultant are staying current on legislative issues surrounding the Affordable Care Act and its impact on the City of St. Louis Park’s benefit programs. Currently, the Cadillac Tax is scheduled to become effective in 2019 for 2018 health plans. We will continue to monitor requirements in this area and develop long term strategies to balance employee benefits needs with governmental regulations. Conclusion Staff is pleased with the benefit programs we have been able to develop and offer. Feedback received from the Benefits Committee indicates that employees feel that the plans as outlined above will provide satisfactory and affordable options for coverage based on individual needs. Meeting: Study Session Meeting Date: September 28, 2015 Written Report: 14 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: 2016 Budget & Service Charges for Special Service District (SSD) Nos. 1 - 6 and Extension of SSD 4 through 2025 RECOMMENDED ACTION: No action needed. This report is meant solely to provide Council with an update on the City’s six Special Service Districts in preparation for Council action on October 5. POLICY CONSIDERATION: The proposed 2016 budgets and property owner service charges for each service district (attached) will be presented for Council action at the October 5th Council meeting. Does Council need any additional information regarding the Special Service Districts? SUMMARY: The 2016 proposed budgets and service charges are similar to that of past years. Staff has recently held meetings with the property owners from each of the six districts and received their support for approving the 2016 budgets and service charges. Staff has received the required number of petitions from the SSD 4 property owners for reauthorization to extend the District 4 for another 10 years through 2025. The required public hearing for SSD 1-6 budget and service charge approvals and the SSD 4 renewal will be held on October 5, 2015. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: The City owns property in several SSD’s and will incur service charge costs for those properties. The service charge costs incurred are as follows: SSD 1 $22,775 to the Parks Maintenance budget; SSD 2 $49 to Public Works/Operations budget; SSD 3 $623 to EDA/TIF Administration budget; SSD 4 $282 to Public Works/Operations budget; and SSD 6 $1,572 to EDA/TIF Administration budget. VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion Proposed 2016 Budget for SSD 1 - 6 Proposed 2016 Service Charges for SSD 1 - 6 Prepared by: Scott Merkley, Public Works Services Manager Reviewed by: Mark Hanson, Public Works Superintendent Cindy Walsh, Operations and Recreation Director Approved by: Tom Harmening. City Manager Study Session Meeting of September 28, 2015 (Item No. 14) Page 2 Title: 2016 Budget & Service Charges for SSD Nos. 1 - 6 and Extension of SSD 4 through 2025 DISCUSSION BACKGROUND: History In 1996, Council approved a resolution authorizing Special Service District (SSD) 1. Since then, five additional service districts have been set up within the City (SSD’s 1 - 4 are along Excelsior Boulevard; SSD 5 is along Park Place Boulevard near West End, and SSD 6 is along West 36th Street near Hoiggard Village). City staff provides management services for the service districts. Budget/Service Charge Overview Each Special Service District has its own budget with a reserve that is carried over from year to year. The goal for each fund is to maintain a fund reserve equal to 50% of the budget. If fund reserves are high in a district, the annual budget will not match the total service charge since excess fund reserves will be used to offset (lower) the service charges. Property owners are used to “fluctuations” in service charge amounts as they understand infrastructure services and repairs cannot be accurately predicted (such as snow removal costs). A summary of budget highlights is presented below: • SSD 1: $10,000 decrease in budget (budget determined to be higher than necessary based on expenditure history); no change in service charges. • SSD 2: No change in budget; $11,000 decrease in service charges (service charge decrease to keep the fund reserve at the desired amount). • SSD 3: $10,000 decrease in budget (budget determined to be higher than necessary based on expenditure history); $15,000 decrease in service charges (service charge decrease to keep the fund reserve at the desired amount). • SSD 4: $5,000 decrease in budget (budget determined to be higher than necessary based on expenditure history); $5,000 decrease in service charges (service charge decrease to keep the fund reserve at the desired amount). • SSD 5: No change in budget; no change in service charges. • SSD 6: No change in budget; $4,000 increase in service charges (due to anticipated landscape replacement and irrigation repair costs). Special Service District No. 4 Extension This District is located on Excelsior Blvd, west of Hwy 100. The District’s 2005 multi-year service charge was for ten years expiring in 2015. Service District members have shown interest in extending the District beyond 2015. Staff sent a petition to each property owner to approve service charges commencing 2015 through and including 2025. As required by law, the City has received signed petitions from the owners of at least twenty-five percent (25%) or more of the land area of property and at least twenty-five percent (25%) of the individuals or business organizations subject to the proposed service charge. Study Session Meeting of September 28, 2015 (Item No. 14) Page 3 Title: 2016 Budget & Service Charges for SSD Nos. 1 - 6 and Extension of SSD 4 through 2025 Current/Planned Activities Highlights of planned services or activities for 2016 are provided below: 1) Sidewalk snow removal contracts for SSD 1 and SSD 3 with Twin City Outdoor Services expire at the end of 2015, request for proposal solicitations are currently in progress. 2) Landscape maintenance contracts for SSD 1 - 6 with Custom Products and Services expire at the end of 2015 and request for proposal solicitations are will be done this winter. 3) Banner replacement for District 5 is in progress. New Spring/Summer banners will be installed in the spring of 2016. New Fall/Winter banners will be installed in the fall of 2016. 4) Continuation of the decorative “twinkle” lighting is planned for Districts 1 - 5. There is no lighting in SSD 6, as there are not any trees in the medians. Over the past 1 - 2 years we have been transitioning to LED lights that have a longer lifespan and are more energy efficient to operate. 5) More infrastructure maintenance and rehabilitation is starting to occur as the infrastructure ages. Some of the recent work included rehab to six bus shelters, decorative fence, irrigation systems, pavers, bollards, and landscape replacement. 6) Council should be aware that Special Service District 1 will expire at the end of 2016 (located on Excelsior Blvd from Hwy 100 to Quentin Ave, Park Center Blvd and 36th St/Monterey Drive). SSD 1 is currently in its second 10-year term of existence. Staff will be starting the renewal process to extend the district for another 10 years in early 2016. Summary/Next Steps: Several steps are needed to complete the service district budget and special assessment processes for 2016. 1) Staff mailed the budget and service charges to all property owners. A voting memorandum requesting approval of budget and service charges was included with the 2016 budget and service charge documents. To date for the six districts, staff has received 54 voting responses: 48 approving the budget/service charges as presented, 6 opposing the charges. 2) Staff met with available service district property owners of SSD 1 - 6 on August 27 to present the 2016 budget / property owner service charges and discuss any suggestions or concerns the property owners had. 3) The public hearing for the 2016 budget and property owner service charges will occur at the October 5, 2015, council meeting. 4) In November the City certifies the 2016 assessments (service charges) to Hennepin County. Object Account 2015 Final Budget 2016 Proposed Budget Entry EXPENDITURES SUPPLIES 6212 - GENERAL SUPPLIES 1,297.00 1,064.00 6224 - LANDSCAPING MATERIALS 10,000.00 10,000.00 6210 - SUPPLIES 11,297.00 11,064.00 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 6303 - OTHER 3,600.00 2,500.00 6303 - SSD -Banner replacements 300.00 6300 - NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 3,600.00 2,800.00 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 6410 - GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 0.00 0.00 6410 - SSD Mgmt Services 4,500.00 4,500.00 6630 - SSD - snow removal 53,000.00 49,000.00 6630 - SSD Site Maintenance 3,000.00 0.00 6630 - SSD - Banner install/removal 2,400.00 1,500.00 6630 - SSD - Irrigation services 8,000.00 5,000.00 6630 - SSD decorative install/maint 9,000.00 10,000.00 6630 - SSD - Landscape services 26,500.00 26,000.00 POSTAGE 6950 - LEGAL NOTICES 153.00 150.00 BUSINESS INSURANCE 7106 - PUBLIC LIABILITY INSURANCE 222.00 158.00 REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 7207 - SSD infrastructure repair 3,000.00 4,500.00 UTILITIES 7301 - ELECTRIC SERVICE 2,000.00 2,000.00 TOTAL EXPENDITURES 126,672.00 116,672.00 SSD #1 Budget Study Session Meeting of September 28, 2015 (Item No. 14) Title: 2016 Budget & Service Charges for SSD Nos. 1 - 6 and Extension of SSD 4 through 2025 Page 4 Object Account 2015 Final Budget 2016 Proposed Budget Entry EXPENDITURES SUPPLIES 6212 - GENERAL SUPPLIES 200.00 252.00 6224 - LANDSCAPING MATERIALS 6,500.00 5,500.00 6210 - SUPPLIES 6,700.00 5,752.00 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 6303 - OTHER 1,000.00 1,500.00 6303 - SSD -Banner replacements 6300 - NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 1,000.00 1,500.00 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 6410 - GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 0.00 0.00 6410 - SSD Mgmt Services 2,000.00 2,000.00 6630 - SSD Site Maintenance 500.00 0.00 6630 - SSD - Banner install/removal 1,000.00 1,000.00 6630 - SSD - Irrigation services 2,000.00 3,000.00 6630 - SSD decorative install/maint 9,000.00 8,000.00 6630 - SSD - Landscape services 15,000.00 17,500.00 POSTAGE 6950 - LEGAL NOTICES 252.00 154.00 BUSINESS INSURANCE 7106 - PUBLIC LIABILITY INSURANCE 82.00 58.00 REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 7207 - SSD infrastructure repair 7,930.00 6,500.00 UTILITIES 7301 - ELECTRIC SERVICE 2,000.00 2,000.00 TOTAL EXPENDITURES 47,464.00 47,464.00 SSD #2 Budget Study Session Meeting of September 28, 2015 (Item No. 14) Title: 2016 Budget & Service Charges for SSD Nos. 1 - 6 and Extension of SSD 4 through 2025 Page 5 Object Account 2015 Final Budget 2016 Proposed Budget Entry EXPENDITURES SUPPLIES 6212 - GENERAL SUPPLIES 500.00 500.00 6224 - LANDSCAPING MATERIALS 6,000.00 5,500.00 6210 - SUPPLIES 6,500.00 6,000.00 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 6303 - OTHER 2,000.00 2,000.00 6303 - SSD -Banner replacements 300.00 6300 - NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 2,000.00 2,300.00 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 6410 - GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 0.00 6410 - SSD Mgmt Services 2,500.00 2,500.00 6630 - OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 6630 - SSD - snow removal 24,000.00 18,000.00 6630 - SSD Site Maintenance 1,000.00 0.00 6630 - SSD - Banner install/removal 1,000.00 1,000.00 6630 - SSD - Irrigation services 4,500.00 2,200.00 6630 - SSD decorative install/maint 3,400.00 4,500.00 6630 - SSD - Landscape services 13,000.00 12,400.00 POSTAGE 6950 - LEGAL NOTICES 88.00 121.00 BUSINESS INSURANCE 7106 - PUBLIC LIABILITY INSURANCE 112.00 79.00 REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 7205 - BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 0.00 0.00 7207 - SSD infrastructure repair 3,500.00 3,000.00 UTILITIES 7301 - ELECTRIC SERVICE 2,000.00 1,500.00 TOTAL EXPENDITURES 63,600.00 53,600.00 SSD #3 Budget Study Session Meeting of September 28, 2015 (Item No. 14) Title: 2016 Budget & Service Charges for SSD Nos. 1 - 6 and Extension of SSD 4 through 2025 Page 6 Object Account 2015 Final Budget 2016 Proposed Budget Entry EXPENDITURES PERSONAL SERVICES SUPPLIES 6212 - GENERAL SUPPLIES 500.00 500.00 6224 - LANDSCAPING MATERIALS 4,500.00 2,500.00 6210 - SUPPLIES 5,000.00 3,000.00 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 6303 - OTHER 1,000.00 700.00 6303 - SSD -Banner replacements 300.00 6300 - NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 1,000.00 1,000.00 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 6410 - GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 0.00 6410 - SSD Mgmt Services 2,500.00 2,500.00 6630 - SSD Site Maintenance 1,000.00 0.00 6630 - SSD - Banner install/removal 1,500.00 1,000.00 6630 - SSD - Irrigation services 4,000.00 2,000.00 6630 - SSD decorative install/maint 4,000.00 2,500.00 6630 - SSD - Landscape services 10,000.00 9,500.00 POSTAGE 6950 - LEGAL NOTICES 96.00 116.00 BUSINESS INSURANCE 7106 - PUBLIC LIABILITY INSURANCE 68.00 48.00 REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 7207 - OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE 500.00 7207 - SSD infrastructure repair 0.00 2,000.00 UTILITIES 7301 - SSD pedestrian 0.00 1,000.00 TOTAL EXPENDITURES 29,664.00 24,664.00 SSD #4 Budget Study Session Meeting of September 28, 2015 (Item No. 14) Title: 2016 Budget & Service Charges for SSD Nos. 1 - 6 and Extension of SSD 4 through 2025 Page 7 Object Account 2015 Final Budget 2016 Proposed Budget Entry EXPENDITURES SUPPLIES 6212 - GENERAL SUPPLIES 500.00 500.00 6223 - OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 6223 - banner replacement 6224 - LANDSCAPING MATERIALS 5,000.00 4,000.00 6210 - SUPPLIES 5,500.00 4,500.00 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 6303 - OTHER 1,000.00 6303 - SSD -Banner replacements 100.00 6300 - NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 1,100.00 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 6410 - GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 0.00 6410 - SSD Mgmt Services 3,250.00 3,250.00 6630 - OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 6630 - SSD Site Maintenance 600.00 0.00 6630 - SSD - Banner install/removal 1,000.00 1,000.00 6630 - SSD - Irrigation services 3,000.00 1,500.00 6630 - SSD decorative install/maint 3,000.00 3,200.00 6630 - SSD - Landscape services 9,000.00 11,000.00 POSTAGE 6950 - LEGAL NOTICES 100.00 114.00 BUSINESS INSURANCE 7106 - PUBLIC LIABILITY INSURANCE 48.00 34.00 REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 7207 - OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE 300.00 300.00 UTILITIES 7301 - ELECTRIC SERVICE 1,400.00 1,200.00 TOTAL EXPENDITURES 27,198.00 27,198.00 SSD #5 Budget Study Session Meeting of September 28, 2015 (Item No. 14) Title: 2016 Budget & Service Charges for SSD Nos. 1 - 6 and Extension of SSD 4 through 2025 Page 8 Object Account 2015 Final Budget 2016 Proposed Budget Entry EXPENDITURES SUPPLIES 6212 - GENERAL SUPPLIES 150.00 150.00 6214 - OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES 6224 - LANDSCAPING MATERIALS 3,700.00 5,500.00 6210 - SUPPLIES 3,850.00 5,650.00 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 6303 - OTHER 2,000.00 6300 - NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 2,000.00 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 6410 - GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 0.00 6410 - SSD Mgmt Services 2,500.00 2,500.00 6630 - SSD Site Maintenance 1,000.00 1,000.00 6630 - SSD - Banner install/removal 1,000.00 0.00 6630 - SSD - Irrigation services 3,000.00 2,000.00 6630 - SSD decorative install/maint 4,000.00 0.00 6630 - SSD - Landscape services 8,500.00 9,700.00 POSTAGE 6950 - LEGAL NOTICES 61.00 74.00 BUSINESS INSURANCE 7106 - PUBLIC LIABILITY INSURANCE 44.00 31.00 REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 7207 - OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE 200.00 200.00 7207 - SSD infrastructure repair 1,000.00 2,000.00 TOTAL EXPENDITURES 25,155.00 25,155.00 SSD #6 Budget Study Session Meeting of September 28, 2015 (Item No. 14) Title: 2016 Budget & Service Charges for SSD Nos. 1 - 6 and Extension of SSD 4 through 2025 Page 9 CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK Attachment A Special Service District #1 Estimated Annual Cost Per Parcel Proposed 2016 Service Charge OWNER PROPOSED ACTUAL ACTUAL 2016 2015 2014 PAR.PID SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE NO.NO.CHARGE CHARGE CHARGE 1 5400 Auto Club Way AAA Minneapolis 07-028-24-22-0004 $4,759 $4,755 $4,755 2 4916 Excelsior Boulevard Park Nicollet Health Services 07-028-24-21-0004 $603 $602 $602 3 4920 Excelsior Boulevard Park Nicollet Health Services 07-028-24-21-0005 $407 $407 $407 4 4950 Excelsior Boulevard Zip Printing 07-028-24-21-0006 $493 $492 $492 5 4951 Excelsior Boulevard Park Nicollet Health Services 07-028-24-21-0512 $2,772 $3,904 $3,904 6 4959 Excelsior Boulevard Frauenshuh Companies 07-028-24-21-0513 $1,139 $1,139 $1,139 7 4961 Excelsior Boulevard Intercity Investments, Inc.07-028-24-22-0023 $556 $556 $556 8 4995 Excelsior Boulevard Intercity Investments, Inc.07-028-24-22-0024 $747 $748 $748 9 5000 Excelsior Boulevard Park Nicollet Health Services 07-028-24-22-0032 $675 $675 $675 10 5001 Excelsior Boulevard Intercity Investments, Inc.07-028-24-22-0025 $517 $517 $517 11 5050 Excelsior Boulevard Park Nicollet Health Services 07-028-24-22-0033 $3,005 $3,004 $3,004 12 5100 Excelsior Boulevard Park Nicollet Health Services 07-028-24-22-0034 $1,688 $1,690 $1,690 13 5200 Excelsior Boulevard Tower Place Ltd Liability Co.07-028-24-22-0037 $1,213 $1,210 $1,210 14 5201 Excelsior Boulevard Intercity Investments, Inc.07-028-24-22-0026 $6,712 $6,710 $6,710 15 5300 Excelsior Boulevard Frauenshuh Companies 07-028-24-22-0036 $5,320 $5,314 $5,314 16 3700 Monterey Drive City of St. Louis Park 06-028-24-34-0022 $22,775 $22,802 $22,802 17 3601 Park Center Boulevard 36 Park LLC 06-028-24-33-0019 $4,322 $4,317 $4,317 18 3777 Park Center Boulevard Lund Food Holdings 06-028-24-33-0014 $9,822 $9,820 $9,820 19 3800 Park Nicollet Boulevard Park Nicollet Health Services 07-028-24-22-0031 $4,990 $5,003 $5,003 20 3800 Park Nicollet Boulevard Park Nicollet Health Services 07-028-24-22-0031 $1,108 $1,111 $1,111 21 3900 Park Nicollet Boulevard Park Nicollet Health Services 07-028-24-22-0035 $3,694 $3,687 $3,687 22 3601 State Hwy No 100 South Target Corporation t-0260 06-028-24-33-0015 $9,355 $9,348 $9,348 TOTALS:$86,672 $86,672 $86,672 Notes: 1)The proposed 2016 service charge calculations are based upon the same methodology used for the initial service charge collection. 2)For 2016, the proposed budget was reduced by $10,000 and the service charge remains the same as in 2015. 3)The proposed 2016 budget is $116,672, but the service charge is only $86,672 because $30,000 was transferred from reserves to lower the fund balance. 4)Commercial sidewalk snow removal charges are on a front footage basis. 5)All other services charges are based on the parcel's square foot area basis. ADDRESS Study Session Meeting of September 28, 2015 (Item No. 14) Title: 2016 Budget & Service Charges for SSD Nos. 1 - 6 and Extension of SSD 4 through 2025 Page 10 CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK Attachment A Special Service District #2 Estimated Annual Cost Per Parcel Proposed 2016 Service Charge PROPOSED ACTUAL ACTUAL 2016 2015 2014 PID SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE OWNER NO.CHARGE CHARGE CHARGE 3900 Excelsior Blvd Ellipse on Excelsior LLC 06-028-24-41-0072 $3,756 $4,890 $4,484 3901 Excelsior Blvd Alberto Properties LLP 06-028-24-41-0077 $1,901 $2,474 $2,269 3924 Excelsior Blvd Ellipse on Excelsior LLC 06-028-24-41-0003 $2,107 $2,742 $2,515 3925 Excelsior Blvd A & A Agency Inc.06-028-24-41-0068 $773 $1,006 $923 3929 Excelsior Blvd City of St. Louis Park 06-028-24-41-0067 $49 $63 $58 3939 Excelsior Blvd Sara Son LLC 06-028-24-41-0014 $1,048 $1,364 $1,251 3947 Excelsior Blvd KMS Management 06-028-24-41-0070 $1,735 $2,258 $2,071 4011 Excelsior Blvd Richard Hogan 4015 Excelsior Blvd Jeffery Miller 4025 Excelsior Blvd Terrance Williams 4031 Excelsior Blvd Joann Armstrong 4100 Excelsior Blvd Sela Roofing & Remodeling 06-028-24-41-0008 $1,223 $1,592 $1,460 4115 Excelsior Blvd Kooros & Grace Rejali 4120 Excelsior Blvd James & Anne Mattson 06-028-24-41-0009 $1,252 $1,630 $1,495 4121 Excelsior Blvd Kooros & Grace Rejali 4131 Excelsior Blvd Roxanna, Kooros & Grace Rejali 4140 Excelsior Blvd Larson Enterprises 06-028-24-44-0001 $2,165 $2,819 $2,585 4143 Excelsior Blvd Sam & Pearl Bix 4170 Excelsior Blvd 4150 Excelsior Blvd. Partnership 06-028-24-44-0176 $1,739 $2,264 $2,077 4200 Excelsior Blvd Stranik Six LLC 06-028-24-44-0175 $1,428 $1,859 $1,705 4201 Excelsior Blvd AMF Properties LLC 06-028-24-44-0173 $2,107 $2,742 $2,515 4221 Excelsior Blvd Prima Investments LLC 06-028-24-44-0088 $359 $467 $429 4300 Excelsior Blvd Lyndly F Opitz & Assoc 06-028-24-43-0017 $561 $730 $670 4301 Excelsior Blvd S & S Investments 06-028-24-43-0020 $1,254 $1,632 $1,497 4306 Excelsior Blvd Lyndly F Opitz & Assoc 06-028-24-43-0018 $480 $625 $573 4308 Excelsior Blvd Lyndly F Opitz & Assoc 06-028-24-43-0019 $662 $861 $790 4320 Excelsior Blvd Lyndly F Opitz & Assoc 06-028-24-43-0186 $1,856 $2,415 $2,215 4321 Excelsior Blvd Koval Furniture & Appliance 06-028-24-43-0021 $744 $968 $888 4331 Excelsior Blvd Furniture Liquidators 06-028-24-43-0091 $1,085 $1,412 $1,295 4400 Excelsior Blvd Bridgewater Bank 06-028-24-43-0187 $4,474 $5,824 $5,342 4409 Excelsior Blvd Samfar Real Estate Inc 06-028-24-43-0040 $656 $854 $783 4415 Excelsior Blvd Auto Accessories LLC 06-028-24-43-0041 $583 $758 $696 4419 Excelsior Blvd Celine Properties LLC 06-028-24-43-0042 $1,349 $1,757 $1,611 4424 Excelsior Blvd Bridgewater Bank 06-028-24-43-0064 $1,120 $1,458 $1,337 3500 Glenhurst Ave Gary James 3551 Huntington Ave.Frank Murray 3600 Huntington Ave.Elmer Nordstrom 3601 Huntington Ave.Martin & Alice Fowler 3757 Kipling Ave S Bruce Remmington 3542 Minikadha Ct.Sage Company TOTALS:$36,464 $47,464 $43,534 Notes: 1)The proposed 2016 service charge calculations are based upon the same methodology / formulas used for the initial service charge collection. 2)The proposed 2016 budget remains the same and the service charge was reduced by $11,000 from 2015. 3)The proposed 2016 budget is $47,464, but the service charge is only $36,464 because $11,000 was transferred from reserves to lower the fund balance. 4)All services charges are based on the parcel's square foot area basis. ADDRESS Study Session Meeting of September 28, 2015 (Item No. 14) Title: 2016 Budget & Service Charges for SSD Nos. 1 - 6 and Extension of SSD 4 through 2025 Page 11 CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK Attachment A Special Service District #3 Estimated Annual Cost Per Parcel Proposed 2016 Service Charge Proposed Actual Actual 2016 2015 2014 Address Business PID No.Service Charge Service Charge Service Charge 4911 Exc Blvd Old World Antiques 07-028-24-21-0033 $411 $624 $618 4907 Exc Blvd Vogue Furniture 07-028-24-21-0032 $406 $609 $592 4901 Exc Blvd Checks II 07-028-24-21-0031 $419 $631 $619 4825 Exc Blvd German Autoworks 07-028-24-21-0017 $446 $679 $675 4821 Exc Blvd German Autoworks 07-028-24-21-0016 $434 $661 $660 4811 Exc Blvd Latitudes/Laundromat 07-028-24-21-0015 $834 $1,256 $1,230 4801 Exc Blvd Loffhagen Insurance 07-028-24-21-0252 $897 $1,367 $1,367 4725 Exc Blvd Excelsior Office Bldg 07-028-24-21-0012 $1,962 $2,965 $2,919 4701 Exc Blvd Mason Properties LLC 07-028-24-21-0011 $1,272 $1,887 $1,796 4637 Exc Blvd Jennings Liquor 07-028-24-21-0009 $931 $1,423 $1,428 4617 Exc Blvd Flower Fair 07-028-24-12-0052 $907 $1,382 $1,379 4615 Exc Blvd Judith McGrann & Friends 07-028-24-12-0051 $677 $1,032 $1,032 4611 Exc Blvd Dilly Lilly 07-028-24-12-0050 $846 $1,290 $1,292 4601 Exc Blvd Park Blvd Office Bldg 07-028-24-12-0049 $1,701 $2,592 $2,589 4509 Exc Blvd Lang Nelson Office 07-028-24-12-0048 $1,243 $1,871 $1,829 4501 Exc Blvd S & D Cleaners 07-028-24-12-0047 $603 $910 $896 4900 Exc Blvd Bally Total Fitness 07-028-24-21-0002 $2,174 $3,390 $3,522 4760 Exc Blvd Outlot H - Vacant 07-028-24-21-0258 $623 $949 $950 4730 Exc Blvd Retail/housing 07-028-24-21-0256 $4,787 $7,265 $7,210 4630 Exc Blvd Retail/housing 07-028-24-12-0175 $4,131 $6,262 $6,202 4500 Exc Blvd Retail/housing 06-028-24-43-0191 $2,896 $4,555 $4,795 Total $28,600 $43,600 $43,600 Notes: 1)The proposed 2016 service charge calculations are based upon the same methodology / formulas used for the initial service charge collection. a) Commercial sidewalk snow removal charges are based on the square foot of sidewalk in front of the property. b) All other services charges are based on the property's front footage. 2)For 2016, the proposed budget was reduced by $10,000 and the service charge was reduced by $15,000 from the 2015 amounts. 3)The proposed 2016 budget is $53,600, but the service charge is only $28,600 because $25,000 was transferred from reserves to lower the fund balance. Study Session Meeting of September 28, 2015 (Item No. 14) Title: 2016 Budget & Service Charges for SSD Nos. 1 - 6 and Extension of SSD 4 through 2025 Page 12 CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK Attachment A Special Service District #4 Estimated Annual Cost Per Parcel Proposed 2016 Service Charge Proposed Actual Actual 2016 2015 2014 PAR Service Service Service NO.PID #Owner Charge Charge Charge 1 21-117-21-32-0022 6127 Excelsior Blvd Gregory White $184 $279 $279 2 21-117-21-32-0021 6121 Excelsior Blvd Hung LLC $227 $345 $345 3 21-117-21-32-0006 6111 Excelsior Blvd Full Circle Equities LLC $370 $562 $562 4 21-117-21-23-0100 6011 Excelsior Blvd Ward Properties $365 $554 $554 5 21-117-21-23-0097 6001 Excelsior Blvd Sew What Corporation $177 $268 $268 6 21-117-21-24-0195 5925 Excelsior Blvd Suntide Commercial Realty $484 $734 $734 7 21-117-21-24-0185 5825 Excelsior Blvd Kil-Ben Excelsior, LLC $464 $704 $704 8 21-117-21-24-0209 5813 Excelsior Blvd Universal Outdoor, Inc.$23 $35 $35 9 21-117-21-24-0208 5809 Excelsior Blvd C.B.S. Real Est Prtnr II LLP $157 $239 $239 10 21-117-21-24-0161 5801 Excelsior Blvd MGV Holdings LLC $182 $276 $276 11 21-117-21-24-0193 5717 Excelsior Blvd LMC, Inc $411 $624 $624 12 21-117-21-24-0141 5707 Excelsior Blvd New Concepts Mgt Group $313 $475 $475 13 20-117-21-41-0009 6600 Excelsior Blvd Methodist Hospital $1,337 $2,028 $2,028 14 20-117-21-14-0026 6500 Excelsior Blvd Methodist Hospital $708 $1,074 $1,074 15*6200 & 6250 Excelsior Blvd $1,016 $1,541 $1,541 16 21-117-21-23-0130 6112 Excelsior Blvd Snyder Electric Co.$202 $306 $306 17 21-117-21-23-0155 6100 Excelsior Blvd Laurence I Meger $141 $213 $213 18 21-117-21-23-0128 6006 Excelsior Blvd RRK LLC $101 $154 $154 19 21-117-21-23-0127 6002 Excelsior Blvd Fitrz, Inc $195 $296 $296 20 City Municipal Parking Lot City of St. Louis Park $282 $428 $428 21 21-117-21-23-0011 5930 Excelsior Blvd Leonard C Riley $139 $210 $210 22 21-117-21-23-0010 5922 Excelsior Blvd Muriel B. Frederick $65 $99 $99 23 21-117-21-23-0156 5916 Excelsior Blvd Rackner & Rackner $341 $518 $518 24 21-117-21-24-0083 5900 Excelsior Blvd Realty Income Props 3 LLC $309 $469 $469 25 21-117-21-24-0067 5810 Excelsior Blvd 5812 Excelsior Blvd. Co $261 $396 $396 26 21-117-21-24-0066 5804 Excelsior Blvd 5804 Excelsior Blvd., LLC $222 $338 $338 27 21-117-21-24-0040 5720 Excelsior Blvd Holiday Stationstores Inc.$393 $597 $597 28 21-117-21-24-0202 5608 Excelsior Blvd Helmut Mauer $242 $367 $367 29 21-117-21-24-0019 5600 Excelsior Blvd Finished Basement Company $353 $535 $535 $9,664 $14,664 $14,664 **6200 & 6250 Excelsior Blvd Charges 2015 2015 2014 21-117-21-32-0133 6200 Excelsior Blvd 101 Mark S Bloomberg $59 $90 $90 21-117-21-32-0134 6200 Excelsior Blvd 102 Charles and Janice Woodson $62 $94 $94 21-117-21-32-0135 6200 Excelsior Blvd 103 Laurie G Holasek $60 $91 $91 21-117-21-32-0136 6200 Excelsior Blvd 104 Laurie G Holasek $67 $102 $102 21-117-21-32-0137 6200 Excelsior Blvd 201 Dennis and Lois Schlutter $57 $87 $87 21-117-21-32-0138 6200 Excelsior Blvd 202 Dennis and Lois Schlutter $60 $91 $91 21-117-21-32-0139 6200 Excelsior Blvd 203 Unite Rope Holland Dist $79 $119 $119 21-117-21-32-0140 6200 Excelsior Blvd 204 Dennis and Lois Schlutter $69 $105 $105 21-117-21-32-0141 6250 Excelsior Blvd 101 Nemer Fieger & Assoc Inc $63 $96 $96 21-117-21-32-0142 6250 Excelsior Blvd 102 Lgh Properties LLC $59 $89 $89 21-117-21-32-0143 6250 Excelsior Blvd 103 Donald J & Joyce E Borgen $64 $98 $98 21-117-21-32-0144 6250 Excelsior Blvd 104 Nemer Fieger & Assoc Inc $58 $88 $88 21-117-21-32-0145 6250 Excelsior Blvd 201 James V and June M Fieger $62 $94 $94 21-117-21-32-0146 6250 Excelsior Blvd 202 Skads Travel Service Inc $56 $85 $85 21-117-21-32-0147 6250 Excelsior Blvd 203 James V and June M Fieger $82 $124 $124 21-117-21-32-0148 6250 Excelsior Blvd 204 Joseph Urista $58 $88 $88 $1,015 $1,541 $1,541 Notes: *Denotes properties with a single street address but have sub-units that are independently owned. 1)The proposed 2016 service charge calculations are based upon the same methodology / formulas used in the initial service charge collection. 2)The proposed 2016 budget is $24,664, reduced by $5,000 from 2015. The service charge was reduced by $5,000 from 2015 and is only $9,664 because $15,000 was transferred from reserves to lower the fund balance. Address Study Session Meeting of September 28, 2015 (Item No. 14) Title: 2016 Budget & Service Charges for SSD Nos. 1 - 6 and Extension of SSD 4 through 2025 Page 13 CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK Attachment A Special Service District #5 Estimated Annual Cost Per Parcel Proposed 2016 Service Charge Proposed Proposed Actual 2016 2015 2014 PID Address Owner Service Charge Service Charge Service Charge 04-117-21-31-0018 5611 Wayzata Blvd KK Corporation $721 $721 $721 04-117-21-31-0019 1500 Park Place Blvd Doubletree Hotel $4,234 $4,234 $4,234 04-117-21-34-0043 5600 Cedar Lake Rd Inland Real Estate Corp $1,515 $1,515 $1,515 04-117-21-34-0044 1690 Park Place Blvd James & Patricia Oslund $667 $667 $667 04-117-21-34-0045 1650 Park Place Blvd Inland Real Estate Corp $820 $820 $820 04-117-21-34-0046 1620 Park Place Blvd Inland Real Estate Corp $743 $743 $743 04-117-21-34-0047 5699 16th St W Inland Real Estate Corp $746 $746 $746 04-117-21-34-0049 1700 Park Place Blvd Costco Wholesale $584 $584 $584 04-117-21-34-0050 5601 16th St W Inland Ryan LLC $572 $572 $572 30-029-24-32-0026 5353 Wayzata Blvd 5353 Wayzata LLC $1,477 $1,477 $1,477 30-029-24-33-0011 5401 Gamble Dr The Excelsior Group $1,305 $1,305 $1,305 30-029-24-33-0015 5402 Parkdale Dr The Excelsior Group $2,360 $2,360 $2,360 30-029-24-32-0022 5370 16th St W Shops at West End $667 $667 $667 30-029-24-33-0031 1600 West End Blvd Shops at West End $2,287 $2,287 $2,287 $18,698 $18,698 $18,698 Notes: 1)The proposed 2016 service charge calculations are based upon the same methodology / formulas used for the initial service charge collection. 2)The 2016 budget is $27,198 but the service charge is only $18,698 because $8,500 was transferred from reserves to lower the fund balance. Both are unchanged from 2015. Study Session Meeting of September 28, 2015 (Item No. 14) Title: 2016 Budget & Service Charges for SSD Nos. 1 - 6 and Extension of SSD 4 through 2025 Page 14 CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK Attachment A Special Service District #6 Estimated Annual Cost Per Parcel Proposed 2016 Service Charge Proposed Actual Actual 2016 2015 2014 PID Address Owner Service Charge Service Charge Service Charge 16-117-21-34-0607 3601 Wooddale Ave TowerLight Senior Living $2,969 $2,277 $2,277 16-117-21-34-0355 5600 36th St W Tammy Medina c/o KAMI Inc $2,778 $2,130 $2,130 16-117-21-34-0073 5605 36th St W 36th Street LLC $2,644 $2,027 $2,027 16-117-21-34-0068 5800 36th St W Standal Properties Inc $1,572 $1,205 $1,205 16-117-21-34-0040 5700 36th St W Standal Properties Inc $1,572 $1,205 $1,205 16-117-21-34-0077 5721 36th St W Evan Johnson c/o Thermetic Products $1,103 $846 $846 16-117-21-34-0072 5701 36th St W M A Lerner & S O Lerner $992 $761 $761 16-117-21-34-0024 3575 Wooddale Ave City of St. Louis Park $524 $402 $402 16-117-21-34-0042 5814 36th St W City of St. Louis Park $524 $402 $402 16-117-21-34-0041 5816 36th St W City of St. Louis Park $524 $402 $402 16-117-21-34-0038 5724 36th St W LRJ of Minnesota Ltd Partnership $524 $402 $402 16-117-21-34-0071 5718 36th St W M A Lerner & S O Lerner $524 $402 $402 16-117-21-34-0046 5727 36th St W R & SA Investment LLC $524 $402 $402 16-117-21-34-0015 3536 State Hwy No 100 S SLMB LLC $381 $292 $292 Total $17,155 $13,155 $13,155 Notes: 1)The proposed 2016 service charge calculations are based upon the same methodology / formulas used for the initial service charge collection. 2)The proposed 2016 budget is $25,155 but the service charge is only $17,155 because $8,000 was paid from reserves to lower the fund balance. Study Session Meeting of September 28, 2015 (Item No. 14) Title: 2016 Budget & Service Charges for SSD Nos. 1 - 6 and Extension of SSD 4 through 2025 Page 15