HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015/11/09 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - Study SessionAGENDA
NOVEMBER 9, 2015
(City Manager Harmening & Mayor Jacobs Out)
6:25 p.m. SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING – Community Room
1. Call to Order
1a. Pledge of Allegiance
2. Resolutions, Ordinances, Motions and Discussion Items
2a. Canvass Results of Municipal General Election Held on November 3, 2015
Recommended Action: Motion to Adopt Resolution Declaring Results of the
Municipal General Election held November 3, 2015.
3. Adjournment
6:30 p.m. STUDY SESSION – Community Room
Discussion Items
1. 5 min. Future Study Session Agenda Planning – November 23
2. 15 min. 2016 Budget Update
3. 45 min. Monterey Drive / Excelsior Boulevard Area Traffic Study - Continued
4. 45 min. Assessment Policies
5. 30 min. SWLRT Update – Joint Development
5 min. Communications/Updates (Verbal)
Written Reports
6. Update on Redevelopment Contract with Cedar Lake Road Apartments, LLC
7. Marriott West Hotel
8. Burlington Norther Santa Fe (BNSF) Transport Update
9. Board and Commission Annual Meeting with Council Program
Auxiliary aids for individuals with disabilities are available upon request. To make arrangements, please call
the Administration Department at 952/924-2525 (TDD 952/924-2518) at least 96 hours in advance of meeting.
Meeting: Special City Council
Meeting Date: November 9, 2015
Action Agenda Item: 2a
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Canvass Results of Municipal General Election held on November 3, 2015.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to Adopt Resolution Declaring Results of the
Municipal General Election held November 3, 2015.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: None
SUMMARY: Minnesota Statutes 205.065 sub. 5 states the canvassing of municipal primary
election results must be conducted on either the second or third day after the primary. City
Charter Section 4.08 requires the City Council to meet and canvass election returns within seven
days of any regular or special election and declare the results as soon as possible.
As required by Charter, the Resolution includes:
Total number of good ballots cast
Total number of spoiled or defective ballots
The vote for each candidate with a declaration of those who were elected
A true copy of the ballots used
The names of the judges and clerks of election
Such other information as may seem pertinent
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Election expenses are included in the
adopted 2015 budget.
VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged
community through recruitment and training of community members to serve as Election Judges.
6833257,1*'2&80(176: Resolution
True Copy of Precinct Ballots
Election Precinct Results
Prepared by: Melissa Kennedy, City Clerk
Special City Council Meeting of November 9, 2015 (Item No. 2a) Page 2
Subject: Canvass Results of Municipal General Election held on November 3, 2015
RESOLUTION NO. 15 -_______
RESOLUTION CANVASSING ELECTION RETURNS OF
ST. LOUIS PARK – NOVEMBER 3, 2015
MUNICIPAL GENERAL ELECTION
WHEREAS, pursuant to City Charter Section 4.08, the City Council shall meet and
canvass election returns within seven days of any election and shall declare the results as soon as
possible; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 205.185 sub. 3 states the canvassing
of municipal general election results must be conducted between the third and tenth days after an
election; and
WHEREAS, the results prepared and certified to by the election judges have been
presented in summary form to the City Council for inspection,
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council as follows:
1. The November 3, 2015 election returns having been canvassed, the votes received by each
candidate for city offices are as follows:
CITY OFFICE
MAYOR
TOTAL
VOTES
Jake Spano 3370
Conrad Segal 950
Write-in 14
CITY OFFICE
COUNCIL MEMBER
AT LARGE A
TOTAL
VOTES
Steve Hallfin 3226
Write-in 92
CITY OFFICE
COUNCIL MEMBER
AT LARGE B
TOTAL
VOTES
Thom Miller 2289
Sara Maaske 1900
Write-in 23
Special City Council Meeting of November 9, 2015 (Item No. 2a) Page 3
Subject: Canvass Results of Municipal General Election held on November 3, 2015
2. The number of spoiled ballots, the number of persons registered prior to the election and on
Election Day, the number of voter receipts, the number of absentee ballots, and the total
number of good votes cast in the city are as follows:
SPOILED BALLOTS 50
REGISTERED AT 7 A.M. 29,590
REGISTERED AT THE POLLS 133
TOTAL REGISTERED VOTERS 29,723
VOTER RECEIPTS 4,079
ABSENTEE BALLOTS 357
TOTAL VOTERS 4,436
(Percent Voting) 14.9%
3. The Clerk and Judges of the election were as follows:
Melissa Kennedy, City Clerk
Kay Midura, Election Official
Debbie Fischer, Election Official
WARD 1 Election Judges
1-1 Beth El
Synagogue
1-2, Peter Hobart
Elementary
1-3, St. Louis Park
City Hall
1-4, Central
Community Center
Mary Enz, Chair Margaret Marek, Chair Mary Maynard, Chair Nanette Malcomson, Chair
Shirley Huiras,
Co-Chair
Eunice Slager, Co-Chair Ann Olson, Co-Chair Nan Blomquist,
Co-Chair
Forrest Peiper Dianne Casey Carol Kohler Duane Googins
Theresa Ruttger Judith Cook Barbara Barbo Roberta Gale
Farrel Braunstein Katherine Kloehn Marie Grimes Donald Becker
Barb Osfar Margaret Rog Richard Erickson Rogene Bergquist
Mary Sincheff David Rotert Judy Simmons JoAnn Cox
Pam Feldman Jane Ahrens Tim Gormley
Barb Lindblad Rich Thorne Paul Martin
Special City Council Meeting of November 9, 2015 (Item No. 2a) Page 4
Subject: Canvass Results of Municipal General Election held on November 3, 2015
WARD 2 Election Judges
2-5, Union
Congregational Church
2-6, St. Louis
Park Rec Center
2-7, Susan Lindgren
Elementary
2-8, Aldersgate
Methodist Church
Kay Drache, Chair David Larson, Chair Loren Botner, Chair Julie Manuel, Chair
David Richards,
Co-Chair
Debra Wuebker, Co-
Chair
Henry Solmer,
Co-Chair
Mary Jo Lochan,
Co-Chair
Shammi Lochan Amy Bobence Ronald Adams Marguerite Krause
Bernadette Berger Rick Person Carol Pappone Kathy Grose
Margaret O’Connor Eric Sand Joy Showalter Claudia Engeland
Josie Petermeier Martin Peyer Steven Hansen Mary Johnson
Gloria Murman Richard Struxness Ernest Tursich Kris Stapleton
Michael Held Kay Peltier Phillip Erwin
Karen Roehl
WARD 3 Election Judges
3-9, Prince of Peace
Lutheran Church
3-10, Lenox
Community Center
3-11, St. Louis Park
Senior High
3-12, Aquila
Elementary School
William Tape, Chair Judy Shapiro, Chair Judith Serrell, Chair Ken Huiras, Chair
Kimball Justesen,
Co-Chair
Martin Lee, Co-Chair Janet Benson,
Co-Chair
Jose Kosar,
Co-Chair
Carol Evers Donna Carlson Francis Schmit Harry Baxter
Jennifer Witthuhn Roz Wyles Jacqueline Buda Gay Ann Ellingsberg
Elizabeth Rung Elizabeth Fluegel John Jacobs John Schaefer
James Brimeyer Joan Gerhardson Susanne Mattison Anne Kertes
Clara Quinn John Hemmerle Jack Thompson Sherm Stanchfield
Mary Soucheray Sarah Johnson Sally Anne Dunn
WARD 4 Election Judges
4-13, Westwood
Lutheran Church
4-14, Park
Assembly Church
4-15, Peace
Presbyterian Church
4-16, Sabes Jewish
Community Center
Angela Fischels, Chair Lawrence Grose,
Chair
Todd Adler, Chair David Brehmer, Chair
Kathy Metzker,
Co-Chair
Ross Plovnick,
Co-Chair
Roger Ruth,
Co-Chair
Jeff Huebner,
Co-Chair
John Cahill Barb Person Richard Dworsky Kari Konopliv
Linda Hines Elizabeth Rung Karen Secor Donna Ness
Beverly VanDixhorn Gay Urness Elaine Savick Ava Marske
Richard Harrison Gary Berkovitz Dana Uhrig-Fox Gail Miller
Sandra Johnson Mary Hendrix Patricia Kremer Donna Ness
Mary Obert Cookie Kulas Helen Desens
Frank Wells Kathy McKay Deanna Spiden
John White
Todd Kalk
Ross Oden
ABSENTEE BALLOT BOARD JUDGES
Melonie Danovsky Josephine Jacobs
Special City Council Meeting of November 9, 2015 (Item No. 2a) Page 5
Subject: Canvass Results of Municipal General Election held on November 3, 2015
4. True copies of the ballots are attached.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council that the
following candidates have been elected to four (4) year terms commencing on the first (1st)
regularly scheduled meeting of 2016:
Mayor Jake Spano
Council Member At Large A Steve Hallfin
Council Member At Large B Thom Miller
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council November 9, 2015
Thomas Harmening, City Manager Gregg Lindberg, Mayor Pro Tem
Attest:
Melissa Kennedy, City Clerk
Special City Council Meeting of November 9, 2015 (Item No. 2a) Page 6
Subject: Canvass Results of Municipal General Election held on November 3, 2015
WARD 1, PRECINCT 1
Special City Council Meeting of November 9, 2015 (Item No. 2a) Page 7
Subject: Canvass Results of Municipal General Election held on November 3, 2015
WARD 1, PRECINCT 2
Special City Council Meeting of November 9, 2015 (Item No. 2a) Page 8
Subject: Canvass Results of Municipal General Election held on November 3, 2015
WARD 1, PRECINCT 3
Special City Council Meeting of November 9, 2015 (Item No. 2a) Page 9
Subject: Canvass Results of Municipal General Election held on November 3, 2015
WARD 1, PRECINCT 4
Special City Council Meeting of November 9, 2015 (Item No. 2a) Page 10
Subject: Canvass Results of Municipal General Election held on November 3, 2015
WARD 2, PRECINCT 5
Special City Council Meeting of November 9, 2015 (Item No. 2a) Page 11
Subject: Canvass Results of Municipal General Election held on November 3, 2015
WARD 2, PRECINCT 6
Special City Council Meeting of November 9, 2015 (Item No. 2a) Page 12
Subject: Canvass Results of Municipal General Election held on November 3, 2015
WARD 2, PRECINCT 7 – ISD 273
Special City Council Meeting of November 9, 2015 (Item No. 2a) Page 13
Subject: Canvass Results of Municipal General Election held on November 3, 2015
WARD 2, PRECINCT 7 – ISD 283
Special City Council Meeting of November 9, 2015 (Item No. 2a) Page 14
Subject: Canvass Results of Municipal General Election held on November 3, 2015
WARD 2, PRECINCT 8 – ISD 270
Special City Council Meeting of November 9, 2015 (Item No. 2a) Page 15
Subject: Canvass Results of Municipal General Election held on November 3, 2015
WARD 2, PRECINCT 8 – ISD 283
Special City Council Meeting of November 9, 2015 (Item No. 2a) Page 16
Subject: Canvass Results of Municipal General Election held on November 3, 2015
WARD 3, PRECINCT 9
Special City Council Meeting of November 9, 2015 (Item No. 2a) Page 17
Subject: Canvass Results of Municipal General Election held on November 3, 2015
WARD 3, PRECINCT 10
Special City Council Meeting of November 9, 2015 (Item No. 2a) Page 18
Subject: Canvass Results of Municipal General Election held on November 3, 2015
WARD 3, PRECINCT 11
Special City Council Meeting of November 9, 2015 (Item No. 2a) Page 19
Subject: Canvass Results of Municipal General Election held on November 3, 2015
WARD 3, PRECINCT 12
Special City Council Meeting of November 9, 2015 (Item No. 2a) Page 20
Subject: Canvass Results of Municipal General Election held on November 3, 2015
WARD 4, PRECINCT 13 – ISD 270
Special City Council Meeting of November 9, 2015 (Item No. 2a) Page 21
Subject: Canvass Results of Municipal General Election held on November 3, 2015
WARD 4, PRECINCT 13 – ISD 283
Special City Council Meeting of November 9, 2015 (Item No. 2a) Page 22
Subject: Canvass Results of Municipal General Election held on November 3, 2015
WARD 4, PRECINCT 14
Special City Council Meeting of November 9, 2015 (Item No. 2a) Page 23
Subject: Canvass Results of Municipal General Election held on November 3, 2015
WARD 4, PRECINCT 15
Special City Council Meeting of November 9, 2015 (Item No. 2a) Page 24
Subject: Canvass Results of Municipal General Election held on November 3, 2015
WARD 4, PRECINCT 16
City of St. Louis Park
General Election - November 3, 2015
Total % of WARD I WARD II WARD III WARD IV
Office Votes Vote Total 1 2 3 4 Total 5 6 7 8 Total 9 10 11 12 Total 13 14 15 16
Mayor
Conrad Segal 950 21.92%408 242 104 34 28 144 21 23 68 32 177 56 29 41 51 221 32 127 36 26
Jake Spano 3,370 77.76%999 452 386 45 116 950 119 142 476 213 749 160 111 210 268 672 104 338 143 87
Write-In 14 0.32%3 1 1 0 1 8 2 1 3 2 2 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1
Councilmember At-Large A
Steve Hallfin 3,226 97.23%961 438 363 50 110 839 104 132 422 181 736 175 112 197 252 690 105 347 150 88
Write-in 92 2.77%29 12 10 4 3 30 3 5 13 9 20 6 2 10 2 13 2 6 3 2
Councilmember At-Large B
Sara Maaske 1,900 45.11%443 255 120 42 26 598 89 106 274 129 456 126 83 75 172 403 68 195 91 49
Thom Miller 2,289 54.34%858 342 369 27 120 495 53 57 267 118 464 90 56 176 142 472 63 263 86 60
Write-in 23 0.55%5 3 1 1 0 10 3 1 5 1 4 0 1 3 0 4 1 2 0 1
ELECTION STATISTICS
SPOILED BALLOTS 50 14 7 2 3 2 16 2 2 5 7 7 1 2 2 2 13 6 4 2 1
Persons Registered at 7:00 A.M.29,590 7,288 2,441 2,910 948 989 7,881 1,297 2,159 2,436 1,989 7,149 1,703 1,574 1,442 2,430 7,272 1,635 2,705 1,606 1,326
New Registrants 133 50 20 14 11 5 29 2 13 9 5 33 9 6 3 15 21 4 8 6 3
TOTAL REGISTERED VOTERS 29,723 7,338 2,461 2,924 959 994 7,910 1,299 2,172 2,445 1,994 7,182 1,712 1,580 1,445 2,445 7,293 1,639 2,713 1,612 1,329
Voter Receipts 4,079 1,296 618 469 70 139 1,056 141 152 518 245 860 190 135 245 290 867 130 463 167 107
Regular Absentee 357 136 82 34 11 9 73 4 21 42 6 90 32 7 10 41 58 8 23 18 9
Overseas Absentee 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
(Percent AB voting)8.0%9%12%7%14%6%6%3%12%8%2%9%14%5%4%12%6%6%5%10%8%
TOTAL VOTERS 4,436 1,432 700 503 81 148 1,129 145 173 560 251 950 222 142 255 331 925 138 486 185 116
(PERCENT VOTING)14.9%20%28%17%8%15%14%11%8%23%13%13%13%9%18%14%13%8%18%11%9%
UNOFFICIAL RESULTS
Page 1
Special City Council Meeting of November 9, 2015 (Item No. 2a)
Title: Canvass Results of Municipal General Election held on November 3, 2015 Page 25
Meeting: Study Session
Meeting Date: November 9, 2015
Discussion Item: 1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Future Study Session Agenda Planning – November 23, 2015
RECOMMENDED ACTION: The City Council and the City Manager to set the agenda for
the regularly scheduled Study Session on November 23, 2015.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the Council agree with the agenda as proposed?
SUMMARY: At each study session approximately five minutes are set aside to discuss the next
study session agenda. For this purpose, attached please find the proposed discussion items for
the regularly scheduled Study Session on November 23, 2015.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Future Study Session Agenda Planning – November 23, 2015
Prepared by: Debbie Fischer, Administrative Services Office Assistant
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of November 9, 2015 (Item No. 1) Page 2
Title: Future Study Session Agenda Planning – November 23, 2015
Study Session, November 23, 2015 – 6:30
Tentative Discussion Items
1. Future Study Session Agenda Planning – Administrative Services (5 minutes)
2. Friends of the Arts Update – Operations & Recreation (30 minutes)
Representatives of Friends of the Arts (FotA) will be in attendance to provide their annual
update and address any questions or concerns regarding the activities of FotA.
3. Small Business Support Tools, Parking Lot Lighting Adjacent to Residential, Bee Friendly
Landscaping, Tree Preservation for Single Family Lots - Community Development (45 minutes)
City Council has requested information on a variety of topics from Community Development
staff. Staff will provide a written report on each of these topics. Staff will be available to
respond to City Council questions about the information provided and listen to City Council
discussion on these items.
4. Continued Discussion - Assessment Policy – Engineering (45 minutes)
The City’s assessment policy was adopted in 2000. Since that time, a number of changes
have occurred in regards to project funding and ownership of utilities. In the interest of
keeping our policy up to date, staff has been working on a new policy for Council
consideration.
5. 2016 City Council Workshop – Administrative Services (30 minutes)
Discuss the proposed agenda for the City Council Workshop scheduled for January 7-8,
2016.
Communications/Meeting Check-In – Administrative Services (5 minutes)
Time for communications between staff and Council will be set aside on every study session
agenda for the purposes of information sharing.
End of Meeting: 9:10 p.m.
Meeting: Study Session
Meeting Date: November 9, 2015
Discussion Item: 2
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: 2016 Budget Update
RECOMMENDED ACTION: No formal action required. This report is to update the Council
with 2016 levy information and outlining the impacts of a 5.50% or 6.00% levy increase.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
• Does the City Council desire to set the 2016 Final Property Tax Levy at $28,469,974,
which is an increase of $1,484,597 or approximately 5.50% over the 2015 Final Property
Tax Levy?
• Or, does the City Council desire to set the 2016 Final Property Tax Levy at $28,604,474
which is an increase of $1,619,097 or approximately 6.00% over the 2015 Final Property
Tax Levy?
• Is there other information that Council would like to review in more detail?
• Are there any other service delivery changes Council would like to have considered?
SUMMARY: In September Council approved a Preliminary Property Tax Levy which was
6.5% higher than the final 2015 levy. Subsequently, staff worked to reduce the preliminary levy
amount by finding ways to reduce spending and/or increase revenue. At the October 12th study
session staff presented ideas on reducing the levy increase to 5.5% without impacting service
levels. Council was in agreement with staff’s recommendations and further directed staff to
prepare a report showing property tax levy and estimated city share of property tax impacts
based on a 5.50% or 6.00% levy increase. This report was submitted to the Council at its
October 26 study session at which time it indicated to staff it desired to have another brief
discussion on this matter before the December Truth in Taxation Hearing.
The difference between 5.50% and 6.00% would result in $134,500 in levy dollars to use for
current or future programs/initiatives. Given the Councils high priority on housing, one
possibility would be to direct these dollars to the Housing Rehabilitation Fund due to the
anticipated declining revenues from Private Activity Revenue Bonds.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: The proposed tax levy will help support
necessary city services to be provided during 2016.
VISION CONSIDERATION: All Vision areas are taken into consideration.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion
2016 Residential Est. City Share of Prop. Taxes – 6.00%
2016 Residential Est. City Share of Prop. Taxes – 5.50%
Prepared by: Brian A. Swanson, Controller
Reviewed by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
6WXG\6HVVLRQ Meeting of November 9, 2015 (Item No. 2) Page 2
Title: 2016 Budget Update
DISCUSSION
BACKGROUND:
On September 21st, the City Council adopted the 2016 Preliminary Property Tax Levy of
$28,738,974, which was approximately 6.50% or $1,753,597 over the 2015 Final Property Tax
Levy.
On October 12th, based on direction from the City Council, staff looked at both revenue
enhancements and expenditure reductions and brought back a proposed levy representing an
increase of 5.50% instead of the 6.50%, which is a $269,000 reduction from the 2016
Preliminary Property Tax Levy that was adopted on September 21st. Some of the significant
items in reducing the recommended levy are:
1) City Wide – Decrease of $40,000 – Reduce wage adjustment contingency for
compensation study delayed until 2017 Budget.
2) Community Development – Increase zoning fee revenues by $500
3) Fire – Reduction of $71,750 – Delay hiring of FT Fire Inspector and intern until 7/1/16
saving $56,750 and expenditure line item reductions of $15,000
4) Police – Increases in revenue of $62,000 from Insurance Premium Tax ($35,000), Court
Fees ($20,000) and Forfeits/Penalties ($7,000)
5) Police – Reduction of $42,586 – Delay hiring of additional police officer until 7/1/16
6) Inspections – Revenue increase of $77,655 – revised additional fee and permit revenue
7) Information Resources – Expenditure decreases of $20,000 for postage and equipment
maintenance service of $10,000 each
8) Contingency – Increase expenditure by $45,491 to be used to partially offset the use of
Fund Balance required for the revenue loss at the Recreation Center when the ice rink is
down for required capital repairs in 2016.
Staffing Adjustments Included in the Updated Levy Recommendation
Based on the 5.50% levy increase, the following staffing adjustments can be accommodated
within the General Ad Valorem Tax Levy:
1) Engineering – Hiring at FT Civil Engineer
2) Fire – Hire a FT Fire Inspector and an Intern – to be hired 7/1/16
3) Inspections – Hiring of Temporary Construction Code Inspector and Property
Maintenance Intern
4) Police – Hiring of FT Police Office – to be hired 7/1/16
Non-General Ad Valorem Tax Levy Staffing Adjustments
1) Community Development/EDA – Increase Economic Dev. Specialist from 80% to FT
2) Utility Funds – Hire FT Public Service Worker and Solid Waste Intern
Updated Property Tax Levy Information Based on Council Direction from October 12th
At the October 12th meeting Council asked staff to prepare tax impacts based on both a 5.50%
and 6.00% tax levy increase. At both levels, all the adjustments outlined above can occur. In
addition, based on a 6% levy adjustment, the City Council can choose to set aside the $134,500
6WXG\6HVVLRQMeeting of November 9, 2015 (Item No. 2) 3age 3
Title: 2016 Budget Update
in levy capacity for present or future projects/initiatives, or place the funds into a fund that could
use some resources. Given the Councils high priority on housing, one possibility would be to
direct these dollars to the Housing Rehabilitation Fund due to the anticipated declining revenues
from Private Activity Revenue Bonds.
2015 City Final Levy and 2016 Preliminary Adopted Levies at 5.50% or 6.00%
A synopsis of prior year levy information and the 2016 Proposed Preliminary Levy is shown below:
1. The 2015 Final Levy was $26,985,377, which was 5.50% or $1,407,469 more than 2014.
2. The 2016 Preliminary Property Tax Levy was adopted on September 21st at $28,738,974,
which is approximately 6.50% or $1,753,597 more than the 2015 Final Levy.
Breakdown of Proposed Property Tax Levy at 5.50% or 6.00%
The proposed breakdown of the 5.50% Proposed Property Tax Levy by fund is shown below:
2015 2016 Dollar Change Percent Change
Final Proposed From 2015 From 2015
TAX CAPACITY BASED TAX LEVY
General Fund $22,364,509 $23,524,106 1,159,597$ 5.18%
Debt Service - Current 1,423,161 1,517,667 94,506 6.64%
Debt Service - Future - 455,995 455,995 N/A
Capital Replacement Fund 1,442,700 1,767,700 325,000 22.53%
Park Improvement Fund 810,000 810,000 - 0.00%
Sidewalk and Trails Fund 645,007 94,506 (550,501) -85.35%
Employee Administration Fund 200,000 200,000 - 0.00%
Housing Rehabilitation Fund 100,000 100,000 - 0.00%
TOTAL TAX LEVIES $26,985,377 $28,469,974 $1,484,597 5.50%
The proposed breakdown of the 6.00% Proposed Property Tax Levy by fund is shown below:
2015 2016 Dollar Change Percent Change
Final Proposed From 2015 From 2015
TAX CAPACITY BASED TAX LEVY
General Fund $22,364,509 $23,524,106 1,159,597$ 5.18%
Debt Service - Current 1,423,161 1,517,667 94,506 6.64%
Debt Service - Future - 455,995 455,995 N/A
Capital Replacement Fund 1,442,700 1,767,700 325,000 22.53%
Park Improvement Fund 810,000 810,000 - 0.00%
Sidewalk and Trails Fund 645,007 94,506 (550,501) -85.35%
Employee Administration Fund 200,000 200,000 - 0.00%
Houising Rehab Fund 100,000 100,000 - 0.00%
To Be Determined - 134,000 134,000 N/A
TOTAL TAX LEVIES $26,985,377 $28,603,974 $1,618,597 6.00%
6WXG\6HVVLRQ Meeting of November 9, 2015 (Item No. 2) Page 4
Title: 2016 Budget Update
ADDITIONAL TAX LEVY INFORMATION
By law, the City Council approved 2016 preliminary property tax levies back in September and
those preliminary levies have been sent to Hennepin County for certification. Hennepin County
will mail out parcel specific notices to taxpayers in mid-November. Final action on the 2016
Budget, 2016 Final City Property Tax Levy, Final 2016 HRA Levy, and 2016 – 2025 CIP will
not occur until December.
Estimated City Impact for 2016 on Taxes at a 5.50% or 6.00% Levy Increase
Based on a 5.50% levy increase, and realizing there are many variables in estimating the City
impact on a residential homestead property, a “typical” property in St. Louis Park valued at
approximately $226,600 for taxes payable in 2016, would experience an increase of
approximately $0.99 per month or approximately $11.90 for the year on the City share of
property taxes.
Based on a 6.00% levy increase for taxes payable in 2016, the residential homesteaded property
owner would experience an increase of approximately $1.37 per month or approximately $16.47
for the year on the City share of property taxes.
The difference between 5.50% and 6.00% property tax levy increase for the residential median
valued homesteaded property owner would be approximately $0.38 per month or $4.57 for the
entire year.
NEXT STEPS: As the 2016 budget process continues, the following preliminary schedule
snapshot has been developed for Council:
December 7 Truth in Taxation Public Hearing and budget presentation.
December 14 (If needed) - Public Hearing continuation and any budget discussion.
December 21 Council adopts 2015 Revised Budget, 2016 Budgets, final tax levies
(City and HRA), and 2016 - 2025 CIP.
The City Council has the option of decreasing the 2016 Preliminary Property Tax Levies for the
City and HRA after the initial certification; however it cannot be increased.
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
RESIDENTIAL ESTIMATED CITY SHARE OF PROPERTY TAXES
2016 PRELIMINARY PROPERTY TAX LEVY
6.00% INCREASE
As of 10-26-15
* These are estimated figures at particular price points.
Homes at the price points will not experience these exact changes.
Assessed Market Val.Taxable Taxable Estimated City Tax Dollar Percent
2014 For 2015 For Market Market 2015 2016 Change Change
Pay 2015 Pay 2016 Value 2015 Value 2016
150,000 136,500 126,260.00 111,545.00 624.09 534.50 -89.59 -14.4%
175,000 180,075 153,510.00 159,041.75 758.78 762.10 3.31 0.4%
217,660 226,600 200,009.40 209,754.00 988.63 1,005.10 16.47 1.7%
250,000 264,750 235,260.00 251,337.50 1,162.87 1,204.36 41.49 3.6%
350,000 359,800 344,260.00 354,942.00 1,701.64 1,700.81 -0.83 0.0%
450,000 462,600 450,000.00 462,600.00 2,224.31 2,216.69 -7.62 -0.3%
500,000 519,500 500,000.00 519,500.00 2,471.45 2,512.70 41.25 1.7%
600,000 623,400 600,000.00 623,400.00 3,089.31 3,135.04 45.72 1.5%
700,000 723,100 700,000.00 723,100.00 3,707.18 3,732.21 25.04 0.7%
Assumptions:
2015 and 2016 tax capacity rate based on Hennepin County information.
Tax capacity rates increase from 1% to 1.25% for values over $500,000.
= Median Value Home in St. Louis Park
Study Session Meeting of November 9, 2015 (Item No. 2)
Title: 2016 Budget Update Page 5
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
RESIDENTIAL ESTIMATED CITY SHARE OF PROPERTY TAXES
2016 PRELIMINARY PROPERTY TAX LEVY
5.50% INCREASE
As of 10-26-15
* These are estimated figures at particular price points.
Homes at the price points will not experience these exact changes.
Assessed Market Val.Taxable Taxable Estimated City Tax Dollar Percent
2014 For 2015 For Market Market 2015 2016 Change Change
Pay 2015 Pay 2016 Value 2015 Value 2016
150,000 136,500 126,260.00 111,545.00 624.09 532.07 -92.02 -14.7%
175,000 180,075 153,510.00 159,041.75 758.78 758.63 -0.16 0.0%
217,660 226,600 200,009.40 209,754.00 988.63 1,000.53 11.90 1.2%
250,000 264,750 235,260.00 251,337.50 1,162.87 1,198.88 36.01 3.1%
350,000 359,800 344,260.00 354,942.00 1,701.64 1,693.07 -8.57 -0.5%
450,000 462,600 450,000.00 462,600.00 2,224.31 2,206.60 -17.70 -0.8%
500,000 519,500 500,000.00 519,500.00 2,471.45 2,501.27 29.82 1.2%
600,000 623,400 600,000.00 623,400.00 3,089.31 3,120.77 31.46 1.0%
700,000 723,100 700,000.00 723,100.00 3,707.18 3,715.23 8.06 0.2%
Assumptions:
2015 and 2016 tax capacity rate based on Hennepin County information.
Tax capacity rates increase from 1% to 1.25% for values over $500,000.
= Median Value Home in St. Louis Park
Study Session Meeting of November 9, 2015 (Item No. 2)
Title: 2016 Budget Update Page 6
Meeting: Study Session
Meeting Date: November 9, 2015
Discussion Item: 3
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Monterey Drive / Excelsior Boulevard Area Traffic Study - Continued
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Provide staff direction on the next steps for the Monterey Drive/
Park Commons Drive intersection.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the City Council wish to proceed with intersection
improvements at the Monterey Drive/ Park Commons Drive intersection at this time?
SUMMARY: At the October 19, 2015 City Council Study Session, staff presented information
regarding additional analysis done for the Monterey Drive/ Excelsior Boulevard Area. The main
objectives of this study were to evaluate various forms of traffic control and access at the
Monterey Drive/ Park Commons Drive intersection as well as evaluate traffic volumes on W.
36th 1/2 Street with regard to roadway capacity. Three recommended alternatives were
presented for the Monterey Drive/ Park Commons Drive intersection. Time ran out at the
meeting before the City Council could provide staff direction on the proposed alternatives. The
purpose of this continued discussion item is to answer the following questions raised during the
previous meeting and provide additional background information.
1. What is the operation of Alternative 6 – Traffic Signal with Full Access under year 2017
development conditions?
2. What other intersections in the City have comparable delays?
3. What are the costs associated with the intersection alternatives?
4. What is recommended for Monterey Drive pedestrian crossing in this area?
5. Is there adequate room for the proposed future bike lanes in this area?
6. Will there be adequate sight distance for cars exiting the proposed Bridgewater
development to see pedestrians and bicyclists on Monterey Drive?
7. What other roads in the City have comparable volumes to W. 36 1/2 Street?
Staff has had an opportunity to follow up on these questions and wanted to share the additional
information with the City Council.
All information regarding the traffic review is available on the website:
http://www.stlouispark.org/proposed-development/bridgewater.html
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: None at this time.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion
Prepared by: Debra Heiser, Engineering Director
Reviewed by: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Phillip Elkin, Sr. Engineering Project Manager
Sean Walther, Planning and Zoning Supervisor
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of November 9, 2015 (Item No. 3) Page 2
Title: Monterey Drive / Excelsior Boulevard Area Traffic Study - Continued
DISCUSSION
BACKGROUND: To investigate alternatives for the intersection traffic delay at the Excelsior
Boulevard/ Monterey Drive intersection staff hired SRF, Inc. to complete additional traffic
analysis. The main objectives of this study were to evaluate various forms of traffic control and
access at the Monterey Drive/ Park Commons Drive intersection as well as evaluate traffic
volumes on W. 36th 1/2 Street with regard to roadway capacity. The Excelsior Boulevard &
Monterey Drive Subarea Evaluation Report (September 28, 2015) was presented to the City
Council at the October 19, 2015 Study Session.
During the discussion, the City Council had additional questions regarding the information
presented. Staff has investigated those questions and what follows is summary of the
information put together by SRF and staff.
1. What is the operation of Alternative 6 – Traffic Signal with Full Access under year 2017
development conditions?
The overall intersection would operate at a LOS A. Minimal delay (LOS B) would be
expected on the eastbound approach of the Monterey Drive/ Park Commons Drive
intersection during the PM peak hour under year 2017 conditions. Eastbound Park Commons
Drive queues would extend to 125 feet, blocking the Trader Joes driveway. Northbound
queues on Monterey Drive would extend south from the Park Commons Drive intersection
blocking the Excelsior Blvd/Monterey Drive intersection for 5 percent of the peak hour.
Due to concerns about significant anticipated increases in mainline Monterey Drive queueing
and the blocking of the Excelsior Blvd/ Monterey Drive intersection, staff does not
recommend this alternative at this time.
2. Are there other intersections in the City that have comparable delays for left turning
movements?
Staff reviewed traffic studies completed for intersections with side street stop control. What
follows is a list of other intersections with PM peak level of service comparable to Park
Commons Drive/ Monterey Drive existing conditions:
Intersection PM peak hour
LOS*
Year of study
Monterey Drive/ Park Commons Drive A/ D 2015
Cedar Lake Road/ Virginia Avenue A/ D 2008
Beltline Boulevard/ Park Glen Road A/ D 2008
West 16th Street/ West End Boulevard A/ C 2010
36th Street/ Yosemite Ave A/ D 2012
Wooddale Ave/ Oxford Street A/ C 2012
Cedar Lake Road/ Hampshire Ave A/ E 2013
Cedar Lake Road/ Idaho Ave A/ F 2013
Wayzata Blvd/ Texas Ave A/ E 2015
*The PM peak hour LOS column shows overall intersection LOS followed by the worst approach
LOS. The delay shown represents the worst side street approach delay.
This list is not comprehensive; rather it is a list of intersections that have been evaluated for
various reasons over the last 7 years where staff has metrics to compare operations to the
intersection at Monterey Drive/ Park Commons Drive.
Study Session Meeting of November 9, 2015 (Item No. 3) Page 3
Title: Monterey Drive / Excelsior Boulevard Area Traffic Study - Continued
For reference, the Level of Service (LOS) indicates how well an intersection is operating.
Intersections are ranked from LOS A through LOS F. The LOS results are based on
average delay per vehicle, which correspond to the delay threshold values shown in the
table below. LOS A indicates the best traffic operation, while LOS F indicates an
intersection where demand exceeds capacity. Overall intersection LOS A though LOS D is
generally considered acceptable in the Twin Cities area.
Level of Service Criteria for Signalized and Unsignalized Intersections
LOS Designation Signalized Intersection
Average Delay/ Vehicle
(seconds)
Unsignalized Intersection Average
Delay/ Vehicle
(seconds)
A ≤ 10 ≤ 10
B > 10 - 20 > 10 - 15
C > 20 - 35 > 15 - 25
D > 35 - 55 > 25 - 35
E > 55 - 80 > 35 - 50
F > 80 > 50
3. Estimated costs for Alternatives
Alternative Cost Range
Alternative 1 – No Build (Existing Side Street Stop
with Full Access)
$0
Alternative 2 – Side Street Stop with Full Access and
Eastbound Right Turn Lane
$50,000 to 75,000 (assuming no
significant right-of-way taking)
Alternative 3 – Side Street Stop with Three Quarter
Access
$25,000 to $50,000
Alternative 6 – Traffic Signal with Full Access $250,000- $300,000
4. What is recommended for Monterey Drive pedestrian crossing in this area?
The City Council asked staff for a recommendation for pedestrian crossing of Monterey
Drive at Park Commons Drive.
The Minnesota Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MN MUTCD) states that
crosswalk pavement markings should not be placed indiscriminately and an engineering
study should be completed when crosswalk markings are being contemplated at a crossing.
An engineering study includes a review of pedestrian volume, vehicle speed, sight distance,
vehicle mix, street width, and nearby intersections. By completing a review of the
intersection characteristics we can make recommendations to ensure that the marked
crosswalks we install are at the right locations and are safe.
In reviewing the intersection of Monterey Drive/ Park Commons Drive staff has the
following observations:
• Monterey Drive at this location is a 4 lane roadway with 11,000 vehicles a day.
• Marked crossings have a higher incidence of pedestrian crashes on multi-lane (4 or
more lanes) roads with high ADTs.
Study Session Meeting of November 9, 2015 (Item No. 3) Page 4
Title: Monterey Drive / Excelsior Boulevard Area Traffic Study - Continued
• As a result of traffic volumes and delay in this corridor it is not recommended to
narrow the street at this intersection from 4 lanes to 2 lanes.
• Initial pedestrian counts performed at this intersection for crossing of Monterey
Drive: (1 pedestrian in the AM peak, 0 pedestrians in the PM peak)
o The pedestrian volume threshold traffic signal warrant is 75 pedestrians per
hour for a 4 hour period. The pedestrian activity at this intersection does not
meet this threshold at this time.
o The threshold for installation of a pedestrian activated signal is 20 pedestrians
in the peak hour. There is not enough pedestrian activity at this intersection to
meet this threshold at this time.
• The intersection of Monterey Drive/ Park Commons is 200 feet from the signalized
intersection of Monterey Drive and Excelsior Boulevard.
• Installing a crosswalk at locations with high traffic volumes, can result in crossings
that are challenging to navigate and cause long delays for pedestrians, which may
lead to a high risk-taking environment and decrease safety.
As a result of these observations, staff does not recommend the installation of a marked
crosswalk at this location. It is recommended to route pedestrians to the controlled
intersection to maximize safety.
The City has hundreds of intersections and thousands of crosswalks within its boundaries.
There are many uncontrolled intersections with high pedestrian counts on high volume 4 lane
roads throughout the City. Many of these crosswalks are marked, but without any other
enhancements. Many of these crosswalks are not within 200 feet of a traffic signal. Being
selective when installing marked crosswalks at uncontrolled intersections not only ensures
that we can create the safest crossing, it also allows the City to allocate resources effectively.
5. Is there adequate room for the proposed future bike lanes in this area?
The Connect the Park! plan includes a bikeway on Monterey Drive in 2022. In reviewing the
existing traffic and speed on Monterey Drive, it is recommended that 5 to 6 foot wide
designated on street bike lanes be installed for this bikeway facility. This is because the daily
vehicle volumes exceed 2,000 per day and posted speed limits are 30 mph or higher.
On the west side of Monterey between Park Commons Drive and Excelsior Blvd, the
sidewalk was installed with extra width, ensuring that the Trader Joe’s building was setback
enough to accommodate a future bike lane. On the east side of Monterey Drive, additional
right- of- way will be dedicated on the plat for any new development to accommodate the
future bike lane and sidewalk.
6. Will there be adequate sight distance for cars exiting the development to see pedestrians
and bicyclists on Monterey Drive?
For the initial Bridgewater submittal, staff reviewed the sight distance at the driveways onto
Monterey Drive and determined that the building is setback to provide adequate sight
distance. Additional plan submittals will be reviewed for the same considerations.
7. What other roads in the City have comparable volumes to 36 ½ Street?
The 2015 Average Daily Traffic (ADT) along W. 36th 1/2 Street was estimated at 2,500
vehicles. The volume along W. 36th 1/2 Street is well below the capacity threshold for an
urban two-lane undivided roadway (8,000 to 10,000 vehicles).
City Council asked if there were other City streets that had traffic volumes at or near these
volumes. What follows is a summary of City street segments that have similar residential
Study Session Meeting of November 9, 2015 (Item No. 3) Page 5
Title: Monterey Drive / Excelsior Boulevard Area Traffic Study - Continued
land uses, lane configurations, and volumes at or greater than 36 1/2 Street. This list is not
comprehensive; there are likely other streets within the city with traffic volumes in this
range. This information is compiled from traffic counts collected by the City in 2013 as
required by the state for state aid routes.
Street Segment Average Annual
Daily Traffic (2013)
38th Street (Excelsior Blvd to France Ave) 3050
44th Street (Glen Place to Wooddale Ave) 3700
Alabama Ave (36th Street to Cambridge Ave)
Alabama Ave (Cambridge Ave to Excelsior Blvd)
2600
2700
Brookside Ave (Excelsior Blvd to W 42nd Street) 3750
Cedar Lake Road (Flag Ave to Louisiana Ave)
Cedar Lake Road (Louisiana Ave to Park Place Blvd)
10500
12200
Dakota Ave (Minnetonka Blvd to Lake Street) 4500
France Avenue (City Boundary to 28th Street) 5300
Lake Street (Minnetonka Blvd to Wooddale Ave) 4200
Quentin Ave (42 1/2 Street to 44th Street) 2850
Texas Avenue (Wayzata Blvd to Franklin Ave)
Texas Avenue (Franklin Ave to Cedar Lake Road)
Texas Avenue (Cedar Lake Road to Minnetonka Blvd)
Texas Avenue (Minnetonka Blvd to Walker)
4350
3600
4900
8200
Walker Street (Texas Ave to Louisiana Ave) 3900
Yosemite Ave (Excelsior to 42nd Street)
Yosemite Ave (42nd Street to Brookside)
3700
4100
RECOMMENDATION
If the City Council would like to move ahead with improvements at the Monterey Drive/ Park
Commons Drive intersection staff recommends Alternative 2 – Side Street Stop with Full Access
and Eastbound Right Turn Lane be implemented at some point in the future.
This alternative:
• reduces the delay for vehicles on the Monterey Drive leg of the intersection
• reduces the queues that block the Trader Joe's driveway.
• does not create delay or queuing at the other intersections studied
Also, constructing a right turn lane does not preclude implementing at a later date Alternative 3 –
Side Street Stop with Three Quarter Access. The right turn lane could be constructed and
monitored. If the operations of the intersection are still of concern, Alternative 3 could be
constructed in the future. Althought not recommended by staff at this time, it would also not
preclude implementing Alternative 6 – Traffic Signal with Full Access at some point in the
future.
Meeting: Study Session
Meeting Date: November 9, 2015
Discussion Item: 4
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Assessment Policies
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff desires feedback on the information provided in this report
and at the Study Session.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the City Council want to change how we fund certain
improvement projects?
SUMMARY: The City’s special assessment policy was last updated in 2000; prior to that the
policy was updated more frequently. The following improvements are ones that have historically
used the special assessment process in the City of St. Louis Park:
1. Paving, Curb and Gutter
2. Alley Paving
3. Sidewalks
4. Streetlighting
5. Unimproved Street Maintenance
6. Storm sewer
7. Sanitary Sewer mains and services
8. Watermain and services
9. Fire Sprinkler systems
10. Delinquent charges (nuisances, tree removal, weed removal, curb/ gutter repair and
responding to fire alarms)
11. Public Parking Lots
It has been 15 years since the last policy update. In that time, council direction, improvement
costs and infrastructure needs have changed for a number of the areas covered by this policy.
Staff from Assessing, Finance, Operations, and Engineering have been working on reviewing
these improvements and putting together a new policy that is current and in keeping with legal
guidance. Staff anticipates that the City Council discussion for this policy update may take
several study sessions. At each Council study session, staff will cover one or two of the
improvements listed above until all of the items are discussed. The result will be an overall City
Policy that will be brought to the City Council for approval.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: The recommended assessment policy for
the various improvements will have funding considerations. Information regarding financial
considerations will be a part of a future study session discussion.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion
History of Connect the Park! CIP
Prepared by: Debra Heiser, Engineering Director
Reviewed by: Cindy Walsh, Operations and Recreation Director; Mark Hanson, Public
Works Superintendent; Jeff Stevens, Operations Manager; Phillip Elkin, Sr.
Engineering Project Manager; Cory Bultema, City Assessor; Steve Heintz,
Finance Supervisor
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of November 9, 2015 (Item No. 4) Page 2
Title: Assessment Policies
DISCUSSION
BACKGROUND:
What are special assessments?
Special assessments are a charge imposed on properties for a particular improvement that
benefits the owners of those selected properties. The authority to use special assessments
originates in the state constitution which allows the state legislature to give cities and other
governmental units the authority “to levy and collect assessments for local improvements upon
property benefited thereby.” The legislature confers that authority to cities in Minnesota Statutes
Chapter 429. Court decisions and attorney general opinions interpreting the statute add
complexity to the issue.
To ensure full protection for property owners, state law and courts applying that law insist on
strict compliance with complex procedural requirements. Because these requirements have legal
implications, city councils should have the city attorney guide assessment proceedings. Special
assessments have three distinct characteristics:
• They are a levy a city uses to finance, or partially finance, a particular public
improvement program.
• The city levies the charge only against those particular parcels of property that receive
some special benefit from the program or service
• The amount of the charge bears a direct relationship to the value of the benefits the
property receives.
What can special assessments pay for?
Special assessments have a number of important uses:
• The most typical use is to pay for construction of new infrastructure, particularly when
the city is converting new tracts of land to urban or residential use. Special assessments
frequently pay for new streets; installing utility lines and constructing curbs, gutters, and
sidewalks.
• Special assessments may partially underwrite the cost of major maintenance programs.
Cities often finance large scale repairs and maintenance operations on streets, sidewalks,
sewers, and similar facilities in part with special assessments.
The special benefit test
Special assessments reflect the influence of a specific local improvement on the value of selected
property. No matter what method the city uses to establish the amount of the assessment, the real
measure of benefit is the increase in the market value of the land because of the improvement.
Under the special benefit test, special assessments are presumptively valid if:
• The land receives a special benefit from the improvement.
• The assessment does not exceed the special benefit measured by the increase in market
value due to the improvement.
• The assessment is uniform as applied to the same class of property, in the assessed area.
A special assessment that exceeds the special benefit is a taking of property without fair
compensation and violates both the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution and
the Minnesota Constitution. Property assessed must enjoy a corresponding benefit from the local
improvement. This is a different concept than property tax valuation. The Minnesota
Constitution states: “The Legislature may authorize municipal corporations to levy and collect
Study Session Meeting of November 9, 2015 (Item No. 4) Page 3
Title: Assessment Policies
assessments for local improvements upon property benefited thereby without regard to cash
valuation.”
As the courts have made clear, the special benefit is the increase in market value of the land as a
result of the improvement.
Assessment Policy Discussion
1. Paving, Curb and Gutter
The City has 146 centerline miles of streets under our jurisdiction. These streets are broken
down into two categories, Municipal State Aid (MSA) and local streets. Each category is further
broken into improved and unimproved. According to City policy, for a street to be considered
improved, it is constructed with proper drainage, concrete curb and gutter and meets the State of
Minnesota DOT “standard specifications for highway construction” which includes but is not
limited to, a minimum six- inch granular base and at least two inch asphalt overlay or strength
equivalent. If a street does not meet these minimums, it will be considered unimproved. Using
this test there are 37 miles of MSA streets, 108 miles of improved local streets and 1 mile of
unimproved streets in the City.
The majority of our streets were improved in the mid-1950’s’s to early-1980’s. The life cycle of
an improved street is 20-30 years. At around 25 years, the condition of the street is improved
using rehabilitation techniques such as mill and overlay or reclaim and overlay.
Municipal State Aid Streets
Municipal state aid streets are routes designated by the city council and approved by the
commissioner of transportation for inclusion in the city's state aid system. All routes
included begin and end on another municipal state aid road, county state aid road, or
trunk highway and are eligible for the use of MSA construction funds.
Municipal state aid construction funds are monies apportioned to the city from the state to
be used for the construction of routes designated on the municipal state aid system. All
construction using these funds must be done in accordance with the MnDOT office of
state aid design criteria. The source of these funds is state gas tax dollars.
Maintenance and rehabilitation activities for improved MSA streets are managed in the
same manner as the City’s Pavement Management Program (PMP).
The current assessment policy does not differentiate between MSA and local streets.
Local Streets
In 2004 the City implemented a Pavement Management Program (PMP). This eight-year
cycle focuses on maintenance and rehabilitation activities for improved local streets in
one area of the City per year. An eight-year cycle was chosen based on preventive
maintenance research which shows that roads, in good condition, should be sealcoated
every 6-10 years. The City was divided into 8 areas of comparable size in terms of
pavement square footage. The areas were also divided along neighborhood boundaries in
order to facilitate future communications and public process.
We are halfway through the second cycle of the PMP. For the most part, the City uses
the proceeds of franchise fees with Xcel Energy and CenterPoint Energy to pay for this
program. When there is utility infrastructure that requires replacement, franchise fees are
supplemented by Sewer and Water Utility Funds.
Study Session Meeting of November 9, 2015 (Item No. 4) Page 4
Title: Assessment Policies
The city's policy with unimproved streets is that we do limited maintenance such as
pothole patching and occasional grading of gravel/ degraded pavement in the areas to
address erosion. All of our unimproved streets have drainage problems and are in poor
condition.
Existing Policy:
Unimproved street construction- The City Assessment Policy for reconstructing an unimproved
street has the abutting property owners responsible for construction costs according to land use.
• Residential properties- The level of cost participation is $13 per front foot for paving and
$7 per front foot for curb and gutter. In addition they are assessed the cost of their
driveway apron reconstruction. Historically, this flat rate was adjusted to reflect actual
construction costs.
• Commercial/ Industrial property - The level of cost participation is that property owners
shall be assessed 100% of the cost of the improvement.
Improved street rehabilitation - The City Assessment Policy for funding street rehabilitation, has
the abutting property owners responsible for a portion of the improvement costs according to
land use.
• Residential properties- Rehabilitation is funded using franchise fees collected from
Center Point Energy and Xcel Energy or MSA funds if the street is an MSA route.
• Commercial/ Industrial property - The level of cost participation is that property owners
shall be assessed 100% of the cost of rehabilitation.
Discussion:
In order to assess the cost to construct an unimproved street to property owners, there must be an
increase to the market value of the land as a result of the improvement. This increase should be
equal to or greater than the cost of the assessment.
In general an assessment of 1 to 1.5% of the property market value can be assumed for public
improvements.
Unimproved street construction:
• Residential property- In reviewing our construction cost, staff is recommending
changes to the assessment level and rate. Instead of having an assessment level that is
based on a flat rate per foot, staff recommends that a percentage of the construction
cost be assessed to benefitting property owner. After reviewing costs for
construction. Staff recommends an assessment level of 25% of the project costs be
assessed to benefitting property owners.
In addition, our recommendation is to change our rate from a front foot basis to a per
lot basis. The reason for this change is that many of our lots are similar in size and
area.
• Commercial/ Industrial property- It may be difficult to demonstrate an equivalent
benefit for an assessment of rate of 100% of construction cost. It is recommended
that the rate for these land uses be set at 50% of the construction cost.
In regards to the manner of calculating specific property assessment rates,
Commercial and multi-family lot sizes and widths vary widely. Staff recommends
that the rate calculation for assessments be on a front foot basis.
The remaining costs are recommended to be funded by the City.
Study Session Meeting of November 9, 2015 (Item No. 4) Page 5
Title: Assessment Policies
Improved street rehabilitation:
City Franchise fees are the funding source for the PMP. This funding source generates
$2.3 million annually. About 66% of the fees collected are paid by Residential
properties. The remaining fees are paid by Commercial/ Industrial properties.
These funds are used to pay for street rehabilitation, sealcoat, and sidewalk replacement.
• Residential property- Our current policy is to not assess residential property for street
rehabilitation. With 66% of the fees collected to fund street rehabilitation being
generated by residential properties, it is our recommendation that this policy not
change.
• Commercial/ Industrial property- It may be difficult to demonstrate an equivalent
benefit for an assessment rate of 100% of construction cost. While Commercial/
Industrial land uses pay in about a third of the total franchise fees collected, the total
fees collected from these land uses is half the amount collected from Residential land
uses. As a result it is recommended that they pay for half the amount of the cost of
street rehabilitation. Similar to unimproved street construction, it is recommended
that the rate for these land uses be set at 50% of the construction cost.
In regards to the manner of calculating specific property assessment rates,
Commercial and industrial lot sizes and widths vary widely. Staff recommends that
the rate calculation for assessments be on a front foot basis.
Staff recommendation:
Residential Commercial/ Industrial
Unimproved street construction • 25% of cost
• Per unit basis
• 50% of cost
• Front foot basis
Improved Street Rehabilitation No assessment • 50% of cost
• Front foot basis
2. Alley Paving
There are 21.25 miles of alleys throughout the City. These alleys are broken down into two
categories, improved and unimproved. According to City policy, for an alley to be
considered improved, it is constructed of concrete. 16 miles of alleys have a concrete surface
and meet the minimum standard for an improved alley. 5.2 miles of these alleys are
considered unimproved according to City policy. Of the unimproved alleys, 2.36 miles are
asphalt and 2.85 miles are gravel.
The majority of our alleys were improved before 1980. Our oldest concrete alley was
constructed in 1958. There have been 17 alley improvement projects since 1990. The life
expectancy of a concrete alley is 50-70 years.
Existing Policy:
The City Assessment Policy for funding alley improvements, both initial construction and
replacement, has the abutting property owners responsible for 100% of the improvement
costs.
• Residential properties: Abutting property owners are responsible for 100% of the total
cost. This cost is further broken down based on lot characteristics to determine the
property owners that have indirect benefit and the property owners that have direct
benefit. An explanation of this break down:
Study Session Meeting of November 9, 2015 (Item No. 4) Page 6
Title: Assessment Policies
− Indirect Benefit- All properties that abut the alley are assessed for 30% of the cost of
the construction of an improved alley.
− Direct Benefit- 70% of the cost of the construction of an improved alley are assessed
against abutting properties with direct benefit. A property is directly benefited if one
or more of the following conditions are met:
o it has an existing garage with direct access to the alley,
o an access to the alley could be constructed from an existing garage, or
o if no garage exists, there is sufficient area on the lot to build a garage with access
to the alley.
• Commercial/ Industrial property: The level of cost participation is that property
owners are assessed 100% of the cost of the improvement. There is no consideration
for indirect or direct benefit.
Discussion:
In residential areas, alleys provide rear access to property where a garage was located, or
where waste could be collected by service vehicles. A benefit of this was the location of
these activities to the rear and less public side of a dwelling.
Staff believes that there is a potential cost savings for the City if the unimproved alleys
were paved in concrete. It is estimated that the maintenance cost for unimproved alleys is
$2,800/ annually. Routine maintenance for the unimproved alleys includes regrading of
gravel and pothole patching the bituminous. This cost is over and above the cost for
routine maintenance for the improved alleys on our system. In addition there is also staff
time spent responding to concerns from property owners regarding the condition of their
alleys and drainage problems that have developed over the years.
• Residential property- Staff recommends that the total cost property owners are
assessed is lowered to 50% of the total project cost.
Also, it is recommended that the cost assessed be further broken down based on lot
characteristics to determine the property owners that have indirect benefit and the
property owners that have direct benefit. This is consistent with existing policy and
gives flexibility to address unique situations
Finally, our recommendation is to change the assessment rate from a front foot basis
to a per lot basis. The reason for this change is that the majority of the lots in the City
with alleys are similar in size and area.
• Commercial/ Industrial property- It may be difficult to demonstrate an equivalent
benefit for an assessment of rate of 100% of construction cost. It is recommended
that total cost assessed to property owners be lowered to 50% of the total project cost.
Also, it is recommended that the differentiation between direct and indirect benefit be
extended to Commercial/ Industrial properties. This gives flexibility to address
unique situations.
In regards to the manner of calculating specific property assessment rates,
Commercial and Industrial lot sizes and widths vary widely. Staff recommends that
the rate calculation for assessments be on a front foot basis.
Study Session Meeting of November 9, 2015 (Item No. 4) Page 7
Title: Assessment Policies
Staff recommendation:
Residential Commercial/ Industrial
Unimproved alley construction
and reconstruction
• 50% of cost
• Per unit basis
• Based on direct/indirect
benefit
• 50% of cost
• Front foot basis
• Based on direct/indirect
benefit
3. Sidewalks
There are 110 miles of existing sidewalks throughout the City. There are 11.2 miles of
sidewalk proposed for construction as a part of the Connect the Park! initiative by 2024. All
sidewalk segments proposed as a part of the Connect the Park! Capital Improvement Plan
(CIP) are paid for using general obligation bonds.
Staff has identified 3 miles of gaps. For purposes of discussion, a “gap” is considered a
section of sidewalk that is missing on a continuous street block. About half of these gaps are
directly adjacent to a sidewalk segment included in the Connect the Park! CIP. Based on
previous Council direction staff is adding the construction of sidewalk gaps adjacent to the
Connect the Park! segments as a part of the annual construction project.
As a result of the community visioning process completed in 2006, in 2008 the City
developed the Active Living, Sidewalks and Trail Plan after an extensive public process.
The resulting system plan and goals were adopted into the Comprehensive Plan in 2009. The
pedestrian and bicycle system plans was adopted and included in the Comprehensive Plan are
shown on Exhibits 1 & 2. The specific 10 year Connect the Park! CIP (Exhibit 3) was then
developed to construct some, but not all of these facilities after additional neighborhood
meetings and public hearings. The 10 year Connect the Park! CIP does not include all of the
segments shown on Exhibits 1 & 2.
Existing Policy:
The City Assessment Policy for funding the construction of new sidewalks is as follows:
• On collector roadways and thoroughfares, the cost of new sidewalk installation shall
be assessed at 50% of the cost and the remaining 50% of cost shall be financed by
general obligation bonds or other appropriate funds of the City.
• On streets which are not collector roadways or thoroughfares, the cost of sidewalks
shall be assessed 100% of the construction costs of sidewalks abutting them.
• Commercial, industrial, and multiple family properties shall be assessed 100% of the
construction costs of sidewalks abutting them.
Discussion:
Staff proposes that if we receive a request to add a segment of sidewalk, trail, or bikeway,
we would first check the segment against the Comprehensive Plan exhibits. If the
segment is shown in the Comprehensive Plan, we would recommend that the City
Council add it to the Connect the Park! CIP. As a part of the recommendation, staff
would recommend a year where it would fit in with budget, workload, and other capital
projects.
If the segment is not included in the Comprehensive Plan, staff would take a look at the
analysis diagram from the Active Living Sidewalks and Trail Plan. If it fit into one of the
identified goals and objectives from that plan, we would recommend that the City
Study Session Meeting of November 9, 2015 (Item No. 4) Page 8
Title: Assessment Policies
Council add it to the Connect the Park! CIP. As a part of the recommendation, staff
would recommend a year where it would fit in with budget, workload, and other capital
projects.
If the sidewalk segment is not consistent with either the Comprehensive Plan or the
Active Living Sidewalks and Trail Plan staff recommends that it not be fully funded by
the City. Instead, the recommendation would be to consider it for construction with
funding through special assessments as follows:
• Residential property- Staff recommends the assessments level be 50% of the
project costs for sidewalk construction.
• Commercial, industrial, and multiple family properties- No change recommended.
City Code requires that all development and redevelopment projects construct sidewalks
in the right of way adjacent to the development. These sidewalks are constructed at the
cost of the property owner. While these costs are not assessed, staff recommends that to
address any ambiguity regarding cost responsibility that we include this situation in the
assessment policy.
Staff Recommendation:
Residential Commercial/ Industrial/ Multi Family
New sidewalk construction
(segments that are not
consistent with either the
Comprehensive Plan or the
Active Living Sidewalks
and Trail Plan)
• 50% of cost
• Front foot basis
• 100% of cost
• Front foot basis
New sidewalk construction
(abutting development and
redevelopment)
• 100% of cost
• 100% of cost
Note that the cost for sidewalks constructed as a part of the Connect the Park initiative
would would continue to be paid 100% by the City- no assessment.
Study Session Meeting of November 9, 2015 (Item No. 4) Page 9
Title: Assessment Policies
History of Connect the Park!
As part of the “Vision St. Louis Park” initiative that began several years ago, one of the resulting
strategic directions identified by the Community and the City Council was “St. Louis Park is
committed to being a connected and engaged community.” One of the priorities of that directive
was a focus on developing an expanded and organized network of sidewalks and trails. As a
result, an extensive public process was engaged through the Active Living, Sidewalks and Trail
Plan which recommended an approach to developing citywide pedestrian and bicycling systems,
addressing trails, sidewalks, key crossings and prioritizing their importance. The plan suggested
a strategy for implementation, how existing areas of concern might be improved, and where new
walks and trails should be installed. In brief, the plan was developed with the following key
elements in mind:
Purpose - "To develop a comprehensive, city-wide system of trails and sidewalks that provides
local and regional connectivity, improves safety and accessibility, and enhances overall
community livability."
Goals and Objectives -
• Develop an interconnected network of pedestrian and bicycle routes throughout the city
and linked to transit systems, providing options to automobile dependence.
establish a citywide grid-system of sidewalks every ¼-mile
establish a citywide grid-system of bicycle facilities every ½-mile
close gaps in neighborhoods’ existing sidewalk networks
• Anticipate increases in the use of mass transit, including the possibility of a much
improved multi-modal system comprising buses, light rail, heavy commuter rail, local
circulators, etc.
• Establish safe crossings of highways, arterial roads and rail corridors using innovative
strategies, improved traffic control systems, grade separations, etc.
• Develop safe links to schools, commercial hubs, employment centers, institutions and
transit facilities.
• Develop recreational pathways that link neighborhoods to parks and natural areas,
providing opportunities to improve the health and well-being of community residents and
workers.
• Make connections to regional and recreational trails to link St. Louis Park to larger
metropolitan open space systems and destinations.
• Provide safe and easily accessible routes for residents and workers in the community,
including children, seniors and the disabled.
• Create a cohesive, well-designed system that includes a coordinated approach for signs
and orientation, standard designs for street crossings and additional "user-friendly"
amenities such as rest areas, information kiosks and upgraded landscaping.
• Incorporate strategies for funding, maintenance and snow removal into the overall plan.
• Develop a Capital Improvement Plan based on priorities, needs and available resources.
Study Session Meeting of November 9, 2015 (Item No. 4) Page 10
Title: Assessment Policies
The goals and objectives of the plan are more graphically illustrated as follows:
Study Session Meeting of November 9, 2015 (Item No. 4) Page 11
Title: Assessment Policies
Study Session Meeting of November 9, 2015 (Item No. 4) Page 12
Title: Assessment Policies
Both the system plan and the set of general criteria for prioritizing the pedestrian and bike
improvements was generated through community input from the Citizen Advisory Committee,
Community Meetings, 205 online survey responses, and meetings with the Planning
Commission, Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission, and City Council. In addition,
general support for the goals was vetted through the subsequent Plan-By-Neighborhood process,
Community Survey, and Community Recreation Survey. Plan development and prioritization
was also tied directly to public health, safety and well-being. The system plan and goals were
adopted into the Comprehensive Plan in 2009.
The logic behind prioritization and plan implementation was also based on the following
objectives:
• Focus on key destinations: segments that serve multiple community gathering centers in the
community (schools, parks, transit stops, commercial nodes) rated higher.
• Focus on Transportation: routes that provide north-south connections through the
community, into adjacent communities, and to key transit stops rated higher.
• Focus on Bicycling and Walking: the ultimate goal was to provide a quarter-mile “city”
grid of sidewalks and half-mile grid of bike routes. Improvements that fill gaps in the city
pedestrian and bicycle networks, improve safety at certain intersections, and provide
crossings (bridges or tunnels) of major railroad and highway barriers rated higher.
As part of the plan development by the Citizen Advisory Committee, specific sidewalk
locations such as which side of the street were driven and chosen by a variety of factors unique
to each particular area. These factors included access to specific destinations as listed above,
continuation of segments already in place and/or closing of gaps in the system, school bus
routes, and other input of the Committee members.
As previously stated, the system plan and goals were adopted into the Comprehensive Plan in
2009. The pedestrian and bicycle system plans as adopted and included in the Comprehensive
Plan are shown on the next two pages.
Study Session Meeting of November 9, 2015 (Item No. 4) Page 13
Title: Assessment Policies
Exhibit 1
Study Session Meeting of November 9, 2015 (Item No. 4) Page 14
Title: Assessment Policies
Exhibit 2
Study Session Meeting of November 9, 2015 (Item No. 4) Page 15
Title: Assessment Policies
Meeting: Study Session
Meeting Date: November 9, 2015
Discussion Item: 5
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: SWLRT Update – Joint Development
RECOMMENDED ACTION: No action necessary at this time. The purpose of this report is to
provide information on the SWLRT Joint Development project being pursued at the Beltline
LRT Station.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the City Council still desire to undertake a Joint
Development Project at the Beltline Station?
SUMMARY:
Joint Development Program Overview
Joint Development is a Federal Transit Administration (FTA) program that integrates station area
development with a public transportation project. Through this program, FTA will invest in a
development project that adds value and supports the new light rail line, while partnering with
the local governments and generating income for the transit agency. Under the FTA program, a
developer leases the land that was purchased for transit and obtains development rights to it.
FTA pays for ½ of the costs of any improvements necessary to make the site developable,
including things such as structured parking. Local governments cover the other ½ of the costs.
St. Louis Park Program
Staff has been working with the Southwest Project Office (SPO) on pursuing a Joint
Development project at the Beltline LRT Station. This program would allow the opportunity to
have transit-oriented development by building a parking ramp on a site that would otherwise be a
surface parking lot. The Metropolitan Council would purchase the property and a developer
would be selected to build a development on the site by leasing the property on a long term basis.
Through this program, the developer would have the advantage of a more ready-to-develop site
with lower initial costs than typically found.
Next Steps
SPO has requested a City Resolution of Support and intent to participate (not an irrevocable
commitment) in December 2015. A commitment for the local match will be requested in spring
2016.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: The Joint Development program has a
complex financial arrangement with the FTA paying ½ of the development costs and the city
being responsible for ½. The City’s contribution would be in Congestion Mitigation Air Quality
(CMAQ) grant funds and Tax Increment Financing (TIF). An exact city financial contribution
would be determined when a development plan and agreement is structured with a developer.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion
Map of Joint Development Site
SWLRT Beltline Station Base Plan
Prepared by: Meg McMonigal, Principal Planner
Reviewed by: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of November 9, 2015 (Item No. 5) Page 2
Title: SWLRT Update – Joint Development
DISCUSSION
Joint Development Program
Joint Development under the umbrella of the Federal New Starts process is specifically defined
and requires certain conditions in order to qualify. Under the Federal rules, a joint development
project is one that is included within the total project budget of a new light rail line and is funded
just as the rest of the project is; half with Federal FTA dollars and half with local matching
funds. The FTA further requires that the transit authority maintain some kind of ownership over
the land to be developed and that lease revenue come back to the transit agency over time from
the private development component of the project. The lease revenue is then used to pay for long
term maintenance of the transit facility at that location. Joint Development projects also have to
increase ridership and create economic development.
The Beltline Station is the one SWLRT site that is still eligible for Joint Development. Staff has
been working with SPO on a number of fronts, including site design, a market study, financial
understanding and overall analysis of whether or not the program makes sense at this station
area.
Initially the Joint Development site included both the Vision Bank site on the corner of CSAH
#25 and Beltline, and the site next door owned by the City’s EDA, 4601 Highway 7. As the
project changed this summer and the park and ride was reduced, the question of whether or not
the Joint Development should be on one or both properties has been under discussion. A
determination on this has not been made.
An architecture firm, LHB, has been hired to determine how development could fit on the site
and work on various building and site arrangements to show a concept site plan (concept
drawing attached). The intent is that this information would show how development could fit on
a site and help a developer in understanding the City’s vision for the area.
A market study is also being completed by CBRE, to determine the range of product types that
would be viable at this site. It is expected that report will be forthcoming shortly.
Development Concept
The development program being used for the entire site is for a mixed use development of 240-
280 housing units and 80-150,000 square feet of commercial and/or office space, and 741 ramp
parking spaces.
If the Joint Development site is limited to the current park & ride site, those numbers would be
reduced to 268 park & ride spaces and approximately 100-130 housing units with a small amount
of commercial/retail space (10-20,000 s.f.). SPO has indicated that it would be advantageous to
build a ramp that would hold or could be expanded to hold 541 spaces; that option has been
considered as well for the park & ride only site.
City Involvement and Commitments
The City of St. Louis Park would be responsible for the local match for the Joint Development
funds. The CMAQ grant received earlier this year for $7 million for a parking ramp on the site is
anticipated to make up a portion of the match requirement. The grant was submitted when the
parking for the site was expected to be 541 stalls for park & ride plus 200 stalls for other
development. TIF from the private development on the Joint Development site could also be a
funding source. An exact amount would have to be determined based on the final development
Study Session Meeting of November 9, 2015 (Item No. 5) Page 3
Title: SWLRT Update – Joint Development
plan and its value. The City’s EDA parcel at 4601 Highway 7 would also likely be a part of the
TIF district, and could contribute to the St. Louis Park SWLRT Joint Development expenses, as
well as the other area improvements: Lynn Avenue Extension, stairways to the Regional Trail,
the LRCI (Locally Requested Capital Investment) that addresses the intersection of Beltline and
CSAH #25, and the long term plan to transform CSAH #25 into an urban boulevard.
Timeline of Decisions
SPO has indicated the following timeline for the project for the coming year:
• December 2015 – City Resolution of Support and intent to participate (not an irrevocable
commitment);
• Spring 2016 – local commitment to use the Congestion Mitigation Air Quality (CMAQ)
grant and Tax Increment Financing (TIF) as the local match;
• July 2016 – distribute a Request for Development Proposals
• December 2016 select a developer
• Construction completed by the opening of the SWLRT in 2020
Next Steps
SPO has requested a City Resolution of Support and intent to participate (not an irrevocable
commitment) in December 2015. Staff is working closely with SPO to determine the options of
moving forward with the Joint Development project on either the park & ride site only, or on
both the park & ride and the EDA site. The overall goal is to create a transit-oriented, mixed use
development with structured parking that benefits from its location at a transit station.
BLAKE + BELTLINE SWLRT JOINT DEVELOPMENT
AUGUST 31, 2015 PERFORMANCE
DRIVEN DESIGN.
BELTLINE STATION CONCEPT I MASSING
CONCEPT MASSING MODEL - BELTLINE STATION230'60'60'
127'150'60'150'255'256'170'AERIAL VIEW OF
DEVELOPMENT
CONCEPT
LOOKING FROM
THE NORTHEAST
CONCEPT PLAN DIMENSIONS
AERIAL VIEW OF
DEVELOPMENT
CONCEPT
LOOKING FROM
THE NORTHWEST
SCALE: 1" = 100'-0"
CSAH 2
5
BELTLINE BLVDCSAH
2
5
BELTLI
N
E
B
L
V
DCSAH 25BELTL
I
N
E
B
L
V
D
Study Sesson Meeting of November 9, 2015 (Item No. 5)
Title: SWLRT Update – Joint Development Page 4
Study Sesson Meeting of November 9, 2015 (Item No. 5) Title: SWLRT Update – Joint DevelopmentPage 5
Meeting: Study Session
Meeting Date: November 9, 2015
Written Report: 6
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Update on Redevelopment Contract with Cedar Lake Road Apartments, LLC
RECOMMENDED ACTION: No action necessary at this time.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: This report is intended to update the EDA and City on a
forthcoming amendment to the Redevelopment Contract with Cedar Lake Road Apartments,
LLC. Please inform staff of any questions you might have.
SUMMARY: The EDA and City entered into a Contract for Private Redevelopment with Cedar
Lake Road Apartments, LLC as of July 1, 2014 in connection with the redevelopment of 6800 &
6720 Cedar Lake Road (former Eliot School property) and the construction of the Eliot Park
Apartments (recently renamed Siena Apartment Homes).
Under the Contract, the Developer agreed to construct two apartment buildings with 138 market
rate units between them and two single family houses at the north end of the redevelopment site.
To date, the apartment buildings have received their Temporary Certificates of Occupancy and
are currently leasing. With just a few punch list items remaining, the apartment buildings are
expected to meet their required completion date of 12/1/15 stipulated under the Contract.
However the two single family houses will not be completed by the required completion date as
the sale of the parcels to a single-family home builder fell through. Therefore, the Developer has
requested a First Amendment to the Contract extending the required completion date of the two
houses until 12/31/16 so as to allow sufficient time to sell the parcels and construct the houses.
The proposed First Amendment (attached) is scheduled for formal consideration by the EDA and
City Council on Nov. 16th.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: All expenses associated with amending the
Redevelopment Contract with Cedar Lake Road Apartments, LLC (such as the EDA’s legal
counsel) are to be paid by the Developer.
VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to providing a well-maintained and
diverse housing stock.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS:
• Proposed First Amendment to the Cedar Lake Road Apartments, LLC Redevelopment
Contract
Prepared by: Greg Hunt, Economic Development Coordinator
Reviewed by: Michele Schnitker, Housing Supervisor, Deputy CD Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, EDA Executive Director, and City Manager
Study Session Meeting of November 9, 2015 (Item No. 6) Page 2
Title: Update on Redevelopment Contract with Cedar Lake Road Apartments, LLC
FIRST AMENDMENT TO CONTRACT FOR PRIVATE REDEVELOPMENT
This agreement is made as of November ____, 2015, by and between the ST. LOUIS PARK
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, a public body politic and corporate (the
“Authority”), the CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, a Minnesota municipal corporation (the “City”),
and CEDAR LAKE ROAD APARTMENTS LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company (the
“Redeveloper”).
WHEREAS, the Authority, the City, and the Redeveloper entered into that certain Contract
for Private Redevelopment dated as of July 1, 2014 (the “Contract”) providing, among other things,
for the construction of certain improvements (the “Minimum Improvements”) on the property
legally described within the Contract (the “Redevelopment Property”); and
WHEREAS, the parties have determined to extend the dates of commencement and
completion of construction of a portion of the Minimum Improvements.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and the mutual obligations of the
parties hereto, each of them does hereby covenant and agree with the other as follows:
1. Amendment to Section 4.3(a) of the Contract. Section 4.3(a) of the Contract is
amended as follows:
(a) As of the date hereof, the Redeveloper has completed construction of the Apartments
component of the Minimum Improvements. Subject to Unavoidable Delays, the Redeveloper shall
substantially complete construction of the Single-Family Homes component of the Minimum
Improvements by December 31, 2016. All work with respect to the Minimum Improvements to be
constructed on the Redevelopment Property shall be in substantial conformity with the Construction
Plans as submitted by the Redeveloper and approved by the Authority.
2. Miscellaneous. Except as amended by this Amendment, the Contract shall remain in
full force and effect. Upon execution, Redeveloper shall reimburse the Authority for all out-of
pocket-costs incurred by the Authority in connection with negotiating, drafting and approval of this
Amendment.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Authority, the City, and the Redeveloper have caused this
Agreement to be duly executed by their duly authorized representatives as of the date first above
written.
ST. LOUIS PARK ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY
By
Its President
Study Session Meeting of November 9, 2015 (Item No. 6) Page 3
Title: Update on Redevelopment Contract with Cedar Lake Road Apartments, LLC
By
Its Executive Director
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) SS.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ____ day of November, 2015
by Anne Mavity and Tom Harmening, the President and Executive Director of the St. Louis Park
Economic Development Authority, on behalf of the Authority.
Notary Public
Authority signature page to First Amendment to Contract for Private Redevelopment
Study Session Meeting of November 9, 2015 (Item No. 6) Page 4
Title: Update on Redevelopment Contract with Cedar Lake Road Apartments, LLC
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
By
Its Mayor
By
Its City Manager
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) SS.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ____ day of November, 2015
by Jeff Jacobs and Tom Harmening, the Mayor and City Manager of the City of St. Louis Park, a
Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the City.
Notary Public
City signature page to First Amendment to Contract for Private Redevelopment
Study Session Meeting of November 9, 2015 (Item No. 6) Page 5
Title: Update on Redevelopment Contract with Cedar Lake Road Apartments, LLC
CEDAR LAKE ROAD APARTMENTS LLC
By
W. Dean Weidner, as Trustee of the W. Dean
Weidner Living Trust under Trust Agreement Dated
10-23-98, as amended
Its Sole Member
STATE OF WASHINGTON )
) SS.
COUNTY OF KING )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _____ day of __________,
2015, by W. Dean Weidner, as Trustee of the W. Dean Weidner Living Trust under Trust
Agreement Dated 10-23-98, as amended, as the Sole Member of Cedar Lake Road Apartments
LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company, on behalf of the company.
Notary Public
THIS DOCUMENT DRAFTED BY:
Kennedy & Graven, Chartered (MNI)
470 US Bank Plaza
200 South Sixth Street
Minneapolis, MN 55402
(612) 337-9300
Redeveloper signature page to First Amendment to Contract for Private Redevelopment
Meeting: Study Session
Meeting Date: November 9, 2015
Written Report: 7
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Marriott West Hotel
RECOMMENDED ACTION: No action required at this time. The purpose of this item is to
provide information to the Council regarding the anticipated application for a Conditional Use
Permit (CUP) from CSM Corporation for a new Marriott Hotel.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the Council support CSM providing parking spaces below
the number technically required by the Zoning Code?
SUMMARY: CSM Corporation approached City staff to discuss their interest in constructing a
new hotel adjacent to the existing Marriott Hotel at 9970 Wayzata Boulevard, in the Shelard Park
neighborhood. CSM is proposing a six-story hotel with 135 rooms and limited meeting space.
The hotel would be built just to the north of the existing hotel, in a portion of the existing parking
lot, and would share the existing hotel’s conference facilities and amenities. The new hotel is
permitted through a CUP to allow two principal uses on one parcel.
CSM has stated that the existing parking lot greatly exceeds the demand and is requesting a
reduction in the number of parking spaces provided compared to the number of spaces required
in the Zoning Code. Parking requirements for the existing hotel development have been
calculated separately between the hotel, restaurant and meeting space, which potentially counts
one user multiple times and overestimates the required parking. Staff required a parking study to
evaluate the potential for a reduced number of parking spaces. The study, conducted by Walker
Parking Consultants, considered the potential of shared parking across uses, time-of-day demand
and driving ratio and concluded that the peak parking requirement to be approximately 378
spaces. The City requires 730 parking spaces, including the new hotel, while CSM is proposing
541 spaces. Staff supports providing 541 parking spaces.
If so desired by the Council, the number of parking spaces provided can be addressed through
the CUP. The development concept meets all other conditions of the CUP. Staff will work with
the developer to hold a neighborhood meeting prior to their application for the CUP.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: No financial assistance has been requested.
VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Map of Area of Interest
Concept Site Plan
Parking Study
Prepared by: Ryan Kelley, Planner
Sean Walther, Planning & Zoning Supervisor
Reviewed by: Michele Schnitker, Housing Supervisor
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of November 9, 2015 (Item No. 7) Page 2
Title: Marriott West Hotel
Map of Area of Interest
Study Session Meeting of November 9, 2015 (Item No. 7) Page 3
Title: Marriott West Hotel
Concept Site Plan
September 29, 2015
Mr. Ryan Kelley, CNU-a
Planner
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
5005 Minnetonka Blvd.
St. Louis Park, MN 55416
Re: Minneapolis Marriott West
Shared Parking Analysis
Walker Project # 21-4148.00
Dear Mr. Kelley,
Walker Parking Consultants (“Walker”) is pleased to submit the findings that resulted from the
Shared Parking Analysis prepared for the Minneapolis Marriott West Development (the
“Development”) in St. Louis Park, Minnesota.
INTRODUCTION
The proposed Development includes an existing 195-key Marriott Hotel, and a proposed 135-
key Courtyard Hotel within the same parcel. This development will add parking demand to
the property based on hotel usage, in addition to the existing restaurant and meeting space
of the Marriott. We understand that additional parameters established at this time include
the following:
• Square footage of existing restaurant, Kips – 3,571 SF
• Courtyard Bistro Coffee Bar, Not Open to the Public & lobby seating area only – size
TBD
• Number of existing meeting rooms - 6 meeting rooms
• Total square footage of existing meeting room space = 9,586 SF
• No meeting space planned in new Courtyard
Understanding that this mix of uses, including hotel, meeting rooms and restaurant space, all
generate parking demand differently, at different times and in different patterns, this
proposed development lends itself to a shared parking analysis. This analysis enables
identification of when parking demand is likely greatest for each specific use, and considers
the interaction of these uses to provide appropriate parking supply for the combined parking
demand of these uses without simply adding maximum levels together.
1660 South Highway 100
Suite 424
Minneapolis, MN 55416
Tel: 952.595.9116
Fax: 952.595.9516
www.walkerparking.com
Study Session Meeting of November 9, 2015 (Item No. 7)
Title: Marriott West Hotel Page 4
Mr. Ryan Kelley
September 29, 2015
Page 2
Figure 1: Proposed Development Site
Source: City of St. Louis Park, CSM
Study Session Meeting of November 9, 2015 (Item No. 7)
Title: Marriott West Hotel Page 5
Mr. Ryan Kelley
September 29, 2015
Page 3
LAND USES
Based upon Walker’s discussion with the City, at full build-out the Development will contain
an existing 195 room in the Marriott with 3,571 square foot restaurant, and 9,586 square feet
of meeting space, and a new 135 room Courtyard. We utilized this information to develop
a Shared Parking demand model that depicts the approximate parking supply of spaces
needed to accommodate the projected peak-hour parking demand for the site.
PARKING SUPPLY
The total parking supply provided by the developer is approximately 541 spaces in surface
parking that is on-site (does not include on-street or off-site parking spaces).
PARKING DEMAND RATIOS
The base parking demand ratios used in Urban Land Institute’s Shared Parking were
developed by observing hourly accumulations of vehicles around standalone land-uses
during the course of a typical year (365 consecutive days) and identifying design conditions
for weekdays as well as for a weekend day. At the peak-hour of the year a comparison was
made between the total number of cars parked and a designated key unit of measure
specific to each land-use (e.g. square footage for many land-uses, rooms for hotels or
bedrooms per residence). Additionally, some ratios were supplemented through added
fieldwork.
To prepare this analysis we utilized the mixed use parking standards established in Shared
Parking to project the approximate peak-hour parking demand; moreover, we applied both
month and time of day adjustments for each land use to the individual parking ratios. The
ratios used for analysis are shown in the following table.
Table 1: Base Parking Demand Ratios
Source: Walker Parking Consultants
We used the base ratios shown above and considered the following three factors when
developing the Shared Parking model:
Land Use Visitor Employee Visitor Employee Unit Source Weekday Weekend
Hotel-Business 1.00 0.18 0.90 0.18 /room 3 1.18 1.08
Restaurant/Lounge 10.00 10.00 /ksf GLA 3 10.00 10.00
Meeting/Banquet 30.00 30.00 /ksf GLA 3 30.00 30.00
Source:
3. Shared Parking, Second Edition. Washington DC: ULI-The Urban Land Institute
Weekday Weekend Total
Study Session Meeting of November 9, 2015 (Item No. 7)
Title: Marriott West Hotel Page 6
Mr. Ryan Kelley
September 29, 2015
Page 4
1) Non-captive Ratio. Non-captive ratios are typically expressed as a percentage of
users who create no incremental parking demand when visiting more than one land
use on the same trip (e.g. a hotel user eating dinner at the hotel restaurant). Overall,
the effect of the captive market can be significant, and the use of non-captive
factors ensures that patrons are not counted twice in the overall estimated parking
demand. The non-captive ratios assumed for this analysis assume that 30-40%
(depending on weekday vs weekend) of the patrons are captive with regard to using
the meeting/banquet space, and 10-70% for restaurant space. This assumption is
based on observations and shared use studies compiled over time at other mixed-use
developments throughout North America.
2) Presence Factor - Presence is expressed as a
percentage of the peak potential demand
modified for time of day and month of year, which
can have a significant effect on demand at a
mixed-use development. For example, a 10,000 sf
retail store has a peak demand of about 36 spaces
on a weekday and 40 spaces on a weekend day
during the peak-hour (11:00 AM); while the same
store is unlikely to project any parking demand at
11:00 PM.
3) Driving Ratio - Driving ratio represents the percentage of users arriving at the site b y
means other than a personal vehicle. According to the U.S. Census “Journey to Work”
statistics shown in the inset table, about eighty-seven percent (87%) of the St. Louis
Park residents drive to work.
Typically, adjustments made to the driving ratio mirror the “Journey to Work” statistics for the
demographic area. The various adjustments made to the base parking demand ratios, in
an effort to render project specific projections, are shown in the following table.
Table 2: Adjustments to Base Ratios for Driving and Captive Users
Source: Walker Parking Consultants
Using the land-use data provided by the City, Walker developed the Shared Parking model
detailed in the next section, which projects the approximate number of spaces needed to
provide adequate parking on weekdays and weekend days during peak-hour demand
conditions.
SHARED PARKING
Land Use Quantity Unit Daytime Evening Daytime Evening Daytime Evening Daytime Evening
Hotel-Business 330 rooms 66% 66% 77% 77% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Restaurant/Lounge 3,571 GLA 60% 60% 70% 70% 90% 90% 30% 30%
Meeting/Banquet 9,586 GLA 75% 75% 75% 75% 60% 60% 70% 70%
Employee 330 rooms 87% 87% 87% 87% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Driving Ratio
Weekday Weekend
Non Captive Ratio
Weekday Weekend
Drive to Work
Drive Alone 78.5%
Carpool 8.7%
Sub-Total - Drive 87.2%
Other Means
Public Transportation 6.1%
Taxi 0.3%
Bicycle 0.4%
Walk 2.0%
Work at Home 4.0%
Sub Total - Other 12.8%
Total 100.0%
Journey to Work - St. Louis Park, MN
Study Session Meeting of November 9, 2015 (Item No. 7)
Title: Marriott West Hotel Page 7
Mr. Ryan Kelley
September 29, 2015
Page 5
Walker has conducted numerous studies and consulted with leading organizations such as
the Institute of Transportation Engineers, ULI and the International Council of Shopping
Centers to determine appropriate parking demand ratios for use when developing Shared
Parking models.
Parking demand is influenced by the time of year, such as when the volume of patronage
for a hotel establishment peaks during the June vacation season and decreases gradually
until the winter low period. These variations by time of day and time of year were assumed
for this analysis and applied to our Shared Parking model.
Finally, parking demand is a fluid force, subject to variations according to the availability of
alternative transportation, proximity of complimentary land uses, differences in user
presence by time of day and time of year, building occupancy rates and a host of other
factors. Conversely, the available parking supply tends to be a fixed quantity, limited by the
amount of space that can be allocated on a given site for parking.
Assuming the effects of Shared Parking, the projected weekday peak-hour parking demand
for the Development is 337± spaces, on the busiest weekday annually. The peak-hour
demand, which is projected to occur in June at 9:00 PM, is calculated based upon the
driving and non-captive ratios as well as the presence factors (peak-hour adjustments)
shown in the following table. As depicted, the projected peak-hour weekday demand
represents a 53% or 376 space reduction from the unadjusted weekday parking demand
projected for the site.
Table 3: Peak-Hour Demand – Weekday (projected)
Source: Walker Parking Consultants
Weekday Unadj Month Adj Pk Hr Adj Non Captive Drive Ratio Jun
Land Use Demand Jun 9:00 PM Evening Evening 9:00 PM
Hotel-Business 330 100% 85% 100% 66% 185
Restaurant/Lounge 36 95% 67% 90% 60%12
Meeting/Banquet 288 100% 100% 60% 75% 130
Employee 59 100% 20% 100% 87%10
Subtotal Customer/Guest 654 327
Subtotal Employee/Resident 59 10
Total Parking Spaces Required 713 337
Study Session Meeting of November 9, 2015 (Item No. 7)
Title: Marriott West Hotel Page 8
Mr. Ryan Kelley
September 29, 2015
Page 6
Assuming the effects of Shared Parking, the projected weekend day peak-hour parking
demand for the Development is 378 ± spaces; on the busiest weekend day annually. The
peak-hour demand, which is also projected to occur in June at 9:00 PM, is calculated using
the driving and non-captive ratios and presence factors (peak-hour adjustments) shown in
the following table. As shown, the projected peak-hour weekend day demand represents
a 44% or 302 space reduction from the unadjusted weekend day parking demand
projection.
Table 4: Peak-Hour Demand – Weekend Day (projected)
Source: Walker Parking Consultants
PARKING ADEQUACY
The term “Parking Adequacy” is defined as the ability of the parking supply to
accommodate the Design Day peak-hour parking demand. A positive or negative
remainder when compared to the proposed parking supply indicates a parking surplus or
deficit within the system, structure or lot.
Based on our analysis, when the proposed parking supply (541 spaces) is compared to the
peak-hour parking demand projection (378 ± spaces), a positive surplus of 163± spaces will
exist. Therefore, the parking supply proposed for the Development should adequately
accommodate the peak-hour parking demand projection, as shown in the inset table.
Table 5: Parking Adequacy
Source: Walker Parking Consultants
Weekend Unadj Month Adj Pk Hr Adj Non Captive Drive Ratio Jun
Land Use Demand Jun 9:00 PM Evening Evening 9:00 PM
Hotel-Business 297 100% 85% 100% 77% 194
Restaurant/Lounge 36 95% 67% 30% 70%5
Meeting/Banquet 288 100% 100% 70% 75% 151
Employee 59 100% 55% 100% 87%28
Subtotal Customer/Guest 621 350
Subtotal Employee/Resident 59 28
Total Parking Spaces Required 680 378
User Group Existing
Customer/Guest, All Uses 350
Employee, All Uses 28
Parking Demand (projected)378
Supply 541
Surplus/(Deficit)163
Parking Adequacy (projected)
Study Session Meeting of November 9, 2015 (Item No. 7)
Title: Marriott West Hotel Page 9
Mr. Ryan Kelley
September 29, 2015
Page 7
CONCLUSION
Based upon Walker’s analysis of the land use data provided by the City, and the Shared
Parking model prepared for the Marriott Development, the following summarizes the results
of our analysis.
o The projected weekend peak-hour parking demand is 378± spaces (337 on
Weekday), on the busiest day annually. This calculation is based upon the drive ratios,
non-captive ratios and peak-hour adjustments discussed throughout our report.
o When the proposed parking supply (541 spaces) is compared to the peak-hour
parking demand projection (378± spaces), a surplus of 163± spaces will exist.
o The parking supply proposed for the Development should adequately
accommodate the peak-hour parking demand projection.
In closing, we hope the enclosed analysis satisfies the scope of work anticipated for the
Development. Please call me at your convenience with any questions or comments
regarding the material provided for review.
Respectfully submitted,
Jeffrey A. Colvin, AICP
Parking Consultant
cc: Carl Schneeman – Walker Parking Consultants
Study Session Meeting of November 9, 2015 (Item No. 7)
Title: Marriott West Hotel Page 10
Mr. Ryan Kelley
September 29, 2015
Page 8
SCOPE OF SERVICES
A. Meet with the City’s representative via teleconference to clarify study objectives,
define project parameters and review the proposed deliverable product and
schedule.
B. Obtain from the City’s representative detailed information regarding the land use
programming (i.e. square footage, type, etc.) All land use data should be provided
in square feet for retail entities or rooms for hotel development.
C. Discuss with the City’s representative anticipated peak patronage, visitation or
occupancy periods.
D. Prepare a Shared Parking Analysis employing the mixed use parking standards
established in Urban Land Institute’s Shared Parking to project the approximate
parking demand for the site.
E. In preparing the analysis, we will apply both month and time of day adjustments for
each land use to individual parking ratios to determine the approximate shared
parking demand for the Development site.
F. Discuss with the City’s representative general and specific parking demand ratios
assumed by the analysis.
G. Summarize Walker’s findings in a draft letter report and submit to the City
representative and developer for review and comment. Specifically included will be
estimated parking demand recommended for the shared parking usage of the
Development.
H. Obtain review comments from the City’s representative regarding the draft report.
I. Incorporate draft report comments into a final letter report and submit to the City’s
representative.
J. Attend a City Planning meeting to present our findings and respond to questions
related to the scope of the report.
Study Session Meeting of November 9, 2015 (Item No. 7)
Title: Marriott West Hotel Page 11
Mr. Ryan Kelley
September 29, 2015
Page 9
STATEMENT OF LIMITING CONDITIONS
1. This report is to be used in whole and not in part.
2. Walker’s report and recommendations are based on certain assumptions pertaining
to the future performance of the local economy and other factors typically related
to individual user characteristics that are either outside Walker’s control or that of the
client. To the best of Walker’s ability we analyzed available information that was
incorporated in projecting future performance of the proposed subject site.
3. Sketches, photographs, maps and other exhibits are included to assist the reader in
visualizing the property. It is assumed that the use of the land and improvements is
within the boundaries of the property described, and that there is no encroachment
or trespass unless noted.
4. All information, estimates, and opinions obtained from parties not employed by
Walker Parking Consultants are assumed to be true and correct. We assume no
liability resulting from misinformation.
5. None of this material may be reproduced in any form without our written permission,
and the report cannot be disseminated to the public through advertising, public
relations, news, sales, or other media.
6. We take no responsibility for any events or circumstances that take place subsequent
to the date of our field inspections.
7. We do not warrant that the projections will be attained, but they have been prepared
on the basis of information obtained during the course of this study and are intended
to reflect the expectations of a typical parking patron.
8. The numeric figures presented in this report were generated using computer models
that make calculations based on numbers carried out to three decimal places. In
the interest of simplicity, most numbers have been rounded to the nearest thousand;
therefore, these figures may be subject to small rounding errors.
9. This report was prepared by Walker Parking Consultants, and all opinions,
recommendations, and conclusions expressed during the course of this assignment
are rendered by the staff of Walker Parking Consultants as employees, rather than as
individuals.
10. The conclusions and recommendations presented were reached based on Walker’s
analysis of the information obtained from the client and our own sources. Information
furnished by others, upon which portions of this study may be predicated, is believed
to be reliable; however, it has not been verified in all cases.
Study Session Meeting of November 9, 2015 (Item No. 7)
Title: Marriott West Hotel Page 12
Meeting: Study Session
Meeting Date: November 9, 2015
Written Report: 8
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) Transport Update
RECOMMENDED ACTION: No action at this time. Pursuant to a request from the City
Council this report is being provided to inform the Council of the current state of the
transportation of crude oil through the City on the BNSF system.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. Please inform staff of questions that you might
have.
SUMMARY: The demand for domestic oil and the expansion of production in the oil fields of
North Dakota has created a potential threat to the City as these tank cars are diverted on to the
tracks operated by BNSF. Oil trains are now more prevalent than ever before due to system
adjustments. Residents of St Louis Park have voiced concern and this update is designed to
bring some level of clarity to a situation where we have little or no control.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: None at this time.
VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion
Prepared by: Steve Koering, Fire Chief
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of November 9, 2015 (Item No. 8) Page 2
Title: Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) Transport Update
DISCUSSION
BACKGROUND: There has been a marked increase in oil train traffic through the City over
the course of 2015. Although we do not have control over the movement of hazardous materials
on these rail lines, it is imperative we remain aware of what types of products are moving
through on a daily basis. Nationally, standards for tank construction, speed control, security and
reporting have all improved and represent corrective actions following a hand full of significant
incidents.
The following diagram shows the enhancements to the DOT 111 Tanker:
“Oil trains” as they are called are 110 of these cars end to end with a locomotive at each end of
the train. As they move east through our city they are full and as they move west they are
essentially empty. It is impossible to tell which is which, unless they are moving, without the
assistance of a secured access specific software application. By entering the tank number into
the application we can identify the current state of the load.
On each car is a DOT Placard specifying the materials it is carrying. The DOT placard and
corresponding UN Number for Petroleum Crude Oil is 1267. The placard is placed on the car
generally in the area shown on the drawing.
TILX 199176
Study Session Meeting of November 9, 2015 (Item No. 8) Page 3
Title: Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) Transport Update
Currently, the train speeds through our city are on average in the 20 Mph range with
intersections averaging 10-15 Mph. It is important to note that just because it says 1267, it
doesn’t mean that it is Bakken Crude. There are a number of products that fall under this
classification, although it is likely crude oil.
Train Security
There are numerous safety checks and backups in place to ensure safe operations. Train crews
are required to be with the train at all times, and should they need to leave the train, a company
security guard drives to the scene and monitors the train until a crew can return. Some of the
complaints from residents are the need for a train to stop and sit for hours particularly in the area
adjacent to a school. There are a number of reasons why a train would come to a stop; here are
the two most common.
1. System traffic is congested and will not allow a train to move until it clears. Given
the complexity of the track systems in Minneapolis, this can take some time.
2. Crew hours have timed out and a new crew needs to be delivered to the train to
replace them.
I have requested from a resident who is monitoring these trains in St. Louis Park to let me know
when it is happening and I can go to the area and determine the status of the load. Obviously,
empty trains are less concern than full ones.
There has been some comment about security referencing the graffiti on a tanker. These tankers
are taken out of service and rotated into a storage yards for extended periods. It is while these
trains are in those areas that they fall prey to the graffiti.
Why is this happening
There are a number of track improvements being made on the northern line to bring the system
up to upgraded safety standards. These improvements involve track repair, crossing maintenance
and repair all designed to support the high demand on the system. The current forecast has those
improvements being completed by the end of November which would allow for more traffic to
return to that line. That being said, during the fall there are a number of commodities moving
including grains, fuel oil, fertilizers etc. Managing the capacity might require at any time oil
trains being diverted back on our tracks. Second if demand increases and the capacity is required
they will move trains back to our line as well. The bottom line is that we have no control over
what they do and our only consideration is to be aware and stay connected.
PRESENT CONSIDERATIONS:
The fire department has been training since the trend of these oil trains began. All fire personnel
have been through the Homeland Security Oil Transportation Awareness Training which was
created through legislation last July 2014. This is the link that details that training
https://dps.mn.gov/divisions/hsem/planning-preparedness/Pages/minnesota-rail-safety-regulations.aspx.
We expect to take the more advanced operational level training early in 2016 and will continue
to incorporate some facet of this into our annual hazardous material mandatory training.
Additionally BNSF is offering to train our staff including actual rail props at no charge.
Although there is no charge for the class it would involve overtime and back fill which we have
planned for in our 2016 operating budget.
Study Session Meeting of November 9, 2015 (Item No. 8) Page 4
Title: Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) Transport Update
We continue to reach out and work closely with the Minneapolis Fire Department in developing
joint training for our two staffs. Minneapolis has a state of the art training center where they
intend to incorporate two additional full size props. Minneapolis would be our first call just as
we would be for them.
To give some perspective about the gravity of this issue I wanted to share this picture sent to me
by the Minneapolis Fire Chief. This line of trains runs from under the Target Center to the river.
As you can see there is little separation from business/residential, commuter trains, stations and
public areas. He reported there are places where the balconies of the apartments extend out over
the trains. We are not alone in this discussion and there is great focus by many in trying to create
a safe environment for everyone concerned.
As the Chief of the Department, I can assure you that this is high on my priority list, and our
organization will continue to stay connected to all agencies concerned, build additional
partnerships with other responding agencies, train for events, and update you as requested or
when significant change occurs.
NEXT STEPS:
1. Schedule Operational Level Training with HSEM once their schedule is released.
2. Allow BNSF to train our staff and potentially bring in PD
3. Participate in joint training with the Minneapolis fire department
Meeting: Study Session
Meeting Date: November 9, 2015
Written Report 9
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Board and Commission Annual Meeting with Council Program
RECOMMENDED ACTION: None at this time. The purpose of this item is to update the City
Council on the 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 further questions or concerns
or need more information regarding the Annual Meeting with Council Program night
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 revised process for the proposed “Annual Meeting with Council
Program.”
On September 28th, 2015 Administrative staff presented a proposed Board and Commissions
Annual Meeting with Council process. At that meeting Council proposed several changes to the
process that have been incorporated and include: expanding the timing of presentations, and
obtaining feedback from current Boards and Commissions on the proposed process. Boards and
Commissions were informed and the changes have been incorporated in this document
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 20 minutes with 10
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
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 November 9, 2015 (Item No. 9) 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 present their annual reports 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 four (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.
On September 28th, 2015 Administrative staff presented a proposed Board and Commissions
Annual Meeting with Council process. At this meeting Council proposed several changes to the
process that have been incorporated and include: expanding the timing of presentations, and
obtaining feedback from current Boards and Commissions on the proposed process. Boards and
Commissions were informed of the proposed process, and the changes have been incorporated in
this document.
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 January 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
organizations to present the annual report.
• Each Commission is allowed 20 minutes total for presentation and discussion
o 10 minutes for presentation of their annual report
o 10 minutes allotted to City Council for any questions, comments, and follow-up
requests.
Study Session Meeting of November 9, 2015 (Item No. 9) Page 3
Title: Board and Commission Annual Meeting with Council Program
The following Boards and Commissions will participate:
1. Board of Zoning Appeals (BOZA)- 5 members (6:00-6:20PM)
2. Planning Commission-8 Members (6:20-6:40PM)
3. Telecommunications Advisory Commission- 8 members (6:40-7:00PM)
4. Housing Authority- 5 members (7:00-7:20PM)
5. Human Rights Commission- 8 Members (7:20-7:40PM)
6. Parks and Recreations -8 Members (7:40-8:00PM)
7. Police Advisory Commission- 12 members (8:00-8:20PM)
8. Environment and Sustainability Commission-13 members (8:20-8:40PM)
The tentative schedule for Boards and Commissions Night is as follows:
• 5:30PM
o Check-in & welcome
o Food/ refreshments provided
• 6PM- 8:40PM (1:15 minutes in total for presentations)
o Ten (10) minutes per annual report
o Ten(10) minutes for questions, comments, and follow-up requests from City
Council
• 8:40-9 PM- Wrap-up/Adjourn
Next Steps
• Formal approval of changes of Rules and Procedures for Boards and Commissions.
• Set Annual Board and Commission Meeting. (Tentatively scheduled for February 22,
2015. From 5:30-9pm at Rec Center.)