HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014/01/27 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - Study SessionAGENDA
JANUARY 27, 2014
6:30 p.m. CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION – Community Room
Discussion Items
1. 6:30 p.m. Future Study Session Agenda Planning – February 3 & 10, 2014
2. 6:35 p.m. 2014 Legislative Issues and Priorities
3. 7:50 p.m. Environment and Sustainability: Sustainable SLP Advisory Commission 2014
Work Plan
4. 8:35 p.m. Use of St. Louis Park Hockey Association Donation
9:20 p.m. Communications/Meeting Check-In (Verbal)
9:25 p.m. Adjourn
Written Reports
5. 2013 December Financial Report
6. Fourth Quarter Investment Report (October – December 2013)
7. Ownership and Replacement of Private Improvements in the Public Right of Way
8. Human Rights Commission Annual Report and Work Plan
9. Police Advisory Commission (PAC) 2013 Annual Report and 2014 Work Plan
Auxiliary aids for individuals with disabilities are available upon request.
To make arrangements, please call the Administration Department at
952/924-2525 (TDD 952/924-2518) at least 96 hours in advance of meeting.
Meeting: Study Session
Meeting Date: January 27, 2014
Discussion Item: 1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Future Study Session Agenda Planning – February 3 and February 10, 2014
RECOMMENDED ACTION: The City Council and the City Manager to set the agenda for
the Special Study Session scheduled for February 3, 2014 and the regularly scheduled Study
Session on February 10, 2014.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the Council agree with the agendas as proposed?
SUMMARY: At each study session approximately five minutes are set aside to discuss the next
study session agenda. For this purpose, attached please find the proposed discussion items for
the Special Study Session scheduled for February 3, 2014 and the regularly scheduled Study
Session on February 10, 2014.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Future Study Session Agenda Planning – February 3 & 10, 2014
Prepared by: Debbie Fischer, Office Assistant
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of January 27, 2014 (Item No. 1) Page 2
Title: Future Study Session Agenda Planning – February 3 and February 10, 2014
Special Study Session, February 3, 2014 – 7:00 p.m.
Tentative Discussion Items
1. Policy on Appointment of Mayor Pro-Tem – Administrative Services (25 minutes)
Council to discuss appointment process for the Mayor Pro-Tem.
End of Meeting: 7:30 pm
Study Session, February 10, 2014 – 6:30 p.m.
(Councilmember Lindberg Out)
Tentative Discussion Items
1. Future Study Session Agenda Planning – Administrative Services (5 minutes)
2. Annual Update from Discover St. Louis Park – Administrative Services (45 minutes)
John Basill, President of DSLP will be in attendance to provide an update on the activities of
the visitor’s bureau.
3. Form Based Code 101 – Community Development (60 minutes)
Form-based codes focus on the physical character of development, particularly how it relates
to the public realm that everyone shares. A growing number of communities across the
country and in our region have found that form-based codes are a more precise and reliable
tool for achieving better results in creating attractive community spaces. Last year the City
received a Met Council grant to create a form-based code for our LRT station areas. A
consultant has been hired to conduct a community-based process and prepare a code for the
city. The consultant will be present to introduce this method and explain the process for
creating a code for St. Louis Park.
4. SWLRT Update – Community Development (45 minutes)
Staff will provide an update on the three studies the Southwest Project Office is completing,
as well as a schedule for moving forward. This update will also include information on the
Transitional Station Area Action Plans, also known as the “Investment Framework” and the
process for implementing these plans.
5. Access to Highway 169 – Engineering (30 minutes)
As part of MnDOT’s long term safety initiative for Highway 169, they are proposing to close
access from 16th Street W. to northbound Highway 169. This proposal could include the
installation of a visual barrier wall along the east side of Highway 169 from 16th Street south
to the edge of wetland/City property. MnDOT staff would like to begin the public process to
understand the level of resident and council support for the closure. This study session
discussion will be the first step in this process.
6. City Council Workshop Agenda Review – Administrative Services (15 minutes)
Discuss the proposed agenda for the City Council Workshop scheduled for February 27-28,
2014.
Study Session Meeting of January 27, 2014 (Item No. 1) Page 3
Title: Future Study Session Agenda Planning – February 3 and February 10, 2014
Communications/Meeting Check-In – Administrative Services (5 minutes)
Time for communications between staff and Council will be set aside on every study session
agenda for the purposes of information sharing.
Reports
7. CDBG Funding
8. Noisewall Project
9. EDA Contract Update
End of Meeting: 9:55 pm
Meeting: Study Session
Meeting Date: January 27, 2014
Discussion Item: 2
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: 2014 Legislative Issues and Priorities
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Attached is a list of legislative issues for Council’s annual
review and discussion with Senator Ron Latz, Representative Steve Simon, Representative Ryan
Winkler, Hennepin County Commissioner Gail Dorfman, and Metropolitan Council
representative Jim Brimeyer.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Staff has attached a draft of the 2014 legislative issues for the Council’s discussion with the
city’s legislators and representatives. Is there anything else the City Council would like staff and
our legislative delegation to pursue?
SUMMARY: Based on the Council’s study session discussion on January 14, Staff has prepared
the attached list of legislative issues for the discussion with our legislators and representatives.
As has been the case in previous years, as the 2014 legislative session progresses additional
issues may come to light.
It has been our practice to retain lobbying services to help us with legislative and regulatory
issues. Administrative Services has utilized the legislative services of Doug Franzen and Vic
Moore, Franzen & Associates, and Dennis McGrann and Emily Tranter of Lockridge, Grindal,
and Nauen. Unless staff hears otherwise, we will continue to use these services in 2014. Note
that Vic Moore and Emily Tranter with LGN have been invited to attend the study session.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Funding for our lobbyists is included in the
budget.
VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: 2014 Legislative Issues and Priorities
Prepared by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of January 27, 2014 (Item No. 2) Page 2
Title: 2014 Legislative Issues and Priorities
City of St. Louis Park
2014 Legislative Issues and Priorities
Transportation Issues and Priorities
A. Southwest LRT
Issue: The Southwest LRT project is of major interest to the City of St. Louis Park. The past
year has been one of significant progress on engineering plans and a “base” design with a cost
estimate of $1.55 billion. The project, however, was put on pause by the Governor this past fall
in order to provide additional study and public input. Assuming the base plan moves forward,
the project needs $155 million from the State or 10% of the $1.55 billion project. Thus far the
state has contributed $44 million toward the project.
Position: The City supports the Southwest LRT Project Office and Corridor Management
Committee’s recommended freight rail option that co-locates freight rail in the Kenilworth
corridor with LRT in a shallow tunnel. The City also strongly supports and urges the State to
provide the remaining funding commitment to the project. Lastly, the City supports the
implementation of a transit sales tax.
B. Overall Transportation Needs/Funding
Issue: Minnesota’s 12,000-mile state highway system plays a critical role in supporting the
state’s economic vitality and quality of life. Economic vitality, as well as quality of life, depends
upon a strong, well-connected transportation network. To compete economically and to position
Minnesota for the future, MnDOT needs to maintain the state highway system. As noted below,
the size and the age of Minnesota’s transportation system demonstrate the scope of the state
highway system’s investment need:
• 50 percent of state highway pavements are more than 50 years old
• 35 percent of state bridges are more than 50 years old
• Minnesota is ranked 38th nationally for pavement condition
• Minnesota is ranked 9th (tied) nationally for state highway bridges
• The Twin Cities metro area will add 900,000 people by 2040
MnDOT is directly charged with constructing, operating, maintaining, and managing this system,
which is 74 percent of the State's capital assets. The Minnesota 20-Year State Highway
Investment Plan (MnSHIP) is MnDOT’s vehicle for deciding and communicating capital
investment priorities for the system for the next 20 years. MnSHIP is a fiscally constrained plan,
meaning its planned expenditures must align with expected revenues, which total $18 billion.
Meanwhile, the projected transportation needs on the state highway system total $30 billion.
MnDOT's priorities for the next 10 years balance preservation of existing infrastructure with
investments in safety, new connections for multiple modes of transportation, and other projects
that advance economic development and quality of life objectives. However, investments in the
second 10 years focus almost exclusively on preserving existing infrastructure. Despite this
focus, the number of roads and bridges in poor condition will more than double and perhaps even
triple within 20 years. Given the projected $12 billion funding gap, there will be many unfunded
priorities within the 20-year horizon.
Position: To insure economic vitality and quality of life for Minnesota, the City supports a
comprehensive approach for providing adequate funding to meet the States long term
transportation needs.
Study Session Meeting of January 27, 2014 (Item No. 2) Page 3
Title: 2014 Legislative Issues and Priorities
C. Street Improvement District
Issue: The existing special assessment law, Minn. Stat. ch. 429, does not meet cities’ financing
needs because of the requirements for proving a direct benefit between the public improvement
and the value of the property being assessed. This “benefit test” requires that the assessment
amount is less than or equal to the amount of increase in property value that the property receives
as a result of the improvement. In practice, however, proof of increased property value from
regular repair or replacement of existing infrastructure such as streets is difficult to prove to the
levels necessary to fully fund a comprehensive pavement management program.
Analysis: Successful economic development efforts and community stability are dependent upon
a city’s ability to make infrastructure investments. Current infrastructure funding options
available to cities are inadequate and unsustainable. In the past, funding pressures have been
exacerbated by levy limits, as well as reductions in local government aid and the market value
homestead credit programs. Alternatives to the Minn. Stat. ch. 429 methods for financing
infrastructure improvements are nearly nonexistent. The Legislature has given cities the authority
to operate utilities for waterworks, sanitary sewers, streetlights, and storm sewers. The storm
water utility authority, established in 1983, set the precedent as enabling legislation for cities to
charge a use fee on a utility bill for city infrastructure that benefits everyone in a city. Also,
special service districts are allowed for streetscape and sidewalks. Similar to the storm sewer and
special service district authority, a Street Improvement District would use technical, well-
founded measurements and could equitably distribute the costs of street maintenance and
reconstruction to property owners.
Position: The City supports legislative authorization for cities to create a Street Improvement
District.
Community Development Issues and Priorities
A. TIF District Statutory Modifications
Issue: First, current TIF law requires more than 50% of the buildings in a project area be found
to be substandard to qualify as a Redevelopment TIF District. In redevelopment situations
involving only a small number of parcels, this can be an insurmountable standard to meet thus
preventing new investment from occurring. Second, establishing new forms of TIF districts
could facilitate additional future redevelopment projects in the City of St. Louis Park. Third,
current TIF law does not allow TIF districts to extend beyond municipal boundaries; this
prevents the sharing of public improvement costs in areas where there is a broader public benefit.
Multi-jurisdictional TIF districts could facilitate redevelopment along the SWLRT corridor.
Position: First, the City supports a minor modification of the Redevelopment TIF District statute
requiring 50% or more of buildings within project areas be found to be substandard. Second, the
City supports the establishment of Compact Development TIF Districts and Transit Oriented
Development (TOD) TIF Districts, which could assist qualified redevelopment projects in
proximity to the future LRT stations. Third, the City supports the establishment of multi-
jurisdictional TIF districts across municipal boundaries to facilitate redevelopment along transit
corridors.
B. DEED Transit Improvement Districts
Issue: The state allowed DEED to create Transit Improvement Areas (and each of the St. Louis
Park stations were qualified) but these TIAs lack any funding or authority.
Study Session Meeting of January 27, 2014 (Item No. 2) Page 4
Title: 2014 Legislative Issues and Priorities
Position: The City supports state funding for TIAs through grants administered by DEED. The
City also supports granting TIAs authority to fund various transit-related public improvements
and redevelopment projects. The City further supports designating the entire SWLRT corridor as
a transit improvement district and granting it certain common powers to fund various transit
related public improvements and redevelopment projects.
C. Special Service Districts Statutory Authority
Issue: In 1988, cities were granted general authority under Minn. Stat. § 428A.01 to § 428A.101
to establish Special Service Districts. As currently written, only commercial properties can
participate within Special Service Districts. This is financially challenging for funding additional
services within mixed-use project areas. The City of St. Louis Park has established 6 Special
Service Districts, including multiple sections of Excelsior Boulevard. There will also be a need
to provide infrastructure improvements and on-going maintenance at the LRT station areas.
Position: The City supports allowing multi-family developments to be included within Special
Service Districts and allowing Special Service Districts to be created around LRT station areas.
Public Safety Issues and Priorities
A. License Plate Readers
Issue: Current law classifies information collected by Automated License Plate Readers as public
data and subject to public data requests. An administrative ruling sought by Minneapolis
temporarily provided relief from this position; however, legislation permanently classifying this
data as private would resolve an issue which will otherwise complicate and compromise the
ability of police agencies to collect and retain data for a reasonable time (6 months). There are
several examples of serious crimes being solved due to the ability of police agencies to collect
and retain this information as private data for up to 6 months before destroying. In these cases
public data classification or a 30 day destruction timeline would have prevented suspects from
being identified and cases being solved.
Position: Staff requests support of a permanent resolution to this issue from the legislature. This
would provide an effective tool for police and protect the public’s safety and privacy and, in
particular, our more vulnerable residents who may become targets if this information becomes
public data.
B. Pursue Supplemental Appropriation from Fire Safety Account
Issue: There is approximately $1.3 million in unappropriated revenues available in the States Fire
Safety Account. In the past these funds have been used to fund training and would be available
for this again. These funds may not be distributed without legislative authorization. If
authorization is not provided, the funds will remain in the account until the 2015 session.
Position: Support legislation that would authorize disbursement of these funds for fire training
purposes.
C. Support Disaster Aid Legislation
Issue: Currently there is no mechanism for providing state funding in cases of emergencies
when no Federal Declaration has been made. In addition, when a Federal Declaration has been
made, no funding has been appropriated to provide the 25% state match. This then requires
special action by the legislature to meet emergency disaster funding needs in the state.
Study Session Meeting of January 27, 2014 (Item No. 2) Page 5
Title: 2014 Legislative Issues and Priorities
Position: Request a funding appropriation of $6 million for this account so that it is readily
available in the event of disasters in the state.
D. Inspection of Public Buildings
Issue: The Department of Labor and Industry (DLI) is statutorily responsible to perform plan
review and inspection of schools, hospitals, and state licensed facilities defined as public
buildings. They delegate a portion, and in some cases all, of this responsibility to local cities
provided they have sufficient and qualified inspection staff. Local permitting and collection of
fees, plan review, and site inspection is the preferable method in providing the best public
service. The current DLI process is largely subjective and provides no clearly identified process if a
city disagrees. Some communities have asked the League of Minnesota Cities (LMC) for assistance.
Position: SLP has maintained a full service inspection department and has been delegated by
DLI to administer the code on public buildings. Staff is partnering with the LMC and
Association of Minnesota Building Officials (AMBO) to work with DLI in developing Bill
language that clarifies standards and provides fair statewide application to ensure cities continue
having a delegation option for local administration
Financial Issues and Priorities
A. Fiscal Disparities
Issue: The City has been a net contributor to the fiscal disparities program for some time. Given
extensive redevelopment and stronger commercial/industrial property values than most other
metro area communities, the City’s net contribution to the fiscal disparities pool has increased
substantially.
Analysis: Below are some statistics related to St. Louis Park, which denotes the increase in the
City’s net tax capacity contribution over the years:
Pay 2009 1,635,724 Net Contribution
Pay 2010 1,231,482 Net Contribution
Pay 2011 2,775,483 Net Contribution
Pay 2012 3,220,881 Net Contribution
Pay 2013 2,940,678 Net Contribution
Pay 2014 3,670,487 Net Contribution
From 2009 to 2013, the city has seen a 79.8% Increase in the Net Contribution by St. Louis Park.
Other communities have seen much less volatile changes in the same timeframe, for example:
Bloomington -16.5% Net Contribution Change
Eden Prairie -6.6% Net Contribution Change
Edina -12.4% Net Contribution Change
Maple Grove -12.4% Net Contribution Change
Minnetonka +14.7% Net Contribution Change
Plymouth -1.9% Net Contribution Change
St. Louis Park +79.8% Net Contribution Change
For the Payable 2014 Tax Period, the net contribution by St. Louis Park is an increase of
124.4% versus 2009.
Study Session Meeting of January 27, 2014 (Item No. 2) Page 6
Title: 2014 Legislative Issues and Priorities
The City feels that it is being penalized for undertaking aggressive redevelopment efforts which
necessitates the use of TIF. When using TIF for commercial, industrial or office projects a
portion of the new tax capacity generated from the project is added into the fiscal disparity pool,
which in effect lengthens the number of years the TIF district needs to exist to provide the
necessary assistance to make the project viable. This results in a longer period of time before the
City is able to experience the benefits of the new tax capacity created by the project.
Position: While the Fiscal Disparity program has many good points, the City asks its legislators
to continue to be aware of the financial implications it represents to St. Louis Park. The City’s
tax rate is higher due to reduced Net Tax Capacity, creating additional burdens on local property
tax payers to pay for local services. The City supports changes to this program that are
prospective in nature and that recognize aggressive redevelopment efforts that cities undertake
using tax increment financing. This would include not requiring new tax capacity created by
projects utilizing TIF to be placed in the Fiscal Disparities pool while the district is in place.
B. Legal Notices – Eliminate Requirement for Paid Publication
Issue: Current law requires print ads for “proceedings, official notices, and summaries” in local
newspapers. In the 2011 Session, House File 162 called for allowing political subdivisions
(cities, counties, school boards, etc.) to replace the print ads with a single annual notice stating
that all such notices would appear on the political subdivision’s website (i.e. the city website).
Position: The City continues to support the elimination of this requirement. In addition to saving
cities thousands of dollars in annual publishing costs, the notices would have the potential to
reach a much greater audience than they currently do in St. Louis Park, where the local
newspaper only reaches about half of the community. Additionally, businesses working with the
city or bidding on city projects find it cumbersome to monitor many different publications.
C. Sales Tax Exemption Relating to Joint Powers Associations
Issue: Some JPA’s are not sales tax exempt per 2013 legislation. For example, purchases by
LOGIS are reimbursed to LOGIS by member cities, which are exempt. Right now, LOGIS will
pay sales taxes and it can translate into tens of thousands of dollars when buying, for example,
big software applications. Cities like St. Louis Park and many others then pay that tax in member
reimbursements. Staff is not clear if this was intended or just an oversight.
Position: All JPA’s comprised of member cities, counties, other JPA’s, and other sales tax-
exempt members should be treated like their tax-exempt members.
D. NAIOP’s Transparency Initiative for Expenditure Type Reporting
Issue: NAIOP and the Minnesota Center for Fiscal Excellence are again pursuing their 2012 bill
to require cities and counties to utilize “Expenditure Type Reporting”, which is purported to
create a uniform manner for all cities and counties to report in, and modify the due dates for
various types of budgetary and property tax information. This initiative is also now being
supported by the TwinWest Chamber of Commerce.
Background: The City in the past has worked with other cities in the metro area and the League
of Minnesota Cities with limited success to try to understand what information NAIOP and the
Minnesota Center for Fiscal Excellence feels cities should be providing that they are not already
(or in the format desired). Currently, cities and counties are required to report to the state auditor
by expenditure use categories, provide property tax levy information to each city’s respective
Study Session Meeting of January 27, 2014 (Item No. 2) Page 7
Title: 2014 Legislative Issues and Priorities
county and have the annual budget available for review via the City’s website, in person, or in
very summary data via publication. Further, the City of St. Louis Park has a significant amount
of detailed budgetary information available upon request that would address essentially all the
items in the proposed legislation introduced in 2012. The challenge with some of the proposed
legislation is the new timeline requirements. For example, being required to publish budgetary
information by August 31st for the subsequent year budget poses a challenge for many cities as
the City Council has not adopted a preliminary property tax levy by that time (due September
15th). Transparency has and will continue to be very important to the City of St. Louis Park,
therefore being a partner would be very helpful for all parties in providing useful information.
Position: The City does not support any legislative changes at this time. St, Louis Park, the LMC
and other cities would really like to better understand exactly what information NAIOP, the
Minnesota Center for Fiscal Excellence and the TwinWest Chamber of Commerce are not
receiving, so we can work together to provide useful and timely information. Once this mutual
understanding occurs, the City is confident it can work with its partners to deliver useful
information without significantly changing statutory reporting requirements and timelines.
Meeting: Study Session
Meeting Date: January 27, 2014
Discussion Item: 3
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Environment and Sustainability: Sustainable SLP Advisory Commission 2014 Work
Plan
RECOMMENDED ACTION: This report summarizes work performed by Environment and
Sustainability: Sustainable SLP Advisory Commission in 2013 and outlines the intentions for
work to be performed in 2014.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Is the proposed 2014 Work Plan in keeping with the City
Councils expectations?.
SUMMARY: The Commission began in June of 2013 and has been meeting monthly. They
have accomplished the following activities over the last 8 months: determined terms, selected a
Chair and Vice Chair, developed by-laws, established work group operating guidelines, and
educated themselves through learning from Green Step Cities, Alliance for Sustainability, and
the City of Edina. They have also developed and approved a Work Plan for 2014.
The Work Plan for 2014 includes goals of: Developing a Vision for Sustainability, Increasing
Education, Evaluating Potential Initiatives, Forming and Operating Work Groups (looking at:
Green Step Cities program and actions, reduce carbon emissions, environmentally preferred
purchasing policy, energy, establish a creative Sustainable SLP brand, and others as decided by
the Commission), Communications and Public Relations.
The Commission consists of 13 regular members. Meetings are held the first Wednesday of each
month at 6:30 p.m.
In accordance with Council policy, the 2014 Work Plan is attached in full for City Council
review. The Commission Chair and Vice Chair will be present at the meeting to present the work
plan.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to being a leader in environmental
stewardship. We will increase environmental consciousness and responsibility in all areas of city
business.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Attachment A: 2014 Work Plan and Meeting Schedule for 2014
Attachment B: Criteria Evaluation Matrix
Attachment C: Sustainable SLP Operating Work Group Guidelines
Attachment D: List of Commissioners
Prepared by: Cindy Walsh, Operations and Recreation Director
Bridget Gothberg, Organizational Development
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of January 27, 2014 (Item No. 3) Page 2
Title: Environment and Sustainability: Sustainable SLP Advisory Commission 2014 Work Plan
ATTACHMENT A
Environment and Sustainability: Sustainable SLP Advisory Commission
2014 Work Plan
Goals
1. Prepare a Sustainable Community Vision
This would use The Natural Step process to create a framework to build on the City’s current
sustainability efforts. The process would involve two steps. One – the Commission will
participate in more detailed training of The Natural Step and then determine if this is the best
process to utilize. And,, as determined by the Commission, a second step would be to facilitate a
broader, community-based process to engage the community, schools, non-profits, businesses,
faith community, and neighborhoods. After the method of framing is set, the Commission will
write a Sustainable Community Vision to be sent to the City Council.
2. Education
This would focus on an on-going effort of the Commission to educate itself on the extensive
body of information about sustainability and the environment; and would also focus on leading
the larger community to learn more about sustainability, environmental stewardship and how the
city is progressing with comprehensive sustainability.
3. Evaluate potential initiatives
The Commission will study and prioritize various initiatives using a criteria evaluation matrix.
An example of criteria evaluation matrix is attached. When the Commission’s analysis has
produced a recommendation on a specific initiative, a recommendation will be prepared for City
Council consideration.
4. Form and operate workgroups
Workgroups will provide the basic operating unit for the Commission and will generate the
necessary energy, investigation and recommendations to the Commission on a variety of topics.
Some of these may include:
• Green Step Cities program and actions
• Reduce carbon emissions
• Environmentally preferred purchasing policy
• Energy
• Establish a Creative Sustainable SLP brand
• Others as decided by the Commission
5. Communications and public engagement
The Commission will seek creative strategies for building two-way communication with
neighborhoods, business, faith community, schools, other entities and the public.
Schedule
• 2014 Meetings: Jan 8, Feb 5, Mar 5, Apr 2, May 7, Jun 4, Jul 2, Aug 6, Sept 3, Oct 1,
Nov 5, Dec 3
ATTACHMENT B
St. Louis Park Environment and Sustainability Commission
Criteria Evaluation Matrix
Action Level of Impact Feasibility Politically implementable
Reduction of
Fossil Fuel Use
Increase in
health/happiness
What is the City
already doing?
Reduction in
Pollution
Cost/ return on
investment
Proven and
Available
Technology?
Path to Long Term
Vision?
Identified as a
community
priority?
Is there
opposition?
Identified initiative
appropriate
For City
implementation.
Rank 1-5
Rank 1-5
Rank 1-5
Rank 1-5
Range of Qualitative
Characterization to
business plan, based
on available
information.
Has it been done
successfully before
or is this new
technology?
Can this initiative
be integrated into
the City’s long term
vision or is a one-
time effort?
Indicators of
community
support
Identify who
might oppose
initiative and
assess
Study Session Meeting of January 27, 2014 (Item No. 3)
Title: Environment and Sustainability: Sustainable SLP Advisory Commission 2014 Work Plan
Page 3
Study Session Meeting of January 27, 2014 (Item No. 3) Page 4
Title: Environment and Sustainability: Sustainable SLP Advisory Commission 2014 Work Plan
ATTACHMENT C: Work Group Operating Guidelines
Work Groups are anticipated to be the primary information/research gathering unit of the
Commission and will provide the full Commission with detailed information and
recommendations on a variety of topics. After receiving information from work groups the
Commission will decide what to do with the information and recommendations including taking
action, making recommendations to City Council or redirecting efforts. Workgroups will be
identified, charged and will serve at the direction of the Commission. Work groups must include
at least 1 Commissioner and are encouraged to include other citizens and experts as needed.
Workgroups will meet independently of the Commission as necessary to learn about specific
topics/issues and report back to the Commission. Work tasks include:
• Educate itself about the topic
• Identify and prioritize the issues
• Report to the Commission at each regularly scheduled meeting on progress
• Prepare strategy or action as approved by the Commission
• Prepare recommendations (policies, plans or programs) as directed by the Commission
• Other duties/tasks as directed by the Commission
Study Session Meeting of January 27, 2014 (Item No. 3) Page 5
Title: Environment and Sustainability: Sustainable SLP Advisory Commission 2014 Work Plan
ATTACHMENT D: List of Commissioners
ENVIRONMENT & SUSTAINABILITY COMMISSION: SUSTAINABLE SLP
13 Members (8 regular, 2 business, 1 residential tenant, 2 youth)
1 Chris Anderson Member
2 Mark Eilers Member
3 Rachel Harris Member
7 Tom Hillstrom Member
4 Mary Karius Member
5 Cindy Larson O'Neil Member
6 Renee McGarvey Member
8 Judy Voigt Member
9 Terry Gips Business Member
10 Whitney Thesing Residential Tenant Member
11 Caitlin Glennon Youth Member
12 Alex Sundvall Youth Member
13 Vacant (Applications Received) Business Member
Meeting: Study Session
Meeting Date: January 27, 2014
Discussion Item: 4
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Use of St. Louis Park Hockey Association Donation
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Representatives from the St. Louis Park Hockey Association
would like to discuss with the Council the use of the dollars recently donated to the City, and in
particular the possibility of undertaking a feasibility study for an outdoor refrigerated ice rink
located to the west of The Rec Center in the area currently occupied by the skate park. Staff
would be supportive of undertaking such an analysis.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Is the City Council supportive of staff working with the Hockey
Association on a feasibility study for the possibility of an outdoor refrigerated ice rink, with the
understanding a portion of the donation proceeds would be used for this study?
Are there other uses the Council would want considered for the money donated by the Hockey
Association?
SUMMARY: The Council accepted a donation from the St. Louis Park Hockey Association in
the amount of $200,000 at their January 21, 2014 meeting to be used for capital improvements at
the St. Louis Park Rec Center, or other hockey related improvements within the city, with the
understanding that the use of the money has been agreed to by both parties.
Staff has met with representatives of the Hockey Association to discuss potential projects. It was
agreed a portion of the donation will be used to install a new Public Address system in the West
Arena at The Rec Center. The Hockey Association would also like some of the donation monies
to be used to undertake a feasibility study for constructing a refrigerated outdoor sheet of ice
directly to the west of the Rec Center where the skate park is currently located. Part of the
feasibility study could involve identifying alternatives for relocating the skate park. The cost of
the feasibility study is a bit uncertain at this time and depends on the scope of the study.
Assuming a consultant would need to be brought in staff would estimate that $10,000 could be
spent on such a study, not including any specific soils analysis for the site.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Any expense to undertake a feasibility
study would be paid from the dollars donated by the Hockey Association.
VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged
community.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Sketch Potential Location & Layout of Outdoor Sheet of Ice
Prepared by: Stacy M. Voelker, Administrative Secretary
Jason Eisold, Rec Center Manager
Reviewed by: Cindy Walsh, Director of Parks & Recreation
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Rec Center Site Proposed Refrigerated Ice Rink SITE ANALYSIS Study Session Meeting of January 27, 2014 (Item No. 4) Title: Use of St. Louis Park Hockey Association DonationPage 2
Meeting: Study Session
Meeting Date: January 27, 2014
Written Report: 5
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: December 2013 Monthly Financial Report
RECOMMENDED ACTION: No action required at this time.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: None at this time.
SUMMARY: The Monthly Financial Report provides a summary of General Fund revenues
and departmental expenditures and a comparison of budget to actual throughout the year.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Preliminary year end numbers show
General Fund revenues for 2013 at 101.5% of budget and expenditures at 96.9%. Please see the
attached analysis for more details.
VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion
Summary of Revenues & Expenditures
Prepared by: Darla Monson, Senior Accountant
Reviewed by: Brian A. Swanson, Controller
Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of January 27, 2014 (Item No. 5) Page 2
Title: December 2013 Monthly Financial Report
DISCUSSION
BACKGROUND: This report is designed to provide summary information of the overall level
of revenues and departmental expenditures in the General Fund and a comparison of budget to
actual throughout the year. The format of this report was changed part way through the year to
reflect the reorganization of the former Park & Recreation and Public Works Departments.
According to Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP), the reorganization made it
necessary to consolidate the Park & Recreation Fund into the General Fund.
PRESENT CONSIDERATIONS: Preliminary year end numbers show General Fund revenues
for 2013 at 101.5% of budget and expenditures at 96.9%. This report does not represent the final
numbers for the year ending December 31, 2013. The final audited financial statements for 2013
will be presented at a separate Council meeting in the spring of 2014. Invoices for 2013
expenses will continue to be paid through the end of January, additional revenues pertaining to
2013 will be recorded, including the final property tax settlement to be received in late January,
and year end entries will be completed over the next few months.
Comments on specific revenue and expenditure variances are explained below.
Revenues:
• Property tax revenue is currently exceeding budget by approximately 1% or $182,000
because of delinquent collection revenue from prior years. In the final 2013 tax
settlement to be received on January 27, 2014, Staff expects to receive the City’s share of
the redistribution of tax increment returned to the County in December for two
decertified TIF districts. These dollars when sent back to the City are then tax dollars
with no restrictions. If this occurs, property tax revenues will exceed budget by over
4.5% or $900,000 for the year.
• License and permit revenues have exceeded budget by nearly 25% or $615,000 in 2013.
Building permit activity for alterations and remodeling projects to existing commercial
buildings was much higher than expected, and additions and improvements to residential
properties have also been strong.
• Intergovernmental revenues are exceeding budget by almost 5% or $60,000. This is due
in part to the receipt of $36,000 from FEMA for reimbursement for storm damages. An
end of year receivable will be recorded for additional FEMA revenue of approximately
$400,000 to be received in 2014. The Police and Fire Aid revenue received from the
State in 2013 was also higher than the amount budgeted by over $30,000.
Intergovernmental revenue will likely be 35% or $475,000 more than budgeted when end
of year numbers are finalized.
Expenditures:
• Human Resources expenditures are exceeding budget by about 7% because of
recruitment expenses incurred to fill positions due to retirements that included the Fire
Chief and Director of Engineering.
• The Engineering Department currently shows at 128% of budgeted expenditures. End of
year entries to allocate some consulting costs to capital project funds will be made, which
will eliminate a large part of this overage. Consultants were utilized for capital project
engineering work beginning mid-year due to staff vacancies that included a Senior
Project Engineer, the City Engineer, and the Director of Public Works. Engineering
services relating to sidewalks and trails will also be moved from the General Fund
Study Session Meeting of January 27, 2014 (Item No. 5) Page 3
Title: December 2013 Monthly Financial Report
Engineering Budget to a project fund. Related to this, Public Works Administration is
running well under budget for the year for salaries due to the director position being
vacant for several months.
• Expenditures in the Rec Center Division are exceeding budget by about 2.3%. Building
and equipment maintenance expenses are over budget due to repairs that included the
boiler, air conditioning, water slide, pool vacuum, and concession equipment. Temporary
salary expenditures exceeded budget because of an added life guard and additional
maintenance staffing needed to help with projects and cover vacations. Operating
expenditures were also incurred for several non-routine items, including studies and
assessments and to replace chairs in the gallery room and around the pool.
• The Vehicle Maintenance Division is running approximately 2% over budget for the year
because of expenditures in a few areas, including fuel, tires, and equipment
maintenance/repair service.
NEXT STEPS: None are required at this time.
Summary of Revenues & Expenditures - General Fund
As of December 31, 2013 (Preliminary)
2013 2013
2011 2011 2012 2012 2013 2013 Balance YTD Budget
Budget Actual Budget Actual Budget Dec YTD Remaining to Actual %
General Fund Revenues:
General Property Taxes 19,426,633$ 19,372,637$ 20,169,798$ 20,209,604$ 20,657,724$ 20,839,618$ (181,894)$ 100.88%
Licenses and Permits 2,352,510 2,797,698 2,375,399 3,241,812 2,481,603 3,097,486 (615,883) 124.82%
Fines & Forfeits 328,200 281,047 328,150 341,356 335,150 287,036 48,114 85.64%
Intergovernmental 1,213,839 1,452,030 1,232,579 1,365,023 1,300,191 1,360,450 (60,259) 104.63%
Charges for Services 2,247,893 2,159,300 2,341,104 2,169,631 1,837,976 1,768,296 69,680 96.21%
Miscellaneous Revenue 1,037,550 1,164,452 1,079,550 1,092,234 1,092,381 996,961 95,420 91.26%
Transfers In 2,589,876 2,553,665 2,023,003 2,066,136 1,816,563 1,789,513 27,050 98.51%
Investment Earnings 200,000 203,282 125,000 136,415 150,000 150,000 0.00%
Other Income 19,750 101,588 45,600 276,273 36,650 10,756 25,894 29.35%
Total General Fund Revenues 29,416,251$ 30,085,699$ 29,720,183$ 30,898,483$ 29,708,238$ 30,150,116$ (441,878)$ 101.49%
General Fund Expenditures:
General Government:
Administration 889,798$ 825,168$ 1,012,554$ 977,392$ 877,099$ 879,030$ (1,931)$ 100.22%
Accounting 612,964 624,573 641,691 639,999 827,320 810,614 16,706 97.98%
Assessing 500,141 506,426 517,840 518,271 543,855 538,596 5,259 99.03%
Human Resources 652,770 629,734 667,612 645,357 678,988 725,830 (46,842) 106.90%
Community Development 1,094,186 1,082,461 1,076,376 1,052,186 1,094,517 1,078,873 15,644 98.57%
Facilities Maintenance 1,114,551 955,880 1,083,128 972,481 1,074,920 988,903 86,017 92.00%
Information Resources 1,394,226 1,421,858 1,507,579 1,363,266 1,770,877 1,589,971 180,906 89.78%
Communications & Marketing 294,470 256,558 265,426 244,392 201,322 168,009 33,313 83.45%
Community Outreach 88,515 84,300 8,185 5,341 8,185 4,496 3,689 54.93%
Engineering 846,032 816,280 927,337 939,425 303,258 388,213 (84,955) 128.01%
Total General Government 7,487,653$ 7,203,238$ 7,707,728$ 7,358,111$ 7,380,341$ 7,172,535$ 207,806$ 97.18%
Public Safety:
Police 7,208,512$ 6,943,375$ 7,273,723$ 7,124,784$ 7,443,637$ 7,141,837$ 301,800$ 95.95%
Fire Protection 3,164,344 3,061,962 3,346,931 3,291,655 3,330,263 3,209,948 120,315 96.39%
Inspectional Services 1,863,296 1,818,212 1,889,340 1,869,616 1,928,446 1,912,838 15,608 99.19%
Total Public Safety 12,236,152$ 11,823,549$ 12,509,994$ 12,286,055$ 12,702,346$ 12,264,623$ 437,723$ 96.55%
Operations & Recreation:
Public Works Administration 829,698$ 803,259$ 389,783$ 378,852$ 393,054$ 282,876$ 110,178$ 71.97%
Public Works Operations 2,550,285 2,461,099 2,604,870 2,521,463 2,698,870 2,670,921 27,949 98.96%
Organized Recreation 1,239,230 1,266,774 1,305,747 1,352,273 1,280,117 1,251,031 29,086 97.73%
Recreation Center 1,442,447 1,424,076 1,466,246 1,516,121 1,449,930 1,482,714 (32,784) 102.26%
Park Maintenance 1,435,374 1,462,866 1,461,645 1,444,448 1,431,825 1,409,523 22,302 98.44%
Westwood 502,366 488,579 515,456 506,404 520,554 499,104 21,450 95.88%
Environment 371,324 396,664 390,009 382,378 430,876 423,109 7,767 98.20%
Vehicle Maintenance 1,141,722 1,300,708 1,188,705 1,326,153 1,240,325 1,267,178 (26,853) 102.16%
Total Operations & Recreation 9,512,446$ 9,604,023$ 9,322,461$ 9,428,091$ 9,445,551$ 9,286,456$ 159,095$ 98.32%
Non-Departmental:
General 81,287$ -$ 65,292$ -$ -$ 0.00%
Transfers Out 900,000 - 1,160,000 - - 0.00%
Tax Court Petitions 180,000 - 180,000 - 180,000 45,067 134,933 25.04%
Total Non-Departmental 180,000$ 981,287$ 180,000$ 1,225,292$ 180,000$ 45,067$ 134,933$ 25.04%
Total General Fund Expenditures 29,416,251$ 29,612,097$ 29,720,183$ 30,297,549$ 29,708,238$ 28,768,681$ 939,557$ 96.84%
Study Session Meeting of January 27, 2014 (Item No. 5)
Title: December 2013 Monthly Financial Report Page 4
Meeting: Study Session
Meeting Date: January 27, 2014
Written Report: 6
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Fourth Quarter Investment Report (October – December 2013)
RECOMMENDED ACTION: No action required at this time.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: None at this time.
SUMMARY: The Quarterly Investment Report provides an overview of the City’s investment
portfolio, including the types of investments held, length of maturity, and yield.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: The total portfolio value at December 31,
2013 was $57.3 million. Approximately 58% of the portfolio is in longer term investments that
include agency bonds, municipal debt securities, and certificates of deposit. The remainder is
held in money market accounts for future cash flow needs. A very consistent overall yield near
1% has been maintained for the past 12 to 18 months by balancing cash flow needs with longer
term investment options.
VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion
Investment Portfolio Summary
Prepared by: Darla Monson, Senior Accountant
Reviewed by: Brian A. Swanson, Controller
Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of January 27, 2014 (Item No. 6) Page 2
Title: Fourth Quarter Investment Report (October – December 2013)
DISCUSSION
BACKGROUND: The City’s investment portfolio is focused on short term cash flow needs and
investment in longer term securities. This is done in accordance with Minnesota Statute 118A
and the City’s Investment Policy objectives of: 1) Preservation of capital; 2) Liquidity; and 3)
Return on investment.
PRESENT CONSIDERATIONS: The total portfolio value increased by approximately $3.5
million this quarter from $53.8 million at 9/30/2013 to $57.3 million at 12/31/2013. Money
market fund balances increased, as the second half property tax settlement was received from
Hennepin County on December 3, and there were also four maturities during the quarter.
Because the balances in the lower yielding money market accounts increased and four of the
longer term investments matured, the overall yield of the portfolio decreased slightly to .79%
from .98% in the third quarter. Cities generally use a benchmark such as the two year Treasury
(.38% at 12/31/2013) or some similar measure for yield comparison of their overall portfolio.
Money market rates currently range from just .02% and .03% in the 4M Fund and UBS Money
Market respectively, to .10% at Citizens Independent Bank. This does unfortunately keep the
total portfolio yield down, but there are very few options other than money markets for investing
cash short term.
Approximately 42% or just under $24 million of the portfolio, is currently held in money
markets. A significant amount of cash has been needed the past few months for the progress
payments for Louisiana and Hwy 7 and a property acquisition by the EDA. While the Louisiana
and Hwy 7 progress payments are expected to slow over the next couple of months until spring, a
large amount of cash will be required to fund the February 1 debt service payments and Pay As
You Go TIF note payments, as well as the on-going cash flow needs for payroll and general
operating expenses.
Another 8% or $4.3 million of the portfolio is invested in fixed rate certificates of deposit at rates
ranging from .5% for two years to 1.75% for five years. With rates on bonds continuing to be
very low, purchasing these fixed rate CD’s has helped to keep the portfolio yield stable. There
are 18 CD’s in the portfolio, each with a face value of $200,000 to $240,000, which guarantees
that each CD is insured by the FDIC up to $250,000. Five of these CD’s will mature in 2014.
The remaining 50%, or approximately $29 million of the portfolio, is invested in other long term
securities, including municipal debt ($15 million) and agency bonds ($14 million). Municipal
debt instruments are bonds issued by States, local governments, or school districts to finance
special projects. Agency bonds are issued by government agencies such as the Federal Home
Loan Bank or Fannie Mae. The agency bonds usually have higher interest rates to the final
maturity date in five years, but the issuers have the right to call the bonds at specific intervals
prior to maturity if interest rates decline. Seven of the municipal debt securities will mature in
2014.
Staff has analyzed cash flow needs through to the first 2014 property tax settlement, which will
be the 70% advance on June 20, 2014, with the remainder to follow the first week in July. Based
on this analysis, there will be very little cash available to invest long term through the first half
of 2014. If interest rates begin to improve, maturities in the portfolio will look to be reinvested
when possible.
Study Session Meeting of January 27, 2014 (Item No. 6) Page 3
Title: Fourth Quarter Investment Report (October – December 2013)
Here is a summary of the City’s portfolio at December 31, 2013:
NEXT STEPS: None at this time.
9/30/13 12/31/13
<1 Year 49% 53%
1-2 Years 9% 10%
2-3 Years 12% 10%
3-4 Years 19% 20%
>4 Years 11% 7%
9/30/13 12/31/13
Money Markets $15,828,299 $23,899,703
Commercial Paper $0 $0
Certificates of Deposit $4,294,641 $4,295,948
Municipal Debt $19,649,715 $15,066,902
Agency Bonds $14,049,732 $13,994,673
City of St. Louis Park
Investment Portfolio Summary
December 31, 2013
Institution/Broker Investment Type CUSIP Maturity Date
Yield to
Maturity Par Value
Market Value at
12/31/2013
Estimated Avg
Annual Income
Citizens Indep Bank Money Market 0.10%8,043,490 8,043,490 8,043
4M Fund Money Market 0.02%2,712,524 2,712,524 543
UBS CD - Bank of China NY 06425HN85 05/02/2014 0.60% 240,000 240,350 1,440
UBS CD - Medallion Bank UT 58403BXU5 05/07/2014 0.60% 240,000 240,362 1,440
UBS CD - Apple Bank NY 037830KP0 05/09/2014 0.50% 240,000 240,367 1,200
UBS CD - First Bank PR Sant 33764JNF8 10/27/2014 0.80% 240,000 240,646 1,920
UBS CD - Doral Bank PR 25811L2L2 12/08/2014 0.85% 240,000 240,710 2,040
UBS CD - Amer Exp Cent UT 02587DLS5 01/26/2015 0.85% 240,000 240,569 2,040
UBS Muni Debt - Amer Munic Pwr Ohio 02765UER1 02/15/2015 1.54% 1,000,000 1,030,380 15,400
UBS Muni Debt - Gilroy, CA 376087CZ3 04/01/2015 1.81% 1,125,000 1,156,005 20,363
UBS Muni Debt - Dist of Columbia 25476FLE6 06/01/2015 1.33% 1,000,000 1,037,780 13,310
UBS Muni Debt - Calif State 13063BNR9 10/01/2015 2.00% 1,000,000 1,029,930 20,000
UBS CD - BMW Bank UT 05568PZ59 10/26/2015 1.05% 240,000 240,996 2,520
UBS Muni Debt - Atl City, NJ 048339RR8 12/15/2015 2.70% 470,000 474,023 12,690
UBS CD - Barclays Bank DE 06740KFS1 01/11/2016 1.60% 240,000 244,013 3,840
UBS Freddie Mac 3134G3PE4 02/24/2016 0.85% 1,000,000 1,000,850 8,500
UBS FNMA Step Up 3136FTXU8 12/29/2016 1.25% 1,000,000 1,007,000 12,500
UBS FHLMC 3134G3MZ0 02/24/2017 0.89% 1,000,000 1,001,370 8,930
UBS FHLMC 3134G3NN6 02/27/2017 0.72% 1,000,000 995,720 7,220
UBS CD - Discover Bank DE 254671AG5 05/02/2017 1.75% 240,000 240,046 4,200
UBS CD - GE Cap Retail Bank UT 36160NJZ3 05/04/2017 1.75% 240,000 242,042 4,200
UBS FHLMC 3134G3WV8 06/06/2017 1.01% 1,000,000 1,000,040 10,140
UBS Muni Debt - N. Orange Cty CA 661334DR0 08/01/2017 1.01% 1,000,000 991,360 10,110
UBS FNMA step up 3136G0ZV6 08/28/2017 1.17% 1,000,000 1,001,030 11,740
UBS CD - Sallie Mae Bnk UT 79545OPE9 08/29/2017 1.70% 240,000 239,287 4,080
UBS CD - Sun Natl Bank NJ 86682ABV2 10/03/2017 1.00% 240,000 241,303 2,400
UBS CD - Everbank Jacksonvl FL 29976DPB0 10/31/2017 1.00% 240,000 240,149 2,400
UBS CD - Comenity Bank DE 981996AX9 12/05/2017 1.25% 200,000 197,950 2,500
UBS CD - Banco Popular PR 05967ESG5 12/05/2017 1.10% 240,000 239,803 2,640
UBS FNMA 3136G1AJ8 01/30/2018 1.06% 1,000,000 981,440 10,630
UBS FHLB 313381JW6 06/27/2018 0.92% 1,000,000 1,074,693 9,200
UBS Money Market 0.03% 13,143,688 13,143,688 3,943
30,493,903
Sterne, Agee Muni Debt - Illinois State 4521518U0 01/01/2014 3.25% 1,225,000 1,225,000 39,813
Sterne, Agee Muni Debt - Smithfield, RI 832322NN7 01/15/2014 1.35% 275,000 275,171 3,713
Sterne, Agee Muni Debt - Outagamie Cnty WI 689900TH1 04/01/2014 2.53% 810,000 815,443 20,493
Sterne, Agee Muni Debt - Racine, WI 750046GB4 04/01/2014 0.70% 1,010,000 1,021,171 7,070
Sterne, Agee Muni Debt - Van Buren, MI Sch 920729GR5 05/01/2014 3.52% 705,000 711,853 24,816
Sterne, Agee Muni Debt - Union Co NJ 906347SC4 06/01/2014 4.04% 110,000 110,462 4,444
Sterne, Agee Muni Debt - Smithfield, RI 832322NP2 01/15/2015 1.90% 275,000 277,398 5,225
Sterne, Agee Muni Deb - Smithfield, RI 832322NQ0 01/15/2016 2.40% 275,000 280,800 6,600
Sterne, Agee Muni Debt - Elmore Cnty AL 28976PAS4 02/01/2016 0.85% 1,050,000 1,063,598 8,925
Sterne, Agee Muni Debt - Elmore Cnty AL 28976PAT2 02/01/2017 1.15% 1,000,000 1,001,770 11,500
Sterne, Agee Muni Debt - New York, NY 64966HJS0 04/01/2017 1.20% 500,000 560,200 6,000
7,342,864
Wells Fargo Muni Debt - State of WA 93974CLV0 08/01/2014 1.33% 1,000,000 1,017,990 13,300
Wells Fargo CD - Goldman Sachs Bank NY 38143AGR0 01/12/2015 1.50% 240,000 241,925 3,600
Wells Fargo CD - Ally Bank UT 0200SQYM9 01/26/2015 1.15% 240,000 241,908 2,760
Wells Fargo CD - GE Capital UT 36160XC62 01/06/2016 1.70%240,000 243,521 4,080
Wells Fargo FHLMC 3134G3HP8 01/27/2016 1.00% 1,000,000 1,000,560 10,000
Wells Fargo Freddie Mac 3134G3MP2 08/24/2016 1.00% 1,000,000 1,001,160 10,000
Wells Fargo Muni Debt - Fond Du Lac WI Schl 344496JQ8 04/01/2017 1.05% 1,000,000 986,570 10,500
Wells Fargo FNMA 3135G0NH2 08/23/2017 0.95% 1,000,000 988,580 9,500
Wells Fargo Fannie Mae 3136G04A6 11/21/2017 1.00% 1,000,000 983,630 10,000
Wells Fargo FNMA 3135G0TM5 01/30/2018 1.02% 1,000,000 979,130 10,200
Wells Fargo Fannie Mae 3136G1AZ2 01/30/2018 1.00% 1,000,000 979,470 10,000
8,664,444
GRAND TOTAL 57,257,225 454,660
Portfolio Yield 0.79%
Study Session Meeting of January 27, 2014 (Item No. 6)
Title: Fourth Quarter Investment Report (October – December 2013)Page 4
Meeting: Study Session
Meeting Date: January 27, 2014
Written Report: 7
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Ownership and Replacement of Private Improvements in the Public Right of Way
RECOMMENDED ACTION: None at this time. Staff is planning on bringing this policy to an
upcoming Council meeting for adoption. Please inform staff of any questions you might have
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Who is responsible for the removal, replacement and repair of
private improvements constructed in the Public Right of way? Does the Council have questions
or concerns about the draft policy?
SUMMARY: As a part of the Connect the Park! capital improvement program Council has
directed staff to create a policy that would clarify the Ownership of Private Improvements in
Public Right Of Way. This policy would provide clarity to the Council, staff and adjacent
property owners as the City undertakes future maintenance, construction and storm cleanup
operations in the public Right of Way. The Council discussed this draft policy at the October 7
and November 7 study session and provided direction that staff is now following up on. Based
on Council direction staff has made substantial changes to the draft policy, which are reflected in
the redlined copy that is attached to this report.
Staff is recommending that in order to fully address how we assign ownership, responsibility and
liability to items within the ROW, that a thorough review and update of Chapters 24 “Streets,
Sidewalk and Other Public Places” be completed. This will help to bring clarity to what is
allowed in the ROW and necessary approval processes.
A complete review and approval of this section of the City Code will be completed in 2014. In
order to stay ahead of the Connect the Park! trail and sidewalk capital improvement program
staff has put together the attached draft policy related to issues expected to arise as a part of that
project. Included in it are recommended “Best Management Practices” for ROW stewardship.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: The impact will vary, but the replacement
and repair of private improvements in the public right of way will have impact the City’s budget
for public improvement projects.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion
Ownership and Replacement Private Improvements in
Public Right of Way - Draft Policy
Prepared by: Debra Heiser, Engineering Director
Reviewed by: Cindy Walsh, Operations and Recreation Director
Approved by Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of January 27, 2014 (Item No. 7) Page 2
Title: Ownership and Replacement of Private Improvements in the Public Right of Way
DISCUSSION
BACKGROUND: The term right of way (ROW) refers to a strip of land of a specific width,
which has been legally established for public purposes. The ROW is typically much wider than
the road or alley located on it. The ROW lines, on both sides of the travelled way, separate the
abutting owners property from the land available to the public or local agency for construction
and maintenance of public facilities. This includes to the area above and below the ROW. This
strip of land becomes the conduit for vehicles, bicycles, pedestrians and the many public and
private utilities that traverse the City. The width of the ROW varies throughout the City.
The ROW is governed by the City and all activities within this area are regulated by City Code
Chapters 24 “Streets, Sidewalk and Other Public Places” and Chapter 30 “Traffic and Vehicles”.
The topic of who owns and is responsible for maintaining the items in the ROW is most often
brought up during construction activities such as the City’s pavement management program or in
other instances when these facilities have been damaged.
After researching how the City regulates, manages and repairs damages to items in the ROW it
became evident that not every situation is covered in the city code. Section 24 of the Code is not
clear or silent on many of the private improvements that reside within the ROW such as fences,
retaining walls and irrigation systems.
The recent Council approval of the Sidewalk, Trail and Bikeway Capital Improvement Project
will have considerable impact to the private improvements within the right of way. Many of
these new sidewalks will be placed in the ROW boulevards that currently have landscaping,
irrigation systems or electric pet containment fencing.
The purpose of the proposed Ownership and Replacement of Private Improvements in Public
Right Of Way policy is to clear up the inconsistences on how these various items are managed
by the City and to define who is responsible for the repair or replacement if they are damaged.
In developing the policy, staff has surveyed our neighboring communities to understand their
practices as to who is responsible for these items. A summary of the information gathered from
other cities is in the table below.
City Above Ground Items Below Ground Items Landscaping
Bloomington City will relocate outside
of ROW Or allowed in
ROW with encroachment
agreement
City will remove and
relocate outside of
ROW
City will replace trees & shrubs
and relocate outside of ROW
Everything else property owner
Edina City will salvage and
restore in place
City will salvage and
restore in place
City will replace trees & shrubs
Everything else property owner
Falcon
Heights
City will salvage and
restore in place
Property owner City will replace trees & shrubs
Everything else property owner
Golden
Valley
City will relocate outside
of ROW
Property owner City will replace trees & Shrubs
and relocate outside of ROW
Everything else property owner
Richfield Property owner Property owner Property owner cost no
replacement
Roseville City will salvage and
restore in place
Property owner City will replace trees & Shrubs
Everything else property owner
Study Session Meeting of January 27, 2014 (Item No. 7) Page 3
Title: Ownership and Replacement of Private Improvements in the Public Right of Way
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: When staff looked at the types of private
improvements it was determined that trees and shrubs are the most expensive to replace, as well
as the least likely to survive a transplant. Perennials and bulbs can be dug up and saved and will
survive a transplant. As a result we have proposed language in the policy that the City will
replace trees and shrubs, but have the property owner be responsible for perennials.
Engineering Department
January 21, 2014
Subject: Ownership of Private Improvements in Public Right Of Way
Purpose:
To provide clarity to how the City regulates and manages private improvements located within the public right- of-
way in a fair and consistent manner. To define the ownership and the fiscal responsibility should the private
improvement need to be removed or replaced as the result of public improvement construction or routine
maintenance.
Background:
Public right of way (ROW) refers to a strip of land of a specific width, which has been legally established for public
purposes. The ROW is typically much wider than the road or alley located on it. The ROW lines, on both sides of
the travelled way, separate the abutting owners property from the land available to the public or local agency for
construction and maintenance of public facilities. This includes the space above and below the ground. This strip of
land becomes the conduit for vehicles, bicycles, pedestrians and the many public and private utilities that traverse
the City. The width of the ROW varies throughout the City.
The improvements located within the ROW can be categorized into three types of ownership:
1. City owned facilities.
a. Items such as alleys, roads, utilities, signs, trees, art and retaining walls, etc.
b. These items are constructed as a part of public improvement projects.
2. Utilities owned by private companies and permitted to be in the ROW through City Code.
a. Items such as CenterPoint Energy, Xcel Energy, Fiber Optic communications, etc.
b. Private utility companies are registered with the City to use the ROW.
3. Privately owned improvements that are either placed in the ROW under permit or done so without City
approval.
a. Items such as driveways, retaining walls, fences, landscaping, irrigation, electric pet containment, etc.
b. The improvements are paid for and maintained by private property owners.
The ROW needs to be carefully managed by the City to ensure the public’s interest is protected and to minimize
issues when activities happen within the ROW. Typically items within the ROW are impacted by planned
construction activities (street, utility, or sidewalk construction), routine maintenance (snow plowing, tree removal)
or by emergency situations (storm damage).
Policy:
As a general policy, the City does not own and is not responsible for private improvements installed within the
public ROW.
Installation of private improvements within the ROW requires that a property owner apply for a ROW permit. This
will ensure the improvements are installed properly and that the owner knows that they could be damaged by
construction and maintenance work within the ROW. The fee for ROW permits for single family homeowners
installing private improvements in the ROW is waived.
The City reserves the right to use the ROW for public purposes. Receiving a ROW permit for installation of private
improvements in the ROW is not a guarantee that the improvements can remain in the ROW indefinitely. The City
reserves the right to remove any private improvements in the ROW and is not liable for any damages to the private
improvements at any time.
If the City determines that an existing private improvement in the ROW is a hazard to public safety, impedes snow
removal/ storage, or creates a visual obstruction, Staff will notify the responsible property owner and work with
them to correct the issue.
Since there are different concerns associated with private improvements in the ROW depending on the location,
additional policy details are contingent on the location and type of the if the private improvement is below ground or
above ground. .
Study Session Meeting of January 27, 2014 (Item No. 7)
Title: Ownership and Replacement of Private Improvements in the Public Right of Way Page 4
Below Ground Improvements
Improvements in the ROW below ground are not obvious to the casual observer. As a result, it is difficult for staff
to know that they exist unless the property owner has applied for a permit or informs staff that they are there.
Examples of below ground improvements: irrigation systems, electrical for lighting, pet containment fences, etc.
Since below ground improvements create limited risk to public safety, they are permitted to encroach into the ROW.
However, if these improvements are damaged or need to be relocated as the result of public construction or routine
maintenance the cost to repair, replace, or relocate the private improvement is the property owner’s responsibility.
Below ground private improvements require that a property owner apply for a ROW permit. This will
ensure the improvements are installed properly and that the owner knows that they could be damaged
by work within the ROW.
In general, underground pet containment fences should not be in the ROW. In cases where sidewalk is
present this could create a public safety risk of pets encroaching on to public sidewalks.
The main line for irrigation systems should not be within the ROW. This will save property owner
cost and distress to landscaping should there be a construction project that requires the irrigation
system to be disconnected for the duration of the project.
Above Ground Improvements
Improvements in the ROW above ground can present a hazard to public safety, impede snow removal/ storage,
create a visual obstruction. As a result they should not be in the ROW without City review and approval. Examples
of above ground items: mailboxes, driveways, outwalks, retaining walls, fences, boulders, sculptures, landscaping,
etc.
Existing and proposed public improvements within the ROW may create limitations that prohibit the placement of
above ground improvements. Sometimes the location of utility lines in the ROW will mean that while there may
appear to be space above ground for improvements, there is no below ground space because of underground utilities.
The roots of trees and shrubs can block pipes and structural items can create difficulties for repair of underground
utilities. The City also has projects in the long term Capital Improvement Plan which may require the use of the
ROW for sidewalks, storm water management, public art, turn lanes, snow storage, and other public uses.
As a result, tThe installation of most above ground private improvements within the ROW will be reviewed on a
case by case basis. Property owners wishing to use the public ROW for private purposes should contact the
Engineering Department to discuss the improvement and see if it would be allowed by right- of- way permit or
through the “Application for Temporary Private Use of Public Land”.
This will ensure the improvements are installed properly and that the owner knows that the improvements could be
damaged by construction or maintenance work within the ROW. Examples of above ground improvements:
mailboxes, driveways, outwalks, retaining walls, fences, boulders, sculptures, landscaping, etc.
Examples of improvements that could be considered under this permit; retaining walls, fences, boulders, and
sculptures. If above ground improvements are damaged as the result of routine maintenance or emergency situations
in the ROW the cost to repair, replace or relocate the private landscaping is the responsibility of the property owner.
Public Construction Project Impacts
When it is determined that above ground improvements need to be removed or relocated as the result of public
improvement construction the following policies will apply:
If private improvements are damaged or need to be relocated as the result of public construction the cost to repair,
replace or relocate the private improvement is the responsibility of the property owner.
United States Post Office mailboxes, installed in compliance with USPS guidelines, are allowed in the
ROW without getting a permit from the City. The City will remove and reinstall mailboxes in association
with public construction projects. The USPS guidelines can be found at:
https://www.usps.com/manage/know-mailbox-guidelines.htm
Driveways and outwalks require the property owner to acquire a ROW permit. Approved material for
driveway and outwalk construction within the ROW is standard concrete or bituminous. If a portion of the
pavement within the ROW needs to be removed as the result of the permitted use of the ROW, it will be
replaced in kind with approved material. Decorative pavement, pavers, fieldstone, or pavement with
heating systems are considered specialty material. The cost to repair or replace specialty material is the
responsibility of the property owner. In the case of specialty material replacement, the City will either
install standard concrete or bituminous pavement or the property owner can contract the work, in which
case, the City will contribute up to the cost that it would have been for the City to install the driveway at the
contract bid prices.
Study Session Meeting of January 27, 2014 (Item No. 7)
Title: Ownership and Replacement of Private Improvements in the Public Right of Way Page 5
Public Construction Project Impacts
When it is determined that above ground improvements need to be removed or relocated as the result of public
improvement construction or maintenance the following policies will apply:
The removal and relocation of above ground structural items within the right- of- way will hardscaping and
retaining walls will be completed as a part of the project. The City will coordinate with the property
owners to complete the removal and relocation of above ground structural items within the ROW, so that
they can reinstall the hardscaping reinstalling them generally in place. HardscapingStructural items
includes itemsinclude such as retaining walls, fences, decorative boulders, birdbaths, and statuary.
It will be the property owner’s responsibility to remove and replace perennials and bulbs located within the
ROW. The City will provide notice to the property owners prior to the project starting so that they can
remove the perennials they would like saved. When boulevard restoration is scheduled staff will
coordinate with the property owners so that they can reinstall perennials.
The City forester will review the health and size of trees and shrubs that would need to be removed for
construction. If practical, trees and shrubs can be transplanted as a part of the project.
Boulevard trees removed for construction will be replaced with a new tree (2 inch B&B). The tree
selection will be reviewed with the property owner. Consideration will be given to the to ensure that it is
consistent with the City’s street tree master plan. This applies to deciduous trees only, for safety reasons,
coniferous trees will not be replaced within the ROW.
Shrubs removed for construction will be replaced with a new shrub (#2 container for deciduous, #5
container for coniferous). Shrub selection will be coordinated with the property owner, however, specialty
shrubs may be difficult to replace. If a shrub variety is not available, a substitute will be provided.
Areas of turf grass that are disturbed will be replaced as a part of the construction project.
Replacement work for structural or
landscaping items can be completed as a part of the public improvement construction contract or through a
reimbursement to the property owner.
Depending on the extent of the public
improvement construction and location of utilities, there may no longer be area within the ROW to reinstall above
ground improvements. If that is the case, Staff will work with the property owner on replacing the private
improvement in the front yard of the property. For safety reasons, no structural items will be reinstalled between a
newly installed sidewalk and curb.
After replacement, the above ground improvements will still be privately owned and maintained.
Landscape Improvements
The City recognizes that property owners take pride in their homes and see the ROW boulevard adjacent to their
home as an extension of their property. Over the years, many property owners have installed landscaping including
trees, shrubs, perennials, rain gardens, and hardscaping within the ROW. The City sees this as a public- private
partnership; as long as the above ground improvements do not create a hazard to public safety, impede snow
removal/ storage, or create a visual obstruction, it is allowed within the ROW.
Existing and proposed public improvements within the ROW may create limitations that prohibit the placement of
above ground improvements. Sometimes the location of utility lines in the ROW will mean that while there may
appear to be space above ground for plants, there is no below ground open space because of underground utilities.
The roots of trees and shrubs can create problems for underground utilities. The City also has projects on the long
term Capital Improvement Plan which may require the use of the open area of ROW for sidewalks, storm water
management, public art, turn lanes, snow storage, and other public uses.
As a result, above ground improvements within the ROW requires that a property owner apply for a ROW permit.
This will ensure the improvements are installed properly and that the owner knows that the improvements could be
damaged by construction or maintenance work within the ROW. The fee for ROW permits for single family
homeowners installing private improvements within the ROW is waived.
If above ground improvements are damaged as the result of routine maintenance in the ROW the cost to repair,
replace or relocate the private landscaping is the responsibility of the property owner.
Public Construction Project Impacts
When it is determined that above ground improvements need to be removed or relocated as the result of public
improvement construction or maintenance the following policies will apply:
The removal and relocation of
hardscaping and retaining walls will be completed as a part of the project. The City will coordinate with the
Study Session Meeting of January 27, 2014 (Item No. 7)
Title: Ownership and Replacement of Private Improvements in the Public Right of Way Page 6
property owners so that they can reinstall the hardscaping. Hardscaping includes items such as retaining walls,
fences, decorative boulders, birdbaths, and statuary.
It will be the property owner’s
responsibility to remove and replace perennials and bulbs located within the ROW. The City will provide notice to
the property owners prior to the project starting so that they can remove the perennials they would like saved. When
boulevard restoration is scheduled staff will coordinate with the property owners so that they can reinstall
perennials.
Boulevard trees removed for
construction will be replaced with a new tree (2 inch B&B). The tree selection will be reviewed with the property
owner to ensure that it is consistent with the City’s street tree master plan. This applies to deciduous trees only, for
safety reasons, coniferous trees will not be replaced within the ROW.
Shrubs removed for construction will be
replaced with a new shrub (#2 container for deciduous, #5 container for coniferous). Shrub selection will be
coordinated with the property owner, however, specialty shrubs may be difficult to replace. If a shrub variety is not
available, a substitute will be provided.
Areas of turf grass that are disturbed
will be replaced as a part of the construction project.
Depending on the extent of the public improvement construction and location of utilities, there may no longer be
area within the ROW to reinstall landscaping. If that is the case, the City will work with the property owner on
planting the replacement trees or shrubs in the front yard of private property.
Replacement landscaping will still be a private improvement. The City will not take over ownership or maintenance
of the replacement landscaping.
Study Session Meeting of January 27, 2014 (Item No. 7)
Title: Ownership and Replacement of Private Improvements in the Public Right of Way Page 7
Meeting: Study Session
Meeting Date: January 27, 2014
Written Report: 8
TITLE: Human Rights Commission Annual Report and Work Plan
RECOMMENDED ACTION: The purpose of this report is to provide the City Council with
the 2014 Work Plan and the 2013 Annual Report prepared by the Human Rights Commission
(HRC).
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Are the actions of the HRC in alignment with the expectations
of City Council? Does the City Council wish to meet with the HRC?
SUMMARY: Per policy the 2013 Annual Report and 2014 Work Plan are being submitted for
Council review.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Human Rights Commission 2013 Annual Report
Human Rights Commission 2014 Work Plan
Prepared by: Breanna Erickson, Community Liaison
Reviewed by: John Luse, Chief of Police
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of January 27, 2014 (Item No. 8) Page 2
Subject: Human Rights Commission Annual Report and Work Plan
Human Rights Commission 2013 Annual Report
The Human Rights Commission Mission: The purpose of the Human Rights Commission shall
be to advise the city council in its efforts to ensure all citizens protection of their human rights
and full and equal opportunity for participation in the affairs of this community. The
commission assists individuals and groups in cultivating a community that embraces principles
of equity and respect for all of its citizens.
Anti-Bullying Focus: The Human Rights Commission identified bullying as a focus for
2012/2013. In 2012, the HRC partnered with the school district’s DPAC (District Parent
Advisory Council) and formed the Joint City-School Anti-Bullying Task Force. This partnership
continued until October 2013. The objectives/goals of the task force were:
• Develop common language around bullying
• Educate and build awareness in community members about existing resources
• Develop a positive culture to reduce bullying behavior
• Create an environment that allows for the continuation of St. Louis Park as one of the 100
Best Communities for Young People, as defined by America’s Promise, the Alliance for
Youth
• What this is NOT = Policy Change!
One of the first tasks of the task force was to define bullying and the definition the task force
used is as follows:
Definition: Bullying is behavior that is intentional, repetitive and hurtful resulting in an
imbalance of power.
Such behavior may include, but is not limited to:
• Direct: physical, verbal, written
• Indirect: social isolation, intimidation, exclusion, gestures
• Cyberbullying: direct or indirect via technology
Early winter 2013 the HRC and anti-bullying task force sponsored an “Upstander” poster
contest. An upstander is a person who takes action, particularly when the easiest or most
acceptable course is to do nothing. All age ranges from kindergarten to senior citizens
participated in the poster contest. Winning posters are featured in the 2013/2014 City-School
Calendar.
August 27th and September 23rd 2013 the HRC and the anti-bullying task force presented a
community viewing of the film Bully at St. Louis Park High School in the auditorium. Bully is a
documentary that follows several youth, (of all ages), from different parts of the United States in
their encounters being bullied at school, on the bus, at playgrounds, etc. The documentary aimed
at bringing light to a subject that some say has been ignored for the past few years.
September 30th 2013 the HRC and the anti-bully task force held a Panel Discussion and World
Café event. The panel speakers included: Jason Ball (Assistant Principal SLP Middle School),
Officer John Herman (Jr. High Liaison Officer), Nicole Rasmussen (Assistant Principal Benilde
St. Margarette), Sally Koering (Youth Frontiers), Gene Roehlkepartain (Search Institute), and
Thomas Djerf (high school student). The panel interview was followed by a round table
Study Session Meeting of January 27, 2014 (Item No. 8) Page 3
Subject: Human Rights Commission Annual Report and Work Plan
discussion where attendees were able to voice their own concerns of bullying and brainstorm
ways to further address the issue in schools.
Late 2013, the HRC shifted the focus to senior citizen bullying and began planning future goals
and objectives.
Community Involvement: In partnership with the Police Advisory Commission (PAC), the
HRC staffed a booth at the 2013 Children First Ice Cream Social. Commissioners distributed
HRC brochures, the Diversity Lens magnet and brochure, and other human rights related
materials. In addition to outreach to the residents, this function also allowed PAC and HRC
Commissioners an opportunity to get to know one another and the activities of each
Commission.
Police Advisory Commission: PAC Commissioner Christine Anderson is the new PAC liaison
and attended the October and November Human Rights Commission meetings.
Bias/Hate Crimes: The HRC reviews all Bias/Hate Crimes and responds to the victims with a
letter and HRC brochure when appropriate. The HRC was notified of the following hate crimes
during 2013, listed below:
Offense Date Police Case # Summary
1/4/13 13000037 Damage to Property- Graffiti of two Swastika’s on cement
pillar.
3/12/13 13001325 Harassing/threatening communication; racially bias.
4/19/13 13002077 Bias Motivated Harassment via email.
5/11/13 13002492 Simple assault took place in a business between coworkers;
religious affiliated harassment.
5/16/13 13002598 Bias Motivated Harassment. Jewish Juveniles being verbally
harassed in park.
6/11/13 13003165 Racially bias harassment at an apartment complex.
7/24/13 13004118 Bias Motive harassment—racial intimidation and threats.
11/16/13 13006532 Anti-Semitic verbal threats between family members.
Study Session Meeting of January 27, 2014 (Item No. 8) Page 4
Subject: Human Rights Commission Annual Report and Work Plan
Human Rights Commission
2014 Work Plan
Mission: The purpose of the human rights commission shall be to advise the city council in its
efforts to ensure all citizens protection of their human rights and full and equal opportunity for
participation in the affairs of this community. The commission assists individuals and groups in
cultivating a community that embraces principles of equity and respect for all of its citizens.
Senior Bullying - The HRC plans to continue focusing on the topic of bullying through 2014.
With an aging population in St. Louis Park, the HRC will specifically address the issue of senior
bullying. This will be done creating a task force that will continue to educate, raise awareness,
and address the issue of senior bullying in our community.
HRC Participation in Community Events:
• In 2014, the HRC plans to partner with and participate in existing community events and
organizations including:
o Children First Ice Cream Social
o Lenox Community Center
o Local Senior Living Facilities
o Other events as appropriate
Vision St. Louis Park – The Diversity Lens
• Continue to use the Diversity Lens as a tool at community events to talk to residents
about the Human Rights Commission and Diversity.
Connecting with our community and surrounding communities
• Partner with other boards and commissions as appropriate, particularly the Police
Advisory Commission.
• Connect with local (metro & state) Human Rights Commissions
Ongoing Commission Work
• Respond to bias crimes as they occur in partnership with the Police Department
• Select annual Human Rights Award winner(s) for St. Louis Park
Meeting: Study Session
Meeting Date: January 27, 2014
Written Report: 9
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Police Advisory Commission (PAC) 2013 Annual Report and 2014 Work Plan
RECOMMENDED ACTION: The purpose of this report is to provide the City Council with
the 2013 Annual Report and 2014 Work Plan prepared by the Police Advisory Commission
(PAC).
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Are the actions of the PAC in alignment with the expectations
of the City Council? Does the City Council wish to meet with the PAC?
SUMMARY: Per Council policy, the 2013 Police Advisory Commission Annual Report and
2014 Work Plan are being submitted for Council review.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged
community.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: PAC 2013 Annual Report and 2014 Work Plan
Prepared by: Mike Harcey, Police Lieutenant
Reviewed by: John Luse, Chief of Police
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of January 27, 2014 (Item No. 9) Page 2
Title: Police Advisory Commission (PAC) 2013 Annual Report and 2014 Work Plan
DISCUSSION
2013 Annual Report:
There are several main purposes of the PAC. They include the following:
1) Enhance the awareness of the police department’s capabilities and services.
2) Provide an opportunity for citizen involvement in police services.
3) Promote exchange between the police department and the community.
PAC members have assisted in content development of several Public Service Announcement
(PSA) videos that were aired on the Inside the Park Community Television and at other times
throughout the day on a local cable access channel. These videos were designed to bring
heightened awareness to community members of police related matters. Two videos were
completed in 2013- “D.A.R.E. Program PSA” and “A Day in the Life of a St. Louis Park Patrol
Officer.” At the time of this Annual Report submission, the “Day in the Life” video has been
viewed more than 34,000 times on You Tube, and many viewers have left very positive
comments about the video and the St. Louis Park PD. We have received a commitment from
Communications Coordinator, Jamie Zwilling, to continue working with Commissioners to
create new and impactful PSAs in 2014.
In partnership with the Human Rights Commission (HRC), several PAC Commissioners staffed
a booth at the Children First Ice Cream Social. Commissioners made available informative
pamphlets to the public about Traffic Safety (cut-through traffic, speeding…) and Current Road
Construction Projects; also available were child and bike safety guides and information regarding
the police department. Furthermore, this function allowed PAC and HRC Commissioners an
opportunity to get to know one other and the activities of each Commission.
In an effort to work more closely with the Human Rights Commission on police related issues,
PAC Commissioner Christine Anderson attended several HRC meetings, and continues to
evaluate opportunities for the two commissions to increase effectiveness by working together on
key areas, such as bullying. DARE Officer Havlik is a member of the Anti-bullying committee
representing the police department.
Several Commissioners were involved in the process of hiring new police officers in 2013 by
serving on interview panels with current St. Louis Park police officers. This helped to bring an
important citizen perspective to the hiring process.
PAC has had a goal attending the city staff Traffic Advisory Meetings. The Traffic Advisory
group is comprised of members of the Operations and Recreation, Community Development, and
Police Departments. The group meets monthly to discuss traffic related issues within the
community. Commissioners have reported back to the PAC with information of note, while also
sharing concerns that have arisen from fellow PAC members. In 2014, Commissioner Riss will
be attending the city’s Information Management Meetings rather than the Traffic Advisory
meetings. The Traffic meetings covered more technical matters among engineers and the like,
while the Information Management Meetings are expected to be more planning in nature. This
would appear to be a more appropriate and effective resource allocation for the PAC.
In 2011 Commissioners worked closely with Cornerstone in creating a Domestic Violence
Education and Information program. With the assistance of city staff the Commission produced
domestic violence awareness posters, which continue to be distributed to public entities within
the city. We believe this has enhanced the relationship between the city and Cornerstone and
provide information on valuable resources available to the community.
Study Session Meeting of January 27, 2014 (Item No. 9) Page 3
Title: Police Advisory Commission (PAC) 2013 Annual Report and 2014 Work Plan
The 7th annual St. Louis Park Crime Prevention Fund Golf Tournament was held on September
6th, 2013. The goal of the tournament is to bring the business community together with the
police department for a day of fun and recreation, and to raise funds for the Crime Prevention
Fund. It was another successful year with more than 50 golfers taking part in the event, which is
the highest number in the tournament’s history, and there were also 12 hole sponsors. The event
earned approximately $3,500 for the Crime Prevention Fund. We would not be able to do this
without the support of our local businesses. PAC will continue with this effort in 2014 in hopes
of continuing to grow the event. The City Council’s participation and promotional efforts are
welcomed.
Commissioners aided the Joint Community Policing Program (JCPP) with its New Americans
Academy classes by helping welcome and usher attendees. The classes were intended to
introduce adult immigrants and refugees to local laws, police procedures, and to provide personal
safety tips.
2014 Work Plan:
The 2014 Work Plan for the PAC is as follows:
• Continue to support and attend the Children First Ice Cream Social, Community Open
House, and National Night Out with the goal of providing information to the public about
the police department and the Commission.
• Work with the HRC, when possible, to maximize success of initiatives such as combating
bullying.
• Produce PSAs that promote safety and awareness of the positive influence of St. Louis
Park PD in keeping the community safe. These programs will be made available Inside
the Park Community TV and through social media.
• Continue the Annual St. Louis Park Police Department Crime Prevention Crime Fund
Golf Tournament, with the goal of increasing participation.
• Continue the distribution of the Domestic Violence Awareness poster project.
• Explore additional opportunities to build trust with the community.
• Explore opportunities to utilize social media in communicating important safety
messages and updates concerning St. Louis Park and the PD.
NEXT STEPS: Does the City Council wish to meet with representatives of the PAC to discuss
the Annual Report and Work Plan?