HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014/02/24 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - Study SessionAGENDA
FEBRUARY 24, 2014
6:00 p.m. BOARDS & COMMISSIONS INTERVIEWS – Westwood Room
6:30 p.m. CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION – Council Chambers
Discussion Items
1. 6:30 p.m. Future Study Session Agenda Planning – March 3 and 10, 2014
2. 6:35 p.m. Comments on SWLRT/TranSystems Report
3. 7:35 p.m. 2014-2015 Communications Plan
8:35 p.m. Communications/Meeting Check-In (Verbal)
8:40 p.m. Adjourn
Written Reports
4. Housing Authority (HA) 2013 Annual Report and 2013 Housing Activity Report
5. January 2014 Monthly Financial Report
6. Blake Road / Aquila Avenue Corridor Study
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: February 24, 2014
Discussion Item: 1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Future Study Session Agenda Planning – March 3 and 10, 2014
RECOMMENDED ACTION: The City Council and the City Manager to set the agenda for
the Special Study Session scheduled for March 3, 2014 and the regularly scheduled Study
Session on March 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 March 3, 2014 and the regularly scheduled Study
Session on March 10, 2014.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Future Study Session Agenda Planning – March 3 & 10, 2014
Prepared by: Debbie Fischer, Office Assistant
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of February 24, 2014 (Item No. 1) Page 2
Title: Future Study Session Agenda Planning – March 3 and 10, 2014
Special Study Session, March 3, 2014 – 6:30 p.m.
Tentative Discussion Items
1. Pilot Program w/ Park Nicollet/Methodist Hospital; Post Discharge Fire Fighter Visit - Fire
(50 minutes)
Continued discussion about the Pilot Program w/ Park Nicollet/Methodist Hospital.
End of Meeting: 7:20 pm
Study Session, March 10, 2014 – 6:30 p.m.
Tentative Discussion Items
1. Future Study Session Agenda Planning – Administrative Services (5 minutes)
2. Update on Activities of Discover St. Louis Park – Administrative Services (45 minutes)
John Basill will be in attendance to provide an overview of the activities of DSLP in 2013
and 2014.
3. Human Rights Commission – Police (20 minutes)
As requested by the City Council, Human Rights Commissioners will be present to discuss
their Annual Report and Work Plan with Council.
4. Police Advisory Commission – Police (20 minutes)
As requested by the City Council, Police Advisory Commissioners will be present to discuss
their Annual Report and Work Plan with Council.
5. 2014 Connect the Park! Projects – Engineering (60 minutes)
Engineering staff will provide an overview of the eight sidewalk segments involved in the
Connect the Park! Sidewalk and Trail proposed 2014 construction projects, as well as a recap
of the feedback from the numerous open houses held with residents. The sidewalks that will
be covered are 39th Street, 41st Street, Cedar Lake Road, Joppa Avenue, Louisiana Avenue,
Morningside Road, Oxford Street and Virginia Avenue.
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.
Meeting: Study Session
Meeting Date: February 24, 2014
Discussion Item: 2
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Comments on SWLRT/TranSystems Report
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Discuss written response to TranSystems rail reroute draft report
and provide direction to staff on the submission of the comments, which are due on March 3.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: The Council’s adopted policy on freight rail is that the City
will only consider a reroute if there is no viable alternative, and then only if proper mitigation is
provided.
SUMMARY: On January 30, 2014 the Metropolitan Council released three new reports related
to the SW LRT Project (located at http://www.stlouispark.org/light-freight-rail/recent-
news.html). The City Council discussed this report on February 10, 2014 and provided a
statement for the February 12th Town Hall meeting in St. Louis Park that was presented by
Mayor Jacobs. Comments on the reports are due on March 3, 2014.
The TranSystems draft report proposes a new reroute option through St. Louis Park using the
MNS tracks. It is essentially a variation on the re-route concept plan from the SWLRT DEIS. At
the study session staff will highlight draft comments for submittal to the Met Council on the
TranSystems' draft report.
Draft comments are attached for illustration of the format and the primary comments. They are
provided in the Discussion section of this report. Staff and our consultants are continuing to
review the report and plans, and will provide an updated version of the comments at the meeting
Monday night. The comments will have the benefit of the Southwest Project Office staff’s
review, the “apples to apples” cost estimates comparing the TranSystems' proposed plan with the
Kenilworth Shallow Tunnel plan and the discussion at the Corridor Management Committee
meeting Thursday afternoon.
NEXT STEPS: Final comments will be prepared and submitted by the March 3, 2014 deadline.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not applicable at this time.
VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion: Comments on TranSystems Report
Prepared by: Meg J. McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor
Reviewed by: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
DISCUSSION
City of St. Louis Park Comments on TranSystems Reroute Plan
1. Significant Negative Community Impacts
The TranSystems’ proposed reroute is not materially different from the Brunswick re-routes
previously proposed in St. Louis Park. It has significant negative impacts on the community:
a) Requires taking six homes, eight commercial or industrial properties, one
school and portions of five other properties. It requires businesses and non-
profits (including the emergency assistance program and food shelf STEP) to be
acquired and relocated. This is very disruptive to the community. It compares
to no takings of homes and businesses for the Kenilworth Shallow Tunnel route
option.
b) Requires over 3,700 feet of new bridge structures. Bridges have many more risks
for freight trains than traveling at-grade. No freight would travel on bridges in
the Kenilworth corridor.
c) Requires raising the elevation of the tracks to 10-20 feet above adjacent single
family yards. Requires construction of berms with 4,500 feet of retaining walls.
The rail is already raised above homes in this area; raising the rail would add a
story of height to back yards with retaining walls and berms. No such similar
living environment would be created in the Kenilworth corridor.
d) Requires closure of major intersections, new streets and rerouting traffic
circuitously around schools and within neighborhoods. TranSystems proposes
rerouting traffic around the area between the schools (High School and Park
Spanish Immersion) in an extremely circuitous way. It requires the crossing of
two at-grade railroad tracks in a span of 100 feet, near one of the main entrance
points to the High School. It complicates bus traffic, decreases safety for
pedestrians and motorists, and actually increases the number of vehicle/train
interactions – which have not been accounted for accurately. No such similar
situation occurs with the Kenilworth Shallow Tunnel option.
e) Lowers State Highway 7 by 3-4 feet. This conflicts with new grade separations
at Wooddale and Louisiana Avenues, where significant public dollars (including
from the federal government, MnDOT, Met Council, and others) in the range of
$50 million have been spent.
f) Requires elevated trains to travel right next to a major Xcel electric substation,
with uncertain safety consideration for both the trains and the electric
substation. This potentially dangerous situation is not one that is desirable in
Study Session Meeting of February 24, 2014 (Item No. 2)
Title: Comments on SWLRT/TranSystems Report Page 2
any situation. There is not a comparable situation in the Kenilworth corridor that
presents such a risk to the community at large.
g) Requires trains that pass 75 feet from the St. Louis Park High School. This
disrupts learning and creates safety issues for everyone coming and going to and
from the school each time a train passes. It is not desirable to increase freight
train traffic by any school or major activity center; there is not a comparable
situation with so many potential human and auto conflicts on the Kenilworth
corridor.
2. Rail operations/viability
Twin Cities & Western Railroad has stated, "We would accept any routing plan that enabled
us to operate at the same levels of safety and cost efficiency as we do now."
a) By safety efficiency measures, the TranSystems’ Plan is not as safe or efficient
as the Kenilworth corridor. The TranSystems’ route is elevated on bridges and
berms and passes by schools, playgrounds, businesses, an electrical substation
and the backyards of homes. It is not a route that is as safe as the Kenilworth
corridor.
b) The TC&W requirement for maintaining its current operational efficiencies is
fair. The rail cars currently travel full, downhill through the Kenilworth corridor
now, and return empty when they are traveling uphill. This situation would
reverse under the TranSystems’ plan. This causes operational difficulties for the
railroad. A business owner should be able to be relocated with an equivalent
situation for replacement.
c) The TranSystems’ plan requires TC&W trains to travel over 7,000 feet further in
St. Louis Park than in Kenilworth.
d) The TranSystems’ plan adds operational complexity for TC&W by sharing the
MN&S trackage with CP, having to switch on to two other railroad’s tracks (CP
and BNSF) to complete its route. TC&W would have to wait for permission to get
on to both the CP and BNSF tracks. This not only contributes to operational
difficulties, but could impact communities with idling trains as well.
e) The TranSystems’ plan does not eliminate the reverse curves or undulating
tracks and bridge structures. This configuration, with its “roller coaster” effect,
contributed to dropping the previous reroute options.
f) The TranSystems’ plan leaves unresolved the question of who would own and
maintain the substantial new rail infrastructure it creates. The railroads have
indicated an unwillingness to own and maintain any new infrastructure.
Study Session Meeting of February 24, 2014 (Item No. 2)
Title: Comments on SWLRT/TranSystems Report Page 3
3. Cost
The TranSystems report fails to include an effective or accurate cost comparison between
its suggested route and the previously identified routes.
a) The TranSystems cost estimate does not include property acquisition and
relocation, permitting, environmental remediation on the National Lead site,
wetland mitigation, and other mitigation needs the City has identified in the
past. Not including these costs gave the impression to the public that the
TranSystems reroute was a far cheaper alternative than the Kenilworth options.
When more appropriately compared (see table below) the TranSystems' option
is clearly not the least expensive.
b) The costs and impacts of "clipping" a corner of Xcel Energy substation are not
included. In addition to acquisition costs, some mitigation and safety measures
would likely be necessary to have rail run so close to an electric substation.
What is the exact distance a train would be from any substation equipment?
c) Precisely how the estimates were prepared and what was included in
calculating the costs has not been provided. Costs were approximated in the
report from TranSystems’ and sources were not from primary sources but
estimated from secondary sources such as Zillo and Google maps. This is not
considered adequate for a professional cost estimate.
d) Substantial additional analysis is needed if cost comparisons between the
alternatives are to be made. Met Council has provided additional information
for cost comparisons that shows even with an extra $100 million for creating a
tunnel, the Shallow Tunnel option would still cost less than the TranSystems’
reroute option, with many fewer community impacts.
4. Other viable options/alternatives exist and should be considered.
a) TranSystems has acknowledged that freight rail in the Kenilworth Corridor is
viable and may be the best option.
b) At least five viable combined LRT and freight rail options in the Kenilworth
corridor are available. Many less costly alternatives exist and should be
considered. In fairness to the taxpayers of the region, these co-location
solutions should be reconsidered if lower cost is the motivating goal. The table
below shows the cost comparison of all of the viable alternatives.
c) The Shallow Tunnel Kenilworth option recommended by Met Council staff and
endorsed by the Corridor Management Committee by a nearly unanimous vote
Study Session Meeting of February 24, 2014 (Item No. 2)
Title: Comments on SWLRT/TranSystems Report Page 4
is viable. With the Shallow Tunnel option, St. Louis Park would continue to have
freight traffic just like it does today and experience light rail traffic at- grade
through the community also. The Kenilworth corridor would continue to have
freight traffic as it has today, and LRT would be almost entirely hidden in tunnels
through Minneapolis instead of travelling at grade. This option gives an extra
$100 million to the city of Minneapolis in the way of mitigation – a tunnel.
Viable Freight Rail Options - Cost Comparison
Rail Options Base Cost in millions
TranSystems Reroute $130-140
Shallow Tunnel $150-160
Elevate LRT $110
Shorten Shallow Tunnel $90
Elevate Trail $55
Co-locate all at grade $55
Relocate trail $35-40
5. Errors, omissions and unexplained assumptions
a) Report title, author and date needed.
b) The EAW study conducted by Hennepin County is not noted.
c) Table on page 8 does not include several metrics or measurements, including
environmental clean ups costs, wetland mitigation, acquisition, community
cohesion, impacts on residential property of rail being raised higher, property
takings.
d) Screening table on p 14 is not well explained. Shows supporting goals but does
not appear to state what the goals are, making it difficult to review evaluation.
e) Table on p 16 is difficult to understand. Costs are shown as NCN without
explanation of the acronym.
f) Costs for Kenilworth options are shown to be $20 million to over $300 million
with no documentation as to where these numbers came from.
g) P 20 states “a retaining wall is needed to allow for the track raise….” Unclear
what this means and it does not state how much the track would raise (rise?)
Study Session Meeting of February 24, 2014 (Item No. 2)
Title: Comments on SWLRT/TranSystems Report Page 5
next to the single family homes in St. Louis Park. This is very relevant to
understanding the impacts on St. Louis Park homeowners.
h) P 20 stated the both CP and TC&W “concur that the geometry of the concept is
acceptable.” The railroads have publicly noted they did not “concur.”
i) P 21 states that a corner of the Xcel Energy electric substation site would be
clipped, however it does not note how much of the site and what the impacts
to Xcel would be.
j) P 21 states that “the hospital is planning an expansion;” This is in error and is
not the case at this time.
k) P 21 states “the MNS would built as a passenger route” – is the statement
supposed to say it “was” built that way?
l) P 21 states that “additional property would have to be attained.” Is “acquired”
what is meant?
m) P 26 shows a number for homes within 150 feet of rail tracks. It is noted that
Zillow.com and Google Earth were the sources for this information, and counts
and distances were “estimated.” These sources are not acceptable to use to
obtain an accurate comparison. This information has been precisely counted
and collected by the City of St. Louis Park and the SPO. These numbers need to
be revised for accuracy.
n) The reported number of property takings is inaccurate. St. Louis Park’s
understands through SPO that 15 full and five partial property takings would
have to occur. This information needs to be accurately noted in the report.
o) P 25 and 26 - Traffic and crossing impacts were inaccurately counted because
the traffic that would have to be rerouted through other streets in St. Louis
Park was not included. This information needs to be accurately assessed and
reported.
Study Session Meeting of February 24, 2014 (Item No. 2)
Title: Comments on SWLRT/TranSystems Report Page 6
Meeting: Study Session
Meeting Date: February 24, 2014
Discussion Item: 3
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: 2014-2015 Communications Plan
RECOMMENDED ACTION: No action at this time. The purpose of this item is to provide a
summary of 2012-2013 communications activities and provide an overview to Council of planned
communications activities in 2014-2015. Staff will highlight several plan components at the meeting.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the Council wish to make any changes to the Communications
Plan or direct staff to pursue additional initiatives?
SUMMARY: Every two years, staff presents to the City Council its two-year communications plan
that will guide known communication activities and initiatives for a two-year period.
Communications continue to play an integral role in the city’s relationship with its residents and
businesses owners. Additionally, coordinated marketing efforts help position St. Louis Park as an
attractive community now and for the future.
The 2014-2015 Communications Plan continues an emphasis on technology-based communication
tools like websites and social media, neighborhood communications, publications management,
media relations and brand management. This plan also addresses internal communications, customer
service delivery, crisis communications and a myriad of project-specific communications.
Specific initiatives addressed in the plan include:
• Health in the Park
• Highway 7 & Louisiana Avenue
Interchange Project
• Highway 100 reconstruction
• Southwest LRT
• Connect the Park! sidewalks & trail
initiative
• Sustainable SLP branding/marketing
• ParkTV marketing initiative
• Continued Westwood Hills Nature
Center marketing initiative
• Parks & Recreation marketing
initiative
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: No financial or budget considerations at this
time; there may be budget implications related to website(s) management that would be included in
the 2015 budget.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
1. St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged community.
2. St. Louis Park is committed to being a leader in environmental leadership. We will increase
environmental consciousness and responsibility in all areas of city business.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion
2014-2015 Communications Plan
Prepared by: Jamie Zwilling, Communications & Marketing Coordinator
Reviewed by: Clint Pires, Chief Information Officer
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of February 24, 2014 (Item No. 3) Page 2
Title: 2014-2015 Communications Plan
DISCUSSION
BACKGROUND: In 2012, Council directed staff to pursue a communications plan that included
both emerging communication tools and traditional tools to effectively communicate with the public.
Some of the most significant objectives in the 2012-2013 plan included:
• Positioning the city’s website as its central communications tool
• Investigating and implementing additional avenues for two-way communication
• Developing a strategic communication plan for Westwood Hills Nature Center
• Ensuring that St. Louis Park is prepared for communicating during crises and emergencies
• Developing a comprehensive volunteer/intern program to supplement the communications staff
• Utilizing ParkAlert to communicate effectively with residents
The plan included more than five dozen strategies, such as deploying a completely new website that
met HTML5 and mobile standards, growing the city’s social media presence, adding a crowdsourcing
site (IdeasInThePark.org), and the creation of a branding initiative for Westwood Hills Nature Center.
During the implementation of this plan, the Information Resources department reorganized. In terms
of the Communications Division, the reorganization:
• Eliminated a ParkTV program manager position
• Increased a .5FTE ParkTV program producer position to a 1.0 FTE
• Increased a .75 FTE multimedia producer position to a 1.0 FTE
• Added a .5 FTE communications intern position
• Eliminated the Web Coordinator/Applications Developer Position (promotion to
Technology/Web Coordinator position to lead the IT division)
• Added a 1.0 FTE Communications Specialist position
• Transferred supervision of the Support Services staff (2.0 FTE) to the Communications &
Marketing Coordinator.
The addition of the Communications Specialist had an immediate impact on our ability to pursue the
communications objectives outlined in the 2012-2013 Communications Plan and continues to be an
essential member of our staff leading social media strategy, serving as a project manager for a variety
of communications activities, and backing up the Communications & Marketing Coordinator. The
promotion of the Web Coordinator/Applications Developer to the head of the IT Division also had
immediate and tremendous benefits to our organization. This change, however, will force us to
examine during the 2014-2015 plan, how to best manage the day-to-day content management and
application development for the city’s website and applications.
PRESENT CONSIDERATIONS: The proposed 2014-2015 Communications Plan includes more
than five dozen strategies focusing on approximately 20 major initiatives, in addition to the ongoing
communications activities.
Below are highlights from the 2014-2014 Communications Plan:
Brand Management: Several of the initiatives in the 2014-2015 Communications Plan include
continued management of city branding efforts. In addition to the continued branding initiative
associated with Westwood Hills Nature Center, the plan includes branding initiatives around youth
and adult Parks and Recreation activities and facilities and a branding initiative for the Environment
and Sustainability Commission: Sustainable SLP. Additionally, staff has developed project-specific
branding associated with the Connect the Park! and Health in the Park initiatives, and that work will
continue as well.
Study Session Meeting of February 24, 2014 (Item No. 3) Page 3
Title: 2014-2015 Communications Plan
Citizen Engagement:
Citizen engagement remains an area of continued growth and opportunity for the city. The 2014-2015
Communications Plan addresses engagement through continued use of the city’s social media sites,
neighborhood communications, business communications and customer service enhancements. Some
strategies include:
• Constant Contact - an email service that allows residents to sign up for project- or activity-
specific updates. We’re already using this service for Engineering Department activities and
Parks & Rec activities and we’ll look to use it for additional areas of city business in the
future.
• Nextdoor.com – Nextdoor is a new tool that we’re utilizing to reach our neighborhoods.
More than half of the city’s neighborhoods are already using this website, and in early 2014,
the city was able to sign up for an account that allows us to send messages directly to these
private networks. We’re not using it to replace block captain or neighborhood leader
communications, but as an additional tool to reach these groups.
• Citizen Response System - Staff is currently investigating the implementation of a Citizen
Response System (CRM) which will allow residents to report problems (i.e. potholes, long
grass, malfunctioning stoplight, etc.) via the website, text, email, a smartphone app and more
with ease. The “problem” becomes a “ticket” in a tracking system that will be directly routed
to the appropriate staff person, an automatic response will be generated, and staff will be able
to track all progress on the issue and report back to the resident.
• Ideas in the Park – Ideas in the Park is a “crowdsourcing” initiative that grew out of the
2012-2013 Communications Plan based on council and resident input that people were
looking for an area where they could engage online in way that was perhaps more in-depth
than interaction available on other social media sites. Staff has been marketing the Ideas in the
Park site through publications, the website, social media and cable TV. Several specific
initiatives have directed residents to the site, including Connect the Park, a joint anti-bullying
initiative and Health in the Park. The site has seen limited use for these project-based
discussions on the site. Additionally, the number of open-ended suggestions on the site have
been limited. That said, the suggestions have been thoughtful – a goal of utilizing this type of
crowdsourcing tool. Suggestions have included:
o Simple signposts in neighborhoods for posting of events, activities
o Improvement to the Highway 7 and Wooddale Avenue interchange
o Banning the use of plastic bags in St. Louis Park stores
o A free driver refresher course for senior citizens
o The elimination of mowing boulevards and medians for environmental purposes
o Use Nextdoor.com to connect with neighborhoods
o Explore the creation of a disc golf course in St. Louis Park
o Improving the appearance of Minnetonka Boulevard
o Adding exercise equipment at Lenox Community Center
o Recycling/organics collection questions/comments/concerns
o Adding a traffic Circle at Louisiana Avenue and Cedar Lake Road
Currently, there are approximately 80 registered users of the site, but each idea usually
generates just a few votes.
Staff believes strongly that this can be an effective tool; however, the use to date is
disappointing. The city currently pays $8,400 annually for the service. In the 2014-2015, staff
intends to continue marketing this tool and conduct further analysis in the first half of 2014 to
determine if the tool should continue to be used by the city.
Study Session Meeting of February 24, 2014 (Item No. 3) Page 4
Title: 2014-2015 Communications Plan
Major Construction Projects:
Three significant construction projects play a major role in the 2014-2015 Communications Plan:
Southwest LRT, the Highway 100 reconstruction, and the Highway 7 & Louisiana interchange. Each
of these projects already involves significant staff and time resources and we anticipate these needs to
continue to grow.
Highway 7 & Louisiana will involve significant communications activities in the spring, summer and
fall of 2014. In addition to communication about construction activity, a comprehensive roundabout
education campaign will occur.
Communications will also be central to the Highway 100 reconstruction project. While MnDot will
support some general communications, primarily focused on Highway 100 travelers, the City will
develop comprehensive plans for communicating with residents, neighborhoods and businesses
impacted in St. Louis Park.
Finally, SWLRT will continue to be a significant focal point for the communications staff. It’s
anticipated that these efforts will transition from the media relations heavy aspects now in progress to
the promotion, marketing and education aspects as the project moves along through approvals.
Websites Management:
The City currently maintains two fully-functioning, comprehensive websites: www.stlouispark.org
and www.westwoodhillsnaturecenter.org. In addition to these sites, we maintain approximately half a
dozen additional domain names for marketing purposes (i.e. HealthInThePark.org,
BeautifyThePark.org, ConnectThePark.org, etc.).
The website(s) continue to serve as central communications tools for the city. In 2013, the main city
website had 293,319 unique visitors. Clearly, this is a significant resource not only for reaching our
current residents and business owners, but also as a marketing tool.
The redesigned site developed during the 2012-2013 Communications Plan earned the top national
award for cities our size from the National Association of Government Webmasters, a title we earned
previously in 2008 for that redesign. This award-winning history results partly from a strategy to
build and maintain a custom website and content management system. The city was able to do this by
dedicating a position to these endeavors in the past.
Under the current organization of the Information Resources Department, the city no longer has a
position dedicated completely to website management. City staff desires to stay at the forefront of
website technology and strategies, so the 2014-2015 Communications Plan includes an analysis of
our current strategies and management. The analysis will consider questions such as staffing but also
whether it is time for the city to change course and begin looking at vendors for website creation. It’s
anticipated that the next generation of the city’s main website will be developed in 2015, so it’s
necessary to undertake this analysis in 2014.
NEXT STEPS: The 2014-2015 Communications Plan serves as a working document for the
Communications Division. Addition of specific communications efforts are developed regularly as
projects emerge, which Council often sees as part of other staff reports.
Staff will continue implementing the 2014-2015 Communications Plan upon Council direction.
1
2014-2015 St. Louis Park Communications Plan
Study Session Meeting of February 24, 2014 (Item No. 3)
Title: 2014-2015 Communications Plan Page 5
2
Table of Contents
1. About the Communications Division
2. St. Louis Park’s Brand
3. Guiding Principles
4. Audiences
5. Goals & Strategies
6. Communication Tools
7. Summary
Study Session Meeting of February 24, 2014 (Item No. 3)
Title: 2014-2015 Communications Plan Page 6
3
1. About the Communications Division
The Communications Division is part of the city’s Information Resources Department. The division is responsible for the programming of five city television stations, the maintenance and administration of the city's website,
intranet, and social media sites, publications, writing, graphic design, managing the city's brand, marketing and public relations.
The Information Resources Department consists of the Information Technology division in addition to the Communications Division.
2. St. Louis Park’s Brand
In 2007 and 2008, St. Louis Park embarked on a brand study and implementation project that continues today. Using the St. Louis Park Brand Manual as a guide (See Appendix C), the city strives to extend the brand through the
use of key brand messages and supportive brand messages. While these messages are not used verbatim, the Communications Division utilizes the messages as a framework in its production of materials.
Key Brand Messages
• St. Louis Park – Extending the sense of family.
• St. Louis Park: A proud, forward-thinking community.
• St. Louis Park is built firmly upon the strength of its neighborhoods.
• St. Louis Park offers the Twin Cities’ most desirable location, period.
• St. Louis Park is a community wherein government is accessible, actionable and responsive.
• St. Louis Park offers a strong and diverse educational system – each school within our city boundaries. A great education awaits in your own backyard.
Supportive Brand Messages
• St. Louis Park: Where trails keep us connected and parks are a part of our nature.
• St. Louis Park actively engages varied social, economic, religious, and ethnic heritages.
• St. Louis Park is growing green.
Information Resources Mission Statement
Provide the St. Louis Park community with
•Effective communications,
•Responsive technology and support services,
•And vital information
To embrace change, empower people, and enhance
customer service.
Study Session Meeting of February 24, 2014 (Item No. 3)
Title: 2014-2015 Communications Plan Page 7
4
• St. Louis Park believes that now is the right time for the right business.
• St. Louis Park is a community of choice for a lifetime.
In addition to the use of messaging, a key component of the brand implementation has been an updating of the design of the city’s myriad of publications. The redesign began with the city’s most prominent publications and
continues today on much smaller brochures and publications.
Vision St. Louis Park
In addition to the city’s brand messages, the city must ensure that its communications strategies are consistent with the city’s Vision. The city’s past visioning process was instrumental in serving as a basis for its branding. Therefore,
communications efforts, like other efforts in the city, are directly guided by Vision St. Louis Park’s Strategic Directions:
• St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged community.
• 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.
• St. Louis Park is committed to providing a well-maintained and diverse housing stock.
• St. Louis Park is committed to promoting and integrating arts, culture, and community aesthetics in all city initiatives, including implementation where appropriate.
3. Guiding Principles
The City of St. Louis Park’s 2014-2015 Communications Plan was created with the following guiding principles in mind:
Be proactive rather than reactive
The City of St. Louis Park must take a positive approach in the planning and execution of communications and must maintain open lines of communication with its residents, business owners, elected officials and community
partners, including the media. We want to build upon the existing good relationships with the press through proactive, upfront and honest communication and solicit their help in positive and timely coverage of the city.
Perception can be reality
Often people believe something to be true, even if it is not reality. The city spent a significant amount of time in focus groups during its branding process exploring this concept. From a communication perspective, if something is
perceived to be true, then it is true. The goal is to bring perception and reality into line by providing accurate information to ensure that perceptions about the city are correct. This means ensuring that the city’s brand identity is in
fact a living brand, and also that as community issues arise that the city provides the factual basis for discussion.
The city must tell its own story
The city must take responsibility for telling its own story rather than expecting someone else to report the story, which may result in inaccuracies and inconsistent messages. The city should utilize every opportunity to relay our
message to the public. Telling our story includes utilizing our various communication tools to discuss the city’s short- and long-term goals, vision, and mission through real-life examples of its employees, its City Council, and its
special initiatives.
Collaboration for community problem solving
This communication plan emphasizes providing citizens with accurate information to help them make informed choices. By fostering community problem solving through the collaboration and involvement of citizens, city staff, and
business owners, the community can assist the City Council in making informed decisions that will result in many more accomplishments within the city.
Two-way communication is a priority
Study Session Meeting of February 24, 2014 (Item No. 3)
Title: 2014-2015 Communications Plan Page 8
5
The two-way flow of information enhances the principle of community problem solving. Gathering information and receiving feedback is as important as providing information. This plan pivots on the two-way flow of information.
A communication program built on strong themes
A communication program built on strong and consistent themes is more efficient than one with unrelated and scattered messages. Communication should reinforce and reflect the city’s brand, goals and vision of the city
government, as established by the City Council and the city management’s team.
Communication is everyone’s job
While the Communications Division serves as the primary communicator for the city, the communication system used by St. Louis Park utilizes key staff members from each department to inform the Communications Division of
news, activities and initiatives. This allows St. Louis Park to communicate timely, accurate, and useful information to the community most effectively. It includes a strong commitment to presenting a consistent and focused message.
The plan also supports and promotes feedback and involvement of St. Louis Park residents to ensure effective two-way communication that leads to a more connected and engaged community.
St. Louis Park is diverse
St. Louis Park is socially, economically, religiously, and ethnically diverse. The community is growing older, but is also attracting many young community members. Its residents are also diverse in their communications preferences,
and this plan intends to meet the needs of the largest number of residents through consistent messages that are disseminated through traditional and new communication tools.
4. Audiences
Primary Target Audiences
The identified primary target audiences are the groups of people with whom the city needs to regularly communicate on a variety of topics and issues. They include:
• Residents of St. Louis Park
• City Council and Commissions
• Community Groups and Organizations
• Neighborhoods (may be included above)
• Regional Organizations and Agencies (government, NGOs and nonprofits)
• News Media
• Business and Property Owners and Managers
• Employees
• Volunteers within the City
• Students, Parents, and the School Communities
Secondary Target Audiences
The identified secondary target audiences are groups with which the city communicates on a semi-regular or infrequent basis. They include:
• Residents living in neighboring communities
• Businesses in neighboring communities
• Visitors to St. Louis Park
• Future or potential residents and business owners in St. Louis Park
5. Objectives & Strategies
The table below is a series of communication strategies the City of St. Louis Park would like to implement. These strategies fall within the city’s Vision Strategic Direction that St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and
engaged community. This action plan was created with the guiding principles mentioned previously in this document in mind.
Study Session Meeting of February 24, 2014 (Item No. 3)
Title: 2014-2015 Communications Plan Page 9
6
2014-2015 City of St. Louis Park Communications Plan
Objective Priority
Brand Management
Strategy: Continue to use the city’s brand manual to influence messaging, graphic design and public relations efforts High
Strategy: Update branding messaging and design as appropriate Low
Publications Management
Strategy: Continued management of combined Parks & Rec Guide/Park Perspective Newsletter High
Strategy: Addition of supplemental Engineering projects-focused Park Perspective annually in spring
High
City-School Joint Marketing
Strategy: Explore branding/marketing opportunities with St. Louis Park Public Schools
Strategy: Continue production of City-School annual calendar
Strategy: Explore concept of joint Parks & Recreation/Community Education Guide
Communications & Technology Survey
High
Medium
Medium
Strategy: Survey community regarding its access and use of technology, city communications preferences , and general sources of city information Medium
Strategy: Utilize survey results to help guide technology and communication planning Medium
Internal Communications
Strategy: Conduct audit of internal communications activities
Strategy: Develop strategic internal communications plan
Strategy: Deploy new intranet site for employees
Customer Service Enhancement
High
Medium
High
Strategy: Development and deployment of Citizen Response System
Strategy: Continued realignment of services available at the front desk of City Hall
Strategy: Investigation of appropriate locations for community kiosks that provide access to city services
Enhance Neighborhood Communications
Strategy: Continued use of engagement tools such as NextDoor.com to provide city information to residents
High
High
Low
High
Study Session Meeting of February 24, 2014 (Item No. 3)
Title: 2014-2015 Communications Plan Page 10
7
Development & monitor use of crowdsourcing tools
Strategy: Continue to reach out to the public using IdeasInThePark.org as an idea generator for city activity and for project-based communication
Provide support to the Health in the Park initiative
Strategy: Website Content Management
Strategy: Public relations support
Strategy: Event and initiative promotion and marketing
Social Media Management
Strategy: Continue to plan, enhance and execute social media use for both promotional and crisis communication efforts
Strategy: Investigate new social platforms for appropriate city applications
Strategy: Expand use of social media for the police and fire departments
Highway 7 & Louisiana Avenue
Strategy: Continue business outreach, education and promotion efforts
Strategy: Develop comprehensive roundabout education and marketing plan
Highway 100
Strategy: Develop comprehensive communications plan related to access, closures and timeline considerations for St. Louis Park community members
Immigrant/Non-English Speaking Population Outreach
Strategy: Work with Police Department to develop marketing and information tools to support the efforts of its JCPP program
Southwest LRT
Strategy: Continued promotion and discussion of community-wide station area planning process
Strategy: Discussion and education surrounding city infrastructure plans related to LRT
Strategy: Explore marketing and communications opportunities available at LRT stations (i.e. maps, information racks, public art)
Connect the Park
Strategy: Continued strategic communications efforts and website maintenance regarding the sidewalks and trails plan, branded as Connect the Park
Strategy: Use of email newsletters and communications tools to keep residents engaged
ParkTV Marketing Initiative
Strategy: Continued alignment and marketing of ParkTV as a source for city news, high school sports, and community TV productions
Strategy: Continued development of YouTube page
Strategy: Continued use of strategic use of videos in social media initiatives
Strategy: Utilize high school sports program sponsorships as a tool to generate revenue for announcer stipends
Police Advisory Commission Video Initiative
Strategy: Continue to develop series of video programs focused on safety and policing
Websites Management
Strategy: Continue to utilize city website as central communication tool
High
High
High
High
High
Medium
High
High
High
High
Medium
High
Medium
Medium
High
High
High
Medium
High
High
Medium
High
High
High
Study Session Meeting of February 24, 2014 (Item No. 3)
Title: 2014-2015 Communications Plan Page 11
8
Strategy: Conduct comprehensive website planning, including content management system analysis, staffing and next generation design guidelines
Strategy: Continued management of website domain names, including stlouispark.org, IdeasInThePark.org, westwoodhillsnaturecenter.org, HealthInThePark.org, ConnectThePark.org, and BeautifyThePark.org
Strategy: Continued use of statistical analysis to drive design and content decisions for the city website
Real Estate Professional Education
Strategy: Continue development of real estate forums as an educational and marketing tool for the city
Continued Westwood Hills Marketing Initiative
Strategy: Develop targeted marketing for Westwood Hills Nature Center programming
Strategy: Continued support and development of website and social media
Enhanced Parks & Recreation Marketing
Strategy: Develop strategic marketing efforts, including email and social media outreach, targeted at youth and adult programming
Strategy: Enhance facility rental marketing and promotion
Strategy: Comprehensive new resident marketing initiatives for homeowners and renters
Media Relations Support
Strategy: Continued media relations support and training to all departments and the city manager’s office
Strategy: Continued development of relationships with local media
Strategy: Pitch positive news stories to local and national media and trade publications
Environment & Sustainability Commission: Sustainable SLP
Strategy: Assist in brand development and management for Sustainable SLP brand
Strategy: Provide range of writing, design and media relations support
Wireless Hotspot Promotion
Strategy: Enhance promotion of wireless hotspots (now available in all city buildings and some community gather places) through signage and other activities
Continued Solid Waste, Recycling and Organics Collection marketing
Strategy: Continued marketing and education of organics collection to residents
Strategy: Promotion of recycling and organics programs in city facilities
Strategy: Strategic media relations efforts regionally, statewide and nationally related to the city’s organics collection program
Crisis Communications Planning
Strategy: Update communications section of the city’s emergency plans
Housing Programs Marketing
Strategy: Create video highlighting St. Louis Park’s various housing improvement programs
Strategy: Update printed marketing materials supporting housing goals and initiatives
Strategy: Continue marketing housing events, such as the Home Remodeling Fair, Home Remodeling Tour, etc.
Telecommunications Advisory Commission Analysis
Strategy: Examine the history and current role of the TAC
High
High
High
High
High
High
Medium
High
High
High
High
High
High
High
High
Medium
High
Medium
Medium
Medium
High
Study Session Meeting of February 24, 2014 (Item No. 3)
Title: 2014-2015 Communications Plan Page 12
9
Strategy: Explore alternative directions/concentrations for the TAC High
6. Communication Tools
• Website
• Social media
• Crowdsourcing
• Citywide Publications (Park Perspective, Park & Rec Brochure)
• Neighborhood Newsletters
• NextDoor.com
• Cable TV
• Video
• News Media
• ParkAlert (Reverse 911)
• Citizen Response Management System
• Email
• QR Codes
• LCD Screens (Display Screens)
• Public Meetings
• Advertising
• Website(s) or mobile applications
7. Summary
St. Louis Park is committed to being connected and engaged. This Communications Plan sets forth objectives and strategies that keep that commitment alive. It’s intended to be a flexible document that will guide the city’s decisions
and retain St. Louis Park’s position among Minnesota communities with strong, transparent and comprehensive communication plans.
Study Session Meeting of February 24, 2014 (Item No. 3)
Title: 2014-2015 Communications Plan Page 13
Meeting: Study Session
Meeting Date: February 24, 2014
Written Report: 4
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Housing Authority (HA) 2013 Annual Report and 2013 Housing Activity Report
RECOMMENDED ACTION: None at this time. The HA 2013 Annual Report summarizes the
work completed by the HA in 2013.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Are the activities of the Housing Authority consistent with the
expectations of the City Council?
SUMMARY: The HA’s primary mission is to administer programs that ensure the availability
of safe and desirable affordable housing options in St. Louis Park. The HA’s primary
responsibility is to administer the HA’s federally funded low income rental assistance and
service programs. In addition, the HA oversees the administration of a number of City housing
rehab programs including the Discount Loan Program, Move-up in the Park programs and the
affordable homeownership programs. The administration of these programs was delegated to the
HA by resolution of the City Council.
2013 St. Louis Park Housing Authority Board Members
• Catherine Courtney, Chairperson
• Richard Webb, Vice- Chairperson
• Suzanne Metzger, Secretary
• Markeith Thomas
• Paul Beck
Outgoing Members in 2013
• Renee DuFour
• Justin Kaufman
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: The Housing Choice Voucher Program, the
Public Housing Program and related service programs, are funded with federal resources.
Federal funds also provide the resources needed to administer the programs. The majority of
funding to finance the City housing rehab and affordable homeownership programs is provided
by the Housing Rehab Fund, Community Development Block Grant funds and the Park Shore
TIF proceeds.
VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to providing a well-maintained and
diverse housing stock.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: 2013 Housing Authority Annual Report
2013 Housing Activity Report
Prepared by: Michele Schnitker, Housing Supervisor
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of February 24, 2014 (Item No. 4) Page 2
Title: Housing Authority (HA) 2013 Annual Report and 2013 Housing Activity Report
2013 Housing Authority Annual Report
2013 Housing Authority Highlights:
Federally Funded Housing Assistance Programs
• Provided rental assistance to over 515 low-income households through HUD’s federally funded
Public Housing Program and Housing Choice Voucher Program (Section 8).
• Completed approximately $285,000 in capital improvements on Public Housing units
including significant interior renovations at Hamilton House.
• Exceeded 98% annual occupancy in the Public Housing Program and 100% annual
utilization in the Housing Choice Voucher Program.
• Attained HUD designated High Performer Status for the administration of the Public Housing and
Housing Choice Voucher Programs.
• Continued administration of 40 units of Project-Based Housing Choice Voucher rental
assistance at the three housing developments; Wayside (15), Vail Place (7) and Excelsior and
Grand (18).
• Successfully submitted grant applications for HUD renewal funding for thirty-eight (38)
units of Shelter-Plus-Care (S+C) supportive housing rental assistance in partnership with
Perspectives Inc., Community Involvement Program, Pillsbury United Communities
(Emerge). An additional 5 units administered at Wayside House utilizing unexpended S+C
funds from HUD grants designated for Perspectives and CIP.
• Successfully submitted two grant applications for HUD renewal funding to support the Family
Self Sufficiency Coordinator position. In 2013, thirty-nine (39) Housing Choice Voucher and
Public Housing program participants participated in the Family Self-Sufficiency Program. Five
participants graduated from the program.
City Housing Rehab and Homeownership Programs (Details provided in the attached 2013
Housing Activity Report)
• Move-up in the Park Home Remodeling Programs: Over this past year, the City experienced
continued steady use of the home expansion programs and high use of the design and technical
advisor programs. Attendance at the Home Remodeling Fair and Home Remodeling Tour has
also continued to be high.
• Excess Land: Staff facilitated the sale of the two remaining single-family excess land parcels.
The Edgebrook lot closed in January 2014 and the Wood Lane lot is scheduled to close in early
Spring.
• Homes Within Reach Land Trust: The City provided financial assistance to facilitate the
purchase, rehab and resale of two Land Trust low income homeownership properties. There are
now 11 land trusts homes in St. Louis Park.
• Live Where You Work Homeownership Program: There have been a total of 14 buyers under this
program, one in 2013.
• Expended 100% of CDBG funding on approved allocated projects/programs within the
designated timeline.
• Discount Loan Program: Continued steady use of the program that provides an interest rate
write down to the State’s home rehab program. SLP has the highest use of this program by
suburban communities.
• Housing Improvement Areas (HIAs): Substantial rehab work completed at two newly
established HIAs, Greensboro Square and Westwood Villas. Work at Greensboro Square
Study Session Meeting of February 24, 2014 (Item No. 4) Page 3
Title: Housing Authority (HA) 2013 Annual Report and 2013 Housing Activity Report
complete and the project closed out in 2013. The Westwood Villa work is substantially
complete and will close out project in early 2014.
• Completed Comprehensive St. Louis Park Housing Needs Analysis by Maxfield Research.
• Staff continued participation on the Louisiana Court Development Oversight Committee. The
development is now financially stable, maintaining high occupancy rates and continuing to make
improvements to the property.
• Staff is providing City representation on the SWLRT Housing Committee.
Work Plan for 2014:
= Continued successful management of the core federally funded rental assistance programs
including maximizing program utilization, ensuring sound fiscal policies and maintaining
“High Performer” status for both programs.
= Continue to submit competitive grants applications for HUD renewal fund to ensure continuation
of the Family Self-Sufficiency Program, the Resident Service Coordinator at Hamilton House and
the Shelter Plus Care rental assistance program.
= Continue to support/promote well maintained housing stock through the use of the City’s housing
rehab programs including the Move-Up-In-The-Park programs, the Discount Loan Programs, the
Emergency Rehab Grants and the HIA designation. Continue to explore opportunities to address
unmet housing rehab needs.
= Continue to support/promote affordable homeownership programs/opportunities consistent with
the City’s Vision and Housing Goals.
= Respond to opportunities to collaborate with nonprofit and for profit developers to address
housing needs in the community.
= Assist Hennepin County in administering a shallow rent subsidy program throughout suburban
Hennepin County. The program will serve individuals and families leaving homeless shelters.
= Conduct 2nd semi-annual Realtors Forum.
= Continue to represent the City on the SWLRT Housing Committee and work with committee
members in exploring the creation of corridor wide housing strategies consistent with the City’s
housing policies, goals and Vision.
= Follow-up on any City Council directives/initiatives resulting from the 2014 City Council Retreat
including revision of the City’ Housing Goals.
2013 Annual Housing Programs Activity Report
The purpose of this report is to apprise City policy makers of housing program activity in 2013.
The report provides historical trends, program descriptions, and additional information. Below
are key points of 2013, with details following this summary.
1. Remodeling Activity
a. Housing rehab projects (general remodeling) in 2013 exceeded 2012 activity and
is the second highest in the past nine years. The average cost per alteration permit
was $275 more than in 2012. Most projects were financed without using city
loans.
b. Use of the city’s Architect Design Services and Remodeling Advisor Services
remains steady in 2013.
c. 153 home energy visits were conducted through the new Home Energy Squad
Enhanced program in 2013. This program began in March 2012.
d. Major remodeling projects and home additions are on pace with previous years.
e. Discount Loan use in 2013 is similar to 2011 and 2012, but low compared to the
previous six years. Our lender confirms that the use of these loans is low
throughout their service area.
f. HIA loan used to preserve 326 modest valued condos/townhomes at Greensboro
Square and Westwood Villa occurred in 2013. Seven HIAs have been established
to date. The loan period for Cedar Trails, the first HIA, will be closed in 2014.
2. Affordable Home Ownership and Public Housing Update
a. One homebuyer used the Live Where You Work program in 2013. Fourteen
homebuyers have used the program since it began in spring 2009.
b. One affordable ownership opportunity was provided to a low income family in
2013 through Homes Within Reach. A second home was purchased in 2013 and is
in the process of being rehabbed. Eleven homes have been purchased through this
program to provide low income families with affordable home ownership options.
c. The SLP Housing Authority affordable rental housing and rental assistance
programs continue to have high occupancy and long waiting lists. Over 515
households received rental assistance in 2013.
3. Housing Matrix
a. A net gain of 18 detached single family homes in St. Louis Park in 2013.
b. 394 multi-family apartment units were added in 2013.
c. Owner occupied (homestead) properties now comprise 54% of the housing market
with rental (non-homestead) at 46%. This is a decrease in owner occupied homes
over previous years.
4. Foreclosures
a. The 2013 foreclosure rate continues to slow with 59 residential foreclosures in
2013, the lowest rate since we began tracking foreclosures in 2006.
Study Session Meeting of February 24, 2014 (Item No. 4)
Title: Housing Authority (HA) 2013 Annual Report and 2013 Housing Activity Report Page 4
1. REMODELING ACTIVITY
Residential permitted activity measures remodeling and maintenance activity; this section shows
historical trends of remodeling activity.
Permit Trends
• “Alteration Residential” or General Remodeling
The chart below shows the trend line of general remodeling activity over time. This work
includes projects with permit valuations less than $37,500 (the average value per job for
2013 is approximately $7,275, an increase in $275 from 2012) and includes such items as:
o remodeling of bathrooms and kitchens;
o finishing of basement and attic spaces;
o conversion of existing spaces;
o window and door replacements, insulation; and
o drain tile, step, and foundation work.
The trend line below reflects residents’ willingness to preserve and update housing, the
impact of the city’s proactive housing improvement assistance, and the ongoing needs of
older housing stock. General remodeling activity in 2013 exceeds permits for 2012 and is the
second highest number of remodeling permits in the past nine years.
Chart 1: Trend of Maintenance & Minor Remodeling Permits Since 2005
• Roofing and Siding Activity
Reroofing and residing permits are tracked separately. This chart illustrates the impact of
storm damage in 2008-9 and again in 2011. Almost 60% of the homes in the city had roofs
replaced between 2008 and 2011. It is likely the number of reroofs will remain relatively low
for the next decade or so. 2013 permits are slightly higher than 2012. Although there was a
late June storm which resulted in downed trees and power outages, fortunately there was not
a lot of damage to homes.
471 517
785 797
971 869
1129 1011 1091
0
500
1000
1500
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013Number of Permits Issued Year
Maintenance & Minor
Remodeling Permits
Alteration Residential (Minor)
Study Session Meeting of February 24, 2014 (Item No. 4)
Title: Housing Authority (HA) 2013 Annual Report and 2013 Housing Activity Report Page 5
Chart 2: Reroofing and Residing Permits Since 2005
*Spike in reroofing due to 2008 storms.
• Additions and Major Remodeling
The number of Major Remodeling permits (valued at more than $37,500) is on pace with
previous years. The increase in additions beginning in 2012 may be an indication that
homeowners think that the housing market is recovering and recent homebuyers who
purchased at the low end of the market are now investing in their homes.
Chart 3: Number of Addition and Major Remodeling Permits Since 2005
• Permit Valuation, 2005 – 2013
The valuation for single family remodeling activity for 2013 exceeded 2010 and 2012
permits. The following chart shows historical remodeling permit valuation for additions,
major remodels, remodeling and maintenance, garages/decks, reroofs, and siding. Additional
permits with additional valuations were issued for plumbing, heating, and electrical work
(not shown here). As the chart illustrates, permit valuation varies significantly from year to
202 216
355
845
201
761
140 161
85 66 84
573
332
117 117 73 83 0
500
1000
1500
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013Number of Permits Issued Year
Reroofing and Residing Permits
Reroof Reside
55
86
102
89
55
40
48
71 67
45 50 50 46 50
53
46 44
53
0
40
80
120
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013Number of Permits Issued Year
Addition and Major Remodel Permit Activity
Addition Residential Major Remodels
4828*
Study Session Meeting of February 24, 2014 (Item No. 4)
Title: Housing Authority (HA) 2013 Annual Report and 2013 Housing Activity Report Page 6
year, but, with the exception of the “year of the hail damage repairs” (2008), valuation has
consistently ranged between $14 and $27 million.
Chart 4: Permitted Residential Remodeling Since 2005
City Housing Improvement Services, Loans Trends and Program Descriptions
• Home Improvement Services.
Use of the city’s architectural design service and remodeling advisor was strong in 2013. The
home energy visits (Home Energy Squad Enhanced) are up over 2012; however, these visits
did not start until March of 2012. Remodeling Advisor visits are at the 2012 level and use of
the Architectural Design service is at a five year high.
Chart 5: Technical, Design and Home Energy Visits Since 2005
• Home Remodeling Fair and Tour Trend
Both the Home Remodeling Fair and Tour continue to be popular events with residents. 200-
400 residents visited each of the six tour homes in May and approximately 1,600 attended the
Annual Fair in February.
$14
$15
$23
$68
$27
$17
$26
$17 $21
0
20
40
60
80
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013Permit Valuation - Million $ Year
Residential Remodeling Permit Valuation
68
102
62 48 32 30 29 29 37
221
157 179
130 126
89 82 69 69
122
153
0
50
100
150
200
250
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013Number of Visits Year
Technical Advisory Services 2005 - 2013
Architect Services Remodeling Advisor
Home Energy Visits
Study Session Meeting of February 24, 2014 (Item No. 4)
Title: Housing Authority (HA) 2013 Annual Report and 2013 Housing Activity Report Page 7
• City Loan and Rebate Trends
The following chart shows the number of Move Up Loans, Discount Loans and Energy
Rebates issued in recent years. The number of Discount Loans, twenty two, is at the 2010
level but down from previous years. CEE notes that home improvement loan use is slow in
their service area. The number of Move Up loans is consistent with 2012. 2013 had the
highest use of the Energy Rebate program which included rebates for air sealing and
insulation in 2013. Center Point Energy is discontinuing air sealing and insulation rebates in
2014 so many customers may have tried to complete this work in 2013 in order to take
advantage of Center Point and City rebates.
Chart 6: Use of City Financial Incentives Since 2005
Summary of Move-Up Activity Loan and Service Costs Since 2005
Through 2012, for every dollar the City invested in move-up and discount loans, technical and
design services, rebate programs, and administrative costs, residents invested five dollars,
resulting in a 1:5 ratio of public to private investment.
The ratio of public to private investment in 2013 was 1:5.2 – for every dollar the city invested,
residents invested roughly five dollars and twenty cents. The City invested approximately
$240,000 in 2013 which leveraged nearly $1,208,000 worth of private investments.
7
28 20 17 17 8 10 6 6
76
88
50 55 52
64
22 26 22
22
42
83 73
113
0
25
50
75
100
125
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013Number Loans - Rebates Year
Loans and Rebates
Move up loans Discount loans Energy Rebates
Study Session Meeting of February 24, 2014 (Item No. 4)
Title: Housing Authority (HA) 2013 Annual Report and 2013 Housing Activity Report Page 8
Table 1: Move-Up Participation and Costs Since 2005
Move-Up Participation and Costs
YEAR
Move-Up
Loans
Discount
Loans
Architectural
Design
Services
Remodeling
Advisor
Services
Remodeling
Tour & Fair
Green
Rebates
Home Energy
Squad
Enhanced
Visits
Total City
Cost
2005 7 $182,806 76 $45,636 68 $15,300 221 $28,730 $272,472
2006 27 $591,264 88 $186,205 102 $22,950 157 $20,410 1 $5,000 $825,829
2007 27 $620,000 50 $74,000 62 $12,400 179 $23,270 1 $5,000 $734,670
2008 18 $330,937 55 $114,129 49 $11,025 130 $16,900 1 $5,000 $477,991
2009 17 $329,650 52 $106,000 12 $7,200 126 $16,380 1 $5,000 22 $4,092 $468,322
2010 9 $209,769 64 $86,263 30 $6,750 89 $11,510 1 $5,000 42 $7,820 $327,112
2011 10 $226,877 22 $29,213 29 $6,525 82 $10,250 1 $5,000 83 $15,465 $293,330
2012* 6 $106,232 26 $31,276 29 $6,525 69 $8,970 1 $5,505 73 $13,748 122 $7,320 $179,576
2013 6 $145,071 22 $33,063 37 $8,325 69 $8,970 1 $8,271 113 $26,000 153 $10,650 $240,350
*Other administrative costs, fees, and expenses totaled $6,256 in 2012.
**2013 Remodeling Tour & Home Remodeling Fair costs reflect the total costs including all marketing, event preparation and event costs.
Study Session Meeting of February 24, 2014 (Item No. 4)
Title: Housing Authority (HA) 2013 Annual Report and 2013 Housing Activity Report Page 9
2. AFFORDABLE HOME OWNERSHIP, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK
GRANTS AND PUBLIC HOUSING UPDATE
Live Where You Work
The Live Where You Work Homebuyer Assistance Program began in spring 2009. The goal is
to promote home ownership within the City among employees of St. Louis Park businesses.
The city provides a deferred loan of $2,500 to an eligible employee and an additional $1,000 is
provided to employees purchasing vacant lender-owned foreclosed properties. Employers are
invited to contribute a matching or lesser amount to the City’s contribution. The deferred loan
will be forgiven after 3 years if the employee continues to work for the employer and meets
other qualification requirements. The City contracts with CEE for loan administration. One
homebuyer used the program in 2013. Total participation to date is 14.
Housing Improvement Area (HIA)
The HIA is a finance tool to assist with the preservation of the city’s existing townhome and
condominium housing stock. An HIA is a defined area within a city where housing
improvements are made and the cost of the improvements are paid in whole or in part from fees
imposed on the properties within the area. The Association borrows low interest money from the
City, improvements are completed and unit owners repay the loan through fees imposed on their
properties and collected with property tax payments.
The first HIA was established in 2002. To date, seven HIA’s have been established and over
twelve million dollars of improvements has been made to 1100 units. Greensboro Condo’s HIA
was established in 2011 and improvements totaling nearly $4,000,000 were completed in 2013.
Westwood Villa Association HIA began construction in July, 2012, targeting $1,400,000 worth
of improvements and they plan to be completed with their improvements in the spring of 2014.
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
Activity completed in 2013 was funded with FY2012 CDBG funds. $173,000 funded the
following projects: rehab for SLP Housing Authority single family home, the single family low-
income homeowner’s emergency repair and loan programs, Homes within Reach, STEP’s roof
replacement, and Park & Rec Summer Youth Programming.
West Hennepin Affordable Housing Land Trust, aka Homes Within Reach (HWR).
Homes Within Reach is a program of West Hennepin Affordable Housing Land Trust that
purchases properties, rehabilitates and then sells the home to qualified low to moderate income
households. Buyers pay for the cost of the home only and lease the land for 99 years. City funds
are leveraged with CDBG, Hennepin County Affordable Housing Incentive Fund (AHIF),
HOME Partnership, Metropolitan Council, Minnesota Housing and other funds. Since the
program began in 2007 eleven homes have been purchased, two in 2013. Ten homes have been
sold to low to moderate income families and one is in the process of being rehabbed.
Homes Within Reach creates and preserves affordable homeownership opportunities for working
households in the western suburbs of Hennepin County by using the Community Land Trust
practice, which takes the cost of the land out of the real estate transaction, making the home
more affordable. This means that families can more easily purchase a home where they work or
live, retain it for generations, and not over burden their incomes in becoming homeowners. As a
result, both the families and communities can rely on affordable homeownership option, which
expands homeownership, sustains community resources, supports residential stability, preserves
affordability housing and supports a stronger local workforce.
Study Session Meeting of February 24, 2014 (Item No. 4)
Title: Housing Authority (HA) 2013 Annual Report and 2013 Housing Activity Report Page 10
Twin Cities Habitat for Humanity
The city has partnered with Habitat over the years to acquire nine blighted properties for rehab
or tear-down for new construction. In 2011 the city assisted Habitat with the purchase of one
property, construction was completed in the fall 2012 and the home was sold to a low income
family. No Habitat homes were acquired in 2013.
3. HOUSING MATRIX
The housing matrix shows at a glance the numbers and percentages of housing types, tenure
(owner or non-homesteaded), affordable units, senior designated units and large single family
homes. The matrix is a guide to evaluate future housing development proposals.
2013 Highlights
• Multifamily residential building continued to increase in 2013.
• There was a net gain of 18 single family homes.
• The percentage of owner occupied (homesteaded) units is slightly below 2012. The citywide
ratio of homestead to non-homestead property currently stands at 54/46.
• The chart shows percentages of homesteaded residential units over time. In 2013, 89% of
single family detached homes were owner occupied and 67% of condos/townhomes were
owner occupied. Owner occupancy in St. Louis Park has decreased slightly from 2012.
Chart 7: Percentage of Owner Occupied Units since 2006
• The May 2013 Maxfield Research Inc. Comprehensive Housing Needs Analysis reports the
overall vacancy rate in St. Louis Park was 3.0% as of May 2013. The overall Metro Area
vacancy rate is also very low at 2.8%.
• Rental of duplexes remains strong and reflects a strong rental market – 66% of the duplex
units are currently rental (non-homestead).
Large Single Family Homes
One of the City’s housing goals is to increase the number of larger homes available in the city.
“Large single family homes” are being defined as exceeding 1,500 square feet of living space,
having 3 or more bedrooms, 2 or more baths, and at minimum a 2 car garage. According to SLP
Assessing Department, 2,103 – or 18% – of SLP single family homes meet this threshold.
97 97 96 93 93 93 91 89 91 92 89 89
80 75 70 67
0
50
100
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013Percentage YEAR
% Owner Occupied (Homesteaded) Units
Single Family Detached Homes Condos & Townhomes
Study Session Meeting of February 24, 2014 (Item No. 4)
Title: Housing Authority (HA) 2013 Annual Report and 2013 Housing Activity Report Page 11
Although this size home is not considered large when compared to newly constructed housing, it
is when compared to all SLP homes where 75% of single family homes have a foundation size
less than 1,200 square feet. 48% of single family homes have 1,200 square feet above ground.
Affordable Housing
Forty-two percent of the total city housing stock is considered affordable. The Met Council
revised the affordability guideline in 2011. The new affordable guideline is that housing is
affordable to households with incomes at or below 60% of median area income ($49,400 for a
family of four) paying thirty percent of their income for housing costs whether renting or
owning. The previous guideline was 50% MAI for rental and 80% MAI for ownership.
Owner Occupied
• The 2013 affordable ownership purchase price is $177,500 or less.
• In 2013, 4,084 (17%) owner occupied homes are considered affordable. The purchase price
for affordable home ownership increased $6,000 in 2013; however, the values of homes have
increased so the number of owner occupied homes considered affordable is similar to 2012.
Rental
• The 2013 affordable monthly rent including utilities for a 2 bedroom apartment for a family
of four is $1,111 at 60% MAI.
• There are an estimated 5,941 (25%) affordable rental units – including known subsidized
units and estimated market rate units.
• The estimated number of market rate affordable rental units is based on the SLPHA Rental
Study and the Maxfield Research Inc Study. The Maxfield Research study surveyed
apartment properties with 8 units and larger with an 84% participation rate. The number of
affordable single family detached, duplex, condos and townhome units is from the SLPHA
Rental Study. The overall response rate from the SLPHA Rental Study was 86.7%. Although
the response rate was high this does not represent all rentals in the City.
Table 2: Comparison of Affordable Units from 2012 - 2013
2012 Guideline
2012 Numbers
2013 Guideline 2013 Numbers
Affordable Owner
Occupied Units $171,500* 4,115 $177,500*
4,084 (17% of
total city housing
units)
Affordable Rental
Units (Estimated) &
Subsidized Units
$1,134** 5,318 $1,111**
5,941 (25% of
total city housing
units)
Totals
9,433
40% of total city
housing units
10,025
42% of total city
housing units
*House Value
**Monthly rent of 2BR apartment and family of 4
Study Session Meeting of February 24, 2014 (Item No. 4)
Title: Housing Authority (HA) 2013 Annual Report and 2013 Housing Activity Report Page 12
St. Louis Park Housing Matrix
December 31, 2013
Housing Units by Type Large Single Family Homes, Affordable, and Senior Housing
Housing
Type Housing Units
Net
Units
added
in 2013
Owner
Occupied
(Homestead)
Non
Homesteaded
and/or Rental
Large Single
Family
Homes
2013
Affordable
Market Rate
Owner
Occupied
Units
2013
Reported
Affordable
Market Rate
Rental
Units**
Public
Subsidized
Affordable
Units,
Includes
Section 8
Housing
Units
Senior
Designated
Single
Family
Detached 11634 49% 18 10,394 1,240 2,103 1,924 58 55 0
Duplex 424 2% 0 146 278
82 0 0
Condos and
townhomes 3378 14% 0 2227 1151 2,160 111 0 0
Apartments*
8,274
35% 394 0 8,274 4,557 1,036 923
COOPs 114 <1% 0 114 0 42 106
Totals 23,824 100% 412 12,881 54% 10,943 46% 2,103 9% 4,084 17% 4,808 20% 1,133 5% 1,029 4%
The percentage of owner occupied (homesteaded) units to rental or non-owner occupied (non-homesteaded) units has shifted from the 60 homesteaded/40 non-
homesteaded ratio of the early 2000's. This is due in part to a change in homestead status of approximately 1,200 condominium and townhouse units since the early
2000s and the addition of new multi-family rental units.
In 2011 the Met Council revised the affordable housing income standard. Rather than using 50% MAI for rental and 80% MAI for ownership, the new affordable definition
is that housing is affordable to households with incomes at or below 60% MAI ($49,400 for a family of four in 2013) paying thirty percent of their income for housing costs
whether renting or owning. The 2013 affordable purchase price is $177,500 or less; a monthly rent of $1,111 or less for a 2 bedroom apartment for a family of four is
considered affordable.
**Reported Affordable Market Rate Rental Units based on 2012 SLPHA Rental Study and 2013 Maxfield Research Study.
Data source: SLP Community Development, Development Activity in St. Louis Park, SLP Inspections and Assessing.
Study Session Meeting of February 24, 2014 (Item No. 4)
Title: Housing Authority (HA) 2013 Annual Report and 2013 Housing Activity Report Page 13
The City contracted with Maxfield Research Inc. to conduct a Comprehensive Housing Needs
Analysis for the City of St. Louis Park. The table below illustrates the naturally occurring
affordable multi-family market rate units for rental developments with 8 or more units in St.
Louis Park at various Area Median Household Income limits. The rent range for unit type and
family size is on the second table.
Table 3: Multi-family Market Rate Rental Developments Natural Occurring Summary
Unit Type 30% 50% 60% 80% 100% 120%
STUDIO --276 81 41 -- --
1 BR --1,347 1,014 441 329 172
2 BR --1,230 575 521 92 202
2 BR + DEN -- -- --5 -- --
3 BR --14 20 40 18 1
Total 2,867 1,690 1,048 439 375
Percentage
STUDIO --9.6% 4.8% 3.9%-- --
1 BR --47.0% 60.0% 42.1% 74.9% 45.9%
2 BR --42.9% 34.0% 49.7% 21.0% 53.9%
2 BR + DEN -- -- --0.5%-- --
3 BR --0.5% 1.2% 3.8% 4.1% 0.3%
Source: Maxfield Research Inc.
Market Rate Affordability by AMI
MAY 2013
ST. LOUIS PARK
MULTIFAMILY MARKET RATE RENTAL DEVELOPMENTS
NATURAL OCCURRING SUMMARY
Study Session Meeting of February 24, 2014 (Item No. 4)
Title: Housing Authority (HA) 2013 Annual Report and 2013 Housing Activity Report Page 14
Table 4: Monthly Rents Based on Maximum Household Size & AMI
Highlighted number indicates where the 4 person Area Median Income (AMI) limit falls on the chart.
Unit
Type Min Max Min. Max.Min. Max.Min. Max.Min. Max.Min. Max.Min. Max.
Studio 1 1 $433 -$433 $735 -$735 $882 -$882 $1,152 -$1,152 $1,440 -$1,440 $1,728 -$1,728
1BR 1 2 $433 -$495 $735 -$840 $882 -$1,008 $1,152 -$1,316 $1,440 -$1,645 $1,728 -$1,974
2BR 2 4 $495 -$618 $840 -$1,050 $1,008 -$1,260 $1,316 -$1,646 $1,645 -$2,058 $1,974 -$2,469
3BR 3 6 $556 -$718 $945 -$1,219 $1,134 -$1,463 $1,482 -$1,910 $1,853 -$2,388 $2,223 -$2,865
4BR 4 8 $618 -$816 $1,050 -$1,386 $1,260 -$1,664 $1,646 -$2,172 $2,058 -$2,715 $2,469 -$3,258
Sources: HUD, MHFA, Maxfield Research Inc.
Income Limits by Household Size
Studio 1 1 $17,300 $17,300 $29,400 $29,400 $35,280 $35,280 $46,080 $46,080 $57,600 $57,600 $69,120 $69,120
1BR 1 2 $17,300 $19,800 $29,400 $33,600 $35,280 $40,320 $46,080 $52,640 $57,600 $65,800 $69,120 $78,960
2BR 2 4 $19,800 $24,700 $33,600 $42,000 $40,320 $50,400 $52,640 $65,840 $65,800 $82,300 $78,960 $98,760
3BR 3 6 $22,250 $28,700 $37,800 $48,750 $45,360 $58,500 $59,280 $76,400 $74,100 $95,500 $88,920 $114,600
4BR 4 8 $24,700 $32,650 $42,000 $55,450 $50,400 $66,540 $65,840 $86,880 $82,300 $108,600 $98,760 $130,320
120%
1 One-bedroom plus den and two-bedroom plus den units are classified as 1BR and 2BR units, respectively. To be classified as a bedroom,
a den must have a window and closet.
Note: 4-person Hennepin County AMI is $82,300 (2013)
MONTHLY RENTS BASED ON MAXIMUM HOUSEHOLD SIZE & AMI
HENNEPIN COUNTY - 2013
Max. Rent Based on Household Size (@30% of Income)
HHD Size 30%50%60%80%100%
Study Session Meeting of February 24, 2014 (Item No. 4)
Title: Housing Authority (HA) 2013 Annual Report and 2013 Housing Activity Report Page 15
4. RELATED ISSUES
Foreclosures
Foreclosures are measured by the number of sheriff sales. The number of residential foreclosures
dropped in 2013 to 59 sales which is the lowest number of foreclosures since tracking began in
2006. This continues the downward trend and matches the metro area trend of fewer
foreclosures. The chart below shows foreclosures since 2006.
Chart 8: St. Louis Park Residential Foreclosures by Year, 2006 –2013
Along with an overall slowing of residential foreclosures, the pace of condominium
foreclosures has also slowed as noted in the trend chart below which shows foreclosure by
housing type over time.
Chart 9: Residential Foreclosures by Housing Type
*Townhome & DB = Townhome and Double Bungalow/Duplex
76 87
133
92
191
163
122
59
0
40
80
120
160
200
240
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013Number of Sherrif Sales Year
Residential Foreclosures by Year
56
78
93
63
106 109
82
45
20 9
30 27
54
40 30
9 0 0 10 2
31
8
10 5 0
40
80
120
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013Number Sherrif Sales Year
Residential Foreclosures by Housing Type
Single Family Detached Condos Townhome & DB
Study Session Meeting of February 24, 2014 (Item No. 4)
Title: Housing Authority (HA) 2013 Annual Report and 2013 Housing Activity Report Page 16
Property Work Group
The City’s Property Watch Team, developed in 2006, monitors foreclosure activity and problem
properties. Staff from all departments track, monitor and respond to issues related to problem
foreclosed homes. The goal of this effort is to ensure that vacant, foreclosed homes do not
become “problem properties.” The Inspections Department follows-up with vacant foreclosed
properties through the Property Maintenance Inspection process and works with bankers,
investors and the managing companies. In addition to the City’s concerted efforts, bankers and
lenders have become far more proactive in ensuring their investments are maintained.
The city continues to promote the foreclosure prevention services provided by Community
Action Partnership of Suburban Hennepin County and Home Ownership Center through direct
mailings, Park Perspective, City’s social media, and staff referrals.
Louisiana Court Update
PPL/Louisiana Court is continuing to maintain close to 100% occupancy and is financially
stable. Metro Plains Management Company assumed property management of PPL’s Louisiana
Court complex in June 2011 and was able to obtain 100% occupancy within a few months.
Metro Plains has continued to meet weekly with the Community Liaison Officer to review police
calls related to tenant disturbances or criminal activity in or around the complex. The Oversight
Committee that includes representatives from the County, MHFA, PPL, Metro Plains, the City
and the tax credit syndicator meet twice a year to review the operational status of the
development including implementations of capital improvements.
Due to the continuing high occupancy at the development, use of the Shallow Rent Subsidy
Program has not been necessary.
5. ST. LOUIS PARK HUD FEDERALLY FUNDED HOUSING PROGRAMS: UPDATE
The Housing Authority administers programs that ensure the availability of safe and desirable
housing options in the St. Louis Park community. These programs include the Public Housing
program, Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher rental assistance program, Shelter Plus Care rental
assistance program, Louisiana Court Max 200 Rental Assistance Program, and TRAILS family
self-sufficiency program. The Authority currently serves over 500 eligible, low-income
households through their housing programs.
Public Housing
The HA owns a low-rise apartment building (108 one-bedroom units and 2 two-bedroom
caretaker units) built in 1975, and 37 scattered site single-family units (3 to 5 bedrooms)
acquired and constructed between 1974 and 1996. Although the low-rise building is designated
for general occupancy, priority is given to elderly and disabled. The single-family scattered units
house families with children. The HA also holds the HUD Annual Contributions Contract (ACC)
and maintains a waiting list for 12 two-bedroom Public Housing apartment units located at
Louisiana Court. These units are owned and managed by Project for Pride in Living. The units
and occupancy rates for the Public Housing units are noted in the table.
Study Session Meeting of February 24, 2014 (Item No. 4)
Title: Housing Authority (HA) 2013 Annual Report and 2013 Housing Activity Report Page 17
Public Housing Total
Units 1-BR 2-BR 3-BR 4-BR 5-BR Occupancy
June 30, 2013
Hamilton House 108 108 99%
Scattered Site Single Family 37 0 0 17 17 3 99%
Louisiana Court, Metropolitan
Housing Opportunity (MHOP) Units 12 12 99%
Total (bedroom size) 108 12 17 17 3
Total 157 99%
Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program
The HA is funded to administer up to 268 Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers. The rent
assistance program provides rent subsidies for low-income individuals and families in privately
owned, existing market rate housing units. The rent subsidy is paid directly to the owner of the
rental property by the HA with funds provided by HUD. The HA offers both tenant-based and
project-based vouchers. Forty vouchers of the HA’s allocation are designated for use in three
privately owned developments (Excelsior & Grand, Vail Place, and Wayside) and are referred to
as project-based vouchers.
Shelter Plus Care (Permanent Rental Assistance)
The Shelter Plus Care Program is designed to link rental assistance with supportive services for
hard-to-reach homeless persons with disabilities (primarily those who are seriously mentally ill
or have chronic problems with alcohol, drugs or both) and their families. Grants are provided to
be used for permanent housing which must be matched with supportive services that are equal in
value to the amount of rental assistance and appropriate to the needs of population to be served.
St. Louis Park is the grant recipient and we partner with three sponsor organizations that
administer supportive housing programs. The Housing Authority administers 43 units of Shelter
Plus Care assistance.
Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers
(HUD Approved)
Units Utilization YTD
December 31, 2013
Tenant-Based (56 are Port-Outs) 188 91%*
Tenant-Based Port - Ins 50 Avg./month
Project-Based: 37
Wayside Supportive Housing 15 100%
Excelsior & Grand 18 100%
Vail Place 7 100%
Shelter Plus Care Rental Assistance: 43
Perspectives Inc. 11 100%
Community Involvement Program (CIP) –
Scattered Site
11
81%
CIP- Clear Spring Road 8 80%
Project for Pride In Living (PPL) 8 105%
**Wayside Supportive Housing 5 94%
Total 358
* Due to sequestration and other budget constraints the Housing Authority can only financially support 91% of
the HUD allocation for vouchers.
**Beginning in 2012, CIP and Perspective grants provide funding for up to five units of Shelter Plus Care Rental
Assistance at Wayside House. Wayside House’s Project Based units were decreased by five units to fifteen.
Study Session Meeting of February 24, 2014 (Item No. 4)
Title: Housing Authority (HA) 2013 Annual Report and 2013 Housing Activity Report Page 18
Waiting Lists
Assisted Housing Waiting List as of December 31, 2013
Public Housing 1-BR 1-BR
Handicap 2-BR 3-BR 3-BR
Handicap 4-BR 5-BR Total
841 61 332 236 4 136 47 1657
Section 8 450
Excelsior & Grand 63
MAX 200 79
2249
6. PROGRAM DESCRIPTIONS
Technical, Design, and Conservation Services
Architectural Design Service
This service provides an architectural consultation for residents to assist with brainstorming
remodeling possibilities and to raise the awareness of design possibilities for expansions.
Residents select an approved architect from a pool developed in conjunction with the MN
Chapter of the American Institute of Architects. All homeowners considering renovations are
eligible for this service regardless of income; however, to ensure committed participants,
residents make a $25 co-pay.
Remodeling/Rehab Advisor
The intention of this service is to help residents improve their homes (either maintenance or
value added improvements) by providing technical help before and during the construction
process. All homeowners are eligible for this service regardless of income. Resident surveys
indicated that homeowners valued the service and would recommend it to others. The City
contracts with the Center for Energy and Environment (CEE) for this service.
Home Energy Squad Enhanced Visit
Home Energy Squad Enhanced program is a comprehensive residential energy program designed
to help residents save money and energy and stay comfortable in their homes. The cost per
resident was decreased to $50 per enhanced visit in 2013. The home energy squad consultant
evaluates energy saving opportunities and installs the energy-efficiency materials the homeowner
choses including: door weather stripping, water heater blanket, programmable thermostat,
compact fluorescent light bulbs, high efficiency shower heads and faucet aerators. They will also
perform diagnostic tests including a blower door test to measure the home for air leaks, complete
an insulation inspection, safety check the home’s heating system and water heater and help with
next steps such as finding insulation contractors. All single family and duplex homeowners are
eligible. Renters qualify for the installed visit ($30) without diagnostic tests. The Home Energy
Squad Enhanced visits qualified residents for CEE’s low interest financing and utility rebates
and they also notify residents of the city loan and rebate opportunities.
The program which began in March, 2012, is administered by the Center for Energy and
Environment (CEE). The city pays $70 per resident visit which is leveraged with funds from
Xcel Energy, Center Point Energy and CEE.
Study Session Meeting of February 24, 2014 (Item No. 4)
Title: Housing Authority (HA) 2013 Annual Report and 2013 Housing Activity Report Page 19
Annual Home Remodeling Fair
The cities and school district community education departments of St. Louis Park, Hopkins,
Minnetonka, and Golden Valley co-sponsor the annual home remodeling fair. The fair provides
residents an opportunity to attend seminars, talk with vendors and city staff about permits,
zoning, home improvement loans, and environmental issues related to remodeling. The fair is a
self-sustaining event and vendor registration fees cover the costs.
Home Remodeling Tour
The annual tour is designed to meet the housing goal to remodel and expand single family owner
occupied homes. The self-guided tour of six homes provides a showcase of a variety of home
remodeling projects to provide ideas, information, and inspiration to other residents considering
remodeling.
Financial Programs
Discount Loan Program
This program encourages residents to improve their homes by “discounting” the interest rate on
the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency (MN Housing) home improvement loans. Residents
with incomes of $67,200 or less qualify for a greater discount than those with incomes of
$96,500 or less. Eligible improvements include most home improvement projects with the
exception of luxury items such as pools and spas.
The City contracts with CEE for loan administration. Implementation of discounting of MHFA
loans began in late 1999 as a pilot project. The City is now second among all Minnesota cities to
use the MHFA loans, only exceeded by Minneapolis.
Move – Up Transformation Loan
The purpose of this loan is to encourage residents with incomes at or below 120% of median area
income ($98,750 for a family of four) to expand their homes. The program provides deferred loans
for 25% of the applicant’s home expansion project cost, with a maximum loan of $25,000. The
revolving loan pool will continue to fund future expansions - one $12,005 loan was repaid in 2013.
This loan requires significant upfront work by the residents, from deciding on the scope of the
project to selecting contractors. Loan guidelines are:
• Only residents making significant expansions are eligible. The minimum project cost must
exceed $35,000.
• The maximum loan amount is $25,000.
• The loan has 0% interest with a carrying cost fee of 3% paid by the borrower which covers
the lender’s administrative fee.
Green Remodeling Program & Energy Rebates
The Green Remodeling Program includes the Home Energy Squad Enhanced home visit
program, use of energy rebates, and access to CEE’s Home Energy Loan. The city provides a
match of 50% of gas and electric utility rebates for energy efficient furnaces, water heaters, air
conditioners and qualifying air sealing and insulation. The average rebate in 2013 was $230, an
increase of $42 from 2012, for a total City cost of $26,000. Air sealing and insulation was a new
rebate program and rebates averaged $500; however, Center Point has suspended this program
for 2014 so there may be a decrease in rebates in 2014. In 2013, CEE also provided low interest
loans to residents making qualifying energy improvements. This energy improvement loan has
no income restrictions and there is no cost to the City.
Study Session Meeting of February 24, 2014 (Item No. 4)
Title: Housing Authority (HA) 2013 Annual Report and 2013 Housing Activity Report Page 20
Meeting: Study Session
Meeting Date: February 24, 2014
Written Report: 5
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: January 2014 Monthly Financial Report
RECOMMENDED ACTION: No action required at this time.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: None at this time.
SUMMARY: The Monthly Financial Report provides a summary of General Fund revenues
and departmental expenditures and a comparison of budget to actual throughout the year.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Actual expenditures should generally run
about 8.5% of the annual budget in January. General Fund expenditures are at approximately
7.4% of the adopted budget at the end of January. Revenues tend to be harder to measure in this
same way due to the timing of when they are received, examples of which include property taxes
and State aid payments (Police & Fire, DOT/Highway User Tax, PERA Aid, etc.).
There are very few variances at this early point in the year. License and permit revenue is at
25% of budget due to the fact that a large portion of the 2014 business and liquor license
payments have already been collected, which is consistent with previous years. The Vehicle
Maintenance Division is running slightly over budget on expenditures because of fuel and
equipment maintenance expenses, which is typical of the winter months.
VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Summary of Revenues & Expenditures
Prepared by: Darla Monson, Senior Accountant
Reviewed by: Brian A. Swanson, Controller
Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Summary of Revenues & Expenditures - General Fund As of January 31, 2014 20142014201220122013201320142014 Balance YTD Budget BudgetActual Budget Unaudited Budget Jan YTD Remaining to Actual %General Fund Revenues: General Property Taxes20,169,798$ 20,209,604$ 20,657,724$ 21,987,968$ 21,157,724$ -$ 21,157,724$ 0.00% Licenses and Permits2,375,399 3,241,812 2,481,603 3,097,340 2,691,518 677,642 2,013,876 25.18% Fines & Forfeits328,150 341,356 335,150 312,182 320,150 10,000 310,150 3.12% Intergovernmental1,232,579 1,365,023 1,300,191 1,370,611 1,282,777 158 1,282,619 0.01% Charges for Services2,341,104 2,169,631 1,837,976 1,765,996 1,857,718 66,056 1,791,662 3.56% Miscellaneous Revenue1,079,550 1,092,234 1,092,381 1,004,884 1,112,369 72,255 1,040,114 6.50% Transfers In2,023,003 2,066,136 1,816,563 1,789,513 1,837,416 150,353 1,687,063 8.18% Investment Earnings125,000 136,415 150,000 - 150,000 - 150,000 0.00% Other Income45,600 276,273 36,650 10,755 17,950 144 17,806 0.80%Total General Fund Revenues29,720,183$ 30,898,483$ 29,708,238$ 31,339,249$ 30,427,622$ 976,608$ 29,451,014$ 3.21%General Fund Expenditures: General Government: Administration1,012,554$ 977,392$ 877,099$ 888,900$ 939,391$ 74,035$ 865,356$ 7.88% Accounting641,691 639,999 827,320 819,454 767,094 61,409 705,685 8.01% Assessing517,840 518,271 543,855 543,202 559,749 49,157 510,592 8.78% Human Resources667,612 645,357 678,988 731,483 693,598 56,998 636,600 8.22% Community Development1,076,376 1,052,186 1,094,517 1,090,213 1,151,467 90,940 1,060,527 7.90% Facilities Maintenance1,083,128 972,481 1,074,920 1,035,155 1,053,715 55,522 998,193 5.27% Information Resources1,507,579 1,363,266 1,770,877 1,595,869 1,456,979 82,609 1,374,370 5.67% Communications & Marketing265,426 244,392 201,322 170,013 566,801 28,086 538,715 4.96% Community Outreach8,185 5,341 8,185 4,581 8,185 - 8,185 0.00% Engineering927,337 939,425 303,258 288,544 506,996 32,104 474,892 6.33%Total General Government7,707,728$ 7,358,111$ 7,380,341$ 7,167,414$ 7,703,975$ 530,861$ 7,173,114$ 6.89% Public Safety: Police7,273,723$ 7,124,784$ 7,443,637$ 7,225,579$ 7,571,315$ 616,722$ 6,954,593$ 8.15% Fire Protection3,346,931 3,291,655 3,330,263 3,244,878 3,458,161 308,987 3,149,174 8.93% Inspectional Services1,889,340 1,869,616 1,928,446 1,931,772 2,006,200 169,960 1,836,240 8.47%Total Public Safety12,509,994$ 12,286,055$ 12,702,346$ 12,402,229$ 13,035,676$ 1,095,668$ 11,940,008$ 8.41% Operations & Recreation: Public Works Administration389,783$ 378,852$ 393,054$ 288,207$ 222,994$ 15,420$ 207,574$ 6.91% Public Works Operations2,604,870 2,521,463 2,698,870 2,705,345 2,625,171 169,442 2,455,729 6.45% Organized Recreation1,305,747 1,352,273 1,280,117 1,258,107 1,290,038 86,650 1,203,388 6.72% Recreation Center1,466,246 1,516,121 1,449,930 1,501,627 1,543,881 78,544 1,465,337 5.09% Park Maintenance1,461,645 1,444,448 1,431,825 1,424,139 1,423,011 102,188 1,320,823 7.18% Westwood515,456 506,404 520,554 503,309 531,853 39,199 492,654 7.37% Environment390,009 382,378 430,876 433,059 433,750 9,789 423,961 2.26% Vehicle Maintenance1,188,705 1,326,153 1,240,325 1,273,242 1,285,489 126,098 1,159,391 9.81%Total Operations & Recreation9,322,461$ 9,428,091$ 9,445,551$ 9,387,035$ 9,356,187$ 627,331$ 8,728,856$ 6.70% Non-Departmental: General -$ 65,292$ -$ 2,580$ 4,000$ -$ 4,000$ 0.00% Transfers Out- 1,160,000 - - - - - 0.00% Tax Court Petitions180,000 - 180,000 53,345 327,784 - 327,784 0.00%Total Non-Departmental180,000$ 1,225,292$ 180,000$ 55,925$ 331,784$ -$ 331,784$ 0.00%Total General Fund Expenditures29,720,183$ 30,297,549$ 29,708,238$ 29,012,603$ 30,427,622$ 2,253,860$ 28,173,762$ 7.41%Study Session Meeting of February 24, 2014 (Item No. 5) Title: January 2014 Monthly Financial ReportPage 2
Meeting: Study Session
Meeting Date: February 24, 2014
Written Report: 6
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Blake Road / Aquila Avenue Corridor Study
RECOMMENDED ACTION: No action required. The purpose of this item is to provide
Council with information regarding a study that is being completed for the Blake Road / Aquila
Avenue Corridor between Interlachen Boulevard and W. 36th Street in conjunction with other
cities and agencies.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: None at this time. Please let staff know if any questions or
concerns you might have.
SUMMARY: The City of Hopkins has approached the City of St. Louis Park and asked us to
participate in the completion of a study for the Blake Road/ Aquila Avenue Corridor between
Interlachen Boulevard and W. 36th Street. The purpose of this study is to develop a “conceptual
improvement plan” for the corridor from Interlachen Boulevard in the City of Edina to W. 36th
Street in the City of St. Louis Park that identifies the specific improvements that will be made in
the corridor to achieve the land use and transportation vision for the corridor and accommodate
the numerous plans for change adjacent to it. These improvements must be acceptable to
Hennepin County, businesses and residents in the corridor, MnDOT, the Watershed District,
Metro Transit, Edina, St. Louis Park and other affected agencies.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: The City of Hopkins is the lead agency for
the study, however, there are several partners involved and contributing to the cost. A summary
of the partners and their funding share:
Agency Cost Share
Hennepin County $100,000
Three Rivers Park District $5,000
MCWD $5,000
City of Edina $10,000
City of Hopkins $20,000
City of St. Louis Park $10,000
Total Cost $150,000.00
The City of St. Louis Park’s contribution will come from Engineering Department Professional
Services funds.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion
Figure 1 – Location Map
Schedule
Prepared by: Debra M. Heiser, Engineering Director
Reviewed by: Meg McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of February 24, 2014 (Item No. 6) Page 2
Title: Blake Road / Aquila Avenue Corridor Study
DISCUSSION
BACKGROUND: The Blake Road / Aquila Avenue Corridor between Interlachen Boulevard
and W. 36th Street is expected to undergo significant change over the next 20 years. A major
catalyst for this change will be the implementation of LRT in the Southwest corridor and
construction of a station at Blake Road which is expected to open by 2018.
The City of St. Louis Park Comprehensive Plan calls for improvements to Aquila Avenue that
include; safer pedestrian street crossings around Knollwood Mall, improve location and safety of
bus stops in the corridor, slow down traffic, reduce crashes, create a north south bike route,
construct sidewalks, and create connections to neighborhood parks.
The goals of improving the Blake Road / Aquila Avenue Corridor include: 1) Better
accommodate all transportation modes including bicycles, pedestrians and transit; 2) facilitating
access to the future LRT station near Blake Road and 2nd Street; 3) facilitate future
redevelopment in the corridor; and 4) provide better connections to the adjacent neighborhoods
and parks.
The purpose of Blake Road / Aquila Avenue Corridor Study is to develop a “conceptual
improvement plan” for the corridor from Interlachen Boulevard in the City of Edina to W. 36th
Street in the City of St. Louis Park that identifies the specific improvements that will be made in
the corridor to achieve the land use and transportation vision for the corridor and accommodate
the numerous plans for change adjacent to it. These improvements must be acceptable to
Hennepin County, businesses and residents in the corridor, MnDOT, the Watershed District,
Metro Transit, Edina, St. Louis Park and other affected agencies. The conceptual improvement
plan for Blake Road will address:
• The overall cross-section for Blake Road / Aquila Avenue including number of lanes, turn lanes, lane
widths, bicycle accommodations, median locations and median widths, boulevards, sidewalks, overall
cross-section width, construction limits and right-of-way needs.
• Location of sidewalks and trails and proposed pedestrian and bicycle crossings of Blake Road/ Aquila
Avenue, TH 7 and Excelsior Boulevard.
• Location of vehicular access to and from Blake Road / Aquila Avenue
• Blake Road / Aquila Avenue improvements needed to provide access to the Southwest LRT Blake
Road Station
• Potential intersection improvements needed at the Blake Road intersections with Excelsior
Boulevard, 2nd Street, Lake Street, Cambridge Street, TH 7, 36th Street, and any other recommended
access locations in the corridor. The feasibility of an interchange at Blake Road / Aquila Avenue and
TH 7 will be looked at as part of this study.
• Recommendations for landscaping and lighting in the corridor.
The conceptual plan will be developed in coordination with the planning and preliminary design
that is being completed for the Southwest LRT corridor and consistent with the current
redevelopment planning in the corridor. It will also meet the guidelines and standards of the
agencies with jurisdiction, approval or permitting authority in the corridor.
The schedule includes opportunities for the public to weigh in on the study. Staff will reach out
the neighborhood groups and property owners within the corridor to ensure that they are aware
of the study and the anticipated goals and outcomes. They will be invited to participate in the
process and provide feedback.
169CAMBRIDGE ST
36TH ST W
OXFORD ST
LAKE
S
T
W
A
Q
U
I
L
A
A
V
E
S
LAKE ST N E
COLD
STORAGE
SITE
2ND S
T
N
E
BLAKE ROAD SBOYCE ST
GOODRICH ST
BELMORE LN
MALONEY AVE
BLAKE MIDDLE
SCHOOL
INTERLACHEN BLVD
INTERLACHEN
COUNTRY CLUB
EXCELSIOR BLVD
STATE HWY N
O
7
TRAIL
FU
T
U
R
E
T
R
A
I
L
TRAIL
Bridge
Width?
Potential Blake Road
LRT Station Park and
Ride
Access
Sidewalks
and Access
KEY ISSUES
• Traffic Forecasts
• Cross Section for Blake Road
• Pedestrian and Bicycle Needs
• Trail and Pedestrian Crossing Locations
• Landscaping Design
• Lighting Design
• Feasibility of Highway 7 Interchange
LEGEND
Blake Road Small Area Plan
East End Land Use Study
Evaluate Access Requirements
Study LimitsBLAKE ROAD NStudy Session Meeting of February 24, 2014 (Item No. 6)
Title: Blake Road / Aquila Avenue Corridor Study Page 3
You created this PDF from an application that is not licensed to print to novaPDF printer (http://www.novapdf.com)
Study Session Meeting of February 24, 2014 (Item No. 6)
Title: Blake Road / Aquila Avenue Corridor Study Page 4