HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014/03/24 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - Study SessionAGENDA
MARCH 24, 2014
6:30 p.m. CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION – Community Room
Discussion Items
1. 6:30 p.m. Future Study Session Agenda Planning – April 21 and April 28, 2014
2. 6:35 p.m. Telecommunications Advisory Commission 2013 Annual Report and 2014
Work Plan
3. 6:55 p.m. Presentation of Southwest LRT Station Area Plans
4. 7:55 p.m. 2014 Assessment Report
5. 8:40 p.m. Update on Bullying Legislation – HF826
8:50 p.m. Communications/Meeting Check-In (Verbal)
8:55 p.m. Adjourn
Written Reports
6. February 2014 Monthly Financial Report
7. Project Report: Street Maintenance Project – Sealcoat Streets in Area 6 – Project No.
4014-1206
8. Amendments to City Code Chapter 8 Business Licenses; Massage Therapist, Massage
Therapy Establishment and Tobacco Products and Tobacco Related Devices
9. Zoning Ordinance Amendments Related to Anaerobic Digesters
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: March 24, 2014
Discussion Item: 1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Future Study Session Agenda Planning – April 21 and April 28, 2014
RECOMMENDED ACTION: The City Council and the City Manager to set the agenda for
the regularly scheduled Study Session on April 28, 2014 and a possible Special Study Session on
April 21.
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 regularly scheduled Study Session on April 28, 2014 and a possible special Study Session on
April 21.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Future Study Session Agenda Planning – April 21 and April 28,
2014
Prepared by: Kay Midura, Office Assistant
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of March 24, 2014 (Item No. 1) Page 2
Title: Future Study Session Agenda Planning – April 21 and April 28, 2014
No Meeting April 14, 2014 – Passover
Special Study Session, April 21, 2014 – 6:30 pm to 7:30 pm
Tentative Discussion Items
1. Discuss Housing Policy – Community Development (1 hour)
This is intended to be a follow-up to the City Council Workshop in late February. Staff plans
to bring revised draft policy language per direction provided at the workshop, as well as
background information about affordable housing as requested by the Council.
Convene Local Board of Appeal & Equalization, April 28 – 6:30 p.m.
Study Session, April 28, 2014 – 6:40pm
Tentative Discussion Items
1. Future Study Session Agenda Planning – Administrative Services (5 minutes)
2. Parks & Recreation Advisory Commission – Operations & Recreation (20 minutes)
As requested by the City Council, Parks & Recreation Advisory Commissioners will be
present to discuss their Annual Report and Work Plan with Council.
3. Community Center Project – Operations & Recreation (45 minutes)
Per Council direction last fall, staff is now checking in on whether to move to next steps with
this project. Staff has worked with architect HGA to explore some phasing options and will
bring these options to Council at this meeting.
Communications/Meeting Check-In – Administrative Services (5 minutes)
Time for communications between staff and Council will be set aside on every study session
agenda for the purposes of information sharing.
End of Meeting: 7:55 pm
Reports
4. 2014 March Financial Report
5. 1st Quarter Investment Report
Meeting: Study Session
Meeting Date: March 24, 2014
Discussion Item: 2
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Telecommunications Advisory Commission 2013 Annual Report/2014 Work Plan
RECOMMENDED ACTION: The purpose of this report is to provide the City Council with
the the 2013 Annual Report and 2014 Work Plan prepared by the Telecommunications Advisory
Commission (TAC).
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Are the activities of the TAC in alignment with Council
expectations? Does the Council wish to provide further direction into the planned analysis of
TAC’s purpose, goals and mission?
SUMMARY: The 2013 Annual Report and 2014 Work Plan were submitted for Council review
at the March 10, 2014 Study Session. It was the consensus of the Council to meet with the TAC
to discuss the Annual Report and Work Plan.
Top priorities for the TAC in 2014 will include a franchise fee compliance audit of Comcast and
an analysis of TAC’s purpose, goals and mission. Specifically, this analysis will explore the
community representation role of TAC as it relates to Cable TV, technology and
communications.
City staff and members of the TAC, including current Chair Cindy Hoffman, will be in
attendance.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged
community.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: 2013 Summary
2014 Work Plan
Cable TV Complaints Received 2009-2013
Prepared by: Reg Dunlap, Civic TV Coordinator
Reviewed by: Jamie Zwilling, Communications & Marketing Coordinator
Through: Clint Pires, Chief Information Officer
Approved by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager
Study Session Meeting of March 10, 2014 (Item No. 2) Page 2
Title: Telecommunications Advisory Commission 2013 Annual Report/2014 Work Plan
2013 SUMMARY
The Telecommunications Commission met five times in 2013 and participated in various
educational opportunities. Some Commissioners attended monthly webinars sponsored by the
National Association of Officers and Advisors (NATOA), notably Rick Dworsky, Toby Keeler
and Bruce Browning. Commissioners Browning, Dworsky, Hartman, Hoffman and Keeler
attended the annual conference of the Minnesota Association of Community Television Advisors
(MACTA) in October. Commissioner Keeler served for the second year of a term on the
MACTA Board. Commissioners Dworsky and Keeler also attended MACTA’s annual “Day at
the Capitol” for background information on telecommunications issues and the legislative
session.
Bill Theobald served as chair in 2013, and vice chair Cindy Hoffman was elected chair for 2014.
Comcast franchise fee compliance audit
The Commission discussed issues related to conducting a franchise fee compliance audit at
several meetings, including monitoring the outcomes of audits in other communities and
partnering with other cities to share the cost. On August 28, 2013, the Commission voted 6-0 to
provide notice to Comcast to review franchise fees for the calendar years 2011, 2012 and 2013.
Comcast customer service
The Commission reviews Comcast complaints reported to City staff at each meeting, with the
customer’s name redacted to protect customer privacy. Despite Comcast’s attempts to improve
customer service call centers, the number of complaints in 2013 increased significantly.
Technical service complaints went from nine in 2012 to 30 in 2013, and telephone customer
service complaints increased from eight to 35 (Details attached). On December 11, 2013, the
Commission passed a motion requesting Comcast provide the City with call center information
as outlined in §76.309 in the Code of Federal Regulations, customer service obligations.
Comcast complied with this request in 2014, and results will be part of that annual report.
The key sections are:
• Under normal operating conditions, telephone answer time by a customer
representative, including wait time, shall not exceed thirty (30) seconds when the
connection is made. If the call needs to be transferred, transfer time shall not exceed
thirty (30) seconds. These standards shall be met no less than ninety (90) percent of
the time under normal operating conditions, measured on a quarterly basis.
• Under normal operating conditions, the customer will receive a busy signal less than
three (3) percent of the time.
The City relationship with Comcast is mostly determined by the franchise agreement, which runs
from 2006 to 2021, but there are some areas of federal and state law that allow City enforcement.
The City oversees rate regulation for Basic cable TV and equipment, and the price for these
services hasn’t changed for 2014. Most other Comcast services are not regulated by the City,
like digital TV, Internet or telephone. Because Comcast uses the City right-of-way, the City
receives a franchise fee of 5 percent of gross cable TV services by St. Louis Park customers.
Comcast does not pay franchise fees on their Internet and telephone services.
Fiber network
St. Louis Park Chief Information Officer Clint Pires provided background for a memo to the
Commission about progress to complete recommendations listed in the 2013 Fiber Study.
Study Session Meeting of March 10, 2014 (Item No. 2) Page 3
Title: Telecommunications Advisory Commission 2013 Annual Report/2014 Work Plan
Overall, Mr. Pires is pleased with progress made and planned for the next two years to achieve
Fiber Study Recommendations, and says that the cooperation with the School District continues
to be strong. The summary of recommendations in the Fiber Study is listed in bold text followed
by some of the activities planned for 2013 & 2014.
1.4.1 Lease Access To Existing Fiber And Conduit To Enable Private Investment
Mr. Pires will develop draft policy concepts for Telecommunications Advisory Commission and
City Council review later in 2014.
1.4.2 Incrementally Expand City Fiber
There will be a number of fiber links completed in 2013 & 2014, including:
• France Avenue, as part of the reconstruction between 22nd & 26th streets.
• The COP Shop at Texa Tonka Shopping Center
• Highway 7 & Louisiana Avenue during construction of the rebuilt intersection
• Fiber under each of the new bridges over Highway 100 (Minnetonka Blvd. and Highway
7)
• A segment of fiber and conduit along Gorham Avenue near the St. Louis Park Library
has been acquired (see also recommendation 1.4.2.4)
• Completion near Fire Station 1 of a redundant link of fiber
• Possible fiber expansion as part of relocation projects associated with Highway 100
reconstruction
• Fiber conduit inclusion in Pennsylvania Avenue reconstruction and selected other 2014
street reconstruction projects
1.4.2.1 Build Fiber Between Park Nicollet’s Facilities
Mr. Pires has invited Park Nicollet to discuss this.
1.4.2.2 Build Fiber to Parks & Recreation and Public Works Facilities
The Brick House fiber connection is planned for 2015.
1.4.2.3 Build Fiber to the City’s Third Water Tower
The City has acquired the fiber to the Park Glen water tower. Also, conduit has been installed
from existing fiber hand holds near the water towers at 34th & Wyoming and on Cedar Lake
Road to the tower building, so these sites are ready for quick completion if a commercial leasing
deal is reached.
1.4.2.4 Build Fiber to the St. Louis Park Library
Hennepin County has approached the City about leasing fiber to the Library. The lease amount
would be closer to a cooperative public service than a profit area for the City. Talks are
preliminary at this time.
1.4.2.5 Build Fiber Over Time to Key Economic Development Targets
Fiber along Utica Avenue, if that street is reconstructed, relates to this recommendation.
1.4.2.6 Continue Installing Conduit During Capital Improvement Projects
Example projects related to this recommendation include France Avenue, Highway 7 &
Louisiana and the Highway 100
1.4.2.7 Complete Fiber Rings Where Possible During the Course of Routine Fiber and
Conduit Installation
Study Session Meeting of March 10, 2014 (Item No. 2) Page 4
Title: Telecommunications Advisory Commission 2013 Annual Report/2014 Work Plan
Highway 7 and Louisiana Avenue connects City and School District fiber, and completes a
redundant loop. Also, the link near Fire Station 1 creates a redundant loop.
Nearby communities franchise comparisons
Chair Theobald requested background information on how St. Louis Park’s franchise compares
with franchises in other cities. The Commission reviewed a staff report at the August meeting
that compared cable provider, franchise fee, PEG fee, support to education, staff levels and in
kind services, and learned that franchises in one third of metro area communities expired at the
end of 2013.
Tour of Comcast operations center
The October 23, 2013, meeting was held at the Comcast Cable head end in Roseville so the
Commission could tour and learn about the facility from Comcast technical staff. It was an
excellent experience, and Comcast staff answered all questions.
Park TV
The Commission reviewed programming and studio reports from Park TV, and were given a
demonstration of Park TV’s new web streaming equipment at the May 22 meeting. The web
streaming upgrade was coordinated with LOGIS, and provides higher resolution video that is
compatible with many mobile devices like smart mobile telephones and tablets.
Federal Communications Commission activities
The Commission discussed a staff report on F.C.C. actions at the August 28, 2013, meeting.
Commissioner attendance in 2013
2/27/13 5/22/13 8/28/13 10/23/13 12/11/13 Total
meetings
attended
Chair Bill Theobald X X X X X 5
Vice Chair Cindy Hoffman X X X X X 5
Bruce Browning X X X 3
Rick Dworsky X X X X X 5
Dale Hartman X X X X X 5
Toby Keeler X X X X 4
Rolf Peterson X X X 3
Study Session Meeting of March 10, 2014 (Item No. 2) Page 5
Title: Telecommunications Advisory Commission 2013 Annual Report/2014 Work Plan
2014 Telecommunications Advisory Commission Work Plan
January
Written Annual Report to City Council
February 11 Council Chambers
• Review draft audit Request for Proposal
• Park TV programming reports for 15, 16, 17, 96
• Future of cable TV technology update
May 13 Council Chambers
• Fiber Study update
• Review RFP’s and select an audit firm (if ready)
August 5 Council Chambers
• Audit update; possibly review RFP’s and select an audit firm
• FCC update
• Studio update
October 14 Council Chambers
• Audit update: review draft report
December 9 Council Chambers
• Comcast presentation on new cable rates and/or changes in the channel line up
• Comcast customer service update
• Draft Annual Report for 2013
• Set meetings for 2014
• Draft Work Plan for 2014
• Elect Chair & Vice Chair, effective next meeting
Ongoing
TAC Analysis
The 2014-2015 St. Louis Park Communications Plan includes an analysis of TAC that will look
at its purpose, goals and mission. Just as the city reexamined the role of the Commission when
focus shifted from the previous Cable TV Commission to what is now the Telecommunications
Advisory Commission, staff desires an analysis in order to better align the commission with city
business needs as they evolve. This analysis will include interviews, discussion and
brainstorming with the commission members, an examination of similar commissions in other
cities and further discussion with the City Council.
Study Session Meeting of March 10, 2014 (Item No. 2) Page 6
Title: Telecommunications Advisory Commission 2013 Annual Report/2014 Work Plan
Cable TV complaints received & logged by city staff 2009-2013
(Some customers report more than one complaint)
NEXT STEPS: Staff and TAC members will continue implementation of the 2014 work plan.
Complaint Category Complaints
2009
Complaints
2010
Complaints
2011
Complaints
2012
Complaints
2013
Billing 28 17 20 20 26
Construction (unburied cable,
property damage, ROW)
3 0 7 2 6
Customer Service/ Relations
(e.g., missed or late
appointments, company
response to issue, attitude)
0 7 1 9 13
Installation (e.g., property
damage)
0 0 0 0 1
Programming Options (lost
channels, want new channels)
6 2 3 10 2
Rates, prices 7 9 8 15 14
Technical Service (e.g.,
outage, reception, equipment
faulty/lack of features)
10 14 12 9 30
Service Requests (e.g.,
residential/commercial)
0 0 0 0 0
Telephone Customer Service
(on hold, busy, no one
available)
8 8 8 8 35
Miscellaneous 14 11 3 5 8
Total Cable Service
Complaints
76 68 62 78 135
Digital Voice/Telephone 2 3 2 0 2
Cable Modem/Internet Issues 3 7 2 7 8
Combined Total of
All Processed Complaints
(includes Telephone &
Internet)
81 78 66 85 145
Average complaints per month
reported to city staff
6.75 6.5 5.5 7.1 12.1
Total complaint calls
(some callers mention more
than 1 complaint)
76 50 49 61 102
Approximate # of subscribers 13,000 13,000 13,000 13,000 13,000
Meeting: Study Session
Meeting Date: March 24, 2014
Discussion Item: 3
TITLE: Presentation of Southwest LRT Station Area Plans
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Discuss the work presented by HKGi on the Transitional Station
Area Action Plans (TSAAP) for the three SW LRT stations in St. Louis Park.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the City Council have questions or concerns regarding
the proposed plans?
SUMMARY:
Over the past two years much work has been completed in station area planning along the SW
LRT line. A culmination of much of the work was in the planning known as the Investment
Framework or TSAAP plans. There is a plan for each station area that can be accessed on the
city’s web site at: http://www.stlouispark.org/light-freight-rail/station-area-planning.html
The Transitional Station Area Action Plan (TSAAP) process was intended to “promote opening
day readiness in 2018 by bridging the gap between current conditions and future needs by
identifying and prioritizing infrastructure improvements that enhance existing business, support
mixed-income housing opportunities, and encourage new development.”
The plans identify specific street, trail, sidewalk and other public improvements that are needed
in the station areas. It also provides prioritization of these improvements for the “opening day”
of the transit. The intent is that these improvements will facilitate access and usage of the station
area as well as providing development opportunities.
Jeff McMenimen with HKGi (consultant hired to assist with the project) will present the St. Louis Park
plans and there will be time for questions and discussion.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: The TSAAP plans were funded primarily
through a HUD Sustainable Communities grant.
VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged
community.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: See documents at http://www.stlouispark.org/light-freight-
rail/station-area-planning.html
Prepared by: Meg J. McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor
Reviewed by: Michele Schnitker, Housing Supervisor
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting: Study Session
Meeting Date: March 24, 2014
Discussion Item: 4
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: 2014 Assessment Report
RECOMMENDED ACTION: No formal action requested. Please provide staff with any
questions that you might have.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: The report and supporting documents are primarily information
oriented as a means to assist with the Board of Appeals and Equalization process starting in late
April.
SUMMARY: The assessed market valuation (and classification) for each property determines
the overall tax capacity of the community. In addition to fiscal budgeting and property tax
implications, the composition of value and trending are important for Council to understand as
they focus on overall governance of the community.
Discussion at the study session will focus on the 2014 assessment and will touch on residential
performance over the time period of 2007 through 2013. This review is being made to give the
Council additional information on how the community has weathered the recent economic
upheavals, the significant evolution to the housing stock currently underway, and a foundation to
look forward.
The appeal process will also be reviewed briefly in the discussion. The Department of Revenue
has directed changes to the procedures for the Local Board of Appeal & Equalization. These
changes along with the fact that real estate markets have improved to a major extent may result
in a larger volume of appeals to be reviewed by the Board.
Next Step: The St. Louis Park Local Board of Appeal & Equalization convenes at 6:30 pm on
Monday April 28, 2014.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: As noted above.
VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: 2014 Valuation Report
2014 Single Family Homes Values by Neighborhood
2014 Condo-Townhome Values by Complex
Prepared by: Cory Bultema, City Assessor
Reviewed by: Nancy Deno, Administrative Services Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of March 24, 2014 (Item No. 4) Page 2
Title: 2014 Assessment Report
2014 Valuation Report
(Payable 2015 Tax Period)
Assessing Staff
General Information – 952-924-2535
Cory Bultema – City Assessor – 952-924-2536
Marty Fechner – Assessment Technician/Appraiser – 952-924-2533
Mark Hoppe – Residential Appraiser I – 952-924-2529
Deb Lynch – Senior Residential Appraiser II – 952-924-2532
Bridget Nathanson – Commercial Appraiser – 952-924-2530
Kelley Schomer – Associate Appraiser – 952-924-2638
Contents:
Overview of the Minnesota Property Tax System…………. Page 3
The Assessment Process……………………………………. Page 4
The Appeal Process………………………………………….. Page 5
Big Picture of the Residential Market – Realtor Perspective Page 6
Summary of the 2014 St. Louis Park Assessment Roll…… Pages 7-10
Residential Valuation Summaries…………………………… Pages 11-12
Study Session Meeting of March 24, 2014 (Item No. 4) Page 3
Title: 2014 Assessment Report
Overview of the Minnesota Property Tax System
Minnesota law establishes a specific process and time line for the entire property tax system, including
the assessment of property. The system is summarized as follows:
1. All real property is valued at market value annually and classified according to usage. In addition
there are a multitude of sub-classifications and credits which are administratively updated.
2. State law defines how the value and class rate are translated into tax capacity as well as refinements
for subsidies and credits (e.g. homestead, veteran exclusion, limited market value, etc.).
3. Budgets for each taxing jurisdiction, which include decisions on the use of various funding sources,
are set annually. Funding sources include the property tax levy, voter approved market value
referendums, bonding, special assessments and other sources such as user fees.
4. The total property tax levy is divided by the total capacity of each jurisdiction (city, county, school
district and others) to determine the total levy extension multiplier. The respective multiplier for
each jurisdiction is applied to each individual property to calculate property taxes. It is essential to
understand that the property tax “rate” is only a math equation as used in the Minnesota system.
The Assessing function deals with the first step above as staff renders an opinion of market value and
classification annually for 17,000+ parcels in St. Louis Park. The conversion of value and class into tax
capacity is completed at the County level with refinements for the sub-classifications and credits as set by
the legislature. The assessment of all properties must be made in compliance with standards established
by the Minnesota Department of Revenue and Minnesota Statutes.
Market value is defined in Minnesota Statute 272.03 subd 8 as:
The usual selling price at the place where the property to which the term is applied shall be at the time
of assessment; being the price which could be obtained at a private sale or an auction sale, if it is
determined by the assessor that the price from the auction sale represents an arm's-length transaction.
The price obtained at a forced sale shall not be considered (emphasis added).
Market value is a moving target. Market supply/demand, interest rates, general economic conditions and
seasonal cycles all play a significant role. The Minnesota property tax system accommodates these issues
by requiring an annual opinion of value as of January 2nd. The assessing staff monitors the sales activity
throughout the study period and adjusts each property valuation in order to reflect market conditions.
Classification of the property use is also defined by Minnesota statute. The rationale for this requirement
is that the Minnesota property tax system applies differing classification rates in determining how the
value is translated into tax capacity. The following table presents a summary of the dominant property
types and their associated class rates:
Base Homestead Non-Homestead e.g. Tax Capacity at Taxable Values
Property Type Value Base Over-Base Base Over-Base 250,000 500,000 1,000,000
Comm & Industrial 150,000 N/A N/A 1.50% 2.00% 4,250 9,250 19,250
Residential * 500,000 1.00% 1.25% 1.00% 1.25% 2,500 5,000 11,250
As can be seen above, the class system greatly favors residential properties in terms of the base tax
capacity rate which is used in the tax calculation process. This difference widens further as commercial
properties are subject to additional state based levies while residential properties are reduced by subsidy
factors such as the homestead value exclusion (formerly known as the homestead credit). Voter
approved referenda, on the other hand, are market value based so all properties are taxed equally on each
dollar of property value.
Study Session Meeting of March 24, 2014 (Item No. 4) Page 4
Title: 2014 Assessment Report
The Assessment Process
Parcel Review and Valuation
The purpose of the assessment process is to annually render an accurate and equitable opinion of
market value of each parcel of property. Doing so requires current information about the
properties being assessed and the local real estate market. In addition to the economic market
forces at work, the individual property location, use and physical characteristics play a
significant role in the valuation. The St. Louis Park Assessing division maintains a record of
every property in the city including its size, location, physical characteristics and condition. As
there are 17,000+ parcels in the city, it is virtually impossible to have complete knowledge of
each property – which may or not sell in a given year.
The Minnesota property tax system therefore requires periodic inspections. The current cycle of
inspection is on a five year rotating schedule which may be altered due to physical change of the
property (renovations, remodeling, additions and damage). Approximately 20% of all properties
are physically reviewed each year – referred to as the quintile. The goal of periodic and interim
inspections is to assess the characteristics and corresponding market value of each property as
closely as possible versus the property’s competitive position.
It is important to know that the valuation process for residential properties in the State of
Minnesota is based on mass appraisal. In years past, St. Louis Park and other cities used
trending factors to revalue all the properties (approximately 80%) not in the quintile districts that
are physically reviewed each year. Today the valuations are modeled by the use of a computer
assisted mass appraisal (CAMA) methodology. To summarize, the physical characteristics for
each property are maintained in a large data base which calculates the individual valuations
based upon the location, style and physical characteristics for each property. Annual adjustments
made to the data tables to mirror market performance based on competitive properties that have
sold during the comparison time period.
The mass appraisal process is different from the individual appraisal system used by banks,
mortgage companies and others. For example, the mass appraisal system for residential
properties involves the comparison of thousands of properties with the fact-based market
transactions from the same or closely competitive neighborhoods, and market sales of the same
quality and type of property throughout the city. New houses, additions and remodeling are
valued based on their characteristics and the value impact of the improvement.
Having the local assessment system operate effectively also requires as much information about
the local real estate market as possible. The Assessing division makes a record of all property
sales using the Certificate of Real Estate Value (CRV) filed at Hennepin County for each
property sale. This information is frequently augmented with sales information obtained
regularly from the Multiple Listing Service (MLS) and other sources, including follow-up re-
inspections in the case where the sale price indicates that we may have imperfect information.
In all cases, the sales information collected by the Assessing division is closely scrutinized.
Evidence suggesting anything but an arms-length transaction (a forced sale, foreclosure, a sale to
a relative, etc.) results in the sales information being excluded from the market value
comparison. This is important as the market information constitutes the measurable database for
the statistical comparisons necessary to make the property assessment.
Further review of the assessment process will be undertaken in the presentation/discussion.
Study Session Meeting of March 24, 2014 (Item No. 4) Page 5
Title: 2014 Assessment Report
The Appeal Process
We receive inquiries and questions about market value, the assessment process and how the property tax
system operates throughout the year. An open dialogue between staff and the property owner is a key
aspect of the mass appraisal system. We recognize that some properties receive statistic-based
adjustments to market value and the assessing staff welcomes an opportunity to individually re-verify
property attributes which are of public record. We also re-examine properties in cases where there is
doubt over the accuracy of our records. A very large majority of property owners’ concerns can be
resolved through this informal review.
In portraying the ongoing real estate “crisis,” many major media outlets fail to recognize that there are
significant nuances to real estate submarkets. The benchmark that is consistently cited by the media is
that average sales prices or sale volumes rapidly declined with minimal reference to the performance of
the various submarkets whether it is nationally or locally. For example, the residential foreclosure and
short sale market phenomenon occupied bold headlines for much of the 2008-2011 time periods. Yet
when we closely review the sub-markets it is clear that our local market performed at a much more stable
pace than is the norm. Also on the residential front, national sources such as Case-Shiller and Zillow
have been found to be frequently inaccurate in local context.
Two important points are stressed in the informal and formal appeal processes:
1. By statute the assessing staff utilizes the traditional market in setting valuations. We do not
disregard the impact of the distressed sale sub-market, but we do not utilize these sales as
comparables when traditional sales exist. This is not only by legal precedent but also good
appraisal methodology… we are seeing a marked increase in poor quality fee appraisals using
distressed sales which clearly do not understand the nuances of our market.
2. Appeals on the basis of comparative assessment are problematic at the Local Board level. By
appealing on this basis, the property owner is essentially asking for a community
reassessment. Market transactions set the market. Comparative assessment analysis (referred
to as “equality” in assessor-speak) is handled through a very well defined process via the
County and State level which has distinct performance measurements. These “norms” are
further defined by legal precedent by the MN Tax Court. Equality is judged by actual market
performance over the sales period and the Minnesota Department of Revenue publishes these
reports annually.
Assessing staff will review and adjust the assessed market value prior to the Boards during the informal
review process. Where we cannot have a meeting of the minds with the property owner, the appeal
process is well defined and offers multiple opportunities for re-valuation summarized as follows:
1. Local Board of Appeal and Equalization (LBAE) – The St. Louis Park LBAE is scheduled to convene
on April 28 with a likely re-convene date of May 12, 2014. Staff serves as the respondent in this setting
and will again provide complete information regarding each property that is the subject of appeal. This
process is greatly improved if property owners contact the Assessing division in advance of the meeting if
they intend to make an appeal so that we may educate them on how to prepare their appeal.
2. County Board of Review – Property owners may appeal the St. Louis Park LBAE findings to the
County Board of Review. An application to appeal at the County level is required by May 21 and their
Board convenes on June 16, 2014. We routinely inform all Local Board appellants of these time frames.
3. Tax Court – Property owners may appeal directly to the Minnesota State Tax Court. Petitions
regarding the 2014 Assessment may be filed until April 30, 2015.
Study Session Meeting of March 24, 2014 (Item No. 4) Page 6
Title: 2014 Assessment Report
Big Picture of the Residential Market – Realtor Perspective
Before beginning discussion of the 2014 Assessment, it seems like a good idea to provide a big
picture overview from the perspective of Realtors. For the most part, the broad spectrum of
residential real estate peaked somewhere between 2006 and 2007 throughout most of the metro
area. The following chart is an aggregate of single-family homes, condos and townhomes from
2007 to the end of 2013. It provides a comparative reference for St. Louis Park and our
immediate neighbors over a tumultuous time frame.
Historic Median Sale Price – includes Aggregate of Single-Family Homes, Condos and Townhomes
% Change % Change
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 ’12-to-‘13 ’07-to-‘13
St. Louis Park 234,000 227,000 212,500 213,250 185,000 198,450 219,000 10.4% -6.4%
Edina 376,000 389,450 324,900 339,000 339,000 343,875 350,000 1.8% -6.9%
Golden Valley 272,500 263,000 220,000 235,500 199,000 218,500 246,000 12.6% -9.7%
Hopkins 205,150 169,000 160,000 148,000 125,000 159,950 180,500 12.8% -12.0%
Minnetonka 287,000 265,900 245,000 265,713 233,000 255,000 278,950 9.4% -2.8%
Source: Minneapolis Association of Realtors Sales Data (MAAR)
In contemplating the figures above, all five communities are within the upper 20% of the metro
at large for overall value retention over the time frame. Additionally, we note that it is
extremely important to understand there are significant differences between single-family homes,
condos and townhomes over the time frame and frequently from year-to-year. Also important…
the above data reflects raw sale prices for all MLS based transactions including the traditional
market and the distressed market (foreclosures and short sales). Further reference on the historic
foreclosure market serves as an interesting correlation:
Historic Sheriff Sales (Foreclosure Precursor) for St. Louis Park
To conclude the big picture overview, the majority of the ownership based residential real estate
in the city of St. Louis Park has, or is in the later stages of, returning to a state of normalized
market conditions.
With that foreword, we now turn to a summary of the 2014 assessment roll.
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Single-Family
Condo/Twnhm
Study Session Meeting of March 24, 2014 (Item No. 4) Page 7
Title: 2014 Assessment Report
Summary of the St. Louis Park 2014 Assessment Roll
The 2014 Notice of Valuation and Classification commence mailing in March of each year.
Each notice reflects the property value and classification for a two year period as required by the
MN Department of Revenue. As of January 2, 2014, the total valuation of the city stands at
$5,440,900,800. Further understanding of the value composition and year-over-year trending is
explored in the chart following.
Assessed market value change for dominant sectors (comparison of 2014 assessment versus 2013)
Single-Family Residential + 4.7% Static Basis versus + 5.6% with Improvements
Condominium + 7.8% Static Basis versus + 7.8% with Improvements
Townhomes + 7.4% Static Basis versus + 7.4% with Improvements
Apartments + 8.2% Static Basis versus +20.2% with Improvements
Commercial-Industrial - 0.5% Static Basis versus + 0.4% with Improvements
St. Louis Park Total + 4.2% Static Basis versus + 6.2% with Improvements
Value change on a static basis reflects an apple-to-apple comparison and does not include
improvement values arising from renovations and new construction. While the static basis
comparison is interesting and inherently a primary factor in setting an assessment via the mass
appraisal method, the value change including improvements is much more accurate in terms of
understanding the economic activity for the community and also reflects the related tax capacity
changes from a total perspective.
Each of the above categories will be explained at further length in the report sections following.
We begin our review of the overall residential sector by breaking it down into the three dominant
categories… low density (single-family homes), mid-to-high density ownership based (condos
and townhomes) and apartment units. The following chart provides a current overview of the
total residential stock:
Housing Units – St. Louis Park as of the 2014 Assessment
11,634
8,274
3,378
424 114
Single-Family
Apartments
Condo & Townhome
Duplex
Cooperatives
Study Session Meeting of March 24, 2014 (Item No. 4) Page 8
Title: 2014 Assessment Report
Single-family homes comprise just under 50% of the total housing units and for the first time
in the past decade less than 50% of the community’s total value. At first one would think that
these facts represent decline. They do not … this change represents the evolution of the
community’s housing stock as multiple new high end apartments have been added to both the
total housing units and valuation.
In setting the assessment, our contemplation included the traditional sales review, on-market
listings at multiple points throughout the year, accessing the MLS sale info as well as statistics
for the traditional and distressed markets, quintile inspections (approximately 20% of the stock is
reviewed each year) and, of course, new construction and renovation permit reviews.
St. Louis Park is broken down into 35 distinct neighborhoods which are configured to local
history rather than cohesive competitive influences. Of the 32 neighborhoods with single-family
properties, all are increasing in valuations for the 2014 Assessment. The adjustments among the
neighborhoods ranges from +0.4% to 11.3% with the majority of neighborhoods between +2.0%
to +7.0%. While these are overall trends it is very important to understand that individual
valuation changes are outside of these ranges. Within each neighborhood, the valuations are
mixed as the market continues to stabilize with many more individual properties moving up
versus down for the first time since 2007. We also track the year-over-year change on a rolling
five-year period along with the annual sales studies and feel confident that the 2014 assessment
of single-family properties is of the best quality we can derive by mass modeling.
As you can surmise, much of our attention has been on reviewing the price brackets
(stratifications). Our single-family stock is normally dominated by the pricing bracket of
160,000 to 300,000 in value. When combining reduced discounts on foreclosures, a lower
number of distressed properties being absorbed and the mixed competitive reaction on the
traditional market, there is an indisputably wider degree of variation in the stratifications over the
past year. These issues will be reviewed at further length in the discussion of the assessment
report.
There are forty-five (45) distinct Condominium complexes in the community with a
decidedly diverse stock in terms of structural vintage, design format (apartment conversions,
row-house, lo-rise, hi-rise and most everything in between).
As noted in prior years, condos and townhomes tend to be considerably more volatile in
valuations. This is due to three major factors in our opinion… first, condos tend to have an in-
complex sub-market which simply does not apply to single-family homes; next, foreclosure
absorptions are much more likely to overwhelm the traditional market and did so in several
complexes from 2011 to 2013 – which are now bouncing back with very rapid sale price
increases; and finally, we have seen more complexes move from owner occupied to
predominantly investor/rental which tend to have lower valuations as the purchase decision is
driven more heavily by investment cash flow rather than stable occupancy and ownership.
The local market exhibits a very wide pricing structure which historically ranged from
70,000/unit to over 500,000/unit. For 2013, the lower price bracket extended down to just below
40,000 per unit. This too has changed for the 2014 assessment. The valuation adjustment for all
complexes was +7.8% for the 2014 assessment versus -7.5% in the 2013 assessment. Within the
full universe of complexes… one complex was adjusted downward for equalization reasons
while all others ranged from flat to major valuation increases. Ten (10) complexes were adjusted
Study Session Meeting of March 24, 2014 (Item No. 4) Page 9
Title: 2014 Assessment Report
by more than +11.0% for 2014 with the largest complex based valuation increase at +24.2% --
with distinct correlation to the larger value increases being in the lower price brackets. These
issues will be reviewed at further length during the discussion of the assessment report.
There are eighteen (18) distinct Townhome complexes in the community. About one-half of
them are relatively small with less than 20 units in the complex. The other half are
predominantly in the 20-70 unit bracket with two larger complexes. Both of the larger
complexes were adjusted to significant extent in the 2012 assessment due to the distressed
market phenomenon. For 2013, Lohman’s stabilized and the assessed valuations were largely
unchanged. For 2014 this complex was adjusted +7.1% as the market stabilizes. The townhome
portion of Greensboro has been adjusted contemplating the townhome market and the ripple
effect coming from the same-site mix with the condo units.
In general, the market forces at play in this property type are similar to that of the condos with
several mitigating factors. They include a higher average unit value which seems to be more
economically durable. It is also our perception that the physical designs tend to be less
problematic with few exceptions while the rate of distressed transactions and on-market listings
have tended to be less dramatic.
The Apartment sector for the 2012 assessment was up +4.9% which included very little new
construction value due to project timing. For the 2013 assessment, the valuation increase was at
+8.2% for the market based adjustment and +13.9% including new construction-with none of the
newer complexes at full valuation. As on January 2nd Adagio (100 units), Tower Light (115
units), West End (119 units), 36 Park (192 units) and E2 (58 units) have reached valuation
maturity for the 2014 assessment which is the major driver in the overall +8.2% static valuation
increase and the +20.2% increase inclusive of new construction value. Additional complexes in
planning stage or initial construction include Millennium (158 units), Calhoun Hill (7 units),
Gateway (22 units) and Eliot Park (138 apartment units and 2 single-family homes).
The Class A and B markets (newer, multi-story buildings with high level amenity packages) are
clearly in high demand from the perspective of the investment community which is normally
locally based with recent transition to multiple out-of-state investment grade buyers. The bulk of
market adjustments applied to these sectors have been in a range of +16% to +20% in response
to multiple trophy transactions indicating rapid value increases throughout the metro area during
2012 which intensified further in 2013.
Meanwhile, the C market (commonly referred to as less than 3 stories built circa 1960-1975)
comprises over 56% of the total apartment unit count. These complexes are essentially stable to
up slightly for the 2014 assessment. Traditionally speaking, this sector of the apartment market
normally performs in a reverse image of the lower pricing brackets of the owner-occupied
residential market. We note, however, that this historic performance parameter has ceased to be
reliable for 2012-2013-2014 with apartments in general having an extremely low vacancy rate,
increasing rents, a much more professional approach to management as the norm and the ripple
effect from new construction in the A and B stock.
The Commercial and Industrial properties have been relatively stable over the past four
years in terms of value growth albeit in contrast to relatively weak residential and apartment
sectors. It is important to realize that these properties comprise about 5% of our total parcel
count while accounting for 20.8% of the total value and, most importantly, over 1/3 of the total
tax capacity of the community. For the 2014 assessment review, we note two dominant issues in
Study Session Meeting of March 24, 2014 (Item No. 4) Page 10
Title: 2014 Assessment Report
setting the assessment. First, the 2013 assessment ratio performance was nigh spot on the market
– at 99.0% with more qualified sale transactions versus many preceding years. Second, the
equalization of this sector is much more closely scrutinized across city/county boundaries as
these properties tend to compete on a much larger geographic scale. The trends over the major
community sub-markets are mixed from slightly up to slightly down.
The city’s commercial-industrial value increased for the 2011, 2012 and 2013 assessment
periods while many other communities were less robust. For commercial and industrial
use properties, especially for “mature” communities, continuous redevelopment is vital to
long term health. St. Louis Park has been remarkably fortunate in this regard. Significant
factors in this performance have included the West End development area along with multiple
smaller developments interspersed throughout the community. When the analysis turns to the
existing stock, however, the picture is far more stable than bullish. The fundamental economic
forces can be summarized as jobs, the availability of financing, the general economy and prior
year absorption of newer construction stock following years of robust growth.
In terms of the dominant use categories, office buildings are a major value component of the
total stock. For the 2013 assessment, the class A and upper B properties were performing better
and were the focal point of multiple high profile sale and lease transactions… as has also been
seen in the better locations in the metro area. This trophy mentality has not translated to the
class B and C stock where valuations were mostly flat to slightly down. Vacant and “shadow”
space are forecasted to stabilize in the short term.
Another dominant use category of significant note is that of retail. While retail has struggled in
the metro market, in this respect the west sector has a relatively low vacancy rate. Given the
scale of the West End market area, however, it has been noted that vacancies have rippled
throughout the community and, to be very frank, the issue of not collecting sales taxes on
internet transactions is starting to clearly affect the parity of bricks and mortar businesses which
are at a distinct competitive disadvantage.
We close our review with the industrial market. We have reviewed the overall market and taken
a more conservative approach. Industrial, as its own sub-market, was reduced for the 2010
assessment by 2.1%, reduced again for the 2011 assessment by 0.6%, reduced again by 3.0% for
2012, essentially flat for the 2013 assessment and down 0.5% for the 2014 assessment. The
primary rationale in this sector is that the majority of our structural stock is older, of lesser
functional utility and is competing with newer stock in locales that previously had major
valuation declines and are now increasing. This phenomenon is not likely to change in the short
term future – our land values as set by market participants tend to limit the likelihood of new
industrial construction projects which are primarily being located in the outer rings of the metro
area where land costs are much lower.
To close, the next two pages of this report provide additional overview for the 2014 assessment.
The first page reflects single-family homes and the second page provides a complex breakdown
of the condos and townhomes. These pages were provided as handouts at the 2014 Realtor
Forum held on March 12. Further discussion on these market segments will be a focal point for
the upcoming discussion.
Shelard Parkway
I-394
I-394
Flag AveHighway 169Edgemore DrTexas AveLouisiana AveHwy 7
Texas AveExcelsior WayHwy 100Hwy 100Soo Line RRHwy 7
28th St W
Burlington
N
o
r
t
h
e
r
n
R
R
France AveExcelsior
Bl
v
d
Natchez Ave44th St
Northw
e
st
er
n
R
R
Douglas Ave
22nd St W
Minnetonka Blvd
Fern Hill
$341,400
Wolfe Park
$199,500
Aquila
$169,800
Blackstone
$171,600
Oak Hill
$181,500
Lenox
$204,300
Westwood Hills
$349,300
Eliot
$197,800
Birchwood
$216,700
Elmwood
$228,500
Sorensen
$225,450
Bronx Park
$200,200
Creekside
$257,900
Cedar Manor
$210,100
Triangle
$209,700
Cobblecrest
$232,100
Lake Forest
$532,300
Texa Tonka
$173,000
Willow Park
$217,400
Browndale
$314,200
South Oak Hill
$194,750
Brooklawns
$226,900Meadowbrook
Shelard Park
Minikahda Vista
$359,400
Brookside
$219,500
Eliot View
$182,700
Cedarhurst
$198,000
Minnehaha
$314,900
Pennsylvania
Park
$196,800
Kilmer Pond$190,900Crestview$305,400AmhurstWestdale
$197,050
Minikahda Oaks
$299,800
City of St. Louis Park Neighborhoods
Neighborhood Map
Single-Family Homes — Assess 2014 Median Value
Study Session Meeting of March 24, 2014 (Item No. 4)
Title: 2014 Assessment Report Page 11
Dist Condos # Median Dist Townhomes # Median
Code Complex Name Units Mkt Value Code Complex Name Units Mkt Value
AC Aquila Commons Coop 106 167,900 BG Brunswick Gables 7 166,600
MO Monterey Coop 8 98,900 DB Dan-Bar 4 163,000
BR Bridgewalk 92 75,600 EW Excelsior Way 38 84,300
BK Brookside Lofts 41 187,800 GR2 Greensboro 96 104,300
CT Cedar Trails 280 77,600 HE Hampshire Estates 8 126,300
CS Cedar Trails South 32 144,350 HH Hampshire House 13 130,500
CW Cedar Trails West 48 151,350 LL Lamplighter Park 5 315,300
CH Coach Homes 128 95,600 LA Lohman's Amhurst 276 139,350
EV Elmwood Village 77 242,100 ME Medley Row 22 180,800
EL Excelsior Lofts 86 198,000 MP Monterey Park 18 311,450
55+55+ Sr Condos 60 165,700 PC Princeton Ct 14 354,400
FH Fern Hill 30 163,600 QC Quentin Ct 10 351,800
TG Grand Northwest 96 339,100 SH Shamrock 16 127,900
GW Grand Way 124 259,600 SK Skyehill 31 214,600
GR Greensboro 164 48,300 SW Sungate West 48 134,700
HV Harmony Vista 74 145,600 VP Victoria Ponds 72 312,300
IB Inglewood Boutique 6 273,550 WT Westwood Twnhmes 38 164,800
LN Lynn Ave Condos 12 155,400 ZA Zarthan Apt 18 161,700
LY Lynwood Condos 11 141,000 ZP Zarthan Park 16 165,500
MC Monterey Place 30 192,700
MW Monterey West 7 222,500
MR Murphy's Ridge 4 140,000
NP Natchez Place 26 132,000
OX Oxford Gardens 12 82,100
PW Pointe West 86 230,100 Outlined complexes have active Housing Improvement
PK Parkside Urban Flats 46 217,200 Associations (HIA's); balance information may be
PP Pondview Park 30 106,300 obtained by calling 952-924-2694. The general info
S1 Sungate I 20 107,900 number for special assessments and delinquent
S2 Sungate II 26 128,500 utilities is 952-924-2111 (Utility Billing/Finance).
S3 Sungate III 14 167,500
SR Sunset Ridge 240 71,700
TF Twin Fountains 88 79,600
VL Village Lofts 60 162,900
WM Westmarke 64 165,800
WE Westmoreland 72 62,900
WO West Oaks 75 198,700
WV Westwood Villa 66 64,600
WL Wolfe Lake 131 93,100
WF Wooddale Flats 34 N/A
WY Wynmoor 56 79,800
33 3300 On The Park 128 104,000
35 35th St Condos 11 108,300 Source: St. Louis Park Assessing Office
City of St. Louis Park -- Assess 2014 (Pay 2015)
Study Session Meeting of March 24, 2014 (Item No. 4)
Title: 2014 Assessment Report Page 12
Meeting: Study Session
Meeting Date: March 24, 2014
Discussion Item: 5
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Update on Bullying Legislation – HF826
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff requests direction on action it should take regarding this
legislation.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the City Council wish to take action to support this
legislation?
SUMMARY: At the March 10 Study Session the City Council met with members of the HRC.
As a part of that discussion it was noted that a bill was being considered at the State Legislature
relating to this topic (HF 826). Council discussed whether it should go on record in support of
this legislation. This discussion resulted in the Council asking staff to research the proposed bill
further and find out where it was at in the legislative process. Subsequently, staff reported back
to the Council that the bill was still being debated in the Senate and the authors were working to
address concerns of the School District Association.
It now appears that the issues with the bill have been worked out and adoption of the bill could
occur next week. Here is a link to HF826.
https://www.revisor.mn.gov/bills/text.php?number=HF826&version=6&session=ls88&session_y
ear=2013&session_number=0
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: None
Prepared by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting: Study Session
Meeting Date: March 24, 2014
Written Report: 6
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: February 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: In February, actual expenditures should
generally run about 17% of the annual budget. General Fund expenditures are at approximately
15.6% of the adopted budget at the end of February. 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. Comments on some specific revenue
and expenditure variances are noted.
Revenues:
License and permit revenues are at 31.6% of budget due to the fact that a large portion or
approximately 91% of the 2014 business and liquor license payments have already been
collected, which is consistent with previous years. Permit revenue is at just under 11% of budget
through February.
Expenditures:
The Organized Recreation Division is showing a temporary expenditure variance due to that the
full Community Education contribution for 2014 of $187,400 was paid to the school district in
February. The timing of this payment is consistent with prior years. The Vehicle Maintenance
Division is running almost 4% over budget on expenditures at 20.8% because of high fuel and
equipment maintenance expenses, which is typical of the winter months.
VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Summary of Revenues & Expenditures
Prepared by: Darla Monson, Senior Accountant
Reviewed by: Brian A. Swanson, Controller
Approved by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
Summary of Revenues & Expenditures - General Fund As of February 28, 2014 20142014201220122013201320142014 Balance YTD Budget BudgetActual Budget Unaudited Budget Feb YTD Remaining to Actual %General Fund Revenues: General Property Taxes20,169,798$ 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 2,691,518 850,744 1,840,774 31.61% Fines & Forfeits328,150 341,356 335,150 312,182 320,150 50,761 269,389 15.86% Intergovernmental1,232,579 1,365,023 1,300,191 1,370,611 1,282,777 277,491 1,005,286 21.63% Charges for Services2,341,104 2,169,631 1,837,976 1,765,996 1,857,718 155,515 1,702,203 8.37% Miscellaneous Revenue1,079,550 1,092,234 1,092,381 1,067,188 1,112,369 47,087 1,065,282 4.23% Transfers In2,023,003 2,066,136 1,816,563 1,789,513 1,837,416 300,706 1,536,710 16.37% Investment Earnings125,000 136,415 150,000 - 150,000 - 150,000 0.00% Other Income45,600 276,273 36,650 10,755 17,950 743 17,207 4.14%Total General Fund Revenues29,720,183$ 30,898,483$ 29,708,238$ 31,401,553$ 30,427,622$ 1,683,049$ 28,744,573$ 5.53%General Fund Expenditures: General Government: Administration1,012,554$ 977,392$ 877,099$ 888,900$ 939,391$ 140,094$ 799,297$ 14.91% Accounting641,691 639,999 827,320 819,454 767,094 126,166 640,928 16.45% Assessing517,840 518,271 543,855 543,202 559,749 91,929 467,820 16.42% Human Resources667,612 645,357 678,988 731,483 693,598 118,558 575,040 17.09% Community Development1,076,376 1,052,186 1,094,517 1,090,213 1,151,467 176,241 975,226 15.31% Facilities Maintenance1,083,128 972,481 1,074,920 1,035,155 1,053,715 136,569 917,146 12.96% Information Resources1,507,579 1,363,266 1,770,877 1,595,869 1,456,979 222,144 1,234,835 15.25% Communications & Marketing265,426 244,392 201,322 170,013 566,801 56,346 510,455 9.94% Community Outreach8,185 5,341 8,185 4,581 8,185 160 8,025 1.95% Engineering927,337 939,425 303,258 288,544 506,996 79,764 427,232 15.73%Total General Government7,707,728$ 7,358,111$ 7,380,341$ 7,167,414$ 7,703,975$ 1,147,971$ 6,556,004$ 14.90% Public Safety: Police7,273,723$ 7,124,784$ 7,443,637$ 7,225,579$ 7,571,315$ 1,186,495$ 6,384,820$ 15.67% Fire Protection3,346,931 3,291,655 3,330,263 3,244,878 3,458,161 577,069 2,881,092 16.69% Inspectional Services1,889,340 1,869,616 1,928,446 1,931,772 2,006,200 321,093 1,685,107 16.01%Total Public Safety12,509,994$ 12,286,055$ 12,702,346$ 12,402,229$ 13,035,676$ 2,084,656$ 10,951,020$ 15.99% Operations & Recreation: Public Works Administration389,783$ 378,852$ 393,054$ 288,207$ 222,994$ 31,533$ 191,461$ 14.14% Public Works Operations2,604,870 2,521,463 2,698,870 2,705,345 2,625,171 392,908 2,232,263 14.97% Organized Recreation1,305,747 1,352,273 1,280,117 1,258,107 1,290,038 346,868 943,170 26.89% Recreation Center1,466,246 1,516,121 1,449,930 1,501,627 1,543,881 184,096 1,359,785 11.92% Park Maintenance1,461,645 1,444,448 1,431,825 1,424,139 1,423,011 199,201 1,223,810 14.00% Westwood515,456 506,404 520,554 503,309 531,853 77,571 454,282 14.59% Environment390,009 382,378 430,876 433,059 433,750 26,675 407,075 6.15% Vehicle Maintenance1,188,705 1,326,153 1,240,325 1,273,242 1,285,489 267,234 1,018,255 20.79%Total Operations & Recreation9,322,461$ 9,428,091$ 9,445,551$ 9,387,035$ 9,356,187$ 1,526,087$ 7,830,100$ 16.31% Non-Departmental: General -$ 65,292$ -$ 2,580$ 4,000$ 1,126$ 2,874$ 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$ 1,126$ 330,658$ 0.34%Total General Fund Expenditures29,720,183$ 30,297,549$ 29,708,238$ 29,012,603$ 30,427,622$ 4,759,840$ 25,667,782$ 15.64%Study Session Meeting of March 24, 2014 (Item No. 6) Title: February 2014 Monthly Financial ReportPage 2
Meeting: Study Session
Meeting Date: March 24, 2014
Written Report: 7
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Project Report: Street Maintenance Project – Sealcoat Streets in Area 6 – Project No.
4014-1206
RECOMMENDED ACTION: No formal action requested. The purpose of this report is to
inform Council about the anticipated schedule for Project No. 4014-1206 (Sealcoat project).
Please provide staff with any questions or concerns that you might have.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the City Council wish to continue implementation of the
City’s Seal Coat Program?
SUMMARY: Each year as part of the Pavement Management Program, the City applies a seal
coat covering to over several miles of local residential streets. This year, the streets to be treated
are located in Pavement Management Area 6 in the Creekside, Brookside, Meadowbrook,
Brooklawns and Elmwood neighborhoods as well as Oak Hill Park, Louisiana Oaks Park and the
Rec Center. (See attached maps). The seal coat work generally consists of placing a covering of
asphalt material with aggregate over streets to improve traction and add service life to the streets.
Access to properties is typically maintained throughout the project.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: This project was planned for and is
included in the City’s adopted Capital Improvement Program with an estimated budget of
$324,360. Project funding will be provided by the Pavement Management Fund.
VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion
Parking Lot Seal Coat 2014 Map
Seal Coat 2014 Map
Prepared by: Phillip Elkin, Engineering Project Manager
Reviewed by: Debra Heiser, Engineering Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of March 24, 2013 (Item No. 7) Page 2
Title: Project Report: Street Maintenance Project – Sealcoat Streets Area 6 – Project No. 4014-1206
DISCUSSION
BACKGROUND:
Sealcoating is the surface application of an asphalt material followed by the placement of
aggregate (rock) which is embedded into the asphalt material while it is liquid. The purpose of
this treatment is to add surface friction to the pavement, to seal the surface from oxidation
and protect the pavements from the effects of moisture. Sealcoating can extend the
life of a pavement, in good condition, by 5-9 years. The City’s Pavement Management
Program provides for the sealcoating of each street once every eight (8) years.
Area 6 of the Pavement Management Program is scheduled for sealcoating in 2014.
These streets were last sealcoated in 2006. Area 6 comprises the streets in the Creekside,
Brookside, Meadowbrook, Brooklawns and Elmwood neighborhoods as well as Oak Hill Park,
Louisiana Oaks Park and the Rec Center. Maps of the streets and parking lots to be sealcoated
are attached.
Not all streets in Area 6 will be sealcoated. Based on the City’s pavement management
software and visual inspections by Cit y staff, several streets in the area were determined to be
in need of more aggressive maintenance. Sealcoating these streets at this time would be an
inappropriate/ineffective use of resources. Thus, they have been eliminated from this sealcoat
project with the understanding that they will be programmed for higher levels of maintenance
or rehabilitation in 2017, as part of the City’s overall Pavement Management Program.
An advertisement for bids will be published in the St. Louis Park Sun-Sailor on March 27
and April 3, 2014 and in Finance & Commerce on March 27 and April 3, 2014. In addition,
plans and specifications will be posted on the City website and made available for download
at QuestCDN.com. Final printed plans will be available for viewing at City Hall.
Bids will be opened on Monday, April 21. The City Council will be asked to award the project
at the May 5 Council meeting.
Study Session Meeting of March 24, 2013 (Item No. 7)
Title: Project Report: Street Maintenance Project – Sealcoat Streets Area 6 – Project No. 4014-1206 Page 3
Study Session Meeting of March 24, 2013 (Item No. 7)
Title: Project Report: Street Maintenance Project – Sealcoat Streets Area 6 – Project No. 4014-1206 Page 4
Meeting: Study Session
Meeting Date: March 24, 2014
Written Report: 8
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Amendments to City Code Chapter 8 Business Licenses; Massage Therapist, Massage
Therapy Establishment and Tobacco Products and Tobacco Related Devices
RECOMMENDED ACTION: This report is for Council information of upcoming items. No
action required unless Council requests further discussion before First Reading.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Two policy consideration:
• Does Council wish to precede with the Ordinance amendments being proposed for
business licensing?
• Does Council wish to discuss developing a policy or ordinance regarding the use of
electronic delivery devices (i.e. e-cigarettes) in City buildings and or all public facilities?
SUMMARY: Regular review of City programs based in ordinance is helpful to keep regulations
current and adapt to changing conditions. This group of proposed amendments is intended to
provide increased clarity and effectiveness in application of business licensing:
• Section 8-1 Definitions – Tobacco related devices. Staff is proposing to amend the
definition to specifically include electronic delivery devices. Making this simple
amendment to the definition clarifies establishments that sells e-cigarettes will need to be
licensed and regulated under the Code.
• Section 8-191 Initial Application – Staff is proposing to add a section stating all business
license applicants must provide a designated management agent and update the City
whenever there is a change in the designated management agent.
• Sections 8-297(d) and 8-303(b) regarding the applicant to provide a current government
issued identification as part of the Massage Therapy Establishment and Massage
Therapist license application process. Staff is proposing the code designates that either
Minnesota or Wisconsin state government picture identification or driver’s license will be
the only acceptable form of identification required as part of the application process.
Currently the State Legislature is discussing the possibility of amending the Clean Air Act to
include electronic delivery devices. This would place the same restrictions on e-cigarettes as
tobacco. This would be a uniform statewide requirement. Staff is proposing to wait if legislation
occurs before the City considers any specific local requirements.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: N/A
VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to being a leader in environmental
stewardship. We will increase environmental consciousness and responsibility in all areas of city
business.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion
Prepared by: Ann Boettcher, Inspections Services Manager
Reviewed by: Brian Hoffman, Director of Inspections
Approved by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
Study Session Meeting of March 24, 2014 (Item No. 8) Page 2
Title: Amendments to City Code Chapter 8 Business Licenses; Massage Therapist, Massage Therapy Establishment
and Tobacco Products and Tobacco Related Devices
DISCUSSION
Section 8-1 Definitions
Individuals, who have contacted the City, were wanting to open a business that sells e-cigarettes
have been informed that a tobacco license would be required to sell these types of devices.
Although the current definitions do not specifically include the term electronic delivery devices,
nicotine is a component of tobacco used in e-cigarettes and therefore been considered a regulated
product under current definition. Because of the popularity and potential public health effects of
these devices, staff is proposing to include electronic delivery devices in the definitions for
tobacco. This proposed addition to the definitions will clarify the ability of staff apply the
requirements for a tobacco license to sell these types of devices including no sale to minors and
store access of product limited to sales staff.
Listed below is the proposed amendments:
Tobacco and tobacco products mean any substance or item containing tobacco leaf, including
but not limited to, cigarettes, cigars, pipe tobacco or chewing tobacco, electronic delivery device
and other forms of tobacco leaf prepared in such a manner as to be suitable for chewing, sniffing,
or smoking.
Tobacco related devices means any tobacco product as well as any pipe, rolling papers,
electronic delivery device or other devices used in a manner which enables the chewing, sniffing,
or smoking of tobacco or tobacco products.
Section 8-191 Initial application
Propose to add a requirement that the license holder must provide a designated management
agent and contact information as part of the application process and update the city anytime there
is a change in the designated management agent. The proposed requirement would be an
effective tool in assisting staff when it becomes necessary to contact the designated management
agent in charge of the licensed establishment. The focus is on local responsible party for the
corporate or out-of-state-owners.
Listed below is the proposed amendment:
(e) License application must include the current designated management agent and contact
information. At any time during the license period there is a change in the agent; the applicant
must contact the city and update the name and contact information.
Sections 8-297(d) and 8-303(b) Massage Therapy Establishment and Therapists Licensing
Requirements
As part of the application requirements, applicants need to submit a copy of their current
government issued identification. However, there are some applicants submitting identification
from states other than Minnesota or Wisconsin. For example, the applicant submits a California
driver’s license to obtain a Massage Therapist license to work in St. Louis Park. Clearly the
applicant does not live in California while working in St. Louis Park.
Study Session Meeting of March 24, 2014 (Item No. 8) Page 3
Title: Amendments to City Code Chapter 8 Business Licenses; Massage Therapist, Massage Therapy Establishment
and Tobacco Products and Tobacco Related Devices
Massage Therapist License – Staff is proposing a requirement that current Minnesota or
Wisconsin government issued picture identification or driver’s license with current residential
address is the only form of identification being considered as part of the application process.
Staff is proposing to designate Wisconsin because of the close proximity to the western boarder
of Wisconsin and would not be out of the question that someone would commute to St. Louis
Park daily to work.
Massage Establishment License – Staff is proposing the same identification requirements for the
establishment license for an individual obtaining the establishment license. If there is a
corporation obtaining a license, the corporation can designate a manager who will provide a copy
of their identification.
Massage Therapy Establishment 8-297(d) The applicant or designated management agent for an
annual license will be required to provide a copy of a current Minnesota or Wisconsin state
government issued picture identification or driver’s license and complete a license application
addendum and authorization for a background check to be completed by the city.
Massage Therapist 8-303 (b) The applicant for an annual license will be required to provide a
copy of a current Minnesota or Wisconsin state government issued picture identification or
driver’s license and complete a license application addendum and authorization for a background
check to be completed by the city.
Developing a policy for the use of electronic delivery device (e-cigarettes) in City Buildings
Currently the Legislature is proposing a bill to amend state statues to include terms and
descriptions relative to e-cigarettes. If the bill passes and is signed by the Governor, electronic
delivery devices would be covered statewide under the Clean Indoor Act and a city policy may
not have to be developed depending on specific language.
If the bill does not pass, should the Council address the use in the form of a written policy similar
to the St. Louis Park Outdoor Recreation Facilities Tobacco – Free Policy adopted at the January
22, 2013 meeting? The policy or ordinance could restrict the use of electronic delivery devices
(e-cigarettes) in all city buildings, city parks and possibly extend this to other buildings (i.e.
restaurants, office buildings). Staff will return to Council at the end of the legislative session to
provide an update. Item of note: use of any electronic dispensing device used to vaporize
substances for ingestion (i.e. e-cigarette) is prohibited by employees in all city buildings,
vehicles, equipment and facilities as part of St. Louis Park personnel policies.
Meeting: Study Session
Meeting Date: March 24, 2014
Written Report: 9
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Zoning Ordinance Amendments Related to Anaerobic Digesters
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Review conditions for permitting anaerobic digesters and provide
staff with any questions you might have.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: D oes the City Council wish to allow anaerobic digesters by
conditional use permit in the I-G Industrial District with the conditions outlined in the attached draft
ordinance?
SUMMARY: The Council approved the First Reading of the attached Ordinance related to
anaerobic digesters on February 18, 2014. Prior to Second Reading the Council also directed staff to
further consider conditions related to:
• Anaerobic digesters as part of a larger development;
• Odor; and
• Noise.
In light of the Councils direction a condition was added requiring digesters to be part of a larger
development and one of the conditions related to odor control was revised to be more specific. Noise
is regulated in Chapter 12 of the City Code. The revisions are discussed later in this report and are
reflected in the attached Draft Ordinance.
If the Council has no further concerns on the Draft Ordinance as written, the Second Reading will be
set for April 7, 2014.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: None.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
1. St. Louis Park is committed to being a leader in environmental stewardship. We will increase
environmental consciousness and responsibility in all areas of city business.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion
Draft Ordinance
Prepared by: Ryan Kelley, Associate Planner
Reviewed by: Meg McMonigal, Planning & Zoning Supervisor
Michele Schnitker, Housing Supervisor
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of March 24, 2014 (Item No. 9) Page 2
Title: Zoning Ordinance Amendments Related to Anaerobic Digesters
DISCUSSION
The conditions related to anaerobic digesters for the Draft Ordinance are based on the proposed
concept presented by PLACE. This concept has been presented to the Council at previous study
sessions. The scale of this concept facility is of a size that staff believes may be appropriate, as a
maximum limit, for an urban setting. The conditions were further drafted to control for potential
nuisances related to anaerobic digesters, as understood by staff, through research and conversations
with other planning staff, organics specialists, digester operators, Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency (MPCA) staff and university professors. Specific concerns raised by the Council at the
February 18 meeting are discussed below.
Anaerobic Digesters as part of a larger development
The Council indicated that they did not want anaerobic digesters as a stand-alone use. Condition “a”,
which states “Anaerobic digesters shall be permitted only as part of a larger development which
contains at least one other principal use, and where electricity and bio-gas produced by the digester
is used primarily by the larger development” was added requiring digesters to be part of a larger
development. This is a similar condition placed on other uses in the City’s existing zoning code and
will prevent anaerobic digesters from being the sole use on properties in the I-G General Industrial
District.
Odor
There are several conditions for anaerobic digesters that relate to odor control. The proposed
conditions require that the digester system be located within a negatively-pressurized building,
reducing the chance of odors being released. Additionally, the digester process is required to be an
enclosed system further limiting the chance of odors emanating from the site.
In order to be more explicit, condition “g” was revised from “Odor controlling devices shall be used
to prevent odors from leaving the building” to “Odor controlling devices shall be used so that odors
are not detectable outside the building containing the digester system”. This condition requires that
odor controlling devices be used, but allows an applicant to select the specific technologies to
employ.
Noise
The City regulates noise in Chapter 12 of the City Code. The regulations specify decibel levels during
specific times of the day, (7:00 a.m. – 10:00 p.m. and 10:00 p.m. – 7:00 a.m.), and differentiate
between residential and industrial zoning districts. These regulations further address detectable noise
levels between two property lines and between two or more buildings on the same property. The City
will enforce these regulations for anaerobic digesters as it does with all other uses.
ORDINANCE NO.____-14
ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ST. LOUIS PARK
ORDINANCE CODE RELATING TO ZONING BY
AMENDING SECTIONS 36-4, 36-142, AND 36-244
THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK DOES ORDAIN:
Findings
Sec. 1. The City Council has considered the advice and recommendation of the Planning
Commission (Case No. 14-01-ZA).
Sec. 2. The St. Louis Park Ordinance Code, Sections 36-4, 36-142, and 36-244 are
hereby amended as follows. Section breaks are represented by ***.
Sec. 36-4. Definitions.
***
Food waste means all food, including meat, poultry, seafood, dairy, bread, fruits and vegetables,
cheese, eggshells, rice, beans, pasta, coffee grounds and filters, tea bags, bones and other plate
scrapings, and garden food waste (e.g. tomatoes, pumpkins).
***
Organic material means Food waste, Yard waste and items such as, but not limited to: non-
recyclable paper products, and other compostable items such as full vacuum cleaner bags, dryer
lint, tissues and cotton balls, floral trimmings and house plants, and compostable plastics
(certified compostable plastic utensils, cups and containers).
***
Yard waste means all garden wastes, grass clippings, leaves, weeds, holiday trees, shrub and tree
waste and prunings, seasonal greenery, and woodchips that are normally generated from
residential properties.
***
Sec. 36-142. Descriptions.
***
(e) Industrial uses. The following are typical of the industrial uses referred to in this chapter.
(1) Anaerobic digester is an enclosed system in which controlled anaerobic digestion occurs,
converting organic material into end-products such as biogas, fertilizer, water or other
solids. Characteristics may include truck traffic, odor or noises.
*(Renumber subsequent Industrial Use Descriptions accordingly)*
***
Sec. 36-244. I-G general industrial district.
***
(d) Uses permitted by conditional use permit. No structure or land in an I-G district shall be
used for the following uses except by conditional use permit. Those uses shall comply with the
Study Session Meeting of March 24, 2014 (Item No. 9)
Zoning Ordinance Amendments Related to Anaerobic Digesters Page 3
requirements of all the general conditions provided in section 36-242 and section 36-33
regarding conditional use permits, and with the specific conditions imposed in this subsection.
***
(10) Anaerobic digester. The conditions are as follows:
a. Anaerobic digesters shall be permitted only as part of a larger development which
contains at least one other principal use, and where electricity and bio-gas produced
by the digester is used primarily by the larger development.
b. Organic material, as defined in the Zoning Code, is the only input allowed.
c. No more than 30,000 tons of organic material shall be processed per year.
d. The digester system, associated equipment and operations must occur completely
within a negative-pressure building.
e. Organic material shall be deposited from the delivery vehicle directly into an
enclosed container integrated with the digester system.
f. Sorting of material must occur in an enclosed container integrated with the digester
system.
g. Odor controlling devices shall be used to prevent odors from being detectable outside
of the building containing the digester system.
h. Flaring of bio-gas is only allowed to burn excess gas and shall not be visible from off-
site.
i. No outdoor storage is allowed.
j. Retail distribution of compressed natural gas is not allowed.
k. All necessary permits relating to items such as: emissions, solid waste processing,
energy production, industrial waste water, and storm water must be obtained from the
appropriate agencies.
l. All necessary contracts or agreements with material providers and utility companies
must be submitted to the City prior to the issuance of a building permit.
Sec. 3. The contents of Planning Case File 14-01-ZA are hereby entered into and made
part of the public hearing record and the record of decision for this case.
Sec. 4. This Ordinance shall take effect fifteen days after its publication.
Public Hearing February 5, 2014
First Reading February 18, 2014
Second Reading April 7, 2014
Date of Publication April 17, 2014
Date Ordinance takes effect May 2, 2014
Reviewed for Administration Adopted by the City Council
Study Session Meeting of March 24, 2014 (Item No. 9)
Zoning Ordinance Amendments Related to Anaerobic Digesters Page 4