HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014/10/27 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - Study SessionAGENDA
OCTOBER 27, 2014
(Mayor Jacobs Out)
5:00 p.m.
COMMUNITY CENTER & REFRIGERATED ICE SITE TOUR – Meet at Rec Center
Immediately Following Site Tour
CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION – Council Chambers
Discussion Items
1. 5 minutes Future Study Session Agenda Planning – November 10, 2014
2. 30 minutes Outdoor Refrigerated Ice Schematic Design Presentation
3. 60 minutes Community Center Update
4. 30 minutes Southwest LRT Update
5 minutes Communications/Meeting Check-In (Verbal)
Written Reports
5. September 2014 Monthly Financial Report
6. Third Quarter Investment Report (July - September 2014)
7. Proposed Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) Program
8. City Publications Update
9. Inclusionary Housing Strategy Update
10. DLC West End Affordable Housing Mix
11. Oppidan/Bally's Affordable Housing Proposal
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: October 27, 2014
Discussion Item: 1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Future Study Session Agenda Planning – November 10, 2014
RECOMMENDED ACTION: The City Council and the City Manager to set the agenda for
the regularly scheduled Study Session on November 10, 2014.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the Council agree with the agenda as proposed?
SUMMARY: At each study session approximately five minutes are set aside to discuss the next
study session agenda. For this purpose, attached please find the proposed discussion items for
the regularly scheduled Study Session on November 10, 2014.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Future Study Session Agenda Planning – November 10, 2014
Prepared by: Debbie Fischer, Office Assistant
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of October 27, 2014 (Item No. 1) Page 2
Title: Future Study Session Agenda Planning – November 10, 2014
Study Session, November 10, 2014 – 6:30 p.m.
(City Manager Harmening Out)
Tentative Discussion Items
1. Future Study Session Agenda Planning – Administrative Services (5 minutes)
2. Southside Excelsior Boulevard Design Guidelines w/ Planning Commission – Community
Development (45 minutes)
Consultant Michael Schroeder of LHB Corp. and city staff will present draft design guidelines
document and respond to questions and comments. Task Force members will be invited to
attend the meeting for this item, too.
3. Planning Commission Annual Discussion – Community Development (20 minutes)
Meet with Planning Commission to discuss commission work in 2013-14 and work program
for 2015.
4. East Triangle Neighborhood Redevelopment Proposal – Community Development (30 minutes)
Bader Development will present its redevelopment proposal for five properties in the East
Triangle Neighborhood. Discussion regarding the reconfiguration of CSAH 25 from Belt Line
Blvd to France Ave., future redevelopment along this corridor in light of the anticipated
SWLRT project, and the status of the ASAP building with regard to its historical eligibility.
5. Paid Parental Leave – Administrative Services (30 minutes)
Per City Council request, discussion related to the consideration of a Paid Parental Leave
Policy.
6. Southwest LRT Update – Community Development (30 minutes)
Continued discussion of Southwest LRT project items.
Communications/Meeting Check-In – Administrative Services (5 minutes)
Time for communications between staff and Council will be set aside on every study session
agenda for the purposes of information sharing.
End of Meeting: 9:15 p.m.
Reports
7. Bee Friendly Community
Meeting: Study Session
Meeting Date: October 27, 2014
Discussion Item: 2
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Outdoor Refrigerated Ice Schematic Design Presentation
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff desires direction on the policy question below.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Is Council supportive of moving forward and authorizing staff
to negotiate and bring back to the Council for approval the final business terms with the Hockey
Association as to their participation in this project, as well as develop more details as to an
overall funding plan and a timeline for undertaking Design Development and Phase I
construction of the project?
SUMMARY: At the Study Session held on July 28, 2014, Council was presented with the
results of the feasibility study on the potential for an outdoor refrigerated ice rink at The Rec
Center. The site is in the northwest corner of The Rec Center campus. The Hockey Association
has discussed their desire for outdoor refrigerated ice for several years. While the Association
has discussed a number of sites, their preference is adjacent to The Rec Center. Staff and the
Hockey Association believe there are many synergies’ created by having this facility near The
Rec Center. The idea is to create a year-round community resource and gathering place. Staff has
worked with RSP Architects and members of the St. Louis Park Hockey Association to prepare a
schematic design for an outdoor refrigerated rink at the Rec Center. The scope of this project is a
covered 200’ by 85’ refrigerated outdoor ice rink with related support spaces (resurfacer storage
garage, parking) and additional future site improvements/amenities.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: The cost of the schematic design phase was
$34,089. This cost was split (50/50) with the Hockey Association.
The total estimated cost of the entire project (Phase I and II) is estimated at $5,635,657.
This project is being proposed in phases. Phase I of the project includes the complete
construction of the outdoor refrigerated rink, a fabric roof, ice resurfacer (Zamboni), resurfacer
storage garage and parking. The cost of Phase I of the project is estimated at $4,340,335. Phase
II of the project includes locker room space, viewing plaza, storage and the potential for other
site improvements (i.e. outdoor fire place, expanded pool deck seating; see alternates on attached
estimates); Phase II is anticipated to be $1,295,322. At this time the Hockey Association is
willing to commit a total of $1.5 million to the capital cost of the project. The specific source of
funds from the City still needs to be determined.
VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged
community.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion
Schematic Design from RSP Architects
Cost Estimates from RJM
Prepared by: Jason Eisold, Rec Center Manager
Reviewed by: Cindy S. Walsh, Director of Operations and Recreation
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of October 27, 2014 (Item No. 2) Page 2
Title: Outdoor Refrigerated Ice Schematic Design Presentation
DISCUSSION
BACKGROUND: The Hockey Association and the City of St. Louis Park have a long history of
partnerships. They have participated financially in the east rink addition, the skate shop
renovation, and the public address system in the arena.
The intent for this proposed facility is to be a year-round community asset. Although it will be
primarily a skating rink, the idea is to use this facility during the spring, summer and fall for
other activities and events. Staff has met with the soccer, lacrosse, baseball, and track youth
associations and all have expressed interest in using the facility for practice when spring weather
does not allow outdoor fields to be used. This space can also be used for other activities such as
craft fairs, pet expos, dog training, concerts, farmers markets, and garage sales.
SCHEMATIC DESIGN RESULTS: The Feasibility Study recommended locating the new
outdoor refrigerated ice rink and related facilities adjacent to the existing Rec Center building in
order to utilize the existing infrastructure and facilitate management of the rink. The current
“complete” design is still proposed as a phased implementation, and has been designed in a way
that allows the future phase to be built without major disruption to the first phase improvements.
Phase I consists of:
• Refrigerated rink with adequate slab beyond dasher boards to restrain slab. There is also
an extended slab area to allow for placement of a temporary changing room.
• Tensile roof
• Ice resurfacer (Zamboni) garage
• Parking to accommodate 38 stalls
• Artificial turf (to be used seasonally when the ice comes out)
Phase II consists of:
• Locker rooms
• Storage
• Viewing plaza
• Potential for other site improvements (i.e. outdoor fire place, expanded pool deck space;
see alternates on attached estimates)
As presented in the feasibility study, the intention of the final design is to utilize the existing
infrastructure wherever possible in lieu of duplicating them. This is both an economic and
maintenance consideration. Operationally, it was desirable to have a drop-off to allow direct
access to the rink instead of requiring access through the building from the main entrance. The
current design of Phase II provides an entry plaza at the same elevation as the existing drive.
From the plaza, spectators would go up steps or the ramp to the upper plaza that serves the
exterior spectator seating and the entrance to the West Arena. We believe this could become an
asset both for identity and as a means of access for spectators.
A copy of schematic design is attached.
Study Session Meeting of October 27, 2014 (Item No. 2) Page 3
Title: Outdoor Refrigerated Ice Schematic Design Presentation
SKATE PARK RELOCATION: There is $85,000 in the 2015 CIP budget to purchase new
skate park equipment. Regardless of whether the skate park changes locations, the equipment is
in need of replacement. Staff has some ideas of adding amenities like a “pump track” to be used
by bicycles and skate boarders. At this time, staff is recommending that the skate park move to
EDA owned property on the corner of Beltline and 36th Street. This keeps the skate park in the
same vicinity of The Rec Center that it is now. If at some point in the future the EDA has a
development proposal for this site, the skate park could be relocated.
NEED FOR OUTDOOR REFRIGERATED ICE: The Hockey Association has approximately
500 families involved in their program. They currently use ice at The Rec Center’s two existing
rinks and have a need for more hours than they are able to acquire at The Rec Center. They
purchase additional ice from a private company and from neighboring arenas. Building an
outdoor refrigerated rink would provide more hours of available ice for practices and games to
be played in the city.
The idea of adding an outdoor refrigerated ice rink has been discussed by the Hockey
Association for nearly 20 years. While the committee has discussed a number of sites, the
preferred location is at The Rec Center. Staff and the Hockey Association believe there are many
synergies’ created by having this facility near The Rec Center. The idea is to create a year-round
community resource and gathering place. Although the youth Hockey Association will be the
primary user of this proposed facility, the intent is for this to be an asset used by many groups at
all times of the year.
NEXT STEPS: If there is an interest in continuing the design process, it is recommended that
staff meet with the Hockey Association to finalize the financial commitment and terms of their
contribution. Once finalized, staff will present to Council the financial commitment agreement
with the recommendation of moving forward in the design process to design development. In
addition to finalizing the financing and operational expenses, staff would like to discuss the costs
associated with moving the skate park.
Staff proposes to come back to the Council by the end of the year with these details.
Study Session Meeting of October 27, 2014 (Item No. 2) Title: Outdoor Refrigerated Ice Schematic Design Presentation Page 4
RESURFACERCOACH'SOFFICEHS SLPGIRLSLOCKERROOM HMECHANICALHS BSMGIRLSHS SLPBOYSEXISTING RAMPICE PIT WITHFLOOR DRAINT.O. SLABEL. = 173' - 2"T.O. SLABEL. = 179' - 8"RELOCATED FENCECENTERED ON COLUMNSRELOCATED FENCE,SEE SITE PLANOFFICIALSPOOLMECHLOCKERROOM ELOCKERROOM FLOCKERROOM GEXISTING FLOORDRAINT.O. CONCRETEEL. = 179' - 0"T.O. CONCRETEEL. = 179' - 0"SLAB EXTENSION FORWARMING TRAILEREXISTING COOLINGTOWER STRUCTURETO REMAINRETAINING WALL5' - 2"200' - 0"6' - 0"85' - 0"8' - 1"EXISTING FENCENEW FENCE LOCATIONPARKING LIGHTPARKING LIGHTR S P A R C H I T E C T SSt. Louis Park, Minnesota October 8, 2014RINK LEVEL - PHASE 1Study Session Meeting of October 27, 2014 (Item No. 2) Title: Outdoor Refrigerated Ice Schematic Design Presentation Page 5
RESURFACERCOACH'SOFFICEHS SLPGIRLSLOCKERROOM HMECHANICALHS BSMGIRLSHS SLPBOYSLOCKERROOM IEXISTING RAMPCITYMECHANICALUNASSIGNEDSTORAGEICE PIT WITHFLOOR DRAINT.O. SLABEL. = 177' - 0"RELOCATED STAIRNEW 3'-4" x 8'-2"OPENINGT.O. SLABEL. = 175' - 6"NEW DOOR AND STAIRT.O. SLABEL. = 173' - 2"T.O. SLABEL. = 175' - 6"EL - 184' - 3" (VERIFY)T.O. GRADEEL - 175' - 4" (VERIFY)T.O. POOL DECKKEYSTONE WALLT.O. WALLEL. = 182' - 6"T.O. SLABEL. = 179' - 8"RELOCATED FENCE,SEE SITE PLANOFFICIALSSCOREBOARDPOOLMECHDASHER BOARDSTORAGE STACKED 2HIGH ON SHELVESGLASS STORAGELOCKERROOM ELOCKERROOM FLOCKERROOM GEXISTING FLOORDRAINPERVIOUS PAVERS W/GRASS. GRASS PAVEOR EQUALRAMPGAS FIRE PIT INRAISED BENCHSPORT FLOOR IN LOCKER ROOMS, HALL,AND WAITING. EXTEND TO RINK DOOR@ EXTERIORNEW ULTILITYLOCATIONS IF REQ'D.EL = 179' - 2 1/2"EXISTINGLOCKERROOM LLOCKERROOM MWAITINGSLABSTORAGESTORAGESTORAGET.O. SLABEL. = 181' - 0"T.O. SLABEL. = 179' - 0"R S P A R C H I T E C T SSt. Louis Park, Minnesota October 8, 2014RINK LEVEL - PHASE 2Study Session Meeting of October 27, 2014 (Item No. 2) Title: Outdoor Refrigerated Ice Schematic Design Presentation Page 6
R S P A R C H I T E C T SSt. Louis Park, Minnesota October 8, 2014 1" = 20'-0"NORTH ELEVATION - PHASE 11 1" = 20'-0"NORTH ELEVATION - PHASE 22Study Session Meeting of October 27, 2014 (Item No. 2) Title: Outdoor Refrigerated Ice Schematic Design Presentation Page 7
R S P A R C H I T E C T SSt. Louis Park, Minnesota October 8, 2014VIEW FROM 36TH - PHASE 1Study Session Meeting of October 27, 2014 (Item No. 2) Title: Outdoor Refrigerated Ice Schematic Design Presentation Page 8
R S P A R C H I T E C T SSt. Louis Park, Minnesota October 8, 2014ENTRY PLAZA - PHASE 1Study Session Meeting of October 27, 2014 (Item No. 2) Title: Outdoor Refrigerated Ice Schematic Design Presentation Page 9
R S P A R C H I T E C T SSt. Louis Park, Minnesota October 8, 2014ENTRY PLAZA - PHASE 2Study Session Meeting of October 27, 2014 (Item No. 2) Title: Outdoor Refrigerated Ice Schematic Design Presentation Page 10
R S P A R C H I T E C T SSt. Louis Park, Minnesota October 8, 2014VIEW FROM POOL DECKStudy Session Meeting of October 27, 2014 (Item No. 2) Title: Outdoor Refrigerated Ice Schematic Design Presentation Page 11
BUDGET SUMMARY
ESTIMATE DATE:
PROJECT:
ARCHITECT:
DRAWING DATE:
Base
DESCRIPTION Notes Estimate
Construction Costs
Roof Structure - Rink $1,841,840
Ice Rink $549,945
Dasher Boards $178,500
Zamboni Room $59,604
Zamboni Used machine $60,000
Earthwork $159,798
Asphalt $35,658
Site Concrete $48,800
Retaining Walls $28,700
Site Utilities Allowance $50,000
Landscaping Allowance $15,000
Survey $3,500
General Conditions $120,000
Temp Fencing $5,768
General Liability Insurance $28,414
Builders Risk Insurance $7,893
Building Permit $44,997
Bond $31,719
Subtotal Construction Costs $3,270,136
Escalation Escalation: $98,104
Contingency Contingency: $235,777
Contractor's Fee 2.95%$106,318
A&E Design Fees $205,000
Additional Capacity to Refrigeration $250,000
Turf $175,000
Construction Estimate Total $4,340,335
Phase I
***Add $30,000 for new propane or add $65,000 for new electric resurfacer.
St. Louis Park Ice Sheet
RSP Architects
September 29, 2014
October 20, 2014
Study Session Meeting of October 27, 2014 (Item No. 2)
Title: Outdoor Refrigerated Ice Schematic Design Presentation Page 12
ESTIMATE DATE:
PROJECT:
ARCHITECT:
DRAWING DATE:
St. Louis Park Ice Sheet
RSP Architects
September 29, 2014
October 20, 2014
Base
DESCRIPTION Notes Estimate
Construction Costs
Building Expansion 6,000Sf (team rooms, storage and exterior $1,280,322
SAC/WAC Fees Allowance $15,000
A&E Design Fees In Phase I $0
Estimate Total $1,295,322
***Potential cost savings of $125,000 if all phases completed as one project.
Phase I Estimate Total:$4,340,335
Phase II Estimate Total:$1,295,322
Total Combined Estimate:$5,635,657
ALTERNATES:
No. 1:Add $78,657
No. 2:Add $272,794
No. 3:Add $142,818
No. 4:Add $16,450
No. 5:Add $114,675
Sub-Total:$625,393
Fire pit and structure.
Pool terrace extended slab. Concrete slab-on-grade with ramp
in lieu of sloped grass.
Phase II
Expand Zamboni structure to create Nest viewing area.
Single level storage area.
Add a second level to storage area.
Study Session Meeting of October 27, 2014 (Item No. 2)
Title: Outdoor Refrigerated Ice Schematic Design Presentation Page 13
Meeting: Study Session
Meeting Date: October 27, 2014
Discussion Item: 3
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Community Center Update
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff desires direction on the policy questions noted below.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Which of the following options would Council like to pursue?
• Table this item until a later date when more information is known about financial
obligations the City may face for other significant capital projects such as SWLRT.
• Continue to move forward with the Community Center project and commence a
comprehensive process of reaching out to the community for their input.
• Some combination of the above.
SUMMARY: The City Council authorized staff to enter into the schematic design at their May
19, 2014 meeting. Moving to the schematic design gets us to the point of more accurate cost
estimating and building renderings so that we could gather public input when the City Council is
ready to take that step. Staff believes we have all of the necessary information to move into the
public process whenever Council is ready to do so.
The Schematic Design phase of the project recently finished. As discussed later in this report.
the total estimated cost of the project is approximately $48 million in 2016 dollars. The
construction of a project of this scale happens in steps.. Although they need to happen in order,
there can be time in between each step. Nothing is lost by putting a hold on the project after the
schematic design. If the Council wishes to continue moving forward, the next step from a
building design perspective would be Design Development. The cost for design development for
the entire project would be approximately $900,000. Since the project can be built in phases, the
estimated Design Development cost for Phase 1 is approximately $600,000.
The following consultants were used for the schematic design phase: Hammel, Green and
Abrahamson, Inc (HGA) for the architecture and engineering, RJM for the cost estimating,
American Engineering Testing for the soils testing, and Sunde for the survey work. Bob DeGroot
also provided guidance as an independent contractor on the soils analysis.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: The cost associated with the schematic
design phase has been paid from the Park Improvement Fund (PIF). If the project moves forward
the project would be funded via the issuance of GO Bonds. At that time the PIF Fund would be
reimbursed for the cost of the schematic design.
VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged
community.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion
Schematic Design from HGA
Cost Estimates from RJM
Prepared by: Cindy S. Walsh, Director of Operations and Recreation
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of October 27, 2014 (Item No. 3) Page 2
Title: Community Center Update
DISCUSSION
BACKGROUND: Hammel, Green and Abrahamson, Inc. (HGA) has acted as architect and
engineer to assist in the schematic design of a community center project. They have experience
in designing and building community centers around the metro area as well as other states.
PRESENT CONSIDERATIONS: The building design and cost analysis were based on
recommendations from the Task Force and include all of the program components that were
desired by the community.
PROGRAM COMPONENT ASSUMPTIONS: The following program components were
recommended by the Task Force. The data that the Task Force used came from the two surveys
that were done in the community. During this phase of planning, staff and the consultant went
through each component to ensure allocation of appropriate space and amenities associated with
each of the items. The following is a list of amenities included in the current analysis:
Gymnasium
The gym is proposed to hold two full-size basketball courts with a drop down curtain in the
middle separating them. There will be a set of bleachers that pull out from the wall on each
side. At this time we are considering a multi-purpose poured floor rather than a traditional
wood floor. There are two reasons for this. First, it is less expensive to build and less
expensive to maintain. Second, it can be used for multi-purpose events including all sports,
tricycles and other equipment used for children events. It can also be used for special events
where tables and chairs are set up without worrying about scratching the wood floors. Staff
envisions programming the gyms as well as having them available for drop-in basketball.
The current gyms in the schools are overused by traveling sports so there is no time for kids
and adults to drop-in and play. We would also like to look at an area in the back of one of the
courts where we could drop in a batting cage similar to what Chaska and other communities
do in their gymnasiums.
Aquatics
The trend in pool construction is to have areas for lap swimming, deep water and leisure/fun
areas. To accommodate that, a lap pool is proposed with six lanes that would have deep water
at one end. The deep water could be used for various events (scuba diving classes, etc.) as
well as hold a diving board and a climbing wall. The leisure pool would have youth play
features and slides with a zero depth entry area. An ADA accessible ramp is recommended
for the lap pool. That will allow all ages and abilities access to the pool as well as allow us to
hold specialty classes for people with MS or those recovering from surgeries. This is another
reason we are exploring a partnership with a physical therapy group. Swimming lessons
could be held at either or both pools depending on the age of kids. At this time, Community
Education offers the swimming lessons at the schools. We would explore a partnership with
them. Because of the cleaning issues associated with a hot tub or spa, staff is not
recommending one for this facility.
Drop-in Child Care
This child care is only for parents and care givers who are using the facility. This is a facility
that can be used by people who are at the building for a period of 1 - 2 hours. A full-time day
care is not being proposed.
Study Session Meeting of October 27, 2014 (Item No. 3) Page 3
Title: Community Center Update
Community Room
The capacity for this room wasn’t fully defined in the Task Force process. From the feedback
received from the Council and residents, staff is proposing a room with a capacity of
approximately 250 people. The proposed room would be approximately 4,000 - 4,500 square
feet. A caterer’s kitchen will likely need to be attached so that the room can be used by a
variety of groups. This room can be reserved for a variety of functions and events. The
Banquet Room at the Rec Center holds up to 160 people. We receive requests for various
events that we are unable to accommodate because of the current size of the Banquet Room..
Commons/Gathering Place
This would be near the front entrance and serve as a gathering place for people in the
community. The furniture would be stationary. A coffee shop/café would be adjacent to this
space. Providing a gathering place was the number one comment that we heard from the
community through the Vison process and early surveys.
Kid’s Play Area
It is proposed to have a climbing stationary feature along with a large motor play area with a
variety of toys for kids to play with.
Track
The track is shown above the gymnasium and fitness room. This track is one of the “wow”
features of the building. It has great views to the outside and is longer than most indoor
tracks with 5 laps to a mile.
Fitness
The two components of fitness are the exercise equipment and fitness studios where classes
are held. Since the trends in fitness classes change, we want to be able to adapt to those new
classes. We are proposing three rooms: large, medium and small to accommodate a variety of
classes. Actual sizes of the rooms are still being researched. Appropriate storage needs to be
adjacent to the rooms to hold equipment such as mats, balls, bikes, etc.
Party Rooms
One of the biggest revenue generators in other community centers is the ability to hold
birthday parties. Staff is proposing party rooms near the pool and possibly near the Kid’s
Play area.
CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATES: The cost of constructing the entire project at once is
estimated to be $47,961,920. That includes architectural and engineering fees, contingency and a
construction escalation fee for 2016 construction and removal of all contaminated soils that will
have to be hauled off site.
POSSIBLE PHASING SCENARIOS: The building could be planned and constructed in two
phases. The second phase of the building could be added at any time. The attached diagram
shows the two possible phases. It is recommended to build the entire parking ramp in the first
phase. It is not economically feasible to add a level to the ramp at a later date. In addition to the
cost, it would have a major operational impact on the site. The ramp would need to be closed
down during the construction of the additional parking deck which would prove to be
challenging with very limited parking available on site. It is possible that Council could decide to
start with Phase 1 and not build phase 2. The cost estimates are based on construction costs for
Study Session Meeting of October 27, 2014 (Item No. 3) Page 4
Title: Community Center Update
2016. Contingencies are built into these costs. Soils correction and removal of any contaminated
soils is included in this estimate. All soils that are disturbed during this project will need to be
hauled off site and disposed of in a hazardous waste landfill. The following is a phasing scenario:
There is a price premium to phasing this project. Both phases done separately will cost more
than if it were all done at once.
Phase 1: Gymnasium and dry land wellness components (gym, locker rooms, drop-in child
care, kids play area, fitness equipment and fitness group exercise rooms, lobby, and
community gathering commons and community Room/Banquet meeting room (meeting
room to hold 250 people for large events). Also included in this is the entire parking ramp.
The cost for the parking ramp portion of is $9,122,531. The total cost of Phase 1 is
$39,718,867.
Phase 2: The Indoor Aquatic Park is the second phase. The cost of doing this separately is
$9,533,028
When done separately the phased project has a total price of $49,251,895.
FINANCING: Financing for the proposed Community Center would be through the issuance of
General Obligation (G.O.) Bonds for the entire cost of the project with an assumed 20 year term
on the bonds. Based on a $30 - $50 million Community Center project, the property tax impact
on a residential homesteaded median value home of $204,700 would be an increase of
approximately $81 - $134 over a two year period, or approximately $41 - $67 increase per year
for the City share of property taxes. This equates to approximately a 8.6% - 14.4% increase in
the City share of property taxes over a two year period, or approximately 4.3% - 7.2% increase
per year. These estimates are only for construction costs of the proposed Community Center and
do not factor in the estimated operating loss, any property tax levy increases for the general
operating levy, or any other significant capital projects such as sidewalks and trails, SWLRT etc.
NOTE: The last time the Council discussed this matter it was requested that staff consider how
new development growth in the community might help mitigate property tax impacts to our
residents and to incorporate that into its analysis. After spending time trying to develop a model,
it was determined that there was not a reliable way to do this given many unknowns. For
example, many of our more sizable redevelopment projects utilize tax increment districts, which
actually capture value for an extended period of time. Another example relates to economic
downturns and markets. Attempting to project what might happen in the future is a guess at best.
Having said the above, staff could still incorporate certain assumptions in its estimates of
property tax impacts but would strongly encourage against it as the results would be speculative.
ESTIMATED OPERATING COSTS: Staff has worked with the firm of Ballard & King to
assist with an Operating Analysis estimate. Jeff King took the program components outlined in
this report to design an operating budget and revenue projections. Jeff King has estimated
expense and revenue projections for many community centers throughout the United States. The
cost recovery rate is estimated conservatively at 65%. That includes the anticipated increase in
full time staff as well as part time staff, utilities, program expenses, supplies and other
miscellaneous items needed to run a facility. The revenue projections include memberships and
daily admissions (anticipating several options) as well as rental revenue obtained from the
community room. We can certainly recover more than that by increasing fees. At this time, our
fees are similar to that of other Community Centers.
Study Session Meeting of October 27, 2014 (Item No. 3) Page 5
Title: Community Center Update
Staff also explored the maintenance/operating expenses for parking ramps. Although we do not
anticipate much for maintenance costs the first 1 - 5 years (with the exception of snow removal),
the annual maintenance for parking ramps is approximately $120-$130 per stall per year. If we
are looking at 688 stalls that is $82,560 - $89,440 per year in ramp maintenance expenses
(plowing, crack sealing, painting, lighting, etc.).
POSSIBLE PARTNERSHIP WITH THE YMCA: We were approached by the JCC and
YMCA about a possible partnership. In early discussions, the JCC was not sure they were going
to continue to be in the fitness business. At this time, the JCC is still undergoing some long range
planning and is unsure of how the future for them may look. The potential partnership now
appears to be with the YMCA. We have shared our building program components, design layout
and pro forma with them.
If the City were interested in a partnership with the YMCA, they responded with the following
proposal:
• They would propose reducing the building footprint from approximately 105,000 square
feet to 50,000 square feet. They did not provide details regarding what would be
removed.
• They are not in a position to invest any capital money in building the facility. However,
they are interested in willing in running the programming in the new building.
• They proposed that the name of the building would be the YMCA of St. Louis Park.
• They would propose charging more for memberships than we are showing in our pro
forma (which is similar to other Community Centers in the metro area). Their prices
would be about 15% less than private facilities.
• They would want to offer all of their typical programs. Some of those may compete with
programs that are offered by Parks and Recreation and the School District through
Community Education.
SUSTAINABILITY: The committee reviewed several ideas that are culturally and physically
specific to this project. While LEED certification has not been determined, the team reviewed a
preliminary planning matrix and believes a LEED Certified project is easily attainable. With
some effort, the team thinks a LEED Gold certification could be achieved. Additionally, the team
identified LEED Platinum as a stretch goal if there was a desire by the City to make a statement
with this project. When evaluating strategies, the team encourages the City to look at long term
value to the community and consider longer paybacks.
The following is a list of sustainable strategies currently incorporated into the project:
1. Use of low VOC materials and views to outdoors.
2. High performance HVAC systems and lighting controls.
3. Low flow plumbing fixtures.
4. Reduced irrigation water.
5. Enhanced pool filtration and circulation system.
6. Diversion of construction waste and use of recycled and regional materials.
7. Improved storm water management practices to exceed regulatory requirements.
8. Green roof over indoor aquatics program to reduce on site infiltration requirements.
9. Encourage alternative transportation through connections to larger trail systems for bikes
and pedestrians and promoting bus and LRT infrastructure.
10. Utilization of measurement, verification and commissioning to track and report over-all
building performance.
Study Session Meeting of October 27, 2014 (Item No. 3) Page 6
Title: Community Center Update
EXISTING REC CENTER CAPITAL ITEMS: It is important to note that The Rec Center has
a number of improvements identified in the existing five year capital plan totaling $6.5 million to
be funded from the Park Improvement Fund. The largest expense will occur in 2016 with the
change to a new refrigeration system ($4.8 million). The remaining funds will replace or
refurbishing existing amenities. We will need to reconstruct all or portion of the outdoor aquatic
park. Some of this may include redesign and adding features. Staff’s recommendation is that if a
community center is added, we may continue with the majority of the outdoor pool features we
have and look at replacing some features. If we do not go forward with a community center, we
should consider new additions to the outdoor aquatic park to keep it fresh and fun for residents
and visitors and keep it competitive in the market place.
NEXT STEPS:
Applying for Grants to assist in further soils study:
Staff feels comfortable with the environmental assessments done thus far but would still want
more work done before a final decision is made to move forward. There is a possibility of
applying for three different grants to assist in the additional site assessment and a Response
Action Plan (RAP). Staff suggests applying for all three of these to pay for the majority of the
additional soils and environmental exploration of the site. Applying for these grants does not
guarantee the City will go forward with the project. The first grant is the Hennepin County
Environmental Response Fund. The second is the Met Council Tax Based Revitalization
Account. This grants looks at jobs we are creating and livability in the City. The location of
Wolfe Park makes this a good candidate. The third one is the Minnesota Employment of
Economic Development (DEED) grant which is a Contamination Investigation and RAP
Development Grant.
The City could apply for these grants and do the additional work (test pits and vapor testing)
without committing to the project. The maximum grant from all of these is $50,000. There will
be some matching money required for this. Some of this matching money we have already
expended during the schematic design phase just finished. There could be additional matching
money needed which is anticipated to be in the $5,000 -$10,000 range.
Public Process: If the Council wishes to continue moving forward, the next step would include
public process. If Council is ready to pursue that option, staff would like to come back to an
upcoming Council meeting to lay out the specifics of the process. If the project keeps
progressing after public process, the next step would be design development.
city council study session october 27, 2014
1575-004
Project Site Orientation
WEST 36TH STREET
TEMPORARY
SKATE
PARK
PARKING
STRUCTURE
688 vehicles
OUTDOOR
REFRIGERATED
RINK
EXISTING
REC
CENTER
COMMUNITY CENTER
1. entry plaza
2. commons
3. terrace
4. community room
5. gymnasium
6. fitness center
7. indoor running track
8. aquatic center
9. lawn
10. project boundaryMO
N
T
E
R
E
Y
D
R
I
V
E
1
2 5
3 4
6
8
910
7
ST. LOUIS PARK COMMUNITY CENTER & OUTDOOR REFRIGERATED RINK
Study Session Meeting of October 27, 2014 (Item No. 3)
Title: Community Center Update Page 7
ST. LOUIS PARK COMMUNITY CENTER
city council study session october 27, 2014
1575-004
1 Community Center Site Plan
1. FORESTED PARKING SCREEN
The perimiter of the site is treated as a landscape
tapestry. Planted with a variety of species with
varying heights and foliage colors.
Extending the park to the streets edge, The
landscaped “screen” is artfully illuminated to
provide visual interest and depth, shrouding the
parking structure and highlighting the natural
character of the park.
2. PARKING STRUCTURE
Three levels above grade
172 stalls per level = 688 stalls
3. ENTRY DRIVE
The entry drive off of west 36th street serves as the main
entry and provides vehicular access to the ramp,
access to bus drop off and parking, as well as
pedestrian access. The entrance off or Monterey Drive
serves the parking ramp.
4. ENTRY COURT
The entry court, as an extension of the building
commons and the Community terrace acts as a
gathering space and a pedestrian connection
between the entry drive,the common spaces of the
community center, and the Rec Center. The
landscaped Western side of the court is home to the
relocated Evelyn Raymond Sculpture
5. COMMUNITY TERRACE
The terrace serves as a connection between Wolfe
Park and the commons space. It provides an intimate
setting for events taking place in the community room.
6. RENOVATED HOCKEY ENTRANCE
In an effort to create a more cohesive entry court, the
existing hockey lobby will be replaced with one of a
more appropriate scale and material palette. The
renovated entrance will have a reduced vestibule and
a waiting area which overlooks the entry court and
dropoff areq.
7. WEST COURTYARD
The west courtyard is an intimate
landscaped area between the existing Rec Center
and the new Community Center.
Views into the courtyard greet patrons
using the indoor and outdoor aquatics as they arrive at
the locker rooms.
8. OUTDOOR SHOWERS
Located adjacent to the locker rooms, as well as the
West Courtyard, the outdoor showers serve the outdoor
aquatics program, and have the opportunity to be
a “water feature” more than just a functional shower
area.
9. RELOCATED LAWN
The lawn is a relocation of the picnic space that exists
on the current sitein the area of the new Community
Center. It will be replaced as the same area as the
existing lawn.
10. DELIVERY ACCESS DRIVE
The lawn is a relocation of the picnic space that exists
on the current sitein the area of the new Community
Center. It will be replaced as the same area as the
existing lawn.
11. BUS DROP OFF
The bus drop off is sized to accomodate 3 busses.
12. BUS PARKING
There are 2 bus parking areas - each accomodating 2
busses
13. RELOCATED OUTDOOR BASKETBALL COURT
14. RELOCATED OUTDOOR VOLLEYBALL COURT
15. OUTDOOR REFRIGERATED RINK - BY OTHERS
100’ 150’ 200’
250’225’
1
15
1
3
3
11 2
13
14
5
4
6
7
8
9
12 12
10
WEST 36TH STREET
MO
N
T
E
R
E
Y
D
R
I
V
E
Study Session Meeting of October 27, 2014 (Item No. 3)
Title: Community Center Update Page 8
ST. LOUIS PARK COMMUNITY CENTER
city council study session october 27, 2014
1575-004
2 First Floor Plan
1. LOBBY AND FRONT DESK
2. COMMONS AREA
3. COMMUNITY ROOM
250 SEATS
4. CONCESSIONS
5. OFFICE AND PROGRAM SUPPORT
6. INDOOR KID’S PLAY AREA
7. DROP-IN CHILD CARE
8. WOMENS LOCKER ROOM
9. MENS LOCKER ROOM
10. FAMILY LOCKER ROOM
11. LEISURE POOL
12. LAP POOL
13. PARTY ROOM
14. GYMNASIUM
15. BUILDING SERVICES
16. RENOVATED HOCKY ENTRANCE
17. TRAINING DESK
18. LARGE STUDIO SPACE
19. MEDIUM STUDIO SPACE
20. SMALL STUDIO SPACE
21. CARDIO
22. CIRCUIT TRAINING
23. FREE WEIGHTS
24. RUNNING / WALKING TRACK
5 LAPS = 1 MILE
25. MECHANICAL
26. GREEN ROOF
27. ENTRY COURT
w/ relocated Evelyn Raymond sculpture
28. COMMUNITY TERRACE
29. WEST COURTYARD
16
27
2
28
1
529 15
10 9 8
7 6
4
13 13
11 12
3
13
13 14
0’8’ 16’32’
Study Session Meeting of October 27, 2014 (Item No. 3)
Title: Community Center Update Page 9
ST. LOUIS PARK COMMUNITY CENTER
city council study session october 27, 2014
1575-004
3 Second Floor Plan
17
20
2523
22
2124
26
26
1. LOBBY AND FRONT DESK
2. COMMONS AREA
3. COMM UNITY ROOM
250 SEATS
4. CONCESSIONS
5. OFFICE AND PROGRAM SUPPORT
6. INDOOR KID’S PLAY AREA
7. DROP-IN CHILD CARE
8. WOMENS LOCKER ROOM
9. MENS LOCKER ROOM
10. FAMILY LOCKER ROOM
11. LEISURE POOL
12. LAP POOL
13. PARTY ROOM
14. GYMNASIUM
15. BUILDING SERVICES
16. RENOVATED HOCKY ENTRANCE
17. TRAINING DESK
18. LARGE STUDIO SPACE
19. MEDIUM STUDIO SPACE
20. SMALL STUDIO SPACE
21. CARDIO
22. CIRCUIT TRAINING
23. FREE WEIGHTS
24. RUNNING / WALKING TRACK
5 LAPS = 1 MILE
25. MECHANICAL
26. GREEN ROOF
27. ENTRY COURT
w/ relocated Evelyn Raymond sculpture
28. COMMUNITY TERRACE
29. WEST COURTYARD
26
25
19
18
24
0’8’ 16’32’
Study Session Meeting of October 27, 2014 (Item No. 3)
Title: Community Center Update Page 10
ST. LOUIS PARK COMMUNITY CENTER
city council study session october 27, 2014
1575-004
4 Material Palette
Semi Reflective Glass Internally Shaded GlassColored Precast Concrete Clear Glass Clear Glass with Frit Spandrel Glass with Frit
Anodized AluminumGreen Roof
Study Session Meeting of October 27, 2014 (Item No. 3)
Title: Community Center Update Page 11
ST. LOUIS PARK COMMUNITY CENTER
city council study session october 27, 2014
1575-004
5 Entry Birdseye
Study Session Meeting of October 27, 2014 (Item No. 3)
Title: Community Center Update Page 12
ST. LOUIS PARK COMMUNITY CENTER
city council study session october 27, 2014
1575-004
6 Entry Terrace
Study Session Meeting of October 27, 2014 (Item No. 3)
Title: Community Center Update Page 13
ST. LOUIS PARK COMMUNITY CENTER
city council study session october 27, 2014
1575-004
7 Community Center Commons
Study Session Meeting of October 27, 2014 (Item No. 3)
Title: Community Center Update Page 14
ST. LOUIS PARK COMMUNITY CENTER
city council study session october 27, 2014
1575-004
8 Community Terrace
Study Session Meeting of October 27, 2014 (Item No. 3)
Title: Community Center Update Page 15
ST. LOUIS PARK COMMUNITY CENTER
city council study session october 27, 2014
1575-004
9 view from the Southeast
Study Session Meeting of October 27, 2014 (Item No. 3)
Title: Community Center Update Page 16
ST. LOUIS PARK COMMUNITY CENTER
city council study session october 27, 2014
1575-004
10 Cost Estimate and Phasing
ESTIMATE SUMMARY - COMMUNITY CENTER FULL SCOPE
ESTIMATE DATE:
PROJECT:
ARCHITECT:
DRAWING DATE:
Base
DESCRIPTION Estimate
Construction Estimate Total $30,994,856
Parking Ramp $9,122,531
Façade Enhancement / Public Art Allowance $1,000,000
Other Costs $1,239,794
Architectural & Engineering Costs $2,467,043
Project Contingency $3,137,696
Total Project Estimate $47,961,920
October 10, 2014
SAC / WAC
St. Louis Park Community Center - SD Estimate
HGA Architects
August 12, 2014
NOTES
2016 Start Date
2016 Start Date
Soil Borings
Site Survey
Testing & Special Inspections
FFE ( funiture, fixtures & equipment )
Signage
Artwork
Phone & Data
Audio Visual
Security Systems
Computer Systems and Equipment
SINGLE PHASE CONSTRUCTION
Study Session Meeting of October 27, 2014 (Item No. 3)
Title: Community Center Update Page 17
ST. LOUIS PARK COMMUNITY CENTER
city council study session october 27, 2014
1575-004
11 Cost Estimate and Phasing
ESTIMATE SUMMARY - PHASE 1
ESTIMATE DATE:
PROJECT:
ARCHITECT:
DRAWING DATE:
Base
DESCRIPTION Estimate
Phase 1 Construction Estimate Total $23,991,413
Parking Ramp $9,122,531
Façade Enhancement / Public Art Allowance $1,000,000
Other Costs $959,657
Architectural & Engineering Costs $2,046,837
Project Contingency $2,598,431
Total Phase 1 Project Estimate $39,718,867
Phone & Data
Security Systems
Audio Visual
Computer Systems and Equipment
FFE ( funiture, fixtures & equipment )
Signage
Artwork
Soil Borings
Site Survey
Testing & Special Inspections
NOTES
2016 Start Date
SAC / WAC
St. Louis Park Community Center - SD Estimate
HGA Architects
August 12, 2014
October 10, 2014
PHASE I
gymnasium office
locker room lobby
kids play area community gathering
fitness + track commons
childcare center multipurpose room
Study Session Meeting of October 27, 2014 (Item No. 3)
Title: Community Center Update Page 18
ST. LOUIS PARK COMMUNITY CENTER
city council study session october 27, 2014
1575-004
12 Cost Estimate and Phasing
PHASE II
aquatics
aquatics support
ESTIMATE SUMMARY - PHASE 2
ESTIMATE DATE:
PROJECT:
ARCHITECT:
DRAWING DATE:
Base
DESCRIPTION Estimate
Construction Costs
Phase 2 Construction Estimate Total $8,099,429
Other Costs $323,977
Architectural & Engineering Costs $485,966
Project Contingency $623,656
Total Phase 2 Project Estimate $9,533,028
FFE ( funiture, fixtures & equipment )
Signage
Artwork
Phone & Data
Audio Visual
NOTES
2020 Start Date
SAC / WAC
Computer Systems and Equipment
Security Systems
Soil Borings
Site Survey
Testing & Special Inspections
St. Louis Park Community Center - SD Estimate
HGA Architects
August 12, 2014
October 10, 2014
* Completing the project in 2 phases results in a total project cost increase of $1,289,975.00
This cost increase is a result of escalation, remobilization and deconstruction costs.
Study Session Meeting of October 27, 2014 (Item No. 3)
Title: Community Center Update Page 19
Meeting: Study Session
Meeting Date: October 27, 2014
Discussion Item: 4
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Southwest LRT Update
RECOMMENDED ACTION: No formal action at this time. Staff desires feedback on the
information provided in this report.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: What Locally Requested Capital Improvements should the City
commit to fund for design and engineering.
SUMMARY: Staff is working on a number of items related to the SWLRT project. This report
and the discussion at the study session is to (1) provide a broad overview of current planning and
engineering activities; and (2) to discuss the most issues for St. Louis Park.
Attached are updates for several areas including, SWLRT project schedule; Community Works
activities; updates on the process moving forward, including agreements, grant applications, and
station planning.
For St. Louis Park, several policy decisions are needed in the next few months related to the
Locally Requested Capital Investments (LRCIs), which are potential improvements that would
need some local funding. To pursue our LRCIs, the City will need to cover the costs of the
design process, which is significant in some cases. For a LRCI to be included in the SWLRT
project the Met Council will require the City to commit to fund the design cost for the LRCI in a
formal agreement prior to the start of the Advanced Design phase of the SWLRT project early in
2015. In the next couple months, ideally by the end of this year, the City needs to decide which
LRCIs if not all of our LRCIs we are fund through Advanced Design. This will be the focus of
discussion at this meeting.
NEXT STEPS: Follow-up analysis and/or discussion and approval of agreements with the Met
Council for design and environmental design costs as needed.
VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged
community.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion
Prepared by: Meg J. McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor
Reviewed by: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of October 27, 2014 (Item No. 4) Page 2
Title: Southwest LRT Update
Discussion
SWLRT Project Schedule:
Time Period Milestone
4-9-2014 Scope and Budget Approval
7-9-2014 Revised Scope and Budget approval
4-22 to 8-29-2014 Municipal Consent
8-25-2014 Final FTA Guidance on JD development
released
September 2014 New Starts Application submitted to FTA
Q4 2014 Advanced Design Consultants
selected
Q1 2015 Advanced Design Begins
Q4 2015
Record of Decision
FTA approval to enter Engineering
Q2 2016
Construction bids
New Starts Application for FFGA
Q4 2016 Full Funding Grant Agreement (FTA
approval)
2016 - 2018 Heavy Construction
2019 Revenue Operation
The Preliminary Design Plans can be found at www.stlouispark.org/webfiles/file/community-
dev/swlrt_plans.pdf.
Study Session Meeting of October 27, 2014 (Item No. 4) Page 3
Title: Southwest LRT Update
Updates:
Community Works Activities
Housing: The Community Works Steering Committee has completed the Corridor Housing
Inventory and is reviewing the second phase of study, the Housing Gaps Analysis. The third step
is to develop a strategy for addressing those gaps. Additional information will be coming on this
topic at future meetings.
Master Development Strategies: Community Works is funding a consultant to complete a
Master Development Strategy (MDS) for four of the stations, including the Beltline station in St.
Louis Park. This process is to create a strategy that is grounded in real estate market realities and
catalyze new TOD. It will include a market analysis, creating preferred development programs,
and outline specific implementation steps necessary to make the transition to a walkable transit-
supportive district. This process will be a $100,000- $150,000 effort for each station and take
approximately 12 months throughout 2015.
Moving the Market: McKnight Foundation awarded a grant to Hennepin County, MEDA and
NDC to collaborate on Employment Transit Oriented Development (ETOD) opportunities along
the corridor. The intent is to transform LRT station areas into places where employment,
entrepreneurial opportunities, support services and amenities exist; and to expand minority-
owned businesses and create new jobs for communities of color. This is a $750,000 effort that
will be developed throughout 2015.
Bicycle Facilities Assessment: Community Works is leading an effort to develop a strategy to
maximize trail usage and LRT interface. This will be an approximately $110,000 effort with
some funding provided by Three Rivers Park District. The expected completion date is
September ’15.
Grant Applications
It is expected the City will pursue a number of grants in the coming years related to identified/
needed improvements.
Currently the staff is writing a grant for Congestion Mitigation Air Quality (CMAQ) federal
funds administered through the Met Council to construct a park and ride ramp at the Beltline
station (versus a surface parking lot). The intent is this will facilitate mixed-use development
near the station. This application is due in early December for funds to be disbursed in 2017. A
resolution approving the application submittal will be presented to the City Council for approval
on November 17th.
Station Planning
Met Council’s Southwest Project Office (SPO) is working on the station design approach.
Designers are beginning to create prototypes for the line. The intent is that stations will not be
identical, however will match in terms of elements, based on the type of station and the local
surroundings. A public art process will be a part of this effort. Additional information on this
work and public process will be forthcoming after the first of the year.
Study Session Meeting of October 27, 2014 (Item No. 4) Page 4
Title: Southwest LRT Update
Agreements
As a part of the project, several agreements with the Met Council will be necessary.
A Master Funding Agreement (MFA) sets up the overall framework for the transfer of funds
from the Council to the City and from the City to the Council as necessary throughout the
project. Met Council is asking cities to complete this agreement by the end of the year. This
agreement does not commit any funds, but rather it sets out a process for transferring funds
when approved to do so by Met Council and the City.
A Subordinate Funding Agreement (SFA) will be required for individual work projects. For
example if the City wants to pursue the LRCI items, initially a SFA will be needed to layout the
scope of the LRCI, and provide a method of payment for the design and environmental work to
be completed by Met Council and paid for by the city or other agency. Prior to construction if
the city decides to go forward with a LRCI and pay for a portion or all of it, another SFA will be
necessary.
Locally Requested Capital Improvements:
Essentially by the first of the year, the City will need to commit to covering design and
environmental costs for the LRCIs we wish to pursue. Agreements will need to be in place by
early 2015. Below is the list of high priority LRCIs from the City’s resolution approving the
SWLRT Municipal Consent Plans. At the City Council Study Session staff would like to review
the list of LRCIs and get direction from the City Council on how to proceed, including what
additional information or analysis the City Council needs to help it make these important
decisions.
LRCIs Table
Locally Requested Capital
Improvement
Constr.
Cost
Est.
Design
Cost
Est.
Comments
a. Cedar Lake Regional Trail grade
separations (Wooddale Avenue
and Beltline Boulevard)
$7.5 mill.
(note this is
based on trail
over Beltline)
$750,000
It is anticipated that Three
Rivers Park District will take
lead with Hennepin County
on the trail separations.
b. Beltline Boulevard underpass
$20 mil.
$2.0 mil.
Also has impacts on Joint
Dev. Project, trail
separations, Beltline
circulation LRCI.
c. Circulation and access
improvements at Beltline Station
- the extension of Lynn Avenue
and a new road along the north
side of the rail corridor
- -
SPO says City proposed
changes construction &
design cost neutral with
exception of additional ROW
acquisition costs which are as
yet not known.
d. Structured parking at the Beltline
and a Joint Development project
$7.9 mill.
Net cost -
Pkg Ramp part of Joint
Development not a true
LRCI. City applying for
CMAQ grant to fund ramp.
Study Session Meeting of October 27, 2014 (Item No. 4) Page 5
Title: Southwest LRT Update
e. Xenwood Avenue underpass
$13 mill.
$1.3 mill.
Anticipated to be funded thru
TIF and grants.
f. Pedestrian/bike connection to
Methodist Hospital ? ? More discussion on this
LRCI needed with SPO.
g. Streetscape and engineering
plans in accordance with City
and the Community Works
Investment Framework and
Transitional Station Area Action
Plan (TSAAP) elements
- -
Items to be determined
during Advanced Design
process.
Meeting: Study Session
Meeting Date: October 27, 2014
Written Report: 5
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: September 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: At the end of September, General Fund
expenditures total approximately 72.5% of the adopted annual budget, which is about 2.5%
under where expenditures would normally be through September. Please see the attached
analysis for more details.
VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion
Summary of Revenues & Expenditures
Prepared by: Darla Monson, Senior Accountant
Reviewed by: Brian A. Swanson, Controller
Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of October 27, 2014 (Item No. 5) Page 2
Title: September 2014 Monthly Financial Report
DISCUSSION
BACKGROUND: This report is designed to provide summary information of the overall level
of revenues and departmental expenditures in the General Fund and a comparison of budget to
actual throughout the year.
PRESENT CONSIDERATIONS: Actual expenditures should generally run at about 75% of
the annual budget at the end of September. Currently, General Fund expenditures are at
approximately 72.5% of the adopted budget. 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. A few brief comments on specific variances are noted below.
Revenues:
• License and permit revenues have already exceeded the total annual budget for the year at
102% through September. Business and liquor license revenues are exceeding the annual
budgeted amount by 5% or $35,000. Permit revenues are also exceeding the annual
budget through September by 1.5% or $31,000. Based on typical permit activity during
the last quarter for the past several years, staff estimates that license and permit revenue
could exceed the annual budget by as much as 20% in 2014.
• Fine revenues are still exceeding budget by about 11%. Liquor violation and police court
fines are running higher than budget and higher than the previous year.
Expenditures:
• The Accounting Division continues to be about 8% over budget because of the property
and liability insurance premium expense. For simplicity, all property and liability
premium expenses for General Fund departments are budgeted under Accounting. A
budget amendment will be proposed later in the year to more accurately reflect the
insurance costs.
• Human Resources expenditures are exceeding budget by about 8% because of
unbudgeted expenses related to the Health in the Park program. These additional
expenses are offset by grant revenues and have no net effect on the overall budget.
• Police is showing a small variance of about 1.4% in September. This is due in part to a
one-time capital expense of $48,000 for upgrading the viper server using E911 funds.
There is also a variance through September in Personal Services because of overtime and
other staffing changes, which staff is continuing to monitor.
• Public Works Administration continues to have a variance which relates to a staffing
allocation and is being partially mitigated by underspending in supplies and services and
other charges. The variance is caused by a budget allocation change for one of the admin
positions splitting time between City Hall and the Municipal Service Center. The
additional payroll expenses in Public Works Administration are offset in the Public
Works Engineering budget, which is well under budget due to this and also the City
Engineer position that has been vacant. A budget amendment will be proposed for these
and other personnel related items later in the year.
Study Session Meeting of October 27, 2014 (Item No. 5) Page 3
Title: September 2014 Monthly Financial Report
• The Organized Recreation Division shows an expenditure variance of about 5% due to
the fact that the full Community Education contribution for 2014 of $187,400 was paid to
the school district early in the year. The timing of this payment is consistent with prior
years, and the variance is expected to only be temporary.
• The Rec Center Division is running about 7% over budget, which is typical of prior years
following the summer pool season, because the annual budget for temporary seasonal
staff has been fully spent. This expected to only be a temporary variance.
• The Vehicle Maintenance Division continues to run a small overage of about 1% on
expenditures because of overtime, tires, and repair parts.
NEXT STEPS: None are required at this time.
Summary of Revenues & Expenditures - General Fund As of September 30, 2014 20142014201220122013201320142014 Balance YTD Budget BudgetActual BudgetAudited Budget Sept YTD Remaining to Actual %General Fund Revenues: General Property Taxes20,169,798$ 20,209,604$ 20,657,724$ 21,987,968$ 21,157,724$ 11,118,240$ 10,039,484$ 52.55% Licenses and Permits2,375,399 3,241,812 2,481,603 3,069,088 2,691,518 2,757,274 (65,756) 102.44% Fines & Forfeits328,150 341,356 335,150 311,882 320,150 275,965 44,185 86.20% Intergovernmental1,232,579 1,365,023 1,300,191 2,031,355 1,282,777 614,971 667,806 47.94% Charges for Services2,341,104 2,169,631 1,837,976 1,779,259 1,857,718 1,435,351 422,367 77.26% Miscellaneous Revenue1,079,550 1,092,234 1,092,381 1,067,210 1,112,369 911,523 200,846 81.94% Transfers In2,023,003 2,066,136 1,816,563 1,805,223 1,837,416 1,359,312 478,104 73.98% Investment Earnings125,000 136,415 150,000 14,180 150,000 - 150,000 0.00% Other Income45,600 276,273 36,650 10,756 17,950 10,828 7,122 60.32%Total General Fund Revenues29,720,183$ 30,898,483$ 29,708,238$ 32,076,921$ 30,427,622$ 18,483,464$ 11,944,158$ 60.75%General Fund Expenditures: General Government: Administration1,012,554$ 977,392$ 877,099$ 890,883$ 939,391$ 704,698$ 234,693$ 75.02% Accounting641,691 639,999 827,320 819,458 767,094 634,640 132,454 82.73% Assessing517,840 518,271 543,855 543,202 559,749 418,199 141,550 74.71% Human Resources667,612 645,357 678,988 731,634 693,598 578,084 115,514 83.35% Community Development1,076,376 1,052,186 1,094,517 1,090,213 1,151,467 840,546 310,921 73.00% Facilities Maintenance1,083,128 972,481 1,074,920 1,058,127 1,053,715 752,634 301,081 71.43% Information Resources1,507,579 1,363,266 1,770,877 1,597,993 1,456,979 1,086,018 370,961 74.54% Communications & Marketing265,426 244,392 201,322 170,013 566,801 350,601 216,200 61.86% Community Outreach8,185 5,341 8,185 (22,450) 8,185 5,292 2,893 64.65% Engineering927,337 939,425 303,258 296,383 506,996 126,091 380,905 24.87%Total General Government7,707,728$ 7,358,111$ 7,380,341$ 7,175,456$ 7,703,975$ 5,496,803$ 2,207,172$ 71.35% Public Safety: Police7,273,723$ 7,124,784$ 7,443,637$ 7,225,579$ 7,571,315$ 5,780,482$ 1,790,833$ 76.35% Fire Protection3,346,931 3,291,655 3,330,263 3,246,162 3,458,161 2,575,642 882,519 74.48% Inspectional Services1,889,340 1,869,616 1,928,446 1,932,021 2,006,200 1,389,985 616,215 69.28%Total Public Safety12,509,994$ 12,286,055$ 12,702,346$ 12,403,762$ 13,035,676$ 9,746,109$ 3,289,567$ 74.76% Operations & Recreation: Public Works Administration389,783$ 378,852$ 393,054$ 288,207$ 222,994$ 172,333$ 50,661$ 77.28% Public Works Operations2,604,870 2,521,463 2,698,870 2,720,563 2,625,171 1,689,414 935,757 64.35% Organized Recreation1,305,747 1,352,273 1,280,117 1,256,678 1,290,038 1,037,031 253,007 80.39% Recreation Center1,466,246 1,516,121 1,449,930 1,501,627 1,543,881 1,264,769 279,112 81.92% Park Maintenance1,461,645 1,444,448 1,431,825 1,424,139 1,423,011 1,033,242 389,769 72.61% Westwood515,456 506,404 520,554 503,309 531,853 377,212 154,641 70.92% Environment390,009 382,378 430,876 434,297 433,750 253,480 180,270 58.44% Vehicle Maintenance1,188,705 1,326,153 1,240,325 1,268,559 1,285,489 975,671 309,818 75.90%Total Operations & Recreation9,322,461$ 9,428,091$ 9,445,551$ 9,397,379$ 9,356,187$ 6,803,152$ 2,553,035$ 72.71% Non-Departmental: General -$ 65,292$ -$ 256,627$ 4,000$ 1,126$ 2,874$ 28.16% Transfers Out- 1,160,000 - 60,000 - - - 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$ 369,972$ 331,784$ 1,126$ 330,658$ 0.34%Total General Fund Expenditures29,720,183$ 30,297,549$ 29,708,238$ 29,346,569$ 30,427,622$ 22,047,191$ 8,380,431$ 72.46%Study Session Meeting of October 27, 2014 (Item No. 5) Title: September 2014 Monthly Financial Report Page 4
Meeting: Study Session
Meeting Date: October 27, 2014
Written Report: 6
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Third Quarter Investment Report (July – September 2014)
RECOMMENDED ACTION: No action required at this time.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: None at this time.
SUMMARY: The Quarterly Investment Report provides an overview of the City’s investment
portfolio, including the types of investments held, length of maturity, and yield.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: The total portfolio value at September 30,
2014 was $43.1 million. Approximately 60% of the portfolio is in longer term investments that
include agency bonds, municipal debt securities, and certificates of deposit. The remainder is
held in money market accounts for cash flow needs and future investing opportunities. A
consistent overall yield near 1% has been maintained for the past 12 to 18 months by balancing
cash flow needs with longer term investment options.
VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion
Investment Portfolio Summary
Prepared by: Darla Monson, Senior Accountant
Reviewed by: Brian A. Swanson, Controller
Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of October 27, 2014 (Item No. 6) Page 2
Title: Third Quarter Investment Report (July – September 2014)
DISCUSSION
BACKGROUND: The City’s investment portfolio is focused on short term cash flow needs and
investment in longer term securities. This is done in accordance with Minnesota Statute 118A
and the City’s Investment Policy objectives of: 1) Preservation of capital; 2) Liquidity; and 3)
Return on investment.
PRESENT CONSIDERATIONS: The total portfolio value decreased by approximately $8
million in the third quarter from $51.1 million at 6/30/2014 to $43.1 million at 9/30/2014. The
decrease was in money market funds and available cash. In addition to cash needed for the
August 1 debt service and Pay As You Go TIF note payments, approximately $3.5 million was
expended for the on-going monthly contract payments for the Louisiana Avenue and Highway 7
project and $1.9 million was paid to MnDOT for the upcoming Highway 100 reconstruction.
Because the balances in the lower yielding money market accounts dropped by $8 million, the
overall yield of the portfolio increased slightly to .86% from .71% in the second quarter. Cities
generally use a benchmark such as the two year Treasury (.58% at 9/30/2014) or some similar
measure for yield comparison of their overall portfolio.
About 40% or $16.6 million of the portfolio is currently held in money markets. While some of
this cash may be used to purchase longer term investments in the coming months, it is necessary
to keep a large amount of cash available between property tax settlements for on-going cash flow
needs for payroll, operating expenses, and capital project payments. The next property tax
settlement will be received on December 1, 2014.
Another 13% or $5.5 million of the portfolio is invested in fixed rate certificates of deposit.
There are currently 23 CD’s in the portfolio, each with a face value of $240,000, which
guarantees that each CD is insured by the FDIC up to $250,000. Five of these CD’s were
purchased in the third quarter. Four of these were five year CD’s with rates ranging from 1.9%
to 2.1%, and the other had a shorter term of 3.5 years with a rate to maturity of 1.35%.
The remaining $21 million of the portfolio is invested in other long term securities, including
municipal debt ($11 million) and agency bonds ($10 million). Municipal debt instruments are
bonds issued by States, local governments, or school districts to finance special projects.
Agency bonds are issued by government agencies such as the Federal Home Loan Bank or
Fannie Mae. Agency bonds usually have higher interest rates to the final maturity date in five
years, but the issuers have the right to call the bonds at specific intervals prior to maturity if
interest rates decline. There were no bonds called during the third quarter, and there was only
one municipal debt maturity.
Here is a summary of the City’s portfolio at September 30, 2014:
NEXT STEPS: None at this time.
06/30/14 09/30/14
<1 Year 60% 50%
1-2 Years 8% 9%
2-3 Years 10% 17%
3-4 Years 16% 14%
>4 Years 6% 10%
06/30/14 09/30/14
Money Markets $24,731,633 $16,637,171
Commercial Paper $0 $0
Certificates of Deposit $4,303,454 $5,488,251
Municipal Debt $11,969,085 $10,902,960
Agency Bonds $10,057,589 $10,037,406
City of St. Louis Park
Investment Portfolio Summary
Sept 30, 2014
Institution/Broker Investment Type CUSIP Maturity Date
Yield to
Maturity Par Value
Market Value at
9/30/2014
Estimated Avg
Annual Income
Citizens Indep Bank Money Market 0.08%3,046,638 3,046,638 2,437
4M Fund Money Market 0.02%5,007,733 5,007,733 1,002
Northeast Bank Money Market 0.40%5,008,333 5,008,333 20,033
UBS CD - First Bank PR Sant 33764JNF8 10/27/2014 0.80% 240,000 240,079 1,920
UBS CD - Doral Bank PR 25811L2L2 12/08/2014 0.85% 240,000 240,238 2,040
UBS CD - Amer Exp Cent UT 02587DLS5 01/26/2015 0.85% 240,000 240,370 2,040
UBS Muni Debt - Amer Munic Pwr Ohio 02765UER1 02/15/2015 1.54% 1,000,000 1,010,960 15,400
UBS Muni Debt - Gilroy, CA 376087CZ3 04/01/2015 1.81% 1,125,000 1,143,034 20,363
UBS Muni Debt - Dist of Columbia 25476FLE6 06/01/2015 1.33% 1,000,000 1,021,190 13,310
UBS CD - Apple Bank NY 0378304L7 09/14/2015 0.35% 240,000 239,558 840
UBS Muni Debt - Calif State 13063BNR9 10/01/2015 2.00% 1,000,000 1,023,450 20,000
UBS CD - BMW Bank UT 05568PZ59 10/26/2015 1.05% 240,000 241,224 2,520
UBS Muni Debt - Atl City, NJ 048339RR8 12/15/2015 2.70% 470,000 481,924 12,690
UBS CD - Barclays Bank DE 06740KFS1 01/11/2016 1.60% 240,000 243,310 3,840
UBS CD - Medallion Bank UT 58403BM52 05/09/2016 0.50% 240,000 238,997 1,200
UBS FNMA Step Up 3136FTXU8 12/29/2016 1.25% 1,000,000 1,002,410 12,500
UBS FHLMC 3134G3NN6 02/27/2017 0.72% 1,000,000 997,820 7,220
UBS CD - Discover Bank DE 254671AG5 05/02/2017 1.75% 240,000 242,520 4,200
UBS CD - GE Cap Retail Bank UT 36160NJZ3 05/04/2017 1.75% 240,000 243,317 4,200
UBS Muni Debt - N. Orange Cty CA 661334DR0 08/01/2017 1.01% 1,000,000 1,014,830 10,110
UBS CD - Sallie Mae Bnk UT 79545OPE9 08/29/2017 1.70% 240,000 243,108 4,080
UBS CD - Sun Natl Bank NJ 86682ABV2 10/03/2017 1.00% 240,000 242,830 2,400
UBS CD - Everbank Jacksonvl FL 29976DPB0 10/31/2017 1.00% 240,000 241,937 2,400
UBS CD - Comenity Bank DE 981996AX9 12/05/2017 1.25% 200,000 198,140 2,500
UBS CD - Banco Popular PR 05967ESG5 12/05/2017 1.10% 240,000 239,906 2,640
UBS FNMA 3136G1AJ8 01/30/2018 1.06% 1,000,000 993,290 10,630
UBS CD - Third Fed S&L Assn OH 88413QAT5 02/22/2018 1.35% 240,000 238,349 3,240
UBS FHLB 313381JW6 06/27/2018 0.92% 1,000,000 1,093,146 9,200
UBS Muni Debt - NYC Trans Fin Auth 64971QH55 11/01/2018 1.33% 1,000,000 992,730 13,280
UBS FHLB Step-up 3130A1A73 03/27/2019 2.00% 2,000,000 1,999,740 40,060
UBS CD - Cit Bank UT 17284CH49 06/04/2019 1.90% 240,000 238,886 4,560
UBS CD - Amer Exp F UT 02587CAC4 07/10/2019 1.95% 240,000 238,277 4,680
UBS CD - First Bk Highland IL 3191408W2 08/13/2019 2.00% 240,000 237,842 4,800
UBS CD - Webster Bk NA CT 94768NJX3 08/20/2019 1.90% 240,000 237,679 4,560
UBS CD - Bk Hapoalim BM NY 06251AD31 08/22/2019 2.10% 240,000 237,386 5,040
UBS Money Market 0.02% 3,574,467 3,574,467 715
21,112,944
Sterne, Agee Muni Debt - Smithfield, RI 832322NP2 01/15/2015 1.90% 275,000 276,312 5,225
Sterne, Agee Muni Deb - Smithfield, RI 832322NQ0 01/15/2016 2.40% 275,000 280,984 6,600
Sterne, Agee Muni Debt - Elmore Cnty AL 28976PAS4 02/01/2016 0.85% 1,050,000 1,067,976 8,925
Sterne, Agee Muni Debt - Elmore Cnty AL 28976PAT2 02/01/2017 1.15% 1,000,000 1,014,790 11,500
Sterne, Agee Muni Debt - New York, NY 64966HJS0 04/01/2017 1.20% 500,000 557,770 6,000
3,197,832
Wells Fargo CD - Goldman Sachs Bank NY 38143AGR0 01/12/2015 1.50% 240,000 240,696 3,600
Wells Fargo CD - Ally Bank UT 0200SQYM9 01/26/2015 1.15% 240,000 240,770 2,760
Wells Fargo CD - GE Capital UT 36160XC62 01/06/2016 1.70% 240,000 242,832 4,080
Wells Fargo Muni Debt - Fond Du Lac WI Schl 344496JQ8 04/01/2017 1.05% 1,000,000 1,017,010 10,500
Wells Fargo FNMA 3135G0NH2 08/23/2017 0.95% 1,000,000 991,460 9,500
Wells Fargo Fannie Mae 3136G04A6 11/21/2017 1.00% 1,000,000 989,560 10,000
Wells Fargo FNMA 3135G0TM5 01/30/2018 1.02% 1,000,000 984,860 10,200
Wells Fargo Fannie Mae 3136G1AZ2 01/30/2018 1.00% 1,000,000 985,120 10,000
5,692,308
GRAND TOTAL 43,065,788 371,540
Current Portfolio Yield To Maturity 0.86%
Study Session Meeting of October 27, 2014 (Item No. 6)
Title: Third Quarter Investment Report (July – September 2014) Page 3
Meeting: Study Session
Meeting Date: October 27, 2014
Written Report: 7
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Proposed Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) Program
RECOMMENDED ACTION: No action at this time. The purpose of this report is to inform
the Council of the availability of a program to finance energy efficient building improvements.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does City Council wish to make MN PACE financing available
to St. Louis Park businesses and is it interested in entering into a Joint Powers Agreement with
the St. Paul Port Authority to implement the program?
SUMMARY: Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) is a new, innovative financing tool that
helps building owners make investments in their properties and reduce their utility bills through
energy efficient upgrades. PACE eliminates up-front costs and provides low-cost, long-term,
fixed rate financing that is repaid through a voluntary special assessment carried on a building’s
property taxes.
For the past several years, Staff has been investigating PACE and has been evaluating how to
make it available to building owners in St. Louis Park in a manner that is both cost-effective and
efficient to administer. Recently, the State Department of Commerce approached the St. Paul
Port Authority (SPPA) and requested that it create a program that could make PACE easily
accessible state-wide. Accordingly, the SPPA set aside up to $10 million from its Trillion BTU
program to finance PACE projects throughout Minnesota. Cities that enter into a Joint Powers
Agreement (JPA) with SPPA would then be able to offer PACE MN financing to the businesses,
multifamily (4+ units) and non-profit property owners in their communities.
If the City Council were to approve the proposed JPA, the SPPA would administer the PACE
program on behalf of St. Louis Park. Local building owners would apply to the SPPA to finance
their proposed energy savings project. Once a financing agreement is reached with the SPPA, the
building owner would apply to the City to have a special assessment placed on their property.
The City Council would then be asked to adopt a resolution imposing the voluntary special
assessment on the applicable property. The City would only be responsible for the collection of
the special assessment and transmission of the funds back to the SPPA to repay the loan.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: It is proposed that the City Council consider
entering into a JPA with the SPPA allowing PACE MN financing be accessible to St. Louis Park
building owners. The SPPA will administer the program at no cost to the City. The SPPA will
charge a fee to applicants which will be blended into their interest rate. The City Council would
retain the authority to approve each voluntary special assessment that is requested.
VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to being a leader in environmental
stewardship.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion
Environment and Sustainability Commission Endorsement
Prepared by: Julie Grove, Planning and Economic Development Assistant
Reviewed by: Greg Hunt, Economic Development Coordinator
Michele Schnitker, Housing Supervisor
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager and EDA Executive Director
Study Session Meeting of October 27, 2014 (Item No. 7) Page 2
Title: Proposed Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) Program
DISCUSSION
What is PACE?
Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) is a financing program that allows property owners to
borrow money to pay for solar and energy efficient improvements to their buildings. PACE
financing allows building owners to pay for these energy projects through a voluntary special
assessment on their property tax bill. Examples of the types of improvements covered under
PACE include: lighting retrofits and HVAC system upgrades, solar or geothermal renewable
energy systems, and electric vehicle charging infrastructure.
Background
In the United States approximately 39% of total energy use and carbon emissions come from
buildings. A variety of market barriers exist that discourage making buildings more climate-
friendly. One of the barriers that many energy efficiency improvement projects have faced is the
large upfront capital costs required to develop the project. PACE financing was authorized in
2008 to address the barriers of retrofitting buildings to be more energy efficient and to finance
renewable energy and energy efficiency projects. Since 2008, 31 states and the District of
Columbia have adopted legislation that enables local governments to offer PACE financing
programs.
PACE MN-St. Paul Port Authority
In 2010, legislation was passed in Minnesota allowing local governments to offer PACE
programs, impose special assessments for energy improvements and to designate another
authority to administer the program. Subsequent legislation extended the time period on
financing terms up to 20 years, increased the limits of a loan from 10% to 20% of the property’s
assessed value, and allows the financing to be from bonds and other alternative funding sources.
Recently, the State Department of Commerce approached the St. Paul Port Authority (SPPA) and
requested that it create a program that could make PACE financing easily accessible state-wide.
Accordingly, the SPPA set aside up to $10 million from its Trillion BTU program to finance
PACE projects throughout Minnesota. Cities, counties and townships that enter into a Joint
Powers Agreement (JPA) with SPPA would then be able to offer PACE MN financing to the
businesses, multifamily (4+ units) and non-profit property owners within their communities. Per
the JPA, the SPPA would then administer the PACE program on behalf of the participating
jurisdiction
The SPPA reviews loan applications, credit histories, energy and financial audits, technical
details of the proposals and ensures the project is complete. Once a financing agreement is
reached with the SPPA, the building owner would apply to the city/county in which the property
is located to have a special assessment placed on their property. The governmental entity would
then be asked to adopt a resolution imposing the voluntary special assessment on the applicable
property. The voluntary special assessment would then be added to the usual property tax bill for
the property. The city/county would only be responsible for the collection of the special
assessment via Hennepin County and transmission of the funds back to the SPPA to repay the
loan.
Project financing would come directly from the SPPA. The city/county has no liability for the
repayment. The SPPA’s fee for the program is blended into the interest rate for the loan.
Study Session Meeting of October 27, 2014 (Item No. 7) Page 3
Title: Proposed Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) Program
The SPPA presently has agreements with Becker, Wright and Sherburne Counties as well as the
cities of Cottage Grove, Eagan, Eden Prairie, Minnetonka, Minneapolis, Oakdale, St. Paul,
Stillwater and Woodbury. It is currently working with several other communities including
Hopkins and Edina to adopt the program.
Why the St. Paul Port Authority?
Energy efficiency and renewable energy is important to the Port Authority and its customers. It
began with the success of the Trillion BTU Energy Efficiency improvement program which is a
statewide energy financing program similar to PACE MN that provides short term loans to fund
energy retrofits in large buildings for things such as heating and lighting. Having the knowledge
and wherewithal to run this type of program, the St. Paul Port Authority was approached by the
State Department of Commerce to implement the PACE program and make funding available
anywhere in the state.
Benefits and Risks to offering PACE
The benefits of offering PACE financing include:
1. PACE helps building owners make energy efficient improvements and solar upgrades in their
properties and thereby reduce their monthly utility bills. Many building owners lack capital
to do energy improvements, especially for renewable energy projects. PACE has the ability
to provide upfront, long-term financing at a fixed interest rate for the term of the loan. There
is also a possibility that the special assessment will not be required to be on the owner’s
balance sheet as a debt. Projects may also be tax deductible on a case by case basis.
Property owners will need to check with their tax advisors.
2. Owners often need tenants to share in the costs of energy upgrades. As the energy
improvement loan is repaid through the property tax bill, the energy savings as well as the
PACE property assessment can be passed along to tenants through a typical lease.
3. Owners may want to sell the building before a PACE loan if fully repaid. The PACE
obligation is attached to the property and therefore may transfer to the new owner. In other
instances, the loan may be paid off as a negotiated part of the sale.
4. To ensure the energy improvements yield an adequate return on investment the PACE
program requires project to be cash flow positive. Financing is structured so that energy
savings more than offset the additional property tax assessment.
5. As a participant in the GreenStep Cities program, establishing a PACE program in St. Louis
Park would allow the city to complete best practice action 26.3: Create/participate in a
renewable energy financing program for commercial property owners to install generation
capacity/energy efficiency equipment.
There is minimal risk to the City in offering a PACE program. The SPPA provides the loan
directly to building owners and administers the program on behalf of the City. The City’s
responsibilities are limited to instituting a special assessment and collecting it just as it does with
other special assessments. The City Attorney has reviewed the proposed JPA with the SPPA and
recommends its approval.
Study Session Meeting of October 27, 2014 (Item No. 7) Page 4
Title: Proposed Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) Program
Local Interest in PACE
Over the past several years, various property owners and renewable energy consultants have
expressed interest in PACE financing for solar upgrades to their buildings in St. Louis Park. As
a result, Staff has been investigating how to make PACE financing available to building owners
in St. Louis Park in a manner that is both cost-effective and efficient to administer. Entering into
a JPA with the SPPA to offer PACE financing on behalf of the City achieves both of these
objectives.
In October, the proposed PACE program was presented to the Environmental and Sustainability
Commission which subsequently provided its endorsement (see attachment).
Next Steps
Should the Council wish to participate in the proposed PACE program, Staff will schedule the
Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) with the St. Paul Port Authority for formal approval on
November 17th.
ADVISORY COMMUNICATION
TITLE: St. Louis Park City Council
FROM: St. Louis Park Environment and Sustainability Commission
DATE: October 21, 2014
SUBJECT: The City of St. Louis Park’s Participation in the PACE program.
ACTION REQUESTED: The ESC commission would like the City Council to enter
into a Joint Powers Agreement with the Saint Paul Port Authority that would support and
implement the PACE program within the City of St. Louis Park.
BACKGROUND: Julie Grove, the Planning and Economic Development Assistant,
presented the details of the PACE Program to the Energy/Reduce Carbon Emissions work
group. The work group felt that this program fell in line with the goals of the commission
in supporting and encouraging businesses to engage in sustainable energy operating
practices. The energy work group presented the details of the PACE program and a
motion of support to the full Environment and Sustainability Commission which passed
unanimously.
RECOMENDATION: The Environment and Sustainability Commission recommends
that the City of St. Louis Park enter into a Joint Powers Agreement with the Saint Paul
Port Authority allowing PACE MN financing to be available to St. Louis Park building
owners.
Study Session Meeting of October 27, 2014 (Item No. 7)
Title: Proposed Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) Program Page 5
Meeting: Study Session
Meeting Date: October 27, 2014
Written Report: 8
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: City Publications Update
RECOMMENDED ACTION: No action needed at this time.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: None at this time. This item is an informational report.
SUMMARY: In 2008-2009, as a part of responding to impacts from the Great Recession, the
city reduced the number of print publications mailed to residents each year from six Park
Perspective newsletters and three Park & Recreation guides to three newsletter/guide
combinations as a cost-cutting move. While the change saved the city a significant amount in
mailing costs initially, the combination guide has grown to where design and printing costs are
no longer providing savings once found by the city.
In addition, the city staff and residents have expressed interest in an additional publication during
the year. In 2014, the city added a fourth special newsletter in spring focused on transportation
and engineering projects. This special newsletter proved incredibly successful and received
unsolicited accolades from staff, City Council members and the public.
The Information Resources Department is recommending that the newsletter and Park & Rec
Guide again be separated to allow maximum opportunity for resident communication. Staff
proposes four newsletters (one each quarter) and the continuation of three Park & Rec guides.
Several reasons make now a good time to make this transition. First, the 2014-2015
Communications Plan calls for an update to the city branding that will result in a redesign of
both publications. Secondly, Operations and Recreation is deploying a new software system for
registration, which has a direction relationship to their program guide. Finally, city staff is now
prepared to take over design of the city newsletter with its current staff, thereby saving design
costs.
To prepare for the transition and to aid in the deployment of the new Parks & Rec registration
system, the November 2014 issues of the newsletter and guide have been separated. Residents
will receive the newsletter this week and the guide in November. In the future, the publications
will arrive different months to maximize opportunities for resident communication. The
redesign of the publications is designed for the first quarter of 2015. These redesigns will also
yield potential savings in terms of materials used and other design changes.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: As mentioned above, the Information
Resources Department believes the changes will be cost neutral.
VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged
community.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: None
Prepared by: Jamie Zwilling, Communications & Marketing Coordinator
Reviewed by: Clint Pires, Chief Information Officer
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting: Study Session
Meeting Date: October 27, 2014
Written Report: 9
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Inclusionary Housing Strategy Update
RECOMMENDED ACTION: None at this time. This report is intended to provide the Council
with an update on the status of the creation of an affordable housing strategy that would require
the inclusion of affordable housing units in new market rate multi-unit residential developments
receiving financial assistance from the City.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: None at this time. Please let staff know of any questions you
might have.
SUMMARY: Following adoption of the updated Housing Goals at the August 4th Council
meeting, the Council directed staff to develop a strategy that would require the inclusion of
affordable housing units in new market rate multi-unit residential developments receiving
financial assistance from the City and return to a future Study Session for further review and
discussion.
At the September 8th City Council Study Session, staff presented the Council with a proposed
framework and strategy. The requirement for affordable housing units would be applied to both
owner occupied and rental developments. Staff presented three options in which the income and
affordability requirements of the “Program” could be fulfilled. The three options were as
follows:
I. On-site development of units within the proposed market rate ownership or rental
residential development; or
II. Development of income and rent restricted rental units at another site approved by the
City; or
III. At the discretion of the City, payment of a fee to the City in lieu of developing any
income or rent restricted housing units.
Over the next several months, the Minnesota Challenge Project will be working with staff on the
development of an Inclusionary Housing Program for our community.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to providing a well-maintained and
diverse housing stock.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion
Prepared by: Michele Schnitker, Housing Supervisor
Reviewed by: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of October 27, 2014 (Item No. 9) Page 2
Title: Inclusionary Housing Strategy Update
DISCUSSION
BACKGROUND: At the September 8th City Council Study Session, staff presented the
Council with a framework for the creation of a strategy that would that would require the
inclusion of affordable housing units in new market rate multi-unit residential developments that
receive financial assistance from the City. The framework identified the following three options
in which a developer could fulfill the income and affordability requirements:
I. On-site development of units within the proposed market rate ownership or rental
residential development; or
II. Development of income and rent restricted rental units at another site approved by the
City; or
III. At the discretion of the City, payment of a fee to the City in lieu of developing any
income or rent restricted housing units.
Staff presented information related to components that will need further research prior to the
incorporation as part of the final “Program” including options for affordability requirements,
length of the affordability requirement, applicable bedroom mix and development of an
appropriate waiver fee. In general, the Council supported the three options presented in the
framework including the requirement of City approval for options II and III. Much of the
discussion focused on the affordability requirement, specifically the percentage of units required
to be affordable.
Staff also informed the Council that the Minnesota (MN) Challenge Project had contacted us
with an offer to work together on the development of an Inclusionary Housing Program for our
community. The MN Challenge project is a joint effort of the Center for Urban and Regional
Affairs and the Housing Preservation Project, funded by MN Housing and the McKnight
Foundation. The purpose of MN Challenge is to identify practical ways to reduce the cost of
developing affordable rental housing. At the time of our meeting, staff had not yet met with MN
Challenge to discuss next steps.
UPDATE: Since the September 8 Study Session, staff has met with MN Challenge to discuss
our community’s affordable housing goals and the status of our efforts in developing an
inclusionary affordable housing strategy. Based on these discussions, MN Challenge has selected
Inclusionary Housing as one of two topic areas in which they will be conducting an in depth
analysis related to reducing the cost of creating affordable housing.
As part of their process, MN Challenge is convening a working group of municipalities for the
purpose of developing specific and practical technical assistance that cities can use to apply in
their own community to reduce the cost of developing affordable housing. The MN Challenge
Team will be responsible for organizing, staffing and facilitating the discussion of this working
group. Since St. Louis Park is in the process of establishing an Inclusionary Housing Policy, we
have agreed to act as a “test-case” city, working with the group addressing the various issues
involved in developing the City’s “Program”.
As part of this effort, the Southwest LRT Community Works and MN Challenge recently applied
for and were awarded 50 hours of technical assistance from Cornerstone, a national housing
research organization, to assist in this work. The technical assistance will be used to answer
many of the questions surrounding the implementation of an inclusionary housing policy and
cost reduction measures to develop affordable housing. The goal is to develop a practical guide
Study Session Meeting of October 27, 2014 (Item No. 9) Page 3
Title: Inclusionary Housing Strategy Update
for cities to use in developing an Inclusionary Housing policy while assisting St. Louis Park in
the development of “Program” that addresses the specific goals of our community.
The first meeting of the working group is scheduled for Tuesday, October 28th. The preliminary
timeline is to have a best practice product by January 2015.
NEXT STEPS: Over the next two months, staff will work with the MN Challenge workgroup
in drafting an Inclusionary Housing Program including addressing issues involved in
determining the components needed for adoption and implementation of the “Program”. Staff
will keep the Council apprised of our progress as we move through the process. We anticipate
returning to the Council by early January for review and discussion of a draft “Program”.
Meeting: Study Session
Meeting Date: October 27, 2014
Written Report: 10
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: DLC West End Affordable Housing Mix
RECOMMENDED ACTION: None at this time. This report is intended to provide an update
on the housing component of the next phase of the West End project and the inclusion of
affordable units.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Affordable housing is proposed to be a component of the next
phase of the West End project. Please let staff know of any questions you might have.
SUMMARY: At the August 18, 2014 City Council Study Session the developer that is buying
the remaining vacant land at the West End, Dolce Living (DLC), was introduced and their
concept plan for completing the West End project was discussed. The proposed revised plan for
the currently vacant West End Office site included two office towers, a hotel and two luxury
apartment buildings.
While the proposed housing component of the West End project does not fall under the City’s
new affordable housing policies, DLC did agree to explore including at least a few affordable
housing units in the project. The reason the City’s affordable housing policy does not come into
play is because no new City assistance will be provided to DLC or Duke as a result of the DLC
proposed project. The amount of TIF assistance for West End was set by Redevelopment
Contract in 2007 and the amount is not changing. None the less, DLC has agreed to include 11
affordable units in the two phase 366 unit total project.
The proposed units will meet an affordability standard for a tenant at 60% of Area Median
Income. This means the rent for the affordable units will be $500+/month to $800+/month less
than for a comparable market rate unit. The mix of affordable units will include 4 Alcove
(studio) units in each phase, 1 two bedroom unit in each phase and an additional one bedroom
unit in the first phase. The affordable units come with parking and will be finished to the same
level as the comparably sized market rate units. The cost of providing the affordable units is
being borne by the developer accepting a reduced rate of return on the project. They are open to
providing a larger number of affordable units if the income limit was raised to 80% AMI. Unless
the City Council would prefer to switch to 80% of AMI units, staff has directed DLC to pursue
plans for the 11 60% of AMI units.
The developer is moving forward to seek approval of their plans. If the City Council has any
questions or wishes to discuss this issue further, let us know.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to providing a well-maintained and
diverse housing stock.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: None
Prepared by: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting: Study Session
Meeting Date: October 27, 2014
Written Report: 11
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Oppidan/Bally's Affordable Housing Proposal
RECOMMENDED ACTION: In preparation for a future study session discussion, the purpose of
this report is to inform the City Council of changes to the redevelopment proposal, challenges
identified to realizing the City Council’s goals of including affordable housing in this redevelopment,
and potential zoning code changes that may be considered to provide the City more flexibility to
allow the proposed development.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: None at this time. Please inform staff of questions you may
have
SUMMARY: City Council was presented a development proposal and tax increment financing
(TIF) request from Oppidan Investment Company at a Study Session on July 28, 2014. City
Council expressed support for working with Oppidan on the proposed mixed-use development for
the Bally/EDA block. A key direction from the City Council was that a significant number of
affordable units should be added to the development.
Oppidan subsequently submitted a revised concept plan that may allow the project to provide 20
affordable apartment units at 60% AMI (area median income). This would be consistent with
continuing City Council policy discussions regarding requiring affordable housing for TIF projects
The changes present challenges for meeting zoning requirements on this site. The revised concept
plan would add a level to the building making it 5-stories tall, and increase the total number of
apartments to between 175 and 185 units. A building of that height would not be out of character
with the neighboring Excelsior & Grand development. The combined development site is 1.6
acres in size, however, and would result in a residential density of approximately 110-116 units
per acre. That density is higher than currently permitted in the RC – High Density Multiple Family
and Mixed Use zoning districts even with a Planned Unit Development (PUD). Minimum parking
requirements for the apartments could still be met with a combination of on-street and shared
parking with the first floor commercial uses or similar strategies.
For Oppidan’s proposal to move forward with 20 affordable units, the City will need to amend its
zoning ordinance to allow an increased density under certain specific situations. There are a few
options that would allow City Council the flexibility to entertain proposals for higher residential
densities in order to achieve its policy goals, such as affordable housing.
Oppidan’s proposal demonstrates the viability of allowing increased density as a means to
generate affordable housing units. Discussions with affordable housing developers confirm that
allowing higher densities can be a means of enticing a developer to provide affordable units.
However, two to three added market rate housing units will be needed for each affordable unit to
make the numbers work financially.
VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to providing a well-maintained and
diverse housing stock.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion
Prepared by: Sean Walther, Senior Planner
Reviewed by: Michele Schnitker, Housing Supervisor
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of October 27, 2014 (Item No. 11) Page 2
Title: Oppidan/Bally's Affordable Housing Proposal
DISCUSSION
BACKGROUND: City Council was presented a development proposal and TIF request from
Oppidan Investment Company at a Study Session on July 28, 2014. City Council expressed
support for working with Oppidan on the proposed mixed-use development for the Bally/EDA
block. A key direction from the City Council was that a significant number of affordable units
should be added to the development.
Oppidan’s revised proposal may allow the project to achieve a better unit mix and provide 20
affordable apartment units at 60% AMI. This would be consistent with continuing City Council
policy discussions regarding requiring developments receiving TIF assistance to provide in the
range of 10% or more units affordable at 60% of AMI.
Oppidan’s revised development proposal adds one level to the building making it 5-stories tall,
and increases the total number of residential apartments to between 175 and 185 units. A building
of that scale would not be out of character with the neighboring Excelsior & Grand development.
The development site, including the Bally Total Fitness and EDA parcels, is 1.6 acres. The
residential density would be 110-116 units per acre.
The parcels are zoned a combination of MX – Mixed Use and RC – High Density Multiple Family
Residence districts. These two zoning districts allow 50 units per acre. Both districts allow the
density to be increased to 75 units per acre with a PUD.
The current PUD allows an additional 10% increase above and beyond 75 units per acre, or more
if there is specific guidance in the Comprehensive Plan. In this case, there is no specific
Comprehensive Plan language that would indicate a higher density could be allowed. Also, this
provision has rarely been used. Even with a PUD, the proposed density would not be allowed
under the City’s current code.
In the City Council’s affordable housing policy discussions, the Council has discussed the use of
density bonuses or parking reductions in order to achieve affordable housing goals on a case-by-
case basis. Staff has identified a few potential zoning ordinance amendments that would allow
City Council the flexibility to entertain proposals for higher residential densities in order to
achieve its policy goals, including affordable housing. These changes would provide this
flexibility for not only Oppidan’s proposal, but also future development proposals elsewhere in the
City.
PRESENT CONSIDERATIONS:
Three potential options that would give City Council additional flexibility to allow higher
densities include:
1. Require any new or amended PUDs to be approved as a rezoning by ordinance, rather than
a resolution.
2. Edit the current PUD zoning ordinance text to allow greater modifications to the density.
This could be tied specifically to inclusion of affordable housing or allow greater
flexibility more generally.
3. Allow higher densities within the RC and MX zoning districts only.
Option 1: Staff recommends using the approach of requiring any new or amended PUDs to be
approved as an ordinance, rather than a resolution. Procedurally, PUD approvals would become
more similar to a rezoning than a conditional use permit (CUP). Essentially, any development
Study Session Meeting of October 27, 2014 (Item No. 11) Page 3
Title: Oppidan/Bally's Affordable Housing Proposal
approved through this process would become its own stand-alone zoning district, with all zoning
requirements for the development provided in the ordinance approving the development. This
approach has a few unique benefits.
An ordinance to rezone property is a legislative decision that gives the City Council more
discretion to approve or deny an application. The City Attorney has previously suggested to staff
that he would prefer the City use this process to approve PUDs in general. Based on the City
Attorney’s advice, staff has already been working on this proposed ordinance language for several
months. As currently drafted, this ordinance would give the City Council broader discretion to
increase the density and set other requirements based on the site plans and uses for each PUD
development area. This approach eliminates the need to process a separate rezoning and any
variances, since the PUD is established by an ordinance.
This option has an advantage because staff already has been preparing an ordinance for several
months and it has been reviewed by the City Attorney. However, staff will need to develop some
administration systems before the changes go into effect.
If another option is preferred by City Council, staff would still propose a change to the PUD
ordinance in the near future, but perhaps follow a different schedule from Oppidan’s
redevelopment proposal and the affordable housing policy discussions.
Option #2: A slightly less complicated text amendment to the existing PUD ordinance is another
option. The City currently limits the degree to which the residential density may be increased.
City Council could eliminate this limitation or boost the maximum density increase in the PUD
section of the code. This could either be allowed broadly, or tied to specific conditions, such as a
provision of affordable housing objectives.
While this may be somewhat less complex than Option #1 above, it also has ripple effects to other
chapters in the ordinance that would need to be identified and amended to be consistent with the
PUD section. Staff views this as workable, but still a temporary fix to a structural issue in the
PUD section of the code.
Option #3: Another change could be made that affects only the RC and MX zoning districts and
allows higher densities to all properties in these districts. An advantage of this approach is that
these areas have already been deemed appropriate for high density residential uses.
The City made a similar change to the Office zoning district in 2010. These code changes allowed
the Flats at West End and Millennium at West End to develop at densities of 112 and 99 units per
acre respectively with a PUD.
Common Issues: All of the above options could be further tailored to allow higher densities only
under certain conditions (to be determined), only with a PUD and at City Council’s discretion, as a
specific density bonus for affordable housing only, or some combination of all of these.
Staff will need to identify any potential conflicts with other ordinance provisions, especially for
Option #3, because these changes could generate unnecessary and unwarranted variance requests.
It will take at least two months to adopt any of these zoning ordinance amendments. It is not
uncommon for such amendments to take longer, as debate about the policy variables above can
take time.
Study Session Meeting of October 27, 2014 (Item No. 11) Page 4
Title: Oppidan/Bally's Affordable Housing Proposal
In the meantime, Oppidan may be uncomfortable waiting for the ordinance process to conclude to
submit its development proposal. Staff anticipates Oppidan will request that their proposal be
allowed to begin the zoning review process, based on the direction of these changes, after the
process has started and before the process has concluded. While this would entail some added risk
to Oppidan, it would compress the schedule for review of their plans by a month or more.
Finally, the changes to the maximum densities allowed in the zoning districts may need to be
paired with an amendment to the Land Use chapter of the Comprehensive Plan. This process is
similar in duration to the zoning amendments and can be done concurrently.