HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013/01/28 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - Study SessionAGENDA
JANUARY 28, 2013
(Councilmember Mavity Out)
6:00 p.m. BOARDS & COMMISSIONS INTERVIEWS – Westwood Room
6:30 p.m. CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION – Council Chambers
Discussion Items
1. 6:30 p.m. Future Study Session Agenda Planning – February 11, 2013
2. 6:35 p.m. Annual Update – Discover St. Louis Park
3. 7:05 p.m. Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan Update
4. 7:50 p.m. Amending Chapter 18 - Offenses and Miscellaneous Provisions to Include
Regulations for Drug Paraphernalia
5. 8:20 p.m. Communications Plan Update
8:50 p.m. Communications/Meeting Check-In (Verbal)
8:55 p.m. Adjourn
Written Reports
6. December 2012 Monthly Financial Report
7. Fourth Quarter Investment Report (Oct – Dec 2012)
8. Proposed Allocation of 2013 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Funds
9. Planned Unit Development (PUD) Amendment to Zoning Code
10. Proposal to Rezone Property at 3700 State Highway 100
11. Update on SW LRT Preliminary Engineering (PE) and Transitional Station Area Action
Plans (TSAAP)
Auxiliary aids for individuals with disabilities are available upon request.
To make arrangements, please call the Administration Department at
952/924-2525 (TDD 952/924-2518) at least 96 hours in advance of meeting.
Meeting: Study Session
Meeting Date: January 28, 2013
Discussion Item: 1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Future Study Session Agenda Planning – February 11, 2013
RECOMMENDED ACTION: The City Council and the City Manager to set the agenda for
the regularly scheduled Study Session on February 11, 2013.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the Council agree with the agendas as proposed?
SUMMARY: At each study session approximately five minutes are set aside to discuss the next
study session agenda. For this purpose, attached please find the tentative agenda and proposed
discussion items for the regularly scheduled Study Session on February 11, 2013.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Future Study Session Agenda Planning – February 11, 2013
Prepared by: Debbie Fischer, Office Assistant
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of January 28, 2013 (Item No. 1) Page 2
Title: Future Study Session Agenda Planning – February 11, 2013
Study Session, February 11, 2013 – 6:30 p.m.
Tentative Discussion Items
1. Future Study Session Agenda Planning – Administrative Services (5 minutes)
2. Storm Water Follow-Up – Pond Treatments – Public Works (45 minutes)
Provide Council with information regarding the proposed treatment of 6 identified water
bodies in the city:
• Possible and recommended treatment methods
• Impacts (pros / cons) associated with possible treatment methods
• Estimated treatment costs
• Proposed treatment program
• Implementation process and next steps (to include public involvement)
3. Storm Water Follow-Up – Water Quality Activities – Public Works (45 minutes)
Provide Council with information regarding:
• Measures being utilized to prevent or minimize surface water pollution and suggested
improvements (SWPPP)
• Existing or proposed systems used to monitor / evaluate the quality or health of our
water bodies (i.e., staff developed water monitoring program)
4. Solid Waste Program Update – Public Works (45 minutes)
Update Council on recent activities and next steps in providing for the proposed 2013-2018
residential curbside collection program and contracts.
5. Eliot Park Apartments TIF and Site Plan – Community Development (30 minutes)
Review and receive feedback on Hunt Associates’ application for tax increment financing
assistance to facilitate its proposed multi-family residential development on the former Eliot
School property.
Communications/Meeting Check-In – Administrative Services (5 minutes)
Time for communications between staff and Council will be set aside on every study session
agenda for the purposes of information sharing.
Reports
End of Meeting: 9:25 p.m.
Meeting: Study Session
Meeting Date: January 28, 2013
Discussion Item: 2
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Annual Update – Discover St. Louis Park
RECOMMENDED ACTION: No action required. John Basill, President of Discover St.
Louis Park, will be in attendance to provide an annual update on the activities of this destination
marketing organization
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Are the activities of Discover St. Louis Park in keeping with
the expectations of the City Council?
SUMMARY: On December 20, 2010 the City Council approved an ordinance establishing a
3% lodging tax that would serve as the primary source of revenue for a new St. Louis Park
visitor’s bureau now known as Discover St. Louis Park (DSLP). In February, 2011 an Operating
Agreement was entered into by the City and DSLP that delineated the working relationship
between the two entities. On March 1, 2011 the lodging tax went into effect. John Basill began
serving as president of DSLP in late July, 2011. Since that time DSLP has been fully established
and has made significant progress in promoting St. Louis Park as a visitor destination.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: The Operating Agreement between the
City and DSLP requires that the City collect the lodging tax from the hotels and then remit 95%
of the proceeds to DSLP. The City retains the 5% for use as it deems appropriate. Thus far the
collection of the lodging tax from the hotels and remittance to DSLP has gone smoothly and the
proceeds are on target with financial projections.
VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged
community.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Background Information and Budget
Prepared by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of January 28, 2013 (Item No. 2)
Subject: Annual Update – Discover St. Louis Park Page 2
DSLP VISION
Discover St. Louis Park’s mission is to
strengthen the awareness of St. Louis Park
as a prime meeting and visitor
destination, stimulate economic
development and support community
growth.
“ A Destination Marketing Organization”
Study Session Meeting of January 28, 2013 (Item No. 2)
Subject: Annual Update – Discover St. Louis Park Page 3
Marketing Strategy Tactics
•Marketing Material (i.e. Visitor Guides)
•Traditional Media
•Online Advertising (Digital)
•TV and Radio
•Out of house advertising
•Website
•Social Media
•Friend’s list – Email advertising
•Relationship Sales
•Direct mail
•Expos / Trade Shows
Study Session Meeting of January 28, 2013 (Item No. 2)
Subject: Annual Update – Discover St. Louis Park Page 4
Study Session Meeting of January 28, 2013 (Item No. 2)
Subject: Annual Update – Discover St. Louis Park Page 5
Study Session Meeting of January 28, 2013 (Item No. 2)
Subject: Annual Update – Discover St. Louis Park Page 6
Study Session Meeting of January 28, 2013 (Item No. 2)
Subject: Annual Update – Discover St. Louis Park Page 7
Study Session Meeting of January 28, 2013 (Item No. 2)
Subject: Annual Update – Discover St. Louis Park Page 8
Study Session Meeting of January 28, 2013 (Item No. 2)
Subject: Annual Update – Discover St. Louis Park Page 9
Business Segments Bucket List
Groups SMERF
Meetings &
Events Leisure
-Minnesota Group and Packaged Travel
Planner
-AAA Tour Book
-Explore MN Travel Guide
-AAA Tour Book
-AAA Home & Away
-Mpls./St. Paul Official -Visitors Guide
-Minnesota Trails
-Minnesota Getaways (direct mail)
-USA Today Travel Magazine
-CTM Distribution: Rack Card and Map
-MN Meetings + Events
-Finance and Commerce
-Midwest Meetings
-Meetings Journal
-MN Meetings + Events
-Meeting Pages
St. Louis Park Rec Center
Advertising
-Community Ed Magazine
-Where Map
Target the buckets that deliver greatest potential for economic impact for St. Louis Park
Traditional Marketing,
Media & Mix
Study Session Meeting of January 28, 2013 (Item No. 2)
Subject: Annual Update – Discover St. Louis Park Page 10
Study Session Meeting of January 28, 2013 (Item No. 2)
Subject: Annual Update – Discover St. Louis Park Page 11
Study Session Meeting of January 28, 2013 (Item No. 2)
Subject: Annual Update – Discover St. Louis Park Page 12
USA Today Travel
CTM Rack Card
Study Session Meeting of January 28, 2013 (Item No. 2)
Subject: Annual Update – Discover St. Louis Park Page 13
Study Session Meeting of January 28, 2013 (Item No. 2)
Subject: Annual Update – Discover St. Louis Park Page 14
Media Tactics - Digital
Banner
Campaign
Behavioral
Targeting
Geo-
Targeting
Contextual
Targeting
v Begin campaign with ads on 100+ sites geo-targeted
to appear to web users.
•Initially we want to cast the net as wide as possible and then let user
behavior dictate the sites as the campaign progresses
•Banners will begin to show up more on sites with the best click through rates
•Banners will also show up based on behavior of web user as well as what content the
user is viewing (i.e. targets user who looked at BCVB site, are researching travel to MN,
etc.)
Study Session Meeting of January 28, 2013 (Item No. 2)
Subject: Annual Update – Discover St. Louis Park Page 15
Study Session Meeting of January 28, 2013 (Item No. 2)
Subject: Annual Update – Discover St. Louis Park Page 16
Average Total Impressions
Group: 1,801,614
Leisure: 1,805,182
Meetings and Events: 9,072,487
Sports: 8,991,776
Total Impressions Delivered: 21,671,059
Average Total Clicks Recorded
Group: 487
Leisure: 494
Meetings and Events: 3,517
Sports: 3,687
Total Impressions Delivered: 8,185
Digital Media
Study Session Meeting of January 28, 2013 (Item No. 2)
Subject: Annual Update – Discover St. Louis Park Page 17
Marketing & Tradeshows
November 2013 – Over 300 exhibitors & 3,000 Sports event
organizers and event rights holders
January 2013 – 50+ appointments with Tour Operators from
all over the country
January 2013 - More than 3,500 tour operators, suppliers
and exhibitors
January 2013 - over 800 diverse religious organizations,
RCMA members are responsible for planning 14,000
conventions
October 2013 – worldwide exhibition with 2,400 qualified
corporate meeting planners expected
October 2013 – Rejuvenate Marketplace – Faith based meeting
planners.
August 2013 - innovative, appointment-only trade show with association
meeting planners’ needs in mind.
Study Session Meeting of January 28, 2013 (Item No. 2)
Subject: Annual Update – Discover St. Louis Park Page 18
MSAE Expo
Study Session Meeting of January 28, 2013 (Item No. 2)
Subject: Annual Update – Discover St. Louis Park Page 19
Group Awareness Generated for SLP
296 Total
Sports and SMERF, 88
Group Tour, 22
Association, 155
Meetings and Events, 31
Sports and SMERF
Group Tour
Association
Meetings and Events
Study Session Meeting of January 28, 2013 (Item No. 2)
Subject: Annual Update – Discover St. Louis Park Page 20
LEISURE AWARENESS GENERATED BY SLP
6,688
Total Leisure Leads YTD
•2,420 Visitor Guides emailed
•4,268 Visitor Guides mailed
Study Session Meeting of January 28, 2013 (Item No. 2)
Subject: Annual Update – Discover St. Louis Park Page 21
LEISURE LEADS by State
•6,688 Total Leisure Leads
•Top 5 States:
•MN (806)
•Illinois (767)
•Wisconsin (749)
•Iowa (350)
•Ohio (317)
Study Session Meeting of January 28, 2013 (Item No. 2)
Subject: Annual Update – Discover St. Louis Park Page 22
450,000
455,000
460,000
465,000
470,000
475,000
480,000
485,000
9 Months of Data
2012
4.4% Growth YOY
CVB Loading Tax Summary YTD (9 months of data)
Study Session Meeting of January 28, 2013 (Item No. 2)
Subject: Annual Update – Discover St. Louis Park Page 23
Parktacular
Study Session Meeting of January 28, 2013 (Item No. 2)
Subject: Annual Update – Discover St. Louis Park Page 24
Strategically Placed Kiosks
Study Session Meeting of January 28, 2013 (Item No. 2)
Subject: Annual Update – Discover St. Louis Park Page 25
Discover St. Louis Park’s mission is to strengthen
the awareness of St. Louis Park as a prime meeting
and visitor destination, stimulate economic
development and support community growth.
Like us on Facebook (Discover St. Louis Park),
follow us on Twitter (@discoverSLP) and follow
with us on LinkedIn (Discover St. Louis Park)!
“ A Destination Marketing Organization”
Study Session Meeting of January 28, 2013 (Item No. 2)
Subject: Annual Update – Discover St. Louis Park Page 26
Meeting: Study Session
Meeting Date: January 28, 2013
Discussion Item: 3
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan Update
RECOMMENDED ACTION: The purpose of this report is to provide further input to Council
as a result of discussion at the January 14, 2013 Study Session. Council is requested to discuss
and direct staff accordingly.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Staff received considerable public input with regards to the
proposed Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan and discussed the plan with
Council on January 14. Council provided direction to staff to propose refinements to the plan for
further discussion.
1. Does Council have adequate information at this time?
2. Does Council agree with staff suggested refinements to the plan?
3. Does Council wish staff to provide citywide notification of these changes and schedule a
Public Hearing?
SUMMARY: The Discussion section which is attached provides suggestions for refinements to
the plan based on Council direction on January 14. Some segments are recommended for
deletion from the plan while other segments are suggested to be discussed further prior to
making revisions or deletions.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: If Council decides to adopt the system of
Community sidewalks and trails via the capital program as proposed, a source of capital ($18 -
$25 million dollar range – spread over ten years) and maintenance funds ($34,000 annually in
present day costs) will be needed. As previously discussed, the recommended source for the
capital costs would be the issuance of GO Bonds. The likely source for the additional
maintenance costs would be the General Fund.
VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged
community.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion
Exhibit A2
Prepared by: Scott Brink, City Engineer
Reviewed by: Michael P. Rardin, Public Works Director
Sean Walther, Senior Planner
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of January 28, 2013 (Item No. 3) Page 2
Title: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan Update
DISCUSSION
BACKGROUND: The Study Session report dated January 14, 2012 provided an extensive
description of the public process leading up to the January 14 discussion. In addition to general
summaries and observations based on input received at public informational meetings and
subsequent feedback, the report also included a compendium of the many comments received by
E-mail, telephone, letters, comment cards, and conversations. A general summary of the public
comments received were as follows:
Ward 1 General Summary: General support for the overall program was expressed at the Ward 1
informational meeting on November 1. Additional sidewalks were also requested to be
considered where none were proposed. Subsequent communications received since the Ward 1
meeting have expressed minor concerns (and also opposition) for specific sidewalk segments
where properties may be impacted, such as Ottawa Avenue and Quentin Avenue.
Ward 2 General Summary: Strong support for the overall program was expressed at the Ward 2
informational meeting on October 23 with more mixed and less enthusiastic support received in
comments received in the weeks after. Support was expressed in particular for sidewalk
segments that would provide safer access and connectivity to certain destinations such as Susan
Lindgren School (41st Street). In contrast, strong opposition was received for the following
proposed sidewalk segments:
• 39th Street (Natchez to France (south side)
• 40th Street (Natchez to Joppa (north side)
• Brookside Avenue (42nd to Yosemite (east side)
Ward 3 General Summary: Overall, residents in Ward 3 who provided feedback did not
generally express support for new sidewalks, particularly for proposed sidewalk segments where
their property may be impacted. In particular, the following segments received very strong
opposition from a majority of residents:
• 31st Street (Texas to Brunswick (south side))
• 33rd Street (Texas to Rhode Island (south side))
• Pennsylvania Avenue (south of 31st)
Some segments such as Aquila Avenue, 34th Street, and Flag Avenue did receive similar
comments but in much smaller numbers.
General Ward 4 Summary: Similar to Ward 3, residents in Ward 4 have not expressed support
for the sidewalk portion of the program, particularly for proposed segments where their property
may be impacted. The following segments in particular received stronger opposition:
• 25th and 26th Streets between Virginia and Sumter (north and west sides)
• Louisiana Avenue from Cedar Lake Road to Wayzata Blvd. (east side)
• Pennsylvania Avenue (Cedar Lake Road to 16th Street (east side)
• Texas Ave from Cedar Lake Road to Wayzata Blvd (west side)
• Virginia Ave from 28th Street to Cedar Lake Road
• Westmoreland Lane from Flag Ave to Westwood Nature Center (north side)
Some support was expressed for the bikeway portion of the plan, including proposals that would
provide improved connectivity to destinations such as the North Cedar Lake Trail.
Study Session Meeting of January 28, 2013 (Item No. 3) Page 3
Title: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan Update
In summary, the majority of the comments received expressed opposition to specific proposed
sidewalk segments in residential areas. Residents consistently expressed concerns with regards
to impacts to their property, costs, and the overall value or need for the projects. For sidewalks
and trails proposed in non-residential areas, few comments were received.
Comments received with regards to bikeways were generally positive with the exception of
locations where residents expressed concerns with the prospect of parking restrictions.
PRESENT CONSIDERATIONS: At the January 14, 2013 Study Session, Council reviewed
and discussed the proposed plan, including the public input received. Many observations,
comments, and suggestions were provided by Council. Council generally expressed support for
moving forward with the plan with consideration for refinements as follows:
1. Drop or push back certain sidewalk segments: Certain segments could be either deleted
from the plan or pushed back, based on specific prioritization criteria along with
consideration of the public input received.
2. Move forward with implementation of the plan with consideration of short term vs.
longer term improvements within the proposed 10-year plan. For projects remaining in
the plan, consider moving forward and constructing higher priority projects within the next
few years; lower priority segments or segments receiving smaller amounts of support engage
in further public process as the targeted or scheduled improvement time becomes closer.
3. Continue moving the bikeway portion of the plan forward. The majority of the attention
and public input with regards to the overall plan has been directed toward sidewalks. On
road bikeways, bike lanes, and trails should not be lost in the discussion.
NEXT STEPS:
Based on the feedback provided by Council on January 14, staff has reviewed the plan further to
offer further suggestions, recommendations, and refinements. As directed by Council, staff has
considered and re-reviewed the prioritization criteria that has been utilized to date in establishing
the present plan.
In general, the following prioritization criteria were utilized throughout the entire plan
development process; from the beginning of the visioning process several years ago to the
present. This criteria was generated through community input from a Citizen Advisory
Committee, community meetings, surveys, meetings with the Planning Commission, Parks and
Recreation Advisory Commission, and the City Council. The rating factors and criteria can
generally be summarized as follows:
1. Focus on key destinations: segments that serve multiple community gathering centers in the
community (schools, parks, transit stops, commercial nodes, etc.) rate higher
2. Focus on transportation: routes that provide north-south connections through the community,
into adjacent communities, and to key transit stops rated higher.
3. Focus on bicycling and walking: try to provide a “city-wide” grid system of quarter-mile for
sidewalks and half-mile for bicycles. Improvements that fill gaps in the city pedestrian and
bicycle networks, improve safety, and provide crossings (bridges or tunnels) of major
highway and railroad barriers also rated higher.
All of the sidewalk segments proposed meet at least one of the above criteria. However, some
segments meet those criteria much stronger than others.
Study Session Meeting of January 28, 2013 (Item No. 3) Page 4
Title: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan Update
In addition to the above, staff also considered the following elements in revisiting the plan
further:
1. Overall safety considerations (volume and speed of traffic on adjacent streets, crossing of
intersections, etc.)
2. Gaps that make sense to fill or connect.
3. Balance of greater community need and use vs. local property concerns
4. Public input (both in terms of feedback received to date and further feedback and input that
may be needed).
5. Other factors – including design and known constructability issues, relation to other future
projects (utility and street rehabilitations, etc.), private utilities, and other.
Recommendations for Consideration and Discussion
The following suggestions and recommendations with regards to revising and adjusting the plan
are presented by Ward. It is recommended that Council discuss these suggestions further at the
Study Session. Pending the outcome of the discussion, staff can adjust the 10-year plan
accordingly and continue to move forward as directed by Council.
Ward 1
It is suggested that the plan essentially remain unchanged at this time for sidewalks, trails, and
bikeways as proposed. Based on the prioritization criteria, no improvements in Ward 1 are
programmed for construction until 2015. The exception is a sidewalk along the west side of
France Avenue north of 26th Street. This segment was programmed several years ago (prior to
consideration of the present City-wide plan) and is scheduled for construction this year (2013).
A few residents requested construction of sidewalks not shown on the proposed plan in certain
portions of the Lake Forest and Sorenson Neighborhoods. Additional public process should be
planned and pursued to gather input and identify segment locations more specifically for
consideration. This could be done later in 2013 or 2014.
Ward 2
In general, many of the segments proposed in Ward 2 are scheduled for 2014 and 2015 under the
plan. Some Ward 2 sidewalks received mixed or negative feedback. 41st Street (TH 100 to
Wooddale), received very strong support. In addition, segments along busier collector streets
(particularly where there are no single family residences) received little or no feedback.
Segments that received much stronger negative feedback, such as 39th Street (Natchez to France
(south side)), 40th Street (Natchez to Joppa (north side)), and Brookside Avenue (42nd to
Yosemite (east side)) could be deleted now or remain in the program (including delaying)
pending further public discussion and weighing of prioritization criteria further.
Ward 3
Based on the prioritization criteria and extensive negative feedback, it is recommended that the
proposed sidewalk along 31st Street (Texas to Brunswick) and Pennsylvania Avenue (south of
31st Street) be deleted from the program. It is also recommended that 33rd Street between Aquila
and Virginia be deleted.
33rd Street (between Texas and Rhode Island) also received very strong negative feedback from
the public. However, this proposed segment would connect a critical gap in the system in
accordance with the prioritization criteria. It is therefore suggested that Council discuss this
Study Session Meeting of January 28, 2013 (Item No. 3) Page 5
Title: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan Update
segment further before directing deletion from the plan. Currently, this segment is programmed
for construction in 2013; delaying to a future year pending further public discussion is also an
option.
Other proposed segments in Ward 3 received either mixed or much smaller amounts of feedback.
Many are not programmed for construction until 2017. It is therefore recommended that other
segments in Ward 3 remain in the program as currently presented, knowing that further public
conversation will ensue.
Ward 4
As previously mentioned, several proposed sidewalk segments in Ward 4 received considerable
negative feedback. The majority of these segments are not proposed for construction until at
least 2016. Various segments could be either deleted from the plan now, or wait pending further
discussion and/or public input. These include Westmoreland Lane, Flag Ave, 14th St., Hillsboro
Ave., 16th St., and Pennsylvania Ave (Franklin to Cedar Lake Road).
It is recommended that the west side of Texas (Franklin to Wayzata Blvd.) be deleted for
constructability reasons among others, along with deletion of a sidewalk along Pennsylvania
between 16th and Franklin.
Construction of a sidewalk along the south side of Cedar Lake Road fulfills much of the
prioritization criteria. Presuming eventual construction, the proposed segments along 25th and
26th Streets between Virginia and Sumter (north and west sides) could arguably be deleted from
the plan.
Similarly, a sidewalk along the east side of Louisiana Avenue (north of Cedar Lake Road) meets
much of the prioritization criteria. Adjacent grades and property impacts would make
construction of this section more challenging than many other segments. However, this segment
is not proposed until 2017, and staff suggests leaving it in the plan pending further discussion.
Similarly, a sidewalk along the west side of Texas between Cedar Lake Road and Franklin
(scheduled for 2018) could also remain in the plan for now.
A sidewalk along the west side of Virginia Avenue (between Cedar Lake Road and 28th Street),
received high priority based on the criteria and was programmed for construction in 2013.
However, the BNSF rail bridge imposes a significant barrier in constructing a sidewalk. It is
suggested that this segment be pushed back further in the 10-year schedule, pending further
information from BNSF (owners of the bridge) with regards to the future of the bridge.
Summary
It is recommended that the City Council discuss the proposed 10-year plan in consideration of
the information and staff suggestions and recommendations presented above. Exhibit A2
attached identifies sidewalk segments staff proposes for acceleration, deletion, further
discussion, or delay to the indefinite future. Pending the discussion outcome, staff can refine and
adjust the plan accordingly in preparation for a Public Hearing and/or further public input as
directed.
Study Session Meeting of January 28, 2013 (Item No. 3) Page 6
Title: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan Update
Meeting: Study Session
Meeting Date: January 28, 2013
Discussion Item: 4
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Amending Chapter 18 - Offenses and Miscellaneous Provisions to Include
Regulations for Drug Paraphernalia
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Provide staff with direction on whether it should prepare the
proposed ordinance for first reading.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Is Council in support of proceeding with amending Chapter 18
of City Ordinances to address drug paraphernalia?
SUMMARY: The proposed ordinance is primarily intended to prohibit the advertisement and
sale of drug paraphernalia, including equipment to grow or consume illegal drugs. State Statute
only regulates paraphernalia with illegal drug residue. Only one retailer is known to currently be
selling paraphernalia in the city. Past public complaints received raised concern over children
being exposed to various types of paraphernalia being displayed on open shelves.
Attached is a variation of the model paraphernalia ordinance developed in Moorhead MN and
formatted by our City Attorney. The validity of the ordinance, with the lengthy definition
section, was recently validated as being constitutional by a Federal Judge in a ruling to dismiss a
lawsuit challenging Moorhead’s ordinance. If the Council were to adopt the proposed ordinance,
other minor code amendments to the City’s business licensing regulations would also need to be
made.
The City Attorney will be in attendance at the meeting to provide further information and answer
questions.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Draft Ordinance
Prepared by: Brian Hoffman, Director of Inspections
John Luse, Chief of Police
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of January 28, 2013 (Item No. 4) Page 2
Title: Amending Chapter 18 - Offenses and Miscellaneous Provisions to Include Regulations for Drug Paraphernalia
ORDINANCE NO. ____-13
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 18 OF
THE ST. LOUIS PARK CODE OF ORDINANCES
CONCERNING DRUG PARAPHERNALIA
THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK DOES ORDAIN:
SECTION 1. Chapter 18 of the Code of Ordinance is amended to add the following
Section:
Sec. 18-94. Definitions.
(a) Drug paraphernalia. Except as otherwise provided in subsection (b) of this definition,
"drug paraphernalia" means all equipment, products, and materials of any kind, which are used,
intended for use, or designed for use in planting, propagating, cultivating, growing, harvesting,
manufacturing, compounding, enhancing, converting, producing, processing, preparing, testing,
analyzing, packaging, repackaging, storing, containing, concealing, injecting, ingesting, inhaling,
or otherwise introducing into the human body a controlled substance in violation of Minnesota
Statutes Chapter 152. The term “paraphernalia” includes, without limitation:
(1) Kits used, intended for use, or designed for use in planting, propagating, cultivating,
growing, or harvesting of any species of plant which is a controlled substance or from
which a controlled substance can be derived.
(2) Kits used, intended for use, or designed for use in manufacturing, compounding,
converting, producing, processing, or preparing controlled substances.
(3) Isomerization devices used, intended for use, or designed for use in increasing the
potency of any species of plant, which is a controlled substance.
(4) Testing equipment used, intended for use, or designed for use in identifying or in
analyzing the strength, effectiveness, or purity of controlled substances.
(5) Scales and balances used, intended for use, or designed for use in weighing or
measuring controlled substances.
(6) Diluents and adulterants, including quinine hydrochloride, mannitol, dextrose, and
lactose, used, intended for use, or designed for use in cutting controlled substances.
(7) Separation gins and sifters used, intended for use, or designed for use in removing
twigs and seeds from, or in otherwise cleaning or refining, marijuana.
(8) Blenders, bowls, containers, spoons, grinders, and mixing devices used, intended for
use, or designed for use in compounding, manufacturing, producing, processing, or
preparing controlled substances.
(9) Capsules, balloons, envelopes, and other containers used, intended for use, or
designed for use in packaging small quantities of controlled substances.
Study Session Meeting of January 28, 2013 (Item No. 4) Page 3
Title: Amending Chapter 18 - Offenses and Miscellaneous Provisions to Include Regulations for Drug Paraphernalia
(10) Containers and other objects used, intended for use, or designed for use in storing or
concealing controlled substances or products or materials used or intended for use in
manufacturing, producing, processing, or preparing controlled substances.
(11) Objects used, intended for use, or designed for use in ingesting, inhaling, or otherwise
introducing controlled substances to include, but not limited to, marijuana, cocaine,
hashish, or hashish oil into the human body, including:
a) Metal, wooden, acrylic, glass, stone, plastic, or ceramic pipes with or without
screens, permanent screens, hashish heads, or punctured metal bowls.
b) Water pipes.
c) Carburetion tubes and devices.
d) Smoking and carburetion masks.
e) Objects, sometimes commonly referred to as roach clips, used to hold burning
material, for example, a marijuana cigarette, that has become too small or too
short to be held in the hand.
f) Miniature cocaine spoons and cocaine vials.
g) Chamber pipes.
h) Carburetor pipes.
i) Electric pipes.
j) Air driven pipes.
k) Chillums.
l) Bongs.
m) Ice pipes or chillers.
(b) Exceptions. Drug paraphernalia shall not include:
(1) Those items used in conjunction with permitted uses of controlled substances under
the Uniform Controlled Substances Act;
(2) Those items used by law enforcement officials as it relates to the seizure or forfeiture
of drug paraphernalia in connection with a crime or offense;
(3) Those items used by federal, state or local law enforcement officials for educational
purposes;
(4) The possession, manufacture, delivery or sale of hypodermic needles or syringes in
accordance with Minn. Stat. § 151.40 or as it may be amended.
(c) Other terms. Other terms are defined as specified in Minnesota Statutes § 152.01 and
any amendment thereto.
Study Session Meeting of January 28, 2013 (Item No. 4) Page 4
Title: Amending Chapter 18 - Offenses and Miscellaneous Provisions to Include Regulations for Drug Paraphernalia
Sec. 18-95. Drug paraphernalia evidence.
In determining whether an object is drug paraphernalia, a court or other authority shall
consider, in addition to all other logically relevant factors:
(a) Statements by an owner or by anyone in control of the object concerning its use.
(b) Prior convictions, if any, of an owner, or of anyone in control of the object, under any
state or federal law relating to any controlled substance.
(c) The proximity of the object, in time and space, to a direct violation of this section.
(d) The proximity of the object to controlled substances.
(e) The existence of any residue of controlled substances on the object.
(f) Direct or circumstantial evidence of the intent of an owner, or of any person in control
of the object, to deliver the object to another person whom the owner or person in control of the
object knows, or should reasonably know, intends to use the object to facilitate a violation of this
section. The innocence of an owner, or of any person in control of the object, as to a direct
violation of this section may not prevent a finding that the object is intended or designed for use
as drug paraphernalia.
(g) Instructions, oral or written, provided with the object concerning the object's use.
(h) Descriptive materials accompanying the object, which explain or depict the object's use.
(i) National and local advertising concerning the object's use.
(j) The manner in which the object is displayed for sale.
(k) Whether the owner, or anyone in control of the object, is a legitimate supplier of like or
related items to the community, for example, a licensed distributor or dealer of tobacco products.
(l) Direct or circumstantial evidence of the ratio of sales of the object or objects to the total
sales of the business enterprise.
(m) The existence and scope of legitimate uses for the object in the community.
(n) Expert testimony concerning the object's use.
(o) The actual or constructive possession by the owner or by a person in control of the
object or the presence in a vehicle or structure where the object is located of written instructions,
directions, or recipes to be used, or intended or designed to be used, in manufacturing,
producing, processing, preparing, testing, or analyzing a controlled substance.
Sec. 18-96. Prohibited acts.
(a) Use or possession prohibited. It is unlawful for any person knowingly or intentionally
to use or to possess drug paraphernalia. Any violation of this subsection is a petty misdemeanor.
(b) Delivery or manufacturing prohibited. A person may not deliver, possess with intent
to deliver, or manufacture with intent to deliver, drug paraphernalia, if that person knows or
should reasonably know that the drug paraphernalia will be used to plant, propagate, cultivate,
grow, harvest, manufacture, compound, enhance, convert, produce, process, prepare, test,
Study Session Meeting of January 28, 2013 (Item No. 4) Page 5
Title: Amending Chapter 18 - Offenses and Miscellaneous Provisions to Include Regulations for Drug Paraphernalia
analyze, pack, repack, store, contain, conceal, inject, ingest, inhale, or otherwise introduce into
the human body a controlled substance in violation of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 152, as
amended, or any other State or Federal law, rule, or regulation governing the manufacture,
delivery, sale, advertisement, possession, and/or use of controlled substances. Any violation of
this subsection is a misdemeanor.
(c) Delivery or sale to minors prohibited. Any person 18 years of age or over who violates
Sec. 18-210(b) by selling or delivering drug paraphernalia and said sale or delivery is to a person
who is under 18 year of age and at least 3 years his or her junior shall also be violating this
paragraph as well as Sec. 18-210(b). Any violation of this subsection is a misdemeanor.
(d) Advertisement prohibited. It is unlawful for any person to place in any newspaper,
magazine, handbill or other publication any advertisement knowing, or under circumstances
where one reasonably should know, that the purpose of the advertisement, in whole or in part, is
to promote the sale of objects designed or intended for use as drug paraphernalia. Any violation
of this subsection is a misdemeanor.
Sec. 18-97. Civil Forfeiture.
All drug paraphernalia as defined in this article are subject to forfeiture, subject to the
provisions set forth in Minnesota Statutes.
Sec. 18-98. Severability.
If any provision of this article or the application thereof to any person or circumstances is
held invalid, the invalidity does not affect other provisions or application of this article which
can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end, the provisions of
this article are severable.
SECTION 2. This ordinance shall be deemed adopted and take effect fifteen days after its
publication.
First Reading , 2013
Second Reading , 2013
Date of Publication , 2013
Date Ordinance takes effect , 2013
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council ____________, 2013
City Manager Mayor
Attest: Approved as to Form and Execution:
City Clerk City Attorney
Meeting: Study Session
Meeting Date: January 28, 2013
Discussion Item: 5
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Communications Plan Update
RECOMMENDED ACTION: No action needed
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the council still support the current Communication Plan
goals and objectives and should any adjustments to the plan be made at this time?
SUMMARY: In March 2012, representatives from the Information Resources Department met
with the City Council to discuss a two-year communications plan for the city. During the last 11
months, city staff has focused on the objectives identified in the report as the city’s highest
priorities. These objectives included:
• Positioning the city’s website as its central communication tool
• Understanding the public’s opinion on important issues and services by investigating and
implementing, when appropriate, additional avenues for two-way communication
• Developing a Strategic Communication Plan for Westwood Hills Nature Center
• Providing continued and enhanced support to the Public Works Department’s public
education efforts, especially in the areas of garbage and recycling programs
• Ensuring that St. Louis Park is prepared for crises and emergencies, and that during these
incidents the city is prepared to provide warnings, directions, and constant updates to the
public
• Developing a comprehensive volunteer/intern program to supplement the communications
staff
Updates on these specific objectives are included in the background discussion of this report, and
staff will be in attendance to demonstrate a new two-way communication tool, answer Council
questions and provide additional information.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged
community.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion
2012-2013 Communications Plan
Prepared by: Jamie Zwilling, Communications & Marketing Coordinator
Reviewed by: Clint Pires, Chief Information Officer
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of January 28, 2013 (Item No. 5) Page 2
Title: Communications Plan Update
DISCUSSION
BACKGROUND: In 2012, city staff has focused its efforts on the 2012-2013 objectives that
were highlighted as the highest priorities. Highlights of these objectives are below:
Objective: Position the city’s website as its central communication tool
The city launched a completely redesigned and mobile-ready website in July, meeting HTML5
and mobile standards. Work continues to enhance and develop the website, add additional web-
based and e-government services. The city website currently averages more than 37,000 unique
visitors each month, and it received a total of 448,604 visits in 2012. Reviews of the new design
and features have been positive from the public, and the National Association of Government
Webmasters honored it with its Pinnacle Award (best website in the nation) for all cities
nationwide of a similar size to St. Louis Park.
Objective: Understand the public’s opinion on important issues and services by
investigating and implementing, when appropriate, additional avenues for two-way
communication.
The city continues to see strong growth through its various social media accounts. In 2013, staff
plans to unveil and “Ideas in the Park” web-based system that will allow for residents to have
thoughtful online discussions and forums about original ideas and city projects. Staff will
demonstrate the tool at the City Council meeting.
Objective: Develop a Strategic Communication Plan for Westwood Hills Nature Center
Information Resources staff has been working directly with other City staff, residents and
volunteers to develop a comprehensive marketing and branding plan. In February of 2013, the
brand will debut with a new website for Westwood Hills Nature Center, its own social media
presence, unique video and brand messages. Complementing the city’s brand, the Westwood
Hills Nature Center Plan directly reflects direction given from Vision St. Louis Park to position
the Nature Center as a unique environmental asset.
Objective: Provide continued and enhanced support to the Public Works Department’s
public education efforts, especially in the areas of garbage and recycling programs.
The Public Works Department continues to have significant communications needs: garbage and
recycling, sidewalks and trails and transportation projects. Much of 2012 focused on
transportation and sidewalks and trails plans. This will continue in 2013 and beyond as will the
communication related to new garbage and recycling contracts and enhancements. These
continued communication needs were taken into consideration during a realignment of the
Information Resources Department that, among other things, created the communications
specialist and communications intern positions.
Objective: Ensure that St. Louis Park is prepared for crises and emergencies and that
during these incidents the city is prepared to provide warnings, directions, and constant
updates to the public.
The Communications Division continues to provide media relations and PIO (Public Information
Officer) support to the police and fire departments, and other city staff as needed. The
realignment of the Information Resources Department that added a communications specialist
has enabled the city to provide additional strength in this area. Additionally, the city continues to
utilize its website, social media, Cable TV and ParkAlert citizen notification system in times of
crises.
Study Session Meeting of January 28, 2013 (Item No. 5) Page 3
Title: Communications Plan Update
Objective: Develop a comprehensive volunteer/intern program to supplement the
communications staff
As part of a study by the city’s Telecommunications Advisory Commission on the Future of
Cable TV, city staff determined that it would be prudent to begin planning for the possibility of
declining Cable TV franchise fees or the possible elimination of fees altogether after 2021. The
same study determined that video services remain and will remain an integral part of the city’s
current and future communications plans. Therefore, staff developed an internship program that
it hopes will eventually provide many of today’s video services. Currently, four interns are each
working approximately 15 hours a week developing content for our Cable TV channels, website
and social media accounts. The internships are unpaid, an industry standard for television
reporting and production. The city looks forward to the continued development of this program
as it supports both the objectives of the communications plan and also the city’s commitment to
its place as a learning organization.
PRESENT CONSIDERATIONS: Communication tools continue to evolve, and the city is
focused on evaluating such tools as they become available and implementing when determined
to add value to stakeholder communications. Major initiatives on the horizon include continued
communication about the sidewalks and trails plan, changes to garbage and recycling, the
Highway 7 & Louisiana Avenue interchange project, the Highway 100 reconstruction project,
Southwest LRT, and the possible addition of a community recreation facility.
NEXT STEPS: Continue implementation of the 2012-2013 Communications Plan and begin
development of the 2014-2015 Communications Plan.
City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota
Communications
Plan
2012 –2013
\
Study Session Meeting of January 28, 2013 (Item No. 5)
Subject: Communications Plan Update Page 4
City of St. Louis Park Communications Plan 2012 – 2013 2
Table of Contents
1. About the Communications Division
2. St. Louis Park’s Brand
3. Guiding Principles
4. Audiences
5. Goals & Strategies
6. Communication Tools
7. Summary
8. Appendices
a. Social Media Policy & Guidelines
b. Advertising & Sponsorship Guidelines
c. St. Louis Park Brand Manual
Study Session Meeting of January 28, 2013 (Item No. 5)
Subject: Communications Plan Update Page 5
City of St. Louis Park Communications Plan 2012 – 2013 3
1. About the Communications Division
The Communications Division is part of the city’s Information Resources Department. The
division is responsible for the programming of five city television stations, the maintenance
and administration of the city's website, intranet, and social media sites, publications,
writing, graphic design, managing the city's brand, marketing and public relations.
The Information Resources Department consists of the Information Technology and
Support Services divisions in addition to the Communications Division.
2. St. Louis Park’s Brand
In 2007 and 2008, St. Louis Park embarked on a brand study and implementation project
that continues today. Using the St. Louis Park Brand Manual as a guide (See Appendix C),
the city strives to extend the brand through the use of key brand messages and supportive
brand messages. While these messages are not used verbatim, the Communications Division
utilizes the messages as a framework in its production of materials.
Key Brand Messages
St. Louis Park – Extending the sense of family.
St. Louis Park: A proud, forward-thinking community.
St. Louis Park is built firmly upon the strength of its neighborhoods.
St. Louis Park offers the Twin Cities’ most desirable location, period.
Information Resources Mission Statement
Provide the St. Louis Park community with
Effective communications,
Responsive technology and support services,
And vital information
To embrace change, empower people, and enhance
customer service.
Study Session Meeting of January 28, 2013 (Item No. 5)
Subject: Communications Plan Update Page 6
City of St. Louis Park Communications Plan 2012 – 2013 4
St. Louis Park is a community wherein government is accessible, actionable and
responsive.
St. Louis Park offers a strong and diverse educational system – each school within
our city boundaries. A great education awaits in your own backyard.
Supportive Brand Messages
St. Louis Park: Where trails keep us connected and parks are a part of our nature.
St. Louis Park actively engages varied social, economic, religious, and ethnic
heritages.
St. Louis Park is growing green.
St. Louis Park believes that now is the right time for the right business.
St. Louis Park is a community of choice for a lifetime.
In addition to the use of messaging, a key component of the brand implementation has been
an updating of the design of the city’s myriad of publications. The redesign began with the
city’s most prominent publications and continues today on much smaller brochures and
publications.
Vision St. Louis Park
In addition to the city’s brand messages, the city must ensure that its communications
strategies are consistent with the city’s Vision. The city’s past visioning process was
instrumental in serving as a basis for its branding. Therefore, communications efforts, like
other efforts in the city, are directly guided by Vision St. Louis Park’s Strategic Directions:
St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged community.
St. Louis Park is committed to being a leader in environmental stewardship. We will
increase environmental consciousness and responsibility in all areas of city business.
St. Louis Park is committed to providing a well-maintained and diverse housing
stock.
St. Louis Park is committed to promoting and integrating arts, culture, and
community aesthetics in all city initiatives, including implementation where
appropriate.
Study Session Meeting of January 28, 2013 (Item No. 5)
Subject: Communications Plan Update Page 7
City of St. Louis Park Communications Plan 2012 – 2013 5
3. Guiding Principles
The City of St. Louis Park’s 2012-2013 Communications Plan was created with the
following guiding principles in mind:
Be proactive rather than reactive
The City of St. Louis Park must take a positive approach in the planning and execution of
communications and must maintain open lines of communication with its residents,
business owners, elected officials and community partners, including the media. We want to
build upon the existing good relationships with the press through proactive, upfront and
honest communication and solicit their help in positive and timely coverage of the city.
Perception can be reality
Often people believe something to be true, even if it is not reality. The city spent a
significant amount of time in focus groups during its branding process exploring this
concept. From a communication perspective, if something is perceived to be true, then it is
true. The goal is to bring perception and reality into line by providing accurate information
to ensure that perceptions about the city are correct. This means ensuring that the city’s
brand identity is in fact a living brand, and also that as community issues arise that the city
provides the factual basis for discussion.
The city must tell its own story
The city must take responsibility for telling its own story rather than expecting someone else
to report the story, which may result in inaccuracies and inconsistent messages. The city
should utilize every opportunity to relay our message to the public. Telling our story includes
utilizing our various communication tools to discuss the city’s short- and long-term goals,
vision, and mission through real-life examples of its employees, its City Council, and its
special initiatives.
Collaboration for community problem solving
This communication plan emphasizes providing citizens with accurate information to help
them make informed choices. By fostering community problem solving through the
collaboration and involvement of citizens, city staff, and business owners, the community
can assist the City Council in making informed decisions that will result in many more
accomplishments within the city.
Two-way communication is a priority
The two-way flow of information enhances the principle of community problem solving.
Gathering information and receiving feedback is as important as providing information. This
plan pivots on the two-way flow of information.
A communication program built on strong themes
Study Session Meeting of January 28, 2013 (Item No. 5)
Subject: Communications Plan Update Page 8
City of St. Louis Park Communications Plan 2012 – 2013 6
A communication program built on strong and consistent themes is more efficient than one
with unrelated and scattered messages. Communication should reinforce and reflect the city’s
brand, goals and vision of the city government, as established by the City Council and the
city management’s team.
Communication is everyone’s job
While the Communications Division serves as the primary communicator for the city, the
communication system used by St. Louis Park utilizes key staff members from each
department to inform the Communications Division of news, activities and initiatives. This
allows St. Louis Park to communicate timely, accurate, and useful information to the
community most effectively. It includes a strong commitment to presenting a consistent and
focused message. The plan also supports and promotes feedback and involvement of St.
Louis Park residents to ensure effective two-way communication that leads to a more
connected and engaged community.
St. Louis Park is diverse
St. Louis Park is socially, economically, religiously, and ethnically diverse. The community is
growing older, but is also attracting many young community members. Its residents are also
diverse in their communications preferences, and this plan intends to meet the needs of the
largest number of residents through consistent messages that are disseminated through
traditional and new communication tools.
4. Audiences
Primary Target Audiences
The identified primary target audiences are the groups of people with whom the city needs
to regularly communicate on a variety of topics and issues. They include:
Residents of St. Louis Park
City Council and Commissions
Community Groups and Organizations
Neighborhoods (may be included above)
Regional Organizations and Agencies (government, NGOs and nonprofits)
News Media
Business and Property Owners and Managers
Employees
Volunteers within the City
Students, Parents, and the School Communities
Secondary Target Audiences
The identified secondary target audiences are groups with which the city communicates on a
semi-regular or infrequent basis. They include:
Residents living in neighboring communities
Study Session Meeting of January 28, 2013 (Item No. 5)
Subject: Communications Plan Update Page 9
City of St. Louis Park Communications Plan 2012 – 2013 7
Businesses in neighboring communities
Visitors to St. Louis Park
Future or potential residents and business owners in St. Louis Park
5. Objectives & Strategies
The list below is a series of communication strategies the City of St. Louis Park would like to
implement. These strategies fall within the city’s Vision Strategic Direction that St. Louis
Park is committed to being a connected and engaged community. This action plan was
created with the guiding principles mentioned previously in this document in mind. The
objectives are ordered according to priority, with a rating of high, medium or low
Objective: Position the city’s website as its central communication tool
Priority: High
Strategy: Develop a comprehensive mobile Web/applications plan, including
redesigning the site to meet HTML5 and mobile standards
Strategy: Continue to enhance the look and feel of the website while increasing
usage of the site by keeping it user-friendly and adding more interactive features
supporting city business
Strategy: Add a customer portal to the city’s website allowing citizens to report and
track requests
Strategy: Utilize users to identify areas of the website that need more attention and
updating (i.e. Economic Development)
Strategy: Continue to monitor statistics and analytics to drive website content
Strategy: Hold annual refresher training/meeting with website contributors
Objective: Understand the public’s opinion on important issues and services by
investigating and implementing, when appropriate, additional avenues for two-way
communication.
Priority: High
Strategy: Utilize residential and business survey data to determine preferred methods
of communication and interaction.
Strategy: Increase current social media fans/followers by 25 percent to reach
additional community members
Strategy: Identify & recognize social media interaction as an official job function of
several employees in the Information Resources Department.
Objective: Develop a Strategic Communication Plan for Westwood Hills Nature Center
Priority: High
Strategy: Develop a supplement to the city’s Brand Manual specifically for
Westwood Hills Nature Center.
Study Session Meeting of January 28, 2013 (Item No. 5)
Subject: Communications Plan Update Page 10
City of St. Louis Park Communications Plan 2012 – 2013 8
Strategy: Develop a series of templates to be used by Westwood Hills Nature Center
Staff for promotion and publication of programming
Strategy: Create a Westwood Hills video series production plan
Strategy: Develop an advertising campaign aimed specifically at St. Louis Park
residents related to activities and amenities available at Westwood.
Strategy: Develop a targeted marketing campaign to preschools/schools in and
outside of St. Louis Park.
Strategy: Pursue earned media stories about events, activities and programming
available in St. Louis Park.
Strategy: Develop Comprehensive QR code and mobile device plan for Westwood
attractions (could expand to other uses throughout the city as well)
Strategy: Develop comprehensive social media strategy
Objective: Provide continued and enhanced support to the Public Works Department’s
public education efforts, especially in the areas of garbage and recycling programs
Priority: High
Strategy: Complete an assessment of current public education efforts employed by
the city related to the city’s garbage and recycling programs
Strategy: Investigate successful communications strategies employed by city’s with
top-tier environmental education programs
Strategy: Utilize survey data and available statistics to aid in the development of
future communication and public outreach plans
Strategy: Create a strategic public education plan to inform residents about new
program enhancements or changes.
Objective: Ensure that St. Louis Park is prepared for crises and emergencies and that during
these incidents the city is prepared to provide warnings, directions, and constant updates to
the public.
Priority: High
Strategy: Identify a cadre of personnel from a variety of departments that will assist
the communications coordinator in a major emergency and provide training for
everyone involved.
Strategy: Review, update and practice applicable portions of the city’s emergency
communications plan.
Objective: Develop a comprehensive volunteer/intern program to supplement the
communications staff
Priority: Medium
Strategy: Solicit volunteers from the community utilizing the resources of the
City/School Volunteer Office
Study Session Meeting of January 28, 2013 (Item No. 5)
Subject: Communications Plan Update Page 11
City of St. Louis Park Communications Plan 2012 – 2013 9
Strategy: Coordinate with local educational institutions regarding academic
requirements of internships and develop ongoing partnerships with those institutions
Strategy: Utilize the volunteers and interns in Cable TV, Web, media relations and
general communications functions.
Objective: Utilize ParkAlert, the city’s reverse 9-1-1 system, to communicate effectively with
residents
Priority: Medium
Strategy: Implement the comprehensive plan for use of the city’s reverse 9-1-1
system, including emergency and non-emergency use
Objective: Complete branding, consolidation, and programming plan for the five ParkTV
channels
Priority: Medium
Strategy: Complete programming survey and evaluation of all current programming
Strategy: Position ParkTV 16 as a one-stop shop for city news, live and recorded
sports, live and taped concerts, school programming and featured programming.
Strategy: Convert Civic TV 17 into only showing city council, school board, board
and commission and special meetings.
Strategy: Consider dedicating one of the Cable TV channels exclusively to
Convention & Visitors Bureau and other community partner content
Strategy: Utilize the findings of the Future of Cable TV study to begin planning for
the continuation of video services, especially if faced with declining revenues.
Objective: Train city staff on strategic media relations.
Priority: Medium
Strategy: Provide media training to staff that interacts with the media
Objective: Develop a plan for reaching out to residents who speak English as a second
language
Priority: Medium
Strategy: Begin translating city informational and promotional materials
Strategy: Investigate translation of city signage
Strategy: Make the city website available in a variety of languages relevant to users
Stretegy: Explore telephone system features available for non-english speakers
Objective: Create comprehensive promotional signage campaign
Priority: Medium
Strategy: Begin utilizing city buildings and vehicles to promote the city’s website,
ParkTV, public WiFi hotspots, and other initiatives utilizing decals and other
signage.
Study Session Meeting of January 28, 2013 (Item No. 5)
Subject: Communications Plan Update Page 12
City of St. Louis Park Communications Plan 2012 – 2013 10
Objective: Pursue printed stories in additional publications, including neighborhood
newsletters.
Priority: Medium
Strategy: Identify publications, build rapport with the editors, and submit articles,
including staff written guest columns for both the Sun-Sailor and Patch.com.
Strategy: Pursue media coverage in trade journals, state and national government
publications and the national media.
Objective: Utilize additional city photography in marketing
Priority: Medium
Strategy: Continue to expand the city’s library of photography with a strategic
photography plan and utilize volunteers/staff to take photographs
Strategy: Investigate the use of photos and other artwork of city assets as decoration
for city buildings (i.e. use photography of St. Louis Park assets in public buildings
rather than commercial artwork).
Objective: Increase the number of press releases to an average of five each month.
Priority: Low
Strategy: Identify newsworthy information within the city by working with all city
departments and providing a venue, protocol, and standard templates for writing and
distribution of press releases.
Objective: Increase community spirit through the use of promotions
Priority: Low
Strategy: Explore the use of promotional contests such as a citywide photo contest
Strategy: Expand the Beautify the Park campaign
Strategy: Begin selling city apparel and promotional items to residents
Objective: Investigate use of the city phone system’s hold messaging system.
Priority: Low
Strategy: Develop a series of phone messages and place them on the phone’s hold
messaging system to advertise city events or services.
Objective: Redesign the Beehive, the City’s Intranet
Priority: Low
Strategy: Work with staff to develop a simpler and more effective intranet site
Strategy: Give Human Resources content control and management of the site
Ongoing Objectives
Study Session Meeting of January 28, 2013 (Item No. 5)
Subject: Communications Plan Update Page 13
City of St. Louis Park Communications Plan 2012 – 2013 11
Objective: Continue to provide strategic communications and comprehensive issue
management support
Strategy: Support staff in its efforts to communicate with residents and the region
regarding transportations issues, particularly those related to light rail and freight rail,
the Highway 7 and Louisiana Avenue grade-separated interchange project and the
Highway 100 reconstruction project
Strategy: Support staff in its efforts to communicate with residents about the results
of the Community Recreation and Facility Task force outcomes and any actions
related to it by the City Council.
Objective: Continue to work directly with the city’s Community Liaison to Utilize
neighborhood networks as an extension of official city communications
Strategy: Continue to provide information to neighborhood leaders for inclusion in
their websites and newsletters
Strategy: Continue to provide printing support for neighborhoods to produce print
publications
Strategy: Continue to promote neighborhoods and their organizations
Objective: Mail three Park Perspective newsletters/Park & Rec Guides annually
Strategy: To identify newsworthy stories by working with all departments.
Publication dates will be March 1st, August 1st and November 1st annually.
Objective: Continue to produce a short weekly newscast to inform residents about
important information and upcoming events
Strategy: Share video on the Cable TV system, website and through social media
Objective: Continue to produce a monthly news-magazine type TV show
Strategy: Use the program for longer features about city services, programs and
events
Strategy: Share video on the Cable TV system, website and through social media
Objective: Continue to produce timely and informative special programming about city
services and events
Strategy: Share video on the Cable TV system, website and through social media
Strategy: Utilize volunteers to increase the amount and variety of content produced
by the Communications Division
Objective: Continue to produce on-location programing
Strategy: Utilize the mobile production van and equipment to produce high quality
coverage of community events, sports and concerts
Study Session Meeting of January 28, 2013 (Item No. 5)
Subject: Communications Plan Update Page 14
City of St. Louis Park Communications Plan 2012 – 2013 12
Strategy: Continue to cablecast concerts, football and hockey games live; pursue the
possibility of cablecasting basketball games live
Strategy: Share video on the Cable TV system, website and through social media
Objective: Continue to provide live meeting coverage
Strategy: Continue to cablecast live the regular City Council, Planning and
Telecommunication commissions and School Board meetings.
Strategy: Share meeting coverage on the Cable TV system, website and through
social media
Objective: Continue publication management
Strategy: Update Community Guide annually for distribution in city publication
racks, new resident packets and online
Strategy: Update Citizen Involvement guide for distribution in city publication
racks, new resident packets and online
Strategy: Continue to evaluate and add to brochures and single-page flyers to ensure
proper branding and messaging
6. Communication Tools
Website
Social media
Citywide Publications (Park Perspective, Park & Rec Brochure)
Neighborhood Newsletters
Cable TV
Video
News Media
ParkAlert (Reverse 911)
Email
QR Codes
LCD Screens (Display Screens)
Public Meetings
Advertising
Website or mobile applications
7. Summary
St. Louis Park is committed to being connected and engaged. This Communications Plan
sets forth objectives and strategies that keep that commitment alive. It’s intended to be a
flexible document that will guide the city’s decisions and retain St. Louis Park’s position
among Minnesota communities with strong, transparent and comprehensive communication
plans.
Study Session Meeting of January 28, 2013 (Item No. 5)
Subject: Communications Plan Update Page 15
City of St. Louis Park Communications Plan 2012 – 2013 13
Appendix A
Study Session Meeting of January 28, 2013 (Item No. 5)
Subject: Communications Plan Update Page 16
City of St. Louis Park Communications Plan 2012 – 2013 14
City of St. Louis Park Social Media Policy &
Guidelines
Section I
Purpose & Polices
Section II
Twitter Guidelines for City of St. Louis Park Departments
Section III
Facebook Guidelines for City of St. Louis Park Departments
Section IV
YouTube Guidelines for City of St. Louis Park Departments
Section V
Vimeo Guidelines for City of St. Louis Park Departments
Section I: Purpose & Policies
Purpose
To address the fast-changing landscape of the Internet and the way residents communicate
and obtain information online, City departments may consider participating in social media
formats to reach a broader audience. The City of St. Louis Park encourages the use of Social
Media to further the goals of the City and the missions of its departments where appropriate.
The City Council and the City Manager have an overriding interest and expectation in
deciding who may "speak" and what is "spoken" on behalf of City of St. Louis Park on social
media sites. This policy establishes guidelines for the use of social media.
The City of St. Louis Park’s Chief Information Officer shall approve what Social Media
outlets may be suitable for use by the City and its departments. The City’s Information
Resources Department shall serve to educate departments on how to best use various Social
Media outlets to achieve their goals.
Social Media Policy
A. All official City of St. Louis Park presences on social media sites or services are
considered an extension of the City’s information networks and are governed by the
Computer, Communications and Equipment Policy contained in the City of St.
Louis Park Personnel Manual.
Study Session Meeting of January 28, 2013 (Item No. 5)
Subject: Communications Plan Update Page 17
City of St. Louis Park Communications Plan 2012 – 2013 15
B. The City’s Chief Information Officer will review department requests to use social
media sites and may delegate this review function to the city’s Communications
Coordinator.
C. The Information Resources Department will advocate using Social Media to help
departments reach their stated goals by assisting departments in developing
appropriate uses for social media, assisting in the selection of appropriate social
media outlets and helping departments define a strategy for engagement using Social
Media.
D. Departments that use social media are responsible for complying with applicable
federal, state, and City laws, regulations, and policies. This includes adherence to
established laws and policies regarding copyright, records retention, Freedom of
Information Act and Minnesota Data Practices Act, First Amendment, privacy laws
and information security policies established by City of St. Louis Park.
E. Wherever possible, links to more information should direct users back to the City’s
official website for more information, forms, documents or online services necessary
to conduct business with the City of St. Louis Park.
F. Employees representing the City government via Social Media outlets must conduct
themselves at all times as representatives of the City of St. Louis Park. Employees
that fail to conduct themselves in an appropriate manner shall be subject to the
Disciplinary Procedures outlined in the City of St. Louis Park Personnel Manual.
G. The Communications Division will monitor content on each of the Department
social media sites to ensure adherence to the Social Media Policy for appropriate use,
messaging and branding consistent with the goals of City of St. Louis Park.
H. Violation of these standards may result in the removal of department pages from
social media outlets. The Communications Coordinator and CIO retain the
authority to remove information.
Computer, Communications and Equipment Policy
From the City of St. Louis Park Personnel Manual, Section 17
Computer, Communications, and Equipment
The purpose of this policy is to promote the availability and reliability of the City owned
equipment for productive employee use in providing effective and efficient service to our
citizens. One part of fulfilling that purpose is to define acceptable use, including parameters
for appropriate personal use of such equipment and information. This policy is intended to
be a general use policy. Modifications of this policy within legal limits may be applied by a
department head or supervisor to ensure City business needs are met. Department heads and
supervisors are responsible for ensuring the appropriate use of all electronic tools and other
equipment through training, supervising, coaching, and taking disciplinary action, when
necessary. Employees may be assigned City-owned equipment and are responsible for the
reasonable protection for such equipment and information against theft, loss, environmental
damage, viruses, and other risks.
Study Session Meeting of January 28, 2013 (Item No. 5)
Subject: Communications Plan Update Page 18
City of St. Louis Park Communications Plan 2012 – 2013 16
17.2 Minnesota Data Practices Act and Records Retention
All electronically stored data are subject to the Minnesota Data Practices Act and the City’s
record retention schedule. Such data are also subject to review and investigation as allowed
or prescribed by law. In general, all electronically stored City data are considered public
information unless classified otherwise according to law. As such, most City data are subject
to review by the public. Electronic data are not completely secure, and thus can be altered or
illegally accessed. As a result, employees should not send any data classified as not public
(private or confidential data on individuals, or nonpublic or protected data not on
individuals) over e-mail and its attachments), the Internet, or other electronic device or
medium unless the data are secured. Employees are also responsible for managing data per
the City’s records retention schedule and MN Data Practices Act.
17.3 Security
Authorized City employees are granted access to the City’s computer network by being
assigned user names, passwords, and other security devices or methods. Employees shall not
attempt to log in as another computer user and passwords are not to be shared with anyone,
except as authorized by the employee’s supervisor or IT staff. In no case shall an employee
display user names, passwords, or other login credentials in open sight, or make them
available in any unsecured manner. The City’s computer network will force periodic
password changes for every user. City employees are also responsible for ensuring secured
access to portable equipment including, but not limited to: laptops, thumb drives, CD’s,
DVD’s, and mobile devices. Because of legal requirements from computer systems
interconnected with other government agencies, law enforcement, and credit card
companies, City employees must adhere to the requirements of the LOGS Members Security
Policy, and are responsible for communicating any loss or vulnerabilities of portable
equipment in a timely manner to their supervisor or authorized IT staff.
17.4 Software Acquisition, Support, and Use
Employees shall adhere to all software license agreements with regard to duplication and use
as directed by the software publisher, or required by law. All software used on or through
City computer and network systems must be installed by an authorized staff member of the
IT division. Employees who need software installed or configured should submit requests to
the IT division. Employees are encouraged to suggest exploration of demonstration software
packages, which must be approved by the employee’s department head and authorized IT
staff or designee prior to installation. City employees must obtain prior consent and
approval from their department head and authorized IT staff prior to downloading,
acquiring, or installing any software.
17.5 Hardware Acquisition, Support, and Use
All computers are the property of the City of St. Louis Park and should be respected as such
by all employees. All hardware shall be acquired, installed, uninstalled, and/or reconfigured
Study Session Meeting of January 28, 2013 (Item No. 5)
Subject: Communications Plan Update Page 19
City of St. Louis Park Communications Plan 2012 – 2013 17
only by authorized IT division staff or designee. Employees who need special hardware
installed or configured should submit requests to the IT division. The IT division should be
consulted to determine what hardware, including specific models, is currently supported.
17.6 Remote Connections and Special Applications
Requests to establish remote network computer connections (from non-City owned
facilities) to allow employees to work on City business, must be approved by the department
head and authorized IT staff prior to installation.
17.7 File Names and Storage Space Usage, Limitations, and Maintenance
The City reserves the right to set file naming conventions and manage the use of file storage
space on any City-owned or used equipment. Such management includes, but is not limited
to, which storage devices are used for specific purposes, limitations on the amount and type
of storage used, and maintenance of storage such as deletion or archiving of older or
infrequently accessed files, duplicated files, file versions, and files that should be managed per
the City’s records retention schedule or other electronic retention policies.
17.8 Using Electronic Equipment
City employees are encouraged to find ways to access information from other agencies via the
Internet, World Wide Web (web), e-mail, telephone system, and other City-owned
electronic equipment. This content is considered public information unless classified
otherwise according to the law. As such, this content is subject to review by the public and
may also be used for investigation purposes. The City reserves the right to monitor and
record all use of the Internet, the web, e-mail, telephone system, and all City-owned
hardware and software at the time of use, during routine post-audits, and during
investigations. Employee Internet, web, e-mail, and any other City equipment usage
information may be accessible to the public as a result of the Minnesota Data Practices Act.
This may include emails, social media, files, or other communications. Thus, such usage
must be able to withstand public scrutiny without embarrassment to the City. Traditional
rules of reasonableness, respect, courtesy, common sense, and legal requirements apply.
17.9 Reasonable Personal Use
The City provides copiers, fax machines, telephones, cell phones, radios, computers, personal
digital assistants, networks, printers, internet access, world wide web access, and other City
equipment primarily for business-related purposes. Limited and reasonable use of these tools
for occasional employee personal use that does not result in any additional cost or loss of
time or resources regarding their intended business purpose is permitted. Such use is
permitted before and after work and during break periods, as well as incidental and
emergency use during work. Any other extended personal use is not permitted.
Study Session Meeting of January 28, 2013 (Item No. 5)
Subject: Communications Plan Update Page 20
City of St. Louis Park Communications Plan 2012 – 2013 18
Section II: Twitter Guidelines for City of St. Louis Park
Departments
What is Twitter?
Twitter is a free micro-blogging internet service that allows users to send and read other
users' updates (otherwise known as tweets). The updates are text of up to 140 characters in
length. Updates are displayed on the user's profile page and delivered to other users who
have signed up to receive these updates.
Why Use Twitter?
Twitter offers brief and concise messaging that is also compatible for mobile devices (i.e. cell
phone text messaging) that can be used to drive citizens to the City’s primary website for
more information (www.stlouispark.org). The City of St. Louis Park’s initial goal is to use
Twitter as an additional media channel to communicate directly with citizens who choose to
“follow” our Twitter updates. Twitter also allows the City of St. Louis Park to carry its
various messages further into the community via mobile messaging.
Authorization to Use Twitter
The City of St. Louis Park’s administrative policy regarding Social Media delegates the
review and approval of Social Media usage to the Chief Information Officer and the
Communications Coordinator, who may then authorize individuals to represent the City of
St. Louis Park departments on Twitter to support the mission and overall goals of the City.
Notice Regarding Comments and Usage
The City of St. Louis Park’s administrative policy regarding Social Media specifically points
out that the City Council and the City Manager have an overriding interest and expectation
in deciding who may “speak” and what is “spoken” on behalf of City of St. Louis Park
through social media sites.
City of St. Louis Park employees using Twitter should not create a public forum for
displaying comments on Twitter pages.
All official City of St. Louis Park presences on social media sites or services are
considered an extension of the City’s information networks and are governed by the
Computer, Communications and Equipment Policy contained in the City of St.
Louis Park Personnel Manual.
Employees representing the City government via Social Media outlets must conduct
themselves at all times as representatives of the City of St. Louis Park.
The Communications Division will monitor content on each of the Department
social media sites to ensure adherence to the Social Media Policy for appropriate use,
message and branding consistent with the goals of City of St. Louis Park.
Potential Uses for Twitter
Study Session Meeting of January 28, 2013 (Item No. 5)
Subject: Communications Plan Update Page 21
City of St. Louis Park Communications Plan 2012 – 2013 19
Uses for Twitter include (but are not limited to):
1. Sharing published news releases from the Communications Division
2. Publicizing Parks and Recreation and other programs sponsored by the City of St.
Louis Park
3. Publicizing new services, holiday closings or other information normally only found
on the city’s primary website
4. Issuing emergency alerts, road closures, or weather alerts affecting large numbers of
citizens.
Backup Policy
In the interest of maintaining compliance with possible Freedom of Information Act and
Minnesota Data Practices Act requests and adequate records retention, Twitter will be
backed up once a week.
1. The Information Resources department is responsible for backing up the city’s
Twitter accounts.
2. The weekly backup file should be stored on a department network drive.
Guidelines for Following Others
1. City of St. Louis Park departments using Twitter should strive to follow other City
of St. Louis Park departments using Twitter to help create more presence on the
Twitter media space.
2. To help prevent loss of followers and dilution of message, the City of St. Louis Park
should NOT follow any individual or group, unless that group is a national or
regional professional organization that supports the primary goal of the department
or the goals of City of St. Louis Park (for example, National Recreation and Parks
Association, or similar organizations).
3. In order to limit the display of public comments, Twitter spam, or unrelated
content, the City of St. Louis Park Twitter accounts should not follow other Twitter
users besides the exceptions listed above.
Number of Twitter Accounts per Department
Each department should hold no more than one (1) Twitter account, unless additional
Twitter accounts are approved by the Chief Information Officer or Communications
Coordinator.
Naming Conventions
City of St. Louis Park departments should strive to use account names that maintain the
City’s branding and consistent identification with City of St. Louis Park. If available, suitable
examples may include the initials SLP as a prefix to the department or service of City of St.
Louis Park, e.g. “SLP Parks & Recreation” could be the City of St. Louis Park Parks &
Recreation Department.
Study Session Meeting of January 28, 2013 (Item No. 5)
Subject: Communications Plan Update Page 22
City of St. Louis Park Communications Plan 2012 – 2013 20
Legal Considerations
The Freedom of Information Act and the Minnesota Data Practices Act guarantees citizens
and representatives of the media access to public records held by public bodies, public
officials, and public employees. A public record is any writing or recording - regardless of
whether it is a paper record, an electronic file, an audio or video recording, or any other format -
that is prepared or owned by, or in the possession of a public body or its officers, employees
or agents in the transaction of public business. All public records are presumed to be open,
and may only be withheld if a specific, statutory exemption applies. In consideration of the
Freedom of Information Act and the Minnesota Data Practices Act, see Backup Policy above.
Section III: Facebook Guidelines for City of St. Louis Park
Departments
What is Facebook?
Facebook is a social networking website launched in 2004. The free-access website is
privately owned and operated by Facebook, Inc. Users can join networks organized by city,
workplace, school, and region to connect and interact with other people.
Why Use Facebook?
Facebook offers the ability for the city to tap into “fans” via social networking and to drive
citizens to the City’s primary website for more information (www.stlouispark.org). The City
of St. Louis Park’s goal is to use Facebook as an additional media channel to communicate
directly with citizens who choose to be our “fans.” Facebook also allows the City of St. Louis
Park to carry its various messages further into the community via mobile messaging.
Authorization to Use Facebook
The City of St. Louis Park’s administrative policy regarding Social Media delegates the
review and approval of Social Media usage to the Chief Information Officer and the
Communications Coordinator, who may then authorize individuals to represent the City of
St. Louis Park departments on Facebook to support the mission and overall goals of the City.
Notice Regarding Comments and Usage
The City of St. Louis Park’s administrative policy regarding Social Media specifically points
out that the City Council and the City Manager have an overriding interest and expectation
in deciding who may “speak” and what is “spoken” on behalf of City of St. Louis Park
through social media sites.
All official City of St. Louis Park presences on social media sites or services are
considered an extension of the City’s information networks and are governed by the
Computer, Communications and Equipment Policy contained in the City of St.
Louis Park Personnel Manual.
Study Session Meeting of January 28, 2013 (Item No. 5)
Subject: Communications Plan Update Page 23
City of St. Louis Park Communications Plan 2012 – 2013 21
Employees representing the City government via Social Media outlets must conduct
themselves at all times as representatives of City of St. Louis Park.
The Communications Division will monitor content on each of the Department
social media sites to ensure adherence to the Social Media Policy for appropriate use,
message and branding consistent with the goals of City of St. Louis Park.
City of St. Louis Park Facebook Comments Policy (to be displayed on the City website and
on the city’s Facebook page)
Thank you for visiting St. Louis Park’s Facebook page. The purpose of the site is to
share photos and information of public interest in St. Louis Park with our many
residents, businesses, and visitors. This is a moderated online discussion site and not
a public forum. Please note if you post a comment, the City reserves the right to
delete submissions that contain vulgar language, personal attacks of any kind, or
offensive comments that target or disparage any ethnic, racial, religious or other
group.
Further, the City also reserves the right to delete comments that: (i) are spam or
include links to other sites; (ii) are clearly off topic; (iii) advocate illegal activity; (iv)
promote or oppose particular services, products, or political organizations and
candidates; or (v) infringe on copyrights or trademarks.
Please note that the comments expressed on this site do not reflect the opinions and
position of the City of St. Louis Park government or its officers and employees. If
you have any questions concerning the operation of this online moderated discussion
site, please contact Jamie Zwilling, St. Louis Park Communications Coordinator, at
jzwilling@stlouispark.org.
Potential Uses for Facebook
Uses for Facebook include (but are not limited to):
1. Sharing published news releases from the Communications Division
2. Publicizing Parks and Recreation and other programs sponsored by City of St. Louis
Park
3. Publicizing new services, holiday closings or other information normally only found
on the city’s primary website
4. Issuing emergency alerts, road closures, or weather alerts affecting large numbers of
citizens.
Backup Policy
In the interest of maintaining compliance with possible Freedom of Information Act and
Minnesota Data Practices Act requests and adequate records retention, Facebook will be
backed up once a week.
Study Session Meeting of January 28, 2013 (Item No. 5)
Subject: Communications Plan Update Page 24
City of St. Louis Park Communications Plan 2012 – 2013 22
1. The Information Resources department is responsible for backing up the city’s
Facebook accounts.
2. The weekly backup file should be stored on a department network drive.
Guidelines for becoming a “fan” of others
1. City of St. Louis Park departments using Facebook should strive to be “fans” of other
City of St. Louis Park departments using Facebook to help create more presence on
the Facebook media space.
2. To help prevent loss of viewers and dilution of messages, the City of St. Louis Park
should NOT become a “fan” of any individual or group, unless that group is a
national or regional professional organization that supports the primary goal of the
department or the goals of City of St. Louis Park (for example, National Recreation
and Parks Association, or similar organizations).
3. In order to limit the display of public comments, Facebook spam, or unrelated
content, the City of St. Louis Park Facebook accounts should be “fans” of other
Facebook users besides the exceptions listed above.
Number of Facebook pages per Department
Each department should hold no more than one (1) Facebook account, unless additional
Facebook accounts are approved by the Chief Information Officer or Communications
Coordinator.
Naming Conventions
City of St. Louis Park departments should strive to use account names that maintain the
City’s branding and consistent identification with City of St. Louis Park. If available, suitable
examples may include the initials SLP as a prefix to the department or service of City of St.
Louis Park, e.g. “SLP Parks & Recreation” is the City of St. Louis Park Parks & Recreation
Department.
Legal Considerations
The Freedom of Information Act and the Minnesota Data Practices Act guarantees citizens
of the State and representatives of the media access to public records held by public bodies,
public officials, and public employees. A public record is any writing or recording - regardless of
whether it is a paper record, an electronic file, an audio or video recording, or any other format -
that is prepared or owned by, or in the possession of a public body or its officers, employees
or agents in the transaction of public business. All public records are presumed to be open,
and may only be withheld if a specific, statutory exemption applies. In consideration of the
Freedom of Information Act and the Minnesota Data Practices Act, see Backup Policy above.
Study Session Meeting of January 28, 2013 (Item No. 5)
Subject: Communications Plan Update Page 25
City of St. Louis Park Communications Plan 2012 – 2013 23
Section IV: YouTube Guidelines for City of St. Louis Park
Departments
What is YouTube?
YouTube is a video sharing website on which users can upload and share videos.
Why Use YouTube?
The traffic is phenomenal, and you stand to gain tremendous exposure by making your
videos available on these video sharing websites. YouTube serves as an extension of the city’s
five Cable TV stations. One of the great features many video sharing sites offer is the ability
to upload your video and allow anyone to display it on any website simply by adding a small
piece of embedded code to the page (the video sharing site provides you with the necessary
code).
Authorization to Use YouTube
The City of St. Louis Park’s policy regarding Social Media delegates the review and approval
of Social Media usage to the Chief Information Officer and the Communications
Coordinator, who may then authorize individuals to represent the City of St. Louis Park
departments on YouTube to support the mission and overall goals of the City.
Notice Regarding Comments and Usage
The City of St. Louis Park’s administrative policy regarding Social Media specifically points
out that the City Council and the City Manager have an overriding interest and expectation
in deciding who may ‘speak’ and what is ‘spoken’ on behalf of City of St. Louis Park through
social media sites.
All official City of St. Louis Park presences on social media sites or services are
considered an extension of the City’s information networks and are governed by the
Computer, Communications and Equipment Policy contained in the City of St.
Louis Park Personnel Manual.
Employees representing the City government via Social Media outlets must conduct
themselves at all times as representatives of City of St. Louis Park.
The Communications Division will monitor content on each of the Department
social media sites to ensure adherence to the Social Media Policy for appropriate use,
message and branding consistent with the goals of City of St. Louis Park.
City of St. Louis Park YouTube Comments Policy (to be displayed on the City website and
on the city’s YouTube channel)
Thank you for visiting St. Louis Park’s YouTube channel. The purpose of the site is
to share videos and information of public interest in St. Louis Park with our many
residents, businesses, and visitors. This is a moderated online discussion site and not
a public forum. Please note if you post a comment, the City reserves the right to
Study Session Meeting of January 28, 2013 (Item No. 5)
Subject: Communications Plan Update Page 26
City of St. Louis Park Communications Plan 2012 – 2013 24
delete submissions that contain vulgar language, personal attacks of any kind, or
offensive comments that target or disparage any ethnic, racial, religious or other
group.
Further, the City also reserves the right to delete comments that: (i) are spam or
include links to other sites; (ii) are clearly off topic; (iii) advocate illegal activity; (iv)
promote or oppose particular services, products, or political organizations and
candidates; or (v) infringe on copyrights or trademarks.
Please note that the comments expressed on this site do not reflect the opinions and
position of the City of St. Louis Park government or its officers and employees. If
you have any questions concerning the operation of this video sharing channel, please
contact Jamie Zwilling, St. Louis Park Communications Coordinator, at
jzwilling@stlouispark.org.
Potential Uses for YouTube
Uses for YouTube include (but are not limited to):
1. Sharing previously broadcast City television programming and other video and audio
productions
2. Publicizing programs or events
Backup Policy
In the interest of maintaining compliance with possible Freedom of Information Act and
Minnesota Data Practices Act requests and adequate records retention, all videos posted to
YouTube will be saved on the city’s servers in compliance with standard record retention
schedules.
Guidelines for subscribing to other channels
1. To help prevent loss of viewers and dilution of messages, the City of St. Louis Park
should NOT subscribe to any individual or group, unless that group is a national or
regional professional organization that supports the primary goal of the department
or the goals of the City of St. Louis Park (for example, National Recreation and
Parks Association, or similar organizations), or one of the city’s strategic partners.
2. In order to limit the display of public comments, YouTube spam, or unrelated
content, the City of St. Louis Park YouTube accounts should not be subscribers of
other YouTube users besides the exceptions listed above.
Number of YouTube Channels
The city will maintain one YouTube Channel unless others are approved by the Chief
Information Officer or Communications Coordinator.
Legal Considerations
Study Session Meeting of January 28, 2013 (Item No. 5)
Subject: Communications Plan Update Page 27
City of St. Louis Park Communications Plan 2012 – 2013 25
The Freedom of Information Act and the Minnesota Data Practices Act guarantees citizens
and representatives of the media access to public records held by public bodies, public
officials, and public employees. A public record is any writing or recording - regardless of
whether it is a paper record, an electronic file, an audio or video recording, or any other format -
that is prepared or owned by, or in the possession of a public body or its officers, employees
or agents in the transaction of public business. All public records are presumed to be open,
and may only be withheld if a specific, statutory exemption applies. In consideration of the
Freedom of Information Act and the Minnesota Data Practices Act, see Backup Policy above.
Section V: Vimeo Guidelines for City of St. Louis Park Departments
What is Vimeo?
Vimeo is a video sharing website on which users can upload and share videos much like
YouTube; however, it is a paid service that offers the benefit of larger file uploads.
Why Use Vimeo?
The quality of the video player is tremendous, and you stand to gain great exposure by
making your videos available on these video sharing websites. Vimeo serves as an extension of
the city’s five Cable TV stations. One of the great features many video sharing sites offer is
the ability to upload your video and allow anyone to display it on any website simply by
adding a small piece of embedded code to the page (the video sharing site provides you with
the necessary code).
Authorization to Use Vimeo
The City of St. Louis Park’s administrative policy regarding Social Media delegates the
review and approval of Social Media usage to the Chief Information Officer and the
Communications Coordinator, who may then authorize individuals to represent the City of
St. Louis Park departments on Vimeo to support the mission and overall goals of the City.
Notice Regarding Comments and Usage
The City of St. Louis Park’s administrative policy regarding Social Media specifically points
out that the City Council and the City Manager have an overriding interest and expectation
in deciding who may ‘speak’ and what is ‘spoken’ on behalf of City of St. Louis Park through
social media sites.
All official City of St. Louis Park presences on social media sites or services are
considered an extension of the City’s information networks and are governed by the
Computer, Communications and Equipment Policy contained in the City of St.
Louis Park Personnel Manual.
Employees representing the City government via Social Media outlets must conduct
themselves at all times as representatives of City of St. Louis Park.
Study Session Meeting of January 28, 2013 (Item No. 5)
Subject: Communications Plan Update Page 28
City of St. Louis Park Communications Plan 2012 – 2013 26
The Communications Division will monitor content on each of the Department
social media sites to ensure adherence to the Social Media Policy for appropriate use,
message and branding consistent with the goals of City of St. Louis Park.
City of St. Louis Park Vimeo Comments Policy (to be displayed on the City website and on
the city’s Vimeo channel)
Thank you for visiting St. Louis Park’s Vimeo channel. The purpose of the site is to
share videos and information of public interest in St. Louis Park with our many
residents, businesses, and visitors. This is a moderated online discussion site and not
a public forum. Please note if you post a comment, the City reserves the right to
delete submissions that contain vulgar language, personal attacks of any kind, or
offensive comments that target or disparage any ethnic, racial, religious or other
group.
Further, the City also reserves the right to delete comments that: (i) are spam or
include links to other sites; (ii) are clearly off topic; (iii) advocate illegal activity; (iv)
promote or oppose particular services, products, or political organizations and
candidates; or (v) infringe on copyrights or trademarks.
Please note that the comments expressed on this site do not reflect the opinions and
positions of the City of St. Louis Park government or its officers and employees. If
you have any questions concerning the operation of this video sharing channel, please
contact Jamie Zwilling, St. Louis Park Communications Coordinator, at
jzwilling@stlouispark.org.
Potential Uses for Vimeo
Uses for Vimeo include (but are not limited to):
1. Sharing previously broadcast City television programming and other video and audio
productions
2. Publicizing programs or events
Backup Policy
In the interest of maintaining compliance with possible Freedom of Information Act and
Minnesota Data Practices Act requests and adequate records retention, all videos posted to
YouTube will be saved on the city’s servers in compliance with standard record retention
schedules.
Guidelines for subscribing to other channels
1. To help prevent loss of viewers and dilution of message, the City of St. Louis Park
should NOT subscribe to any individual or group, unless that group is a national or
regional professional organization that supports the primary goal of the department
Study Session Meeting of January 28, 2013 (Item No. 5)
Subject: Communications Plan Update Page 29
City of St. Louis Park Communications Plan 2012 – 2013 27
or the goals of City of St. Louis Park (for example, National Recreation and Parks
Association, or similar organizations), or one of the cities strategic partners.
2. In order to limit the display of public comments, Vimeo spam, or unrelated content,
the City of St. Louis Park Vimeo accounts should not be subscribers of other Vimeo
users besides the exceptions listed above.
Number of Vimeo Channels
The city will maintain one Vimeo Channel unless others are approved by the Chief
Information Officer or Communications Coordinator.
Legal Considerations
The Freedom of Information Act and the Minnesota Data Practices Act guarantees citizens
and representatives of the media access to public records held by public bodies, public
officials, and public employees. A public record is any writing or recording - regardless of
whether it is a paper record, an electronic file, an audio or video recording, or any other format -
that is prepared or owned by, or in the possession of a public body or its officers, employees
or agents in the transaction of public business. All public records are presumed to be open,
and may only be withheld if a specific, statutory exemption applies. In consideration of the
Freedom of Information Act and the Minnesota Data Practices Act, see Backup Policy above.
Study Session Meeting of January 28, 2013 (Item No. 5)
Subject: Communications Plan Update Page 30
City of St. Louis Park Communications Plan 2012 – 2013 28
Appendix B
City Advertising & Sponsorship Guidelines
Purpose
The purpose of this policy is to provide guidelines for allowing advertising or sponsorships in
city publications and other forms of media.
Study Session Meeting of January 28, 2013 (Item No. 5)
Subject: Communications Plan Update Page 31
City of St. Louis Park Communications Plan 2012 – 2013 29
Application of Advertising and Sponsorship Guidelines
The City of St. Louis Park will consider allowing paid advertising and sponsorships to offset
the production costs related to certain publications and media productions. Advertising and
sponsorship policies are administered by the City Manager or designee.
Examples of publications and media productions include but are not limited to: City/School
Calendar, Community Guide, New Resident Packet, Maps, Parks and Recreation
information, cable & video productions and the city’s website.
This guideline does not apply to city facilities or neighborhood newsletters. Advertising for
field signage is included in the zoning ordinance.
Advertising & Sponsorship Standards
All advertisements and sponsors are subject to the City Manager’s approval. Advertising or
sponsors will be in line with the Vision, Mission and Values of the City. Standards should be
in line with our designation as a Children First community.
No advertising will be permitted which:
Is false, misleading, libelous, or deceptive;
Relates to an illegal activity;
Contains obscene material as determined by community standards;
Advertises the sale of alcoholic beverages, tobacco products or sexually oriented
businesses,
Exception: Restaurants that sell alcoholic beverages may be permitted advertisers so
long as no special promotion of alcoholic beverages is included
Includes language which is obscene, vulgar or profane;
Implies an endorsement by the City for the product or service; or
Promotes a commercial transaction that is prohibited by federal, state or local law or
regulations
Requirements
Staff will develop specific display requirements for each type of advertising depending on the
format of the media. The City assumes no liability for errors in advertisements submitted.
Positioning of advertisements is at the discretion of the City except where a request for a
specific position is accepted as part of the advertising sale, as determined by the City
Manager.
Study Session Meeting of January 28, 2013 (Item No. 5)
Subject: Communications Plan Update Page 32
City of St. Louis Park Communications Plan 2012 – 2013 30
Appendix C
Study Session Meeting of January 28, 2013 (Item No. 5)
Subject: Communications Plan Update Page 33
Meeting: Study Session
Meeting Date: January 28, 2013
Written Report: 6
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: December 2012 Monthly Financial Report
RECOMMENDED ACTION: No action required at this time.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: None at this time.
SUMMARY: The Monthly Financial Report provides summary information for the General
Fund and the Park & Recreation Fund of revenues and departmental expenditures and provides
for a comparison of budget to actual throughout the year.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Preliminary year end numbers show
General Fund revenues for 2012 at 101.3% of budget, and expenditures at 95.6%. Park &
Recreation revenues are at 100.5%, while expenditures are at 101.7%. Please see the attached
analysis for more details.
VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion
Summary of Revenues & Expenditures
Prepared by: Darla Monson, Senior Accountant
Reviewed by: Brian A. Swanson, Controller
Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of January 28, 2013 (Item No. 6) Page 2
Title: December 2012 Monthly Financial Report
DISCUSSION
BACKGROUND: This report is designed to provide summary information each month of the
overall level of revenues and expenditures in both the General Fund and the Park and Recreation
Fund. These funds should be a primary concern in analyzing the City’s financial health because
they represent the discretionary use of tax levy dollars.
PRESENT CONSIDERATIONS: Preliminary year end numbers show General Fund revenues
for 2012 at 101.3% of budget, and expenditures at 95.6%. Park & Recreation revenues are at
100.5%, while expenditures are at 101.7%.
This report does not represent the final numbers for the year ending December 31, 2012. The
final audited financial statements for 2012 will be presented at a separate Council meeting in the
spring of 2013. Invoices for 2012 expenses will continue to be paid through the end of January,
additional revenues pertaining to 2012 will be recorded, including the final property tax
settlement to be received in late January, and year end audit entries will be completed over the
next few months.
As was noted in the December 17, 2012 Council Report regarding fund balances and transfers,
the Park & Recreation Fund is expected to require a transfer from the General Fund to cover a
projected deficit for the year and to maintain the desired level of fund balance. While the Park &
Recreation Fund will exceed budget on expenditures, it also will exceed budget for revenues
offsetting a portion of the variance. The preliminary numbers for the General Fund are in line
with earlier projections that indicated a positive change in fund balance in excess of $1 million
prior to the transfers and fund balance assignment recommended in the December 17, 2012 report.
Comments on specific revenue and expenditure variances are noted below.
General Fund
Revenues:
• License and permit revenues in the General Fund have exceeded budget by nearly 37% or
$872,000 in 2012. The majority of this excess, or $795,000, is from permit activity. This
additional permit revenue is due to several large commercial development projects that
started in 2012, which were not able to be determined at the time the budget was prepared
in 2011.
• Intergovernmental revenue is exceeding budget by just over 8%, or $95,000, primarily
because the amount of DOT Municipal State Aid received was higher than anticipated.
• Charge for Services revenue appears low; however, end of year entries will be made to
reimburse the General Fund for Engineering staff time spent on street projects.
• Interest income will also be allocated to the General Fund once all fund balances have
been finalized.
Expenditures:
• Public Works Engineering is the only General Fund department that is exceeding budget
for expenditures. The small variance of approximately $4,000 is from postage expense
for the fall sidewalk and trail mailings.
• Several General Fund departments will be under budget by 2% to 3% in 2012 due to staff
positions that were open for part of the year. These departments include Community
Development, Information Resources, Police, Fire, and Inspections.
• Facilities Maintenance will be under budget due to lower than anticipated utility costs.
Study Session Meeting of January 28, 2013 (Item No. 6) Page 3
Title: December 2012 Monthly Financial Report
Parks and Recreation
Expenditures:
• The Organized Recreation Division is at 102.3% of budget. End of year projections
prepared previously by Staff indicated a small expenditure variance of 1% to 2% in this
Division to be partially offset by additional revenue. A youth association grant of
approximately $16,000 ran through this Division in 2012, where the City purchased
football and softball equipment for the youth association and received grant
reimbursement revenue in return.
• The Recreation Center Division is at 102.1% of budget. Building and equipment
maintenance expenses have exceeded budget due to necessary repairs and maintenance
work. Earlier projections previously prepared by Staff indicated that this Division would
likely exceed budget by 3% to 5% for the year, but a portion of the overage would be
offset by additional revenues, which is the case.
• Expenditures in the Vehicle Maintenance Division are exceeding budget at 107.2%. The
variance is mainly due to overages in parts and tires, motor fuel, and outside equipment
repair services. These areas were reviewed for the 2013 budget and adjusted accordingly.
Based on earlier projections prepared by Staff, a variance of 6% to 8% was anticipated.
The transfer to the Park & Recreation Fund that was approved at the December 17, 2012
Council meeting will cover the variance.
NEXT STEPS: None are required at this time.
20122012201020102011201120122012 Balance YTD Budget Budget Actual Budget Actual Budget Dec YTD Remaining to Actual %General Fund Revenues: General Property Taxes14,889,605$ 15,061,268$ 15,426,072$ 15,372,076$ 15,998,292$ 15,944,792$ 53,500$ 99.67% Licenses and Permits2,294,768 2,359,094 2,345,910 2,797,588 2,368,799 3,241,287 (872,488) 136.83% Fines & Forfeits311,750 401,554 328,200 281,047 328,150 317,675 10,475 96.81% Intergovernmental1,598,787 1,578,946 1,136,187 1,243,494 1,163,677 1,258,583 (94,906) 108.16% Charges for Services1,138,018 1,125,867 1,152,643 1,077,137 1,270,354 755,966 514,388 59.51% Miscellaneous Revenue100,000 130,265 100,150 129,142 111,650 102,934 8,716 92.19% Transfers In2,583,825 2,588,235 2,589,876 2,553,665 2,023,003 2,064,626 (41,623) 102.06% Investment Earnings200,000 105,927 200,000 203,282 125,000 - 125,000 0.00% Other Income1,600 28,127 4,750 22,686 3,450 5,846 (2,396) 169.46% Use of Fund Balance51,000 Total General Fund Revenues23,169,353$ 23,379,283$ 23,283,788$ 23,680,117$ 23,392,375$ 23,691,709$ (299,334)$ 101.28%Park & Recreation Revenues: General Property Taxes4,014,872$ 4,014,872$ 4,000,561$ 4,000,561$ 4,171,506$ 4,171,506$ -$ 100.00% Licenses and Permits6,275 622 6,600 110 6,600 440 6,160 6.67% Intergovernmental71,219 89,631 77,652 208,536 68,902 89,744 (20,842) 130.25% Charges for Services1,073,900 1,022,826 1,095,250 1,082,163 1,070,750 1,079,593 (8,843) 100.83% Miscellaneous Revenue906,900 954,739 937,400 1,035,310 967,900 1,006,385 (38,485) 103.98% Other Income13,000 63,126 15,000 78,902 42,150 9,115 33,035 21.63%Total Park & Recreation Revenues6,086,166$ 6,145,816$ 6,132,463$ 6,405,582$ 6,327,808$ 6,356,783$ (28,975)$ 100.46%Summary of Revenues - General Fund and Park & Recreation As of December 31, 2012 (Preliminary)Study Session Meeting of January 28, 2013 (Item No. 6) Subject: December 2012 Monthly Financial ReportPage 4
20122012201020102011201120122012 Balance BudgetBudget Actual Budget Actual Budget Dec YTD Remaining to Actual %General Government: Administration924,472$ 840,147$ 889,798$ 825,168$ 1,012,554$ 974,680$ 37,874$ 96.26% Accounting588,850 562,371 612,964 624,573 641,691 636,578 5,113 99.20% Assessing490,080 488,548 500,141 506,426 517,840 515,895 1,945 99.62% Human Resources644,950 593,329 652,770 629,734 667,612 635,201 32,411 95.15% Community Development1,051,150 1,019,114 1,094,186 1,082,461 1,076,376 1,046,735 29,641 97.25% Facilities Maintenance1,081,742 952,856 1,114,551 955,880 1,083,128 929,096 154,032 85.78% Information Resources1,400,666 1,384,228 1,394,226 1,421,858 1,507,579 1,360,615 146,964 90.25% Communications & Marketing281,905 241,465 294,470 256,558 265,426 243,516 21,910 91.75% Community Outreach86,255 81,530 88,515 84,300 8,185 6,473 1,712 79.08%Total General Government6,550,070$ 6,163,588$ 6,641,621$ 6,386,958$ 6,780,391$ 6,348,789$ 431,602$ 93.63%Public Safety: Police7,306,402$ 7,218,688$ 7,208,512$ 6,943,375$ 7,273,723$ 7,068,425$ 205,298$ 97.18% Fire Protection3,122,173 2,989,550 3,164,344 3,061,962 3,346,931 3,236,847 110,084 96.71% Inspectional Services1,816,227 1,729,156 1,863,296 1,818,212 1,889,340 1,850,912 38,428 97.97%Total Public Safety12,244,802$ 11,937,394$ 12,236,152$ 11,823,549$ 12,509,994$ 12,156,184$ 353,810$ 97.17%Public Works: Public Works Administration854,900$ 872,846$ 829,698$ 803,259$ 389,783$ 375,277$ 14,506$ 96.28% Public Works Engineering829,800 798,240 846,032 816,280 927,337 931,171 (3,834) 100.41% Public Works Operations2,509,100 2,575,138 2,550,285 2,461,099 2,604,870 2,483,779 121,091 95.35%Total Public Works4,193,800$ 4,246,224$ 4,226,015$ 4,080,638$ 3,921,990$ 3,790,226$ 131,764$ 96.64%Non-Departmental: General 681$ 46,525$ 81,287$ -$ 60,956$ (60,956)$ 0.00% Transfers Out1,800,000 900,000 - - - 0.00% Tax Court Petitions180,000 180,000 - 180,000 - 180,000 0.00%Total Non-Departmental180,681$ 1,846,525$ 180,000$ 981,287$ 180,000$ 60,956$ 119,044$ 33.86%Total General Fund Expenditures23,169,353$ 24,193,731$ 23,283,788$ 23,272,432$ 23,392,375$ 22,356,155$ 1,036,220$ 95.57%Park & Recreation:Organized Recreation1,245,408$ 1,171,301$ 1,239,230$ 1,266,774$ 1,305,747$ 1,335,461$ (29,714)$ 102.28%Recreation Center1,436,858 1,364,584 1,442,447 1,424,076 1,466,246 1,497,061 (30,815) 102.10%Park Maintenance1,396,715 1,413,840 1,435,374 1,462,866 1,461,645 1,445,755 15,890 98.91%Westwood493,450 488,258 502,366 488,579 515,456 503,145 12,311 97.61%Environment351,543 366,887 371,324 396,664 390,009 381,714 8,295 97.87%Vehicle Maintenance1,162,192 1,258,156 1,141,722 1,300,708 1,188,705 1,274,180 (85,475) 107.19%Total Park & Recreation Expenditures6,086,166$ 6,063,026$ 6,132,463$ 6,339,666$ 6,327,808$ 6,437,317$ (109,509)$ 101.73%Summary of Expenditures - General Fund and Park & RecreationAs of December 31, 2012 (Preliminary)Study Session Meeting of January 28, 2013 (Item No. 6) Subject: December 2012 Monthly Financial ReportPage 5
Meeting: Study Session
Meeting Date: January 28, 2013
Written Report: 7
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Fourth Quarter Investment Report (Oct – Dec 2012)
RECOMMENDED ACTION: No action required at this time.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: None at this time.
SUMMARY: The Quarterly Investment Report provides an overview of the City’s investment
portfolio, including the types of investments held, length of maturity, and yield.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: The total portfolio value at December 31,
2012 was $67.3 million, and the overall yield was 1.15%. Approximately 73% of the portfolio is
in longer term investments including agency bonds, municipal debt securities, and certificates of
deposit. The remainder is held in money market accounts for future cash flow needs.
VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion
Investment Portfolio Summary
Prepared by: Darla Monson, Senior Accountant
Reviewed by: Brian A. Swanson, Controller
Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of January 28, 2013 (Item No. 7) Page 2
Title: Fourth Quarter Investment Report (Oct – Dec 2012)
DISCUSSION
BACKGROUND: The City’s investment portfolio is focused on short term cash flow needs and
investment in longer term securities. This is done in accordance with Minnesota Statute 118A
and the City’s Investment Policy objectives of: 1) Preservation of capital; 2) Liquidity; and 3)
Return on investment.
PRESENT CONSIDERATIONS: The total portfolio value increased by approximately $9.1
million in the fourth quarter from $58.2 million to $67.3 million. This increase was primarily
due to the receipt of the second half property tax and TIF settlement in early December from
Hennepin County.
The overall yield of the portfolio was down slightly from the third quarter (1.29%) to the fourth
quarter (1.15%), but is very comparable to the end of 2011 (1.12%). The small decline during
the quarter was due in part to a larger amount of cash held in lower yielding money market
accounts at the end of the year. In addition, one agency bond with a yield of 1.45% was called,
and a municipal debt security with a rate of 2.45% matured. Cities generally use a benchmark
such as the two year Treasury (.25% at 12/31/2012) or some similar measure for yield
comparison of their overall portfolio.
Interest rates continue to be at record lows. The City has been able to maintain a fairly
consistent yield by balancing cash flow needs with short and long term investment options.
Purchases in the fourth quarter to utilize some of the cash from the called bond, the maturity, and
the tax settlement included eight certificates of deposit, three municipal debt securities, and three
agency bonds with rates ranging from .8% to 1.25%.
Approximately 27% of the portfolio is currently invested in money markets. This is necessary to
keep funds available to cover the February 1, 2013 semiannual debt service payments and Pay
As You Go TIF note payments, as well as the normal on-going cash flow needs for payroll and
general operating expenses until the 70% advance property tax settlement payment is received in
June 2013. Money market rates have continued to decline and currently range from .11% at
UBS to .21% at Citizens Independent Bank. Purchasing commercial paper may be considered
from time to time in the short term to help increase yields on available cash. These are
promissory notes issued by financial institutions and large corporations that have short maturity
periods typically ranging from one to nine months. Rates on commercial paper are considerably
higher than on money market accounts, which make it a good option for investing available cash
short term. Commercial paper was previously used for investing the Fire Station bond proceeds.
Another 7% of the portfolio is invested in fixed rate certificates of deposit at rates ranging from
.5% for two years to 1.75% for five years. With rates on bonds continuing to be very low,
purchasing these fixed rate CD’s has helped to keep the portfolio yield stable. There are 19 CD’s
in the portfolio, each with a face value of $200,000 to $240,000, which guarantees that each CD
is insured by the FDIC up to $250,000.
The remaining 66% or approximately $44 million of the portfolio is invested in other long term
securities, including municipal debt ($27 million) and agency bonds ($17 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, and are typically callable. These callable agency bonds will usually
have higher interest rates to the final maturity date in five years, but the issuers have the right to
Study Session Meeting of January 28, 2013 (Item No. 7) Page 3
Title: Fourth Quarter Investment Report (Oct – Dec 2012)
call the bonds at specific intervals prior to maturity if interest rates decline. This has happened
quite frequently in the market conditions of the past few years.
Available cash will continue to be used to purchase longer term securities whenever possible to
help keep the overall portfolio yield stable.
Here is a summary of the City’s portfolio at December 31, 2012:
NEXT STEPS: None at this time.
9/30/12 12/31/12
<1 Year 41% 46%
1-2 Years 19% 10%
2-3 Years 7% 11%
3-4 Years 16% 13%
>4 Years 17% 20%
9/30/12 12/31/12
Money Markets $14,353,318 $18,468,141
Commercial Paper $0 $0
Certificates of Deposit $2,651,770 $4,539,049
Municipal Debt $26,104,703 $27,161,601
Agency Bonds $15,119,766 $17,113,169
City of St. Louis Park
Investment Portfolio Summary
December 31, 2012
Institution/Broker Investment Type CUSIP Maturity Date
Yield to
Maturity Par Value
Market Value at
12/31/2012
Estimated Avg
Annual Income
Citizens Indep Bank Money Market 0.21%5,033,000 5,033,000 10,569
4M Fund Money Market 0.02%4,803,206 4,803,206 961
Citigroup/Smith Barney GNMA 36217C4W3 6.21% 19,193 22,149 1,375
Wells Fargo Advisors FHLB Step Up 313380B63 08/16/2017 1.031% 1,000,000 999,260 10,310
UBS Muni Debt - Illinois State 452152FD8 04/01/2013 1.84% 1,000,000 1,006,020 18,350
UBS Muni Debt - NYC Trans Auth 64971MN40 02/01/2016 3.03% 1,000,000 1,072,950 30,250
UBS Muni Debt - NYC Trans Auth 64971MN40 02/01/2016 3.07% 1,000,000 1,072,950 30,700
UBS Muni Debt - Dist of Columbia 25476FLE6 06/01/2015 1.33% 1,000,000 1,061,690 13,310
UBS Muni Debt - Calif State 13063A7E8 10/01/2013 0.78% 2,000,000 2,043,860 15,680
UBS Muni Debt - Gilroy, CA 376087CZ3 04/01/2015 1.81% 1,125,000 1,188,810 20,363
UBS Muni Debt - Calif State 13063BNR9 10/01/2015 2.00% 1,000,000 1,029,530 20,000
UBS Muni Debt - Atl City, NJ 048339RR8 12/15/2015 2.70% 470,000 480,669 12,690
UBS FNMA Step Up 3136FTXU8 12/29/2016 1.25% 1,000,000 1,017,640 12,500
UBS Barclays Bank DE CD 06740KFS1 01/11/2016 1.60% 240,000 244,231 3,840
UBS Amer Munic Pwr Ohio 02765UER1 02/15/2015 1.54% 1,000,000 1,047,860 15,400
UBS Freddie Mac 3134G3PE4 02/24/2016 0.85% 1,000,000 1,005,490 8,500
UBS CD - Bank of China NY 06425HN85 05/02/2014 0.60% 240,000 240,718 1,440
UBS CD - Discover Bank DE 254671AG5 05/02/2017 1.75% 240,000 243,002 4,200
UBS CD - Safra Nat'l Bank NY 786580J76 05/03/2017 1.50% 240,000 240,276 3,600
UBS CD - GE Cap Retail Bank UT 36160NJZ3 05/04/2017 1.75% 240,000 241,980 4,200
UBS CD - Medallion Bank UT 58403BXU5 05/07/2014 0.60% 240,000 240,708 1,440
UBS CD - Apple Bank NY 037830KP0 05/09/2014 0.50% 240,000 240,703 1,200
UBS FHLMC 3134G3WV8 06/06/2017 1.01% 1,000,000 1,010,460 10,140
UBS FHLMC 3134G3MZ0 02/24/2017 0.89% 1,000,000 1,009,090 8,930
UBS FNMA step up 3136G0ZV6 08/28/2017 1.17% 1,000,000 1,002,410 11,740
UBS CD - Sallie Mae Bnk UT 79545OPE9 08/29/2017 1.70% 240,000 242,170 4,080
UBS FHLMC 3134G3NN6 02/27/2017 0.72% 1,000,000 1,010,830 7,220
UBS CD - First Bank PR Sant 33764JNF8 10/27/2014 0.80% 240,000 240,137 1,920
UBS CD - Doral Bank PR 25811L2L2 12/08/2014 0.85% 240,000 240,118 2,040
UBS CD - Amer Exp Cent UT 02587DLS5 01/26/2015 0.85% 240,000 239,604 2,040
UBS CD - BMW Bank UT 05568PZ59 10/26/2015 1.05% 240,000 239,645 2,520
UBS CD - Sun Natl Bank NJ 86682ABV2 10/03/2017 1.00% 240,000 241,375 2,400
UBS CD - Everbank Jacksonvl FL 29976DPB0 10/31/2017 1.00% 240,000 240,002 2,400
UBS CD - Comenity Bank DE 981996AX9 12/05/2017 1.25% 200,000 197,000 2,500
UBS CD - Banco Popular PR 05967ESG5 12/05/2017 1.10% 240,000 239,674 2,640
UBS Money Market 0.11% 8,631,935 8,631,935 9,495
28,503,537
Sterne, Agee Muni Debt - Greenwood Cnty Sch 397118EC0 03/01/2013 2.03% 740,000 742,538 15,022
Sterne, Agee FNMA 3136F9BZ5 03/18/2013 3.96% 1,000,000 1,007,990 39,600
Sterne, Agee Muni Debt - Van Buren, MI Sch 920729GQ7 05/01/2013 3.12% 300,000 302,475 9,360
Sterne, Agee Muni Debt - Milan, MI Sch 598801HF8 05/01/2013 3.16% 580,000 586,084 18,328
Sterne, Agee Muni Debt - Illinois State 452152FD8 04/01/2013 1.75% 1,000,000 1,006,020 17,500
Sterne, Agee Muni Debt - Waukegan, IL 942860MT1 12/30/2013 2.95% 1,500,000 1,545,960 44,250
Sterne, Agee Muni Debt - Outagamie Cnty WI 689900TH1 04/01/2014 2.53% 810,000 828,055 20,493
Sterne, Agee Muni Debt - Van Buren, MI Sch 920729GR5 05/01/2014 3.52% 705,000 727,539 24,816
Sterne, Agee Muni Debt - Union Co NJ 906347SC4 06/01/2014 4.04% 555,000 348,588 22,422
Sterne, Agee Muni Debt - Illinois State 4521518U0 01/01/2014 3.25% 1,225,000 1,261,848 39,813
Sterne, Agee Muni Debt - Illinois State 4521518T3 01/01/2013 2.63% 850,000 850,000 22,313
Sterne, Agee Muni Debt - Milwuakee Co, WI 602245WW8 10/01/2013 1.50% 1,000,000 1,007,500 15,000
Sterne, Agee Muni Debt - Smithfield, RI 832322NM9 01/15/2013 0.88% 275,000 275,096 2,406
Sterne, Agee Muni Debt - Smithfield, RI 832322NN7 01/15/2014 1.35% 275,000 279,059 3,713
Sterne, Agee Muni Debt - Smithfield, RI 832322NP2 01/15/2015 1.90% 275,000 281,435 5,225
Sterne, Agee Muni Deb - Smithfield, RI 832322NQ0 01/15/2016 2.40% 275,000 286,921 6,600
Sterne, Agee Muni Debt - Racine, WI 750046GB4 04/01/2014 0.70% 1,010,000 1,064,005 7,070
Sterne, Agee FNMA Step Up 3136FTC98 01/25/2016 0.50% 1,000,000 1,000,180 5,000
Sterne, Agee FNMA Step Up 3136FTV89 02/28/2017 0.65% 1,000,000 1,000,520 6,500
Sterne, Agee Muni Debt - New York, NY 64966HJS0 04/01/2017 1.20% 500,000 586,760 6,000
Sterne, Agee Muni Debt - Elmore Cnty AL 28976PAS4 02/01/2016 0.85% 1,050,000 1,082,529 8,925
Sterne, Agee Muni Debt - Elmore Cnty AL 28976PAT2 02/01/2017 1.15% 1,000,000 1,033,600 11,500
17,104,702
Wells Fargo Muni Debt - New York, NY 64966HXW5 03/01/2013 1.00% 1,000,000 1,003,250 10,000
Wells Fargo Muni Debt - State of WA 93974CLV0 08/01/2014 1.33% 1,000,000 1,040,290 13,300
Wells Fargo FHLB 313372RK2 03/27/2013 1.02% 1,000,000 1,002,080 10,200
Wells Fargo CD - GE Capital UT 3616OXC62 01/06/2016 1.70% 240,000 243,156 4,080
Wells Fargo CD - Goldman Sachs Bank NY 38143AGR0 01/12/2015 1.50% 240,000 242,350 3,600
Wells Fargo CD - Ally Bank UT 0200SQYM9 01/26/2015 1.15% 240,000 242,201 2,760
Wells Fargo FHLMC 3134G3HP8 01/27/2016 1.00% 1,000,000 1,007,900 10,000
Wells Fargo Freddie Mac 3134G3HW3 10/30/2015 1.00% 1,000,000 1,000,700 10,000
Wells Fargo Freddie Mac 3134G3MP2 08/24/2016 1.00% 1,000,000 1,007,750 10,000
Wells Fargo Muni Debt - Fond Du Lac WI Schl 344496JQ8 04/01/2017 1.05% 1,000,000 1,017,710 10,500
Wells Fargo Fannie Mae 3136G04A6 11/21/2017 1.00% 1,000,000 1,003,370 10,000
Wells Fargo FHLMC 3134G3T91 11/21/2017 1.02% 1,000,000 1,002,170 10,200
Wells Fargo FNMA 3135G0NH2 08/23/2017 0.95% 1,000,000 1,003,180 9,500
10,816,106
GRAND TOTAL 67,281,960 776,938
Portfolio Yield 1.15%
Study Session Meeting of January 28, 2013 (Item No. 7)
Subject: Fourth Quarter Investment Report (Oct – Dec 2012)Page 4
Meeting: Study Session
Meeting Date: January 28, 2013
Written Report: 8
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Proposed Allocation of 2013 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Funds
RECOMMENDED ACTION: No action required at this time. This report is being provided to
inform the Council of the proposed allocation of 2013 CDBG funds. Please let staff know of any
questions or comments you might have. Time is available to allow a study session discussion to
be scheduled on this matter if so requested by the Council.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the City Council concur with the recommendations made
for the allocation of $173,258 in 2013 CDBG funds?
SUMMARY: Each year the City must decide how to use its annual allocation of CDBG Funds.
CDBG funds are US Housing and Urban Development (HUD) funds distributed through
Hennepin County. The allocation amount for cities within the county is based on a calculation of
2010 census poverty data. The City must submit its proposed use of the allocation to Hennepin
County by February 28rd. Prior to submittal, the City must hold a public hearing. The hearing
and official City Council action will be scheduled for February 19th.
This year’s proposed use of CDBG funds reflects the City’s priorities to preserve existing
housing and increase affordable ownership opportunities. Ninety-six percent of the allocation, or
$165,758 of the $173,258, focuses on assisting low-income residents with emergency repairs,
rehab loans and affordable ownership opportunities. The remaining amount is proposed for youth
park programming at Meadowbrook Manor Park.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: CDBG funds allow cities discretion (within
the HUD guidelines) to fund projects that meet the national low income objectives and the needs
of cities. Although CDBG funding is expected to increase slightly from 2012, the federal budget
has yet to be finalized. 2012 funding levels will be used for planning purposes until the 2013
allocation is finalized. St. Louis Park will receive an estimated $173,258 in 2013. The 2013
CDBG year runs from July 1, 2013 through December 31, 2014. Staff anticipates the proposed
projects can expend the funds in a timely manner as has been our historical practice of fully
expending CDBG funds. Final funding amount may vary slightly from the estimate. Staff will
keep Council apprised of actual funding amounts.
VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to providing a well-maintained and
diverse housing stock.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion
Draft Resolution
Proposed Program Description
Prepared by: Michele Schnitker, Housing Supervisor
Reviewed by: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of January 28, 2013 (Item No. 8) Page 2
Title: Proposed Allocation of 2013 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Funds
DISCUSSION
BACKGROUND: The national objectives of the CDBG program are to benefit low and
moderate-income persons, prevention or elimination of slum or blight and/or to meet a particular
urgent community development need. From a policy perspective, the City Council has typically
focused CDBG funds on “sticks and bricks” improvements to the housing stock for low-income
families, for both single-family (SF) owners and multifamily housing residents. A small portion
of funds have also been allocated to support public services for St. Louis Park Housing Authority
(SLPHA) residents and park programming for low-income youth as well as assisting STEP with
the acquisition and renovation of a new facility and with renovations at Lenox Center.
PRESENT CONSIDERATIONS: The proposed use of CDBG funds reflects the City’s
priorities to preserve existing housing and increase affordable ownership opportunities. This
year’s proposed allocation is summarized in Table 1 below. Ninety-six percent of the allocation,
or $165,758 of the $173,258, focuses on assisting low-income residents with emergency repairs,
rehab loans, home renovations and affordable ownership opportunities. The remaining amount is
proposed for youth park programming at Meadowbrook Manor Park.
Historically, the City has allocated CDBG funds to non-profit affordable housing providers to
assist with their building renovations. With the continued high need for SF family homeowner
assistance and a proposed kitchen and bathroom replacement project to be undertaken by
Community Involvement Program at their adult foster care property located at 9011 W. 34th
Street, staff did not solicit requests from other non-profit housing providers this year, nor did any
come forward requesting CDBG assistance.
Table 1: Proposed 2013 CDBG Allocation
Project Activity
Proposed Ongoing
Activity Allocation
Low Income Single Family Emergency Repair Program $60,000 yes
Low Income Single Family Home Rehab Loan $50,000 yes
Affordable Housing Land Trust – Homes within Reach $12,500 yes
St. Louis Park Housing Authority – Rehab for scattered site home $18,258 yes
Community Involvement Program (CIP) Kitchen Replacement $25,000 no
Public Service – Youth Park Programming at Meadowbrook Park $7,500 yes
Total $173,258
NEXT STEPS: The St. Louis Park Housing Authority (SLPHA) will review and discuss the
proposed allocation at its February 13, 2013 meeting. The Commissioners’ comments will be
shared at the Public Hearing on February 19, 2013. The following actions are required to
receive 2013 CDBG funds:
February 9, 2013 Publication of Public Hearing Notice
February 19, 2013 Public Hearing and Approval of Resolution Outlining Proposed Activities
February 28, 2013 Deadline for Submission of CDBG Application to Hennepin County
Study Session Meeting of January 28, 2013 (Item No. 8) Page 3
Title: Proposed Allocation of 2013 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Funds
DRAFT RESOLUTION NO. 13 - ____
RESOLUTION APPROVING PROPOSED USE OF 2013 URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM FUNDS AND
AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF SUBRECIPIENT AGREEMENT WITH HENNEPIN
COUNTY AND ANY THIRD PARTY AGREEMENTS
WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park, through execution of a Joint Cooperation
Agreement with Hennepin County, is cooperating in the Urban Hennepin County Community
Development Block Grant Program; and
WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park has developed a proposal for the use of 2013
Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant funds made available to it; and
WHEREAS, the City held a public hearing on February 19, 2013 to obtain the views of
citizens on housing and community development needs and priorities and the City's proposed use
of $173,528 from the 2013 Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant.
BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of St. Louis Park approves the following
projects for funding from the 2013 Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block
Grant Program and authorizes submittal of the proposal to Hennepin County.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council hereby authorizes and directs the
Mayor and its City Manager to execute the Subrecipient Agreement and any required Third Party
Agreement on behalf of the City to implement the 2013 Community Development Block Grant
Program.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that should the final amount of FY2013 CDBG
available to the city be different from the preliminary amount provided to the city, the City
Council hereby authorizes the City Manager to adjust project budget(s) to reflect an increase or
decrease in funding.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council February 2013
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Project Activity Allocation
Low Income Single Family Emergency Repair Program $60,000
Low Income Single Family Home Rehab Loan $50,000
Affordable Housing Land Trust – Homes within Reach $12,500
St. Louis Park Housing Authority – Rehab for scattered site home $18,258
Community Involvement Program Kitchen Replacement $25,000
Public Service – Youth Park Programming at Meadowbrook Park $7,500
Total $173,258
Study Session Meeting of January 28, 2013 (Item No. 8) Page 4
Title: Proposed Allocation of 2013 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Funds
Proposed Program Descriptions
Emergency Repair Program – Single Family $60,000
This program is consistent with the Council’s focus on stick and bricks and has proven its
responsiveness to low income seniors and vulnerable residents with annual incomes of 50% or
less of the median area income, or $28,850 for a single person household, and assets less than
$25,000. It provides grants of up to $4,000 for emergencies such as leaking roofs, plumbing
repairs and water heaters. Community Action Partners for Suburban Hennepin County (CAPSH)
currently administers this program for the City. This is an ongoing CDBG activity.
Low Income Single Family Deferred Loan Program- $50,000
This is the primary ongoing CDBG rehab loan program targeted for homeowners with annual income
of 50% or less of the median area income, or $41,150 for a household of 4, and assets less than
$25,000. The rehab focuses on improvements to bring homes into code compliance and provide long-
term maintenance free housing. The maximum loan amount is $25,000 and is forgiven after 15 years.
Repayment is required if homeowners sell the property before the 15-year period expires.
The demand for our low-income home improvement loans and grants continues to be high. Despite
ongoing funding there is still a waiting list for the low income single family deferred loan program.
Continued funding, along with the program income realized from repayment of previous CDBG
deferred loans, should make it possible to serve three to five residents. This program is administered
by Hennepin County Housing staff.
Affordable Housing Land Trust – Homes within Reach $12,500
Homes within Reach is a program of West Hennepin Housing Land Trust that purchases homes
and sells them to low income homeowners. Buyers pay for the cost of the building only and
lease the land for 99 years. St. Louis Park funds are leveraged with Met Council and Hennepin
County HOME funds, and Homes within Reach administers this activity. Homes within Reach
have purchased ten homes in the city that have been sold to low income families. St. Louis
Park Housing Authority – renovation of a scattered site home - $18,258
The SLP Housing Authority provides housing to low income residents that are typically below
50% median income. The HA owns and manages 37 scattered site homes throughout the city.
The HA has requested $18,258 to assist with window and kitchen cabinet replacement at 2531
Xylon.
Community Involvement Program (CIP) - $25,000
CIP is a non-profit organization that offers a variety of services to adults with intellectual
disabilities and persons living with mental illness, including providing supportive and supervised
living environments where people can learn independent living skills. CIP has requested $25,000
in CDBG funds to assist with a kitchen and bathroom replacement project at an adult foster care
property located at 9011 W. 34th Street. The property houses four low income disabled adults.
CIP provides 24 hour staff supervision to assist the residents with daily living skills.
Public Service – SLP Park and Rec. Programming at Meadowbrook Manor Parks - $7,500
The Park and Recreation Department provides park programming to children at the
Meadowbrook Manor Apartment Community. The $7,500 would provide an enhanced level of
programming and ensure affordable registration fees. The youth park programming has been
funded with CDBG funds since 2007. Meadowbrook Manor Park is CDBG eligible based on
the poverty levels in this neighborhood.
Meeting: Study Session
Meeting Date: January 28, 2013
Written Report: 9
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Planned Unit Development (PUD) Amendment to Zoning Code
RECOMMENDED ACTION: No action at this time. This report is to inform Council of
proposed changes to the PUD portion of the zoning ordinance that staff is pursuing.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: What is the best way to improve and strengthen the procedure
for PUDs?
SUMMARY: Currently, the zoning ordinance allows PUDs via approval by resolution. The
proposed change would require each PUD to be approved as a zoning ordinance. In this way,
approving a PUD by ordinance is a more discretionary action of the City Council; essentially the
new procedure would create a special zoning district for each PUD. It is a clearer method for
processing PUDs and gives more weight to the approvals. Each PUD would be approved as
other ordinances are, and the PUD number or title would be placed on the zoning map. This
procedure would also eliminate requests for additional variance approvals at the time of a PUD
request. The variance request would be addressed as a part of the PUD approvals and ordinance.
Staff is working with the City Attorney to draft ordinance changes for City Council consideration
following a public hearing before the Planning Commission.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION: Not Applicable
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: None
Prepared by: Meg J. McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor
Reviewed by: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: January 28, 2013
Written Report: 10
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Proposal to Rezone Property at 3700 State Highway 100
RECOMMENDED ACTION: No action necessary at this time. This report is to identify a
proposed zoning change to property at 3700 State Highway 100, which currently is occupied by
Burlington Coat Factory and Micro Center businesses.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: A change to the zoning on the property would bring it into
compliance with the City’s policies as outlined in the Comprehensive Land Use Plan, and by its
land use map designation.
SUMMARY: This property has been designated as “Office” on the City’s official
Comprehensive Plan land use map since the entire plan was updated in 2009. It was changed as
a result of the recommendation to designate this site for office in the Elmwood Study, completed
in 2003. Since that time there have been several inquiries about using the site for additional
retail uses. To be consistent with the long range goals and Comprehensive Plan, it is
recommended it be changed to the “Office” zoning category.
NEXT STEPS: Staff is working to draft the zoning change for City Council consideration
following a public hearing before the Planning Commission.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map of Property
Prepared by: Meg J. McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor
Reviewed by: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Legend
Comprehensive Plan Land Use Categories
RL - Low Density Residential
RM - Medium Density Residential
RH - High Density Residential
MX - Mixed Use
COM - Commercial
IND - Industrial
OFC - Office
BP - Business Park
CIV - Civic
PRK - Park and Open Space
ROW - Right of Way
RRR - Railroad
Legend
Zoning Districts
R1 - Single Family Residence
R2 - Single Family Residence
R3 - One and Two Family Residence
R4 - Muliple Family Residence
RC - High Density Multiple Family Residence
MX - Mixed Use
C1 - Neighborhood Commercial
C2 - General Commercial
IP - Planned Industrial
IG - General Industrial
BP - Business Park
O - Office
POS - Parks and Open Space Highway 100Highway 7Wo
o
d
d
a
l
e
A
v
e
.
S
.
36th St. W.Xenwood Ave. S.Oxford St.
Goodrich St.Highway 100Highway 7Wo
o
d
d
a
l
e
A
v
e
.
S
.
36th St. W.Xenwood Ave. S.Oxford St.
Goodrich St.
Existing Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Designations
O F C
O F C
C 2 O
C 2 O
3 7 0 0 H w y 7
3 7 0 0 H w y 7
3 7 0 0 H w y 7
3 7 0 0 H w y 7
a
Comprehensive Plan
Zoning
January 24, 2013
Study Session Meeting of January 28, 2013 (Item No. 10)
Subject: Proposal to Rezone Property at 3700 State Highway 100 Page 2
Meeting: Study Session
Meeting Date: January 28, 2013
Written Report: 11
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Update on SW LRT Preliminary Engineering (PE) and Transitional Station Area
Action Plans (TSAAP)
RECOMMENDED ACTION: No action at this time. This report is to update the Council on
the SW LRT engineering and planning including PE and TSAAP.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park continues to be a strong supporter of the
Southwest Transitway LRT project.
SUMMARY: The SW LRT PE and TSAAP planning efforts for SW LRT are gearing up, with
much progress planned for 2013. The City continues to dedicate staff and participates actively at
all levels. Issues will come forth over the next several months; some will likely need City
Council discussion and direction. A regular update will be provided to City Council throughout
the process, and community engagement is being planned for both projects so everyone can keep
abreast of the many activities, issues and decisions as they arise. Each project has its own policy
advisory body - the Corridor Management Committee for the SW LRT PE, and the Community
Works Steering Committee for the TSAAP. The CAC and BAC groups formed for the SW LRT
will serve as sounding boards for both processes. In light of the start of the PE and TSAAP
planning process the City’s Business Park rezoning has been put on hold temporarily. We may
want to modify some of our Business Park rezoning efforts as a result of the PE or TSAAP plans.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged
community.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion
Prepared by: Meg J. McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor
Reviewed by: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of January 28, 2013 (Item No. 11) Page 2
Title: Update on SW LRT Preliminary Engineering (PE) and Transitional Station Area Action Plans (TSAAP)
DISCUSSION
BACKGROUND:
Preliminary Engineering (PE) – Metropolitan Council
Preliminary Engineering (PE) consultants began the engineering at the first of the year.
The Project Office staff is prioritizing issues, and has noted that freight rail will be one of
the very first items they will work on. They expect the freight rail route analysis and
recommendations to be ready in July.
Municipal consent plans are expected in September, with the intent they could be
approved by the end of the year.
“Issue Resolutions Groups” of staff will be set up as various issues are discussed through
the preliminary engineering process.
A Technical Project Advisory Committee (TPAC) of one planner and one engineer from
each city has been set up and will begin meeting monthly in February. This will be an
on-going committee, through construction.
• Corridor Management Committee will continue to meet monthly throughout planning and
engineering process.
• Final EIS – a Request for Proposals (RFP) is out with the Project Office asking for
consultants to propose. The FEIS is expected to be complete in May of 2014.
Transitional Station Area Action Plans – Hennepin County Community Works
Transitional Station Area Action Plans (TSAAP) is underway with the consulting firm of
HKGi.
The intent is to create an “opening day” plan, with decisions on platform locations, park
and ride at stations, access and circulation, infrastructure planning and an “action plan” to
help the cities to plan and implement the various recommendations.
A community engagement process is being designed. Likely there will be an initial open
house in March. Additional engagement will be taken on by the local cities.
City Activities
The Beltline Station Area Advisory Committee is continuing its second phase of work –
on access and circulation. A report to the City Council is expected in April.
The City received a grant for specialized planning at the Louisiana Station for pre-
development planning. Staff is currently seeking a consultant. An advisory committee
for this station area will be created for this process.