The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2013/03/11 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - Study SessionAGENDA MARCH 11, 2013 6:15 p.m. BOARDS & COMMISSION INTERVIEWS – Westwood Room 6:30 p.m. SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING – Council Chambers 1. Call to Order 1a. Pledge of Allegiance 1b. Roll Call 2. Presentations -- None 3. Approval of Minutes -- None 4. Approval of Agenda and Items on Consent Calendar NOTE: The Consent Calendar lists those items of business which are considered to be routine and/or which need no discussion. Consent items are acted upon by one motion. If discussion is desired by either a Councilmember or a member of the audience, that item may be moved to an appropriate section of the regular agenda for discussion. The items for the Consent Calendar are listed on the last page of the Agenda. Recommended Action: Motion to approve the Agenda as presented and items listed on the Consent Calendar; and to waive reading of all resolutions and ordinances. (Alternatively: Motion to add or remove items from the agenda, or move items from Consent Calendar to regular agenda for discussion.) CONSENT CALENDAR 4a. Approve second reading and Adopt Ordinance amending Xcel’s franchise ordinance #2086-97 and authorize publication in full 4b. Approve second reading and Adopt Ordinance amending CPE’s franchise ordinance #2236-03 and authorize publication in full 4c. Adopt Resolution Accepting the Project Report, Establishing City Hall Renovation Project No. 2009-1600, Approving Plans and Specifications, and Authorizing Advertisement for Bids for City Hall Renovation Project No. 2009-1600 4d. Adopt Resolution approving Utility Undergrounding Contract with Xcel Energy as part of Project No. 2012-0100, Highway 7 / Louisiana Avenue Interchange Project 5. Boards and Commissions – None 6. Public Hearing – None 7. Requests, Petitions, and Communications from the Public -- None 8. Resolutions, Ordinances, Motions and Discussion Items – None 9. Communication 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 of March 11, 2013 City Council Agenda Immediately following Special City Council Meeting STUDY SESSION – Council Chambers Discussion Items 1. 5 min. Future Study Session Agenda Planning – April 1 and April 8, 2013 2. 45 min. Liquor Ordinance and Licenses Review 3. 45 min. Storm Water Follow Up – Chemical Pond Treatments 4. 30 min. Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan Update 5. 30 min. Proposed Storm Water CIP 5 min. Communications/Meeting Check-In (Verbal) Written Reports 6. 2012 Housing Authority (HA) Annual Report and 2013 Work Plan 7. Amendment of City Code Chapter 8, Subdivisions IV– Food and Beverage, V – Public Sanitary Facilities, and VII – Lodging 8. Healthy Eating Active Living Policy 9. Telecommunications Advisory Commission 2012 Annual Report and 2013 Work Plan 10. Update on Potential Redevelopment Sites/Projects St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority and regular City Council meetings are carried live on Civic TV cable channel 17 and replays are frequent; check www.parktv.org for the schedule. The meetings are also streamed live on the internet at www.parktv.org, and saved for Video on Demand replays. The agenda is posted on Fridays on the official city bulletin board in the lobby of City Hall and on the text display on Civic TV cable channel 17. The agenda and full packet are available by noon on Friday on the city’s website. Meeting: Special City Council Meeting Date: March 11, 2013 Consent Agenda Item: 4a EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: Second Reading of Ordinance Extending Xcel Franchise Ordinance #2086-97 RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to approve second reading and Adopt Ordinance amending Xcel’s franchise ordinance #2086-97 and authorize publication in full. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does Council wish to extend the expiration date of Xcel’s current franchise ordinance through the end of 2013? SUMMARY: The City currently has a franchise agreement with Xcel Energy (Xcel) which expires May 20, 2013. City and Xcel staff have been working on terms for a new franchise ordinance since early in 2012. The renewal of the Xcel franchise is being coordinated with renewal of the CPE franchise ordinance. Recently Xcel Energy staff informed us they need additional time to respond to our concerns regarding their proposed future franchise ordinance and has requested their current ordinance be extended through the end of this year to allow adequate time to finalize these discussions. First reading for the ordinance extension was held March 4th with 2nd reading and adoption scheduled for March 11th. Staff finds this extension acceptable and has developed the following steps and schedule for amending the current Xcel franchise ordinance: First Reading March 4, 2013 Second Reading (adopt ordinance and authorize publication) March 11, 2013 Submit Ordinance to Sun Sailor March 12, 2013 Ordinance Publication March 21, 2013 Ordinance Effective Date April 5, 2013 FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Failure to extend the current franchise ordinance will result in expiration of the current franchise leading to the loss of franchise fee revenues (about $996,578) for our pavement management program. VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Ordinance Prepared by: Michael P. Rardin, Public Works Director Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Special City Council Meeting of March 11, 2013 (Item No. 4a) Page 2 Title: Second Reading of Ordinance Extending Xcel Franchise Ordinance #2086-97 ORDINANCE NO.____-13 CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ST. LOUIS PARK CITY CODE SECTION 9-603 EXTENDING THE TERM OF THE NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY FRANCHISE THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK DOES ORDAIN: SECTION 1. Section 9-603(1) of the St. Louis Park City Code is amended to extend the term of the franchise granted to Northern States Power Company d/b/a Xcel Energy through December 31, 2013. SECTION 2. This Ordinance shall take effect fifteen days after its passage and publication. First Reading March 4, 2013 Second Reading March 11, 2013 Date of Publication March 21, 2013 Date Ordinance takes effect April 5, 2013 ADOPTED this ______ day of ____________, 2013, by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park. Reviewed for Administration Adopted by the City Council March 11, 2013 City Manager Mayor Attest: Approved as to Form and Execution: City Clerk City Attorney Meeting: Special City Council Meeting Date: March 11, 2013 Consent Agenda Item: 4b EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: Second Reading of Ordinance Extending CenterPoint Energy Franchise Ordinance #2236-03 RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to approve second reading and Adopt Ordinance amending CPE’s franchise ordinance #2236-03 and authorize publication in full. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does Council wish to extend the expiration date of CPE’s current franchise ordinance through the end of 2013? SUMMARY: The City currently has a franchise agreement with CenterPoint Energy (CPE) which expires July 1, 2013. City and CPE staffs have been working on terms for a new franchise ordinance since early in 2012. The renewal of the CPE franchise is being coordinated with renewal of the Xcel franchise ordinance. To coordinate the renewal of CPE’s franchise ordinance with Xcel’s renewal results in a need to also extend CPE’s current ordinance through the end of 2013. Staff finds this extension acceptable and has developed the following steps and schedule for amending the current Xcel franchise ordinance: First Reading March 4, 2013 Second Reading (adopt ordinance and authorize publication) March 11, 2013 Submit Ordinance to Sun Sailor March 12, 2013 Ordinance Publication March 21, 2013 Ordinance Effective Date April 5, 2013 FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Failure to extend the current franchise ordinance will result in expiration of the current franchise leading to the loss of franchise fee revenues (about $615,144) for our pavement management program. VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Ordinance Prepared by: Michael P. Rardin, Public Works Director Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Special City Council Meeting of March 11, 2013 (Item No. 4b) Page 2 Title: Second Reading of Ordinance Extending CenterPoint Energy Franchise Ordinance #2236-03 ORDINANCE NO.____-13 CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ST. LOUIS PARK CITY ORDINANCE 2236-03 EXTENDING THE TERM OF THE CENTERPOINT ENERGY MINNEGASCO FRANCHISE THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK DOES ORDAIN: SECTION 1. Section 2. Franchise (2.1) of St. Louis Park City Ordinance No. 2236-03 is amended to extend the term of the franchise granted to CenterPoint Energy Minnegasco through December 31, 2013. SECTION 2. This Ordinance shall take effect fifteen days after its passage and publication. First Reading March 4, 2013 Second Reading March 11, 2013 Date of Publication March 21, 2013 Date Ordinance takes effect April 5, 2013 ADOPTED this ______ day of ____________, 2013, by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park. Reviewed for Administration Adopted by the City Council March 11, 2013 City Manager Mayor Attest: Approved as to Form and Execution: City Clerk City Attorney Meeting: Special City Council Meeting Date: March 11, 2013 Consent Agenda Item: 4c EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: City Hall Renovation Project No. 2009-1600 RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to Adopt Resolution Accepting the Project Report, Establishing City Hall Renovation Project No. 2009-1600, Approving Plans and Specifications, and Authorizing Advertisement for Bids for City Hall Renovation Project No. 2009-1600. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does Council want to proceed with the City Hall renovation project by authorizing the advertisement for bids? SUMMARY: This project’s completed design has met the goals for creating a functional and inviting City Hall entrance for the public, including improved service delivery and office space for the IR Department. Krech, O’Brien, Mueller, and Associates (KOMA) prepared the plans and specifications for this work and will be providing the City contract management services throughout construction process. With the currently projected bid-letting in May, the expected construction will be occurring between June and October 2013. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: A total project cost of $2.29 million is proposed based on the construction cost estimates provided by KOMA and furnishing estimates by Hendrickson office products. This sum includes design fees from the initial concept study through construction completion and a 10% contingency. The estimated project cost is less than the $2.43 million specified for City Hall construction projects in 2013. City Controller Brian Swanson has confirmed that the amount can be allocated from the Capital Replacement Fund without negatively affecting the long range financial plan Estimated Project Costs: Construction W/Alternates $1,672,358 Design $ 190,000 Workspaces and Miscellaneous $ 267,500 Contingency $ 160,000 Total $2,289,858 Funding Source: Capital Replacement Fund $2,430,000 VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged community SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion Resolution Prepared by: Brian Hoffman, Director of Inspections Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Special City Council Meeting of March 11, 2013 (Item No. 4c) Title: City Hall Renovation Project No. 2009-1600 Page 2 DISCUSSION BACKGROUND: Design criteria for creating a remodeled public entrance and first floor of City Hall began during 2011 before the Fire Department administration staff moved into Fire Station #1. The need for an improved service experience has been evident for many years since the relocation of the reception area to first floor in 2000 following elimination of parking on Minnetonka Blvd. The design firm of Krech, O’Brien, Mueller, and Associates (KOMA) was retained to develop conceptual design possibilities. A presentation to Council on July 23, 2012 resulted in proceeding with development of construction drawings and specifications. Council provided direction during the November 5, 2012 meeting to integrate a public art component into the project. Forecast Public Art is assisting staff in the process to select an artist for designing art glass windows in the new community room. Artist selection is expected to occur during April, 2013. The commissioned windows are planned to be completed in July/August to coordinate with the construction schedule. PRESENT CONSIDERATIONS: KOMA utilized PCL construction to provide cost estimating of the final plans presented to Council on February 25, 2013. Hendrickson PSG, a State contract provider of many office products and the DIRTT wall system, has provided the office workspace and first floor furnishings estimate. Estimated total project costs are as follows: General contractor base $1,574,934 Bid alternate #1 (A/V equipment) $60,411 Bid alternate #2 (electric car charger) $15,500 Bid Alternate #3 (delivery room) $21,513 Workspaces and furnishings $185,000 Construction Contingency (10%) $160,000 Permits $20,000 Public Art $30,000 Benches/rack/landscaping (by city) $20,000 Sidewalk to temporary 2nd floor entrance $9,500 Soils Testing $3,000 Initial concept design (KOMA) $30,000 Full design plans and specifications (KOMA) $160,000 Total project budget with alternates accepted = $2,289,858 The $2.29 million is within the $2.43 million allocated in the 2013 CRF. Special City Council Meeting of March 11, 2013 (Item No. 4c) Title: City Hall Renovation Project No. 2009-1600 Page 3 NEXT STEPS: Should the City Council approve the Project Report and authorize advertisement, the following project schedule is planned: • Advertise for bids March 21, 2013 • Mandatory Pre-Bid Meeting with Bidders April 8, 2013 • Bid Opening April 18,2013 • Bid Tab Report to City Council; Award Contract May 6, 2013 • Contractor authorized to begin June 1, 2013 • Substantial Completion October 11, 2013 • Final Completion November 1, 2013 Arrangements for relocating the IR department staff to other city buildings during City hall construction are being developed. The Police Station, MSC, and Fire Station #1 will be set-up with temporary workstations. During construction, the first floor and at times the interior stairs will not be available for staff or public use. City Hall will continue to operate during construction for the remaining staff and public, although with some changes. The main parking area for public guests will be on the east side of City Hall with sidewalk access to the second floor lobby. A temporary reception counter will be located near the second floor entrance on the north side of City Hall. Disabled parking and accessibility will be provided through the new sidewalk installed last year. Special City Council Meeting of March 11, 2013 (Item No. 4c) Title: City Hall Renovation Project No. 2009-1600 Page 4 RESOLUTION NO. 13-____ RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE PROJECT REPORT, ESTABLISHING CITY HALL RENOVATION PROJECT NO. 2009-1600 APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS, AND AUTHORIZING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS FOR CITY HALL RENOVATION PROJECT NO. 2009-1600 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park has received a report from the Director of Inspections related to the Renovation of City Hall. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, that: 1. The Project Report regarding Project No. 2009-1600 is hereby accepted. 2. Such improvements as proposed are necessary, cost effective, and feasible as detailed in the Project Report. 3. The proposed project, designated as Project No. 2009-1600, is hereby established and ordered. 4. The plans and specifications for the making of these improvements, as prepared under the direction of the Director of Inspections, or designee, are approved. 5. The City Clerk shall prepare and cause to be inserted at least two weeks in the official newspaper and in relevant industry publications an advertisement for bids for the making of said improvements under said-approved plans and specifications. The advertisement shall appear not less than ten (10) days prior to the date and time bids will be received by the City Clerk, and that no bids will be considered unless sealed and filed with the City Clerk and accompanied by a bid bond payable to the City for five (5) percent of the amount of the bid. 6. The Director of Inspections, or designee, shall report the receipt of bids to the City Council shortly after the letting date. The report shall include a tabulation of the bid results and a recommendation to the City Council. Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council March 11, 2013 City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk Meeting: Special City Council Meeting Date: March 11, 2013 Consent Agenda Item: 4d EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: Resolution Approving Utility Undergrounding Contract with Xcel Energy - Highway 7 and Louisiana Avenue Interchange Project RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to Adopt Resolution approving Utility Undergrounding Contract with Xcel Energy as part of Project No. 2012-0100, Highway 7 / Louisiana Avenue Interchange Project POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the City Council wish to continue to take the necessary steps to keep this project on schedule for construction commencing in 2013? SUMMARY: Construction of the new interchange at Highway 7 and Louisiana Avenue will require relocation of the Xcel Energy power lines along the south side of Highway 7 and along the north side of Lake Street through the limits of the interchange project area. It was discussed and decided at the February 27, 2012 Council Study Session meeting to underground the power lines through the project area to aid the construction staging plans as well as improve the aesthetics along the Louisiana corridor just south of Highway 7. After several months of coordination efforts, it was determined that Xcel Energy will relocate their overhead facilities in a concrete duct system buried beneath Lake Street. The City is responsible for the undergrounding charges. Xcel Energy has provided a cover letter and utility underground contract (see attachments) describing the proposed work and how they determine their costs. The estimated cost for relocating and undergrounding Xcel Energy’s power lines is $871,986. The agreement provides for a payment schedule with 50 percent of the costs to be paid prior to construction and the remaining balance upon completion of the relocation work. Final costs will be based upon their actual time and materials used to complete the work. Staff and the City Attorney have worked together with Xcel Energy to come to an agreement on the terms of this contract. The cost of the undergrounding project has been included in the overall project cost estimate for the interchange project. Xcel Energy will begin work shortly after execution of the contract. Their work will be conducted in three phases: 1) Install the new underground duct system, 2) Relocate the Highway 7 power lines into the duct system, 3) Relocate the Lake Street power lines into the new duct system. Phase 1 and 2 will occur prior to the interchange work and Phase 3 will occur concurrently with the early stages of the interchange work. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: HRA Levy monies are funding this work. VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Resolution Xcel Energy Cover Letter & Utility Relocation Agreement Prepared by: Jim Olson, Engineering Project Manager Reviewed by: Michael P. Rardin, Public Works Director Scott Brink, City Engineer Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Special City Council Meeting of March 11, 2013 (Item No. 4d) Page 2 Title: Resolution Approving Utility Undergrounding Contract w/ Xcel - Hwy 7 & Louisiana Ave Interchange RESOLUTION NO. 13-____ RESOLUTION APPROVING UTILITY UNDERGROUNDING CONTRACT WITH XCEL ENERGY NEEDED FOR THE HIGHWAY 7 AND LOUISIANA AVENUE INTERCHANGE PROEJCT, CITY PROJECT NO. 2012-0100 WHEREAS, City Council approved Project No. 2012-0100 on December 3, 2012; and WHEREAS, It is necessary and beneficial to underground XCEL Energy’s aerial power lines along the south side of Highway 7 and along the north side of Lake Street into an underground duct system beneath Lakes Street within the interchange project area ; and WHEREAS, Xcel Energy has submitted plans and a permit application to underground the lines beneath Lake Street; and WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park is responsible for the cost to undergrounding the power lines; and WHEREAS, Xcel Energy has prepared a Utility Undergrounding Contract outlining cost responsibilities of the City of St. Louis Park. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, that: The Mayor and City Manager are authorized to sign the Xcel Energy Utility Undergrounding Contract on behalf of the City of St. Louis Park. Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council March 11, 2013 City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk Study Session Meeting of March 11, 2013 (Item No. 4d) Title: Resolution Approving Utility Undergrounding Contract w/ Xcel - Hwy 7 & Louisiana Ave Interchange Page 3 Study Session Meeting of March 11, 2013 (Item No. 4d) Title: Resolution Approving Utility Undergrounding Contract w/ Xcel - Hwy 7 & Louisiana Ave Interchange Page 4 Study Session Meeting of March 11, 2013 (Item No. 4d) Title: Resolution Approving Utility Undergrounding Contract w/ Xcel - Hwy 7 & Louisiana Ave Interchange Page 5 Meeting: Study Session Meeting Date: March 11, 2013 Discussion Item: 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: Future Study Session Agenda Planning – April 1 & April 8, 2013 RECOMMENDED ACTION: The City Council and the City Manager to set the agenda for the Special Study Session scheduled for April 1, 2013 and the regularly scheduled Study Session on April 8, 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 Special Study Session scheduled for April 1, 2013 and the regularly scheduled Study Session on April 8, 2013. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Future Study Session Agenda Planning – April 1 & 8, 2013 Prepared by: Debbie Fischer, Office Assistant Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Study Session Meeting of March 11, 2013 (Item No. 1) Page 2 Title: Future Study Session Agenda Planning – April 1 & April 8, 2013 Special Study Session, April 1, 2013 – 7:00 p.m. Tentative Discussion Items 1. 2013 Assessment Report – Assessing (30 minutes) Staff will review highlights of the 2013 Assessment, comment on Market activity and answer any related questions. This presentation is in preparation for the annual Board of Equalization process. (City Council Meeting, April 1, 2013 – 7:30 p.m.) Special Study Session Continued, April 1, 2013 – Immediately Following City Council Mtg. 2. McGarvey Coffee Redevelopment Proposal – Community Development (45 minutes) Don Kasbohm has submitted a concept plan for redeveloping the McGarvey Coffee site. The concept includes 151 apartments and approximately 7,200 sf of commercial space in two buildings. Mr. Kasbohm proposes to acquire the adjacent EDA property for the development. Reports 3. Parks & Recreation Advisory Commission Annual Report and Goals Convene Local Board of Appeal & Equalization, April 8 – 6:30 p.m. Study Session, April 8, 2013 – 6:45 p.m. Tentative Discussion Items 1. Future Study Session Agenda Planning – Administrative Services (5 minutes) 2. SWLRT Update – Community Development (45 minutes) Update and discussion of the planning and engineering that is occurring, as well as a proposed plan for outreach and engagement in St. Louis Park. 3. Highway 100 Project Update – Public Works (30 minutes) Update the Council on recent project activities related visual quality (aesthetics) and public art – Project No. 2005-2000 Communications/Meeting Check-In – Administrative Services (5 minutes) Time for communications between staff and Council will be set aside on every study session agenda for the purposes of information sharing. End of Meeting: 8:10 p.m. Meeting: Study Session Meeting Date: March 11, 2013 Discussion Item: 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: Liquor Ordinance and Licenses Review RECOMMENDED ACTION: None at this time. This report is in response to the Council’s request for information on the City’s ordinances related to the sale of liquor. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Is there any other information needed by Council in reviewing the City’s liquor ordinances as they relate to the sale of liquor? SUMMARY: The City primarily regulates on-sale liquor licenses through the 50/50 gross receipts for food and liquor requirement. The City has other regulations regarding proximity to a school or church and window signage. The 50/50 requirement is typical of cities, as shown in the attached liquor requirements survey. There are currently no restrictions on the number of off-sale and on-sale intoxicating liquor licenses a City may issue. City Ordinance does allow the Council to restrict the number of any type of liquor license within designated areas or zoning districts within the City by resolution. In the past staff has recommended such a restriction be set by ordinance, which could be more easily regulated. The City has currently issued off-sale liquor licenses to 20 different establishments in three different categories. The City has also issued on-sale liquor licenses to 35 different establishments in five different categories. Charts are included in the Discussion attachment that shows the year-over-year change in numbers of licenses issued. Other attachments list the City’s liquor licenses and their location on a map of the City. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. VISION CONSIDERATION: Not Applicable SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion List of Liquor Licensees Liquor Requirements Survey Off-Sale Liquor Establishments Map On-Sale Liquor Establishments Map Prepared by: Ray French, Administrative Services Intern Reviewed by: Nancy Stroth, City Clerk Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Study Session Meeting of March 11, 2013 (Item No. 2) Page 2 Title: Liquor Ordinance and Licenses Review DISCUSSION BACKGROUND: Council has requested time to discuss the City’s ordinances and licensing as it relates to the sale of liquor. The following discusses the requirements for liquor licenses in the City’s ordinances and then follows with a review of the numbers and types of liquor licenses the City has issued. Food Receipts: The primary City regulation of on-sale liquor licenses is the requirement that at least 50 percent of the gross receipts of the licensed establishment be attributable to the sale of food, known as the 50/50 requirement. The liquor requirements survey attachment shows the numbers of licenses of each type and the existence of other requirements, such as a food-to-liquor ratio, for cities similar to or of interest to St. Louis Park. The 50/50 requirement is the most common regulation for on-sale intoxicating liquor licenses. Other prohibited conditions: The City also prohibits liquor licenses from being issued within 300 feet of a school or church and prohibits the total window signage from covering more than 50% of the windows fronting a street. Restricting the number of licenses: There are currently no restrictions on the number of off-sale and on-sale intoxicating liquor licenses a City may issue. City Ordinance does allow the Council to restrict the number of any type of liquor license within designated areas or zoning districts within the City by resolution. In the past staff has recommended such a restriction be set by ordinance, which could be more easily regulated. Off-Sale Liquor Licenses and Number Issued: The City has currently issued off-sale liquor licenses to 20 different establishments in three different categories. They are stated below. • Off-Sale Intoxicating (Liquor Stores): 15 locations • Off-Sale 3.2 (Grocery Stores): 3 locations • Off-Sale Brew/Pub: 2 locations The chart below shows the recent year-over-year change in numbers of off-sale liquor licenses issued by type of license. Year Off-Sale Intox (Liquor Stores) Off-Sale 3.2 (Grocery Stores) Off-Sale Brew/Pub Total Off-Sale 2013 15 3 2 20 2012 15 3 2 20 2011 14 3 1 18 2010 13 4 1 18 2009 12 3 1 16 2008 11 3 0 14 2007 13 3 0 16 2006 10 2 0 12 2005 10 2 0 12 2004 9 3 0 12 2003 9 4 0 13 Study Session Meeting of March 11, 2013 (Item No. 2) Page 3 Title: Liquor Ordinance and Licenses Review On-Sale Liquor Licenses and Number Issued: The City has currently issued on-sale liquor licenses to 35 different establishments in five different categories. They are stated below. • On-Sale Intoxicating: 23 locations • On-Sale Wine: 8 locations* • On-Sale Club: 2 locations • On-Sale 3.2 Only: 1 location • On-Sale Taproom: 1 location *All On-Sale Wine licensees are licensed for On-Sale 3.2 as well. The chart below shows the recent year-over-year change in numbers of on-sale liquor licenses issued by type of license. The total number of on-sale liquor licenses stayed relatively constant until the development of the West End. Year On-Sale Intoxicating On-Sale Wine On-Sale Club On-Sale 3.2 Only On-Sale Taproom Total On-Sale 2013 23 8 2 1 1 35 2012 25 9 2 1 1 38 2011 23 10 2 1 0 36 2010 18 9 2 1 0 30 2009 17 9 2 0 0 28 2008 19 7 2 0 0 28 2007 18 9 2 0 0 29 2006 20 8 2 0 0 30 2005 19 7 2 0 0 29 2004 20 6 2 0 0 28 2003 18 6 2 0 0 26 Following this discussion is a list of the liquor licenses issued by the City of St. Louis Park, the results of the liquor requirements survey of other cities, a map of the off-sale liquor establishments, and a map of the on-sale liquor establishments. The survey shows that St. Louis Park has 53 liquor licensed establishments. This differs from the charts above that show the City has issued 55 liquor licenses because two establishments have been issued both an on-sale and off-sale liquor license (Granite City and Steel Toe Brewing). NEXT STEPS: Staff prepared this report in response to the Council’s request for information on the City’s ordinances related to the sale of liquor. Any future steps depends on direction given by the City Council Study Session Meeting of March 11, 2013 (Item No. 2) Page 4 Title: Liquor Ordinance and Licenses Review Establishment Name Address License Type Byerly's Wine & Spirits 3777 Park Ctr Blvd Off Sale - Intoxicating Cedar Lake Wine & Spirits 5330 Cedar Lake Rd Suite 500 Off Sale - Intoxicating Costco Wholesale #377 5801 W 16th St Off Sale - Intoxicating Jennings' Liquor Store 4631 Excelsior Blvd Off Sale - Intoxicating Knollwood Liquor 7924 Hwy 7, Suite A Off Sale - Intoxicating Liquor Barrel 5111 Excelsior Blvd Off Sale - Intoxicating Liquor Boy 5620 Cedar Lake Rd Off Sale - Intoxicating Rainbow Foods #8903 5370 16th Street W Off Sale - Intoxicating Sam's Club #6318 3745 Louisiana Ave S Off Sale - Intoxicating St. Louis Park Liquors 6316 Minnetonka Blvd Off Sale - Intoxicating Texas-Tonka Liquor 8242 Minnetonka Blvd Off Sale - Intoxicating The Four Firkins 5630 West 36th Street Off Sale - Intoxicating Trader Joe's #710 4500 Excelsior Blvd Off Sale - Intoxicating Vintage Wine & Spiritz 8942 Highway 7 Off Sale - Intoxicating Westwood Liquors 2304 Louisiana Ave S Off Sale - Intoxicating Target Store T-2189 8900 Highway 7 Off Sale - 3.2 Cub Foods Knollwood 3620 Texas Ave S Off Sale - 3.2 Rainbow Foods #8803 5370 16th Street W Off Sale - 3.2 Applebee's Neighborhood Grill & Bar 8332 Highway 7 Suite 242 On Sale - Intoxicating & Sunday Bunny's Bar and Grill 5916 Excelsior Blvd On Sale - Intoxicating &Sunday Cooper Irish Pub 1607 Park Place Blvd On Sale - Intoxicating & Sunday Crave 1603 West End Blvd On Sale - Intoxicating & Sunday Doubletree Park Place Hotel 1500 Park Place Blvd On Sale - Intoxicating & Sunday El Patron Mexican Cuisine 8140 Highway 7 On Sale - Intoxicating & Sunday Figlio 5331 W. 16th Street On Sale - Intoxicating & Sunday Little Szechuan 5377 W. 16th Street On Sale - Intoxicating & Sunday Marriot Minneapolis West 9960 and 9970 Wayzata Blvd On Sale - Intoxicating & Sunday McCoy's Public House 3801 Grand Way On Sale - Intoxicating & Sunday Mill Valley Kitchen 3906 Excelsior Blvd On Sale - Intoxicating & Sunday Park Tavern Lounge & Lanes 3401 Louisiana Ave S On Sale - Intoxicating & Sunday Raku Sushi & Lounge 5371 W. 16th St On Sale - Intoxicating & Sunday Rojo Mexican Grill 1602 West End Blvd On Sale - Intoxicating & Sunday Showplace 14 #8863 1625 West End Blvd Street On Sale - Intoxicating & Sunday St. Louis Park Woodfire Grill 6501 Wayzata Blvd On Sale - Intoxicating & Sunday Texa-Tonka Lanes 8200 Minnetonka Blvd On Sale - Intoxicating & Sunday TGI Friday's 5875 Wayzata Blvd On Sale - Intoxicating & Sunday Thanh Do 8028 Minnetonka Blvd On Sale - Intoxicating & Sunday The Olive Garden Italian Restaurant 5235 Wayzata Blvd On Sale - Intoxicating & Sunday Toby Keith's I Love this Bar & Grill 1623 Park Place Blvd On Sale - Intoxicating & Sunday Yangtze River Restaurant 5625 Wayzata Blvd On Sale - Intoxicating & Sunday Best of India 8120 Minnetonka Blvd On Sale - Wine & 3.2 Chipotle Mexican Grill 5480 Excelsior Blvd On Sale - Wine & 3.2 Noodles & Company 5326 16th Street W On Sale - Wine & 3.2 Pei Wei Asian Diner 5330 Cedar Lake Road #600 On Sale - Wine & 3.2 Taste of India 5617 Wayzata Blvd On Sale - Wine & 3.2 Vescio's Cucina 4001 Co Rd 25 On Sale - Wine & 3.2 Wok in the Park, A 3005 Utah Ave South On Sale - Wine & 3.2 Yum! Kitchen and Bakery 4000 Minnetonka Blvd On Sale - Wine & 3.2 Granite City Food & Brewery 5500 Excelsior Blvd On Sale - Intoxicating & Sunday Off-Sale - Brew Pub Steel Toe Brewing 4848 W. 35th Street On Sale - Taproom Off-Sale - Brew Pub Homewood Suites 5305 Wayzata Blvd On Sale - 3.2 American Legion Post 282 5605 36th St W On Sale - Club & Sunday Minneapolis Golf Club 2001 Flag Ave S On Sale - Club & Sunday List of Liquor Licenses CITY Population Total OFF Sale Intox (liquor stores) OFF Sale Intox (liquor stores) per capita Total ON-Sale Intox Total ON-Sale Wine Total Liquor Licensed Establishments Other limitations Reqmt?Food %Liquor % Hopkins 17,500 8 1 per 2,200 7 4 23 YES 50% 50% Cannot be within 350 feet of school, daycare, church, an existing off-sale liquor store, pawn shop, license currency exchange. Limit 10 on- sale licenses granted in a year. No statement of 50/50 required at renewals. Golden Valley 20,371 6 1 per 3,400 14 4 24 YES 70% 30% New Hope 20,824 7 1 per 3,000 6 0 13 YES 50% 50%Limit to 6 on-sale intox licenses, 7 off-sale Brooklyn Center 30,104 2 (municipal)1 per 15,000 6 4 22 YES 50% 50% St. Louis Park 45,250 15 1 per 3,000 23 8 53 YES 50% 50% Cannot be within 300 feet of school or church. Off sale - total window signage coverage not >50% Edina 47,425 3 (municipal)1 per 15,800 18 11 40 YES 60% 40% Minnetonka 49,374 13 1 per 3,800 19 9 46 YES 50% 50% 12 off-sale licenses, but council has discretion to approve for purposes of area and type of service. Blaine 58,331 8 1 per 7,300 23 3 57 NO - -Restaurants not required to report sales Burnsville 60,220 12 1 per 5,000 31 15 72 NO - - 3/4 miles apart, Maximum 12 off sale 1 per 5,000 population. Eden Prairie 60,797 3 (municipal)1 per 20,000 28 16 61 YES 50% 50% Woodbury 63,000 11 1 per 5,700 26 14 62 YES 50% 50% Requires notarized compliance document 50/50 met Maple Grove 64,000 10 1 per 6,400 38 3 56 YES 51% 49% Eagan 64,456 17 1 per 3,800 32 7 73 NO - - Recently removed 50/50 % requirement - limit to 37 on sale intox (statutory city) Plymouth 70,576 13 1 per 5,400 21 10 64 YES 40% 60% Brooklyn Park 72,724 15 1 per 4,800 11 3 31 YES 25% 75% Recent February 2013 moratorium on any new off sale for 6 months Bloomington 82,893 23 1 per 3,600 55 15 129 YES 40% 60% 60% liquor for past 10+ years with minimal issues Food/Liquor Ratio Percentages required for ON-Sale Intox Licenses Liquor Requirements Survey Study Session Meeting of March 11, 2013 (Item No. 2) Title: Liquor Ordinance and Licenses Review Page 5 ! "#$%& ’( # $% ! $% )*’+, #)*’+, )*’+, # -$ .//0)12 , .//*’+)* , .//3()+ , 4 %5 5’2 15’+2 44 !116+51* Study Session Meeting of March 11, 2013 (Item No. 2) Title: Liquor Ordinance and Licenses Review Page 6 !" #$% & ’( )*+ ,*)( ,- !" *./0 1% "’ !2) % 13 " #(+,&, 4 ! &)() *5)" 1 6&" "’. 1 "1 )(787 3.* *.( 62*!97:; 62*98; 62*197; 62*:5769/; 62*9/; //<7=/: = =5> /=57> Study Session Meeting of March 11, 2013 (Item No. 2) Title: Liquor Ordinance and Licenses Review Page 7 Meeting: Study Session Meeting Date: March 11, 2013 Discussion Item: 3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: Storm Water Follow Up – Chemical Pond Treatments RECOMMENDED ACTION: The purpose of this discussion is to provide Council with information regarding the proposed chemical treatment of 8 identified water bodies in the city. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does Council want staff to pursue treatment of the 5 additional water bodies? If so, which ones? What, if any, concerns does Council have with the process proposed for doing this? SUMMARY: Chemical treatment of three (3) water bodies is currently being done by the City and one water body (Utah Pond) is being privately treated. Treatment of five (5) additional water bodies identified by Council may be done if approved by DNR (permit required) and/or by adjacent residents. Aside from putting chemicals into a water body, the following pros and cons are associated with chemical treatments: Advantages: • relatively inexpensive and easy to apply • may control algae and macrophtyte (a macroscopic plant – large enough to be seen by naked eye) growth Disadvantages: • Decomposing plant material releases nutrients to water column* • Short-term benefit may require temporary restriction on recreational activities • Dissolved oxygen depletion due to decomposing plants; low oxygen limits amount of aquatic life in water* • Repeat annual applications needed *Note – all plants die each year and decompose; however, when treated with chemicals the plants die all at once which tends to load the water column with nutrients. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: These additional treatments will cost approximately $67,300 per year. Assuming the City Council desired to treat these water bodies on an ongoing basis, a rate increase will be necessary. For single family residential properties the rate would need to be increased by approximately 2%, or $1.28/yr. VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to being a leader in environmental stewardship. We will increase environmental consciousness and responsibility in all areas of city business. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion May 29, 2012 Study Session Report Pond Classifications and Size Information Prepared by: Michael P. Rardin, Public Works Director Jim Vaughan, Environmental Coordinator Reviewed by: Scott Anderson, Utilities Superintendent Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Study Session Meeting of March 11, 2013 (Item No. 3) Page 2 Title: Storm Water Follow Up – Chemical Pond Treatments DISCUSSION PURPOSE: The purpose of this discussion is to provide Council with information regarding the proposed chemical treatment of 8 identified water bodies in the city to include: 1) possible and recommended treatment methods; 2) impacts (pros / cons) associated with possible treatment methods; 3) estimated treatment costs; 4) proposed treatment program; and, 5) implementation process and next steps (to include public involvement). BACKGROUND: At the May 29, 2012 Study Session (report attached) staff proposed pond classifications for Council consideration along with the process and estimated costs associated with performing aquatic plant treatments in “public” ponds and lakes. It was the consensus of the City Council to agree with the pond classifications developed by staff (attached). It was also the consensus of the City Council to further discuss chemical and non-chemical treatment options for the water bodies identified by Council (Table 1), including Lamplighter, and to also discuss cost and the positive/negative impacts of treatment. It was also the consensus of the City Council to undertake a public process if treatment options are to be pursued. Table 1 Water bodies identified by Council on May 29, 2012 for possible treatment Name Size (acres) Classification Classification Classification DNR Permit Required Current Complaints Ownership Recreational or Aesthetic Use Functional Use Bass Lake 29.3 X X X X Veg Lamplighter 19.2 X X X X Odor Twin Lakes 12.4 X X X X Veg & Odor Oregon 4.5 X X X Odor Westdale Sed Basins 2.2 X X Veg & Odor Hampshire 1.9 X X Odor Wolfe 2.3 X X X Cattail 1.4 X X X Ownership - indicates water bodies where city owns 50% or more of the surrounding property Recreational or Aesthetic Purpose - rated as being used by the general public (not solely by adjacent owners) Functional Aspects - rated as necessary (and of public interest) for surface water needs (quantity and quality purposes) DNR Permit Required - for treatments of water bodies of 2.5 acres or larger Currently Generates Complaints - complaints received by city regarding unwanted odors, algae, and vegetation Study Session Meeting of March 11, 2013 (Item No. 3) Page 3 Title: Storm Water Follow Up – Chemical Pond Treatments PRESENT CONSIDERATIONS: Staff was asked to research the feasibility of chemically treating select water bodies in St. Louis Park (identified above). The following provides background and summary information related to this. MN DNR Aquatic Plant Regulations Under Minnesota law, aquatic plants growing in public waters are the property of the state. Because of their value to the lake ecosystem, they may not be destroyed or transplanted unless authorized by the Commissioner of the Department of Natural Resources as stipulated in the Aquatic Plant Management Rules. (A "public water" is generally any body of water 2.5 acres or larger within an incorporated city limit, or 10 acres or larger in rural areas) Activities NOT allowed: • Excavating the lake bottom for aquatic plant control • Use of hydraulic jets • Destroying or preventing the growth of aquatic plants by using lake bottom barriers. • Removing aquatic vegetation within posted fish-spawning areas. • Removing aquatic plants from an undeveloped shoreline. • Removing aquatic plants where they do not interfere with swimming, boating, or other recreation. Control methods which MUST HAVE a permit • Destruction of any emergent vegetation (for example, cattails and bulrushes). • Cutting or pulling by hand, or by mechanical means, submerged vegetation in an area larger than 2,500 square feet. • Applying herbicides or algaecides. • Moving or removing a bog of any size that is free-floating or lodged in any area other than its place of origin in public waters. • Transplanting aquatic plants into public waters. • Use of automated plant control devices (such as the Crary WeedRoller). • Physical removal of floating-leaf vegetation from an area larger than a channel 15 feet wide extending to open water. When a permit is NOT needed If you are a lakeshore-property owner who wants to create or maintain a swimming or boat- docking area, you may cut or pull submerged vegetation such as Elodea, without a DNR permit under certain conditions: • First, the area to be cleared must be no larger than 2,500 square feet. • Second, the cleared area must not extend more than 50 feet along the shoreline or one- half the length of your shoreline, whichever is less. A boat channel up to 15 feet wide, and as long as necessary to reach open water, may also be cleared, through submerged vegetation. (The boat channel is in addition to the 2,500 square feet allowed). Any other destruction of floating-leaf vegetation requires a permit. Applying for a permit The DNR does not grant permits automatically. Site inspections are required for first time permits. Applications may be denied or modified for several reasons: because the plant beds in question are too valuable for fish or wildlife or because the plants are part of protected natural areas. To ensure that plant control is done correctly and with proper care for the environment, the following is required: Study Session Meeting of March 11, 2013 (Item No. 3) Page 4 Title: Storm Water Follow Up – Chemical Pond Treatments 1. If herbicides are permitted carefully read the product label and follow all instructions. 2. Notify the DNR before control operations begin, as specified on the permit. 3. Post signs that identify the area that will be treated with an herbicide. (These signs are included with the permit or are furnished by the DNR to the commercial applicator.) Problem aquatic plants The DNR does not encourage the destruction of aquatic vegetation. However, the DNR recognizes that aquatic plants may interfere with a homeowner's right to reasonable access to open water and recreation. To balance the needs of conservation and those of recreation, the DNR has developed an Aquatic Plant Management Program. This program, operated under Minnesota Rules, requires permits for controlling, planting, or destroying aquatic plants and other organisms in public waters and public waters wetlands. Because plants provide many benefits to the water environment, requests to destroy vegetation are limited to areas where plants seriously interfere with recreational use. Two common ways to control aquatic plants: 1. Mechanical control means to cut or pull by hand or with equipment such as rakes, cutting blades, hand-operated, or motorized trimmers. Large-scale mechanical control often uses floating, motorized harvesting machines that cut the plants and remove them from the water. The plants are taken to shore for proper disposal. All plants that are mechanically controlled must be removed from the lake. 2. Herbicide (chemical) control means to use plant-killing chemicals that are applied in liquid, granular, or pellet form. The aquatic plants die (sometimes only the stems and leaves) and decompose in the lake. Areas treated with aquatic herbicide are posted with signs to inform lake users of any water use restrictions resulting from the application of the pesticide. Aquatic plant control is temporary because aquatic plants grow back from root crowns, seeds, and other plant parts. Aquatic plant stewardship Stewardship: moving from short-term control to long-term prevention measures such as cutting, pulling, or using herbicides can control aquatic plants from season to season. But in the long run, the best way to combat excessive growth of aquatic plants is prevention--reducing the flow of nutrients, sediments, and exotic species moving into a lake or stream. Listed below are a few practical steps that can be taken to maintain good water quality-and prevent excessive plant growth-in lakes or ponds. It will take time before these steps improve water quality and reduce plant growth, but they are essential for sustaining and enhancing desirable plant communities in Minnesota lakes. • Use discretion when fertilizing your property (whether it is directly on the lakeshore or elsewhere within the lake's watershed). Have your soil tested to determine if you really need to fertilize. If fertilizing is necessary, be aware of local regulations before application. Water your lawn after fertilizing, but do not allow water to run off into streets or lakes. Also, clean up any fertilizer spilled onto roads or sidewalks. • Keep septic systems working properly. • Remove garden and grass clippings from street gutters, sidewalks and driveways. Compost the clippings or use them as garden mulch. • Maintain a vegetative "buffer zone"--a strip of unmanaged grasses and woody vegetation allowed to grow along the shoreline. This vegetation will help prevent soil erosion from the shoreland and will intercept some of the nutrients that would otherwise enter the lake. • Use low-or no-phosphorous soaps and detergents. Study Session Meeting of March 11, 2013 (Item No. 3) Page 5 Title: Storm Water Follow Up – Chemical Pond Treatments • Avoid adding too many hard surfaces (roads, roofs, pavement) close to a lake. They can cause more nutrient-rich water to run into the lake. • Clean up after your pet. Flush the waste down a toilet or dispose of it away from the water or shoreline. • Keep livestock away from streams and lakes. Their waste adds unwanted nutrients and their hoofs erode banks. • Help stop the spread of undesirable exotic plants such as purple loosestrife, curlyleaf pondweed, and Eurasian watermilfoil. Clean your boat, motor, trailer, and other equipment of all aquatic vegetation immediately after leaving the water. Dispose of the plants on higher ground to prevent reintroduction into the water. St. Louis Park Surface Water Chemical Treatment Chemical Treatment of select water bodies Treatment types: Off-shore = treating lake from boat; treating larger portions of water body. Need a DNR permit for entire or portion of lake treated; must stay 150’ from any opposing property. Must obtain sign-off from all property owners. On-shore = treating water from shoreline or close to shore line; must obtain signatures from all lake property owners and a separate permit for each property ($35.00/permit). The area of treatment can only range from 35’ to 150’ maximum shoreline. **All permits are given for recreation obstructions only – no aesthetic treatment permits given by MN DNR. If aquatic vegetation is not interfering with access, swimming, or other water recreation activities, The DNR recommends letting the plants grow. (City currently prescribes to off-shore chemical treatments for Wolfe Lake (fishing),Cattail Pond), and Westdale Sediment Basins (odor issues); we do not contract for any other surface water treatments). The City obtained estimates, from contractors certified to chemically treat water bodies, for treatment/management of an average surface water body for an entire growing season for predicted aquatic plant blooms. This cost, regardless of on-shore or off-shore application, was estimated to be $1000.00/acre of surface water. This does not mean the MN DNR would grant the permit to treat any or all proposed lakes/ponds; the City of St. Louis Park would have to apply for treatment for each water body, based upon recreation obstructions/restrictions due to aquatic plants. Impacts associated with chemical treatments: Advantages • relatively inexpensive and easy to apply • may control algae and macrophtyte (a macroscopic plant – large enough to be seen by naked eye) growth Disadvantages • Chemicals are placed in the water body • Decomposing plant material releases nutrients to water column • Short-term benefit may require temporary restriction on recreational activities • Dissolved oxygen depletion due to decomposing plants; low oxygen limits amount of aquatic life in water • Repeat applications needed Study Session Meeting of March 11, 2013 (Item No. 3) Page 6 Title: Storm Water Follow Up – Chemical Pond Treatments Cost for Chemical Treatments: Based on the quotes received, the following table provides cost and permit information for the chemical treatment of Council identified water bodies in the city: Name Size (acres) Estimated Annual Cost DNR Permit Required Current Complaints Bass Lake 29.3 $29,300 X Veg Lamplighter 19.2 $19,200 X Odor Twin Lakes 12.4 $12,400 X Veg & Odor Oregon 4.5 $4,500 X Odor *Westdale Sediment Basins 2.2 $2,200 Veg & Odor Hampshire 1.9 $1,900 Odor *Wolfe 2.3 $2,300 *Cattail 1.4 $1,400 TOTAL $73,200 * - water body currently being treated Providing these additional treatments will increase storm water utility costs approximately $67,300 per year. A rate increase of about 2%, or $1.28/yr, would be required to raise annual storm water utility revenues of $67,300. PROPOSED PROCESS: Staff has identified the following steps necessary to implement the proposed chemical treatments. Some of these steps could be eliminated and help streamline the process: 1. Identify lakes/ponds to consider chemical treatment 2. Develop a problem statement/lake or pond –map aquatic nuisance plants and areas 3. Identify management goals – short and long term 4. Investigate chemical control alternatives and costs; identify budget ramifications 5. Identify impacts associated with treatment of each water body (impacts assessment) 6. Involve public/seek public input; educate, inform and obtain comments / input from adjacent property owners regarding the proposed treatment and associated impacts assessment 7. Obtain DNR review / approval to treat identified water bodies 8. Evaluate comments / input and inform Council of results 9. Procure additional funding for approved water bodies 10. Begin chemical treatments where supported by property owners NEXT STEPS: Staff desires Council input regarding: 1. Does Council want staff to pursue chemical treatments of additional water bodies? 2. If so, which ones? 3. Is the proposed process acceptable to Council? Study Session Meeting of March 11, 2013 (Item No. 3) Page 7 Title: Storm Water Follow Up – Chemical Pond Treatments Meeting Date: May 29, 2012 Agenda Item #: 4 Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance Presentation Other: EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other: Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other: TITLE: Storm Water Follow Up – Pond Classifications and Treatments RECOMMENDED ACTION: None at this time. At the March 12th Study Session Council requested further information on several water quality and storm water related issues. As a part of this the Council asked that staff propose pond classifications for Council consideration along with the process and estimated costs associated with performing aquatic plant treatments in “public” ponds and lakes. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Staff desires Council direction regarding: 1. Does Council agree with the pond classifications developed by staff? If not, what changes should be made? 2. Does Council wish to change the existing Council policy and pursue aquatic pond treatments at city cost? 3. Which additional ponds should the city pursue for aquatic pond treatments? 4. Does Council desire any additional information or discussion regarding this topic? BACKGROUND: History At the June 13, 2011 Study Session staff provided information and Council discussed aquatic plant management and pond treatments in St. Louis Park. At the March 12, 2012 Study Session staff provided Council follow up information regarding the prioritization and estimated costs of water quality improvement projects for ponds and wetlands. These projects ranged from minor maintenance to possible major rehabilitation / basin expansions aimed at improving water quality (impaired waters); specifically, the basis for the recommended improvements is the removal of suspended solids (sediment) and phosphorous from waters exiting the city. At the end of that discussion, Council requested staff to: 1. provide information on wetlands, the function they perform, and how they are managed in the city 2. classify ponds in the city (public vs. private) and provide information regarding the process and costs associated with treating ponds 3. provide information regarding possible improvements to Bass Lake This report provides information related to request number two above. Study Session Meeting of March 11, 2013 (Item No. 3) Page 8 Title: Storm Water Follow Up – Chemical Pond Treatments Current Pond Treatment Practice The City decided in 1980 not to treat ponds for water quality purposes for a variety of reasons - see the attachment “Exhibit 1 - SLP Storm Pond Treatment Policy” which provides background information along with the adopted city council policy. This background information and adopted policy is still accurate and relevant and is consistent with practices in most cities today. Chemical water quality treatment techniques are still in use along with some newer techniques. Surface water treatments (aquatic plant management) in St. Louis Park that we are currently aware of are: Utah Pond – 5 aerators installed and the pond is treated chemically by contractor; all items are paid for by private landowners around the pond (2.29 acres); cost of annual operation and treatment is unknown; water bodies less than 2.5 acres in size do not need a DNR permit to chemically treat. Wolfe Lake – chemically treated by contractor for milfoil and submerged vegetation to promote viable fish population; paid for by the City of St. Louis Park, Parks and Recreation, at a total cost of $1,600.00/year (3 acre lake); a DNR Permit is required to perform this treatment. Cattail Pond (located in Wolfe Park) – chemically treated for duckweed and algae, and separately treated for cattail growth; both treatments are performed by a contractor at a total cost of $1,500.00/year (less than 3 acres); a DNR permit is required to perform these treatments. In St. Louis Park, as in other Minnesota city’s, the DNR controls aquatic treatments in water bodies >2.5 acres via their permitting process. As stated above most, if not all, cities do not provide/pay for aquatic treatments of ponds or lakes. Generally speaking, this is predominantly done by adjacent land owners or lake associations which apply and arrange for chemical treatment of the water bodies. Aquatic Plant Management Mn/DNR Regulations - under Minnesota law, aquatic plants growing in public waters are the property of the state. Because of their value to the lake ecosystem, they may not be destroyed or transplanted unless authorized by the Commissioner of the Department of Natural Resources as stipulated in the Aquatic Plant Management Rules. A "public water" is generally any body of water 2.5 acres or larger within an incorporated city limit, or 10 acres or larger in rural areas. Activities NOT allowed: • Excavating lake bottoms for aquatic plant control • Use of hydraulic jets • Destroying or preventing the growth of aquatic plants by using lake bottom barriers. • Removing aquatic vegetation within posted fish-spawning areas. • Removing aquatic plants from an undeveloped shoreline. • Removing aquatic plants where they do not interfere with swimming, boating, or other recreation. Control methods which MUST HAVE a permit • Destruction of any emergent vegetation (for example, cattails and bulrushes). • Cutting or pulling by hand, or by mechanical means, submerged vegetation in an area larger than 2,500 square feet. • Applying herbicides or algaecides. Study Session Meeting of March 11, 2013 (Item No. 3) Page 9 Title: Storm Water Follow Up – Chemical Pond Treatments • Moving or removing a bog of any size that is free-floating or lodged in any area other than its place of origin in public waters. • Transplanting aquatic plants into public waters. • Use of automated plant control devices (such as the Crary WeedRoller). • Physical removal of floating-leaf vegetation from an area larger than a channel 15 feet wide extending to open water. When a permit is NOT needed - lakeshore-property owners that want to create or maintain a swimming or boat-docking area, may cut or pull submerged vegetation such as Elodea, without a DNR permit under certain conditions: • First, the area to be cleared must be no larger than 2,500 square feet. • Second, the cleared area must not extend more than 50 feet along the shoreline or one- half the length of the property shoreline, whichever is less. A boat channel up to 15 feet wide, and as long as necessary to reach open water, may also be cleared, through submerged vegetation. A boat channel is in addition to the 2,500 square feet allowed. Any other destruction of floating-leaf vegetation requires a permit. Applying for a permit - DNR does not grant permits automatically. Site inspections are required for first time permits. Applications may be denied or modified for several reasons: • because the plant beds in question are too valuable for fish or wildlife, or • because the plants are part of protected natural areas. To ensure that plant control is done correctly and with proper care for the environment, the following steps are required: • If herbicides are permitted, the product label instructions are to be followed • DNR is to be notified before control operations begin • Signs are to be posted identifying the area to be treated with herbicides (these signs are included with the permit or are furnished by the DNR to the commercial applicator) Problem aquatic plants - The DNR does not encourage the destruction of aquatic vegetation. However, the DNR recognizes that aquatic plants may interfere with a homeowner's right to reasonable access to open water and recreation. To balance the needs of conservation and those of recreation, the DNR has developed an Aquatic Plant Management Program. This program, operated under Minnesota Rules, requires permits for controlling, planting, or destroying aquatic plants and other organisms in public waters and public waters wetlands. Because plants provide many benefits to the water environment, requests to destroy vegetation are limited to areas where plants seriously interfere with recreational use. Two common ways to control aquatic plants - 1. Mechanical control - means to cut or pull by hand or with equipment such as rakes, cutting blades, hand-operated, or motorized trimmers. Large-scale mechanical control often uses floating, motorized harvesting machines that cut the plants and remove them from the water. The plants are taken to shore for proper disposal. All plants that are mechanically controlled must be removed from the lake. 2. Herbicide control - means to use plant-killing chemicals that are applied in liquid, granular, or pellet form. The aquatic plants die (sometimes only the stems and leaves) and decompose in the lake. Areas treated with aquatic herbicide are posted with signs to inform lake users of any water use restrictions resulting from the application of the pesticide. Aquatic plant control is temporary because aquatic plants grow back from root crowns, seeds, and other plant parts. Study Session Meeting of March 11, 2013 (Item No. 3) Page 10 Title: Storm Water Follow Up – Chemical Pond Treatments Aquatic plant stewardship - Stewardship: moving from short-term control to long-term prevention Measures such as cutting, pulling, or using herbicides can control aquatic plants from season to season. But in the long run, the best way to combat excessive growth of aquatic plants is prevention--reducing the flow of nutrients, sediments, and exotic species moving into a lake or stream. Listed below are a few practical steps that are used to maintain good water quality and prevent excessive plant growth in lakes and ponds. It takes time for these steps to improve water quality and reduce plant growth, but they are essential for sustaining and enhancing desirable plant communities in Minnesota lakes. • Use discretion when fertilizing property (whether it is directly on the lakeshore or elsewhere within the lake's watershed). Have soil tested to determine fertilizer needs, if any. Water a lawn after fertilizing, but not enough to run off. Clean up spilled fertilizer. • Keep septic systems working properly. • Remove garden and grass clippings from street gutters, sidewalks and driveways. Compost clippings or use them as garden mulch. • Maintain a vegetative "buffer zone" -- a strip of unmanaged grasses and woody vegetation along the shoreline. This vegetation helps prevent soil erosion and intercepts some nutrients that could enter the lake. • Use low-or no-phosphorous soaps and detergents. • Minimize impervious surfaces (roads, roofs, pavement, etc.) near lakes; they can cause nutrient-rich run-off. • Clean up after pets. Flush wastes down toilet or otherwise properly dispose of away from the water or shoreline. • Keep livestock away from streams and lakes. They add unwanted nutrients and create bank erosion. • Prevent the spread of undesirable exotic plants such as purple loosestrife, curlyleaf pondweed, and Eurasian watermilfoil. Clean boats, motors, trailers, and other equipment of all aquatic vegetation immediately after leaving the water. Dispose of plants on higher ground to prevent reintroduction into the water. Possible Pond Classifications In an attempt to classify surface waters as either public or private, staff utilized the following definitions: Public Lake / Pond = over 50% of adjacent land is owned by the city Private Lake / Pond = over 50% of adjacent land is privately owned Lake = over 2.5 acres in size (standing water) and considered a “public water” Pond = less than 2.5 acres in size (standing water); not considered a “public water” (MN DNR Controls and regulates “public waters” for treatments; DNR permits are required) The following table provides pond classifications and size information Pond / Lake Classification Size in acres Westwood Public 13.5 Kilmer Public 3.2 Shelard Public 0.2 Cedar Manor Public 3.5 Otten Public 1.7 Louisiana Oaks Public 6.3 Meadowbrook Public 17 Victoria Public 7.0 32 ½ & Sumter Public 1.4 Wolfe Public 2.3 Study Session Meeting of March 11, 2013 (Item No. 3) Page 11 Title: Storm Water Follow Up – Chemical Pond Treatments Cattail Public 1.4 Lamplighter Public 19.2 Bass Lake Public 29.3 Browndale Public 3.8 Hampshire Public 1.9 South Oak Public 5.6 Twin Lakes Public 12.4 Twin Lakes Park Sed Basin Public 3.7 Westdale Sed Basin Public 2.2 Oregon Public 4.5 Hannon Private 7.1 Utah Private 1.2 Westling Private 0.9 Cobblecrest Private 8.0 Candlestick Private 2.0 Blackstone Private 0.4 Klodt Private 1.1 Amhurst Private 0.9 Vic Ponds (3) Private 0.3 Treatment Costs of Public Ponds and Lakes There are two potential types of treatments: Off-shore = treating water from a boat; treating larger portions of a water body. Need one permit for entire or portion of lake treated; must stay 150’ from any opposing property. Must obtain signed release from all property owners. On-shore = treating water from shoreline or close to shore line; must obtain signatures from all lake property owners and a separate permit for each property ($35.00/permit). The area of treatment can only range from 35’ to 150’ maximum shoreline. **All permits are given for recreation obstructions only – no aesthetic treatment permits given by M n/DNR. If aquatic vegetation is not interfering with access, swimming, or other water recreation activities, the DNR recommends letting the plants grow. The city currently prescribes to off-shore chemical treatments for Wolfe Lake (fishing) and Cattail Pond only (aesthetic for large, regional park; we do not contract for any other surface water treatments. Contractors certified to treat water bodies have estimated the treatment/management cost of an average surface water body for an entire growing season, regardless of on-shore or off-shore application, at approximately $1,000.00/acre of surface water. The City of St. Louis Park would have to apply for treatment for each water body, based upon recreation obstructions/restrictions due to aquatic plants. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Aquatic plant management (pond treatment) costs associated with “public” water bodies identified above (140.1 acres), estimated at $1,000 per acre, could amount to about $140,000 per year. The Utility Fund currently collects annual estimated revenues of just over $2,000,000. Study Session Meeting of March 11, 2013 (Item No. 3) Page 12 Title: Storm Water Follow Up – Chemical Pond Treatments VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to being a leader in environmental stewardship. We will increase environmental consciousness and responsibility in all areas of city business. Attachments: Exhibit 1 - SLP Storm Pond Treatment Policy Prepared by: Jim Vaughan, Environmental Coordinator Michael P. Rardin, Public Works Director Reviewed by: Scott Anderson, Utilities Superintendent Laura Adler, Engineering Program Coordinator Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Study Session Meeting of March 11, 2013 (Item No. 3) Page 13 Title: Storm Water Follow Up – Chemical Pond Treatments Pond Classifications and Size Information Ownership Recreational or Aesthetic Use Functional Use Bass Lake 29.3 X X X X Veg Lamplighter 19.2 X X X X Odor Meadowbrook 17.0 X X X Westwood 13.5 X X X X Twin Lakes 12.4 X X X X Veg & Odor Victoria 7.0 X X Louisiana Oaks 6.3 X X X X South Oak 5.6 X X X Oregon 4.5 X X X Odor Browndale 3.8 X X X X Twin Lakes Park Sed Basin 3.7 X X X X Cedar Manor 3.5 X X Kilmer 3.2 X X X X Wolfe 2.3 X X X Westdale Sed Basin 2.2 X X Veg & Odor Hampshire 1.9 X X Odor Otten 1.7 X X 32 ½ & Sumter 1.4 X X Cattail 1.4 X X X Shelard 0.2 X X Cobblecrest 8.0 Private X X X Hannon 7.1 Private X X Candlestick 2.0 Private X Utah 1.2 Private X X Klodt 1.1 Private X Westling 0.9 Private X X Amhurst 0.9 Private X Blackstone 0.4 Private X X Vic Ponds (3)0.3 Private X Notes: Ownership - indicates water bodies where city owns 50% or more of the surrounding property Recreational or Aesthetic Purpose - rated as being used by the general public (not solely by adjacent owners) Functional Aspects - rated as necessary (and of public interest) for surface water needs (quantity and quality purposes) DNR Permit Required - for treatments of water bodies of 2.5 acres or larger in size Currently Generates Complaints - complaints received by city regarding unwanted odors, algae, and vegetation DNR Permit Required Currently Generates Complaints Pond Classifications and Size Information Possible Classifications Pond / Lake Approximate Size (acres) Council Approved - May 29, 2012 Meeting: Study Session Meeting Date: March 11, 2013 Discussion Item: 4 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan Update RECOMMENDED ACTION: Does Council wish to proceed forward with final public comment and input with the revised plan as provided herein? POLICY CONSIDERATION: As a result of input received at the January 28, 2013 Study Session, staff has updated the sidewalk and trail plan accordingly. Upon further input and concurrence from Council, staff will proceed with a final public input effort to receive final comments prior to formally adopting the plan. After the final public input period has ended, staff proposes to meet with Council at one more study session to provide an update and schedule a public hearing to formally adopt the plan. 1. Is Council satisfied with the revised plan as presented? Would Council like to make any further revision or adjustments? 2. Does Council have any additional comments with regards to the public input and communications plan as presented herein? SUMMARY: The Discussion section provides a general overview of the final public solicitation process. The sidewalk portion of the plan has been updated based on the comments received on January 28; trail and bikeway portions of the plan have remained unchanged. 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 ($17 - $24 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. Staff has developed a preliminary plan for debt service levy (bonding) over a multi-year period to cover the proposed 10-year program. The financing plan would be flexible to accommodate variables such as the timing of specific projects and actual project costs which would likely vary from year to year. This topic is discussed in much greater detail later in this report VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged community. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion Exhibit A2 – Sidewalk CIP Map (Jan 28, 2013) Proposed Property Taxes or Fees for Capital Projects Estimated Increased Taxes or Utility Rates Prepared by: Scott Brink, City Engineer Michael P. Rardin, Public Works Director Reviewed by: Sean Walther, Senior Planner Brian Swanson, Controller Jamie Zwilling, Communications Coordinator Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Study Session Meeting of March 11, 2013 (Item No. 4) Page 2 Title: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan Update DISCUSSION BACKGROUND: After an extensive public process that began in late summer of 2012, staff provided an update to Council at the Study Session held on January 14, 2013. The report presented at that time provided an extensive description of the public process, general summaries and observations based on input received, and a compendium of the many comments received by E-mail, telephone, letters, comment cards, and conversations. Based on the input provided by Council on January 14, staff returned to Council on January 28 with recommendations for revising and adjusting the plan. As a result of input received at the January 28, 2013 Study Session, staff has updated the sidewalk and trail plan accordingly (changes shown immediately below). Upon further input and concurrence from Council, staff will proceed with a final public input effort to receive final comments prior to formally adopting the plan. Staff’s intent is to then return to Council for one final update and to schedule a public hearing later this spring to formally adopt the plan. Exhibit A2 as discussed at the January 28th Study Session is attached for Council convenience. Council Requested Changes Change Project Description Const Yr Total delete Sidewalk 33rd St (Texas Ave to Rhode Island Ave) - south side 2013 $30,000 delete Sidewalk - 31st St (Dakota Ave to Colorado Ave) - south side 2013 $22,000 delete Sidewalk - Pennsylvania Ave (Franklin Ave to 16th St) - east side 2016 $75,000 retain Sidewalk - Pennsylvania Ave (Cedar Lake Road to Franklin Ave) - east side 2016 $70,000 delete Sidewalk - 33rd St (Aquila Ave to Virginia Ave) - south side 2017 $75,000 delete Sidewalk - Texas Ave (Franklin Ave to Wayzata Blvd) - west side 2018 $110,000 retain Sidewalk - Texas Ave (Cedar Lake Rd to Franklin Ave) - west side 2018 $110,000 delete Sidewalk - 31st St (Texas Ave to Dakota Ave) - south side 2021 $225,000 delete Sidewalk – Pennsylvania (31st St to Oak Hill Park) - west side 2021 $225,000 delete Sidewalk - 25th St (26th St to Sumter Ave) - north side 2023 $13,000 delete Sidewalk - 26th St (Virginia Ave to 25th St) - north side 2023 $14,000 advance Sidewalk - 41st St (Hwy 100 to Wooddale Ave) - south side 2014 to 2013 $22,000 advance Sidewalk - 36th St (Aquila Ave to Wyoming Ave) - south side 2015 to 2014 $55,000 advance Sidewalk - Joppa Ave (Minnetonka Blvd to 1/3 block n of Sunset Ave) - west side 2020 to 2014 $31,000 Total Deleted $789,000 Study Session Meeting of March 11, 2013 (Item No. 4) Page 3 Title: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan Update FINAL PUBLIC INPUT AND PLAN ADOPTION: Staff proposes to solicit final public input for the updated plan as follows: 1. By direct mail, contact all property owners where sidewalk is proposed, including segments previously shown that have been deleted. This is a similar process to what was done in November/December of 2012. Letters to each specific segment area will generally be the same, but with wording unique to each particular segment as may be needed (i.e., if a segment was deleted, schedule date changed, other feedback, etc.). 2. Update the “Connect the Park” website accordingly with revised maps and public information/solicitation process. Changes that have been made will be highlighted. Provide a “link” to a new social media type software currently being implemented by the City that provides a forum for discussion and feedback. 3. Assemble a comprehensive list of list of E-Mail addresses from previous public meetings and public comments received, and provide an update accordingly. 4. Begin public input on March 15 or shortly thereafter. Allow up to 3 weeks for comments. 5. Return to Council for Study Session in late April or May. 6. Schedule Public Hearing for regular Council meeting in May or June. 7. Adoption of Plan by Council during June. June, 2013: Begin design of projects scheduled for implementation in 2013/2014 June/July, 2013: Begin engagement of public process in other neighborhoods where segments not shown on the plan were suggested or encouraged by residents. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Based on the changes described above, Public Works staff has revised the earlier proposed CIP summary, reduced by $789,000, as follows: Year Annual Cost Sidewalks Bikeways Bikelanes Trails Bridges 2013 $535,500 $176,000 $45,000 $101,500 $213,000 $0 2014 $300,000 $176,000 $44,000 $0 $80,000 $0 2015 $6,729,900 $187,000 $26,400 $247,000 $369,500 $5,900,000 2016 $242,000 $229,000 $13,000 $0 $0 $0 2017 $354,000 $347,000 $7,000 $0 $0 $0 2018 $2,145,000 $130,000 $15,000 $0 $0 $2,000,000 2019 $456,000 $456,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 2020 $237,000 $148,000 $22,000 $28,000 $39,000 $0 2021 $262,500 $242,500 $20,000 $0 $0 $0 2022 $256,000 $244,000 $12,000 $0 $0 $0 2023 $398,000 $398,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 Totals $11,915,900 $2,733,500 $204,400 $376,500 $701,500 $7,900,000 Study Session Meeting of March 11, 2013 (Item No. 4) Page 4 Title: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan Update Please note – the costs in this summary do not account for inflation, engineering, contingencies, right-of-way acquisition or other unknown project costs. Staff feels these factors will significantly add to the costs shown above and currently project the total cost to build the proposed improvements to be in the $17 - $24 million dollar range. Finance Department Analysis This project is currently estimated at $17 - $24 million, which is only for construction costs. This estimate does not include operational impacts for costs such as staffing, maintenance, plowing, etc. Currently, this project is proposed to be funded through the issuance of General Obligation Tax Exempt Bonds issued in 2014, 2019 and 2024 for approximately $5.7 - $8.0 million each year depending on final bids, and financed over 15 years. This proposed structure would be modified once a firm plan and timeline is in place. Based on current interest rates and building in a contingency for the possibility of interest rates increasing, debt service would vary from approximately $500,000 - $2,100,000 per year for 25 years, with years 11- 15 requiring debt service obligations on all three bond issues. This would require an approximate property tax levy increase of 6.2% - 8.6% spread over 11 years based on the 2013 Final Property Tax Levy. The proposed increase would equate to a property tax increase for a median valued ($220,100) residential homesteaded property of approximately $57 - $79, or 5.9% - 8.2% within that same eleven year period based on 2013 information. Depending on the year, one, two or all three of the bond issues would then remain on the tax rolls for a total of 25 years until the bonds are paid off. Looking at the impact to that same property over the 25 years the bonds are outstanding, it is approximately $852 - $1,192. An overview of this project and two other significant capital projects (Community Center and Stormwater Improvements), and their overall cumulative impacts to taxes and utility rates is attached (attachments - PROPOSED PROPERTY TAXES OR FEES FOR CAPITAL PROJECTS and ESTIMATED INCREASED TAXES OR UTILITY RATES). Please note that this overview does not include any other increases in the property tax levy or utility rates to accommodate normal/routine business needs. Study Session Meeting of March 11, 2013 (Item No. 4) Page 5 Title: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan Update Exhibit A2 Study Session Meeting of March 11, 2013 (Item No. 4) Page 6 Title: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan Update PROPOSED PROPERTY TAXES OR FEES FOR CAPITAL PROJECTS OVERVIEW: The information discussed below relates to the proposed increases in property taxes or Storm Water Utility fees over a specific period of time based on the projects. With the many variables in each project including cost, timing of construction, financing mechanisms available, etc., the proposed impacts will be subject to a fair amount of volatility as these variables become more clear or constant in the future. These analyses only discuss the costs for completing the projects, not any ongoing costs such as staffing, maintenance, plowing, utilities, etc., based on the type of project. Also, these estimates only focus on the cost of each project, not everything else the City Council considers each year during the normal budget process as it relates to the Property Tax Levy, Utility Rates and all the costs associated with normal/ongoing City operations. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Community Center - This project is currently estimated at $20 - $25 million, which is only for construction costs. This estimate does not include operational impacts once the facility is in use for costs such as staffing, maintenance, utilities, etc. Currently, this project is proposed to be funded through the issuance of General Obligation Tax Exempt Bonds issued in 2014 and 2015 for approximately $10.0 - $12.5 million each year depending on final bids, and financed over 20 years. Based on current interest rates, and building in a contingency for the possibility of interest rates increasing, debt service would be approximately $1.4 - $1.8 million per year for 20 years. This would require an approximate property tax levy increase of 5.8% - 7.4% spread over two years based on the 2013 Final Property Tax Levy. The proposed increase would equate to a property tax increase for a median valued ($220,100) residential homesteaded property of approximately $53 - $68, or 5.5% - 7.0% within that same two year period based on 2013 information. This would then remain on the tax rolls for the next 18 years until the bonds are paid off. Looking at the total impact to that same property over the 20 years the bonds are outstanding, it is estimate to be approximately $1,060 - $1,360. Sidewalks and Trails - This project is currently estimated at $17 - $24 million, which is only for construction costs. This estimate does not include operational impacts for costs such as staffing, maintenance, plowing, etc. Currently, this project is proposed to be funded through the issuance of General Obligation Tax Exempt Bonds issued in 2014, 2019 and 2024 for approximately $5.7 - $8.0 million each year depending on final bids, and financed over 15 years. This proposed structure would be modified once a firm plan and timeline is in place. Based on current interest rates, and building in a contingency for the possibility of interest rates increasing, debt service would vary between approximately $500,000 - $2,100,000 per year for 25 years, with years 11- 15 requiring debt service obligations on all three bond issues. This would require an approximate property tax levy increase of 6.2% - 8.6% spread over 11 years based on the 2013 Final Property Tax Levy. The proposed increase would equate to a property tax increase for a median valued ($220,100) residential homesteaded property of approximately $57 - $79, or 5.9% - 8.2% within that same eleven year period based on 2013 information. Depending on the year, one, two or all three of the bond issues would then remain on the tax rolls for a total of 25 years until the bonds are paid off. Looking at the impact to that same property over the 25 years the bonds are outstanding, it is estimate to be approximately $852 - $1,192. Study Session Meeting of March 11, 2013 (Item No. 4) Page 7 Title: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan Update Storm Water Capital Projects - These projects are currently estimated at $11 million, which is only for construction costs, and does not include operational impacts. Currently, these projects are proposed to be funded through the issuance of Tax Exempt Utility Revenue Bonds issued in 2014 for approximately $7.5 million, 2019 for approximately $2.0 million, both financed until 2029, along with cash available in the fund for the remaining balance. In order to generate the necessary revenues for obligations within the Storm Water Fund, rates need to be increased significantly in the next five years. Based on proposed expenses in the fund, rates will need to increase from $16.00 per quarter in 2013 to $24.83 per quarter in 2018. This is an increase of $8.83 per quarter, $35.32 per year, or 55.2%. On an annual basis, rates will need to increase by an average of approximately $7.06 per year over the next five years, and then are proposed to remain essentially flat after that. The significant increases are required due to the large projects proposed in the early years of this plan. The proposed increases would equate to a Storm Water Utility fee increase for a residential property of approximately $389 over the proposed 15 year financing term. What is the Average Cumulative Proposed Impact To a Residential Homesteaded Property? Based on all the variables, such as date of a bond issue, staggered issuances for projects, phased in fee increases for Storm Water, valuation of a property, fiscal disparities, taxable market value of the City, etc., it would be more beneficial to look at the impact over a period of time, versus a snapshot, such as one year to another. With that considered, using 2013 figures for tax calculations, and fees as proposed, the cumulative effect of constructing all the capital projects discussed above would result in an impact in taxes and utility fees averaging approximately $100.00 - $160.00 per year over the proposed financing terms of projects. This range considers the low and high cost of the proposed projects and estimating bonds for these projects that are added or drop off for the sidewalk and trails program. Again, this estimate does not include other increases the City might need to make to the property tax levy and utility rates to continue normal/ongoing operations. Study Session Meeting of March 11, 2013 (Item No. 4) Page 8 Title: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan Update ESTIMATED INCREASED TAXES OR UTILITY RATES NOTE: These estimates are only for construction costs and DO NOT include costs for operational impacts. ESTIMATED LOW HIGH LOW HIGH NO. OF YRS.AVG. INC.END OF PROJECT PROJECT COST COST COST %%INCREASE^PER YEAR FINANCING# Community Center*$20,000,000 - $25,000,000 53$ 68$ 5.5% 7.0% 2 $26.50 - $34.00 2035 Sidewalks and Trails**$17,000,000 - $24,000,000 57$ 79$ 5.9% 8.2% 11 $5.18 - $7.18 2039 Storm Water Capital***$11,000,000 n/a 35$ n/a 55.0% 5 $7.00 2029 * 2 stage issuance - $10-12.5M in 2014 and $10-12.5M in 2015 of Debt for a $20-25M project financed over 20 years for each issue, with Debt Service starting one year after issuance. ** 3 stage issuance - $5.67-8.00M every 5 years for a $17-24M total project financed over 15 years for each issuance. *** Financed by issuing $7.5M in debt in 2014 over 15 years, $2M in 2019 and available cash in the fund. ^ Due to different financing terms, this is the number of years until the full cost will be realized on property taxes or utility rates. # This is last year of the impact to property owners for each project when the proposed financing terms will end. ESTIMATED INCREASED TAXES OR UTILITY RATES Meeting: Study Session Meeting Date: March 11, 2013 Discussion Item: 5 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: Proposed Storm Water CIP RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff desires Council feedback on the proposed storm water capital improvement program. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does Council wish to pursue the storm water capital improvement program as proposed? If not, what changes should be made to the program? SUMMARY: Staff has prepared an eight year Capital Improvement Program based on past Council direction. Based on agency and watershed activities (uncertainties) along with significant project costs, staff has not yet begun to develop any of the proposed water body improvement projects. However, to meet the timelines of the proposed storm water CIP, project development needs to begin. Other options would be to delay or cancel some or all of the proposed projects. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: In order to generate the necessary revenues for the CIP as proposed, Storm Water Utility rates need to be increased significantly in the next five years. Based on proposed expenses in the fund, rates will need to increase from $16.00 per quarter in 2013 to $24.83 per quarter by 2018. From 2013 to 2018 this results in an increase of $8.83 per quarter, $35.32 per year, or 55.2%. On an annual basis, rates will need to increase by an average of approximately $7.06 per year over the next five years, and then are proposed to remain essentially flat after that. The significant increases are required due to the large projects proposed in the early years of this plan. Please note that these increases do not account for a pond treatment program being discussed by the Council or other necessary rate adjustments to meet normal or ongoing operational needs. VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to being a leader in environmental stewardship. We will increase environmental consciousness and responsibility in all areas of city business. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion Exhibit A – Proposed Storm Water CIP Proposed Property Taxes or Fees for Capital Projects Estimated Increased Taxes or Utility Rates Prepared by: Michael P. Rardin, Public Works Director Reviewed by: Scott Brink, City Engineer Scott Anderson, Utilities Superintendent Jim Vaughan, Environmental Coordinator Brian Swanson, Controller Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Study Session Meeting of March 11, 2013 (Item No. 5) Page 2 Title: Proposed Storm Water CIP DISCUSSION BACKGROUND: Beginning in 2011 staff has provided various information and engaged in numerous Study Session discussions with Council regarding all aspects of the City’s storm water management plans, storm operations, and related activities. The following two report sections provide information regarding capital planning reports and discussions held with Council this past year. March 12, 2012 Study Session Summary At the March 12, 2012 Study Session staff provided Council follow up information regarding the prioritization and estimated costs of water quality improvement projects for ponds and wetlands. These projects range from minor maintenance to possible major rehabilitation / basin expansions and are aimed at improving water quality (impaired waters); specifically, the basis for the recommended improvements is the removal of suspended solids (sediment) and phosphorous from waters exiting the city. The following is a summary of the information provided to Council on March 12th: BARR Study and Capital Program Development - The Barr storm basin inventory study was completed in early 2012. The findings of their study range from no actions needed to minor maintenance to possible major rehabilitation / basin expansions. This storm pond study is the first step in the long range planning of the management of the city’s Storm Water System. The rehabilitation and maintenance plan developed by BARR is based on MPCA requirements aimed at improving water quality (impaired waters). Specifically, the basis for the recommended capital improvements is the removal of suspended solids (sediment) and phosphorous from waters exiting the city. The maintenance activities identified in the plan basically address the need to properly maintain existing infrastructure. A condensed summary of the capital and maintenance plan developed by BARR was also provided “Storm Basin Rehabilitation and Maintenance Plan – March 2012”. Maintenance and general cleanup activities have been included in the Utility operations work plan for 2012 and 2013. However, staff felt it was premature to program the BARR identified basin rehabilitation / expansion projects. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) began revising their storm water permit rules during the last half of 2011 and those revisions are expected to be completed later in 2012. The revisions relate to water quality and are expected to affect standards and designs related to basin rehabilitations and expansions. Finally, the MPCA had recently notified all cities to put a hold on further inventories, assessments, and plans until their final regulations are issued. Although the MPCA rule changes were not known at that time, the Barr report was intended to serve as the basis for future assessments (as needed) and basin evaluations. Regional TMDL Study - MCWD and the MPCA were currently working on a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) study with a draft report due to be released in the fall of 2012. The final TMDL report is scheduled to be completed by the summer of 2013. Much of what St. Louis Park will need to know to decide and design storm basin improvement projects will be dependent on the final TMDL report (along with the MPCA rule revisions discussed above). Summary and Next Steps - based on agency rule changes underway and the MPCA / MCWD TMDL study currently being conducted, our storm basin CIP planning effort and improvement projects have effectively been put on hold pending final MCWD and MPCA determinations. It is possible that the storm water CIP development effort could be started again in 2013 with water quality improvement projects possibly scheduled for 2014 to 2015 depending upon public Study Session Meeting of March 11, 2013 (Item No. 5) Page 3 Title: Proposed Storm Water CIP support, funding availability, and agency (permitting) approvals. Once the agencies complete their rules revisions and the regional TMDL study, staff intends to re-evaluate the BARR study to determine next steps for further development of the storm basin CIP. Financial Considerations - the city’s Storm Water Utility was created during February of 2000 and funds all storm water activities. The major reason for its creation was to provide a financing mechanism for flood mitigation efforts throughout the community. Many millions of dollars were spent as a means to complete this initiative. $3,265,000 in G.O. Revenue Bonds were sold in 2001 to raise capital for these projects. These bonds are still being paid off at the rate of approximately $300,000 per year with final payments scheduled for 2016. In addition to these bond payments, the Storm Water Utility currently provides funding for NPDES required activities, storm water management activities, long term maintenance and rehabilitation of our storm water system, and for the monitoring and evaluation of water quality in our ponds and wetlands. Costs associated with the wetland projects identified by BARR have not been considered nor built into our Storm Water Utility charges or revenues. Staff expects utility rate increases will be needed to provide the additional funding needed for these proposed projects. At the end of that discussion, Council requested additional information regarding possible improvements to Bass Lake. June 18, 2012 Study Session: Bass Lake Improvement Options - based on input obtained at the Council Study Session of March 12, staff developed the following possible Bass Lake improvement strategies for Council discussion and consideration: 1. Do nothing - there is no requirement or mandate to make any improvements to Bass Lake at this time. Staff would expect the water body to slowly continue to fill with sediment to a point where water quality degradation or localized flooding would require respective improvements. 2. Barr recommendation (functional restoration) - this proposal is essentially the same as the cleanout that was performed by the city the winter of 1992 - 93. Barr’s estimated construction cost for this as stated in the March 12, 2012 Study Session report was $2,913,000. Engineering, wetland mitigation, permitting, and possible contamination costs could possibly increase this estimated cost up to a total project cost of $6,000,000. 3. Moderate open water improvement (restore / enlarge open water area near outlet) - this would entail restoration of the previous open water areas (as can best be approximated) of Bass Lake. Without an engineering study and evaluation, staff can only project this could cost about twice as much as option 2 or about $8 to $12 million dollars. 4. Complete open water improvement (create an 80 acre lake) - this proposal would be a significant undertaking in both effort and cost. BARR provided us with the following assessment: a. It would be very difficult to obtain permits for such work from the Corp of Eng’rs, DNR, MPCA and Watershed District. b. Assume an 80 acre open water lake with an average depth of 9 feet would require excavation of approximately 1,200,000 cubic yards of materials @ $10.00 /cy = $12,000,000 (includes excavation, haul, and disposal). c. If excavated materials are contaminated, removal and disposal costs could increase from $10.00 /cy up to $60 /cy. Based on other local projects it is likely that 20% of the excavation is contaminated so the excavation and disposal costs would probably be closer to $24,000,000. Study Session Meeting of March 11, 2013 (Item No. 5) Page 4 Title: Proposed Storm Water CIP d. Engineering and Environmental Impact Study and permitting work would likely run $1,000,000 to $1,500,000. e. If a liner is needed, the cost for 130,000 square yards of liner would cost about $5/sy or $650,000. f. If wetland mitigation/replacement is required by the agencies, the likely wetland creation cost, not including the land cost, could cost in the range of $8,000,000. g. In summary, the range of possible cost to excavate and create an 80 acre lake could run between $13,000,000 (assuming no wetland replacement, no contaminated soil, no liner required) to well in excess of $33,000,000 if wetland replacement, contaminated soil disposal, and a liner are required…..which is more likely given current governmental regulations. None of these proposals include any amenities which might also be desirable. The descriptions and costs associated with options 3 and 4 provided above are conceptual guesstimates, but provide a flavor for magnitude and cost of possible improvements. Summary and Next Steps - Staff did not feel Option 1 (Do Nothing) was viable long term; however, the BARR recommendation (Option 2) is the most cost effective alternative available and should be pursued in the near future to maintain the functionality of Bass Lake as a beneficial water body. Council felt Option 2 should be pursued and aesthetic and environmental goals should be considered above and beyond functional restoration of the water body. Council did not wish to pursue either of the larger improvements described in options 3 or 4. A consultant would be needed for further study and evaluation of the desired improvement at Bass Lake along with a significant public involvement process. It was felt a proposal process with a defined project scope should be utilized to retain a consultant and develop a project development proposal with a better cost assessment than provided by the BARR study. Staff felt consultant efforts and costs for this work would be significant. PRESENT CONSIDERATIONS: During the development of the 2013 – 2017 CIP the capital projects proposed by the BARR study were incorporated into the CIP to allow for future discussion and evaluation. Exhibit A attached is an updated version of the BARR summary from March 12, 2012. The capital projects have been identified by year and project number. Costs provided in the BARR study did not include engineering design, wetland mitigation, permitting, contamination clean-up, or easement costs. Based on staff experience associated with past projects, CIP costs were doubled those provided by BARR to account for all project costs so the proposed CIP is currently estimated at about $11 million. The projects as proposed are not optional over the long term. These projects will need to be done at some point in time to in order to maintain the functionality of each water body as well as to address water quality issues. However, these projects are not required at this time so Council has, at least for the time being, discretion on how aggressively these projects are pursued and in what order. The currently proposed CIP is based on direction staff received from Council this past year – that can be changed as Council desires. It is possible that based on agency rule changes and the MPCA / MCWD TMDL study underway some of these improvements could end up being required (based on downstream water quality needs). Agency rules changes (called Draft General Permit for Construction Stormwater) will be noticed this Friday, March 8th, with comments accepted through March 20th. MPCA intentions are to have this new permit (rules) in place prior to August 1st when the existing permit expires. Study Session Meeting of March 11, 2013 (Item No. 5) Page 5 Title: Proposed Storm Water CIP The new permit (rules) will provide us direction on pond improvement projects, as well as other storm water related activities. The TMDL study is also ongoing, but has slowed pending these rules changes. TMDL findings may influence the need to do some of these pond improvement projects sooner than later. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATIONS: Finance Department staff have reviewed and analyzed the proposed storm water capital improvement program and summarized their results as follows: These projects are currently estimated at $11 million, which is only for construction costs, and does not include operational impacts. Currently, these projects are proposed to be funded through the issuance of Tax Exempt Utility Revenue Bonds issued in 2014 for approximately $7.5 million, 2019 for approximately $2.0 million, both financed until 2029, and cash available in the fund for the remaining balance. In order to generate the necessary revenues for obligations within the Storm Water Fund, rates need to be increased significantly in the next five years. Based on proposed expenses in the fund, rates will need to increase from $16.00 per quarter in 2013 to $24.83 per quarter by 2018. From 2013 to 2018 this is an increase of $8.83 per quarter, $35.32 per year, or 55.2%. On an annual basis, rates will need to increase by an average of approximately $7.06 per year over the next five years, and then are proposed to remain essentially flat after that. The significant increases are required due to the large projects proposed in the early years of this plan. The proposed increases would equate to a Storm Water Utility fee increase for a residential property of approximately $389 over the proposed 15 year financing term. An overview of several other capital programs / project describing the above, other projects, and their overall cumulative impacts to taxes and utility rates is attached (attachments - PROPOSED PROPERTY TAXES OR FEES FOR CAPITAL PROJECTS and ESTIMATED INCREASED TAXES OR UTILITY RATES). NEXT STEPS: Staff needs Council direction on the proposed storm water CIP: 1. Should this be pursued as proposed? 2. Should projects be reprioritized? 3. Should some, or all projects, be delayed? 4. Should we put the CIP on hold pending final agency determinations regarding rules and the TMDL study? Based on Council direction, staff will prepare a more specific plan dealing with capital projects. Study Session Meeting of March 11, 2013 (Item No. 5) Page 6 Title: Proposed Storm Water CIP Exhibit A Proposed Storm Water Capital Improvement Program Project Type ====> Storm Basin Proposed Const Year Project Number Rank per Water Quality Benefit Water Quality Benefit Pond Rehabilitation / Expansion to Meet MPCA Guidelines Rehabilitation of Outlet Control Structure Delta Removal Structure Repair General Debris Cleanup Bass Lake Preserve 2014 20141201 1 High $2,913,000 + $25,000 - $35,000 Completed 2009 -Spring/Fall Twin Lakes --2 High No Action Needed $20,000 - $30,000 -Scheduled 2012 Spring/Fall Oregon Pond 2015 20151201 3 Moderate $385,000 +No Action Needed Completed 2009 Scheduled 2012 Spring/Fall Oak Pond 2016 20161201 4 Moderate $435,000 +TBD Scheduled 2012 Scheduled 2012 Spring/Fall Sumter Pond 2017 20171201 5 Moderate $65,000 +TBD Scheduled 2012 -Spring/Fall Browndale Pond 2017 20171202 6 Moderate $219,000 + NA - No Outlet Completed 2011 Completed 2011 Spring/Fall Lamplighter Pond 2018 20181201 7 Moderate $79,000 +No Action Needed Completed 2009 Scheduled 2012 Spring/Fall Otten Pond 2018 20181202 8 Moderate $69,000 + $20,000 - $30,000 -Scheduled 2012 Spring/Fall Twin Lakes Sed Basin 2019 20191201 9 Moderate $992,000 +TBD -Completed 2012 Spring/Fall Westdale Sed Basin 2020 20201201 10 Moderate $124,000 + $25,000 - $35,000 --Spring/Fall Cedar Manor Lake 2021 20211201 11 Moderate $278,000 +TBD Scheduled 2012 Review - TBD Spring/Fall Klodt Pond --12 Moderate No Action Needed TBD TBD Review - TBD Spring/Fall Cobblecrest Lake --13 Moderate No Action Needed No Action Needed -Scheduled 2013 Spring/Fall Shelard Sed Basin --14 Low No Action Needed TBD --Spring/Fall Utah Pond --15 Low No Action Needed $20,000 - $30,000 TBD -Spring/Fall Blackstone Pond --16 Low No Action Needed $20,000 - $30,000 --Spring/Fall Candelstick Pond --17 Low No Action Needed No Action Needed TBD Completed 2011 Spring/Fall Cattail Pond --18 Low No Action Needed TBD TBD -Spring/Fall Amhurst Pond --19 Low No Action Needed $20,000 - $30,000 TBD Review - TBD Spring/Fall South Oak Pond --20 Low No Action Needed No Action Needed Scheduled 2012 Scheduled 2013 Spring/Fall Westling Pond --21 Low No Action Needed No Action Needed -Completed 2011 Spring/Fall Victoria Lake --22 Low No Action Needed No Action Needed Completed 2010 Scheduled 2012 Spring/Fall Kilmer Pond --23 Low No Action Needed TBD Completed 2009 Scheduled 2013 Spring/Fall Wolfe Lake --24 Low No Action Needed TBD TBD Completed 2011 Spring/Fall Hannon Lake --25 Low No Action Needed NA - No Outlet TBD Scheduled 2013 Spring/Fall Westwood Lake --26 Low No Action Needed No Action Needed --Spring/Fall Estimated Costs $5,460,000 1 $470,000 2 $8,500 3 $35,000 4 - St. Louis Park Storm Basin Rehabilitation and Maintenance Plan Created March 2012 - Updated March 2013 5 - Routine maintenance of existing infrastructure budgeted for in the Storm Water Budget. Necessary to maintain existing assets. 6 - Suggested capital improvements aimed at improving water quality based on current MPCA guidelines. Aesthetic improvements or water treatment initiatives have not been included. Routine Maintenance 5Capital Improvement 6 1 - The costs above do not include engineering design, wetland mitigation, permitting, or easement costs. Total project costs used in the preparation of the 2013 CIP were double these BARR estimated construction estimates. 3 - Estimated average annual cost. This work is contracted out. 4 - Estimated cost of materials. Most of this work will be completed by Utility staff. 2 - Estimated cost of identified improvements along with future studies and TBD improvements. Notes: Study Session Meeting of March 11, 2013 (Item No. 5) Page 7 Title: Proposed Storm Water CIP PROPOSED PROPERTY TAXES OR FEES FOR CAPITAL PROJECTS OVERVIEW: The information discussed below relates to the proposed increases in property taxes or Storm Water Utility fees over a specific period of time based on the projects. With the many variables in each project including cost, timing of construction, financing mechanisms available, etc., the proposed impacts will be subject to a fair amount of volatility as these variables become more clear or constant in the future. These analyses only discuss the costs for completing the projects, not any ongoing costs such as staffing, maintenance, plowing, utilities, etc., based on the type of project. Also, these estimates only focus on the cost of each project, not everything else the City Council considers each year during the normal budget process as it relates to the Property Tax Levy, Utility Rates and all the costs associated with normal/ongoing City operations. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Community Center - This project is currently estimated at $20 - $25 million, which is only for construction costs. This estimate does not include operational impacts once the facility is in use for costs such as staffing, maintenance, utilities, etc. Currently, this project is proposed to be funded through the issuance of General Obligation Tax Exempt Bonds issued in 2014 and 2015 for approximately $10.0 - $12.5 million each year depending on final bids, and financed over 20 years. Based on current interest rates, and building in a contingency for the possibility of interest rates increasing, debt service would be approximately $1.4 - $1.8 million per year for 20 years. This would require an approximate property tax levy increase of 5.8% - 7.4% spread over two years based on the 2013 Final Property Tax Levy. The proposed increase would equate to a property tax increase for a median valued ($220,100) residential homesteaded property of approximately $53 - $68, or 5.5% - 7.0% within that same two year period based on 2013 information. This would then remain on the tax rolls for the next 18 years until the bonds are paid off. Looking at the total impact to that same property over the 20 years the bonds are outstanding, it is estimate to be approximately $1,060 - $1,360. Sidewalks and Trails - This project is currently estimated at $17 - $24 million, which is only for construction costs. This estimate does not include operational impacts for costs such as staffing, maintenance, plowing, etc. Currently, this project is proposed to be funded through the issuance of General Obligation Tax Exempt Bonds issued in 2014, 2019 and 2024 for approximately $5.7 - $8.0 million each year depending on final bids, and financed over 15 years. This proposed structure would be modified once a firm plan and timeline is in place. Based on current interest rates, and building in a contingency for the possibility of interest rates increasing, debt service would vary between approximately $500,000 - $2,100,000 per year for 25 years, with years 11- 15 requiring debt service obligations on all three bond issues. This would require an approximate property tax levy increase of 6.2% - 8.6% spread over 11 years based on the 2013 Final Property Tax Levy. The proposed increase would equate to a property tax increase for a median valued ($220,100) residential homesteaded property of approximately $57 - $79, or 5.9% - 8.2% within that same eleven year period based on 2013 information. Depending on the year, one, two or all three of the bond issues would then remain on the tax rolls for a total of 25 years until the bonds are paid off. Looking at the impact to that same property over the 25 years the bonds are outstanding, it is estimate to be approximately $852 - $1,192. Study Session Meeting of March 11, 2013 (Item No. 5) Page 8 Title: Proposed Storm Water CIP Storm Water Capital Projects - These projects are currently estimated at $11 million, which is only for construction costs, and does not include operational impacts. Currently, these projects are proposed to be funded through the issuance of Tax Exempt Utility Revenue Bonds issued in 2014 for approximately $7.5 million, 2019 for approximately $2.0 million, both financed until 2029, along with cash available in the fund for the remaining balance. In order to generate the necessary revenues for obligations within the Storm Water Fund, rates need to be increased significantly in the next five years. Based on proposed expenses in the fund, rates will need to increase from $16.00 per quarter in 2013 to $24.83 per quarter in 2018. This is an increase of $8.83 per quarter, $35.32 per year, or 55.2%. On an annual basis, rates will need to increase by an average of approximately $7.06 per year over the next five years, and then are proposed to remain essentially flat after that. The significant increases are required due to the large projects proposed in the early years of this plan. The proposed increases would equate to a Storm Water Utility fee increase for a residential property of approximately $389 over the proposed 15 year financing term. What is the Average Cumulative Proposed Impact To a Residential Homesteaded Property? Based on all the variables, such as date of a bond issue, staggered issuances for projects, phased in fee increases for Storm Water, valuation of a property, fiscal disparities, taxable market value of the City, etc., it would be more beneficial to look at the impact over a period of time, versus a snapshot, such as one year to another. With that considered, using 2013 figures for tax calculations, and fees as proposed, the cumulative effect of constructing all the capital projects discussed above would result in an impact in taxes and utility fees averaging approximately $100.00 - $160.00 per year over the proposed financing terms of projects. This range considers the low and high cost of the proposed projects and estimating bonds for these projects that are added or drop off for the sidewalk and trails program. Again, this estimate does not include other increases the City might need to make to the property tax levy and utility rates to continue normal/ongoing operations. Study Session Meeting of March 11, 2013 (Item No. 5) Page 9 Title: Proposed Storm Water CIP ESTIMATED INCREASED TAXES OR UTILITY RATES NOTE: These estimates are only for construction costs and DO NOT include costs for operational impacts. ESTIMATED LOW HIGH LOW HIGH NO. OF YRS.AVG. INC.END OF PROJECT PROJECT COST COST COST %%INCREASE^PER YEAR FINANCING# Community Center*$20,000,000 - $25,000,000 53$ 68$ 5.5% 7.0% 2 $26.50 - $34.00 2035 Sidewalks and Trails**$17,000,000 - $24,000,000 57$ 79$ 5.9% 8.2% 11 $5.18 - $7.18 2039 Storm Water Capital***$11,000,000 n/a 35$ n/a 55.0% 5 $7.00 2029 * 2 stage issuance - $10-12.5M in 2014 and $10-12.5M in 2015 of Debt for a $20-25M project financed over 20 years for each issue, with Debt Service starting one year after issuance. ** 3 stage issuance - $5.67-8.00M every 5 years for a $17-24M total project financed over 15 years for each issuance. *** Financed by issuing $7.5M in debt in 2014 over 15 years, $2M in 2019 and available cash in the fund. ^ Due to different financing terms, this is the number of years until the full cost will be realized on property taxes or utility rates. # This is last year of the impact to property owners for each project when the proposed financing terms will end. ESTIMATED INCREASED TAXES OR UTILITY RATES Meeting: Study Session Meeting Date: March 11, 2013 Written Report: 6 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: 2012 Housing Authority (HA) Annual Report and 2013 Work Plan RECOMMENDED ACTION: Update the Council on housing programs and activity. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Are the activities of the Housing Authority in keeping with the expectations of the City Council? SUMMARY: The HA’s primary mission is to administer programs that ensure the availability of safe and desirable affordable housing options in St. Louis Park. The HA also oversees the administration of a number of City housing programs including the Discount Loan Program, Move-up in the Park programs and the Green Remodeling Programs. The City Council delegated the administration of these programs to the HA by resolution. 2012 HA Program Highlights: • Provided rental assistance to over 525 low-income households under the Public Housing Program, Housing Choice Voucher Program and Shelter Plus Care Program. • Completed approximately $370,000 in capital improvements on the Public Housing units including significant renovations at Hamilton House. • Continued to administer 40 units of Project Based Voucher rental assistance at Wayside, Vail Place and Excelsior & Grand housing developments. • Administered 43 units of Shelter Plus Care (S+C) rental assistance in partnership with Perspectives, Community Involvement Program, Pillsbury United Communities and five units at Wayside utilizing unexpended S+C funds from Perspectives and CIP. Submitted application for a Shelter Plus Care allocation in partnership with Wayside. • Exceeded 98% annual occupancy in the Public Housing Program and 100% annual utilization in the Voucher Program. • 40 individuals participated in the Family Self-Sufficiency Program in 2012 with five participants graduating from the program. • Attained HUD High Performer Status for the administration of the Public Housing and Housing Choice Voucher programs. • Successfully transitioned from City provided financial services to contractual fee accounting services. • Administered an annual budget in excess of $3.5 million. The most recently completed audit for fiscal year end 2011 did not identify any deficiencies or findings. • Successfully administered City funded housing remodeling, design and affordable homeownership programs: See attachment: 2012 Housing Activity Report. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to providing a well-maintained and diverse housing stock. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion 2102 Annual Report 2013 Work Plan Prepared by: Michele Schnitker, Housing Supervisor Jason Zimmerman, Planning Intern Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Study Session Meeting of March 11, 2013 (Item No. 6) Page 2 Title: 2012 Housing Authority (HA) Annual Report and 2013 Work Plan DISCUSSION BACKGROUND: The Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) was created in 1970. In 1988 the Council created the Economic Development Authority (EDA) to exercise economic and redevelopment powers and reorganized the HRA to an HA allowing it to exercise powers related to low and moderate income housing programs and projects. The HA is a separate legal entity governed by the HA Board of Commissioners exercising all the powers granted under Minnesota Statutes 469.001 to 469.047 and the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for the purposes of managing, planning and implementing the City’s low and moderate income housing programs. The five HA Commissioners are appointed and approved by the City Council. The Commissioners are responsible for overseeing the administration of the low income housing programs managed by the HA including setting policy, approving budgets, entering into contracts and ratifying expenses. Funding for these programs is received through HUD and the HA has a separate financial audit from the City. Current HUD federally funded housing and service programs include: • Public Housing (PH), • Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program (Voucher), • Shelter Plus Care Rental Assistance Program (S+C), • Training and Resources to Attain Individual Long-Term Success (TRAILS) Family Self- Sufficiency (FSS) Program, and • Hamilton House Elderly and Disabled Service Coordinator grant. In addition, HA also oversees the administration of a number of City housing programs. The City Council delegated the administration of these programs to the HA by resolution. Current HA Board members include: • Catherine Courtney, Chairperson • Justine Kaufman, Vice-chair • Susan Metzger • Markeith Thomas HA Board members that served in 2012 but have since left the Board include: • Renee DuFour • Trinicia Hill • Osman Mire HA Housing/Service Programs Public Housing PH is a rental assistance program in which the HA owns and manages the property. Rent is income based with each household paying approximately 30% of their income for rent. The HA owns and manages 147 PH units; a low-rise apartment building (108 one-bedroom units and 2 two-bedroom caretaker units) built in 1975, and 37 scattered site single-family units (3 to 5 bedrooms). Although the low-rise building is designated for general occupancy, priority is given to elderly and disabled applicants. The single-family scattered units house larger families with children. The HA also holds the HUD Annual Contributions Contract (ACC) and maintains the Study Session Meeting of March 11, 2013 (Item No. 6) Page 3 Title: 2012 Housing Authority (HA) Annual Report and 2013 Work Plan waiting list for 12 two-bedroom PH apartment units located at Louisiana Court. These units are owned and managed by Project for Pride in Living. Eligibility is limited to households at or below 80% of the area median income. HUD provides annual operating subsidy and capital funding for the PH program. These funds are combined with rent revenues to finance the operational expenses of the program and maintenance and rehab of the properties. The annual budget for the PH is approximately $1,020,000. Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program The Voucher rental assistance program provides income based rental assistance to participants in privately owned market rate rental units. Participants pay approximately 30% of their income for rent and the HA pays a rent subsidy directly to the owner of the rental property. HUD has allocated the HA the authority to administer up to 268 Vouchers. The HA administers both tenant-based and project-based Vouchers. Forty Vouchers of the HA’s allocation are designated for “project based” use in three privately owned developments; Excelsior & Grand, Vail Place and Wayside. In addition, the HA administers 50 to 80 Vouchers at any one time from other jurisdictions for participants that have moved to St. Louis Park. Eligibility for the program is limited to households at or below 50% of median area income adjusted for family size. HUD provides Housing Assistance Payments (HAP) funding to support rent assistance payments and Administrative Funds to finance administrative costs. The program has an annual budget of approximately $2,200,000. Shelter Plus Care The Shelter Plus Care (S + C) Program is designed to link rental assistance with supportive services for hard-to-reach homeless persons with disabilities. The program serves primarily those who are seriously mentally ill or have chronic problems with alcohol, drugs or both and their families. Grants are provided by HUD to be used for permanent housing which must be matched with supportive services that are appropriate to the needs of population to be served. St. Louis Park is the grant recipient for the program and we partner with three sponsor organizations that administer supportive housing programs; Perspectives, Community Involvement Program (CIP) and Pillsbury United Communities. Perspectives and CIP have also formed a partnership with Wayside that enables Wayside to utilize a portion of their unexpended S + C funding to support five units of S + C in Wayside’s supportive housing development. The HA is currently collaborating with Wayside on a S + C application submission for an allocation five units of S + C rental assistance in the next funding cycle. The HA is currently administering 43 units of S + C. Eligibility is limited to households at or below 50% of median area income. The annual budget for the S + C program is approximately $330,000. Training and Resources to Attain Individual Long-Term Success (TRAILS) Family Self- Sufficiency Program (FSS) HUD designed the FSS Program in conjunction with the Voucher and PH programs to enable families to improve their educational and employment status to achieve greater economic independence and self-sufficiency. Each family that commits to participate in TRAILS explores their individual job or educational goals with the help of the Program Coordinator Case Manager. As the family’s rent increases due to increased earned income, the HA establishes an escrow account on the participants behalf and credits it with a portion of the monies from their Study Session Meeting of March 11, 2013 (Item No. 6) Page 4 Title: 2012 Housing Authority (HA) Annual Report and 2013 Work Plan increased rent payment. Upon successful completion of the TRAILS program, the participant receives the escrow account balance. The program is voluntary and open to all current Section 8 participants and PH residents. The program has an annual budget of approximately $38,600 for the service coordinator position. Participant escrow contributions averaging $35,000 annually are funded with HAP and PH rent revenue. Hamilton House Service Coordinator The HA received a three year HUD ROSS PH Elderly and Persons with Disabilities grant to fund a service coordinator position to coordinate services and other activities designed to help the residents at Hamilton House remain living independently. Services include assessment and referral, on-going case management, wellness education programs and education regarding personal safety and housekeeping. The service coordinator position is provided through a contract with Vail Place. The program has an annual budget of $79,000. Program Waiting Lists The number of people that qualify for HUD PH rental assistance and Voucher programs far exceed the number of PH and Vouchers available. Selection criteria and procedures are established in accordance with HUD regulations to distribute rental assistance to the most deserving applicants in as fair a process as possible. Waiting lists are kept for the HA’s PH and Voucher rental assistance programs. The number of people on the lists is significant and the HA receives requests for rental assistance every day. Due to the excessive length of the lists, the lists are only opened to accept new applications when the number of applications on a specific list nears depletion. When lists are opened, we typically limit the opening to 2 to 3 days and then close the list again. We have even implemented a lottery system to limit the number of applications taken since it is unmanageable for staff to administer waiting lists containing thousands of applications and the wait for applicants, even if they were to be placed on the list, is unrealistic. During a typical two day opening, the HA receives thousands of requests for applications. The Voucher waiting list was last opened in 2005 at which time the HA received over 3000 requests for applications. Of the original 3000 requests, over 400 applicants have kept their application status current and are still waiting for housing eight years later. In 2011, the HA opened the waiting list for Hamilton House for 2 days and received over 1000 applications. Waiting lists for the project based voucher programs are managed separately. Wayside and Vail Place coordinate list management for their programs with the HA since their residents must meet specific criteria to be eligible for their supportive housing. The HA manages the waiting list for Excelsior and Grand. Annual Funding Sources The assisted housing programs are federally funded through HUD. HUD provides an annual funding allocation for the PH Program and the Section 8 Voucher program which is formula based and prorated based on annual congressional budget appropriations. Funds for the Family Self-sufficiency and Shelter Plus Care programs are provided by grants that require annual application submissions. Study Session Meeting of March 11, 2013 (Item No. 6) Page 5 Title: 2012 Housing Authority (HA) Annual Report and 2013 Work Plan Program 2012 Funding (approx.) Public Housing • Operating Contribution $300,000 • Capital Fund Program $177,000 • Rent Revenue $545,000 Section 8 Voucher Program • Housing Assistance Programs (HAP) $2,020,000 • Administrative Funding $169,000 Shelter Plus Care • Rental Assistance $330,000 Family Self-Sufficiency Program $38,600 Hamilton House Service Coordinator $79,000 Total Annual Federal Funding $3,658,000 Final 2013 Funding Levels Still Pending Like all federal programs, HUD has implemented funding decreases over the last couple of years making it more of a challenge for the HA to meet administrative and housing related expenses. At this time, 2013 final federal program funding levels have yet to be determined. The HA is currently being funded at 2012 levels under a Continuing Resolution which will expire at the end of March. Sequestration will further impact funding to the HA. It has been estimated that we can expect additional funding decreases of approximately 5.1% once funding allocations are determined as a result of the implementation of sequestration. Housing Activity Report, December 31, 2012 Annual Housing Programs Activity Report 2012 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this report is to apprise City policy makers of housing program activity in 2012. The report provides historical trends, program descriptions, and additional information. Below are key points of 2012, with details following this summary. 1. Remodeling Activity a. Fewer housing rehab projects in 2012. Most were lower in cost and most were financed without using city loans. b. Use of the city’s Architect Design Services and Remodeling Advisor Services remains steady in 2012. c. Since March, 122 home energy visits were conducted through the new Community Energy Services Program. d. Home additions rebound. Highest level of additions since 2008. Major remodeling projects were down slightly. Overall, the valuation of single family remodeling projects fell compared to 2011. e. Discount Loan use similar to that of 2011, but low compared to a five year average. Our lender confirms that more SLP loans were closed in 2012 than any of the other 18 cities they service. Slow lending reflects moderate-income households’ reluctance to take on additional housing debt at this time. 2. Affordable Home Ownership and Public Housing Update a. HIA loan used to preservation of 326 modest valued condos/townhomes at Greensboro Square and Westwood Villa is occurring. Seven HIAs have been established to date, and Cedar Trails, the first, is scheduled to terminate in 2012. b. One Live Where You Work homebuyer in 2012. Activity reflects the slow housing market; thirteen homebuyers used the program since it began in spring 2009. c. One affordable ownership opportunity provided to a low income family in 2012 through Homes Within Reach. Nine homes purchased, rehabbed and sold to low income families. d. Habitat for Humanity celebrated their 2000th MN home, at the 3317 Texas Ave property where Senator Franken participated in the work and celebration on August 15th. This is the 9th Habitat home in SLP since 1999. e. The SLP Housing Authority affordable rental housing and rental assistance programs continue to have high occupancy and long waiting lists. 3. Housing Matrix a. A net gain of 4 detached single family homes in St. Louis Parkin 2012. b. The city is experiencing a multifamily construction boom with 115 apartment units added in 2012 and 492 units under construction. 4. Foreclosures a. The 2012 foreclosure rate slowed, with 122 residential foreclosures in 2012 compared to 163 in 2011. Study Session Meeting of March 11, 2013 (Item No. 6) Title: 2012 Housing Authority (HA) Annual Report and 2013 Work Plan Page 6 Housing Activity Report, December 31, 2012 1. REMODELING ACTIVITY Residential permitted activity measures remodeling and maintenance activity; this section shows historical trends of remodeling activity. Permit Trends • “Alteration Residential” or General Remodeling The chart below shows the trend line of increasing general remodeling activity over time. This work includes projects with permit valuations less than $37,500 (the average value per job is approximately $7,000) and includes such items as: o remodeling of bathrooms and kitchens; o finishing of basement and attic spaces; o conversion of existing spaces; o window and door replacements, insulation; and o drain tile, step, and foundation work. The trend line below reflects residents’ willingness to preserve and update housing, the impact of the city’s proactive housing improvement assistance, and the ongoing needs of older housing stock. General remodeling activity fell slightly compared to 2011 numbers but continued the overall upwards trend of the past seven years. Chart 1: Trend of Maintenance & Minor Remodeling Permits Since 2005 • Roofing and Siding Activity Reroofing and residing permits are tracked separately. This chart illustrates the impact of storm damage in 2008-9 and again in 2011. Almost 60% of the homes in the city had roofs replaced between 2008 and 2011. It is likely the number of reroofs will be low for the next decade or so. Study Session Meeting of March 11, 2013 (Item No. 6) Title: 2012 Housing Authority (HA) Annual Report and 2013 Work Plan Page 7 Housing Activity Report, December 31, 2012 Chart 2: Reroofing and Residing Permits Since 2005 *Spike in reroofing due to 2008 storms. • Additions and Major Remodeling While the amount of major remodeling activity (permits valued at more than $37,500) remained in line with that of past years, there was a significant uptick in the number of addition permits in 2012, reaching the highest number since 2008. This may be an indication that homeowners think that the housing market is entering the early stages of recovery and recent homebuyers who purchased at the low end of the market who are now investing in their homes. Chart 3: Number of Addition and Major Remodeling Permits Since 2005 • Permit Valuation, 2005 – 2012 The 2012 valuation for single family remodeling activity is slightly down from 2011 but similar to that of 2010. The following chart shows historical remodeling permit valuation for additions, major remodels, remodeling and maintenance, garages/decks, reroofs, and siding. Additional permits with additional valuations were issued for plumbing, heating, and electrical work (not shown here). As the chart illustrates, permit valuation varies significantly from year to year, but, with the exception of the “year of the hail damage repairs” (2008), valuation has consistently ranged between $14 and $27 million. 4828* Study Session Meeting of March 11, 2013 (Item No. 6) Title: 2012 Housing Authority (HA) Annual Report and 2013 Work Plan Page 8 Housing Activity Report, December 31, 2012 Chart 4: Permitted Residential Remodeling Since 2005 City Housing Improvement Services, Loans Trends and Program Descriptions • Home Improvement Services. Use of the city’s architectural design service was consistent with the numbers from recent years; use of the city’s remodeling advisor service was at its lowest point to date. The new Home Energy Visit program was used 122 times after being implemented in March, 2012. Chart 5: Technical, Design and Energy Conservation Services Since 2005 • Home Remodeling Fair and Tour Trend Both the Home Remodeling Fair and Tour attracted as many residents as ever; 396-500 residents visited each of the five tour homes and approximately 1,500 attended the Annual Fair. • City Loan and Rebate Trends The following chart shows that the number of Move Up loans, Discount loans and Energy Rebates issued in recent years. The number of Discount loans, 26, is up slightly from 2011 but remains well down from previous years. CEE notes that home improvement loan use is Study Session Meeting of March 11, 2013 (Item No. 6) Title: 2012 Housing Authority (HA) Annual Report and 2013 Work Plan Page 9 Housing Activity Report, December 31, 2012 slow in their service area. The number of Move Up loans in 2012 fell to the lowest number in seven years. There was also a slight drop-off in use of the Energy Rebate program. Chart 6: Use of City Financial Incentives Since 2005 Summary of Move-Up Activity Loan and Service Costs Since 2005 Through 2011, for every dollar the City invested in move-up and discount loans, technical and design services, rebate programs, and administrative costs, residents invested five dollars, resulting in a 1:5 ratio of public to private investment. This ratio remained fairly consistent in 2012 – for every dollar the city invested, residents invested roughly five dollars and thirty cents. In 2012, the City invested approximately $186,000 which leveraged $994,000 worth of private improvements. Study Session Meeting of March 11, 2013 (Item No. 6) Title: 2012 Housing Authority (HA) Annual Report and 2013 Work Plan Page 10 Housing Activity Report, December 31, 2012 Table 1: Move-Up Participation and Costs Since 2005 Move-Up Participation and Costs YEAR Move-Up Loans Discount Loans Architectural Design Services Remodeling Advisor Services Remodeling Tour Green Rebates CES - Home Energy Visits Total City Cost 2005 7 $182,806 76 $45,636 68 $15,300 221 $28,730 $272,472 2006 27 $591,264 88 $186,205 102 $22,950 157 $20,410 1 $5,000 $825,829 2007 27 $620,000 50 $74,000 62 $12,400 179 $23,270 1 $5,000 $734,670 2008 18 $330,937 55 $114,129 49 $11,025 130 $16,900 1 $5,000 $477,991 2009 17 $329,650 52 $106,000 12 $7,200 126 $16,380 1 $5,000 22 $4,092 $468,322 2010 9 $209,769 64 $86,263 30 $6,750 89 $11,510 1 $5,000 42 $7,820 $327,112 2011 10 $226,877 22 $29,213 29 $6,525 82 $10,250 1 $5,000 83 $15,465 $293,330 2012* 6 $106,232 26 $31,276 29 $6,525 69 $8,970 1 $5,505 73 $13,748 122 $7,320 $179,576 *Other administrative costs, fees, and expenses totaled $6,256 in 2012. Study Session Meeting of March 11, 2013 (Item No. 6) Title: 2012 Housing Authority (HA) Annual Report and 2013 Work Plan Page 11 Housing Activity Report, December 31, 2012 2. AFFORDABLE HOME OWNERSHIP, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANTS AND PUBLIC HOUSING UPDATE Live Where You Work The Live Where You Work Homebuyer Assistance Program began in spring 2009. The goal is to promote home ownership within the City among employees of St. Louis Park businesses. The city provides a deferred loan of $2,500 to an eligible employee and an additional $1,000 is provided to employees purchasing vacant lender-owned foreclosed properties. Employers are invited to contribute a matching or lesser amount to the City’s contribution. The deferred loan will be forgiven after 3 years if the employee continues to work for the employer and meets other qualification requirements. The City contracts with CEE for loan administration. One homebuyer used this program in 2012, for a total of thirteen participants to date. Housing Improvement Area (HIA) The HIA is a finance tool to assist with the preservation of the city’s existing housing stock. An HIA is a defined area within a city where housing improvements are made and the cost of the improvements are paid in whole or in part from fees imposed on the properties within the area. The Association borrows low interest money from the City, improvements are completed and unit owners repay the loan through fees imposed on their properties and collected with property tax payments. The first HIA was established in 2002. To date, seven HIA’s have been established and over twelve million dollars of improvements has been made to 1100 units. Greensboro Condos HIA was established in 2011 and improvements totaling nearly $4,000,000 will be completed this year. Westwood Villa Association HIA began construction in July, 2012, targeting $1,400,000 worth of improvements and they plan to be completed with their improvements this spring. Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Activity completed in 2012 was funded with 2011 CDBG funds. Approximately $180,000 funded improvements to: a SLP Housing Authority home, the single family low-income homeowner’s emergency repair and loan programs, Homes within Reach, Habitat home acquisition, STEP’s roof replacement, and Park & Rec Summer Youth Programming. West Hennepin Affordable Housing Land Trust, aka Homes Within Reach (HWR). Homes within Reach is a program of West Hennepin Housing Land Trust that purchases homes and sells them to low income homebuyers. Buyers pay for the cost of the building only and lease the land for 99 years. City funds are leveraged with Met Council and county HOME and AHIF funds. Since the program began in 2007, nine homes have been sold to low income families, one occurred in 2012. WHAHLT typically sells 1 or 2 homes each year in SLP and recently sold its tenth home in February of 2013. Twin Cities Habitat for Humanity The city has partnered with Habitat over the years to acquire nine blighted properties for rehab or tear-down for new construction. In 2011 the city assisted Habitat with the purchase of one property, construction was completed in the fall 2012 and the home was sold to a low income family. Study Session Meeting of March 11, 2013 (Item No. 6) Title: 2012 Housing Authority (HA) Annual Report and 2013 Work Plan Page 12 Housing Activity Report, December 31, 2012 3. HOUSING MATRIX The housing matrix shows at a glance the numbers and percentages of housing types, tenure (owner or non-homesteaded), affordable units, senior designated units and large single family homes. The matrix is a guide to evaluate future housing development proposals. The attached matrix is updated semi-annually and presented to the City Council, Housing Authority and Planning Commission. 2012 Highlights • Multifamily residential building boom 115 units added with another 492 units under construction in five complexes across the city. • There was a net gain of 4 single family homes. • The percentage of owner occupied (homesteaded) units dropped three percent in 2012. The citywide ratio of homestead to non-homestead property currently stands at 56/44. • The chart shows percentages of homesteaded residential units over time. In 2012, 91% of single family detached homes were owner occupied and 70% of condos/townhomes were owner occupied. As a result of the ongoing volatility of the housing market, owner occupancy in SLP is has decreased slightly. This is phenomenon that may change as the housing market starts to rebound. Chart 7: Percentage of Owner Occupied Units since 2006 • The SLPHA 2011 Rental Study cites the St. Louis Park 2011 vacancy rate at 3.5%, which is quite low. By the 4th quarter of 2012, the regional rental vacancy was 2.9% (Star Tribune 3/3/2013). • Rental of duplexes remains strong and reflects a strong rental market – almost 70% of the duplex units are currently rental. Study Session Meeting of March 11, 2013 (Item No. 6) Title: 2012 Housing Authority (HA) Annual Report and 2013 Work Plan Page 13 Housing Activity Report, December 31, 2012 St. Louis Park Housing Matrix December 31, 2012 Housing Units by Type Large Single Family Homes, Affordable, and Senior Housing Housing Type Housing Units Net Units added in 2012 Owner Occupied (Homestead) Non Homesteaded and/or Rental Large Single Family Homes 2012 Affordable Market Rate Owner Occupied Units 2011 Reported Affordable Market Rate Rental Units** Public Subsidized Affordable Units, Includes Section 8 Housing Units Senior Designated Single Family Detached 11,616 49% 4 10,577 1,039 2,082 2,299 53 55 0 Duplex 424 2% 0 128 296 12 56 0 0 Condos and townhomes 3,492 15% 0 2,437 1,055 1,804 167 0 0 Apartments* 7,889 34% 115 0 7,889 3,909 1,036 923 COOPs 114 0% 0 114 0 42 106 Totals 23,535 100% 499 13,256 56% 10,279 44% 2,010 9% 4,115 17% 4,185 18% 1,133 5% 1,029 4% The percentage of owner occupied (homesteaded) units to rental or non-owner occupied (non-homesteaded) units has shifted from the 60 homesteaded/40 non- homesteaded ratio of the early 2000's. This is due in part to a change in homestead status of approximately 1,200 units since the early 2000s and the addition of new multi-family rental units. In 2011 the Met Council revised the affordable housing income standard. Rather than using 50% MAI for rental and 80% MAI for ownership, the new affordable definition is that housing is affordable to households with incomes at or below 60% MAI ($50,350 for a family of four) paying thirty percent of their income for housing costs whether renting or owning. The 2012 affordable purchase price is $171,500 or less; a monthly rent of $1,134 or less for a 2 bedroom apartment for a family of four is considered affordable. *There are 492 additional units in five complexes under construction as of January, 2013. **Reported Affordable Market Rate Rental Units - based on 2011 SLPHA Rental Study with responses representing 96% of the mf units and 87% of the mf buildings. Data source: SLP Community Development, Development Activity in St. Louis Park, SLP Inspections and Assessing. Study Session Meeting of March 11, 2013 (Item No. 6) Title: 2012 Housing Authority (HA) Annual Report and 2013 Work Plan Page 14 Housing Activity Report, December 31, 2012 Large Single Family Homes One of the City’s housing goals is to increase the number of larger homes available in the city. “Large single family homes” are being defined as exceeding 1,500 square feet of living space, having 3 or more bedrooms, 2 or more baths, and at minimum a 2 car garage. According to SLP Assessing Department, by the end of 2012 there were now 2,082 – or 18% – of SLP single family homes that meet this threshold. Although this size home is not considered large when compared to newly constructed housing, it is when compared to all SLP homes where 75% are less than 1,200 square feet. In the past, tracking the number of these homes that were built or expanded through additions relied on an interpretation of permitting data. New and more accurate property assessment data systems now allow for a better count of homes that fit the above definition. Between 2005 and 2012, best estimates put the number of large single family homes added at 570. Going forward, new tools in the Assessing Department will be in place so that progress towards this housing goal can be more accurately tracked. Affordable Housing Thirty-nine percent of the total city housing stock is considered affordable. The Met Council revised the affordability guideline in 2011. The new affordable guideline is that housing is affordable to households with incomes at or below 60% of median area income ($49,400 for a family of four) paying thirty percent of their income for housing costs whether renting or owning. The previous guideline was 50% MAI for rental and 80% MAI for ownership. Owner Occupied • The 2012 affordable ownership purchase price is $171,500 or less. • Based on the new guideline of 60% MAI versus 80% MAI there are significantly fewer owner occupied homes considered affordable than in 2010. • Yet in 2012 the number of homes considered affordable increased more than 1,800 units due to decreased estimated market values of lower priced single family homes and condominiums. Rental • The 2012 affordable monthly rent including utilities for a 2 bedroom apartment for a family of four is $1,134. • There are an estimated 5,318 affordable rental units – including known subsidized units and estimated market rate units. • The estimated number of market rate affordable rental units is based on the SLPHA Rental Study. The 2011 Study represents responses from 96% of the multiple family units and 87% of the buildings, which is a significantly higher response rate than in previous years. Still, this number does not represent all the rental units in SLP. Study Session Meeting of March 11, 2013 (Item No. 6) Title: 2012 Housing Authority (HA) Annual Report and 2013 Work Plan Page 15 Housing Activity Report, December 31, 2012 Table 2: Comparison of Affordable Units from 2011 - 2012 2011 Guideline 2011 Numbers 2012 Guideline 2012 Numbers Affordable Owner Occupied Units $160,250* 2,264 $171,500* 4,115 Affordable Rental Units (Estimated) & Subsidized Units $1,116** 4,138 $1,134** 5,318 Totals 6,402 9,433*** *House Value **Monthly rent of 2BR apartment and family of 4 ***9,433 units represent 40% of total city housing units Study Session Meeting of March 11, 2013 (Item No. 6) Title: 2012 Housing Authority (HA) Annual Report and 2013 Work Plan Page 16 Housing Activity Report, December 31, 2012 4. RELATED ISSUES Foreclosures Foreclosures are measured by the number of sheriff sales. The number of residential foreclosures dropped in 2012 to 122 sales. This continues last year’s trend and matches the metro area trend of fewer foreclosures. Ongoing foreclosures are primarily related to loss of employment and underemployment in complicated by the fact that many owners are upside down on their mortgage making it difficult to refinance. The chart below shows foreclosures since tracking began in 2006. Chart 8: St. Louis Park Residential Foreclosures by Year, 2006 - 2011 Along with an overall slowing of residential foreclosures, the pace of condominium foreclosures has also slowed as noted in the trend chart below which shows foreclosure by housing type over time. In the previous 2 years there were almost 100 condo foreclosures; in 2012 there were only 30. Chart 9: Residential Foreclosures by Housing Type Study Session Meeting of March 11, 2013 (Item No. 6) Title: 2012 Housing Authority (HA) Annual Report and 2013 Work Plan Page 17 Housing Activity Report, December 31, 2012 Property Work Group The City’s Property Watch Team, developed in 2006, monitors foreclosure activity and problem properties. Staff from all departments track, monitor and respond to issues related to problem foreclosed homes. The goal of this effort is to ensure that vacant, foreclosed homes do not become “problem properties.” The Inspections Department follows-up with vacant foreclosed properties through the Property Maintenance Inspection process and works with bankers, investors and the managing companies. In addition to the City’s concerted efforts, bankers and lenders have become far more proactive in ensuring their investments are maintained. The city continues to promote the foreclosure prevention services provided by Community Action Partnership of Suburban Hennepin County and Home Ownership Center through direct mailings, Park Perspective, City’s social media, and staff referrals. Louisiana Court Update As of December 2012, PPL/Louisiana Court is continuing to maintain close to 100% occupancy. Metro Plains Management Company assumed property management of PPL’s Louisiana Court complex in June 2011 and was able to obtain 100% within a few months. Metro Plains has continued to meet weekly with the Community Liaison Officer to review police calls related to tenant disturbances or criminal activity in or around the complex. The Oversight Committee that includes representatives from the County, MHFA, PPL, Metro Plains, the City and the tax credit syndicator meet twice a year to review the operational status of the development including implementations of capital improvements. Due to the continuing high occupancy at the development, use of the Shallow Rent Subsidy Program has not been necessary. Study Session Meeting of March 11, 2013 (Item No. 6) Title: 2012 Housing Authority (HA) Annual Report and 2013 Work Plan Page 18 Housing Activity Report, December 31, 2012 5. ST. LOUIS PARK HUD FEDERALLY FUNDED HOUSING PROGRAMS: UPDATE The Housing Authority administers programs that ensure the availability of safe and desirable housing options in the St. Louis Park community. These programs include the Public Housing program, Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher rental assistance program, Shelter Plus Care rental assistance program, Louisiana Court Max 200 Rental Assistance Program, and TRAILS family self-sufficiency program. The Authority currently serves over 500 eligible, low-income households through their housing programs. Public Housing The HA owns a low-rise apartment building (108 one-bedroom units and 2 two-bedroom caretaker units) built in 1975, and 37 scattered site single-family units (3 to 5 bedrooms) acquired and constructed between 1974 and 1996. Although the low-rise building is designated for general occupancy, priority is given to elderly and disabled. The single-family scattered units house families with children. The HA also holds the HUD Annual Contributions Contract (ACC) and maintains a waiting list for 12 two-bedroom Public Housing apartment units located at Louisiana Court. These units are owned and managed by Project for Pride in Living. The units and occupancy rates for the Public Housing units are noted in the table. Public Housing Total Units 1-BR 2-BR 3-BR 4-BR 5-BR Occupancy December 31, 2012 Hamilton House 108 108 99% Scattered Site Single Family 37 0 0 17 17 3 99% Louisiana Court, Metropolitan Housing Opportunity (MHOP) Units 12 12 100% Total (bedroom size) 108 12 17 17 3 Total 157 Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program The HA is funded to administer up to 268 Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers. The rent assistance program provides rent subsidies for low-income individuals and families in privately owned, existing market rate housing units. The rent subsidy is paid directly to the owner of the rental property by the HA with funds provided by HUD. The HA offers both tenant-based and project-based vouchers. Forty vouchers of the HA’s allocation are designated for use in three privately owned developments (Excelsior & Grand, Vail Place, and Wayside) and are referred to as project-based vouchers. Shelter Plus Care The Shelter Plus Care Program is designed to link rental assistance with supportive services for hard-to-reach homeless persons with disabilities (primarily those who are seriously mentally ill or have chronic problems with alcohol, drugs or both) and their families. Grants are provided to be used for permanent housing which must be matched with supportive services that are equal in value to the amount of rental assistance and appropriate to the needs of population to be served. St. Louis Park is the grant recipient and we partner with three sponsor organizations that administer supportive housing programs. Study Session Meeting of March 11, 2013 (Item No. 6) Title: 2012 Housing Authority (HA) Annual Report and 2013 Work Plan Page 19 Housing Activity Report, December 31, 2012 Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers (HUD Approved) Units Utilization YTD June 30, 2012 Tenant-Based (49 are Port-Outs) 201 98% Tenant-Based Port - Ins 49 Avg./month Project-Based: 39 Wayside House 14 80% Excelsior & Grand 18 100% Vail Place 7 100% Shelter Plus Care Rental Assistance: 43 Perspectives Inc. 11 97% Community Involvement Program (CIP) – Scattered Site Homes 11 74% CIP- Clear Spring Road 8 92% Project for Pride In Living (PPL) 8 104% *Wayside House 5 85% Total 371 *Beginning in 2012, CIP and Perspective grants provide funding for up to five units of Shelter Plus Care Rental Assistance at Wayside House. Wayside House’s Project Based units were decreased by five units to fifteen. Waiting Lists Assisted Housing Waiting List as of December 31, 2012 Public Housing 1-BR 1-BR Handicap 2-BR 3-BR 3-BR Handicap 4-BR 5-BR Total 917 91 331 284 10 152 46 1858 Section 8 461 Excelsior & Grand 77 MAX 200 79 2475 Study Session Meeting of March 11, 2013 (Item No. 6) Title: 2012 Housing Authority (HA) Annual Report and 2013 Work Plan Page 20 Housing Activity Report, December 31, 2012 6. PROGRAM DESCRIPTIONS Technical, Design, and Conservation Services Architectural Design Service This service provides an architectural consultation for residents to assist with brainstorming remodeling possibilities and to raise the awareness of design possibilities for expansions. Residents select an approved architect from a pool developed in conjunction with the MN Chapter of the American Institute of Architects. All homeowners considering renovations are eligible for this service regardless of income; however, to ensure committed participants, residents make a $25 co-pay. Remodeling/Rehab Advisor The intention of this service is to help residents improve their homes (either maintenance or value added improvements) by providing technical help before and during the construction process. All homeowners are eligible for this service regardless of income. Resident surveys indicated that homeowners valued the service and would recommend it to others. The City contracts with the Center for Energy and Environment (CEE) for this service. CES Home Energy Service Home Visit CES is a comprehensive one-stop residential energy program designed to help residents save energy. It moves beyond the traditional energy audit to include free neighborhood presentations on how to save energy and money and offers a customized home energy visit. Unlike a typical utility energy audit, the home visit includes installation of energy efficient: compact fluorescent light bulbs, programmable thermostats, faucet aerators, high efficiency showerheads, pipe wrap, water heater blankets, weather-stripping, and more. Residents can opt for diagnostic services that include a blower door test to measure air infiltration into the home and a gas appliances combustion safety test. The analysis report provides residents with three actionable, practical steps they can take to reduce their home energy use. The service also provides information about recommended contractors, 0% interest energy loans, and assistance in securing utility and city rebates. The program which began in March, 2012, is administered by the Center for Energy and Environment (CEE). The city pays $50 per resident visit which is leveraged with funds from Xcel Energy, Center Point Energy and CEE. Annual Home Remodeling Fair The cities and community education departments of St. Louis Park, Hopkins, Minnetonka, and Golden Valley co-sponsor the fair. The fair provides residents an opportunity to attend seminars, talk with vendors and city staff about permits, zoning, home improvement loans, and environmental issues related to remodeling. The fair is a self-sustaining event and vendor registration fees cover the costs. Home Remodeling Tour The annual tour is designed to meet the housing goal to remodel and expand single family owner occupied homes. The self-guided tour of six homes provides a showcase of a variety of home remodeling projects to provide ideas, information, and inspiration to other residents considering remodeling. Study Session Meeting of March 11, 2013 (Item No. 6) Title: 2012 Housing Authority (HA) Annual Report and 2013 Work Plan Page 21 Housing Activity Report, December 31, 2012 Financial Programs Discount Loan Program This program encourages residents to improve their homes by “discounting” the interest rate on the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency (MN Housing) home improvement loans. Residents with incomes of $67,200 or less qualify for a greater discount than those with incomes of $96,500 or less. Eligible improvements include most home improvement projects with the exception of luxury items such as pools and spas. The City contracts with CEE for loan administration. Implementation of discounting of MHFA loans began in late 1999 as a pilot project. Successful marketing efforts have led the City to be third among all Minnesota cities to use the MHFA loans, only exceeded by Minneapolis and St. Paul. Move – Up Transformation Loan The purpose of this loan is to encourage residents with incomes at or below 120% of median area income ($100,700 for a family of four) to expand their homes. The program provides deferred loans for 25% of the applicant’s home expansion project cost, with a maximum loan of $25,000. The revolving loan pool will continue to fund future expansions – four loans have been repaid when residents moved, for a total of approximately $120,000. This loan requires significant upfront work by the residents, from deciding on the scope of the project to selecting contractors. Loan guidelines are: • Only residents making significant expansions are eligible. The minimum project cost must exceed $35,000. • The maximum loan amount is $25,000. • The loan has 0% interest with a carrying cost fee of 3% paid by the borrower which covers the lender’s administrative fee. Green Remodeling Program & Energy Rebates Revisions to the Green Remodeling Program included implementation of the Community Energy Services program, use of energy rebates, and access to CEE’s Home Energy Loan. The city provides a match of 50% of gas and electric utility rebates for energy efficient furnaces, water heaters, and air conditioners. In 2012 rebates were expanded to include qualifying air sealing and insulation. The use of rebate incentives slowed in 2012. The average rebate was $188, for a total City cost of $13,748. In 2012, CEE provided seven 0% interest loans to residents making qualifying energy improvements. Study Session Meeting of March 11, 2013 (Item No. 6) Title: 2012 Housing Authority (HA) Annual Report and 2013 Work Plan Page 22 St. Louis Park Housing Authority 2013 Work Plan Housing Authority Mission: The Housing Authority develops, integrates, and operates housing and housing assistance policies and programs to ensure the availability of safe, affordable and desirable housing options that meet the diverse, lifecycle housing needs of all of the residents of St. Louis Park. Housing Authority Vision: The Community: 1. Desirable housing choices exist for families and individuals of all incomes. 2. There is a balance of housing choices for households at all phases of the life cycle. 3. St. Louis Park is a unique, safe, pedestrian- and transit-oriented community. Housing policies and planning embrace livable communities principles to ensure this vision. Goal: a. Apply for additional “Fair Share” Section 8 units, Shelter Plus Care or other assisted housing resources based on community need, community goals and staff capacity to administer additional units when available. Support for profit developers and nonprofit service and housing agencies efforts to secure additional affordable housing units. Agency Administration and Programs: 1. The public housing stock is well-maintained and a positive community asset. 2. The Housing Authority is financially solvent and strives for greater financial capacity. 3. The administration of Housing Authority programs is efficient, effective and productive. 4. The Housing Authority has a good professional image as a developer, property manager and policy maker in St. Louis Park. Goals: a. Continue to administer the federally assisted rental assistance programs maximizing both budgetary and occupancy utilization under HUD’s Annual Contribution Contract. b. Develop budgets for agency programs that reflect prudent fiscal operation and are responsive to HUD’s federal funding policies. Review financial principles and policies related to HA reserve funds as appropriate. Maintain adequate accounting systems and internal control procedures to comply with HUD’s asset management and audit requirements; review and improve accounting processes and procedures as appropriate. Explore the option of fee accounting versus the current contractual arrangement for finance services provided by the City. c. Continue to assess maintenance operation and activities ensuring the most effective and efficient use of staff and resources to ensure that the HA maintains a Study Session Meeting of March 11, 2013 (Item No. 6) Title: 2012 Housing Authority (HA) Annual Report and 2013 Work Plan Page 23 Public Housing Assessment System (PHAS) property inspection indicator score at a level that ensures we meet the highest PHAS property inspection standards. d. Assess capital improvement needs and implement improvements as noted in the PH Capital Improvement Fund plan to ensure properties are safe and an asset to the community and the neighborhoods where they are located. Utilize formula allocated Capital Improvement grant funds within HUD’s designated guidelines and apply for MN Housing State allocated rehab funds for PH units when available. Continue to revise 5 year Plan to assist in planning for future Capital improvement needs. Combine with goal above e. Seek opportunities to improve the environmental design and energy efficiencies of our PH properties. Utilize energy saving and environmentally friendly equipment, appliances and building techniques. The Agency as Partner 1. The Housing Authority seeks opportunities to work in partnership with for profit and nonprofit organizations to address housing and related social service needs in St. Louis Park. 2. The Housing Authority has a strong relationship with the City Council, City staff and the citizens of St. Louis Park. Goals: a. Identify and advise the City Council on strategies and tools to create affordable housing opportunities in new developments. b. Collaborate with Louisiana Court to administer the 12 Metropolitan Housing Opportunity Units (MHOP) units and seek opportunities to work in partnership with for profit and nonprofit organizations to address housing and related social service needs in St. Louis Park. c. Administer the Shelter Plus Care program in collaboration with community partners, Perspectives, Community Involvement Program and Pillsbury Untied Community. Collaborate with CIP and Perspectives to continue maximizing use of S+C grant funds through an agreement to subsidize units at Wayside supportive housing program. d. Continue to collaborate with Excelsior & Grand, Wayside House Inc. and Vail Place to administer 40 units of project-based Housing Choice Vouchers providing affordable units in a project that would otherwise not be affordable to Voucher participants and subsidizing rents in two supportive housing projects. Our Residents 1. Current and past residents of subsidized housing have improved their economic status and are less dependent on public assistance. 2. Residents unable to achieve economic independence because of age, disability or circumstance have improved their quality of life and are contributing members of the community. Study Session Meeting of March 11, 2013 (Item No. 6) Title: 2012 Housing Authority (HA) Annual Report and 2013 Work Plan Page 24 Goals: a. Continue to apply for HUD grant opportunities to ensure continuation of Training & Resources to Attain Long term Success (TRAILS) Family Self Sufficiency Program to assist residents in improving their economic status and reduce their dependency on public assistance. b. Continue to apply for HUD grant opportunities to ensure continuation of providing a service coordinator position at Hamilton House to assist elderly and disabled residents address social service needs and improve their quality of life. c. Seek opportunities to collaborate with community agencies and partners to provide/inform residents of services and opportunities to meet social and economic needs. Study Session Meeting of March 11, 2013 (Item No. 6) Title: 2012 Housing Authority (HA) Annual Report and 2013 Work Plan Page 25 Meeting: Study Session Meeting Date: March 11, 2013 Written Report: 7 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: Amendment of City Code Chapter 8, Subdivisions IV– Food and Beverage, V – Public Sanitary Facilities, and VII – Lodging RECOMMENDED ACTION: This report is being provided in preparation for an upcoming agenda item requiring Council approval. No action required at this time unless Council requests further discussion before First Reading. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the City Council wish to amend Chapter 8, Subdivisions IV, V and VII of the City Code to reflect current Environmental Health business licensing delegation and create provisions to continue with licensing of Tanning facilities. SUMMARY: City Code amendments which will be proposed to Council for first reading within the next month are essentially a clean-up item, reflecting service changes which have occurred. Effective January 2013, the City ended delegation agreements with the Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) and Minnesota Department of Agriculture (MDA) for providing Environmental Health services. Amendments will include deleting the following Subdivisions from Chapter 8 Businesses and Licenses: • IV - Food and Beverage, • V – Public Sanitary Facilities • VII – Lodging Tanning Facilities is the only type of licensed business currently integrated into Subdivision V - Public Sanitary Facilities which was not delegated. Staff is proposing to maintain the same regulations and fees that are currently used to help maintain public safety and sanitation at places offering tanning beds or rooms. The Subdivision will be deleted and proposed to be replaced with provisions specifically for licensing and inspection of Tanning Facilities. Hennepin County has assumed licensing and inspection all of the MDH delegated facilities in the City except for retail food stores which are now all regulated by the MDA. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: NA VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: None Prepared by: Ann Boettcher, Inspection Services Manager Reviewed by: Brian Hoffman, Director of Inspections Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Meeting: Study Session Meeting Date: March 11, 2013 Written Report: 8 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: Healthy Eating Active Living Policy RECOMMENDED ACTION: No action at this time. The purpose of this report is to inform the City Council of progress in developing an Active Living Policy. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the City Council support the proposed policies identified by city staff in the attached draft resolution and draft policy? SUMMARY: The City Council adopted Resolution 12-077 authorizing the City of St. Louis Park to participate in the Minnesota GreenStep Cities Program and directing city staff to identify best practices for further development and promotion, including adoption of an Active Living Policy. Active Living is a way of life that integrates physical activity into daily routines and destinations, through activities such as biking, walking and/or taking transit. The Minnesota GreenStep Cities Program recognizes Active Living as supporting “efficient and healthy development patterns.” The City has been an active partner in Active Living Hennepin County since 2006. St. Louis Park understands the connections between health and environment. It is clearly reflected in the Vision St. Louis Park, Comprehensive Plan goals, the City’s support for transit, the Connect the Park (pedestrian and bicycling improvements) initiative, partnerships with Park Nicollet and other local employers and community organizations, and the City’s employee wellness program. The policy also takes a step further to incorporate Healthy Eating as well as Active Living. The E-Group, an interdepartmental group tasked with advancing environmental initiatives, recommends the attached Healthy Eating and Active Living Policy and submits it for City Council review. If there are no objections, this item will be on a future City Council agenda for adoption. Otherwise, this may be brought to City Council as a study session discussion item. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: There are no direct costs associated with this policy. Individual policies, programs or strategies identified in the policy that do entail costs have had previous review and support from the City Council (i.e. Employee Wellness Program). VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis park is committed to being a leader in environmental stewardship. We will increase environmental consciousness and responsibility in all areas of city business. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Draft Resolution & Policy Prepared by: Sean Walther, Senior Planner Reviewed by: Meg McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Study Session Meeting of March 11, 2013 (Item No. 8) Page 2 Title: Healthy Eating Active Living Policy RESOLUTION NO. 13-____ CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA APPROVING A HEALTHY EATING AND ACTIVE LIVING POLICY WHEREAS, the strategic directions from Vision St. Louis Park state that “St. Louis Park is a connected and engaged community,” and “is committed to being a leader in environmental stewardship. We will increase environmental consciousness and responsibility in all areas of city business;” and WHEREAS, in 2012, the City of St. Louis Park adopted a Resolution 12-077 authorizing the City of St. Louis Park to participate in the Minnesota GreenStep Cities Program and directing city staff to identify a best practices for further development and promotion, including adoption of an Active Living Policy; and WHEREAS, the City’s Environmental Group (E Group), an internal interdepartmental workgroup, supports the Vision in being good stewards of the environment, is actively involved in environmental activities and best practices outlined in the Minnesota GreenStep Cities Program, and recommends the Healthy Eating and Active Living Policy. WHEREAS, Active Living Hennepin County is a partnership of cities, businesses and nonprofits working together to increase opportunities for active living through policy change and infrastructure planning. The group was launched in 2006 with funding from Blue Cross Blue Shield of Minnesota and Hennepin County; and WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park has been partner in Active Living Hennepin County since 2006; and WHEREAS, in 2008, the City of St. Louis Park adopted Resolution 08-046 in support of the mission, vision and goals of Active Living Hennepin County; and WHEREAS, physical inactivity and poor nutrition are leading causes contributing to increasing rates of obesity and other chronic diseases; and WHEREAS, obesity is recognized by the United States Center for Disease Control and Prevention as a public health epidemic that calls for preventative actions by local communities to reduce this threat to community health, well-being, and prosperity; and WHEREAS, more than half of Hennepin County adults are overweight or obese and therefore at risk for many chronic conditions including diabetes, heart disease, cancer, arthritis, stroke, and, hypertension; and WHEREAS, health problems associated with physical inactivity and poor nutrition affect Hennepin County through reduced quality of life and higher medical costs (over $1 billion in Hennepin County per year); and WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park has an interest to preserve, promote, and improve the health of its citizens by taking action to increase healthy eating and active living within its jurisdiction; Study Session Meeting of March 11, 2013 (Item No. 8) Page 3 Title: Healthy Eating Active Living Policy NOW, THEREFORE, BE RESOLVED, that the City Council hereby declares that the City of St. Louis Park will seek opportunities and establish mechanisms to support individual, community, and environmental efforts to improve the public’s health by encouraging the development and implementation of policies and practices that support and promote healthy eating and active living among citizens of the City of St. Louis Park, as set forth herein; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council hereby adopts the following Healthy Eating and Active Living Policy: City of St. Louis Park Healthy Eating and Active Living Policy __________, 2013 Guiding Principles 1. Daily physical activity improves health and can reduce levels of obesity or chronic diseases, such as type 2 Diabetes or heart disease. 2. Built environments with accessible destinations, integrated transportation networks and inviting design promote physically active and safe options. 3. Programs and policies inclusive of all cultures and abilities can help reduce health disparities. 4. Public participation and awareness of the benefits and opportunities related to healthy eating and active living are increased through effective communication strategies. Acknowledgement of Current Practices The City Council acknowledges that the City of St. Louis Park has established a high quality of life for its citizens in the community and currently provides a variety of resources and services (i.e. facilities, parks, trails, sidewalks, programs, services, events, etc.) for people of all ages and abilities to lead a healthy lifestyle. The intent of this policy is for the City Council to advocate for the continued sustainability of existing offerings while recognizing opportunities to add or improve policies and practices. Policies I. Built Environment The City of St. Louis Park recognizes that the built environment influences active living opportunities, and that the City of St. Louis Park influences the built environment at many scales through infrastructure investments, land use policies and regulations, and City financial assistance. The City will: 1. Prioritize access to multiple modes of transportation when selecting sites for City facilities and buildings. 2. Integrate active living elements into the design of City buildings and interior spaces (i.e. highly visible stairways, orientation to streets and sidewalks, bicycle facilities, and transit stops near main building entries, etc.). 3. Plan and construct a built environment that encourages walking, biking and other forms of physical activity. 4. Increase walking and biking connectivity between residential neighborhoods and schools, parks, recreational resources, transit service, retail and employment. Study Session Meeting of March 11, 2013 (Item No. 8) Page 4 Title: Healthy Eating Active Living Policy 5. Support a safe and efficient regional public transit system, including dial-a-ride, bus, light rail, and commuter rail services. 6. Utilize Complete Streets principles to design and maintain streets in a manner that is appropriate to the community context and safe for all users, including pedestrians, bicyclists and transit passengers of all ages and abilities, as well as trucks, buses and automobiles. II. Natural Environment City of St. Louis Park recognizes that nature plays a vital role in human health and well-being, and that the City’s parks and open spaces provide access to nature for individuals in St. Louis Park. 1. Maintain Westwood Hills Nature Center as the focal point of the City’s park system, providing and preserving all of the inherent healthy benefits of a natural experience within its woods, marsh and prairie environs, while promoting and supporting, through programs and leisure, varied levels of activities aimed at diverse physical abilities and ages. 2. Support efforts to improve the water quality of Minnehaha Creek and to provide access for passive and active enjoyment of this natural resource. III. Services and Programs City of St. Louis Park provides training, programs and services to the community and its employees in an effort to promote healthy lifestyles. The City will (continue to): 1. Evaluate and provide programs and community events that are inclusive to people of all ages and abilities, and eliminate as many participation barriers (i.e. disability, financial, etc.) as possible for the delivery of outstanding service. 2. Seek opportunities to incorporate physical activity and information at community events. 3. Offer athletics, fitness and other active living and recreation programs. 4. Manage several community gardens. Also, mentor, advise, assist and collaborate with businesses and neighborhoods in development, maintenance and management of privately-owned and operated community gardens. 5. Provide an array of volunteer opportunities that emphasize outdoors, physical activity, nature, and community (i.e. Adopt-a-Park, Citizen Assisted Lake Monitoring Program, Adopt-a-Garden, Beautify the Park, Parktacular, etc.). IV. Promotion and Partnerships City of St. Louis Park will promote healthy eating and active living through its publications and develop/maintain community partnerships to encourage healthy eating and active living opportunities. The City will (continue to): 1. Expand community access to indoor and outdoor facilities through joint use agreements with schools and/or other partners. 2. Help promote local events and programs that encourage healthy eating and active living. Study Session Meeting of March 11, 2013 (Item No. 8) Page 5 Title: Healthy Eating Active Living Policy V. Employee Wellness City of St. Louis Park recognizes that employees who practice healthy eating and active living help to contain health care, transportation, and other costs, in addition to preventing adverse health and environmental outcomes. In order to promote wellness within City of St. Louis Park, and to set an example for other employers, the City has adopted and implemented an employee wellness program as follows: 1. Healthy eating encouragement and opportunities including staff events, vending machine contracts, lunch and learn seminars, and other events. 2. Physical activity encouragement and opportunities such as stand up desks, stability ball chairs, mapped out walking routes near city hall, encouraged use of walking meetings and stairways, fitness equipment available for checkout, onsite fitness facility, staff events that encourage wellness, and other events. 3. Ongoing support and encouragement for healthy lifestyles through promotion of events, communication and “spotlights” in city newsletter. 4. Wellness incentive policy, which provides financial rewards for completing certain wellness activities. 5. On-site screening for biometric results and flu shots. 6. Online wellness resources through city Intranet and partner with health insurer and other consultants/vendors. 7. Ongoing innovation and exploration of new well-being opportunities such as the possibility of offering an onsite clinic. V. Healthy Food Access City of St. Louis Park recognizes that good nutrition, in addition to physical activity, is needed to combat obesity. Therefore, the City will (continue to): 1. Periodically evaluate land use policies for health impacts, including access to healthy food (i.e. 2011 Health Impact Assessment of the Comprehensive Plan). 2. Allow, manage, or support in other ways local community gardens and farmer’s markets in order to increase access to healthy food, including fresh fruits and vegetables; 3. Set required percentages for healthy choice options for vending machines located in city owned or leased locations; 4. Encourage nutritional food options at city events, city sponsored meetings, served at city facilities and city concessions, and city programs. Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council ________, 2013 City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk Meeting: Study Session Meeting Date: March 11, 2013 Written Report: 9 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: Telecommunications Advisory Commission 2012 Annual Report and 2013 Work Plan RECOMMENDED ACTION: None at this time. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Are the activities of the TAC in keeping with the expectations of the City Council? SUMMARY: The following report is a review of Telecommunications Advisory Commission activity in 2012. Highlights of 2012 include: • Participation in the Fiber Optic Study • Regular online seminars with national leaders in the telecommunications industry • Continued oversight of the city’s operations agreement with the St. Louis Park Public Schools, which includes studio management and board meeting Cable TV coverage; and • Receipt of Comcast customer complaints The Commission’s 2013 work plan includes: • Pursuing audit partnerships with other communities • Monitoring state legislation regarding telecommunications related matters • Learning the impacts of new or planned FCC regulations • Continued assistance with the implementation of the Fiber Optic study • Review of the Future of Cable TV, as studied in 2011 FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged community. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion Cable TV Complaints Received & Logged by City Staff 2008-2012 Telecommunications Advisory Commission 2012 Work Plan Draft Telecommunications Advisory Commission 2013 Work Plan Prepared by: Reg Dunlap, Civic TV Coordinator Reviewed by: Jamie Zwilling, Communications & Marketing Coordinator Clint Pires, Chief Information Officer Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Study Session Meeting of March 11, 2013 (Item No. 9) Page 2 Title: Telecommunications Advisory Commission 2012 Annual Report and 2013 Work Plan DISCUSSION BACKGROUND: The Telecommunications Advisory Commission officially met four times in 2012 and Commissioners remained involved in other ways including: • Commissioners Browning, Dworsky and Keeler attended eNATOA webinars with staff hosted at City Hall. Topics included auditing, strategic planning, local programming and stimulus funding. • Commissioners Browning, Dworsky and Keeler attended the Council Study Session on October 22 when Joanne Hovis presented the Fiber Optic Study. • Commissioners Browning, Dworsky, Hartman, Hoffman and Keeler attended the Minnesota Association of Community Telecommunications Administrators (MACTA) annual conference in November, and Commissioner Keeler served on the MACTA Board throughout the year. Fiber Optic Study Chief Information Officer Clint Pires chaired the Fiber Optic Study Task Force, which included Commissioners Browning, Keeler, Community TV Coordinator John McHugh and others. The Commission reviewed the draft Fiber Optic Study October 10 and Mr. Pires forwarded comments and questions to the consultant to address in the final report. Council received and reviewed the final report on October 22. Next steps include: • Pursue recommendations to acquire / build fiber segments as opportunities present themselves. • Schedule construction of redundant fiber loops into the Capital Improvement Program. • Pursue cooperative fiber use / lease relationships with strategic St. Louis Park partners (e.g., Library, Park Nicollet). • Connect additional City facilities to fiber network where justified by benefits. • Draft goals for broader use of City – School – LOGIS fiber network. Council to consider policy options prior to soliciting business model partnerships. • Draft ordinance for TAC and City Council review to require inclusion of fiber facilities in new / significantly remodeled construction. ParkTV/School District #283 Operations Agreement & related activities ParkTV covered a full schedule of high school sports throughout the year, used the studio weekly to record Park Update and some Community TV productions, and provided live School Board coverage. In addition Park TV covered 36 concerts and performances. (See attached report). In 2012, ParkTV began regularly cablecasting games and events live from The Rec Center, Wolfe Park and the St. Louis Park High School football field. Comcast Complaints The total number of complaint calls increased to 61 in 2012, after 50 complaints in 2010 and 49 complaints in 2011. Programming complaints increased from three to 10 (most related to AMC and TCM moving to a digital tier) and price complaints from eight to 15. Most complaints were quickly resolved after being referred to Comcast E-Care staff. (See attached report). Study Session Meeting of March 11, 2013 (Item No. 9) Page 3 Title: Telecommunications Advisory Commission 2012 Annual Report and 2013 Work Plan Comcast Price Increases The Commission reviewed Comcast price increase information and a follow-up report from staff about Comcast’s answers to Commission and staff questions. Comcast audit notice The Commission discussed the results from the past few cable company audits and tabled further discussion until December, 2012. Grand Stadium The Commission reviewed a proposal related to Grand Stadium at the February and October meetings, and tabled the item until the May 2013 meeting. Grand Stadium is affiliated with local broadcast channel 45 (KSTC), which is the rights-holder for television coverage of high school sports sectional playoffs. Grand Stadium requests a signed agreement from local cable producers like ParkTV that cover high school sports to partner in DVD sales and live coverage. Some local producers have objected to terms of the agreement and few have signed it. The commissioners will consider the request in May 2013 after staff conducts additional research on the agreement. NATOA Conference Report Community TV Coordinator John McHugh was a panelist on digital inclusion at the national conference held by NATOA (National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors) in September, and demonstrated St. Louis Park’s outreach efforts as a model in digital inclusion. Officers Rolf Peterson served as Chair and Bill Theobald as Vice Chair for 2012. Telecommunications Commission Attendance: 2012 Commissioner 2/29/12 5/9/12 8/22/12 canceled 10/10/12 12/12/21 Total attended Rolf Peterson(Chair) No Yes Yes Yes 3 Bill Theobald (Vice Chair) Yes Yes Yes Yes 4 Bruce Browning Yes Yes No No 2 Rick Dworsky Yes Yes Yes Yes 4 Dale Hartman Yes Yes Yes Yes 4 Cindy Hoffman (appointed 3/5/12) Not yet appointed Yes Yes Yes 3 Toby Keeler Yes No Yes Yes 3 Study Session Meeting of March 11, 2013 (Item No. 9) Page 4 Title: Telecommunications Advisory Commission 2012 Annual Report and 2013 Work Plan Cable TV complaints received & logged by city staff 2007-2012 (Some customers reported more than one complaint) Complaint Category Complaints 2008 Complaints 2009 Complaints 2010 Complaints 2011 Complaints 2012 Billing 30 28 17 20 20 Construction (e.g., right of way, unburied cable, property damage) 2 3 0 7 2 Customer Service/ Relations (e.g., missed or late appointments, company response to issue, attitude) 7 0 7 1 9 Installation (e.g., property damage) 0 0 0 0 0 Programming Options (lost channels, want new channels) 16 6 2 3 10 Rates, prices 16 7 9 8 15 Technical Service (e.g., outage, reception, equipment faulty/lack of features) 15 10 14 12 9 Service Requests (e.g., residential/commercial) 0 0 0 0 0 Telephone Customer Service (on hold, busy, no one available) 9 8 8 8 8 Miscellaneous 9 14 11 3 5 Total Cable Service Complaints 99 76 68 62 78 Digital Voice/Telephone 3 2 3 2 0 Cable Modem/Internet Issues 6 3 7 2 7 Combined Total of All Processed Complaints (includes Telephone & Internet) 108 81 78 66 85 Average complaints per month reported to city staff 9.8 6.75 6.5 5.5 7.1 Total complaint calls (some callers mention more than 1 complaint) 83 76 50 49 61 Approx number of subscribers on average for the year 13,000 13,000 13,000 13,000 13,000 Study Session Meeting of March 11, 2013 (Item No. 9) Page 5 Title: Telecommunications Advisory Commission 2012 Annual Report and 2013 Work Plan 2012 Telecommunications Advisory Commission Work Plan January 2012 Written Annual Report to City Council (submitted 1/12/12) February 29 Council Chambers • Elected Bill Theobald as Vice Chair. • Grand Stadium review The consensus was that there is no compelling reason to address this, since there is little to be gained, so the Commission will review this at the August meeting. • Review budget for 2011 & 2012 • Review survey questions for Fiber optic study Columbia Telecommunications Corporation (CTC) has mailed a telecommunications survey to St. Louis Park businesses, and Commissioner Browning said the questions were well done. • Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) background Bills in the United States House and Senate have stalled due to public outcry with concerns about protecting the freedom of the internet. No Commission action. May 9 Council Chambers • Fiber optic study update Q & A with Joanne Hovis, CTC author of the study. Ms. Hovis described the goals of the study, the existing fiber operated by the City & School District, and the business community survey. • City website upgrade converts entire site to mobile-compatible Communications Coordinator Jamie Zwilling said that 15% of City website users are using mobile devices, and that the number is increasing. As part of the City’s two-year communication plan, the website is now the City’s primary communication tool. Mr. Zwilling demonstrated a mock-up of the mobile site which will be launched in June. • Comcast price increase follow up Mr. Dunlap talked about the Comcast responses to Commission & staff questions about the February and April price increases. Customers didn’t receive two price increases, and Music Choice channels are still available to Basic cable customers. • Consider franchise fee audit notice, going back 3 years from the date of the notice The Commission passed a motion 6-0 to table the discussion and revisit the franchise fee audit at the December 2012 meeting. • Budget review for 2011 and year to date August 22 Canceled, items pushed to October meeting • Fiber optic study update • Grand Stadium Study Session Meeting of March 11, 2013 (Item No. 9) Page 6 Title: Telecommunications Advisory Commission 2012 Annual Report and 2013 Work Plan October 10 • Fiber optic study update Chief Information Officer Clint Pires fielded many Commission questions about the draft Fiber Study. The Commission passed a motion 6-0 to proceed with the recommendations as proposed by CTC in the report, “Building on Fiber Success: A Strategy for Enhancing Broadband in St. Louis Park.” • Grand Stadium Since there was little new information, the Commission passed a motion 6-0 to table the item until the May, 2013 meeting. • Future of cable TV technology update Mr. Dunlap said that franchise fees have not yet been affected by “cord-cutting,” customers that retain broadband but cancel cable TV subscriptions. Comcast has been leveraging ways of adding value to cable TV subscription, like the hundreds of free movies on demand and free access to unprecedented online coverage of the summer Olympic games. December 12 • Comcast presentation on new cable rates and/or changes in the channel line up Comcast Government Affairs Manager Martin Ludden said that rates were adjusted because of programming costs incurred by Comcast. He said the convenience fee has been eliminated if a customer uses the kiosk in a Comcast office or the automated telephone payment process. He said Comcast has begun to publicize the move to all- digital, which means that TVs cannot receive any signal without a Comcast box, effective in mid-March. Comcast plans to transition customers to new or additional equipment before mid-March. • Comcast customer service update Comcast Senior Director of Customer Care Cory Limberg described call center staffing, training and procedures. He said Comcast was adding 250 jobs to the Minnetonka Loyalty Center of Excellence for the Western Division, meaning everything west of the Mississippi River. In the past, service representatives had to know about all products offered by Comcast, but now they are specialized in areas of expertise. He said that Comcast uses third party contractors, which have the same information and training as Comcast employees and are held to the same standards. • Consider franchise fee audit notice, going back 3 years from the date of the notice Directed staff to research audit partnerships with other communities and report back in February, 2013. • Draft Annual Report for 2012 • Set meetings for 2013 for February 20, May 1, August 7, October 2 and December 4. • Draft Work Plan for 2013 Added audit partnerships and Park TV programming reports to the February meeting; streaming video upgrade to the May meeting; FCC and studio updates to the August meeting. • Elect Chair & Vice Chair, effective next meeting Unanimously elected Bill Theobald as Chair and Cindy Hoffman as Vice Chair for 2013 Study Session Meeting of March 11, 2013 (Item No. 9) Page 7 Title: Telecommunications Advisory Commission 2012 Annual Report and 2013 Work Plan 2013 Telecommunications Advisory Commission Work Plan January Written Annual Report to City Council February 27, Council Chambers • Report on franchise agreements with Xcel & CenterPoint Energy • State Legislation update • Audit partnership opportunities (Bloomington, others) • ParkTV programming reports for 15, 16, 17, 96 May 22, Council Chambers • Fiber network update • Grand Stadium • Streaming video equipment upgrade & demo August 28, Council Chambers • FCC update • Studio update October 23, Council Chambers • Future of cable TV technology update December 7 or 11, Council Chambers • Comcast presentation on new cable rates and/or changes in the channel line up • Comcast customer service update • Draft Annual Report for 2013 • Set meetings for 2014 • Draft Work Plan for 2014 • Elect Chair & Vice Chair, effective next meeting Meeting: Study Session Meeting Date: March 11, 2013 Written Report: 10 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: Update on Potential Redevelopment Sites/Projects RECOMMENDED ACTION: This is an information only item. No action required. Please contact staff with any questions you might have. POLICY CONSIDERATION: None at this time. SUMMARY: Development interest in St. Louis Park remains strong and several properties with potential for redevelopment are either openly or quietly on the market for sale. Last fall a summary of the status of approximately a dozen potential redevelopment sites was provided to the City Council in a written report dated 10/8/12. This report is an update on the status of those sites with the addition of a couple new potential sites. The purpose of this report is to alert the City Council to potential upcoming redevelopment projects that may be the focus of future Study Session agendas. Attached is a table providing basic information on 14 sites and a brief summary of each site’s status. A map showing the locations of the sites is also attached. Some of the sites like the Eliot School site are well on the way to being redeveloped. Others are only beginning to be discussed for potential redevelopment and most will see significant evolution before there is any need for City Council policy direction or action. Some of these proposed projects will require land use reguiding and rezoning if they are to come to fruition. Such changes will also require discussions with the respective neighborhoods. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not applicable at this time. VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable at this time SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion Potential Redevelopment Sites Table Potential Redevelopment Sites Map Prepared by: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director Greg Hunt, Economic Development Coordinator Approved by: Tom Harmening, Executive Director, and City Manager Study Session Meeting of March 11, 2013 (Item No. 10) Page 2 Title: Update on Potential Redevelopment Sites/Projects DISCUSSION BACKGROUND: In addition to the parcels specifically listed on the attached table there are other smaller parcels throughout St. Louis Park and along Excelsior Blvd in particular that could see smaller scale redevelopment interest. If development interest in any of these sites grows it could push them onto the list of potential redevelopment sites. A potential addition to the list in the future is Knollwood Shopping Center. It is under new ownership, Rouse Properties, which is exploring opportunities for improving the center. Any changes to the center will require addressing significant storm water management issues. Knollwood has been allowed to make minor improvements in the past with the understanding that the next improvements would require addressing the sites storm water needs. NEXT STEPS: Of the dozen sites listed in the attached table the following sites are already scheduled on future City Council Agendas for action or discussion, or are expected to be scheduled soon. 1. Eliot Park – Apartment proposal a. March 18th - EDA & City Council meetings i. – set the date for the Tax Increment Financing district public hearing ii. – approval of plat, rezoning, PUD, CUP and variance b. April 1st – City Council Meeting i. 2nd reading on rezoning c. May 6th – TIF Hearing and approval of Redevelopment Agreement 2. McGarvey Coffee and Hwy 7 EDA parcels – Apartment and Mixed-use proposals a. April 1st – Special Study Session discussion of re-guiding parcels from commercial and business park to high-density residential and mixed-use. 3. Most Holy Trinity – Condo proposal a. March 12th – Neighborhood meeting b. City Council study session discussion - date to be determined. 4. LA Fitness Outlot – Goodwill proposal a. April date to be determined – City Council consideration of lot split None of the other potential redevelopment sites are far enough along to warrant a place on a study session or action agenda just yet. Staff will continue to provide updates and keep you informed. Please contact Staff if you have any questions. Map Site name Existing Current Proposed Site Near Term Number Property address(es)Parcels Acres Conditions Land Use Land Use Status Actions Needed 1 Eliot School 6800 Cedar Lake Rd 2 4.21 Vacant school bldg Civic Multi-Family Residential Property under contract. 138 apt units & 2 single family homes proposed Rezoning, CUP & PUD applications filed. TIF approval pending. 2 Oak Hill II Office Bldg 3340 Republic Ave 1 0.80 Site cleared Office Office Redeveloper is actively seeking tenants for 21,450 SF office bldg Site ready to go. No further City Council action needed. 3 McGarvey Coffee 5725 Highway 7 1 1.78 27,075 SF industrial plant will need demolition Guided BP Zoned Ind High Density Residential Property purchased by Main Street Properties proposing multi-family residential use. City Council policy discussion as to whether to consider reguiding for MF residential use scheduled for April 1st Study Session. 5925 Highway 7 (EDA parcel)1 0.80 Vacant remnant parcel Office Mixed Use Main Street Properties proposing Mixed Use on EDA property (Same as above) 4 Bally’s Fitness 4900 (LA Fitness owned) & 4760(EDA owned) Excelsior Blvd 2 1.60 Former fitness bldg will need to be removed RC & MX High Density Res & MX TOLD Dev has Bally's site under contract. EDA owns property next door Once development concept plan prepared neighborhood input & City Council discussion will occur. Site Size St. Louis Park Potential Redevelopment Sites 3/11/12 Study Session Meeting of March 11, 2013 (Item No. 10) Title: Update on Potential Redevelopment Sites/Projects Page 3 Map Site name Existing Current Proposed Site Near Term Number Property address(es)Parcels Acres Conditions Land Use Land Use Status Actions Needed Site Size St. Louis Park Potential Redevelopment Sites 3/11/12 5 Excelsior - Monterey Parcels at NE corner of Excelsior Blvd & Monterey includes EDA, Kamps' and former Roers parcels 3 2.47 Several retail buildings and rear empty EDA lot. Commercial High Density Res & MX Kamps actively seeking developer interest in site. Neighborhood input & City Council discussion needed once dev concept plan prepared 6 Excelsior - France SW corner of Ex Blvd & France Ave ( does not include Alberto Properties) 5 2.20 3 commercial bldgs & 2 houses (does not include Mobile gas station) Commercial & Single Family Residential Mixed use commercial & residential At least one developer has passed on this site; Bader Development exploring potential for Mixed-Use commercial/residential. Prior to any specific concept plan being considered neighborhood input and Council policy decision needed relative to City willingness to consider redeveloping this site. 7 Most Holy Trinity School Building 4017 Utica Ave 2 2.10 28,074 SF, 3 story school bldg includes parish center & residential property Civic Medium Density Residential Gatehouse Properties has under contract. Proposing 36 condominiums Neighborhood meeting set for March 12th. Proposal will need to be discussed in Study Session. Property will require reguiding and rezoning. Study Session Meeting of March 11, 2013 (Item No. 10) Title: Update on Potential Redevelopment Sites/Projects Page 4 Map Site name Existing Current Proposed Site Near Term Number Property address(es)Parcels Acres Conditions Land Use Land Use Status Actions Needed Site Size St. Louis Park Potential Redevelopment Sites 3/11/12 8 Bemis mfg 3600 Alabama Ave S 1 2.20 75,471 SF plant IG Medium Density Residential Under contract for light industrial use by Nordicware. Property needs to go through property maintenance process prior to May closing. No City Council action needed. 9 Santorini’s 9920 & 9808 Wayzata Blvd 2 2.71 Vacant property with billboard Office Office Bldg removed. Site is actively being marketed for Medical/Office/Hotel No actions needed until development proposed. 10 Chili's 5245 Wayzata Blvd 1 1.60 Vacant restaurant Commercial High Density Residential Duke marketing property for high density residential Proposal will need to be discussed in future Study Session. Property will require reguiding and rezoning 11 Pawn America 5600 Excelsior Blvd 15,372 0.35 8,760 SF, 2 story bldg 30 parking stalls Commercial Office Showroom Property under contract to Finished Basement Company Property needs to go through property maintenance process prior to April closing. No City Council action needed. Study Session Meeting of March 11, 2013 (Item No. 10) Title: Update on Potential Redevelopment Sites/Projects Page 5 Map Site name Existing Current Proposed Site Near Term Number Property address(es)Parcels Acres Conditions Land Use Land Use Status Actions Needed Site Size St. Louis Park Potential Redevelopment Sites 3/11/12 12 LA Fitness - outlot 3551 State Hwy 100 1 1.54 outlot only LA Fitness bldg and parking lot Commercial Commercial Proposed lot split to allow construction of 17,600 SF Goodwill store Lot split requires approval of Plat and PUD and $300,000+ parkland dedication fee. 13 4601 Highway 7 4601 Highway 7 & 3130 Monterey 2 3.16 Vacant 14,000 SF industrial bldg Guided BP Zoned Ind Undetermined Property recently came under contract. Staff plans to meet with redeveloper soon. Any proposal requiring reguiding and rezoning will need to be discussed in future Study Session. 14 Nestle 5320 23rd Street 2 24.84 311,946 SF industrial bldg Guided Ind Zoned Ind Industrial Production to cease end of March. Marketing and six months of decommissioning to follow. No action needed at this time. Study Session Meeting of March 11, 2013 (Item No. 10) Title: Update on Potential Redevelopment Sites/Projects Page 6 Potential Redevelopment Sites Ü 1 Miles March 2013 Prepared by the City of St. Louis Park Community Development Department 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Study Session Meeting of March 11, 2013 (Item No. 10) Title: Update on Potential Redevelopment Sites/Projects Page 7