HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013/06/24 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - Study SessionAGENDA
JUNE 24, 2013
6:30 p.m. CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION – Council Chambers
Discussion Items
1. 6:30 p.m. Future Study Session Agenda Planning – July 1 & 8, 2013
2. 6:35 p.m. Deer Management Update (Item Postponed)
3. 6:35 p.m. Southwest LRT Update
4. 7:35 p.m. 2014 Budget Discussion
5. 8:20 p.m. Wooddale Flats Comprehensive Plan Amendment from CIV Civic to RM
Medium Density Residential
8: 35p.m. Communications/Meeting Check-In (Verbal)
8:40 p.m. Adjourn
Written Reports
6. May 2013 Monthly Financial Report
7. Defeasance of the 2004A Bonds
8. Proposed Modification to the Victoria Ponds Tax Increment Financing District Plan
9. Zoning Ordinance Amendment - Parking Uses
Auxiliary aids for individuals with disabilities are available upon request.
To make arrangements, please call the Administration Department at
952/924-2525 (TDD 952/924-2518) at least 96 hours in advance of meeting.
Meeting: Study Session
Meeting Date: June 24, 2013
Discussion Item: 1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Future Study Session Agenda Planning – July 1 & July 8, 2013
RECOMMENDED ACTION: The City Council and the City Manager to set the agenda for a
joint meeting with the St Louis Park School Board on July 1 and the regularly scheduled Study
Session on July 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 proposed discussion items for
the Special Study Session on July 1 and regularly scheduled Study Session on July 8 , 2013.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Future Study Session Agenda Planning – July 1 & July 8, 2013
Prepared by: Debbie Fischer, Office Assistant
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of June 24, 2013 (Item No. 1) Page 2
Title: Future Study Session Agenda Planning – July 1 & July 8, 2013
Special Study Session, July 1, 2013 – 7:00 p.m. (Immediately following City Council Meeting)
Tentative Discussion Items
1. Joint Meeting between the City Council and School Board. Primary topic of discussion
relates to SWLRT/Freight Rail project.
Study Session, July 8, 2013 – 6:30 p.m.
Tentative Discussion Items
1. Future Study Session Agenda Planning – Administrative Services (5 minutes)
2. SWLRT Update – Community Development (60 minutes)
Current update and continued discussion of the Southwest Light Rail Transit Project.
Communications/Meeting Check-In – Administrative Services (5 minutes)
Time for communications between staff and Council will be set aside on every study session
agenda for the purposes of information sharing.
End of Meeting: 7:30 p.m.
Special City Council Meeting, July 8, 2013 – 7:30 p.m.
Tentative Action Item
8a. Adopt Formal Comments & Position Statement for Submittal to SPO relating to
SWLRT/Freight Rail issue.
Meeting: Study Session
Meeting Date: June 24, 2013
Discussion Item: 3
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Southwest LRT Update
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff requests that the Council provide feedback and direction
regarding the attached draft letter and comments on freight rail relocation and co-location
options identified by the SWLRT Project Office (SPO).
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the attached draft letter and comments appropriately and
adequately address the freight rail options within the context of the impacts on the City of St.
Louis Park?
SUMMARY: The purpose of this agenda item is to discuss the draft letter and comments on the
proposed freight rail routing options and the impact they will have on St. Louis Park. The plan is
to discuss the draft comments with the School Board on July 1, with further discussion and
adoption by the City Council on July 8 and subsequent submission to the to the Metropolitan
Council’s SPO.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Draft List of Key Issues on Freight Rail Alternatives
Draft Letter to Met Council SPO
Prepared by: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director; and,
Meg McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City of St. Louis Park
Key Issues and Comments on Freight Rail Alternatives June 24, 2013
The City of St. Louis Park has reviewed the eight (8) alternative freight rail routing alignments
and provides the following comments and requests for further information for evaluating the
alternatives. It is important to note that any comment, question or suggestion relating to the Re-
Location Alternatives should not in any way be construed that the City supports the re-location
options.
Key Issues to address for freight rail routing to be successful:
Co-location Alternatives
1. Significant traffic impacts will occur at Wooddale Avenue and Beltline Boulevard; these
impacts must be assessed and addressed.
2. Grade separation of freight rail at Wooddale Avenue is not practical, however grade
separating LRT and the Cedar Lake Regional Trail are feasible and would reduce traffic
conflicts. The search for ways to eliminate the negative traffic and access impacts from
freight rail and LRT crossing Wooddale Avenue needs to continue. This is a vital north-
south route for the community and the Elmwood neighborhood specifically and long
delays due to LRT and freight trains are not acceptable or safe. Alternative grade
separated crossings or routes under or over the rail/trail corridor are needed.
3. Beltline Boulevard should be grade separated from LRT, freight rail and the regional trail
by putting Beltline with sidewalks below the rail/trail corridor. Beltline is the only north-
south crossing of the rail/trail corridor between the W. Lake Street Bridge and Highway
100. It is critical for circulation in the community and emergency vehicles that traffic
movements not be unduly delayed by the presence of freight trains or LRT. Only grade
separation will ensure that no matter when freight trains and LRT trains arrive or whether
they are on schedule or not, traffic and emergency vehicles will be able to move where
they need to go. The potential accumulative effects of at grade crossings at both
Wooddale and Beltline are particularly troubling, since a train that creates traffic
problems at one street crossing will move on to create crossing problems at the next
street; and in some cases a single train will be long enough to block both intersections at
once. Grade separation at Beltline would mean traffic could at least continue to flow
there, and traffic could divert from Wooddale to Beltline or Louisiana Avenue if needed.
4. Presence of freight rail and trains potentially interferes with access to LRT station
platforms by foot, bike, bus and auto.
5. Presence of freight rail and LRT at station areas affects development opportunities;
design must consider development-friendly configurations.
6. Potential emergency vehicle delays may occur when freight trains are present at
Wooddale Avenue and Beltline Boulevard. Grade separation or other means will be
needed to maintain emergency vehicle accessibility in the community.
Study Session Meeting of June 24, 2013 (Item No. 3)
Title: Southwest LRT Update Page 2
7. The Midtown trolley station/platform is located at the West Lake Station and requires
additional property takings; these costs should not be attributed to the SW LRT project.
8. It needs to be acknowledged that under the co-location alternative, with the removal of
the Oxford industrial area switching wye, freight train access from Bass lake Spur to the
MN&S will only be possible by using the proposed wye track connecting the Bass Lake
Spur to the MN&S southbound. If freight trains need to go north on the MN&S, they
will need to use the connection to the south and then reverse directions and head north.
While TC&W is not currently taking trains north bound on the MN&S; and, TC&W has
not expressed interest in making that movement in the foreseeable future, if it were to
occur it would likely result in blockage of Alabama Avenue and Excelsior Blvd where
the MN&S tracks cross those streets at grade.
Re-Location Alternatives
A. Community Cohesion and Aesthetic Impacts
Both relocation options create a completely new freight rail r-o-w where one has never
existed before.
1. The elevated freight rail r-o-w creates a major visual and physical barrier through the
middle of St. Louis Park (SLP), the SLP school district campus; the Sorenson/Lenox and
Bronx Park/Birchwood Neighborhoods. Community cohesion is compromised. Physical
connections, such as walkways and roadways through the barrier must be created in order
to provide needed community connections and reduce the barrier effect. These should
include attractive, safe pedestrian underpasses or bridges at street crossing like Dakota
Avenue, Wooddale Avenue and Lake Street. Underpasses connecting portions of the
community split be the elevated train tracks including connecting the Central Community
Center with the football field, Roxbury with Keystone Park, and Birchwood
neighborhood with Bronx Park neighborhood, Dakota Park, Hobart School and Cedar
Lake Regional Trail access.
2. Dramatic negative visual impacts will be created by the elevated trains and the structures
that support them. A MNDOT Visual Quality Manual process should be undertaken to
address the visual impact of the re-route. It should include establishing the visual
treatments need to reduce the impact of the elevated trains. It should guide the aesthetics
and appearance of the structure as it crosses through different areas of the city each with
its own characteristics and needs. The areas include School campuses, residential areas,
commercial areas, the overpass of Highway 7, etc. This process should be conducted
with citizens and other stakeholders and should include much more than a bare minimum
treatment. It should incorporate public art and other elements designed to minimize the
negative aesthetic impacts on the City and use the structures where possible to build
community cohesion, identity and sense of place.
3. The project budget must include not only the cost of preparing the Visual Quality Manual
but also the cost of aesthetic and community cohesion elements.
Study Session Meeting of June 24, 2013 (Item No. 3)
Title: Southwest LRT Update Page 3
B. Safety impacts
1. While elimination of the reverse curves, the reductions in grade changes, the upgrading
of tracks and elimination of at grade crossings of streets by freight rail inherently improve
safety in St. Louis Park, the elevating of trains often on curving bridges and introduction
of trains into sensitive environments where they have never been before creates special
safety risks and concerns. Elevated trains present potential safety hazards from railroad
spills, accidents, and derailments; measures to improve the safety and eliminate potential
negative impacts need to be included such as:
a. Softening of side-slopes. The proposed side-slopes are far too steep at 2:1 grades;
they should be at 3:1 or flatter for safety, and to maintain proper vegetation.
b. Inner guard rail should be used. A special extra rail should be placed on tracks to
reduce derailment potential and potential severity.
c. Widening the MN&S r-o-w width to 100 ft. Acquiring homes too close (closer
than 50 ft.) to freight rail tracks, as recommended by SLP in its DEIS comments,
and must be included in the proposed plans in order to have appropriate area for
buffering single-family homes and yards for trains, to provide safe, maintainable
side-slopes and allow for track maintenance. The homes along the west side of
Blackstone Avenue between Minnetonka Blvd and 27th Street need to be acquired
to create an adequate corridor for train operations and buffer nearby residents
from trains.
d. Fencing and signage are needed to minimize railroad r-o-w trespassing.
2. Retaining walls on raised sections of MN&S can be an attractive nuisance and present a
dangerous situation for kids; tall retaining walls should be avoided.
3. The impact of the new reroute options must address the safety of the electric substation.
C. Property Impacts
1. The information provided by the SPO to date does not fully describe the number of
properties and acreage and costs of acquisition needed for each alternative. This
information is needed in order to accurately compare alternatives.
2. The height of tracks in relation to surrounding uses needs to be shown.
3. The property impacts for each alternative (besides takings), i.e. people and operations
impacted at football field, PSI, etc. must be considered and evaluated.
8. The relocation alternatives move freight rail closer to Central Community Center and
Spanish Emersion Elementary school and younger children. There are inherent risks with
trains in close proximity to young children and there is nothing provided in the proposed
re-route plans for how this risk will be addressed. It needs to be addressed.
9. It is not shown how the SLP High School football field would be replaced. It would not
appear to fit north of the newly relocated Lake Street especially if the power lines are not
also relocated. The football field must be replaced, and finding a nearby location will be
very difficult. Relocating the football field comes with many other challenges beyond
obtaining property, including neighborhood impacts of noise, lights, and traffic. Selecting
a new location for the football field will require an extension public process of its own
Study Session Meeting of June 24, 2013 (Item No. 3)
Title: Southwest LRT Update Page 4
and will be time consuming and expensive. This will need to be a process funded by the
SWLRT project.
10. The loss of the playground and access from Central school to football field must be
addressed through a pedestrian tunnel or other measure. The connection between these
facilities is important for the operation of the Central School and a commitment made by
the SLP School District in the funding of the turf field. It needs to be maintained.
11. Relocation options show a large loss of commercial properties and businesses that would
have to move but may not be able to be relocated in SLP or the area; the loss of tax base,
jobs, and businesses must be addressed.
12. There are significant impacts on commercial/industrial businesses and properties which
need to be addressed. Access issues for businesses and uses at Dakota and Walker St.
where a cul-de-sac is proposed need to be addressed.
13. Construction will have major business interruption issues.
14. How freight trains and the trail will operate during construction must be established. We
question of the constructability of the re-route options considering the massive nature of
the construction project and the tight confines created by the fully developed areas
adjacent to the MN&S tracks.
15. Roadwork and reconfiguration of streets is necessary for the rerouting alternatives: cost
estimates need to include the design and capital cost of this work. Extension public
involvement would be needed to complete this work.
16. Who would own the new bridges and tracks is not determined and is an issue of
importance to the City. If this new infrastructure is built in SLP it is of great importance
that it be well maintained and that the lines of responsibility are clear.
17. Wooddale and Lake Street alignments and location of new streets needs much more
evaluation. The options shown need to be much more thoroughly considered in order for
a road system in the area to work and a specific design established.
18. A pedestrian connection at W. 27th Street under the MN&S as discussed in DEIS is not
shown in the proposed re-route plans. This is a needed and important connection
between the Birchwood and Bronx Park neighborhoods and as an access point for the
neighborhood to Dakota Park, Hobart School and the Cedar Lake Regional Trail access
point.
19. The 28th Street options should be evaluated to see if the roadway could be grade
separated or could be an at-grade crossing. It must be further engineered and the at-grade
crossing must include crossing controls needed for a Whistle Quiet Zone (WQZ).
20. A circulation study for the area of north of Minnetonka Boulevard is needed to evaluate
traffic impact in the area.
21. The re-route options reduce the viability of reuse of the currently unused portion of Nat’l
Lead site.
22. South of Bass Lake Spur, MN&S tracks move east potentially impacting adjacent
residential property and reducing the setbacks to less than 25 ft.; these properties should
be acquired.
23. The Cedar Lake Trail Bridge at Iron Triangle wye is not shown on plans; this needs to be
addressed.
Study Session Meeting of June 24, 2013 (Item No. 3)
Title: Southwest LRT Update Page 5
24. The future of the CP ROW in the vicinity of the SLP High School needs to be addressed.
The re-route options eliminate the freight rail tracks in this area. No further railroad use
of this property should be allowed and the use and ownership of the property needs to be
established. First priority for the use of the property should be the SLP School District
followed by providing opportunities for economic development including potentially
expanding parking in the area. The potential reuse of the property will be hampered by
the on-going presence of overhead power lines that currently follow the MN&S ROW.
D. Environmental Impacts
1. Environmental impacts including noise, vibration, safety, wetlands, wood lands,
traffic/road systems and other standard environmental review items need to be
addressed. No information on the potential environmental impacts has been provided
and is a critical component in the evaluation of the freight rail options and the design
of the project including mitigation measures.
2. No evaluation of the noise and vibration impacts of the re-route alternatives in
provided. It is anticipated that the increased elevation of the tracks and trains will
increase the potential for noise impacts on the surrounding neighborhoods. No
indication has been provided for how these potential noise impacts will be address.
3. The football field, Central Community Center playgrounds, Roxbury/Keystone Park,
Dakota Park, Birchwood Park and other properties present potential 4f parcel
impacts; these must be evaluated and addressed.
4. Several potentially historic homes and buildings may be taken and this situation needs
to be evaluated. 106 reviews may be required for older buildings now potentially
impacted by new re-location routes.
5. The loss of a major band of trees along iron triangle eliminates the existing screening
of trains and tracks to the residents; this need to be addressed and landscaping should
be replaced.
6. The impact on the Brunswick Pond area, which is needed for flood mitigation and
cannot be filled in without replacement must be addressed.
7. The Iron triangle wye to BNSF moves west into wetland; wetland impacts need to be
evaluated and mitigated.
8. Stormwater drainage for a new rail route must be addressed. There is no indication as
to where or how the stormwater from the freight rail infrastructure will be handled.
9. The Brunswick Central re-routing alternative entails lowering Hwy 7 by 4.5 feet.
This will have an impact on the City’s stormwater system that has not been evaluated.
Any new infrastructure needed in the SLP as a result of the lowering of Hwy 7 needs
to be included in the SWLRT project.
Study Session Meeting of June 24, 2013 (Item No. 3)
Title: Southwest LRT Update Page 6
Draft Letter to the SPO Regarding Freight Rail Routing Options
The City of St. Louis Park has and continues to be an ardent supporter of the SWLRT project. We
believe construction of the SWLRT and the extension of the Green Line is in the best interests of the
Region, County and all the cities along the SW Corridor. We are eager for the SWLRT project to gain
FTA approval and the funding necessary for the project to proceed.
We recognize that since the inception of the idea for an LRT line in the SW corridor, finding a way to
accommodate freight rail traffic in the same corridor has been a vexing issue. Finding a solution to the
freight rail issue that is acceptable to all the stakeholders involved is and has been a daunting task. The
purpose of this letter is to thank the SPO for its efforts and place on the record the City of St. Louis Park’s
official response to the SPO’s freight rail options. Our hope is that our timely response will facilitate
preparation of sound SWLRT plans that the City of St. Louis Park can embrace and approve during the
Municipal Consent process this fall. We also hope that by providing our input now, the SWLRT process
will be expedited and will continue to move forward on schedule.
For St. Louis Park the freight rail issue is of immense importance. The city experiences the TC&W
freight rail traffic today and will continue to do so no matter what freight rail routing option is ultimately
chosen. The choice of route will not only influence the success of the SWLRT line itself, it will have a
lasting impact on virtually all of the St. Louis Park. It will affect areas far from the SWLRT line and the
SWLRT stations themselves. The location of the TC&W train traffic and the details of the design of the
freight rail route will be critical to the future of St. Louis Park. The freight rail options under
consideration all route train traffic through St. Louis Park. Some alternatives affect the core of the City
more than others, but very little of St. Louis Park will not be affected by the choice and design of the
freight rail route. The freight rail options under consideration potentially route trains by all three of SLP’s
SWLRT stations, or past two of three elementary schools and past our only High School and through the
High School campus.
For St. Louis Park where and how freight train traffic is routed is not just a matter of affecting a couple
neighbors, it is about the potential impacts on the very core of the community and the nature of the
community’s future. No matter what route is chosen, the details of the freight rail route design are critical
to the community’s future success and livability. The comments attached to this letter are prepared with
that in mind and we hope and trust that the SPO, and ultimately the Metropolitan Council, will accept and
understand them in that light.
Study Session Meeting of June 24, 2013 (Item No. 3)
Title: Southwest LRT Update Page 7
The City of St. Louis Park’s review of the SPO freight rail options have been undertaken in the context of
the City’s policies regarding freight rail. Those policies were documented most recently in resolution 10-
070 adopted on July 10, 2010. The policies have been largely unchanged since 2001 and grew out of the
years spent by the community wrestling with the thorny freight rail issues. The City’s policy regarding
routing freight rail traffic is and has been that re-routing of freight rail traffic from Kenilworth Corridor to
the MN&S corridor in St. Louis Park was only acceptable if,
1.) it is established through a very thorough and careful analysis that no other viable route exists; and,
2.) that there is appropriate mitigation of any and all negative impacts associated with the rail rerouting,
funded by sources other than the City of St. Louis Park.
Based on the concept designs prepared by the SPO, we believe that the first of these conditions clearly
has not been met. We believe that the only conclusion that can be drawn from the freight rail routing
plans prepared by the SPO, is that co-locating freight rail traffic is indeed viable. We believe that the
SPO freight rail options show conclusively that it is feasible to co-locate freight rail and light rail in the
Bass Lake Spur and Kenilworth Corridors. We believe that the SPO concept plans show how to
accommodate freight rail, light rail and the regional trail on the Bass Lake Spur and in the Kenilworth
Corridor with widening of the rights of way in the Kenilworth corridor. Clearly all three elements can be
accommodated at grade within the corridor and other options involving placing LRT in a tunnel or
elevated; or, re-locating the regional trail or elevating the regional trail could also work, even though they
may be more costly to implement. Given the above, the City of St. Louis Park does not support any of the
options to relocate freight rail in St. Louis Park
Based on the designs prepared by the SPO showing the feasibility of the co-location options, we expect
that the SPO’s recommended freight rail routing option will be a co-location option. We also recognize
that there are no perfect solutions to the freight rail issue; and even for SLP there a pluses and minuses to
each routing option. No matter which freight rail solution is chosen there are issues of concern to the City
of St. Louis Park, its residents and businesses. For a successful SWLRT/freight rail project these issues
need to be effectively addressed and are of vital importance to the City of St. Louis Park. Attached below
are the key issues the City of St. Louis Park believes must be addressed for SWLRT to be successful and
for the project design to be acceptable to St. Louis Park. It includes key design requirements for each of
the freight rail options. It is important to note that any comment, question or suggestion relating
to the re-location alternatives should not in any way be construed that the City supports the re-
location options.
Study Session Meeting of June 24, 2013 (Item No. 3)
Title: Southwest LRT Update Page 8
On behalf of all of St. Louis Park I thank you for your tireless devotion to finding effective solutions to all
the issues confronting the SWLRT project. Thank you for your consideration of the issues and
requirements outlined in this letter. We look forward to continuing the strong working relationship that
has been established between the City of St. Louis Park and the SPO staff and stand ready to discuss any
of these issues as needed.
Sincerely,
Mayor Jeff Jacobs
City of St. Louis Park, MN
Study Session Meeting of June 24, 2013 (Item No. 3)
Title: Southwest LRT Update Page 9
Meeting: Study Session
Meeting Date: June 24, 2013
Discussion Item: 4
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: 2014 Budget Discussion
RECOMMENDED ACTION: No formal action required. This report is to assist with the
Study Session discussion to share information and gain understanding regarding the preparation
of the 2014 budget and planning the upcoming discussions.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
• Does the 2014 budget process and timeline meet Council expectations?
• Is the general direction outlined for 2014 budget recommendations in line with Council
expectations?
• Does Council have any changes on the guiding principles?
• Is there other information that Council would like to review in more detail in the
upcoming process?
• Are there any other service delivery changes Council would like to have considered?
• Are there other discussion areas Council would like to add or change?
SUMMARY: Staff is working on preparing budget recommendations for 2014. During the
Study Session, staff wants to make sure Council is comfortable with the attached budget
guidelines. As listed above, we also would like direction on any major changes, programs,
policy considerations that should be considered by staff as part of preparing the 2014 budget. As
in the past, the guidelines will be used to give direction to our staff when preparing the 2014
recommendations.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Details regarding financials are provided in
this report.
VISION CONSIDERATION: All vision areas are taken into consideration and are an
important part of our budgeting process. St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and
engaged community.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion
2014 Budget Guiding Principles
2014 Budget Calendar
CIP Report – Funding Source Summary
CIP Report – Projects and Funding Sources by Department
Prepared by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
Brian A. Swanson, Controller
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of June 24, 2013 (Item No. 4) Page 2
Title: 2014 Budget Discussion
DISCUSSION
BACKGROUND: The purpose of the discussion is to make sure we are on the same page with
Council on expectations for constructing 2014 budget recommendations. We have planned to
use, as in the past, budget guiding principles as well as Vision and our Mission. This Study
Session discussion is intended to be at the higher level to allow us to map out a plan for future
conversations that will include much more detail.
2014 Budget Preparation: In upcoming sessions, the City Council will be provided with more
detail on budget recommendations, with time allowed for review of materials and questions.
Directors will also be present for questions or sharing information as needed or requested. All
budgets, CIP, LRFMP, fee schedules, and relevant information will be included in future materials.
Legislative directives:
• Levy limits are in place for one year and it is capped at 3%, less any additional LGA
received and excludes debt service. This means that the gross City 3% levy increase
would be $741,388, then less LGA of $458,807 for a net levy increase of $282,581 or
1.143% when compared to 2013.
• Local government aid has been approved to be issued in accordance with a formula set by
the state. Currently the City is scheduled to receive $458,807 in 2014 and 2015.
• Sales tax elimination for purchases of goods and services by local government. Twenty
years ago the state required sales tax to be paid by government entities to help solve some
budget problems. Starting in 2014, we will no longer have to pay sales tax on many
transactions. We estimate a savings of approximately $80,000 - $100,000 in the General
Fund due to this change. We will be required to show the approximate amount of savings
on our TNT notices for one year – 2014. How this is going to look and be reported is still
being determined by the State of Minnesota at this time.
Staffing Costs wages: Funds for staffing are the largest expenditure of the City’s operating
budget. In building the 2014 budget recommendations, a wage adjustment of 2% is being used
as an assumption. As a reminder, all 5 union contracts are open for negotiation for 2014.
PERA Police and Fire: There are changes to police and fire PERA contributions to help bring
more stability to those funds. Changes will be incorporated into 2014 budget:
Employee current contribution of 9.6% of salary will increase to 10.2% 2014, and 10.8% for
2015. Employer current contribution of 14.4% of salary will increase to 15.3% 2014 and 16.2%
for 2015.
Benefits: We will be accepting proposals for health insurance this fall for coverage starting
January 1, 2014. We currently have HealthPartners as our provider and employees have been
pleased with this product and services. Due to our claim experience, we may have to deal with
an increase between 25 – 30%. If our renewal was earlier in the year, claim data shows we
would have experienced up to a 46% increase in renewal rates. We continue to work with our
benefits consultant and our benefits committee on cost containment on claims. Also, our
continued work with employees in the area of wellness is to increase education and in the long
term encourage healthier lifestyle choices to help with claims. The wellness benefit for the 2014
was approved in 2013 and it is set to be $40 per employee per month for those that participate in
the program (this is an increase of $5 from 2013). Also, after preliminary review of rate
estimates, a general employer benefit contribution increase will be determined and included as a
Study Session Meeting of June 24, 2013 (Item No. 4) Page 3
Title: 2014 Budget Discussion
recommendation to Council and in the budgets for 2014 later this summer. We are also
reviewing information on health care reform and will be incorporating any anticipated budget
impact in to our 2014 projections. As of the date of this report, it appears we may have 3
additional positions that would be eligible for employer benefit contribution.
Operational Costs: Due to the reorganization with Operations & Recreation and Engineering,
budgets in those areas will look different. Staff is being asked to look at how operational costs
have been changing with the ever changing market conditions, as well as making sure we plan
ahead for operational needs with focus areas relating to the environment, trails and sidewalks,
transportation, ongoing development, continued strength in public safety, neighborhoods and
housing. Energy costs will continue to be examined closely as it relates to our new fire stations,
remodeling of MSC and City Hall.
Program Support:
• Environmental & Water Management Programs: With the interest Council has in
environment and sustainability, and surface water, we will continue to develop, modify,
connect and communicate our programs.
• Community Survey: We will plan to do a community s urvey late in 2013 early 2014. As
in the past, we find it helpful to formally check in with our residents to get an ongoing
gauge of our community and this tool allows us to do some comparisons with other cities.
In 2011, we spent $21,000 on this survey from the Development Fund and expect a
similar cost for this survey.
• SWLRT: We continue to use more staff time on all the areas that relate to rail. We
expect increased staffing and/or consulting time as projects move into more active
planning stages.
• Transportation: The work on Hwy 7 and Louisiana along with Highway 100 is very
significant and requires increased attention by staff. We are looking at adding more time
for engineering of projects and technical work to handle the increased workloads.
• Maintenance and service delivery: With the continued redevelopment, service and
maintenance needs in the city, we will recommend adding back a Public Service Worker
(maintenance position). This position was reduced several years ago due to funding
challenges, and we find that we need the position to help with service delivery.
• Engineering: We will continue to review staffing levels in this area and, as discussed
with Council, may add some additional engineering and support staff resources. Funding
for these positions will partially be from projects and also from the General Fund.
Fund changes combining General Fund and Park and Recreation fund: With the
reorganization in 2013 from Parks and Recreation and Public Works to Operations and
Recreation and Engineering, accounting changes will need to take place. Since the overall
business operations of the Parks and Recreation fund has changed, the fund no longer meets the
definition of a Special Revenue Fund. As such, the City is required to consolidate the Operations
and Recreation Fund into General Fund. This will result in several noteworthy items:
1) A 2013 Revised Budget will need to be created, with adoption from Council by year end.
2) The overall size of the budgets generally has not changed, but rather is in one fund
instead of two.
3) Then General Fund’s fund balance percentage is going to decline because the former
Park and Recreation Fund’s fund balance was about 10% and by absorbing this into the
General Fund is going to decrease the overall fund balance. The General Fund still
Study Session Meeting of June 24, 2013 (Item No. 4) Page 4
Title: 2014 Budget Discussion
should be within the policy guidelines of 35-50%, but is going to fall from its current
45%. Keep in mind the overall financial resources of the organization has remained the
same, even though it appears they have declined when viewed solely from a fund balance
percentage position.
Utility Funds: All utility funds will be presented during the process as in previous years with
review of rates in accordance with our long range plans.
• Water: We are in the fourth year of the ten year plan for increasing the fixed rate charges
to reduce volatility in the fund due to seasonality usage fluctuations. As in past years the
usage rates are analyzed and adjusted as needed to stay in line with appropriate fund
balance guidelines.
• Sewer: Rates are fairly stable for this area. Sewer costs are mainly to support the
Metropolitan Council of Environmental Services (MCES)
• Storm Water: With more emphasis in this area, and increasing regulations, we expect
more time to be spent in the future with Council on storm water and rates will need to be
adjusted accordingly.
• Garbage/Recycling/Organics: A new 5 year contract will start October1, 2013. The rates
will be reviewed in the 2014 budget process with recommendations on modification of
some costs on service levels. We will have one smaller level for garbage at 20 gallon,
and also the addition of organics, and as discussed with Council, a rate of $10 per quarter
will be charged for this new voluntary program.
Franchise Fees: No changes recommended or planned this year. It is anticipated we will
explore this during 2014 in preparation of 2015 budget, which is consistent with the every other
year analysis and proposed adjustment of the fees.
Fees, Charges and Other Revenues: Staff will continue to review current fee data based on
cost analyses and complete a review of comparable cities before making recommendations for
the 2014 Fee Schedules.
LRFMP (Long range financial management plan): This document will be presented at future
meetings with Council.
Cable TV Transfers: We continue with the recommended plan to include a $25,000 reduction
to the Cable TV transfer to the General Fund. Reducing this transfer by $25,000 per year will
get the Cable TV Fund closer to financial stability for the long term.
CIP (Capital Improvement Plan): Staff has completed preliminary work on the CIP and
reports are attached to this report. Accounting will briefly go through this document and bring it
back to Council as the budget process progresses. Note: there is a placeholder for trails and
sidewalks, no funds have been included for a community recreation facility at this time.
Levy: As the year progresses and more firm information becomes available, staff will bring levy
estimates and more information to the City Council. The Council will meet to adopt a
preliminary 2014 levy on September 3. After adoption of the preliminary levy, the levy may be
reduced, but not increased.
Study Session Meeting of June 24, 2013 (Item No. 4) Page 5
Title: 2014 Budget Discussion
NEXT STEPS: As the 2014 budget process continues, the following preliminary schedule
snapshot has been developed for Council:
August 12 High level 2014 budget, CIP, utility rates discussion by City Council with
City Manager, Department Directors, as needed, and Accounting in
attendance. Discussion regarding proposed preliminary levy.
September 3 (Tues) Council establishes 2014 preliminary property tax levies.
(Can be reduced in the future, not increased for final property tax levy.)
October 14 Review and discussion of 2014 budget, CIP, utility rates and LRFMP.
Directors present as needed.
November 12 (Tues) Final budget discussion prior to Truth in Taxation Public Hearing.
December 2 Truth in Taxation Public Hearing.
December 16 Council adopts 2014 budget, final property tax levies, CIP and utility rates.
Guiding Principles -2014 Budget Production
As we move ahead, please use the following assumptions when creating your budget papers for 2014.
1. Review Past Expenditures and Revenues: You’ve received information showing expenditures
and revenues from the past four years. Important note: We will be asking again for you to use
reasonable judgment to cut back and get your budget closer to actual levels of anticipated
expenditures. Line items should not be “over budgeted” to prepare for some excessive or
unexpected emergency. Over budgeting for one time emergency expenditure possibilities only
ties up funds that are needed in other operational areas. The same review should happen if you
find that you are continually under budget on an operation, adjust accordingly so you will be able
to cover expenses.
2. Fees: As in the past, you will receive information on current fees and revenues. These should
be reviewed during the budget process and changes (additions, deletions, increases, etc.) should
be made to cover our costs. Please use 2% minimum as a guide for 2014 fee increase. Important
note: What new services do you have that should have fees? Now is the time to make changes
and add or adjust fees for 2014. Fee information will be handled by our City Clerk during our
budget process.
3. Business as Usual: Continue with your high standards of service delivery and responsiveness to
customers.
4. Changes in Staffing Requests are Due July 29, 2013: Changes in staffing, including
recommendations to add, increase or decrease hours, shifts, etc., should be included in the budget
request and a detailed justification is required by July 29th. Staffing request forms should be
used for regular, seasonal, temporary, intern, volunteer and contract type positions. Please
discuss estimates on salary levels and benefits with the HR Coordinator. When making staffing
requests, remember to include any costs for equipment, tools, uniforms, etc., based on the type of
work along with your statement of business need and anticipated services delivery.
5. Changes on a line item in your budget exceeding $1,000 due July 29, 2013: Provide an
explanation (use the note function) for changes in business operations when you are adding,
deleting, modifying or updating your business operation. This helps all of us understand why
you are requesting changes in the budget. Important note: If you have a MAJOR program
change, addition or deletion, that adds $1,000 or more to a line item, this information must also
be pre-submitted to Accounting by July 29, 2013. Forms are available from accounting for
information that needs to be submitted by July 29th.
6. Vision: As always, keep Vision in consideration during budget and long range planning.
7. Anticipate, Innovate, Adapt: The budgeting process is a great time to incorporate changes and
it will allow you to have continued conversation with the City Manager on service delivery.
Take the time to forward think on programs, processes, customer service and align budgets to
allow you to bring your ideas to life.
Study Session Meeting of June 24, 2013 (Item No. 4)
Title: 2014 Budget Discussion Page 6
City of St. Louis Park
2014 Preliminary Budget Calendar
Date Department(s) Description
March 29, 2013 All 2014–2018 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) is available for update.
May 17, 2013 @ 4:30 pm All Capital Improvement Plan access restricted by Acctg. to Read-Only
June 24 CM/Admin/Acctg. Study Session with Council to discuss 2014 Budget and assumptions.
June 25 @ 11am-noon All
City Manager, Dep. CM and Controller meet with Departments to
discuss any significant changes in business or staffing.
July 15 @ 4:30 pm All
All 2014 Budget worksheets available in Insight to all departments.
This includes all Governmental, Special Revenue and Proprietary
Funds. All revenues and expenditures are to be budgeted including
review of fee schedule and Utility Rate Analyses.
July 22–Aug 2 @ 4:30pm All 1st Review/Edit of 2014 – 2018 CIP by Departments
July 29 @ 4:30pm All
Forms for changes in staffing requests and major changes in programs
due to Accounting.
July 29 @ 4:30 pm Inspections Building revenue projections due to Accounting
August 12
City Manager,
Dept. Directors and
Accounting
High level 2014 Budget, CIP, Utility Rates discussion by City
Council, with City Manager, Department Directors and Accounting in
attendance. More of a proposed levy discussion.
August 30 @ 4:30 pm All 2014 Proposed Budget worksheets and fees due. Access to Read-Only.
September 3 (Tuesday) C.M./Accounting Preliminary 2014 Budget and Property Tax Levy approval by Council
September 9 - 18 Each Department Individual review of budgets – CM, Dep. CM, Director, and Acctg.
By September 15 Accounting
Certification of 2014 Preliminary Property Tax Levy due to Hennepin
County and levy reports due to State of Minnesota
Sep. 23–Oct. 4 @4:30 pm All 2nd and Final Review/Edit of 2014 – 2018 CIP by Departments
October 14
City Manager,
Dept. Directors and
Accounting
Review and discussion of 2014 Budget, CIP, Utility Rates and
LRFMP review and discussion by City Council, with City Manager,
Department Directors and Accounting in attendance.
October 15 – Oct. 30 All
Final review of all 2014 revenues and expenditures for all funds. In
addition, review of the CIP, Utility Rates and LRFMP.
October 30 @ 4:30 pm All Final changes submitted to City Manager/Deputy C.M and Controller
November 12 (Tuesday) CM/Admin/Acctg. Final Budget Discussion with City Council prior to TNT hearing
December 2, 2013 Accounting Truth in Taxation Public Hearing and Budget Presentation
December 9 (if needed) C.M./Accounting Council discussion of any 2014 Budget related items (if necessary)
December 16, 2013 C.M./Accounting
2014 Budget, Final Property Tax Levies (City and HRA), 2014 Utility
Rates, and 2014 – 2018 CIP approved by Council.
By December 20, 2013 Accounting Certification of tax levy and other required forms – Due 12-30-13
By December 31, 2013 Accounting 2014 Budgets uploaded from Insight into JDE.
January, 2014 Accounting Summary Budget Report to OSA - due 1/31/2014.
Note: Items in blue are meetings with the City Council
Study Session Meeting of June 24, 2013 (Item No. 4)
Title: 2014 Budget Discussion Page 7
Capital Improvement Program
City of St. Louis Park, MN
FUNDING SOURCE SUMMARY
2014 thru 2018
TotalSource2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Cable TV - Time Warner Equipment Grant 375,00049,800 265,300 36,550 9,250 14,100
Capital Replacement Fund 17,729,9325,315,397 3,159,064 2,787,819 2,426,349 4,041,303
E-911 Funds 240,000165,000 75,000
EDA Development Fund 1,247,500107,500 740,000 400,000
Equipment Replacement Fund 315,000315,000
G.O. Bonds 24,911,0001,444,800 9,816,350 9,691,350 741,000 3,217,500
Hennepin County 177,500177,500
HRA Levy 1,012,5421,012,542
Met Council Grant 27,000,00012,000,000 15,000,000
Municipal State Aid 4,470,692588,314 2,174,578 395,000 212,800 1,100,000
Other Jurisdictions 900,000900,000
Park Improvement Fund 11,092,0001,464,000 1,135,000 5,922,000 1,558,000 1,013,000
Parks & Recreation 45,00045,000
Pavement Management Fund 8,732,0331,910,160 1,429,815 2,226,456 1,503,345 1,662,257
Permanent Improvement Revolving Fund 198,000198,000
Police & Fire Pension 905,500665,000 20,000 100,000 120,500
PW Engineering Budget 12,5007,500 5,000
PW Operations Budget 1,754,682336,800 339,000 341,218 344,788 392,876
Sanitary Sewer Utility 2,436,062260,652 1,500,000 235,410 220,000 220,000
Special Assessments 2,040,586121,000 235,000 158,000 500,000 1,026,586
Stormwater Utility 9,880,0006,061,000 1,580,000 1,105,000 703,000 431,000
Tax Increment - Elmwood 3,826,5093,826,509
Tax Increment Financing 75,00075,000
Unfunded 00
Utilities 10,00010,000
Water Utility 2,880,000316,000 925,000 891,000 625,000 123,000
31,065,423 39,422,107 29,128,854 9,233,532 13,417,122 122,267,038GRAND TOTAL
Tuesday, June 18, 2013
Study Session Meeting of June 24, 2013 (Item No. 4)
Title: 2014 Budget Discussion Page 8
Capital Improvement Program
City of St. Louis Park, MN
PROJECTS & FUNDING SOURCES BY DEPARTMENT
2014 2018thru
Total2014 2015 2016 2017 2018Department Project# Priority
Buildings
2,761,000993,000 475,000 263,000 230,000 800,000Capital Replacement Fund
2010B1 12,00012,000Energy Improvements - City Hall 3
2013CH1 420,000420,000City Hall 2nd Remodeling 1
2013CH2 20,00020,000City Hall Garage Unit Heaters 1
2013CH5 7,0007,000City Hall East Prkng Lot - chip seal and re-stripe 1
2013PD/CH2 45,00045,000Police Station/City Hall Fire Alarm Panel 1
2013PD1 100,000100,000Police Station Exterior Finishes and Repair 1
2013PD2 65,00065,000Police Squad Parking Lot 1
2013PD4 18,00018,000Police Station - HVAC Computer upgrade 1
2014CH1 310,000310,000City Hall 3rd Floor Covering and Furniture 1
2014CH3 25,00025,000City Hall Recoat Pedistrian Bridge 1
2014MSC1 45,00045,000MSC - Chip Seal and Re-Stripe parking lot 1
2014MSC2 45,00015,000 15,000 15,000MSC & Fire Stations CO systems 1
2014PD1 240,000240,000Police Station EOC AV System & remodel breakroom 3
2014PD2 30,00030,000PD Kitchen/lunchroom remodel 3
2014PD4 500,000500,000Police- Covered parking area for squad cars 3
2014WNC1 11,00011,000Westwood Nature Center Parking/Driveway 1
2015CH2 30,00030,000City Hall Garage Overhead Doors 1
2015PD1 35,00035,000Police Station Seal for Air Infiltration 3
2016CH2 100,000100,000Roof Top AC Units Serving 1st and 2nd floor 1
2016CH3 100,000100,000City Hall Roof Top AC Unit Serving 3rd Floor 1
2016CH4 10,00010,000City Hall Chip, Seal, Stripe Main Parking Lot 1
2016FD1 4,0004,000FS #1 Chip, seal, stripe both prking lots 3
2016FD2 4,0004,000FS #2 Chip, seal, stripe both prking lots 3
2016PD1 70,00070,000Police Station/MSC - FOB controller replacement 1
2016WNC1 70,00070,000Westwood Nature Center Flooring 1
2017PD1 100,000100,000Police Station Floor Covering 1
2017PD2 60,00060,000Police Station replace boiler system 1
2018CH1 50,00050,000City Hall Federal Boiler 1
2018MSC3 5,0005,000MSC Service Bays-Striping 1
2018PD1 30,00030,000Police Station Transformer Switch 1
2018PD2 180,000180,000Police Station - Replace all office furnishings 3
2018PD3 20,00020,000Police Station - Replace ceiling tiles 3
2,761,000993,000 475,000 263,000 230,000 800,000Buildings Total
Tuesday, June 18, 2013
Study Session Meeting of June 24, 2013 (Item No. 4)
Title: 2014 Budget Discussion Page 9
Total2014 2015 2016 2017 2018Department Project# Priority
2,761,000993,000 475,000 263,000 230,000 800,000Buildings Total
Cable TV
375,00049,800 265,300 36,550 9,250 14,100Cable TV - Time Warner Equipment Grant
375,00049,800 265,300 36,550 9,250 14,100Cable TV Total
TV-201401 500500DVD Recorders 1
TV-201402 30,00030,000Slow-motion replay 1
TV-201403 70070012-channel audio mixer 1
TV-201404 7,5007,500Digital camcorders 1
TV-201405 10,20010,200NLE stations 1
TV-201406 900900Microphones1
TV-201501 120,000120,000Van Cameras 3
TV-201502 20,00020,000Van Camera Cases 3
TV-201503 13,00013,000Van Camera Cables 3
TV-201504 15,00015,000LCD monitors 3
TV-201505 2,5002,500Hard-Drive Video Recorder 1
TV201506 6,0006,000Converter for Recorder 1
TV-201507 36,00036,000Tripods for On Location 1
TV-201508 16,50016,500Video Switcher 1
TV-201509 4,2004,200SD/HD converter 1
TV-201510 1,5001,500DVD recorders 1
TV-201511 1,5001,500Tripods1
TV-201512 900900Unit pro light kit 1
TV-201513 28,20028,200Playback systems 1
TV-201601 750750Announcer Headsets 3
TV-201602 500500Shotgun mics 1
TV-201603 300300Hand-held mics 1
TV-201604 35,00035,000Replacement edit systems 1
TV-201701 2,0002,000Wireless mic systems 1
TV-201702 7,0007,000CG1
TV-201703 250250CD Player 1
TV201801 2,0002,000300-foot audio snake & reel 1
TV-201801 300300Announcer Monitor 3
TV-201802 40040050-foot audio snake 1
TV-201803 1,5001,500Behringer Audio Equipment 1
TV-201804 7,5007,500Camcorders1
TV-201805 1,5001,500DVD recorders 1
TV-201806 900900Unit pro light kit 1
375,00049,800 265,300 36,550 9,250 14,100Cable TV Total
Community Development
Tuesday, June 18, 2013
Study Session Meeting of June 24, 2013 (Item No. 4)
Title: 2014 Budget Discussion Page 10
Total2014 2015 2016 2017 2018Department Project# Priority
00Unfunded
00Community Development Total
CD-002 00CD-Sidewalks 5
CD-003 00CD-Trails 5
00Community Development Total
Fire
500,000410,000 30,000 10,000 50,000Capital Replacement Fund
315,000315,000Equipment Replacement Fund
815,000410,000 30,000 10,000 365,000Fire Total
2013F1 40,00020,000 20,000Outside Warning Sirens 1
2013F2 30,00010,000 10,000 10,000Thermal Imagers 1
2014F1 400,000400,000SCBA Replacement 1
2017 315,000315,000800 meg. Radios 1
2023F1 30,00030,000Hydraulic Rescue Tool 3
815,000410,000 30,000 10,000 365,000Fire Total
Parks & Recreation
20071010TR 300,00060,000 60,000 60,000 60,000 60,000Tree Replacement 3
20130080 15,00010,000 5,000Oak Hill Park Northern Lights (LED)3
20130220 30,00030,000Trail Sealcoat 3
20131010PW 100,00020,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000Playground Woodchips 1
20140010 65,00065,000Cedar Knoll Park/Carlson Field Dugout,Storage,Conc 3
20140020 300,000300,000Dakota Park Baseball Field Renovation 1
20140030 10,00010,000Louisiana Oaks Park Parking Lot Seal Coat 3
20140040 180,000180,000Playground Eqpt Repl-Dakota & Louisiana Oaks Parks 1
20140050 20,00020,000Rec Center & Aquatic Park ADA Compliance 1
20140060 36,00036,000Rec Center Aquatic Park Deck Chair Replacement 1
20140080 50,00050,000Rec Center Aquatic Park Sand&Water Area Shade 3
20140090 90,00090,000Rec Center Aquatic Park Waterslide Resurface 1
20140110 6,0006,000Rec Center Roof Repair 1
20140120 30,00030,000Rec Center Mens Locker-Bath Room Remodel 3
20140130 50,00050,000Rec Center West Arena & Commons Painting 3
20140140 40,00040,000Trail Restoration-Lamplighter Pond 1
20140150 40,00040,000Westwood Hills NC Boardwalk Decking Replacement 3
20140160 10,00010,000Wolfe Lake-Cattail Pond Re-landscaping 3
20140170 50,00050,000Wolfe Park Amphitheater Retaining Wall/Pavers 3
20140180 75,00075,000Rec Center West Arena Locker-Bath Room Remodel 3
20140190 252,000252,000Louisiana Oaks North Parking Lot Addition 3
Tuesday, June 18, 2013
Study Session Meeting of June 24, 2013 (Item No. 4)
Title: 2014 Budget Discussion Page 11
Total2014 2015 2016 2017 2018Department Project# Priority
20140210 80,00080,000Rec Center Aquatic Park Slide Tower Pnt/Hndrl 3
20141010MC 000000Minnehaha Creek Trail Repayment n/a
20150010 110,000110,000Ainsworth Park Field Restoration 1
20150020 25,00025,000Aquila Park Tennis Court Resurface 3
20150030 15,00015,000Court Resurface (bb) Mkda V & Penn Pks 3
20150040 14,00014,000Court Resurface(tns)-Bass Lk & Northside Pks 3
20150050 120,000120,000Junior High Lacrosse/Soccer Field Lighting 3
20150060 11,00011,000Minikahda Park Backstop Replacement 1
20150070 180,000180,000Playground Eqpt Repl-Nelson & Wolfe Parks 1
20150080 80,00080,000Rec Center Aquatic Park Concession Shade Structure 3
20150090 60,00060,000Rec Center Aquatic Park Landscape Replacement 3
20150110 15,00015,000Rec Center Aquatic Park Pumps Rebuild 1
20150120 15,00015,000Rec Center Building Re-Keying 3
20150130 175,000175,000Rec Center Exterior Building Repair 3
20150140 35,00035,000Rec Center Gallery & Hallway Flooring 1
20150150 50,00050,000Skate Park Equipment Replacement 3
20150160 30,00030,000Trail Recon. Along CLR - Quentin Ave to Ridge Dr 1
20150170 20,00020,000Westwood Hills NC Wildflower Trail Restoration 3
20150180 100,000100,000Wolfe Park Boardwalk Replacement (south end)3
20160010 60,00060,000Carpenter Park Ball Field Fence Replacement 3
20160020 12,00012,000Cedar Knoll Park/Carlson Field Scoreboard n/a
20160030 5,0005,000Court Resurface (bb/Tns)-Browndale Park 3
20160040 150,000150,000Playground Eqpt Repl-Blackstone,Justad&Jersey 1
20160050 180,000180,000Rec Center Aquatic Park Pool Resurface 1
20160060 20,00020,000Rec Center Aquatic Park-Rplc Chem Control System 1
20160070 45,00045,000Rec Center Aquatic Park Drp Slide & Dvg Brd Repl 3
20160080 15,00015,000Rec Center Banquet Room Carpet & Floor Replacement 3
20160110 4,800,0004,800,000Rec Center Ice Arena Reconstruction 1
20160120 110,000110,000Rec Center Parking Lot Resurface 3
20160130 125,000125,000Trail Lights (LED) at Shelard Park 3
20160140 40,00040,000Trails (seal coat) Bass Lake, OH & Wolfe Pks 1
20160150 50,00050,000Westwood Hills NC Ravine Bridge Replacement 1
20160160 55,00055,000Westwood Hills NC Storage Garage 5
20160170 105,000105,000Rec Center Rubber Floor Replacement - East & West 1
20160180 50,00050,000Rec Center Fire Alarm System Upgrade 3
20160190 10,00010,000Rec Center West Arena Press Area 5
20170010 450,000450,000Aquila Park Fields 1-4 Lights and Poles Upgrade 1
20170020 85,00085,000Browndale Park Hockey Rink Lights 5
20170030 110,000110,000Oak Hill Park Skating & Field Lights 3
20170040 60,00060,000Oak Hill Park Splash Pad Feature Replacement 3
20170050 35,00035,000Parking Lots Mill&Ovrlay-Dkta, Fern Hill & OH Pks 1
20170060 200,000200,000Playground Eqpt Repl-BassLk,Rainbow,TL&Webster 1
20170070 20,00020,000Rec Center Aquatic Park Pump Rebuild 1
20170080 130,000130,000Rec Center Boiler Replacement 3
Tuesday, June 18, 2013
Study Session Meeting of June 24, 2013 (Item No. 4)
Title: 2014 Budget Discussion Page 12
Total2014 2015 2016 2017 2018Department Project# Priority
8,969,9322,127,697 1,394,364 1,713,119 1,302,649 2,432,103Capital Replacement Fund
11,092,0001,464,000 1,135,000 5,922,000 1,558,000 1,013,000Park Improvement Fund
20,061,9323,591,697 2,529,364 7,635,119 2,860,649 3,445,103Parks & Recreation Total
20170090 250,000250,000Rec Center Roof Rplc - East Arena 1
20170110 17,00017,000Rec Center Programming Office Carpet 3
20170120 50,00050,000Victoria Lake Parking Lot 3
20170130 6,0006,000Westwood Hills NC Climbing Rock 5
20170140 10,00010,000Westwood Hills NC North Staircase Overlook 1
20170160 20,00020,000Westwood Hills NC-Prairie Dock Rebuild 3
20180010 10,00010,000Court Resurface (BB) Aquila, Roxbury & Shelard 3
20180020 250,000250,000Dakota Park Softball Field Lights (2)3
20180030 125,000125,000Parking Lot Resfc-Aq, Crlsn,IscW,Nlsn,Nrthsde,WW 1
20180040 250,000250,000Playground Eqpt Repl-Brchwd,Nrthsde,Rxbry&Shlrd 1
20180050 30,00030,000Rec Center Banquet & Gallery Remodel 1
20180060 120,000120,000Rec Center Door Replacement (Front & Arena)1
20180070 100,000100,000Rec Center Upstairs Bthrm&Ctrng Kitchn Remodel 3
20180080 30,00030,000Westwood Hills NC Native Restoration 3
20180090 8,0008,000Westwood Hills NC Painting & Staining 5
20180110 10,00010,000Birchwood Park Stain Building 3
E - XX01 8,969,9322,127,697 1,394,364 1,713,119 1,302,649 2,432,103Annual Equipment Replacement Program 1
20,061,9323,591,697 2,529,364 7,635,119 2,860,649 3,445,103Parks & Recreation Total
Police
69,00010,700 10,700 10,700 10,700 26,200Capital Replacement Fund
69,00010,700 10,700 10,700 10,700 26,200Police Total
PD - 1 69,00010,700 10,700 10,700 10,700 26,200Laser/Radar and Message Board 3
69,00010,700 10,700 10,700 10,700 26,200Police Total
Public Works
20052000 3,188,0003,188,000Street Project - TH 100 Reconstruction 1
20082500 300,000300,000Traffic Signal Project - W36th St @ Xenwood Ave 5
20121300 2,000,0002,000,000Street Project - Wooddale Ave Reconstruction 5
20121301 2,039,0512,039,051Street Project - W36th Street Reconstruction 5
20121302 500,000500,000Traffic Signal Project - Wooddale @ W36th St 5
20131000 1,598,1601,598,160Street Project - Local Street Rehab (Area 2)1
20131100 515,000515,000Street Project - MSA Street Rehab (Walker)1
20140001 300,000300,000Street Mt Proj - Sealcoat Streets (Area 6)1
20140003 82,50082,500Sidewalk Maint. Project - Annual Repairs 1
20140004 62,50062,500Street Maint. Project - Annual C & G Repairs 1
Tuesday, June 18, 2013
Study Session Meeting of June 24, 2013 (Item No. 4)
Title: 2014 Budget Discussion Page 13
Total2014 2015 2016 2017 2018Department Project# Priority
20140006 35,00035,000Storm Water Project - Annual CB Repairs 1
20140200 75,00075,000Street Project - Cedar Lake Road Improvements 5
20141000 1,184,8151,184,815Street Project - Local Street Rehab (Area 3)1
20141100 500,000500,000Street Project - MSA Street Rehab (Edgewood)1
20141101 340,000340,000Street Project - MSA Street Rehab (Beltline Blvd)1
20141200 200,000200,000Storm Water Project - Sewer Rehab / Replacement 1
20141201 5,826,0005,826,000Storm Water Proj - Bass Lake Preserve Rehab 1
20141400 316,000316,000Water Project - Watermain Replacement 1
20142200 75,55275,552Sanitary Sewer Proj. - Mainline Rehab (Area 2)1
20142301 127,600127,600Sanitary Sewer - LS #14 Upgrade 1
20150001 265,000265,000Street Mt Proj - Sealcoat Streets (Area 7)1
20150003 82,50082,500Sidewalk Maint. Project - Annual Repairs 1
20150004 37,50037,500Street Maint. Project - Annual C & G Repairs 1
20150006 35,00035,000Storm Water Project - Annual CB Repairs 1
20150100 1,000,0001,000,000Street Project - TH 169 Noise Wall 3
20151000 1,996,3001,996,300Street Project - Local Street Rehab (Area 4)1
20151100 420,000420,000Street Project - MSA Street Rehab (CLR / Flag)1
20151101 150,000150,000Street Project - MSA Street Rehab (Ottawa)1
20151102 1,139,5781,139,578Bridge Project - Louisiana Ave @ Minnehaha Creek 1
20151200 175,000175,000Storm Water Project - Sewer Rehab (Area 3)1
20151201 770,000770,000Storm Water Project - Oregon Pond Basin Rehab 1
20151400 25,00025,000Water Project - Watermain Replacement (Area 3)1
20152200 150,000150,000Sanitary Sewer Proj. - Mainline Rehab (Area 3)1
20152300 57,50057,500Sanitary Sewer Proj. - LS #9 & FM Rehab 1
20152301 85,41085,410Sanitary Sewer Proj. - Forcemain Rehabs 1
20160001 248,674248,674Street Mt Proj - Sealcoat Streets (Area 8)1
20160003 82,50082,500Sidewalk Maint. Project - Annual Repairs 1
20160004 37,50037,500Street Maint. Project - Annual C & G Repairs 1
20160006 35,00035,000Storm Water Project - Annual CB Repairs 1
20161000 1,269,0851,269,085Street Project - Local Street Rehab (Area 5)1
20161100 395,000395,000Street Project - MSA Street Rehab (Pennsylvania)1
20161200 200,000200,000Storm Water Project - Sewer Rehab (Area 4)1
20161201 870,000870,000Storm Water Project - Lou Oaks Pond Rehab 1
20161400 291,000291,000Water Project - Watermain Replacement (Area 4)1
20161500 600,000600,000Water Project - Recoat Elevated Water Tower #2 1
20162200 150,000150,000Sanitary Sewer Proj. - Mainline Rehab (Area 4)1
20162300 350,000350,000Sanitary Sewer Proj. - LS #1 & FM Rehab 1
20170001 253,648253,648Street Mt Proj - Sealcoat Streets (Area 1)1
20170003 82,50082,500Sidewalk Maint. Project - Annual Repairs 1
20170004 37,50037,500Street Maint. Project - Annual C & G Repairs 1
20170006 35,00035,000Storm Water Project - Annual CB Repairs 1
20171000 1,423,8121,423,812Street Project - Local Street Rehab (Area 6)1
20171100 212,800212,800Street Project - MSA Street Rehab (W28th St)1
20171101 360,000360,000Street Project - MSA Street Rehab (Louisiana Ave)1
Tuesday, June 18, 2013
Study Session Meeting of June 24, 2013 (Item No. 4)
Title: 2014 Budget Discussion Page 14
Total2014 2015 2016 2017 2018Department Project# Priority
240,000240,000EDA Development Fund
24,911,0001,444,800 9,816,350 9,691,350 741,000 3,217,500G.O. Bonds
177,500177,500Hennepin County
1,012,5421,012,542HRA Levy
27,000,00012,000,000 15,000,000Met Council Grant
4,470,692588,314 2,174,578 395,000 212,800 1,100,000Municipal State Aid
900,000900,000Other Jurisdictions
8,732,0331,910,160 1,429,815 2,226,456 1,503,345 1,662,257Pavement Management Fund
198,000198,000Permanent Improvement Revolving Fund
20171200 100,000100,000Storm Water Project - Sewer Rehab (Area 5) 1
20171201 130,000130,000Storm Water Project - Sumter Pond Rehab 1
20171202 438,000438,000Storm Water Project - Browndale Pond Rehab 1
20171400 25,00025,000Water Project - Watermain Replacement (Area 5)1
20171500 600,000600,000Water Project - Recoat Reservoir 2 @ WTP#6 1
20172200 150,000150,000Sanitary Sewer Proj. - Mainline Rehab (Area 5)1
20172300 70,00070,000Sanitary Sewer Proj. - LS #13 & FM Rehab 1
20180001 258,721258,721Street Mt Proj - Sealcoat Streets (Area 2)1
20180003 82,50082,500Sidewalk Maint. Project - Annual Repairs 1
20180004 37,50037,500Street Maint. Project - Annual C & G Repairs 1
20180006 35,00035,000Storm Water Project - Annual CB Repairs 1
20181100 610,000610,000Street Project - MSA Street Rehab (Shelard Pkwy)1
20181102 991,586991,586Bridge Project - W 37th St @ Minnehaha Creek 1
20181200 100,000100,000Storm Water Project - Sewer Rehab (Area 6)1
20181201 158,000158,000Lamplighter Pond Rehab 1
20181202 138,000138,000Storm Water Project - Otten Pond Rehab 1
20181400 123,000123,000Water Project - Watermain Replacement (Area 6)1
20182200 150,000150,000Sanitary Sewer Proj. - Mainline Rehab (Area 6)1
20182300 70,00070,000Sanitary Sewer Proj. - LS #5 1
20211102 228,314228,314Bridge Project - W 36th St @ Minnehaha Creek 1
M - XX06 228,50041,000 43,000 47,500 49,000 48,000Traffic Signal Maint. Proj - Repl Control Cabinets 1
M - XX07 56,00010,800 11,000 11,200 11,400 11,600Traffic Signal Maint. Project - Paint Signals 1
M - XX08 50,00010,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000Retaining Wall Maint. Project - Wall Repair 1
M - XX10 679,000142,000 135,000 134,000 135,000 133,000Street Light Project - System Replacement 1
M - XX13 424,000121,000 110,000 158,000 35,000PW Parking Lot Rehabilitation Project 1
SWT - 2014 451,500451,500Sidewalk - Trail - Bikeway Installations in 2014 5
SWT - 2015 9,691,3509,691,350Sidewalk - Trail - Bikeway Installations in 2015 5
SWT - 2016 9,691,3509,691,350Sidewalk - Trail - Bikeway Installations in 2016 5
SWT - 2017 741,000741,000Sidewalk - Trail - Bikeway Installations in 2017 5
SWT - 2018 3,217,5003,217,500Sidewalk - Trail - Bikeway Installations in 2018 5
TEMP-0012 180,000180,000Street Project - Excelsior Blvd Resurfacing 1
TEMP-0015 27,010,00012,005,000 15,005,000Sanitary Sewer Proj. - MCES Hopkins Interceptor 1
89,503,80622,305,426 34,342,743 19,882,485 4,849,933 8,123,219Public Works Total
Tuesday, June 18, 2013
Study Session Meeting of June 24, 2013 (Item No. 4)
Title: 2014 Budget Discussion Page 15
Total2014 2015 2016 2017 2018Department Project# Priority
12,5007,500 5,000PW Engineering Budget
1,704,682336,800 339,000 341,218 344,788 342,876PW Operations Budget
2,436,062260,652 1,500,000 235,410 220,000 220,000Sanitary Sewer Utility
2,040,586121,000 235,000 158,000 500,000 1,026,586Special Assessments
9,880,0006,061,000 1,580,000 1,105,000 703,000 431,000Stormwater Utility
3,826,5093,826,509Tax Increment - Elmwood
75,00075,000Tax Increment Financing
2,880,000316,000 925,000 891,000 625,000 123,000Water Utility
90,497,10623,298,726 34,342,743 19,882,485 4,849,933 8,123,219Public Works Total
Technology
20134050 27,00027,000Facilities: City Hall Cameras 3
ACCT-1 75,00015,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000ACCT- Insight Budgeting Annual Maintenance 3
TRF-001 500,000100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000IT: On-going Hardware/Telephone Adds & Replacement 1
TRF-002 750,000150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000IT: On-going Software Adds & Replacement 1
TRF-003 500,000100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000IT: On-going Network Adds & Replacement 1
TRF-111 660,000660,000Police/Fire: 800 MHz Radio/Console Replacements 1
TRF-213 100,000100,000IT: Comprehensive Citywide Technology Study 3
TRF-215 25,00025,000OR: Asset Mgmt Software / iPads / Site License 3
TRF-218 200,000100,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000IT: On-going SAN Storage Additions 1
TRF-220 125,00025,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000IT: E-Mail Archival / Backup Solution 3
TRF-221 10,00010,000OR: Point of Sale Equipment Replacements 3
TRF-222 6,0006,000Assessing: Wireless Equipment for Field Work 3
TRF-307 30,00030,000IT: Fiber Conduit - West End Fr. Rd, Gamble, Utica 3
TRF-308 65,00065,000IR: City Hall Production Copiers 3
TRF-309 30,00030,000OR: MSC Copiers (2)3
TRF-310 75,00075,000Fire / Police: Dispatch Voice Recorders 1
TRF-313 20,00010,000 10,000IT: Wireless Hotspots 3
TRF-314 50,00050,000Police / Rec Center / Nature Center: Copiers 3
TRF-315 100,000100,000Police: Mobile Replacements 1
TRF-316 20,00010,000 10,000Fire: Firehouse Web / Inspections iPads 3
TRF-321 250,000250,000Admin Serv: Financial / HR/Payroll App Replacement 1
TRF-322 210,000210,000Admin Serv: Utility Billing App Replacement 1
TRF-335 100,000100,000IT: Telephone System Upgrade 3
TRF-342 25,00010,000 15,000Fire: EOC Computer / Phone Equipment 3
TRF-343 5,0005,000IT: Public Kiosks (City Hall, other sites)1
TRF-345 30,00015,000 15,000Admin Serv: Council Laptops / Tablets 3
TRF-347 50,00050,000IT: Windows / Office / Tablet Training 3
TRF-348 55,00055,000OR: Nature & Rec Centers Surveillance Cameras 3
TRF-352 8,0008,000OR: Square Rigger Mobile Devices 1
TRF-353 35,00035,000IT: Server Farm / UPS Enhancements 3
TRF-355 75,00015,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000IR / Communications: Reverse 911 - ParkAlert 3
Tuesday, June 18, 2013
Study Session Meeting of June 24, 2013 (Item No. 4)
Title: 2014 Budget Discussion Page 16
Total2014 2015 2016 2017 2018Department Project# Priority
5,430,0001,774,000 1,249,000 791,000 833,000 783,000Capital Replacement Fund
240,000165,000 75,000E-911 Funds
1,007,500107,500 500,000 400,000EDA Development Fund
45,00045,000Parks & Recreation
TRF-356 10,00010,000Eng: HP Scanner / Plotter / Copier 3
TRF-400 125,00025,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000IT: Network Switches 1
TRF-501 50,00050,000IT: Tape Library Replacement 1
TRF-502 20,00020,000Insp: Permit Tech Document Scanners 3
TRF-503 100,000100,000Fire: Stations Media Package 3
TRF-505 75,00075,000Admin Serv: Property Data System Replacement 1
TRF-506 75,00075,000OR: Class / E-Connect (Parks) Replacement 1
TRF-507 30,00030,000Insp: Permits / E-Permits System Replacement 1
TRF-508 23,00023,000Police: Jail Cameras 1
TRF-509 12,00012,000Police: Exterior Cameras 1
TRF-511 1,000,000200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000IT: Tablet / Smartphone Hardware and Services 5
TRF-513 100,000100,000Fire / Police: Dispatch 800 MHz / 911 Viper Backup 3
TRF-514 14,0007,000 7,000Insp: Tablets 3
TRF-515 10,00010,000Utilities: SCADA Solution 5
TRF-516 50,00050,000OR: AVL (Public Safety, others?)5
TRF-552 30,00015,000 15,000IT: Plotter Replacements 3
TRF-561 5,5005,500Police: Booking and Intox Room Cameras (2)3
TRF-562 55,00055,000Police: Dispatch Camera Viewing Workstations 5
TRF-565 45,00045,000OR: Rec Center Cameras 3
TRF-566 20,00020,000Fire: Regional CAD Data Pooling 3
TRF-571 85,00085,000IR: Study - Park Nicollet Fiber 3
TRF-572 500,000500,000IR: Study - Fiber to PW and Parks Bldgs.3
TRF-574 22,50022,500IR: Study - Fiber to SLP Library 3
TRF-575 400,000400,000IR: Study - Complete Fiber Rings 1
TRF-576 20,00020,000IR: Study - Brickhouse Fiber and Wireless (2013?)3
TRF-577 85,00085,000IR: Highway 7 / Louisiana Area Fiber 3
TRF-579 60,00060,000IR: Hwy 100 Bridges Conduit / Mtka Blvd Fiber Loop 3
TRF-580 60,00020,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000Admin Serv: Agenda Management Software/Hardware 3
TRF-581 100,00060,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000Admin Serv:Agenda Documents Mgmt
Software/Hardware
5
TRF-582 45,00045,000MSC Cameras 3
TRF-583 30,00030,000OR: Banquet Rm Video Conferencing/Multiple Monitor 3
TRF-584 10,00010,000OR: Rec Center Monitors (Gallery / Prog Office)3
TRF-585 15,00015,000Fire: Station 1 Copier 3
TRF-586 50,00050,000Police: Data Recable at Police Station (2013?)1
TRF-587 50,00050,000IR: Interior / Exterior Digital Signage 3
TRF-588 55,00011,000 11,000 11,000 11,000 11,000Surveillance Camera Maintenance 3
TRF-590 40,00040,000Facilities: Security System Review / Upgrades 3
7,688,0002,731,500 1,769,000 1,271,000 908,000 1,008,500Technology Total
Tuesday, June 18, 2013
Study Session Meeting of June 24, 2013 (Item No. 4)
Title: 2014 Budget Discussion Page 17
Total2014 2015 2016 2017 2018Department Project# Priority
905,500665,000 20,000 100,000 120,500Police & Fire Pension
50,00050,000PW Operations Budget
10,00010,000Utilities
7,688,0002,711,500 1,769,000 1,291,000 908,000 1,008,500Technology Total
121,273,73830,092,123 39,422,107 29,108,854 9,233,532 13,417,122Grand Total
Tuesday, June 18, 2013
Study Session Meeting of June 24, 2013 (Item No. 4)
Title: 2014 Budget Discussion Page 18
Meeting: Study Session
Meeting Date: June 24, 2013
Discussion Item: 5
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Wooddale Flats Comprehensive Plan Amendment from CIV Civic to RM Medium
Density Residential
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Per City Council direction this item has been placed on this study
session agenda for the purpose of discussing the amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Land Use
Map to allow for Medium Density Residential (RM) on the Most Holy Trinity site at 3998 Wooddale
Avenue South and 4017 Utica Ave South.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the City Council support the request to modify the
Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map to facilitate rezoning, platting and potentially a PUD for the
redevelopment of the Most Holy Trinity site for a medium density residential development?
SUMMARY: A request to amend the City’s Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map has been submitted
for property 3998 Wooddale Avenue South and 4017 Utica Avenue South. The request is to change
the land use designation from CIV – Civic to RM – Medium Density Residential, which allows a
density of 6 - 30 units per acre. The amendment request is driven by a specific development project
of one 2-story building and five 3-story buildings with a density of 14 units per acre.
The amendment would allow development that meets several of the land use and housing goals in the
City’s Comprehensive Plan, including:
- increase mix of housing types and housing choices;
- promote medium and high density residential development near commercial centers;
- ensure that new medium and high density residential development is near transit service;
- provide higher density residential transitions between low density residential and commercial.
Staff recommends approval of the amendment request as it meets several of the goals of the
Comprehensive Plan and provides a land use designation which allows a greater number of
redevelopment opportunities on this site.
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
Aerial Photo
Comprehensive Plan Map of Project Area, Existing & Proposed
Proposed Development Site Plan and Related Documents
Excerpt of Planning Commission Minutes
Prepared by: Ryan Kelley, Associate Planner
Reviewed by: Meg McMonigal, Planning & Zoning Supervisor
Michele Schnitker, Housing Supervisor
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of June 24, 2013 (Item No. 5) Page 2
Title: Wooddale Flats Comprehensive Plan Amendment from CIV Civic to RM Medium Density Residential
DISCUSSION
BACKGROUND:
The request to amend the Land Use Map of the Comprehensive Plan is for property at 4017 Utica
Avenue South and 3998 Wooddale Avenue South. The Utica Avenue parcel contains a church/school
building, formerly The Church of the Most Holy Trinity, a parking lot and a single family home
which was provided for the priest. The Wooddale Avenue property contains a single family home
which was provided for church/school support staff.
The Most Holy Trinity Church closed in December 2012 and a charter school which operated in the
same building closed in May 2013. If the amendment were approved and the project driving the
amendment request moves forward, the developer would seek to combine and plat the two parcels, as
well as demolish all existing buildings.
Site Conditions:
The combined parcels are 2.42 acres in size and feature a vacant 3-story school/church building, a
parking lot, playground and two single family homes. The total height of the existing school building
varies but is generally 36’8” to the top of the parapet and 45’ to the top of the chimney.
The site lies between Wooddale and Utica Avenues just south of Excelsior Boulevard. There is a
funeral home on the north side of the property, commercial properties to the northwest and northeast,
single family homes immediately to the west, south and east, and another church is to the southeast of
the property, across Wooddale Avenue. The topography of the site is depressed by approximately
five feet throughout except for the edges along Toledo Avenue, Utica Avenue and Wooddale Avenue
where the grade of the property is level with that of the adjacent streets, effectively existing as a bowl
between Wooddale and Utica Avenues. The site lies within the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District.
Development Proposal:
The proposed development would demolish all of the existing buildings and replace them with six
new townhome style buildings for a total of 34 units and surface parking. The building on the corner
of Toledo and Wooddale Avenues would be two stories, contain four units and face Wooddale
Avenue. The other five buildings would also face Wooddale Avenue and each building would be
three stories at Wooddale Avenue and four stories from the rear parking lot and contain six units. The
buildings will look more similar to typical townhome buildings yet would be considered a
condominium because there will be multiple units vertically stacked within the same structure. The
units will be available for purchase and not rental units. Each of the six-unit buildings will have two
rooftop decks, with one available for purchase by any of the owners within that building and the other
for use by the other residents. The two story building will not have any rooftop decks. The height of
the three story buildings would be 43’8” to the top of the parapet and 54’ to the top of the elevator
housing, compared to 45’ to the top of the chimney of the existing school/church building.
The current site plan indicates the arrangement and footprint of the buildings as well as parking areas.
Parking for residents would be provided in attached garages as well as onsite in surface parking lots.
As proposed, the development exceeds the parking requirements of the Zoning Ordinance, providing
a total of 82 spaces while 76 are required. The developer has not requested any parking reductions,
and all proposed parking spaces are accommodated on-site. Parking access is proposed from Toledo
Avenue to 16 units and from Utica Avenue to the remaining 18 units.
Study Session Meeting of June 24, 2013 (Item No. 5) Page 3
Title: Wooddale Flats Comprehensive Plan Amendment from CIV Civic to RM Medium Density Residential
The concept site plan was designed to bring the buildings closer to the street and placing parking
areas toward the rear of the site creating a more pedestrian friendly environment. The buildings are
also designed to be of a similar height to the existing school building.
General Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan
A request for amending the City’s land use plan and zoning map should be evaluated from the
perspective of land use planning principles and community goals. These reflect the community’s
long range vision and broad goals about what kind of community it wants to be and what makes
strong neighborhoods.
This amendment request is driven by a specific proposal for development. The request is for
development at a density of 14 units per acre, which is considered Medium Density (RM) in the
Comprehensive Plan.
The City’s Land Use Plan and Housing Plan are built from the broad goals, policies and
implementation strategies incorporated in the Comprehensive Plan. These elements are the basis for
evaluating the requested change. The proposed change meets many of these goals, including:
• Encourage projects that incorporate such design elements as orientation, scale, massing and
height to street ratio which contribute to a more walkable and pedestrian scale environment;
• Create a mix of housing types to increase neighborhood housing choices and the viability of
greater neighborhood services through redevelopment or infill development;
• Consider opportunities for a broader range of housing types and densities adjacent to existing
low density residential neighborhoods which are complementary and compatible with the
existing neighborhood character;
• Promote the development of medium and high density residential near commercial centers
and nodes and within walking distance of transit services;
• Promote and facilitate a balanced and sustainable housing stock meeting diverse needs;
• Explore traditional and non-traditional owner-occupied housing options;
• Use infill and redevelopment opportunities to help meet housing goals and promote higher
density housing near transit corridors and employment centers.
Changing the Comprehensive Plan map will allow for a new housing type in the area surrounding the
intersection of Wooddale Avenue and Excelsior Boulevard. At the present time, the area to the south,
east and across Hwy 100 to the west is predominantly single family houses constructed from the
1920s to the 1950s, with commercial development to the north. The Comprehensive Plan calls for an
increase in the availability of neighborhood housing choices and a broader range of housing types.
The proposed development would do so, while also providing a transition between existing homes
and the commercial area to the north. The developer has additionally responded to neighborhood
concern regarding the scale of buildings by reducing the size of the southernmost building to a 2-
story building as a buffer between the taller portion of the development and the single-family homes
to the south. The proposed project is also within 500 feet of the Miracle Mile Shopping Center and
the Excelsior and Wooddale Intersection which provides access to a major bus transit route and a
local “circulator” route.
Availability of Infrastructure
The City Engineer has reviewed the proposed development and found the public water and sewer
infrastructure in the area to be adequate to serve the proposed development. City Staff have also met
with the project engineer and have determined that the City’s storm water requirements can be met
onsite.
Study Session Meeting of June 24, 2013 (Item No. 5) Page 4
Title: Wooddale Flats Comprehensive Plan Amendment from CIV Civic to RM Medium Density Residential
Traffic arose as an important issue for neighbors in the area. A traffic study was required to review
the capacity of adjacent roadways and the projected potential impacts of the development on adjacent
roadways and intersections. The Comprehensive Plan identifies Excelsior Boulevard as an “A Minor
Augmentor” and Wooddale Avenue as a “Major Collector.” Between now and 2030, there is the
possibility that there may be capacity issues for the intersection of these two roads, so the traffic
study includes an analysis of how the proposed development will impact the overall number of
vehicle trips in the area. General results of the study indicate that:
• The proposed project will produce significantly less a.m. peak hour trips when compared to
the recent use of the site;
• The proposed project will produce similar p.m. peak hour trips when compared to the recent
use of the site;
• Toledo Avenue is predicted to have a decrease in the number of average daily trips while
Utica Avenue is predicted to have an increase in the number of average daily trips. This is due
to the fact that current access to the site is only from Toledo Avenue, while the proposed
project would provide an access point off of Utica Avenue as well; and
• There will be no significant impacts on the intersections of Wooddale Ave/Excelsior
Boulevard or Excelsior Boulevard/Highway 100 North access.
Impacts to Surrounding Properties and the Physical Character of the Neighborhood
Removal of the existing school building and two adjacent homes will change the character of the site.
The proposed development generally follows the height, density and ground floor area ratio of the R4
Zoning District and in doing so minimizes the impacts of redevelopment on surrounding properties.
The proposed concept appears to exceed some of the R4 zoning requirements such as: floor area ratio
and parking setbacks. It is anticipated that the property would be rezoned as a planned unit
development (PUD) if the Comprehensive Plan amendment is approved and the project moves
forward.
The greatest change to the physical character of the neighborhood may be the loss of a general
impression of openness from Wooddale Avenue across the site because of the existing parking lot
south of the school building. The parking lot area is proposed to have buildings lining the street
which would enclose this space. Additionally the playground on the southwest corner of the property
will be removed.
Recommendation:
Staff and the Planning Commission recommend approval of the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map
Amendment. The proposed development provides for a new housing type in the project area and
meets the Comprehensive Plan’s goal of increasing medium-density housing near commercial areas
and low-density residential areas. Additionally, the school and church building have closed, leaving
the property vacant. The city has seen similar uses close in recent years as well. It is unlikely that
another “Civic” use would redevelop on this property. The proposed development meets several
goals of the Comprehensive Plan and avoids the existence of a vacant property.
NEXT STEPS:
The Planning Commission has recommended approval of the request for an amendment to the Land
Use Map of the Comprehensive Plan. If the City Council approves the request for an amendment to
the Comprehensive Plan map the request will go to the Metropolitan Council for review. If the
Comprehensive Plan map amendment is approved, the developer intends to apply for a rezoning to
R4-Multiple-Family Residential, a PUD and a plat for the property.
AERIAL PHOTO
Study Session Meeting of June 24, 2013 (Item No. 5)
Title: Wooddale Flats Comprehensive Plan Amendment from CIV Civic to RM Medium Density Residential
Page 5
Comprehensive Plan - Existing
Study Session Meeting of June 24, 2013 (Item No. 5)
Title: Wooddale Flats Comprehensive Plan Amendment from CIV Civic to RM Medium Density Residential Page 6
Comprehensive Plan – Proposed Amendment
Study Session Meeting of June 24, 2013 (Item No. 5)
Title: Wooddale Flats Comprehensive Plan Amendment from CIV Civic to RM Medium Density Residential Page 7
April 25th, 2013Minneapolis, MN3 WOODDALESITE PLAN654321Wooddale Avenue SouthWest 40th StreetToledo Avenue S.Utica Avenue SouthVernon Ave S.Study Session Meeting of June 24, 2013 (Item No. 5) Title: Wooddale Flats Comprehensive Plan Amendment from CIV Civic to RM Medium Density ResidentialPage 8
April 25th, 2013Minneapolis, MN4 WOODDALE4 UNIT BUILDING PERSPECTIVEStudy Session Meeting of June 24, 2013 (Item No. 5) Title: Wooddale Flats Comprehensive Plan Amendment from CIV Civic to RM Medium Density ResidentialPage 9
April 25th, 2013Minneapolis, MN1 WOODDALE6 UNIT BUILDING PERSPECTIVEStudy Session Meeting of June 24, 2013 (Item No. 5) Title: Wooddale Flats Comprehensive Plan Amendment from CIV Civic to RM Medium Density ResidentialPage 10
Excerpts – Unofficial Minutes
Planning Commission - City of St. Louis Park
June 5, 2013
3. Public Hearings
A. Wooddale Flats – Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Location: 3998 Wooddale Ave. S. and 4017 Utica Ave. S.
Applicant: Gatehouse Properties, Ltd.
Case No.: 13-19-CP
Ryan Kelley, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. He explained that the
land use, although not anticipated by the Comprehensive Plan, provides a
residential use in the neighborhood, while providing a transition between single
family homes and commercial uses.
David Carlson, Gatehouse Properties, Ltd. spoke about the proposed design for 6
townhome style buildings for a total of 34 units. He said they currently have 7
reservations.
Chair Robertson opened the public hearing.
Bill McGuire, 3971 Wooddale Ave. said he lives across from the proposed
condominiums. He said he felt the proposal was a very reasonable use of the
land. He said the new residents will have a strong interest in protecting the
neighborhood and seeing it prosper. He said he’d love to see the condominiums
across the street from him.
Beth Kalpin, 4048 Toledo Ave. S., asked if there would be an opportunity to hear
more about the traffic study, specifically regarding parking. She said Toledo is
quite a busy street in terms of parking.
Mr. Kelley responded that the site provides more parking than required. On-street
parking is not anticipated.
Chair Robertson spoke about the June 5th letter provided to Commissioners from
Tasks Unlimited, 4029 Utica Ave. S., regarding their parking area which is
currently only accessible by way of the church parking lot. He asked if Tasks
Unlimited staff would be parking on the street if the development is approved.
Mr. Kelley responded that the letter was received by staff just a few hours ago.
He said staff had received in inquiry from Tasks Unlimited property owner about
the easement and the project. Staff’s interpretation of the survey provided by
Tasks Unlimited is that the easement is provided to the church property for that
parking and drainage area. Staff has asked the developer and Tasks Unlimited
owner to work out any issues that might be related to the easement. If the project
went forward staff would make sure any issues related to that had been resolved.
Study Session Meeting of June 24, 2013 (Item No. 5)
Title: Wooddale Flats Comprehensive Plan Amendment from CIV Civic to RM Medium Density Residential
Page 11
He said he couldn’t answer if that is all the parking Tasks Unlimited has and how
that would work out.
Karen Coggins, owns a building at 4045 Vernon Ave. S. She did not attend any
of the neighborhood meetings. She asked how the traffic study was done. She
spoke about an entrance at Utica coming out at Vernon, wondering about the
traffic pattern. Would cars turn right onto Vernon, off of Wooddale or through
the neighborhood back around Toledo or out to 41st & Wooddale to access getting
in and out of the proposed complex. She said she asked because her building
comes around to the sound wall. She said she never goes out that way because
she can never get through the intersection. She said she leaves her property
through an alley, which in the winter is nearly impossible to make a turn. In the
past there has only been church traffic on Sundays and school traffic, so there
have been limited times. With new residential there will be more people coming
and going all the time. She said it is nearly impossible to get out of the
neighborhood right now.
Matt Pacyna, Traffic Engineer, SRF Consulting, said their traffic study
determined that given it is a residential development they expect about 90% of the
development traffic to come from and go to the north towards Excelsior Blvd.
From a trip generation perspective about half the traffic would use each access
point. They don’t expect the development to negatively impact what exists
traffic-wise. The trip generation difference is negligible from a traffic operations
perspective.
There was a discussion about addressing existing traffic issues at Exc. Blvd. and
Wooddale.
Ms. Coggins spoke about the development of a lot of commercial access on Exc.
Blvd. over the last 15 years.
Ms. McMonigal stated that the conclusion of the traffic study is that there isn’t
any increase over the existing church and school traffic when it was operating.
Chair Robertson said the traffic study had just been distributed to the
Commission. Traffic is one of the detail issues that will get revisited as the
project moves forward through the planning process.
Harvey Meyer, 4044 Toledo Ave. S., asked for a copy of the traffic study. He
said his property has a fence which separates his property from the proposed
development. He said he was concerned about vegetation along the property line
to insure privacy and minimize visibility to the development. He said the
developer has assured him that his concerns will be addressed. He said as the
Study Session Meeting of June 24, 2013 (Item No. 5)
Title: Wooddale Flats Comprehensive Plan Amendment from CIV Civic to RM Medium Density Residential
Page 12
proposal proceeds he would like to get assurances on that and assurances that it
meets city approval.
Dale Sopkowiak, 3985 Wooddale Ave., said traffic is a problem in the
neighborhood but something is going to happen on the site and he thinks what is
being proposed is the best situation and he strongly supports the development. He
added that it should also beautify the area.
Randy Manthey, 3979 Dakota Ave. S., stated that he is a resident of the
Brooklawns neighborhood. He and his wife are longtime residents and are
currently looking for this type of home that will be new, have low maintenance,
close to the city, traditional architectural design, close to public transportation,
walkability, energy efficient, strong neighborhood, and located in St. Louis Park.
He added that Wooddale Flats is the kind of project that is in alignment with
Vision St. Louis Park.
Mary Beth Sinclair, 3908 Kipling Ave. S., said she has lived in the neighborhood
for 12 years. She said she’s been looking for housing like Wooddale Flats for a
couple of years. She said she supports the project and is one of the 7 people who
have made reservations with the developer.
Gloria Hiner, 4050 Wooddale, a 70-year resident, commented that there isn’t any
medium density housing on the south side of Excelsior Blvd., it is primarily single
family residential. Most of the dense residential is on the north side of Excelsior
Blvd. She said she doesn’t favor the proposal because it sets a precedent for all of
the south Exc. Blvd. to turn into dense housing. She said she would like to see
the site remain civic use.
Chair Robertson closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Person stated the density being proposed is very reasonable. He
said it will be an excellent addition to the city.
Commissioner Kramer said he supports going ahead with the request but
underscoring that traffic needs to be considered, and we ought to take this as an
opportunity to fix it. He made a motion to recommend approval of the
Comprehensive Plan amendment for 3998 Wooddale Avenue and 4017 Utica
Ave. S.
Commissioner Morris seconded the motion, including for the record, receipt of
the letter from Tasks Unlimited regarding property access issue.
The motion passed on a vote of 5-0.
Study Session Meeting of June 24, 2013 (Item No. 5)
Title: Wooddale Flats Comprehensive Plan Amendment from CIV Civic to RM Medium Density Residential
Page 13
Meeting: Study Session
Meeting Date: June 24, 2013
Written Report: 6
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: May 2013 Monthly Financial Report
RECOMMENDED ACTION: No action required at this time.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: None at this time.
SUMMARY: The Monthly Financial Report provides summary information for the General
Fund and the Park & Recreation Fund of revenues and departmental expenditures and a
comparison of budget to actual throughout the year.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Actual expenditures should generally run
about 42% of the annual budget in May. Currently, the General Fund has expenditures totaling
38.8% of the adopted budget and the Park and Recreation Fund expenditures are at 36.9%.
Revenues tend to be harder to measure in this same way due to the timing of when they are
received, examples of which include property taxes and State aid payments (Police & Fire,
DOT/Highway, PERA Aid, etc.).
Nearly all departments are running at or below budget for expenditures through May. A few
brief comments are noted below.
General Fund
Revenues:
• Through May, 61% of the license and permit revenues have been received in the General
Fund. As in prior years, this is because approximately 96% of the 2013 liquor and
business license payments have already been received. Building permit revenues are at
47.1% of budget or $799,600 through May.
Expenditures:
• Community Outreach is temporarily exceeding budget at 54% because the full 2013
payment for Mediation Services was made in April. This expenditure is a substantial
portion of the Community Outreach budget. The variance is consistent with prior years.
VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Summary of Revenues & Expenditures
Prepared by: Darla Monson, Senior Accountant
Reviewed by: Brian A. Swanson, Controller
Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Summary of Revenues - General Fund and Park & Recreation As of May 31, 2013 20132013201120112012201220132013 Balance YTD Budget BudgetActual BudgetAudited Budget May YTD Remaining to Actual %General Fund Revenues: General Property Taxes15,426,072$ 15,372,076$ 15,998,292$ 16,038,098$ 16,314,802$ -$ 16,314,802$ 0.00% Licenses and Permits2,345,910 2,797,588 2,368,799 3,241,372 2,481,603 1,514,706 966,897 61.04% Fines & Forfeits328,200 281,047 328,150 341,356 335,150 121,615 213,535 36.29% Intergovernmental1,136,187 1,243,494 1,163,677 1,275,279 1,203,289 286,768 916,521 23.83% Charges for Services1,152,643 1,077,137 1,270,354 1,095,909 1,401,797 407,961 993,836 29.10% Miscellaneous Revenue100,150 129,142 111,650 103,029 114,200 50,215 63,985 43.97% Transfers In2,589,876 2,553,665 2,023,003 2,066,136 1,816,563 745,630 1,070,933 41.05% Investment Earnings200,000 203,282 125,000 136,415 150,000 150,000 0.00% Other Income4,750 22,686 3,450 10,871 4,700 4,674 26 99.45%Total General Fund Revenues23,283,788$ 23,680,117$ 23,392,375$ 24,308,465$ 23,822,104$ 3,131,569$ 20,690,535$ 13.15%Park & Recreation Revenues: General Property Taxes4,000,561$ 4,000,561$ 4,171,506$ 4,171,506$ 4,342,922$ -$ 4,342,922$ 0.00% Licenses and Permits6,600 110 6,600 440 - 249 (249) 0.00% Intergovernmental77,652 208,536 68,902 89,744 96,902 33,063 63,839 34.12% Charges for Services1,095,250 1,082,163 1,070,750 1,073,722 1,073,400 335,117 738,283 31.22% Miscellaneous Revenue937,400 1,035,310 967,900 989,204 978,181 281,293 696,888 28.76% Other Income15,000 78,902 42,150 265,402 31,950 1,130 30,820 3.54%Total Park & Recreation Revenues6,132,463$ 6,405,582$ 6,327,808$ 6,590,018$ 6,523,355$ 650,852$ 5,872,503$ 9.98%Study Session Meeting of June 24, 2013 (Item No. 6) Title: May 2013 Monthly Financial ReportPage 2
20132013201120112012201220132013 Balance BudgetBudgetActual BudgetAudited Budget May YTD Remaining to Actual %General Government: Administration889,798$ 825,168$ 1,012,554$ 977,392$ 877,099$ 357,810$ 519,289$ 40.79% Accounting612,964 624,573 641,691 639,999 657,592 263,764 393,828 40.11% Assessing500,141 506,426 517,840 518,271 543,855 226,923 316,932 41.72% Human Resources652,770 629,734 667,612 645,357 678,988 287,874 391,114 42.40% Community Development1,094,186 1,082,461 1,076,376 1,052,186 1,094,517 451,331 643,186 41.24% Facilities Maintenance1,114,551 955,880 1,083,128 972,481 1,074,920 379,485 695,435 35.30% Information Resources1,394,226 1,421,858 1,507,579 1,363,266 1,770,877 632,427 1,138,450 35.71% Communications & Marketing294,470 256,558 265,426 244,392 201,322 62,563 138,759 31.08% Community Outreach88,515 84,300 8,185 5,341 8,185 4,421 3,764 54.01%Total General Government6,641,621$ 6,386,958$ 6,780,391$ 6,418,686$ 6,907,355$ 2,666,598$ 4,240,757$ 38.61%Public Safety: Police7,208,512$ 6,943,375$ 7,273,723$ 7,124,784$ 7,443,637$ 2,995,737$ 4,447,900$ 40.25% Fire Protection3,164,344 3,061,962 3,346,931 3,291,655 3,330,263 1,279,295 2,050,968 38.41% Inspectional Services1,863,296 1,818,212 1,889,340 1,869,616 1,928,446 784,958 1,143,488 40.70%Total Public Safety12,236,152$ 11,823,549$ 12,509,994$ 12,286,055$ 12,702,346$ 5,059,990$ 7,642,356$ 39.84%Public Works: Public Works Administration829,698$ 803,259$ 389,783$ 378,852$ 393,054$ 156,828$ 236,226$ 39.90% Public Works Engineering846,032 816,280 927,337 939,425 940,479 347,889 592,590 36.99% Public Works Operations2,550,285 2,461,099 2,604,870 2,521,463 2,698,870 1,008,929 1,689,941 37.38%Total Public Works4,226,015$ 4,080,638$ 3,921,990$ 3,839,739$ 4,032,403$ 1,513,646$ 2,518,757$ 37.54%Non-Departmental: General 81,287$ -$ 65,292$ -$ -$ 0.00% Transfers Out900,000 - 1,160,000 - - 0.00% Tax Court Petitions180,000 - 180,000 - 180,000 - 180,000 0.00%Total Non-Departmental180,000$ 981,287$ 180,000$ 1,225,292$ 180,000$ -$ 180,000$ 0.00%Total General Fund Expenditures23,283,788$ 23,272,432$ 23,392,375$ 23,769,772$ 23,822,104$ 9,240,234$ 14,581,870$ 38.79%Park & Recreation:Organized Recreation1,239,230$ 1,266,774$ 1,305,747$ 1,352,273$ 1,317,526$ 446,312$ 871,214$ 33.88%Recreation Center1,442,447 1,424,076 1,466,246 1,516,121 1,463,224 539,320 923,904 36.86%Park Maintenance1,435,374 1,462,866 1,461,645 1,444,448 1,483,576 554,594 928,982 37.38%Westwood502,366 488,579 515,456 506,404 533,565 198,265 335,300 37.16%Environment371,324 396,664 390,009 382,378 430,876 113,372 317,504 26.31%Vehicle Maintenance1,141,722 1,300,708 1,188,705 1,326,153 1,294,588 552,550 742,038 42.68%Total Park & Recreation Expenditures6,132,463$ 6,339,666$ 6,327,808$ 6,527,777$ 6,523,355$ 2,404,413$ 4,118,942$ 36.86%Summary of Expenditures - General Fund and Park & RecreationAs of May 31, 2013 Study Session Meeting of June 24, 2013 (Item No. 6) Title: May 2013 Monthly Financial ReportPage 3
Meeting: Study Session
Meeting Date: June 24, 2013
Written Report: 7
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Defeasance of the 2004A Bonds
RECOMMENDED ACTION: No action at this time. Staff will bring this back to Council for
the recommended action of approving the full defeasance of the 2004A Bonds.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the Council desire to fully defease the 2004A Bonds?
Please let staff know of questions or concerns that you might have.
SUMMARY: The 2004A Bonds were issued as General Obligation Tax Increment Refunding
Bonds to refund the 1996 Tax Increment Bonds issued to fund various eligible tax increment
costs as well as the Recreation Center project. The Bonds were partially defeased through
August 1, 2016, with the City responsible for paying $51,665 in interest costs annually through
2016 and then making payments for the remaining totals of $1,415,000 in principal and $52,658
in interest in 2017 and 2018 . By fully defeasing these Bonds, the City will save approximately
$200,000 in remaining interest costs.
The funding for the defeasance will be $707,500 from the Hwy 7 Development District,
$353,750 from the Development Fund, and $353,750 from the Permanent Improvement
Revolving Fund. This is consistent with the City’s Long Range Financial Management Plan.
The redemption of the Bonds is scheduled for August 5, 2013.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: By fully defeasing the 2004A Bonds, the
City will save approximately $200,000 in remaining interest costs.
VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: None
Prepared by: Steven Heintz, Finance Supervisor
Reviewed by: Brian A. Swanson, Controller
Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting: Study Session
Meeting Date: June 24, 2013
Written Report: 8
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Proposed Modification to the Victoria Ponds Tax Increment Financing District Plan
RECOMMENDED ACTION: None at this time. This report is being provided to update the
Council/EDA on an item that will be placed on the July 1 EDA meeting agenda. Please inform
staff of any questions or concerns that you might have.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the EDA support use of the remaining funds within the
Victoria Ponds TIF District as proposed?
SUMMARY:
It is estimated that there will be approximately $490,000 available for legal pooling after the
final Victoria Ponds tax increment payment is made to SVK Development on August 1st.
Pursuant to the TIF Management Review & Analysis Report prepared by Ehlers & Associates,
and as discussed at the May 13th Study Session, it is recommended that the City modify the
Victoria Ponds TIF District Plan prior to August 1st and develop a plan for the use of the
remaining funds. If no modification to the TIF Plan is completed by that date, the balance must
be returned to Hennepin County.
It is proposed that the remaining funds from the Victoria Ponds TIF District be allocated towards
the installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of 36th Street and Xenwood Avenue as well
as reconstruction of the intersection and traffic signal at 36th Street and Wooddale Avenue. Both
projects are listed in the City’s Capital Improvement Program and are scheduled for completion
in 2016 in concert with the proposed SWLRT construction and implementation.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: At next week’s EDA meeting an
administrative modification will be proposed which stipulates that the remaining funds within the
Victoria Ponds TIF District (approximately $490,000) be allocated towards the installation of a
traffic signal at the intersection of 36th Street and Xenwood Avenue and reconstruction of the
intersection and traffic signal at 36th Street and Wooddale Avenue.
VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion
Prepared by: Greg Hunt, Economic Development Coordinator
Reviewed by: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, EDA Executive Director and City Manager
Study Session Meeting of June 24, 2013 (Item No. 8) Page 2
Title: Proposed Modification to the Victoria Ponds Tax Increment Financing District Plan
DISCUSSION
BACKGROUND: The Victoria Ponds TIF District was established on April 1, 1996. This
redevelopment TIF district was created to facilitate the construction of 74 owner occupied
townhomes west of Victoria Lake. Tax increment from this district was utilized for payment on
the $760,000 PAYGO note with SVK Development, the project’s developer. With the August 1st
payment, the note will be paid in full. Statutorily, once all outstanding obligations of a TIF
district are paid off, they must be decertified.
After the first half increment is received and the final SVK payment is disbursed it is estimated
that there will be approximately $490,000 available for legal pooling. Pursuant to the TIF
Management Review & Analysis Report prepared by Ehlers & Associates, and as discussed at the
May 13th Study Session, it is recommended that the EDA modify the Victoria Ponds TIF District
Plan prior to August 1st and develop a plan for the use of these legal pooling funds. If no pooling
is completed by August 1st when the obligation is fully satisfied, the balance must be returned to
Hennepin County.
MN Statute 469.176 subd. 4j specifies the activities on which tax increment from a
redevelopment district may be spent. In general, tax increment must be spent on correcting those
conditions which caused the area to be designated a redevelopment district in the first place.
Allowable uses include property acquisition, demolition, rehabilitation, installation of public
utilities, road, sidewalks, public parking facilities, and allowable administrative expenses.
Given these allowable uses, it is proposed that the remaining funds be allocated towards the
installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of 36th Street and Xenwood Avenue as well as
the reconstruction of the intersection and traffic signal at 36th Street and Wooddale Avenue.
These projects are located within the Elmwood Village Renewal and Renovation TIF District
and will facilitate current and future redevelopment efforts. Both projects are listed in the City’s
Capital Improvement Program and are scheduled to be completed in 2016 in concert with the
proposed SWLRT construction and implementation. These projects were identified to be paid
with tax increment from the Elmwood TIF District. However, in 2016, it is estimated that there
will be insufficient cash flow to cover these project costs due to the timing of other financial
obligations within that district. It is estimated there will be sufficient funds to meet these
obligations in the later years of the district. Rather than borrowing to cover the cost of these
projects or increasing the existing interfund loan with the Development Fund, it is proposed that
the remaining tax increment from the Victoria Ponds TIF District be utilized.
NEXT STEPS: At its July 1st meeting, the EDA will be asked to approve an Administrative
Modification to the Victoria Ponds Tax Increment Financing Plan which amends the TIF
District’s budget and authorizes the use of the remaining funds as outlined above. Later this year,
pursuant to the recommendations within the TIF Management Review & Analysis Report and in
compliance with state statutes, the EDA will be asked to decertify the Victoria Ponds, HSTI and
Oak Hill TIF Districts.
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: June 24, 2013
Written Report: 9
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Zoning Ordinance Amendment - Parking Uses
RECOMMENDED ACTION: The purpose of this report is to update the Council on the draft
ordinance that is going to the Planning Commission for a public hearing on June 26, 2013.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Should parking land uses in the zoning ordinance be revised as
proposed by staff?
SUMMARY: This ordinance is prompted by a concern that parking lots intended for use by
customers and employees could instead be used to store vehicles for sale, repair or other
purposes.
An interim ordinance was approved by the Council, and became effective on February 14, 2013.
The intent of the interim ordinance was to give city planning staff time to review various parking
issues and practices in the commercial areas and to consider amendments to the zoning
ordinance.
The draft ordinance proposes the following:
1. Remove the “Parking Business” land use from the zoning ordinance.
2. Remove the “Time Transfer Station” land use from the zoning ordinance.
3. Establish “Parking Lots” as a permitted with conditions use in the residential districts.
4. Remove “Transit Stations” from the residential districts.
5. Miscellaneous amendments to clarify existing provisions and remove unnecessary language.
Attached is a summary of the proposed changes to the zoning ordinance and a table showing all
of the parking uses and the manner in which they are approved in each zoning district.
NEXT STEPS: A public hearing is scheduled for June 26, 2013. The first reading is tentatively
scheduled for the July 15, 2013 City Council meeting.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION: Not Applicable
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion
Table of Existing/Proposed Parking Land Use Regulations
Prepared by: Meg J. McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor
Reviewed by: Michelle Schnitker, Housing Supervisor
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of June 24, 2013 (Item No. 9) Page 2
Title: Zoning Ordinance Amendment - Parking Uses
DISCUSSION
BACKGROUND: This ordinance is prompted by concerns that some businesses could store
vehicles for sale or repair in parking spaces required by the City for use by customers and
employees. While the zoning ordinance is adequate for enforcing this violation, there are some
changes that can be made to clarify the parking regulations. The following is a summary of the
proposed clarifications.
Remove the “Parking Business” land use from the zoning ordinance.
Section 36-193(c)(29) allows “Parking Business” in the C-1 Neighborhood Commercial district.
“Parking Business” is undefined, and therefore makes it difficult to require a vehicle to be
removed from a parking lot since it could be argued that it is part of a “Parking Business”.
Staff interprets the “Parking Business” to be similar to a park and fly typically located near the
airport. Therefore, staff determined that there is not currently a business operating as a “Parking
Business” in the City, and that there is not a need for a “Parking Business” land use. Therefore
staff is recommending that it be removed from the zoning ordinance. This would remove a
potential loop-hole that could be used to store/display vehicles as a stand-alone business or in
combination with another business on the site.
Miscellaneous amendments:
The following is a summary of miscellaneous amendments intended to clarify existing regulations.
Remove the “Time Transfer Station” land use from the zoning ordinance.
The land use definition for “Time Transfer Station” is nearly identical to “Transit Stations”.
Therefore, staff is proposing to remove “Time Transfer Station” from the ordinance since it is
redundant.
Time transfer station means a facility where passengers are transferred on, off, or between
public transportation vehicles. This use is characterized by large volumes of bus and auto
traffic at peak hours.
Transit stations means loading, unloading and transferring of passengers on, off or between
public transportation ground vehicles. Parking lots and parking ramps frequently are located in
conjunction with the station.
Establish “Parking Lots” as a permitted with conditions use in the residential districts.
Parking Lots are currently allowed as accessory uses in the R-1, R-2 and R-3 Zoning Districts.
There are, however, 11 cases where parking lots are the only use on a property, making it a
principal use, not an accessory use. Four of these lots are municipal parking lots, three provide
parking for an institution such as a school or place of worship and the remaining four provide
parking for a commercial business or office.
These parking lots are legally non-conforming since the zoning ordinance does not allow them as
principal uses. Staff is proposing to allow them as “Permitted with Conditions”, meaning they
are allowed as principal uses if they meet the following conditions:
a. Vehicles shall not be parked on the parking lot from midnight to 5am.
b. Vehicles shall be licensed and operable.
c. Outside storage of materials, equipment or other items other than vehicles is not permitted.
Study Session Meeting of June 24, 2013 (Item No. 9) Page 3
Title: Zoning Ordinance Amendment - Parking Uses
Remove “Transit Stations” from the residential districts.
Transit Stations are currently allowed in all residential zoning districts. A transit station is
essentially a park and ride where the bus or other mode of mass transit enters onto the site for
picking up or dropping off passengers. These sites tend to be large with a fair amount of traffic.
Therefore, staff is proposing to remove them from the R-1, R-2 and R-3 zoning districts. They
will remain as principal uses in the multiple family districts (R-4 and RC).
Miscellaneous amendments to clarify existing provisions and remove unnecessary language.
There are many amendments that remove “Reserved” references and renumber existing
regulations.
NEXT STEPS:
A public hearing is scheduled for June 26, 2013.
The first reading is tentatively scheduled for the July 15, 2013 City Council meeting.
Study Session Meeting of June 24, 2013 (Item No. 9) Page 4
Title: Zoning Ordinance Amendment - Parking Uses
Table of Existing/Proposed Parking Land Use Regulations
This table shows the following:
How all parking land uses are reviewed and approved in each Zoning District.
The changes resulting from the proposed ordinance.
Underlined represents a change added to the ordinance.
Strikeout represents a deletion from the existing ordinance.
Parking Land Uses POS R-1 R-2 R-3 R-4 R-C C-1 C-2 O B-P I-P I-G M-X
Garages and other
accessory buildings A A A A A
Off-street parking
areas A A A
Parking lot A PC PC PC PC
A
PC
A
PC
A
P
A
PC
A A A A A
Parking lot as principal
use PC PC
Parking ramp A A A A A A A A
Parking ramp as
principal structure PC PC CUP PC PC
Private garages and
parking lots A A
Transit stations PC PC PC P P PC P P P P P
Transit stops/shelters A
Time Transfer Stations PC P P
Parking Business PC
P = permitted
PC = permitted with conditions
CUP = permitted as conditional use
PUD = permitted by PUD
A = permitted as accessory use