HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013/10/14 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - Study SessionAGENDA
OCTOBER 14, 2013
6:30 p.m. CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION – Council Chambers
Discussion Items
1. 6:30 p.m. Future Study Session Agenda Planning – October 21 & October 28, 2013
2. 6:35 p.m. Friends of the Arts Annual Report and Update
3. 7:05 p.m. Southwest LRT Update
4. 7:35 p.m. Community Center Project
5. 8:35 p.m. 2014 Budget Review
9:35 p.m. Communications/Meeting Check-In (Verbal)
9:40 p.m. Adjourn
Auxiliary aids for individuals with disabilities are available upon request.
To make arrangements, please call the Administration Department at
952/924-2525 (TDD 952/924-2518) at least 96 hours in advance of meeting.
Meeting: Study Session
Meeting Date: October 14, 2013
Discussion Item: 1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Future Study Session Agenda Planning – October 21 & October 28, 2013
RECOMMENDED ACTION: The City Council and the City Manager to set the agenda for
the Special Study Session scheduled for October 21, 2013 and the regularly scheduled Study
Session on October 28, 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 scheduled for October 21, 2013 and the regularly scheduled Study
Session on October 28, 2013.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Future Study Session Agenda Planning – October 21 & 28, 2013
Prepared by: Debbie Fischer, Office Assistant
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of October 14, 2013 (Item No. 1) Page 2
Title: Future Study Session Agenda Planning – October 21 & October 28, 2013
Special Study Session, October 21 2013 – 7:15 p.m.
(Mayor Jacobs Out)
Tentative Discussion Items
1. 4601 Highway 7 Property Purchase Update – Community Development (15 minutes)
Provide an update on the environmental investigation and relocation costs related to the
proposed acquisition of 4601 Hwy 7 and ascertain whether the EDA wishes to proceed with
the property purchase.
End of Meeting: 7:30 pm
Study Session, October 28, 2013 – 6:30 p.m.
(Mayor Jacobs Out)
Tentative Discussion Items
1. Future Study Session Agenda Planning – Administrative Services (5 minutes)
2. Housing Study Presentation (SWLRT/Maxfield Study) – Community Development (30 minutes)
Representatives from the County and Maxfield Research will present an overview of the
results from studies that were conducted in order to make recommendations on joint policies,
tools and financing strategies that help to achieve a full range of housing choices along the
SWLRT Corridor in conjunction with future transit investments.
3. SWLRT: Met Council to Present Plans – Community Development (75 minutes)
Metropolitan Council Southwest LRT Staff will provide a brief presentation of the plans for
municipal consent and be available to answer questions. It is intended that the public hearing
would be in November at a Council meeting or Study Session.
Communications/Meeting Check-In – Administrative Services (5 minutes)
Time for communications between staff and Council will be set aside on every study session
agenda for the purposes of information sharing.
Reports
4. 2013 September Financial Report
5. 3rd Quarter Investment Report
End of Meeting: 8:25 pm
Meeting: Study Session
Meeting Date: October 14, 2013
Discussion Item: 2
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Friends of the Arts Annual Report and Update
RECOMMENDED ACTION: No action is needed at this time. Members of Friends of the
Arts will be present to update the Council on activities and initiatives.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the City Council have questions or concerns regarding the
activities of Friends of the Arts?
SUMMARY: The City has been working with Friends of the Arts in a partnership since 2006
and contributes $20,000 annually to further the arts in the community. One of the most visible
things that Friends of the Arts (FOTA) sponsors is the “Our Town” project which occurs every
other year. Past “Our Town” projects include Faces and Places, Verses and Voices, and in 2012
Beats and Streets. Beats and Streets focused on drumming. FOTA has begun planning for the
next “Our Town” project which will occur in 2014 and center around Arts and Nature.
FOTA has a very successful “Arts for Life” scholarship program. This grant awards money to
aspiring artists of all kinds. They have awarded grants to six different recipients in the past year.
FOTA completed an organizational audit to clarify their mission as well as goals and focus
which created a Strategic Plan for the organization. They received a $10,000 grant from the
Metropolitan Regional Arts Council to assist them in funding this process. FOTA is in the first
phase of implementing their Strategic Plan.
The City of St. Louis Park in cooperation with FOTA provides Arts and Culture Grants to
residents wanting to do art projects around the City. Each year the City budgets $16,000 for these
grants. Recipients are chosen by a committee made of the community members.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Staff recommends supporting FOTA by
contributing $20,000 for 2014. This is included in the proposed 2014 Development Fund budget.
FOTA uses the funding from the city to leverage funds for grants and donations. Their annual
revenue is projected to be $55,000 for 2013. This is expected to increase as the organization
becomes more aggressive in fundraising in 2014 and beyond. All funds for scholarships are
provided by contributions from individuals and foundations. All funding for “Our Town”
programs is raised from grants and donations and budgets average about $20,000.
VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to promoting and integrating arts,
culture and community aesthetics in all City initiatives, including implementation where
appropriate.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Friends of the Arts Overview 2013
Friends of the Arts Report, 2013 – 2014
Friends of the Arts Strategic Plan FY 2013 to FY 2015
Prepared by: Stacy Voelker, Administrative Secretary
Reviewed by: Cindy Walsh, Director of Operations and Recreation
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
6715 Minnetonka Blvd www.SLPFriendsoftheArts.org
Suite 103 info@SLPFriendsof theArts.org Email
St. Louis Park, MN 55426
tel 952.928.6422
Mission: St. Louis Park Friends of the Arts (FOTA) is a nonprofit community organization dedicated to
supporting, promoting, and enhancing the arts in St. Louis Park. We connect people and organizations around
the arts, share arts-related information and resources, and coordinate community arts programs.
Our programs include:
• Arts for Life Scholarships
These quarterly scholarships allow any resident of St. Louis Park to enrich their life through a creative
experience regardless of personal financial restrictions. We have funded music, art, and dance classes, a
band trip to Chicago for high school students and classes for seniors to engage in the arts.
Funding is 100% donor based. Approximately $4,000 per year awarded - all to residents of SLP.
We are requesting funding from Citizens Bank for this program because you are a local organization that
supports the community. Donations for this program have been more difficult to come by during the
past few years of economic downturn. More and more students in the community are coming to us to
help fund music lessons, school trips for band, orchestra, and choir, and instruments. We currently
serve 10 to 20 community members per year and see that number growing steadily. The impact of this
program is incredible when we see students who are able to attend a class and therefore become part
of a creative community sending us thank you notes or students that are able to join their classmates
for a choir trip to Chicago – expanding their horizons musically and their world in general.
• Arts and Culture Grants. In partnership with the City of SLP and the SLP Community Foundation, FOTA
has been instrumental in supporting projects that connect the community to the arts. These funds are
awarded annually to local organizations and artists to support community pride and build bridges
between artists and communities in St. Louis Park.
• Our Town: Building Community through the Arts: A bi-annual community arts program that focuses
on a different arts discipline each cycle
2012 Our Town: Beats & Streets. This program grew out of the first two Our Town programs which
featured photography and poetry. Beats & Streets focused on drumming and had the following
components:
1. Community drumming workshops led by Stan and Chico of the New Primitives (held at Lenox,
Meadowbrook, Perspectives, Partnership Resources, Library and Sholom)
2. Eight Community drum circles led by Jeff Scroggins of Earthshake World Rhythm Ensemble at Oak
Hill Park and Wolfe Park weekly throughout July and August
3. Four FREE community drumming concerts (Stan & Chico from New Primitives, Batucada Do Norte,
Buckets and Tap Shoes, and Mu Daiko)
Our Town: Beats & Streets was funded by the generous support of the Minnesota Regional Arts Council
through an appropriation from the Minnesota State Legislature, the SLP Community Foundation and the
Harmon Foundation.
Study Session Meeting of October 14, 2013 (Item No. 2)
Title: Friends of the Arts Annual Report and Update Page 2
• Newsletter - A FREE monthly e-newsletter produced by FOTA showcases arts activities and events
happening in St. Louis Park.
Friends of the Arts provides fiscal agency for:
St Louis Park Community band,
St Louis Park Jr High Theater,
The Park Theater,
Maggie’s Farm Theater
Organizational Objectives:
* Ensure access to the arts for everyone and promote strong community support of the arts by
strengthening existing arts programs as well as creating new arts opportunities.
* Serve as a liaison between the community, schools, parks and recreation, community education,
and Children First.
* Be a resource for community members, artists, and existing programs.
* Provide multi-cultural and multi-generational arts events.
Values and Meaning:
ART is an all-inclusive description to: visual arts music, theater, dance, literature, etc
We believe that art and artists are essential to the identity of a community
We believe in nurturing young artists
We believe that all citizens should have access to experiencing and learning and making art
We believe in making art – high quality art – affordable to all
We believe in the commitment of developing physical facilities for artists and people who appreciate art
We believe in the power of art that is diverse and celebrates different cultures and life experiences
We believe in the spirit of collaboration with people and as a means of promoting and inspiring art and art
forms for a broader community
Study Session Meeting of October 14, 2013 (Item No. 2)
Title: Friends of the Arts Annual Report and Update Page 3
Summary of Where we Are and What is Next: 2013-2014
As a small community-focused grass roots organization, SLP Friends of the Arts (FOTA ) has developed in an
organic way;
partnering on programs that are a good fit,
serving needed functions for smaller less established arts groups who do not have the capacity to
become nonprofits,
providing funding for community members to grow in the arts,
funding for artists and organizations to bring arts to the park,
serving as the go-to place for the arts in the Park.
We have an active board, a part time office administrator, and contracted consultants who provide marketing
and programming support.
The strong arts foundation in our community has attracted new groups and activities. MN Public Theater
moved its summer programming to SLP and returned again this past summer. Twin Cities Film Festival is
launching its third year at the West End in SLP this fall because of the great success they had the last 2 years.
We are collaborating with both of these groups to share resources and build opportunities. In addition to this the
new SLP Visitors and Convention Bureau is partnering with as many organizations as possible to build on our
combined potential
This month Maggie’s Farm Theater will have theater productions every weekend at the Lenox community
center – for the third year! AND The Park Theater Company will be producing King of the Kosher Grocer’s
at the JCC – a return production of its most successful play yet.
Strategic Plan:
In 2012 FOTA set aside some time to pull back and do some thinking, examining and planning. We did
an organizational audit to clarify our mission, goals and focus. We then went through a strategic planning
process that engaged the community and stakeholders in discussing what role they want the arts to play in SLP.
We received an Organizational Development Grant from MRAC (Metropolitan Regional Arts Council) for
$10,000 to accomplish this process in the first half of 2013. The funding allowed us to bring in experts in the
field of community arts development and financial modeling.
We are now in the first phases of implementation of the Strategic Plan that is attached and feel quite strongly
that we are on a good track for both the organization and the community. We have just submitted an application
for funding to MRAC to help us fund a part-time executive director that will lead the continued execution of
this plan.
2014 Our Town
Planning has begun for projects centered around Arts & Nature. We hope to partner with Westwood Nature
Center, Hoigaards, Community Education, and many local businesses to bring visual arts expression to as broad
a swath of the community as possible.
Our Town 2010: Voices & Verse
Continues through quarterly poetry jams each run by a different community member/poet and televised by Park
TV. Attendees span all age groups and neighborhoods.
Study Session Meeting of October 14, 2013 (Item No. 2)
Title: Friends of the Arts Annual Report and Update Page 4
Arts for Life
The Arts for Life scholarship program remains well-funded and distributing awards quarterly. There is an
upcoming review deadline Dec 5, 2013 for which we have already received two applications and one inquiry.
For the first three quarters 2012, we distributed 6 scholarships for music lleessssoonnss for students and one for floral
design classes for a senior citizen.
Arts & Culture Grants
Four groups received funding for 2013 grants. 2014 application are being reviewed.
1. This April the Sabes Jewish Community Center Performing Arts presented “The Children’s Hour”.
2. This summer The Public Theater of Minnesota was back at the Veteran’s Memorial Amphitheater with a
production of Shakespeare’s As You Like It Fridays, Saturdays and Sundays, July 7-21, 8 p.m.- 10 p.m.
3. Maggie’s Farm Theater held sessions of an expanded scope of the Books Alive! Play Reading Series for
all ages held at the St. Louis Park Library quarterly thru August.
4. St. Louis Park Middle School was awarded a maximum of $5,500.
Fiscal Agencies
Friends of the Arts serves as fiscal agent for four arts organizations with a standard agreement for each;
Maggie’s Farm Theater, Community Band, St. Louis Park Junior High Theater, Park Theater Company
Operations and Management
Board development is a high priority under our new strategic plan. We have started a process for redefining
board positions, responsibilities and committees that will be complete by the end of the year. We continue to
have excellent executive leadership. We are actively recruiting new board members. Several of our board
members act as liaisons with other local and state organizations, furthering our relationship building objectives.
Marketing/ Communications
Our Membership and Communication Committees continue to develop. We submit press releases to and receive
press coverage from local media; especially Sun Sailor and SLP Patch. We advertise in the St Louis Park
Community Education catalogue and recently placed ad space in the new SLP Magazine. We have been
working closely with the SLP Magazine and they have been providing wonderful coverage of the arts and
theater in SLP. Park TV routinely publicizes our events
Website:
We continue to develop our website and build on the blocks put in place last year. Most importantly:
Interactive website for community artists and businesses, Updated community calendar and schedule of events,
Current blog with interesting art related topics
Newsletter: Our monthly Art Talk e-newsletter is distributed to apporx 800 community members and an
average of 30% open it every month.
Telephone communication
Local Event Inquiries 28% FOTA Program Inquiries 11%
Information, referrals & resources 23% FOTA Operations 32%
Other 6%
Email communication: On average, we receive 320 emails and send 150 emails per month.
Finance
Board Treasurer, Sandy Hicks, has been with us 3 years. 2012 tax returns were completed, reviewed, and filed
by the May 15 due date. Detailed and comprehensive financial reports are presented and reviewed monthly.
For 2014 we will begin using financial modeling created during our strategic planning process for budgeting.
Study Session Meeting of October 14, 2013 (Item No. 2)
Title: Friends of the Arts Annual Report and Update Page 5
Strategies I. Advance Current Programming II. Grow Citizen Arts Participation III. Position FOTA as the City’s Arts Champion IV. Strengthen Organizational Capacity Actions 1.1 Increase the availability and visibility of support for artists, arts organizations and community members. 1.2 Cultivate resources that strengthen the sustainability of arts groups, activities and partners. 1.3 Proactively develop alliances with artists, arts organizations, and community groups in order to coordinate our shared impact.
2.1 Collaborate with the City and partners to create a unified message about the arts in our community. 2.2 Build and execute a branding and marketing approach for granted projects and activities and to help the public find arts activities. 2.3 Develop partnerships to broaden audiences and participants for arts activities and events.
3.1 Strengthen our alliance with the city and seek opportunities to a take a leadership role. 3.2 Actively propose and participate in city initiatives and planning to ensure the arts are considered. 3.3 Engage city businesses in supporting and investing in the arts as an important economic driver and quality of life enhancer.
4.1 Identify clear successors for key board roles and define role responsibilities. 4.2 Create systems that ensure the pursuit and implementation of FOTA priorities. 4.3 Define the board and staff relationship and work toward establishing an executive director level position.
Outcomes
New artistic and creative resources drawn to St. Louis Park. Greater collaboration and sharing of resources. Generation of new opportunities and resources.
Greater opportunities for community engagement and inclusion through the arts. More money spent in the community due to the arts. Citizens able to locate the arts in St. Louis Park.
St. Louis Park artists and arts organizations recognized as a vital part of community strength. Community identity shaped by the presence of the arts.
Higher level of board engagement in governance and volunteerism. Enhanced and sustained staff leadership. Clear and delineated roles between board and staff.
Success Indicators
Increase in financial resources for programs. Increase in fiscal agency and applications. Growth in diversity of arts experiences.
Increase in attendance at FOTA sponsored events. Increase in channels for communication. Enhanced understanding of FOTA’s role in the community.
Increase in the civic opportunities for the artists and arts organizations. Increase in engagement and financial support by area businesses.
Increase in board engagement in addressing strategic issues. Resources secured for launch of executive director position.
Catalyze a new level of arts engagement in St. Louis Park
Identify and strengthen the arts in St. Louis Park Strengthen the connection and collaboration among artists, arts organizations, and the community
St. Louis Park Friends of the Arts
Strategic Plan Worksheet
FY 2013 through FY 2015 GOALS
MISSION We connect people and organizations around the arts, share arts-related information and resources, and coordinate community arts programs.
Study Session Meeting of October 14, 2013 (Item No. 2)
Title: Friends of the Arts Annual Report and Update Page 6
Meeting: Study Session
Meeting Date: October 14, 2013
Discussion Item: 3
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE:
Southwest LRT Update
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Discuss recent actions and proposed Southwest LRT Municipal
Consent schedule.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the proposed Municipal Consent process and schedule
meet the City Council’s expectations?
SUMMARY: On October 9, 2013, the Corridor Management Committee (CMC) for the SW
LRT Project adopted a resolution recommending a “Project Scope” and budget to submit to the
host cities and county for consideration. The resolution as passed, along with the Project Scope,
is attached.
The next steps include approval by the Metropolitan Council, which will consider it on
Wednesday, October 16th. Assuming approval is given, the official Municipal Consent plans will
be provided to each city and the county. A series of public hearings at Hennepin County and
each city are required, and each body will then consider giving Municipal Consent for the
project.
Here is the proposed/tentative schedule:
October 28: Study Session - Overview of Municipal Consent plans by SPO Staff
November 19: Required Joint Public Hearing by the Met Council and HCRRA
November 25: St. Louis Park Council Meeting - Open House prior; Required Public Hearing
on Municipal Consent plans (note – this hearing could be held before or after this date).
December 2, 16 or later: Council Meeting - Formal Action on Municipal Consent plans.
Note that per statute the Council needs to take action within 45days of the Met
Council/HCRRA hearing, which is January 3, 2014.
NEXT STEPS: When Municipal Consent plans are received, staff will begin reviewing the
plans and make the plans available to the Council and public as appropriate. Staff will provide
background and analysis on the plans and the list of “betterments” for Council consideration as
well.
VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged
community.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Corridor Management Committee Resolution
SWLRT Project Components & Betterments
Prepared by: Meg J. McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor
Reviewed by: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
October 9, 2013
Southwest LRT Resolution
WHEREAS:
1. The Governor designated the Metropolitan Council (Council) as the responsible authority for the Southwest
LRT (SWLRT) Project;
2. The Council established the Corridor Management Committee (CMC) to advise the Council in the design
and construction of the SWLRT Project;
3. The Council established the Southwest LRT Project Office (SPO) to advance the design, manage construction
and overall delivery of the SWLRT Project;
4. The SPO developed a list of technical issues and an issue resolution process to seek input from project
stakeholders on the design of the SWLRT Project, holding over 100 issue resolution team meetings with
agency technical staff;
5. The SPO sought public input on technical issues on the SWLRT project by holding 15 public open houses,
which were attended by over 2,000 people, receiving over 1,100 comments;
6. The SPO presented designs to the CMC that were developed through the issue resolution process; and
7. The CMC discussed the designs and provided input to the SPO.
NOW, THERFORE:
BE IT RESOLVED, that the Corridor Management Committee recommends that the Metropolitan Council adopt
Southwest LRT Project Scope (Attachment A) and direct the SPO to proceed with advancing the design and
complete and submit Municipal Consent Plans in early 4Q 2013 to the County and the five host cities for their
approval;
BE IT RESOLVED, that the CMC recommends that the Council adopt a project budget of $1.553 billion consistent
with adopted project scope;
BE IT RESOLVED, that the CMC recommends that the project scope include shallow LRT tunnels in the Kenilworth
Corridor, a south segment generally between West Lake Street Bridge and Kenilworth Channel and a north segment
generally from Kenilworth Channel to north of 21st Street;
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the CMC recommends that the Council direct the SPO to discontinue any further
work related to the freight-rail relocation out of the Kenilworth corridor;
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the SPO continue to work with project stakeholders to provide updates on the
design and cost of the SWLRT project and to seek their input as the design advances;
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the parties represented in the CMC agree to continue to work cooperatively as the
SPO advances the design of the SWLRT and to provide input to the Council and the SPO; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the parties represented in the CMC agree to work cooperatively to enable the
Council to: a) submit a New Starts application in mid 2014 for entry into the Engineering phase; b) advocate for
timely federal approval of the New Starts application; and c) take all necessary actions with the FTA to maintain the
project on its current schedule, with entrance into Engineering in late 2014.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the CMC recommends that the Mitchell Station end of the line design continues
through engineering and environmental process, if acceptable by the Federal Transit Administration. The SPO will
design the SWLRT so as not to preclude a future LRT extension from Southwest Station to Mitchell Road.
Study Session Meeting of October 14, 2013 (Item No. 3)
Title: Southwest LRT Update Page 2
October 9, 2013
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the existing linear trails will be redesigned and reconstructed to work in a
supportive and integrated fashion with Southwest LRT and that maintains to the extent possible the current
character and alignment of the Kenilworth and all other existing trails.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Met Council must not substantially change the current two-tunnel design of LRT
in the Kenilworth corridor without providing the city of Minneapolis and Hennepin County the same approval rights
for the change as for the current design as defined by Minnesota Statutes.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, Met Council and SPO will work with HCRRA and other parties to address the issues of risk
and liability associated with the permanent presence of freight-rail and LRT in the corridor.
Study Session Meeting of October 14, 2013 (Item No. 3)
Title: Southwest LRT Update Page 3
October 9, 2013
ATTACHMENT A
1
Southwest LRT Project Scope
Technical Issue #1 – Eden Prairie Alignment
Comp Plan Town Center Station with a 160 stall surface park and ride (on property to be leased) ending
at Southwest Station adding a 1,225 stall parking structure. Southwest Transit express and local bus
operations remain. Subject to approval by the Federal Transit Administration, a design will be developed
through the Engineering Phase for the line between the Southwest Station and the Eden Prairie City
Center station, via Technology Drive.
Technical Issue #2 – 9 Mile Creek Crossing
Alignment includes an LRT bridge over Flying Cloud Drive, avoiding impacts to charter school and
minimizing property impacts.
Technical Issue #3 – Golden Triangle Station
Golden Triangle Station platform located north of 70th Street and includes a 275 stall park and ride
surface lots east and south of the station platform (on properties to be leased).
Technical Issue #4 – Shady Oak Road and TH 212 Crossings
LRT crosses Shady Oak Road and TH212 on a single bridge from the west side of TH 212 into Golden
Triangle Station, accommodating City of Eden Prairie’s interchange improvements at Shady Oak
Road/TH 212.
Technical Issue #5 –City West Station and TH 62 Crossing
City West Station platform located at grade adjacent to United Health Group development and TH 62
and includes a 190 stall surface park and ride. Includes a cut and cover tunnel under TH 62 from City
West into the Opus development.
Technical Issue #6 – Opus Station
Opus Station platform located south of Bren Road West on the east side of Bren Road East with a 90
stall surface park and ride (on property to be leased). Includes trail connections to the platform from
both adjacent roadways.
Technical Issue #7 – Opus Hill/Minnetonka-Hopkins Bridge
Alignment runs along “Opus Hill” (between Bren Road West and Smetana Road) minimizing wetland
impacts and realigns the intersection of Smetana and Feltl Roads. Includes 3,200’ long, 120’- span pre-
stressed beam bridge over the wetlands south of the Canadian Pacific Bass Lake Spur Rail alignment and
over the CP line towards K-Tel Road.
Study Session Meeting of October 14, 2013 (Item No. 3)
Title: Southwest LRT Update Page 4
October 9, 2013
ATTACHMENT A
2
Technical Issue #8 – Shady Oak Station
Shady Oak Station platform located north of the Minnesota River Bluffs LRT Regional Trail with a 500
stall surface park and ride and minimizing property impacts. Extends 17th Avenue from Excelsior
Boulevard south into the park and ride and to the station.
Technical Issue #9 – PEC-West & PEC East Interface
Interface point between West and East segments located 100’ east of 11th Avenue in Hopkins.
Technical Issue #10 – Downtown Hopkins Station
Downtown Hopkins Station platform located east of 8th Avenue. Bus stop and layover on Excelsior
Boulevard. No park and ride at station.
Technical Issue #11 – Excelsior Boulevard Crossing
LRT bridge over Excelsior Boulevard and extended to allow for LRT alignment to be placed on the
southerly portion of the corridor with CP Bass Lake Spur freight tracks located north of the LRT tracks
and the Cedar Lake LRT Regional Trail located north of the CP tracks.
Technical Issue #12 – Blake Station
Blake Station platform located west of Blake Road on the southern portion of the corridor. Includes a
445 stall structured park and ride south of the station with potential joint development. Includes access
to the park and ride structure from Excelsior Boulevard via Pierce Avenue.
Technical Issue #13 – Louisiana Station
Louisiana Station platform located east of Louisiana Avenue and north of Oxford Street. LRT crossing of
Louisiana Avenue is grade separated on a new LRT bridge structure. Includes a minimum 225 stall
surface park and ride utilizing the properties acquired for the station platform and tracks .
Technical Issue #14 – Wooddale Station
Wooddale Station platform located just east of Wooddale Avenue on the southern portion of the
corridor. No park and ride at station.
Technical Issue #15 – TH 100 Crossing
Freight bridge relocated from the southern portion of the corridor to the north of the LRT tracks. New
double track LRT bridge constructed on the southern portion of the corridor utilizing existing freight
bridge abutments. Trail bridge remains on the northern portion of the corridor.
Study Session Meeting of October 14, 2013 (Item No. 3)
Title: Southwest LRT Update Page 5
October 9, 2013
ATTACHMENT A
3
Technical Issue #16 – Beltline Station
Beltline Station platform located east of Beltline Boulevard on the southern portion of the corridor.
Includes a minimum 540 stall surface park and ride east of Beltline Boulevard north of the platform. Bus
stop and layover located within surface park and ride area. Includes grade separated trail over freight
and LRT east of the station.
Technical Issue #17 – West Lake Station
West Lake Station platform located south of the West Lake Street Bridge. Bus stop and layover located
on West Lake Street east of the bridge and additional bus stop and layover located on Abbott
Avenue/Chowen Avenue east of station platform. No park and ride at station. Vertical circulation is
included from both sides of the bridge to the station platform level.
Technical Issue #18 – Kenilworth Corridor
LRT alignment within a shallow LRT tunnel from West Lake Street Bridge to a point approximately 1,000
north of 21st Street. Shallow tunnel has a 1,088 foot gap between south and north tunnels to cross on
an LRT bridge structure over the Kenilworth Channel. Cedar Lake Parkway has freight and trail at-grade
as exists today.
21st Street Station is eliminated.
Technical Issue #19 – Bassett Creek Valley Corridor
Penn Station platform located south of I-394 with vertical circulation and a pedestrian walkway from
Penn Avenue. Includes a grade separated trail connection to the North Cedar Lake Regional Trail. No
park and ride at station.
Van White Station located under newly constructed Van White Boulevard Bridge with vertical
circulation to connect to bridge roadway. Bus stop and layover provided south of platform with access
to Linden Avenue and Van White Boulevard at I-394. No park and ride at station.
Technical Issue #20 – Royalston Station
Royalston Station platform located south of 5th Avenue North on the east side of Royalston Avenue. LRT
alignment includes at-grade crossings at both Glenwood Avenue and Holden Street intersection with a
bridge over 7th Street North to connect with the Interchange Project. No park and ride at station.
Technical Issue #21 – Freight Rail Co-location/Relocation Alternatives
LRT Kenilworth alignment within a shallow LRT south tunnel segment from West Lake Street Bridge to
the Kenilworth Channel and north tunnel segment from the Kenilworth Channel to a point
approximately 1,000 feet north of 21st Street. Shallow tunnel has a 1,088 foot gap between south and
Study Session Meeting of October 14, 2013 (Item No. 3)
Title: Southwest LRT Update Page 6
October 9, 2013
ATTACHMENT A
4
north tunnels to cross on an LRT bridge structure over the Kenilworth Channel. Cedar Lake Parkway has
freight and trail at-grade as exists today. The 21st Street Station is eliminated.
Technical Issue #23 – Operation & Maintenance Facility
Facility located in Hopkins south of 5th Street and east of the LRT alignment. The facility is also bounded
by the CP Bass Lake Spur to the south and 15th Avenue to the east. The site design limits property
impacts and offers redevelopment opportunities.
Study Session Meeting of October 14, 2013 (Item No. 3)
Title: Southwest LRT Update Page 7
Study Session Meeting of October 14, 2013 (Item No. 3) Title: Southwest LRT UpdatePage 8
Meeting: Study Session
Meeting Date: October 14, 2013
Discussion Item: 4
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Community Center Project
RECOMMENDED ACTION: None at this time. Staff desires direction on the policy question
noted below.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Based on the information provided in this report staff desires
direction on how Council might wish to proceed. Options include:
• Request staff to provide cost estimates for a smaller project based on a reprioritized list of
program components.
• Continue to move forward with the project as proposed based on the location/concept
design for the Wolfe Park/Rec Center site and direct staff to undertake a more detailed
public process on the project, cost implications etc.
• Direct that no further activity take place on the proposed project at this time.
SUMMARY: The City Council reviewed the report from Hammel, Green and Abrahamson, Inc.
(HGA) at their July 22, 2013 Study Session. Victor Pechaty, Vice President of HGA, and Cindy
Walsh, Director of Operations and Recreation, presented an estimate of capital costs for the
construction of the building, operating cost estimates, revenue projections, and concept designs
for two sites; the Wolfe Park/Rec Center site and the Hwy 100/36th Street site.
At that meeting, Council came to the consensus that the preferred site is the Wolfe Park/Rec
Center site because of cost estimates, overall fit in the area, and synergy with activities already
going on in the park and at the Rec Center.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: From the cost analysis provided by HGA,
the construction of a community center that includes all of the previously identified program
components would cost in the range of $45 million. For purposes of planning, staff is suggesting
that we assume $50 million with the potential soil conditions that exist on the site. The assumed
source of funding for a project such as this would be the issuance of General Obligation bonds.
Council directed staff to conduct further financial analysis including property tax impacts to
residents. Finance staff has included this information in the report.
VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged
community.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion
Cost Estimate for Rec Center Site
Site Design
July 22, 2013 City Council Study Session Minutes
Chart of Cost Recovery from other Cities
Estimated Property Taxes or Rates Impacts – Various Items
Prepared by: Cindy Walsh, Director of Operations and Recreation
Brian A. Swanson, Controller
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of October 14, 2013 (Item No. 4) Page 2
Title: Community Center Project
DISCUSSION
BACKGROUND: Hammel, Green and Abrahamson, Inc. (HGA) has acted as the consultant to
assist in the further assessment of a community center. They have experience in designing and
building community centers around the metro area as well as other states.
PRESENT CONSIDERATIONS: The building design and cost analysis were based on
recommendations from the Task Force and include all of the program components that were
desired by the community.
PROGRAM COMPONENT ASSUMPTIONS: The following program components were
recommended by the Task Force. The data that the Task Force used came from the two surveys
that were done in the community. During this phase of planning staff and the consultant went
through each component to ensure allocation of appropriate space and amenities associated with
each of the items. The following is a list of amenities included in the current analysis:
Gymnasium
The gym is proposed to hold two full-size floors with a drop down curtain in the middle
separating them. There will be a set of bleachers that pull out from the wall on each side. At this
time we are considering a multi-purpose poured floor rather than a traditional wood floor. There
are two reasons for this. First, it is less expensive to build and less expensive to maintain.
Second, it can be used for multi-purpose events including all sports, tricycles and other
equipment used for little tyke events. It can also be used for special events where tables and
chairs are set up without worrying about scratching the wood floors. Staff envisions
programming the gyms as well as having them available for drop-in basketball. The current
gyms in the schools are overused by traveling sports so there is no time for kids and adults to
drop-in and shoot baskets. We would also like to look at an area in the back of one of the courts
where we could drop in a batting cage similar to what Chaska and other communities do in their
gymnasium.
Aquatics
The trend in pool construction is to have areas for lap swimming, deep water and leisure/fun
areas. To accommodate that, we are proposing a lap pool with six lanes that would have deep
water at one end. The deep water could be used for deep water events (scuba diving classes, etc.)
as well as hold a diving board and a climbing wall. The leisure pool would have youth play
features and slides with a zero depth entry area. An ADA accessible ramp is recommended for
the lap pool. That will allow all ages and abilities access to the pool as well as allow us to hold
specialty classes for people with MS or those recovering from surgeries. This is another reason
we are exploring a partnership with a physical therapy group. Swimming lessons could be held at
either or both pools depending on the age of kids. At this time, Community Education offers the
swimming lessons at the schools. We would explore a partnership with them. Because of the
cleaning issues associated with a hot tub or spa, staff is not recommending one for this facility.
Drop-in Child Care
This child care is only for parents and care givers who are using the facility. This is a facility that
can be used by people who are at the building for a period of 1 - 2 hours. We are not proposing
full-time day care.
Study Session Meeting of October 14, 2013 (Item No. 4) Page 3
Title: Community Center Project
Community Room
The capacity for this room wasn’t fully defined in the Task Force process. From the feedback
received from the Council and residents, staff is proposing a room with a capacity of
approximately 250 people. The proposed room would be approximately 4,000 - 4,500 square feet
and hold 55 - 60 round tables. A caterer’s kitchen will likely need to be attached so that the room
can be used by a variety of user groups. This room can be reserved for a variety of functions and
events. The Banquet Room at the Rec Center holds up to 160 people. We receive requests for
various events that we are unable to accommodate because of the current size of the Banquet
Room. Staff recommends that this room be designed as a larger room to allow for other uses.
Commons/Gathering Place
This would be near the front entrance and serve as a gathering place for people in the
community. The furniture would be stationary. The coffee shop/café would be adjacent to this
space.
Kid’s Play Area
The Task Force discussed this being adjacent to the drop-in day care. It was proposed to have a
climbing stationary feature along with a large motor play area with a variety of toys for kids to
play with.
Track
The goal is to make this as long as possible so there are fewer laps to the mile. The track is
shown above the gymnasium and fitness room.
Fitness
The two components of fitness are the exercise equipment and fitness studios where classes are
held. Since the trends in fitness classes change, we want to be able to adapt to those new classes.
We are proposing three rooms: large, medium and small to accommodate a variety of classes.
Actual sizes of the rooms are still being researched. Appropriate storage needs to be adjacent to
the rooms to hold equipment such as mats, balls, bikes, etc.
Party Rooms
One of the biggest revenue generators in other community centers is the ability to hold birthday
parties. Staff is proposing party rooms near the pool and possibly near the Kid’s Play area.
“Back of House” areas
While the Task Force did an excellent job of synthesizing the survey data and developing
program content, they didn’t spend time on the support areas that make the community center
work. It was understood that this phase of planning would do that. HGA has assessed the storage
needs as well as rooms to hold the mechanical systems, size of locker rooms, number of
bathroom stalls, and length/width of hallways.
Concept Facility Design and Site Analysis
The cost for the designs is more than originally anticipated largely due to the need for ramped
parking because of the site constraints. The estimates provided are conservative and should serve
as the worst case scenario. At this time, all of the costs are included in the cost estimate including
some inflationary costs taking into consideration that this project would not be built immediately.
The only unknown cost that is NOT included in the cost estimate would relate to soil conditions
and the removal of hazardous material.
Study Session Meeting of October 14, 2013 (Item No. 4) Page 4
Title: Community Center Project
Although HGA created a concept design and site analysis on the two sites, per Council direction,
staff has focused its energies on the Wolfe Park/Rec Center site. It was decided that the scenario
that included a community room on the Melrose Site was too expensive to consider due to the
need for a skyway to be constructed over 36th street in order to access the site from the rest of the
Community Center. Under this scenario the basketball court and sand volleyball court would
have to be relocated to the site near the Melrose Center. The skate park would also have to be
relocated to another park area since that area would be turned into a parking lot.
ESTIMATED OPERATING COSTS: Staff has worked with the firm of Ballard & King to
assist with an Operating Analysis estimate. Jeff King took the program components outlined in
this report to design an operating budget and revenue projections. Jeff King has estimated
expense and revenue projections for many community centers throughout the United States. The
estimated annual expenses to operate a facility of this size are estimated to be $1,825,080. That
includes the anticipated increase in full time staff as well as part time staff, utilities, program
expenses, supplies and other miscellaneous items needed to run a facility.
The corresponding revenue projections on an annual basis are estimated to be $1,197,142. The
revenue projections include memberships and daily admissions (anticipating several options) as
well as rental revenue obtained from the community room. The difference is ($627,938). The
anticipated recovery rate is 66%.
Council asked that staff research cost recovery rates for other facilities in the metro area. A chart
of other community centers and their cost recovery is attached. It is difficult to directly compare
other centers since each is unique and contains different program amenities.
Staff also explored the maintenance/operating expenses for parking ramps. Although we do not
anticipate much for maintenance costs the first 1 - 5 years (with the exception of snow removal),
the annual maintenance for parking ramps is approximately $120-$130 per stall per year. If we
are looking at 500-550 stalls that is $60,000-$71,500 per year in ramp maintenance expenses
(plowing, crack sealing, painting, lighting, etc.).
FINANCING: Financing for the proposed Community Center will be through the issuance of
General Obligation (G.O.) Bonds for the entire cost of the project with an assumed 20 year term
on the bonds. The bonds would be issued in two phases and two different dollar amounts; the
first issuance will be slightly less than $10 million, which would keep the interest rates down as
they are not bank qualified, and the second issuance will occur in the subsequent year for the
remaining amount. Based on the assumption that this issuance will exceed $10 million, the
interest rates on these bonds will be higher as they must be bank qualified. By issuing debt over
two years, it would allow the City Council to increase the property tax levy over two years,
versus one year to help mitigate some of the impact.
Based on a $30 - $50 million Community Center, the property tax impact on a residential
homesteaded median value home of $204,700 would be an increase of approximately $81 - $134
over a two year period, or approximately $41 - $67 increase per year for the City share of
propert y taxes. This equates to approximately a 8.6% - 14.4% increase in the City share of
property taxes over a two year period, or approximately 4.3% - 7.2% increase per year. The
attachments show property tax impacts at various property values for bond issuances for $30,
$40 and $50 million. These estimates are only for construction costs of the proposed Community
Study Session Meeting of October 14, 2013 (Item No. 4) Page 5
Title: Community Center Project
Center and do not factor in the estimated operating loss discussed above, any property tax levy
increases for the general operating levy, or any other significant capital projects such as
sidewalks and trails. The final attachment shows approximate impacts on the city share of
property taxes or on utility rates for various items over a varying number of years based on the
item listed. This attachment has a significant number of variables, funding mechanisms, lengths
of terms, and assumptions; therefore there is not a simple answer to the question of “how much
does it all cost?” The answer really depends on which item and in some cases what the council’s
philosophy is for operational and capital needs well into the future.
NOTE – The last time the Council discussed this matter it was requested that staff consider how
new development growth in the community might help mitigate property tax impacts to our
residents and to incorporate that into its analysis. After spending time trying to develop a model
it was determined that there was not a reliable way to do this given many unknowns. For
example, many of our more sizable redevelopment projects utilize tax increment districts, which
actually capture value for an extended period of time. Another example relates to economic
downturns and markets. Attempting to project what might happen in the future is a guess at best.
Having said the above, staff could still incorporate certain assumptions in its estimates of
property tax impacts but would strongly encourage against it as the results would be speculative.
NEXT STEPS: We believe that the cost estimates are as accurate as can be at this time. If the
existing proposal is too expensive, staff suggests that the next step would be to subdivide the
program and cost estimates into component pieces and facilitate a process of prioritizing
programs and the cost for each program. Council may consider providing a target project budget
that staff and the consultant need to hit to make the project feasible.
Page 4 Saint Louis Park Community Center 9 9 13.xls
St. Louis Park Community Center
St. Louis Park, MN
Pre - Design Program
New Community Center Master Plan -Park View
Primary Project Qty: 104,029 GSF Date:15-Jul-13
HGA Comm. # :
Construction Costs
%$/SF 104,029 GSF %$/Stall 762 Stalls %$/SF 104,029 GSF
Site work 5%$10 $1,035,000 0%$0 $0 0%$0 $1,035,000
Demolition 1%$2 $247,365 0%$0 $0 1%$2 $247,365
Foundations 6%$14 $1,404,392 0%$0 $0 5%$14 $1,404,392
Structure 7%$15 $1,593,238 89%$10,000 $7,620,000 30%$89 $9,213,238
Enclosure 5%$10 $1,011,200 0%$0 $0 3%$10 $1,011,200
Roofing 6%$14 $1,404,392 0%$0 $0 5%$14 $1,404,392
Interiors 20%$43 $4,447,832 0%$0 $0 14%$43 $4,447,832
Building Equipment / Furnishings 0%$1 $93,626 0%$0 $0 0%$1 $93,626
Pool and Aquatic Systems 5%$11 $1,103,840 0%$0 $0 4%$11 $1,103,840
Conveying 0%$1 $54,000 0%$0 $0 0%$1 $54,000
Mechanical 23%$49 $5,125,301 0%$0 $0 17%$49 $5,125,301
Electrical 10%$21 $2,200,213 0%$0 $0 7%$21 $2,200,213
General Conditions 4%$9 $986,020 4%$500 $381,000 4%$13 $1,367,020
Special Provisions 7%$15 $1,577,632 6%$683 $520,065 7%$20 $2,097,697
Total 100%$214 $22,284,048 100%$11,183 $8,521,065 100%$296 $30,805,113
Design Contingency - 10% $2,228,405 $852,107 $3,080,511
Construction Contingency - 5% $1,225,623 $468,659 $1,694,281
Total Construction Cost $247 $25,738,076 $12,916 $9,841,830 $342 $35,579,906
Const. Escalation to Midpoint Constr. June 2015 $15 $1,544,285 $775 $590,510 $21 $2,134,794
Total Construction Cost w/Escal.$262 $27,282,360 $13,691 $10,432,340 $363 $37,714,700
Project Soft Costs @ 20%$5,456,472 $2,086,468 $7,542,940
Total Project Cost $315 $32,738,833 $16,429 $12,518,808 $435 $45,257,640
Clarifications/Qualifications
1. No hazardous material removal is included in the above costs.
Park View
Building
Park View
Parking Ramp Total
Study Session Meeting of October 14, 2013 (Item No. 4) Title: Community Center Project Page 6
SITE DESIGNStudy Session Meeting of October 14, 2013 (Item No. 4) Title: Community Center ProjectPage 7
OFFICIAL MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
JULY 22, 2013
The meeting convened at 6:30 p.m.
Councilmembers present: Mayor Jeff Jacobs, Steve Hallfin, Anne Mavity (arrived at 6:34 p.m.),
Julia Ross (arrived at 6:35 p.m.), Susan Sanger, and Sue Santa.
Councilmembers absent: Jake Spano.
Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), Director of Operations and Recreation (Ms.
Walsh), Director of Community Development (Mr. Locke), Senior Planner (Mr. Walther),
Communications Coordinator (Mr. Zwilling), and Recording Secretary (Ms. Hughes).
Guests: Victor Pechaty (HGA), David Graham and Justin Merkovich (ESG Architects).
1. Future Study Session Agenda Planning – July 29 and August 12, 2013
Mr. Harmening presented the proposed special study session agenda for July 29, 2013, and the
proposed study session agenda for August 12, 2013. He advised that the August 12th study
session agenda will also include discussion of the West End PUD primarily related to parking.
2. Community Center Final Report – Cost Estimate and Site Analysis
Ms. Walsh presented the staff report and introduced Mr. Victor Pechaty, Vice President of
Hammel, Green and Abrahamson, Inc. (HGA).
Mr. Pechaty presented the site analysis prepared for the W. 36th Street site referred to as the
“Urban Edge West” design and explained that the Urban Edge West site is just over one acre and
they were not able to provide parking and a 104,000 square foot building on the same parcel so
this option assumes collaborative parking with the Burlington site; in addition, the building
would have to extend four stories because of the small footprint of this site resulting in a
construction cost premium to stack large spaces like gymnasiums and pools on top. He stated
the Urban Edge West design includes two levels of underground parking to accomplish parking
on the site with the remainder of parking in a new four-story parking ramp south of the building,
adding that parking would be replaced on a 1:1 ratio and the Urban Edge West Design provides a
total of 1,140 parking stalls. He stated there might be opportunities to look at some parking
efficiencies either by assuming not every program is occupied simultaneously as well as transit
options that could lower the amount of parking required. He presented the cost estimate for the
Urban Edge West design, noting the cost estimate is based on today’s dollars and factors in
inflation costs for the construction industry. He explained that a 20% multiplier was also
included for soft costs, e.g., surveys, soil borings, design fees, furniture, and equipment and the
total project cost for the Urban Edge West design is approximately $50 million.
Councilmember Santa asked if the building costs assume a level of green technology.
Mr. Pechaty stated the Urban Edge West design is a good candidate for LEED and some
sustainable design elements have been included in the design, adding that specialized systems,
e.g., geothermal heating and cooling, have not been included in the design.
Study Session Meeting of October 14, 2013 (Item No. 4)
Title: Community Center Project Page 8
Mr. Walther stated that the baseline assumptions used in the community center design are
equivalent to what was done at the new fire stations.
Councilmember Sanger asked if there is an implicit presumption that the City could work out a
shared parking arrangement on this site.
Mr. Pechaty replied in the affirmative and stated their study determined that even with some
transit related parking savings, this one-acre site is not large enough for a building and parking
ramp.
Councilmember Mavity pointed out that traffic issues will continue to be a challenge in this area
particularly related to light rail and was concerned about generating more traffic in this area.
Mr. Pechaty presented two site analyses prepared for the Rec Center site and stated the
“Gateway” design includes some programs constructed on the Melrose site with a skyway link
crossing over Monterey Drive. He stated the Gateway design has 104,000 square feet and
replaces parking on a 1:1 ratio with the addition of 650 parking stalls, noting this number could
be reduced by transit calculations or a reduction of building programs. He advised this option
provides meeting and gathering facilities, including a banquet hall, on the Melrose site. He stated
that a significant characteristic of this option is the addition of a parking ramp to the south of the
existing building that will accommodate 190 stalls.
Mayor Jacobs expressed concern about the proposed location of the skateboard park and
potential security issues.
Councilmember Mavity asked if the Melrose parking structure could be used to meet the total
number of parking spaces required and whether use of this public parking could result in
eliminating the fourth floor of the proposed parking ramp.
Mr. Pechaty stated this would be an option worth considering adding the site design did not
consider shared parking use with neighboring properties. He then presented the cost estimate for
the Gateway design stating the cost of the skyway element is approximately $2.5 million, the
cost of the building is approximately $32 million, and the cost of the parking ramp is
approximately $12.8 million for a total project cost of approximately $47.5 million. He then
presented the site analysis for the “Parkview” option and explained this option has the building
addition to the south of the existing Rec Center with a two-level parking deck constructed over
the current parking lot. He noted that this option has built more parking on the Melrose site with
no building functions on the Melrose site and no skyway element.
Councilmember Hallfin asked if the parking deck would cover the same footprint that currently
exists on this site.
Mr. Pechaty replied in the affirmative and stated that staff at the Rec Center believes that current
parking availability is sufficient and this design includes no plan for overflow parking. He then
presented the cost estimate for the Parkview design stating the cost of the building is estimated at
$32.7 million and the parking ramp is estimated at $12.5 million for a total cost of $45.2 million.
Councilmember Mavity stated the City could realize some savings if parking on the Melrose site
could be utilized and by taking an entire floor off the parking ramp. She also asked about the
possibility of putting an activity area on top of the parking ramp.
Study Session Meeting of October 14, 2013 (Item No. 4)
Title: Community Center Project Page 9
Mr. Pechaty stated this was an option worth studying, adding if this site were selected there may
be some hybrid options that could be considered, e.g., having a gym and pool at grade with
fitness rooms and/or running tracks integrated over a parking deck.
Councilmember Sanger requested that an updated analysis be provided to Council with
information regarding additional property taxes required to pay for the community center based
on the site designs presented this evening.
Councilmember Mavity requested that this analysis take into account the increased residential
development occurring in the City resulting in a higher tax base.
Councilmember Sanger felt that the W. 36th Street site should not be analyzed any further given
the constraints with the site and the assumptions about shared parking.
Mayor Jacobs agreed the W. 36th Street site would not work especially given the existing traffic
issues in this area.
Councilmember Ross agreed with the comments regarding the W. 36th Street site, adding that
these dollar amounts cause her concern, particularly since the City has other significant projects
that will impact taxpayers. She stated she liked the Gateway site design with the community
room located across the street, particularly for banquets or weddings, because any noise from a
banquet or wedding will not spill over into the larger site and vice versa.
Councilmember Santa agreed the W. 36th Street site would not work adding this site can never be
expanded. She stated she liked the Parkview design because it builds on the synergy happening
at the Rec Center and at Wolfe Park, adding the Parkview design begs for a remodel of the Rec
Center and some integration between what is going in a new community center and the current
Rec Center. She stated she conceptually liked the idea of a skyway and a safe crossing at
Monterey Drive, but did not like having the programming split and would prefer to see all
programs in one place. She felt the Parkview design has the potential for providing a building
that could provide relevant services to the community for fifty years and has the ability to expand
and reconfigure in the future if needed.
Councilmember Hallfin stated he was very surprised by the cost estimates and agreed that it
would be helpful to have updated tax base information. He added if Council decides that a
community center is not feasible after further study is done, he would be okay with that.
Councilmember Mavity felt the Gateway design had potential and urged the City to be creative
with the design to accommodate uses that incorporate urban growth and smart growth strategies,
adding she did not like seeing huge parking structures in the design. She acknowledged the
significant cost estimates and questioned whether it would make sense to consider a phased
approach for construction of a community center.
Mr. Pechaty stated that a phased approach is common for this type of project where a master plan
is prepared and the project built incrementally as dollars become available.
Ms. Walsh asked if Council was interested in having staff proceed to another level of planning to
cost out each program.
Study Session Meeting of October 14, 2013 (Item No. 4)
Title: Community Center Project Page 10
It was the consensus of the City Council that staff should not proceed at this time to another level
of architectural design. It was the consensus of the Council to conduct further financial analysis,
including property tax impacts to residents.
Councilmember Sanger requested that staff provide information related to overall operational
costs and how fees generated at the community center would offset those costs and how those
costs compare with other community centers.
Ms. Walsh agreed to provide this information to Council.
Mr. Harmening stated the preliminary cost analysis prepared earlier by staff assumed a $25
million project and was prepared in the context of the sidewalks and trails project and the storm
water improvement project, adding that staff will provide an update on all these projects so that
Council has an understanding of how these significant capital projects affect taxpayers.
3. DLC Apartments Concept Plan
Mr. Walther presented the staff report and explained that Dolce Living proposes to redevelop the
former Chili’s site with 163 market rate apartment units with a proposed density of
approximately 100 units per acre. He then introduced Mr. David Graham from ESG Architects.
Mr. Graham presented the concept plans and stated the design vision and purpose for the
proposed development is to extend the vitality of the Shops at West End with 163 dwelling units
on the Chili’s site. He explained that the creation of a new street on private land connecting
Wayzata Boulevard to 16th Street will function as a landscaped public street with parking for
residents and will create pedestrian connections to the Shops at West End. He presented a
drawing of the overall site plan and preliminary massing studies for the building in Phase 1. He
also presented comparative information from the Excelsior and Grand project to demonstrate
how the proposed residential development fits into this location using urban design best practices
in higher density communities.
Councilmember Mavity felt that this kind of density in this location was appropriate. She
expressed reservations about the private street and urged staff to make sure the City has clear
easement access in perpetuity if that approach is used. She also felt this proposal once again
represents a lost opportunity to try to provide more affordable housing in the community.
Councilmember Sanger stated she did not think this site was appropriate for housing and felt it
would make more sense if the site were used for retail, commercial, office, or some combination
thereof, adding that even if consensus is reached to go forward with the residential development,
she felt the proposed density was too high. She stated she would not support a project with so
many small studio and one-bedroom apartments. She urged Council to consider a moratorium
on apartment development and conduct a study regarding whether the City needs any more
apartments and if so, what sizes of apartments are needed as well as where the apartments are
needed. She added she did not think that building so many apartments was good for the long
term health of the community and the goal of providing more housing to help support the City’s
school system.
Councilmember Ross agreed this development was missing the mark in terms of affordable
housing and felt this would be a great area to have affordable housing. She agreed that the
Study Session Meeting of October 14, 2013 (Item No. 4)
Title: Community Center Project Page 11
proposed density was too high and also expressed concern about existing traffic issues in this
area, stating she would not support the proposed development as currently presented.
Councilmember Santa expressed concern about the proposed density and expressed a growing
concern about the number of rental units being built in the City.
Councilmember Hallfin requested further information regarding the City’s ordinance related to
shading. He also requested information regarding monthly rental rates.
Mr. Walther advised the proposed buildings would not shade existing buildings in violation of
the City’s ordinance and stated the Flats at West End was granted a variance to shade the south
side of the hotel building because it was built before the hotel was built.
Mr. Graham stated that a one bedroom apartment would have a monthly rental of approximately
$1,500-$1,600.
Councilmember Hallfin stated he is a strong advocate for single family homes but in this area
that would not work. He asked if the Olive Garden site is proposed to include rental housing.
Mr. Graham stated the Olive Garden site could include a number of things and will likely include
housing of some kind.
Councilmember Mavity urged Council to refine its policy to give clear direction to developers
related to housing. She added that the target market in this area is different than the Excelsior &
Grand market and did not think that larger apartments in this development would fit this location.
Mr. Graham stated they did a lot of research on home ownership and the trend is that people
want to rent for a while and this represents a great site for apartments. He added these units will
be condominium quality apartments that could be converted in the future if the market changes.
Mayor Jacobs and Councilmembers Mavity and Hallfin stated they generally supported the
concept plan as presented and acknowledged the concerns regarding traffic and density.
Councilmembers Ross, Santa, and Sanger stated they would not support the concept plan as
presented because of the density.
It was the general consensus of the City Council that the proposed density was problematic and
that a refined plan should be prepared and presented to Council.
Mr. Walther advised that staff is in the process of updating the AUAR for the West End and this
information will be presented to Council in August.
Mr. Graham stated they plan to submit a formal PUD amendment application in the near future.
Councilmember Hallfin requested information about the footprint for the proposed development
compared to the Flats at West End.
Mr. Graham explained that this site is 20% larger at 1.6 acres and in order to make this project
viable they need to stick to 160 units, adding that reducing the density by 30% would not work.
Study Session Meeting of October 14, 2013 (Item No. 4)
Title: Community Center Project Page 12
Councilmember Santa requested that Mr. Graham present information to Council on how the
traffic is going to work in this area.
Communications/Meeting Check-In (Verbal)
Councilmember Mavity stated the Business Park Rezoning has come up repeatedly and as noted
in the written staff report, this classification has been looked at in relation to station area
planning and the City has heard that the classification is too restrictive in terms of mixed use
development largely because it does not allow housing. She acknowledged this classification has
a PUD applicable to it but was not sure that this was enough and expressed concern about the
City not wanting to direct the market in these areas. She also raised the possibility of exploring
form based zoning.
Mr. Locke indicated the City received a grant for form based zoning in the Beltline area and
further information will be presented to Council in the near future.
Councilmember Sanger felt that a discussion regarding form based zoning was merited and
would provide an opportunity to incorporate architectural design standards or guidelines in the
ordinances. She referenced the written report regarding the City’s proposed acquisition of 4601
Highway 7 and requested that staff provide information about possible uses for this property and
how it fits with the bank and other properties in the area.
Mr. Locke explained the broad plan for this area has been done in terms of the Beltline station
area planning and some of that is being reconsidered now as part of the community works
planning. He stated it was the City’s desire to control this property now that it is for sale and to
possibly get control of the bank property or to work with the bank on redevelopment of the site
with the goal of creating a more pedestrian oriented site with higher density uses including office
and residential/mixed use.
It was the consensus of the City Council to support the proposed terms for acquiring the property
located at 4601 Highway 7.
Mayor Jacobs discussed the proposed press release regarding SWLRT and reported that Mr.
Brimeyer strongly urged the City to wait a couple of days before issuing the press release, adding
he will speak with Mr. Brimeyer again tomorrow.
The meeting adjourned at 8:37 p.m.
Written Reports provided and documented for recording purposes only:
4. Southwest LRT Update
5. June 2013 Monthly Financial Report
6. Second Quarter Investment Report (April – June 2013)
7. Knollwood Development Proposal Update
8. Proposed Property Acquisition: 4601 Highway 7
9. Business Park Rezoning Update
______________________________________ ______________________________________
Nancy Stroth, City Clerk Jeff Jacobs, Mayor
Study Session Meeting of October 14, 2013 (Item No. 4)
Title: Community Center Project Page 13
City
Cost Recovery
Percentage
Number of
Ice Arenas
Number of Indoor
Swimming Pools
Eagan 81%0 0
Eden Prairie Unknown 3 1
Inver Grove
Heights 60%2 1
New Brighton 76%0 0
Shoreview 81%0 1
Waconia 76%1 1
Cost Recovery for other Cities
Study Session Meeting of October 14, 2013 (Item No. 4)
Title: Community Center Project Page 14
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
ESTIMATED TAX OR RATE IMPACT FOR CAPITAL PROJECTS OR OPERATIONAL ITEMS
AS OF OCTOBER 14, 2013
NOTES: The estimates for the Comm. Ctr. And Sidewalks/Trails are only for construction costs and DO NOT include costs for operational impacts.
Property tax implications shown below are for a median value home of $204,700 for taxes payable 2014.
ESTIMATED LOW HIGH LOW HIGH NO. OF YRS. AVG. INC. END OF
PROJECT PROJECT COST COST COST %%INCREASE^PER YEAR FINANCING#
Property Tax Implications
Community Center*$30M - $50M 81$ 134$ 8.6% 14.4% 2 $41 - $67 2035
Subsidy for Comm. Ctr. $628,000 per year n/a 22$ n/a 2.4% 1 $22 2015 or 2016
Sidewalks and Trails**$17M - $24M 57$ 79$ 5.9% 8.2% 11 $5 - $7 2039
10 Yr. Avg. Tax Levy***4.61% per year n/a 41$ n/a 4.4% ~Per Year $41 n/a
Rate Based Implications
Storm Water Capital****$11M n/a 33$ n/a 46.4% 5 $7 2029
Other Utilities Avg.*****4.88% - excludes storm n/a 45$ n/a 4.9%Per Year $45 n/a
* 2 stage issuance - $10M in 2014 and remainder in 2015 financed over 20 years with Debt Service starting one year after issuance.
** 3 stage issuance - $5.67-8.00M every 5 years for a $17-24M total project financed over 15 years for each issuance.
*** 10 year average General Ad Valorem property tax increase adopted by Council of 4.61% from 2005 Final - 2014 Proposed
**** Financed by issuing $7.5M in debt in 2014 over 15 years, $2M in 2019 and available cash in the fund.
***** Average utilities increase over the last 5 years exlcuding increases for Storm Water.
~ 4.4% versus instead of the 4.61% levy increase due to the Market Value Homestead Exclusion calculation.
^ Due to different financing terms, this is the number of years until the full cost will be realized on property taxes or utility rates.
# This is last year of the impact to property owners for each project when the proposed financing terms will end.
ESTIMATED INCREASED TAXES OR UTILITY RATES
Study Session Meeting of October 14, 2013 (Item No. 4) Title: Community Center Project Page 15
Meeting: Study Session
Meeting Date: October 14, 2013
Action Agenda Item: 5
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: 2014 Budget Review
RECOMMENDED ACTION: No formal action required. This report is to assist with the
Study Session discussion regarding the 2014 budget and to provide information for determining
the 2014 Final Property Tax Levies to be considered in December.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
• Is there other information that Council would like to review?
• Are there any other service delivery changes Council would like to have considered?
• Does the City Council desire to set the 2014 Final Property Tax Levy at $25,577,908 which
is an increase of $864,967 or approximately 3.50% over the 2013 Final Property Tax Levy?
Or, does the City Council desire to certify a lesser amount?
• Does the City Council desire to continue to levy the full 0.0185% of estimated market value
allowable for HRA purposes of $949,359, which is an increase of $48,426 or approximately
5.38% from 2013, to assist in paying for infrastructure needs in redeveloping areas? Or, does
the City Council desire to certify a lesser amount?
• Is the City Council comfortable with the proposed utility rate adjustment plans for adoption
on October 21, 2013?
SUMMARY: Included is information pertaining to the 2014 Budget and 2014 Preliminary
General Property Tax and HRA levies. Information is also provided on the tax impacts to a
residential property for Council to consider. In addition, there is a brief discussion on utility
rates, proposed changes to these rates, and the impact to property owners. Finally, a proposed
calendar of related budget and tax levy dates is provided.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: The proposed tax levies and utility rates
will help support necessary City services to be provided during 2014.
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
Proposed Solid Waste Service Levels Comparison – 2013 - 2014
2014 Proposed Utility Rate - Impact on a Residential Property
Residential Estimated City Share of Property Taxes - 3.50%
Prepared by: Brian A. Swanson, Controller
Steve Heintz, Finance Supervisor
Reviewed by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of October 14, 2013 (Item No. 5) Page 2
Title: 2014 Budget Review
DISCUSSION
BACKGROUND: On June 24, 2013, staff met with the City Council to discuss the 2014 budget
process. Council agreed that staff should follow recommendations from the “2014 Budget
Guiding Principles” when preparing the 2014 Budget. Assumptions for the 2014 budget
included a pattern similar to past years; a levy increase, modest increase in other fees and
charges where appropriate to fit with business costs, maintain high quality and responsive service
delivery, hold expenditures flat if possible with adjustments for some modest growth based on
essential business needs, funding for a wage and benefit contribution increase, utility rate
increases, and continued long range financial planning.
At the August 19, 2013 City Council Special Study Session, the City Council reviewed
information from the staff report and subsequently directed staff to prepare a 2014 Preliminary
Property Tax Levy increase of 3.50% when compared to the 2013 Final Property Tax Levy. In
addition, the City Council directed staff to proceed with preparing the 2014 Preliminary HRA
Levy at the maximum allowed by state statute, due to the significant infrastructure projects
currently in progress and scheduled per the 2014 – 2018 Capital Improvement Plan. Both of
these preliminary levies were adopted on September 3, 2013 at the regular City Council and
EDA meeting only in the HRA Levy’s case.
At this Study Session, staff will be available to answer questions you may have on any
recommendations or programs.
2014 Budget Recommendation Highlights
Staff recommends a budget for 2014 that provides for continued high quality service delivery.
• Wages: As discussed in earlier Study Sessions, it is recommended that wages adjust by 2%
for 2014. Staff will be entering into contract negotiations with all five unions this fall.
• Benefits: Recently the City obtained proposals for health insurance and received a bid from
the City’s current carrier, HealthPartners which was much more favorable than originally
anticipated. The City experienced high costs versus premiums paid and expected proposals
all to be over 25% in rate increases. When the City went out to bid, three carriers submitted
proposals and we are fortunate that our current carrier, HealthPartners, was interested in
continuing with the City and proposed an aggregate increase of 12% for 2014, with a second
year rate cap not to exceed 12%. With this, staff is able to recommend a benefit contribution
increase for 2014 to be in the range of $45 to $50 per month (2013 employer contribution is
$835). This is in addition to the $5 per month wellness incentive increase that was approved
earlier in 2013 (set at $40/month for 2014 for those that participate). There is no increase in
dental or life insurance rates for 2014.
• Intern program continues to grow. For 2014, recommendations include interns in Community
Development, Inspections and Engineering with continued use of interns in other departments.
• Addition of one Public Service Worker to assist with maintenance needs at the Rec Center
and through overall operations at the MSC. This position will float to various operations to
help support activities based on business needs.
• A Governor’s election is scheduled in 2014 which requires $50,000 for election judges.
• Environment: Support is continued in this area with funds for staffing in the solid waste fund.
Study Session Meeting of October 14, 2013 (Item No. 5) Page 3
Title: 2014 Budget Review
• Revenues: Two new liquor licenses are budgeted and additional permit revenue due to
improved economy and building activities. In the Water Utility Fund, revenues are budgeted
from the newly adopted WAC fees (Water Access Charge) from new development.
• Two new recreation programs are recommended for enhancement for 2014; first, to expand
edible gardens and second, to increase seasonal staff for winter warming house hours.
2014 Preliminary Property Tax Levy
For the 2014 Preliminary Property Tax Levy for the City Council to consider, there are some
important key items to keep in mind:
• Levy limits for 2014.
• 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 $458,830 in 2014 and 2015, which will be
utilized in the Capital Replacement Fund.
• Funding challenges in several funds impacting long-term sustainability.
• As in past years, the 2014 Preliminary Property Tax Levy adopted by the City Council on
September 3, 2013, can be decreased, but cannot be increased after that date.
2013 Final Levy, 2014 Preliminary Levy and General Fund Budget
A synopsis of prior year levy information, the 2014 Proposed Preliminary Levy and General
Fund Budget is shown below:
1. The 2013 Final Property Tax Levy was $24,712,941, which was an increase of 4.00%, or
$950,190 compared to 2012.
2. The 2014 Preliminary Property Tax Levy adopted on September 3, 2013, is $25,577,908,
which is an increase of approximately 3.50% or $864,967 compared to the 2013 Final
Property Tax Levy.
3. The Proposed 2014 General Fund Budget is $31,332,066, which is an increase of
approximately 3.25% or $986,607 compared to the 2013 Adopted Budget.
4. The 2014 Preliminary HRA Levy adopted on September 3, 2013, is $949,359, which is an
increase of approximately 5.38% or $48,426 compared to the 2013 Final HRA Levy.
The proposed breakdown of the Preliminary Property Tax Levy by fund is shown below:
2013 2014 Dollar Change Percent Change
Final Preliminary From 2013 From 2013
TAX CAPACITY BASED TAX LEVY
General Fund $20,657,724 $21,157,724 500,000$ 2.42%
Debt Service 1,937,085 1,422,477 (514,608) -26.57%
Capital Replacement Fund 842,700 1,342,700 500,000 59.33%
Park Improvement Fund 810,000 810,000 - 0.00%
Cap. Replace. Fund - Future Debt Service 265,432 645,007 379,575 143.00%
Employee Administration Fund 200,000 200,000 - 0.00%
TOTAL TAX LEVIES $24,712,941 $25,577,908 $864,967 3.50%
Study Session Meeting of October 14, 2013 (Item No. 5) Page 4
Title: 2014 Budget Review
Fiscal Disparities
For 2014, the City will be a net contributor of $3,670,487 of its tax capacity, which is $729,809
more than the 2013 net contribution of $2,940,678. This is not an actual cash contribution, but
rather using that amount of tax capacity to be spread over all the other participants in the fiscal
disparities program, thereby increasing the City’s tax rate to its property owners. This increase
reduces the City’s overall tax capacity by approximately 1%. St. Louis Park experienced
significant increases in its net contribution to the fiscal disparities pool over the last four years
related to the development and redevelopment of its commercial sector of property. This
significant activity resulted in a nearly steady or a slight increase in the overall valuation of the
commercial sector of property in St. Louis Park. Therefore, the City fared much better during
the economic downturn when compared to many other participants in the fiscal disparities
program; many of which experienced decreases in the valuation of their commercial property. As
a result, St. Louis Park then held a larger share of the commercial sector market, and due to this,
is required to contribute a larger share to the program.
HRA Levy
This levy was originally implemented in St. Louis Park due to legislative changes in 2001 which
significantly reduced future tax increment revenues. The City Council elected at that time to use
the levy proceeds for future infrastructure improvements in redevelopment areas. Thus far, some
of the HRA Levy proceeds have been used to fund infrastructure studies, analyses for future
improvement projects and are currently being used to pay for the City’s share of Highway 7 and
Louisiana. By law, these funds could also be used for other housing and redevelopment
purposes. Given the significant infrastructure needs facing the City in the future, particularly
transportation infrastructure needs, staff recommends that at this point in time the HRA Levy
continue at the maximum allowed by law for the 2014 budget year, which is consistent with the
City’s Long Range Financial Management Plan. The HRA Levy cannot exceed 0.0185% of the
estimated market value of the City. Therefore, Staff has calculated the maximum HRA Levy for
2014 to be $949,359 based on data from Hennepin County, which is a $48,426 increase or
approximately 5.38% from the 2013 HRA Levy of $900,933.
Utility Funds
• Water: The City is 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, rates
are analyzed and adjusted as needed to maintain long term sustainability and fund balance.
Staff recommends continuing on the 10 year plan.
• Sewer: Rate adjustments have remained very consistent over the past several years and are
projected to remain fairly stable for this area. Sewer costs are mainly to support the
Metropolitan Council of Environmental Services (MCES) charge, capital and personnel
costs.
• Storm Water: With more emphasis being placed on this fund per Council direction,
increasing regulations, and more significant capital projects being considered, rates will need
to be adjusted fairly significantly over the next several years to accommodate the investment
in the fund.
• Garbage/Recycling/Organics: As a result of the discussion at the August 19, 2013 Study
Session on the 2014 budget, staff included an additional staff person to be paid for from the
Solid Waste Fund to provide support on environmental related initiatives. Also, staff
analyzed the solid waste rate structure based on the terms of the new contracts, new services
being provided and goals of the Council based on the new five year contract that began
October 1, 2013. Based on this analysis, the City’s past solid waste rate structure is a
Study Session Meeting of October 14, 2013 (Item No. 5) Page 5
Title: 2014 Budget Review
regressive cost per gallon structure, meaning the cost per gallon is less expensive as the
service level increases. An ideal “pay as you throw” rate structure would be very difficult to
achieve at this time, as some higher service levels (which would include 90 gallon service)
would see very significant increases. Staff will continue to study the model along with actual
data on garbage, recycling and organics to work on rates that would continue to encourage
recycling more than disposing of waste.
For 2014, the rate structure staff is proposing in Attachment 1 is still a regressive cost per
gallon structure; however, it makes a significant shift towards “pay as you throw”. This in
theory should encourage customers to reduce their service level through utilization of the
recycling and organic waste collection services. The dollar amount between service levels is
approximately $15.00 per quarter and up, meaning a customer could begin organic waste
collection for $10.00 per quarter and reduce their total bill by decreasing service levels.
The proposed rate structure also encourages reduction in garbage by adding the 20 gallon
service level that was approved by the City Council with the new garbage contract, and
eliminating the 210 gallon and 240 gallon service levels, which when combined are used by
only 0.04%, or 5 out of approximately 12,287 City customers. Eliminating the two service
levels will require customers to receive only 90 gallon carts at any service level over 180
gallons and promote the reduction in the number of carts at a residence, as well as the
opportunity for more recycling and organics collection.
Columns 2 – 4 on Attachment 1 show the current rate structure. Columns 4 - 6 show the rate
structure for 2013 if the proposed changes for 2014 were already in effect to show a
comparable set of figures. The last column provides the proposed 2014 rates based on a 3%
increase from the 2013 adjusted rates under the proposed structure. The 3% increase is
consistent with the City’s Long Range Financial Management Plan.
A comparison with other cities was done and is difficult to assess, as not very many cities
have citywide organized garbage collection, and even fewer have citywide organics
collection. A comparison with other cities that have one or both of these services indicated
that St. Louis Park’s rates are in line with other cities. St. Louis Park also provides for the
most flexible service levels of the cities surveyed. Most cities surveyed allowed 30 gallon
service, 60 gallon service, 90 gallon service, and the option to pay for an additional cart of
any of the three sizes. St. Louis Park and Robbinsdale are the only cities that staff is aware
of that sells extra garbage stickers. Stickers can be purchased for $2 each and placed on each
bag of household garbage that will not fit inside a customer’s container(s). The use of extra
garbage stickers means that St. Louis Park residents would not need a higher service level for
times when they may have extra garbage, such as around holidays. Customer could save
money by using the extra garbage stickers several times per year versus keeping a higher
service level.
The changes that are recommended above are consistent with information Council received in
the past and are in line with the goals of achieving long-term sustainability in the funds.
Attachment 2 provides a summary of the changes for a typical residential property. For 2014,
the approximate cumulative effect on a typical residential property for all the utility rate
adjustments would be an increase of $39.80 per year, or approximately $3.32 per month. This
equates to an approximate 4.32% overall increase in utility rates for 2014 when compared to
2013. This calculation is based on a family of four using 30 units of water per quarter (22,500
gallons), and 60 gallon solid waste service. If Council concurs with the plan for utility rates,
Study Session Meeting of October 14, 2013 (Item No. 5) Page 6
Title: 2014 Budget Review
formal adoption will occur on October 21, 2013, which allows staff to be able to provide a fair
amount of advance notice to utility customers of the adopted changes. The adopted rates will
then be in place for consumption or services provided beginning on January 1, 2014.
Estimated Impacts of City Changes
Estimated City Share of 3.50% Preliminary Property Tax Levy Increase for 2014: As noted in
the information in Attachment 3, the impact on the estimated City share of property taxes, based
on a 3.50% levy increase, differs widely based on the value of a residential homesteaded
property owner’s home. For example, some property owners would see a decrease of about
$120.33 per year, or approximately 19.8%, while other homeowners could see an increase of
about $185.83 per year, or approximately 5.1%. For the property owners who will experience a
decrease in the City share of property taxes, this is due to the value of the property declining by
more than the increase in the tax levy. The City’s share of the estimated 2014 preliminary
property taxes for a median valued residential homesteaded property of $204,700 would be
approximately $931.66, which is a decrease of $16.86, or about a 1.8% compared to 2013.
These figures are only for the estimated City share and do not factor in any changes in other
taxing jurisdictions.
Estimated City Impact on Residential Homestead Property for 2014 for Taxes and Utilities:
3.50% Levy Increase - Based on a 3.50% levy increase and realizing there are many variables in
estimating the City impact on a residential homestead property, a “typical” property in St. Louis
Park valued at approximately $204,700 for taxes payable in 2014 and having typical utilities as
discussed earlier in the report, would experience an overall increase of approximately $1.91 per
month or approximately $22.94 for the entire year. Of this estimated $22.94 increase,
approximately $39.80 would be attributed to utility rate adjustments increase and a decrease of
approximately $16.86 would be attributed to the City’s share of property taxes.
NEXT STEPS: As the 2014 budget process continues, the following preliminary schedule
snapshot has been developed for Council:
October 14 Review and discussion of 2014 budget, tax levies, tax implications, and
utility rates. Directors or their designees will be present also.
October 21 Adoption of the 2014 Utility Rates if Council agrees with information
presented at the October 14 Study Session.
November 12 (Tues) (Will be scheduled only if necessary) Continued budget discussion prior to
Truth in Taxation Public Hearing.
December 2 Truth in Taxation Public Hearing.
December 16 Council adopts 2013 Revised Budget, 2014 budgets, final tax levies and the
CIP.
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
PROPOSED SOLID WASTE SERVICE LEVELS COMPARISION
2013 TO 2014
Container Size Current Count 2013 Rate (Qtrly)Cost per Gallon New Rate (2013 Level)Cost per Gallon Est Count 2014 Rate
20 gallon 31.00$ 1.55 800 31.93$
30 gallon 4,151 49.51$ 1.65$ 48.30$ 1.61 3,800 49.75$
60 gallon 5,781 62.97$ 1.05$ 62.70$ 1.045 5,300 64.58$
90 gallon 2,039 76.42$ 0.85$ 84.60$ 0.94 2,100 87.14$
120 gallon 92 89.90$ 0.75$ 108.00$ 0.9 85 111.24$
150 gallon 36 103.35$ 0.69$ 130.50$ 0.87 30 134.42$
180 gallon 155 116.80$ 0.65$ 153.00$ 0.85 142 157.59$
210 gallon 2 130.27$ 0.62$
240 gallon 3 143.73$ 0.60$
270 gallon 20 157.18$ 0.58$ 216.00$ 0.8 22 222.48$
360 gallon 6 197.57$ 0.55$ 306.00$ 0.85 6 315.18$
450 gallon 1 237.93$ 0.53$ 405.00$ 0.9 1 417.15$
540 gallon 1 278.31$ 0.52$ 486.00$ 0.9 1 500.58$
12,287 12,287
ELIMINATING
ELIMINATING
Study Session Meeting of October 14, 2013 (Item No. 5)
Title: 2014 Budget Review Page 7
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
ESTIMATED QUARTERLY UTILITY BILL
ACTUAL 2013 AND PROPOSED 2014
Household Size 4
Units per quarter 30
Solid Waste Service 60-gallon
Meter size 3/4 inch
Actual Proposed Dollar Percent
Service Type 2013 2014 Change Change Notes
Water
Per unit rate - Tier 1 1.44$ 1.49$ 0.05$ 3.47%
Service charge 15.03$ 17.47$ 2.44$ 16.23%
State testing fee 1.59$ 1.59$ -$ 0.00%
Consumption 43.20$ 44.70$ 1.50$ 3.47%
Sewer
Service charge 13.43$ 13.83$ 0.40$ 2.98%
Per unit 2.61$ 2.69$ 0.08$ 3.07%
Consumption 78.30$ 80.70$ 2.40$ 3.07%
Storm Drainage
Service charge 16.00$ 17.60$ 1.60$ 10.00%
Bassett Creek Fee*1.93$ 1.93$ -$ 0.00%Bassett Creek fee
Solid Waste (includes tax)62.97$ 64.58$ 1.61$ 2.56%
Total Bill without Bassett*230.52$ 240.47$ 9.95$ 4.32%Not including BCWMC
Increase per quarter (dollars)9.95$
Increase per year (dollars)39.80$
* Since not all property owners would be charged this fee, it is not included in the dollar or percentage change in total bill.
Study Session Meeting of October 14, 2013 (Item No. 5)
Title: 2014 Budget Review Page 8
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
RESIDENTIAL ESTIMATED CITY SHARE OF PROPERTY TAXES
2014 PRELIMINARY PROPERTY TAX LEVY
3.50% INCREASE
As of 10-14-13
* These are estimated figures at particular price points.
Homes at the price points will not experience these exact changes.
Assessed Market Val.Taxable Taxable Estimated City Tax Dollar Percent
2012 For 2013 For Market Market 2013 2014 Change Change
Pay 2013 Pay 2014 Value 2013 Value 2014
150,000 123,600 126,260.00 97,484.00 608.93 488.60 -120.33 -19.8%
200,000 190,800 180,760.00 170,732.00 871.77 855.73 -16.04 -1.8%
214,600 204,700 196,674.00 185,883.00 948.52 931.66 -16.86 -1.8%
300,000 296,100 289,760.00 285,509.00 1,397.45 1,431.00 33.55 2.4%
350,000 343,000 344,260.00 336,630.00 1,660.30 1,687.22 26.93 1.6%
400,000 396,000 398,760.00 394,400.00 1,923.14 1,976.77 53.63 2.8%
500,000 505,000 500,000.00 505,000.00 2,411.40 2,531.11 119.71 5.0%
600,000 606,000 600,000.00 606,000.00 3,014.25 3,170.15 155.90 5.2%
700,000 707,000 700,000.00 707,000.00 3,617.10 3,802.93 185.83 5.1%
Assumptions:
2013 and 2014 tax capacity rate based on Hennepin County information.
Tax capacity rates increase from 1% to 1.25% for values over $500,000.
= Median Value Home in St. Louis Park
Study Session Meeting of October 14, 2013 (Item No. 5)
Title: 2014 Budget Review Page 9