HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012/04/23 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - Study SessionAGENDA
APRIL 23, 2012
5:15 p.m. RECONVENE LOCAL BOARD OF APPEAL AND EQUALIZATION –
Council Chambers
6:30 p.m. CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION – Council Chambers
Discussion Items
1. 6:30 p.m. Future Study Session Agenda Planning – May 7 and May 14, 2012
2. 6:35 p.m. Ranked Choice Voting
3. 7:20 p.m. Gambling Premise Permit for Hopkins Raspberry Festival Association
4. 7:50 p.m. City Council Electronic Communications
5. 8:20 p.m. Boards and Commissions Policies
6. 8:35 p.m. Environment/Sustainability Input
7. 9:05 p.m. Communications/Meeting Check-In (Verbal)
9:10 p.m. Adjourn
Written Reports
8. Project Update - Trunk Highway 169 Proposed Visual Barrier and Access Closure Project
9. March 2012 Monthly Financial Report
10. First Quarter Investment Report (January - March, 2012)
11. Eliot School Site Design Guidelines and Redevelopment
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 Date: April 23, 2012
Agenda Item #: 1
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Future Study Session Agenda Planning – May 7 and May 14, 2012.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
The City Council and the City Manager to set the agenda for a Special Study Session scheduled
for May 7 and for the regularly scheduled Study Session on May 14, 2012.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the Council agree with the agendas as proposed?
BACKGROUND:
At each study session approximately five minutes are set aside to discuss the next study session
agenda. For this purpose, attached please find the tentative agenda and proposed discussion
items for a Special Study Session scheduled for May 7 and for the regularly scheduled Study
Session on May 14, 2012.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
None.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
None.
Attachment: Future Study Session Agenda Planning – May 7 and May 14, 2012
Prepared by: Debbie Fischer, Office Assistant
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of April 23, 2012 (Item No. 1) Page 2
Subject: Future Study Session Agenda Planning – May 7 and May 14, 2012
Special Study Session, May 7, 2012 – 6:00 p.m.
Tentative Discussion Item
1. Project Update – Highway 100 Reconstruction Project – Public Works (45 minutes)
Discussion to update Council on recent project development activities and to present a final
proposed geometric layout prior to the planned Mn/DOT Open House scheduled for May
15th – Project No. 2005-2000.
2. Beltline Boulevard Trail Improvement Options – Public Works (45 minutes)
Continued discussion regarding possible infrastructure improvements at the SWLRT Regional
Trail and Beltline Blvd.
Reports
3. Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan and Policy Review
Study Session, May 14, 2012 – 6:30 p.m.
(Mayor Jacobs Out)
Tentative Discussion Items
1. Future Study Session Agenda Planning – Administrative Services (5 minutes)
2. Project Update – Hwy 7 / Louisiana Ave Interchange Project – Public Works (45 minutes)
Discussion to update Council on recent project development activities, financial activities,
and status of the public art process related to this project – Project No. 2012-0100.
3. Pedestrian & Bicycle System Implementation Plan & Policy Review – Public Works (45 minutes)
Continued discussion on proposed sidewalk, trail, and bikeway segments being considered
by Council.
4. NLC Service Line Warranty Program – Public Works (30 minutes)
Discuss the endorsement / marketing of a National League of Cities endorsed service line
warrant program for residential properties in the City.
5. Storm Water Follow-Up – Wetlands Inventory – Public Works (45 minutes)
Provide Council information requested pertaining to wetland inventory, classification, and
management in the City.
6. CAP Application – 6414 Lake Street – Community Development (25 minutes)
Discussion on Construction Assistance Program (CAP) application from Curt Rahman to
renovate 6414/6416 West Lake Street so as to retain and attract commercial tenants.
7. 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
8. Wildlife Feeding Ordinance
End of Meeting: 9:50 p.m.
Meeting Date: April 23, 2012
Agenda Item #: 2
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Ranked Choice Voting
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
The purpose of this report is to provide Council with basic information regarding Ranked Choice
Voting. Joe Mansky, Ramsey County Election Manager, will provide an overview of the 2011
Ranked Voting Election held in St. Paul and answer questions along with City Attorney Roger
Knutson.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
• Does the City Council wish to further pursue the method of a Ranked Voting Election for the
St. Louis Park Municipal Elections? If so, what might be the reasons for doing this?
• Does the City Council need additional information on this topic?
BACKGROUND:
Council requested information regarding Ranked Choice Voting (RCV). This report includes
basic information on past discussion history; what ranked choice voting is; what is involved to
implement; municipal primary election laws; election voting equipment; Minneapolis, St. Paul,
and other RCV jurisdictions; and supporting and opposing opinions.
Past Council Discussion
On May 22, 2006 a Joint Meeting was held with the Charter Commission and City Council to
discuss Instant Run-off Voting and a presentation was given by Fair Vote Minnesota. City
Attorney Roger Knutson provided information regarding possible legal challenges and legal
costs involved. The consensus of the Council was to postpone further discussion pending the
outcome of future legislation changes regarding statutory authority. In June 2009, the Minnesota
Supreme Court rejected a challenge to the new voting method brought by the Minnesota Voters
Alliance, which questioned the constitutionality of having voters rank candidates. The Court
held that Minneapolis’s ordinance was not unconstitutional on its face. There has not been a
court challenge to the ordinance as applied. In November 2009, Minneapolis held their first
municipal Ranked Choice Voting Election.
At the April 26, 2010 Study Session, further council discussion took place on ranked choice
voting. Ms. Gelms, Minneapolis Director of Elections provided an update on the outcome of the
2009 ranked choice voting election which included administrative costs, spoiled ballot and error
rates, and implementation activities since 2006. It was the consensus of the City Council that no
changes would be made to the City’s voting method, and to continue with the current regulations
and requirements for municipal elections as stated in the City Charter.
Study Session Meeting of April 23, 2012 (Item No. 2) Page 2
Subject: Ranked Choice Voting
What is Ranked Choice Voting?
Ranked Choice Voting is a system by which voters rank candidates in order of preference on a
single ballot, ensuring that the winning candidate receives a majority of the votes where there are
more than two candidates on the ballot. Using this method, winners are determined by counting
first choices and determining if any candidates received a minimum number of votes needed to
win. In single-seat races for mayor and city council, the minimum number of votes needed to
win is 50 percent of the total votes cast plus one vote. If there is no candidate with a majority of
first choices, a process of eliminating candidates and considering subsequent choices begins.
The candidate with the fewest votes is defeated and those votes go to the second choices on each
ballot. The votes are recounted in rounds until one candidate achieves the required majority of
votes cast. Reallocating votes does not guarantee the winner will win by over 50%.
Provisions regarding the conduct of elections are mandated by Federal Law, State Law, and City
Ordinances. Currently there are no state standards for a Ranked Choice Method of voting.
Charter Cities in Minnesota have authority to adopt the method of voting for municipal elections.
Without uniform standards, cities that choose to adopt RCV may adopt different “rules” in their
individual ordinances.
School Board Elections are administered by the City of St. Louis Park and would not be affected
by any voting method changes to the city’s municipal elections. This means if the city approved
a ranked choice voting method, the ballot would have two different voting methods on the same
ballot (ranking city offices on multiple columns and voting in one column for multiple seats for
School Board). Political considerations regarding budgets, contracts, approvals and timelines
impose additional requirements for jurisdictions considering implementation of RCV.
What would be involved with implementation of a new voting method for St. Louis Park?
• Charter amendment
• Determination of specific rules
• Ordinance adoption
• Education to voters, election judges, and city election staff
• Additional staff including possible consultant
• Additional Election judge costs for handcounting and reallocating ballots; additional
Healthcare Absentee Judges for the 5 St. Louis Park Healthcare facilities.
• Additional staff time including the days after the election inspecting & duplicating
ballots, counting all write-ins from each column, hand counting to reallocate votes for all
offices where there is no 1st round winner.
• Additional costs to implement include ballot programming, special ballot layout, ballot
testing, ballot printing, education, brochures, posters, videos, postcard mailings, website.
• If the proposed Voter ID amendment passes, further review is needed on implications
with provisional ballot requirements and impact to a ranked choice voting election.
Municipal Primary Election Laws
Minnesota Election Law states municipal primary elections may be held in any city. As a home
rule charter city, St. Louis Park has adopted and chosen to hold Primary elections by Home Rule
Charter Section 4.03. MN Statutes 205.065 states statutory cities may also choose to hold
primaries by ordinance or resolution adoption. School Districts also have the choice whether to
hold primary elections. St. Louis Park School District has chosen not to hold primaries for
School Board Elections.
Study Session Meeting of April 23, 2012 (Item No. 2) Page 3
Subject: Ranked Choice Voting
Of the 45 cities in Hennepin County, the following 11 cities have adopted and chosen to hold
municipal primary elections: Bloomington, Brooklyn Center, Brooklyn Park, Crystal, Dayton,
Independence, Minnetonka, Richfield, Robbinsdale, Rogers, and St. Louis Park. The remaining
34 cities do not hold municipal primaries. The traditional voting method is used by all cities in
Hennepin County except for Minneapolis.
St. Louis Park Municipal Election Results
Staff conducted research of past years Municipal Primary and General election results and
statistics. From this research, the following data was found regarding Primary Elections held in
St. Louis Park:
• 7 Municipal Primary Elections were required since 1975
ü 6 primaries involved only 1 or 2 wards
ü 1 primary was citywide
• City Primary Elections cost approximately $1,000 per precinct
ü Since 1975, only 2 Primary candidates won with less than 50% (48% and 45.3%)
Election Voting Equipment
Minnesota Election law requires both Federal and State certification of all electronic voting
systems. Currently, there is no certified voting equipment capable of counting ranked choices.
In Minnesota voting equipment systems are generally owned and operated by counties. System
replacement is typically managed through a normal replacement schedule that may or may not
coincide with an RCV implementation schedule. The lack of consistent standards and rules
between jurisdictions using the RCV method of voting results in the need to create customized
programs for each jurisdiction causing higher development costs for equipment vendors. In
addition, different election rules adopted by cities within the same county-wide system may
complicate the certification process.
The current state certified voting equipment for Hennepin County is the M-100 Vote Tabulator
Ballot Counter which supports voters by notifying them when a voting error is made so that they
can make a correction. The current equipment would be able to count the first column of an
RCV ballot, but a hand-counting sorting process would be required for RCV ballots if no
candidate received over 50% of the votes. The AutoMARK is a ballot marking device certified
by the State and required by Federal law which assists voters with disabilities to mark their
ballots privately and independently. Both the AutoMARK and M-100 Ballot Counters currently
are programmed to notify voters when they make an error but cannot recognize voter errors
specific to Ranked Choice Voting. Voters would need to pay special attention to avoid making
some mistakes specific to RCV that the machines cannot detect. Those errors include:
• Marking the same candidate in more than one column.
• Skipping a column between ranked candidates.
• Marking more than one candidate for an office in the same column.
Minneapolis 2009 Rank Choice Voting Election
In 2006 the Minneapolis City Council gave final approval by a 12-1 vote to put the Instant
Runoff Voting charter amendment on the November 2006 ballot which passed by Minneapolis
voters. Minneapolis officially adopted Ranked Choice Voting as the method name to more
accurately reflect the process to rank candidates. In addition, “ranked choice” did not imply
“instant” results from the process. Municipal elections in Minneapolis are typically held only
every 4 years.
Study Session Meeting of April 23, 2012 (Item No. 2) Page 4
Subject: Ranked Choice Voting
Attached to this report is the Minneapolis timeline of events from implementation through final
certified results, citywide statistics, staffing, and method of rules used for RCV.
St. Paul 2011 Rank Voting Election
In November 2009, St. Paul voters approved a charter amendment with 52% of the vote to adopt
the Ranked Voting method to elect the mayor and city council members. The question was
placed on the ballot as a result of a petition that was filed at Ramsey County Elections. In
November 2011, a Ranked Voting Election was held in St. Paul for 7 Ward councilmembers.
(The St. Paul School Board continues to use the traditional voting method.) To win on election
night, a candidate needs 50% + 1 of the first choice votes. Ward 2 was the only office where no
candidate received over 50% of the votes which required the following process for hand counting
and reallocation of ranked votes to determine winner:
• The ballots are piled and counted by first choice.
• If no candidate received a majority of first choice votes, counting resumes with
reallocation of votes.
• The candidate with the lowest number of votes is always eliminated.
• The ballots that have a first choice for a candidate that is eliminated are then redistributed
to the remaining candidates.
• The counting and reallocation continues in rounds until a candidate achieves a majority
of votes. If only two candidates remain and neither has achieved a majority of votes cast,
then the candidate with the most votes is the winner.
Joe Mansky, Ramsey County Election Manager, will be in attendance to provide further
information and answer questions regarding the recent 2011 St. Paul Ranked Voting Election.
Attached to this report is the Ward 2 Reallocation Summary Statement and the St. Paul voter
flyer of how to mark your ballot.
Other RCV Jurisdictions
Ranked Choice Voting has been adopted in a number of U.S. cities, with several of these
adoptions later being repealed by voters. The following additional jurisdictions were found to be
involved with RCV through staff research:
• Duluth, Minnesota – In March 2012, after a year of volunteer work, a mayor-appointed
citizen task force recommended the City Council place RCV on the ballot in 2013 for
voters to decide if they want to use RCV in local elections starting in 2015.
• San Francisco, California since 2002, recent considerations to put on ballot to either
overhaul or make changes due to current system too confusing for voters particularly
those in poorer parts of the city.
• Berkeley, California passed IRV in 2004 and used in November 2010
• Cary, North Carolina in 2009 voted to use runoff method.
• Takoma Park, Maryland since 2007 but ranked voting provisions never used because
candidates have always won in first round.
• Aspen, Colorado since May 2009, repealed by voters November 2009.
• Burlington, Vermont since 2005, repealed by voters March 2010.
• Pierce County, Washington since 2006, repealed by voters November 2009.
Study Session Meeting of April 23, 2012 (Item No. 2) Page 5
Subject: Ranked Choice Voting
14 Various Opinions of those SUPPORTING RCV
1. Maximizes voter participation and available choices of candidates.
2. Brings the most voters together with the most candidates to choose from at the
same election.
3. Eliminates the cost of the Primary Elections.
4. Eliminates low-turnout Primaries.
5. Provides results that better reflect the voters’ intent.
6. Produces a majority winner.
7. Ensures that candidates will not be disqualified in primary elections who may
otherwise win in a high turnout general election.
8. Votes cast for the least popular candidate are not "wasted", but rather redistributed to
more popular candidates, based on the voters' other ranked choices.
9. Assures fairer and more accurate representation of the voters.
10. Empowers voters to vote sincerely without being concerned about wasting their
vote.
11. Allows candidates to run on their issues and get an accurate tally of support.
12. Reduces influence of money in politics and campaigns.
13. Could lead to more informative and positive campaigns.
14. More democratic because more candidates have a chance to run.
14 Various Opinions of those OPPOSING RCV
1. Benefit of a Primary is that voters gain the choice between quality candidates in the
general election rather than merely multiple candidates.
2. Statistics indicate the disadvantaged may be disenfranchised by the complexity of the
process.
3. Produces a “false majority” when each runoff round tends to have a slightly smaller
pool of votes, and the majority of the votes counted in the final round are not the
majority of all votes cast.
4. Appellants argue that the RCV methodology violates their right to vote, right to
political association, and right to equal protection under one-person, one-vote
principles.
5. More spoiled ballots and voter errors. Current equipment will not show ranked
voting errors to voter.
6. With no certified equipment, more chance for human error with hand counting ballots
multiple times for each round.
7. Additional costs involved with hand-counting, programming, special ballot layout.
8. Additional election staff needed, additional staff time involved.
9. Difficulty of administration.
10. A system that is confusing and adds more problems than it solves.
11. Complexity may cause lower voter turnout.
12. More likely to make a tie or near-tie election recount extremely complex.
13. Making elections more susceptible to fraud since it cannot be sub-totaled at the
precinct level and must be centrally tabulated.
14. Does not meet mathematical requirement for monotonicity where voting for one’s
choice will help one’s candidate. Nonmonotonicity is the voting characteristic in
which voting for one’s choice may hurt one’s candidate’s chances of winning and
may encourage tactical voting.
Study Session Meeting of April 23, 2012 (Item No. 2) Page 6
Subject: Ranked Choice Voting
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
• If the City amended the City Charter to eliminate Primary Elections, an approximate savings
of $1,000 per precinct would occur.
• A Ranked Choice Voting election would involve startup costs for voter education and
advertising.
• In addition, additional long term costs would occur for equipment programming, ballot
testing, specific ballot layout, staffing, and additional election judges for hand counting.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable
Attachments: City of Minneapolis Election Timeline and Statistics
City of St. Paul
• How to Mark Ranked Voting Ballot flyer
• 2011 Ward 2 Reallocation Summary
Prepared by: Nancy Stroth, City Clerk
Reviewed by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of April 23, 2012 (Item No. 2) Page 7
Subject: Ranked Choice Voting
CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS
RANKED CHOICE VOTING ELECTION
TIMELINE OF EVENTS
March 2006 – Council Resolution creating IRV Task Force
May 9, 2006 – IRV Task Force final report to the City Council
May 23, 2009 – Intergovernmental Relations (IGR) Committee proposes ordinance amendment
May 26, 2006 – Council refers ordinance amendment to Charter Commission
June 7, 2006 – Charter Commission rejects proposed ordinance amendment allowing IRV
June15, 2006 – Council refers proposed ordinance amendment to IGR & Elections Committee
June 30, 2006 – Council approves proposed amendments and refers to Charter Commission
July 2006 – IRV Report (1) to Elections Committee
August 2006 – Council approves ballot language
November 2006 – Minneapolis Charter Amendment passes with goal to implement IRV for the
next municipal election in November of 2009.
January 2007 – May 2009 – Ten IRV Implementation Updates
March 2008 – Presentation to Council
April 2008 – City Council approves next steps to implement IRV
May 2008 – RFP for RCV voting equipment
August 2008 – Deadline for vendors to respond to RFPO for RVC voting equipment
September 2008 – Elections staff report no vendor proposal met requirements, recommend using
combination of current equipment and hand count
June 2009 – Supreme Court Ruling rejecting constitutional challenge
October 2009 – Ordinance revisions
November 3, 2009 – Ranked Choice Voting Election Day
December 4, 2009 – RESULTS CERTIFIED
For single-seat offices:
• 20 offices: Mayor, 13 Council Members, and 6 District Park Commissioners
• The winning candidates for all offices were also the top vote-getters in the first round
• 16 of 20 offices decided in one round
• 19 out of 20 winning candidates surpassed threshold
• 4 offices decided in two rounds
• Council Wards 4 & 5 and Park District 6: The winning candidates surpassed
threshold in second round
• Park and Recreation District 5: The winning candidate won as the highest vote-getter
of the last two candidates remaining, but did not surpass threshold
• Looking at each race with 3 or more candidates
ü At least 1/3 of voters did not rank their choices
ü At least 1/3 of voters ranked more than one choice in the race
MINNEAPOLIS CITYWIDE ELECTION STATISTICS
(13 Wards, 131 Precincts)
Pre-Registered
Voters
Same Day Voter
Registrations
Spoiled
Ballots
Voter Error
Ballots
Total
Ballots Cast
231,078 2,950 1,888 2,958 45,968
Study Session Meeting of April 23, 2012 (Item No. 2) Page 8
Subject: Ranked Choice Voting
Pre-Registered Voters: the number of voters pre-registered at 7 am on Election Day
Same Day Voter Registrations: the number of voters who registered on Election Day
Spoiled Ballots: In the polling place, if a voter makes an error, the voter can return the spoiled
ballot to an election judge and receive a new ballot. This number is not included in Total Ballots
Cast because the voter received a new ballot.
Voter Error Ballots: The AutoMARK does not prevent voter errors specific to RCV. The
Ballot Counter does not notify the voter of errors specific to RCV. As an early step of hand-
counting, two election judges of different parties hand-inspected each ballot for voter error and
accounted for errors where possible. Ballots with voter errors specific to Ranked Choice Voting
include repeat ranking of the same candidate, skipped ranking before or between ranked
candidates, and overvotes within a column. This number is included in the Total Ballots Cast.
Total Ballots Cast: includes both absentee ballots and in-person ballots
Minneapolis RCV Election Staffing
Administration, Outreach & Evaluation
• Interim Director, 4 full-time staff, 8 Seasonal staff
• Contract: RCV Outreach Coordinator
• Contract: Impartial Survey of Voters, Candidates and Election Judges
Election Day and Health Care Facilities Absentee Voting
• Health Care Coordinator, 16 Healthcare Election Judges
• 15 Precinct Support Judges/262 Chair and Assistant Chair Judges/1,200 Team
Judges/108 student Judges
Handcount
• Sort & Count Manager and crew of 5 plus 240 sort/counters (90+ per day)
• Human Resource Manager and crew of 2
• Supply Manager and crew of 6
• Data Entry & Analysis Manager and 10-12 staff per day
Voter Rules for Minneapolis
In a Ranked Choice Voting Election, each city determines its own individual rules for dealing
with “voter errors” specific to Ranked Choice Voting. The following is a sampling from the
adopted rules in Minneapolis regarding voter errors:
No more than one selection per column - If you do, you’ve given the same ranking to two
candidates. If that happens in your first choice column, none of your selections will count. If
done in your second or third choice columns, only the choices before the column where there’s a
duplicated ranking will count. This is the one error that will be flagged when ballots are inserted
into scanners, and election judges will offer a new ballot if the voter wants to correct.
No more than one selection per row - That means you’re casting multiple choices for the same
candidate. Your vote will still be counted, but only once. The voter will have forfeited the
ability to make a backup selection if the first-choice candidate is eliminated from the running.
What happens if the voter skips a choice? - If it’s just your first or second choice, your lower-
ranking selection will move up one notch from second to first and third to second. But if you
skip both your first and second choices, your third choice won’t count.
Study Session Meeting of April 23, 2012 (Item No. 2)
Subject: Ranked Choice Voting Page 9
+/‐Subtotal +/‐Subtotal
Dave Thune 2079 2078 75 2153 717 2870
Jim Ivey 1435 1435 86 1521 ‐1,521 0
Bill Hosko 1378 1378 189 1567 497 2064
Cynthia Schanno 343 344 ‐344 0 0 0
Sharon Anderson 118 120 ‐120 0 0 0
Write‐in 8 8 ‐8 0 0 0
Suspended Ballots 0 65 ‐65 0 0 0
Total Votes Cast 5361 5363 0 5241 0 4934
Inactive 0 0 187 187 307 494
Total Ballots 5361 5428
Election Night Hand Count
Target Calculations
((Total 1st choice votes cast/2)+1)2681 2682
Key:Active
Inactive
Ward 2 Reallocation Summary Statement
November 14, 2011
5428 5428
Candidate
Election Night
Totals‐ First
Choice
Hand Count
Totals‐First
Choice
Reallocation Rounds
12
Inactive
Winner (more than target)
Study Session Meeting of April 23, 2012 (Item No. 2)
Subject: Ranked Choice Voting Page 10
Meeting Date: April 23, 2012
Agenda Item #: 3
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Gambling Premise Permit for Hopkins Raspberry Festival Association
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
In preparation for formal Council action on this matter Staff has identified the following two
options for discussion at the Study Session regarding a gambling premises permit application
received from Hopkins Raspberry Festival Association to conduct gambling at Toby Keith’s I
Love This Bar & Grill scheduled for consideration on May 7, 2012:
• Option 1 – Resolution to approve application
• Option 2 – Resolution to deny application
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
• Does the Council need additional information on this item regarding a premises permit
application from Hopkins Raspberry Festival Association to conduct lawful gambling at
Toby Keith’s I Love This Bar & Grill?
• Is the Council ready to move this forward for formal action on May 7, 2012?
BACKGROUND:
City Attorney Roger Knutson will be present at this meeting to assist with the discussion
regarding a gambling premise permit for Hopkins Raspberry Festival Association. The Hopkins
Raspberry Festival Association has submitted an application for a premises permit to conduct
lawful gambling in the form of pull-tabs inside Toby Keith’s I Love This Bar & Grill located at
1623 Park Place Boulevard in St. Louis Park. The Hopkins Raspberry Festival Association is a
registered non-profit corporation with Minnesota Secretary of State and is listed in good standing
as of 2012. The officers are Charles Yunker, CEO; Leigh Ann Drinkwine, Treasurer; and Sue
Normandin, Gambling Manager.
CRGE Minneapolis LLC, dba Toby Keith’s I Love This Bar & Grill has authorized a lease
agreement with Hopkins Raspberry Festival Association for use of their space to conduct lawful
gambling in the form of pull-tab operations. This premises location for the gambling request is
currently not in compliance with City Code Ordinance Sec. 3-70 (g) requiring at least 50% of
gross receipts attributable to the sale of food. On February 21, 2012 the Council approved the
renewal of the liquor license for Toby Keith’s I Love This Bar & Grill and placed them on a 6
month probationary status through August 31, 2012 for not meeting the city ordinance
requirement. The licensee has been on a probationary status since March of 2011.
The Plymouth Lions Club previously conducted lawful gambling at Toby Keith’s but closed
their business on January 31, 2012.
The Hopkins Raspberry Festival currently operates pull tab operations at McCoy’s Public House,
3801 Grand Way in St. Louis Park and in Hopkins at the Wild Boar, 1022 Main Street. This
Study Session Meeting of April 23, 2012 (Item No. 3) Page 2
Subject: Gambling Premise Permit for Hopkins Raspberry Festival Association
organization previously operated in St. Louis Park since April of 2002 at Al’s Bar which closed
in July 2009, then relocated to Laredo’s at 4656 Excelsior Blvd. which also closed.
The Association helps to support the Hopkins Raspberry Festival and St. Louis Park Parktacular,
who both depend on charitable gambling funds, along with educational scholarships and
miscellaneous donations. Attached to this report is a letter to Council from the Gambling
Manager with further information regarding donations.
State Gambling Board Authority
Gambling premises permits are issued and regulated by the State Gambling Board. The
Board may not issue a permit unless approval by resolution is received from the city
council of the city in which the organization's premises is located. (MN Statutes 349.213)
Licenses issued are perpetual and are valid unless suspended or revoked by the Board,
terminated by the organization, or if the license lapses. A license is considered lapsed if the
organization does any of the following (MN Statute 349.16):
• Failed to conduct and report any gambling sales activity within seven months from
the date of the last gambling activity.
• Failed to have a gambling manager as required.
• Failed to pay annual license and permit fees.
• Surrenders, withdraws, or otherwise terminates the license.
Findings from Police Background Investigation
The Police Department conducted a background investigation on the organization, its officers
and related personnel. In reviewing the Hopkins Raspberry Festival Association with the State
Gambling Board, violations were discovered and enforced by a consent order. The state
violations are related to the financial and documentation aspects of the operation and no
compliance issues are sited regarding improper sales to minors or game fixing. If the penalty
terms are not met within the time periods, the license may be suspended or revoked by the State.
The Gambling Control Board has indicated the Hopkins Raspberry Festival Association is
considered an active licensee (able to conduct lawful gambling) and remains in good standing at
this time. Hopkins Raspberry Festival Association admitted to all allegations. The violations,
penalties and status of the consent order are as follows:
State Violations Consent Order Penalty Terms
Status of Penalty Terms
Failed to make deposits of
gambling receipts within 4
days of game closed
(MN Stat. §349.19 subd 2)
Fine of $1,000 by March 14 ü State fine paid
Corrective action plan by March 14 ü Proper documentation
received, reviewed and
accepted
Documentation confirming no part
of penalty fine is paid out of gross
receipts from gambling by April 13
Failed to complete and file
required annual audit for
fiscal years 2008-2010.
(MN Stat. §297E.06, subd.
4, and 349.19, subd. 9)
Must file annual audit for fiscal
years 2008-2010 with Dept. of Rev.
by March 1
ü Received, reviewed, and
accepted by Dept. of Rev.
3 organization committee members
shall attend a 2 day gambling
manager seminar and pass an open
book test by May 13
* 3 committee members are
registered for the May 9-10
gambling seminar.
Study Session Meeting of April 23, 2012 (Item No. 3) Page 3
Subject: Gambling Premise Permit for Hopkins Raspberry Festival Association
* Failure to meet the last term of gambling seminar attendance will result in a license suspension
by the state.
St. Louis Park City Code Requirements Chapter 15 GAMBLING
Sec. 15-6. States that the applicant shall fully cooperate with the city officials in supplying all
required and necessary information when applying for a premises permit. City Council shall
determine whether the organization meets the criteria relating to the location of lawful gambling
activities and all other criteria necessary to approve a premises permit. Each pending application
for a premises permit shall be approved or disapproved by resolution of the City Council.
Sec. 15-7. Location criteria for premises permits.
(a) Gambling in the city may be conducted only at the following locations:
(1) In the licensed organization's hall where it has its regular meetings;
(2) In licensed on-sale liquor, wine and beer establishments;
(3) Raffle permits, when required, are exempt from the location restrictions set forth in this
section.
(4) No location shall be approved unless it complies with the applicable zoning, building, fire
and health codes of the city and other regulations contained in this chapter.
Sec. 15-8. Distribution of Proceeds
Gambling organizations must contribute 10% of net profits from each site where lawful
gambling is conducted within the city to a fund administered and regulated by the city.
Organizations are exempt if either they expend 100% within St. Louis Park or conduct gambling
on a premises owned and operated by a nonprofit organization. Organizations must also expend
90 percent of its lawful purpose expenditures within the trade area of St. Louis Park which
includes Edina, Hopkins, Minneapolis, Minnetonka, Plymouth and Golden Valley.
Organizations must submit monthly state gambling reports. Although the State Gambling
Control Board regulates gambling and reporting, city staff has had prior difficulties in receiving
copies of the Hopkins Raspberry Festival’s gambling reports on a timely basis. If the Council
choses to approve the application, staff would recommend that it include a condition that all
ordinance requirements continue to be met and that required gambling reports are submitted to
the City Clerk’s office on a timely basis. Violation of a city ordinance is a misdemeanor, and the
city could prosecute or request the Gambling Control Board to suspend or revoke the premises
permit under Minnesota Rule 7865.
The current licensed gambling establishments in St. Louis Park are as follows:
Community Charities operates at:
• American Legion Post 282, 5605 W. 36th St
• Park Tavern, 3401 Louisiana Ave.
• Texa Tonka Lanes, 8200 Minnetonka Blvd.
St. Louis Park Hockey Boosters Assoc. operates at:
Bunny’s Bar & Grill, 5916 Excelsior Blvd.
Hopkins Raspberry Festival operates at:
McCoy’s Public House, 3801 Grand Way
Study Session Meeting of April 23, 2012 (Item No. 3) Page 4
Subject: Gambling Premise Permit for Hopkins Raspberry Festival Association
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
City Code Section 15-9 requires organizations to pay the city a tax of 3% of the gross receipts
less prizes, or an annual amount of $3,000, whichever is less.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
Attachments: Option 1 Resolution of Approval
Option 2 Resolution of Denial
Letter from Sue Normandin, Gambling Manager
Prepared by: Nancy Stroth, City Clerk
Reviewed by: Roger Knutson, City Attorney
Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of April 23, 2012 (Item No. 3) Page 5
Subject: Gambling Premise Permit for Hopkins Raspberry Festival Association
Option 1 Proposed RESOLUTION NO. 12 -_____
RESOLUTION APPROVING ISSUANCE OF A PREMISES PERMIT
FOR LAWFUL GAMBLING TO BE CONDUCTED BY
HOPKINS RASPBERRY FESTIVAL ASSOCIATION, INC.
AT TOBY KEITH’S I LOVE THIS BAR & GRILL
1623 PARK PLACE BLVD.
WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes Chapter 349 and St. Louis Park Ordinance Code Chapter 15
provide for lawful gambling licensing by the State Gambling Control Board; and
WHEREAS, a licensed organization conducting gambling on a premises within the City of
St. Louis Park must expend 90 percent (90%) of its lawful purpose expenditures on lawful purposes
conducted or located within the trade area; and
WHEREAS, a licensed organization conducting gambling on a premises within the City of
St. Louis Park shall contribute an amount equal to 10 percent (10%) of the organization’s net profits
derived from each individual site to a fund administered and regulated by the City, for distribution by
the city for lawful purposes authorized under Minnesota Statute; and
WHEREAS, organizations that either expend 100 percent of their lawful purpose
expenditures within the City of St. Louis Park or conduct the lawful gambling activity on a premises
owned and operated by a nonprofit corporation are exempt from making the 10 percent contribution
to the city; and
WHEREAS, a licensed organization conducting gambling on a premises within the City of
St. Louis Park shall pay to the city on a prorated monthly basis a local gambling tax in the annual
amount of $3,000 per premises or three percent (3%) of the gross receipts from all lawful gambling
less prizes actually paid out , whichever is less; and
WHEREAS, a licensed organization is required to submit monthly gambling reports to the
City Clerk’s office on a timely basis; and
WHEREAS, a licensed organization may not conduct lawful gambling at any site unless it
has first obtained from the State Gambling Control Board a premises permit for the site; and
WHEREAS, the State Gambling Control Board may not issue a premises permit unless the
organization submits a resolution from the City Council approving the premises permit; therefore,
BE IT RESOLVED by the City of St. Louis Park City Council that the applicant listed
above meets the criteria necessary to receive a premises permit, and the application is hereby
approved.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council May 7, 2012
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Study Session Meeting of April 23, 2012 (Item No. 3) Page 6
Subject: Gambling Premise Permit for Hopkins Raspberry Festival Association
Option 2 Proposed RESOLUTION NO. 12-_______
RESOLUTION DENYING ISSUANCE OF A PREMISES PERMIT
FOR LAWFUL GAMBLING TO BE CONDUCTED BY
HOPKINS RASPBERRY FESTIVAL ASSOCIATION, INC.
AT TOBY KEITH’S I LOVE THIS BAR & GRILL
1623 PARK PLACE BLVD.
WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes Chapter 349 and St. Louis Park Ordinance Code
Chapter 15 provide for lawful gambling licensing by the State Gambling Control Board; and
WHEREAS, a licensed organization conducting gambling on a premises within the City
must meet location criteria for premises permits as required by City Code Section 15-7; and
WHEREAS, Hopkins Raspberry Festival Association has made application to conduct
lawful gambling at a liquor licensed premises, Toby Keith’s I Love This Bar & Grill located at
1623 Park Place Boulevard; and
WHEREAS, Section 15-7 of the City Code provides in part that gambling in the City
may be conducted in licensed on-sale liquor, wine and beer establishments but only if the
location complies with the applicable zoning, building, fire and health codes of the city and other
regulations contained in this chapter; and
WHEREAS, Toby Keith’s is currently on probation and not in compliance with City
Code Section 3-70 (g) requirement of at least 50 percent of gross receipts attributable to the sale
of food; and
WHEREAS, Section 15-7 of the City Code only authorizes the issuance of a premises
permit at Toby Keith’s because it has an on-sale liquor license and Toby Keith’s has a
probationary license which it may lose because of non-compliance with the City Code; and
WHEREAS, the premises are not in compliance with the City’s liquor ordinance
regulations which protect the health and welfare of the community; and
WHEREAS, the conduct of lawful gambling on the Toby Keith’s premises has the
potential to increase bar-related activity and further decrease the percentage of food sales; and
WHEREAS, a licensed organization may not conduct lawful gambling at any site unless
it has first obtained from the State Gambling Control Board a premises permit for the site.
BE IT RESOLVED by the City of St. Louis Park City Council that it is not in the
interest of the welfare of the City or its residents to approve the premises permit, and the
application is hereby denied.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City of St. Louis Park City Council that the
applicant may reapply at this premises location for council consideration when the licensee is no
longer on probationary status and in compliance with city code regulations.
Study Session Meeting of April 23, 2012 (Item No. 3) Page 7
Subject: Gambling Premise Permit for Hopkins Raspberry Festival Association
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council May 7, 2012
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Study Session Meeting of April 23, 2012 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Gambling Premise Permit for Hopkins Raspberry Festival Association Page 8
Study Session Meeting of April 23, 2012 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Gambling Premise Permit for Hopkins Raspberry Festival Association Page 9
Study Session Meeting of April 23, 2012 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Gambling Premise Permit for Hopkins Raspberry Festival Association Page 10
Meeting Date: April 23, 2012
Agenda Item #: 4
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
City Council Electronic Communications
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
No action requested at this time. Staff desires direction from the Council on the policy questions
noted below.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
• Does Council wish to have more information on this topic?
• Is the Council interested in formally adopting a policy?
BACKGROUND:
The public sector is regulated in the areas of open meeting law and data practices. At this Study
Session, City Attorney Roger Knutson will review regulations in this area, along with how to
handle general communication, sharing information and electronic communication.
To help with the discussion, attached are two documents on this topic:
1. Open Meeting Law information from Roger Knutson, City Attorney.
2. City Council Electronic Communications Policy from City of Woodbury.
Why are we discussing the topic? With the explosion of social media and email communications,
staff wants to make sure all Councilmembers are aware of the regulations in this area. Staff is
also interested in finding out if Council desires to have a Council policy similar to the City of
Woodbury.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
None
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
Attachments: Open Meeting Law Information
City Council Electronic Communications Policy from City of Woodbury
Prepared by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of April 23, 2012 (Item No. 4) Page 2
Subject: City Council Electronic Communications
OPEN MEETING LAW
(Minn. Stat. §§ 13D.Ol -
13D.07)
A. SUBJECT TO A FEW EXCEPTIONS, ALL MEETINGS OF THE CITY
COUNCIL AND CITY COMMITTEES AND SUBCOMMITTEES MUST
BE OPEN TO THE PUBLIC.
B. WHAT CONSTITUTES A MEETING? A meeting exists when a quorum of the
city council or other city commission/committee is together and:
1. Make a decision concerning city business; or
2. Discuss city business; or
3 Obtain information on city business.
C. SERIAL COMMUNICATIONS ARE PROHIBITED.
1. EMAIL - don't use reply to all.
2. SOCIAL MEDIA - the next frontier of open meeting law violations.
D. NOTICE REQUIREMENTS.
1. Regularly scheduled meetings on your adopted meeting schedule require no
additional notice.
2. Special meetings require mailed and posted notice at least three days before
the day of the meeting.
3. Emergency meetings - as much notice as possible.
E. CLOSED MEETINGS.
1. Labor negotiations.
2. Threatened or pending litigation.
3. Preliminary consideration of charges against an employee.
4. Notice of the meeting is required stating why the meeting will be closed and
the subject of the meeting.
Study Session Meeting of April 23, 2012 (Item No. 4) Page 3
Subject: City Council Electronic Communications
5. Evaluation of a person subject to its authority.
6. To determine the asking price of property being sold.
7. To review confidential appraisal data.
8. To develop counteroffers for the purchase or sale of property.
9. To discuss active investigative data.
10. If it would identify victims or reporters of criminal sexual conduct, domestic
abuse or maltreatment of minors.
F. PENALTIES. No monetary penalties or attorney fees may be awarded against a
member of a public body unless the court finds that there was a specific intent to
violate this chapter. Penalties include:
1. Individual fine of $300.00 per occurrence for an intentional violation, which
may not be paid by the city.
2. Three intentional violations in three separate actions can result in removal
from office.
3. Additional costs and attorney's fees may be imposed up to $13,000.00. The
city may pay this amount.
Study Session Meeting of April 23, 2012 (Item No. 4) Page 4
Subject: City Council Electronic Communications
CCOOUUNNCCIILL DDIIRREECCTTIIVVEE
Adopted: 12-10-08
Revised: 10-27-10
Number:
CD-COUNCIL-2.7
Mayor:
City Administrator:
For: City Council Members
Subject: City Council Electronic Communications
PURPOSE
The purpose of this policy is to set guidelines on how members of the City Council communicate
with city officials and personnel via e-mail and electronic means. This policy is also to assure us
of electronic communication complies with the Minnesota Data Practices Act and Open Meeting
Law. These guidelines apply regardless of whether the City Council is using a city-provided e-
mail address and account, their personal e-mail address or account, or one provided by his/her
employer.
POLICY
A. City Council Meeting Materials
Electronic communications of meeting materials should generally be conducted in a one-way
communication from the Administration Department to the City Council.
1. Council Member (s) may receive agenda materials, background information, and other
meeting materials via e-mail attachment or other electronic means (such as file sharing)
from the Administration Department.
2. If a Council Member has questions or comments about materials received, s/he should
inquire via electronic means directly back to the City Administrator or to the department
head associated with the agenda item and also copying the City Administrator. A
Council Member should not copy other Council Members on his/her inquiry.
3. If the clarification is one of value to other Council Members, the City Administrator may
send follow-up materials or information to the full Council.
Materials relating to agenda items of a meeting will also be delivered to the City Council
Members and made available to the public at the meeting.
B. Communication During Council Meetings
1. Council Members should not communicate with one another with any member of staff or
the public via electronic means during a public meeting.
Study Session Meeting of April 23, 2012 (Item No. 4) Page 5
Subject: City Council Electronic Communications
C. Electronic Communication Outside of Council Meetings
1. Council Members should be mindful of the Minnesota Data Practices Act and Minnesota
Open Meeting Law when using electronic means to communicate with one another.
2. If a Council Member wishes to share information with other members, s/he should do so
through the City Administrator. The Council Member may request the City
Administrator distribute materials to others. The communication should not invite
response to or discussion between any Council Members, including replies to the person
making the distribution request. This should be considered a method for providing one-
way information to other members of the Council. Again, materials related to agenda
items for City business must be provided to the public at the meeting.
3. If a Council Member wishes to address only one other member through electronic means
on any topic related to City business, s/he can do so directly; however, mindful of the
Open Meeting Law should remember the following:
a. One-to-one communication is ideal
b. The recipient of an electronic message or inquiry should reply only to the sender,
should not copy others on the reply and should not forward the original e-mail to
other Council Members.
c. The sender of an electronic message should not forward or copy the recipient’s
reply to any Council Member.
d. The City Administrator should be copied on all electronic correspondence.
4. If a Council Member receives an electronic communication from any source related to
City business and distributed to multiple Council Members, (i.e. an e-mail sent to the
entire Council from a member of the public; or an e-mail sent to three Council Members
from a local business), s/he should reply only to the sender. The reply should not be
copied to all on the original distribution or forwarded to any Council Member. If the
Council Member wishes other members to see the electronic communication, this should
be forwarded to the City Administrator for distribution to other members.
5. If a Council Member receives listserv distributions, electronic newsletters, or participates
in electronic discussion forums where other Council Members are also likely to
participate (such as chat rooms), the Council Member should not reply to any distribution
or comment so that the reply is copied to the entire distribution group, or any part of the
group that might include other Council Members. The Council Member should instead
respond only to the sender or any message or inquiry.
6. All electronic communications from Council to staff or staff to the Council will utilize
City issued e-mail addresses.
7. For web or other publications, the common council@ci.woodbury.mn.us address will be
utilized. The Administration Department will forward all non-“junk” e-mails to the
whole Council.
Study Session Meeting of April 23, 2012 (Item No. 4) Page 6
Subject: City Council Electronic Communications
8. General electronic communications specifically related to the specific functions of the
following positions may be sent to the following positions, copying the City
Administrator:
Department Heads
City Clerk (i.e., scheduling of meetings, record retention, data practices, research, etc.)
Communications Coordinator (i.e. composing of various items such as articles for the
newsletter, press releases, and general correspondence).
D. Accessing Electronic Communications Through City Server Systems
1. Council Members will have electronic access to a shared storage area where
documentation for staff and Council Members are accessed. To view this shared storage
area and to receive electronic communications, Council Members may log into the City’s
network portal called “Citrix”, through an externally accessible web site
(https://nfuse.ci.woodbury.mn.us) and use the City’s e-mail system and its Microsoft
client applications. Instructions will be provided by the Woodbury IT Department to
setup a Council Member’s computer with access to the Citrix network portal.
2. A second method of accessing email and calendars only is also available to Council
Members through the City’s Outlook Web Access portal (https://webmail.ci.woodbury.mn.us).
Council Members may log in through this portal from any computer’s web browser with
internet access and view their City email and calendar.
3. Electronic access to City email, calendar, and contacts is also provided to Council
Members who have smartphone cell phones. Any Council Member who wants to setup
their personal smartphone to connect to the City’s email system should contact a member
of the Woodbury IT Department for instructions or hands-on help.
4. All e-mail messages and voice-mail messages sent to and from Council Members
(whether they are from staff members or citizens) will occur through their City e-mail
accounts. An example of the City e-mail address for a Council Member would be
flastname@ci.woodbury.mn.us. To connect to the City’s server systems, each Council
Member will need to provide their own internet access.
5. Council Members will be able to print out to their local printers any documentation that
they felt would be most useful in a hard copy format without leaving any electronic
information from the City behind on their computer.
E. Social media
a. Council Members should not use official city social media sites for campaigning
purposes.
b. Council Members shall not post comments or links to any content that endorses or
opposes political candidates or ballot propositions, including links to an elected
official’s campaign site.
c. All comments posted during an election season by anyone who has filed for office
will be removed.
Study Session Meeting of April 23, 2012 (Item No. 4) Page 7
Subject: City Council Electronic Communications
d. Council Members should be mindful of the risks of electronic communication in
relation to the Minnesota Data Practices Act and the Open Meeting Law; two-way
communication between elected officials should be strictly avoided.
e. Council Members should not use social media as a mechanism for conducting
official city business other than to informally communicate with the public.
f. Council Members should reveal that they are elected officials for the city if/when
making a post and be honest, straightforward and respectful.
g. Council Members should be sure that efforts to be honest don’t result in sharing
non-public information related to coworkers, personnel data, medical information,
claims or lawsuits, or other non-public or confidential information.
h. Council Members should add value to any social media discussion by staying
focused on the issue.
i. To help prevent errors, Council Members should not post official information (e.g.,
incorrect information about a new city ordinance) about the city as it could create
liability issues.
j. If a Council Member makes a mistake, it should be corrected as soon as the official
is made award of the error. Corrections should be upfront and as timely as possible.
If you modify an earlier post, make it clear the posting has been corrected. Consider
designating corrections with “Fixed link” or “Fact correction” prior to the
correction.
k. Council Members who are contacted by the media on a topic of official city
business should follow city media relations/communications protocols.
F. Classification and Retention of Electronic Communications
1. Regardless of whether electronic communication by a Council Member is taking place on
a City-provided computer, home computer or other computer system, classification of
information as public, private or other is governed by the Minnesota Government Data
Practices Act (Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13) and should be treated accordingly.
2. Transitory messages, e-mail or phone messages of short-term interest which are
considered incidental and non-vital correspondence are not kept as permanent public
record. These messages will be deleted once heard and/or read. Messages which relate
to transactions of city business should be retained in accordance with applicable
retention schedule. Data practices classification for this is public.
3. Council Members will not need to retain electronic communications on their personal
computer as long as such communication takes place on the City network.
Resolutions Adopting CD-COUNCIL-2.7 City Council Electronic Communications
Resolution No. 10-154, Adopted on October 27, 2010
Meeting Date: April 23, 2012
Agenda Item #: 5
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Boards and Commissions Policies
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
No formal action at this time. The purpose of this agenda item is to discuss previously identified
policy questions which have been raised by the Council relating to the City’s Boards and
Commissions.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
• Does the Council wish to adopt a policy stating that a person cannot serve on more than one
board or commission concurrently?
• Does the Council wish to adopt a policy stating that board or commission members may not
serve on the same board or commission as another member of the immediate family,
including a registered domestic partner?
BACKGROUND:
Council has the legal authority to create and manage all aspects of Boards and Commissions as
set forth in Section 2.02 of the Home Rule Charter. The City Code Chapter 2 and Rules and
Procedures for Boards and Commissions (Resolution No. 10-026) are the main documents
adopted by Council and used by staff to manage Boards and Commissions.
Based on recent board and commission appointments the Council directed that discussion take
place regarding updating the current Rules & Procedures for Boards and Commissions to reflect
our past practice relative to membership and qualifications. Technically, our adopted Rules and
Procedures do not mandate that a commissioner cannot serve on more than one commission, or
cannot serve on the same commission as another member of the immediate family or registered
domestic partner. It has been the Council’s past practice to appoint an individual to serve on no
more than one commission to achieve maximum citizen involvement in each board or
commission. Until just recently there has never been an instance where more than one family
member has served on the same commission, nor do t he City’s rules disallow such an
occurrence.
Staff is proposing language which provides a definition of immediate family members or
registered domestic partner. Definition for immediate family - the immediate family includes
the following individual and the spouse or registered domestic partner: mother, father, siblings,
spouse or registered domestic partner, children and grandparents.
Other Cities
Staff surveyed the cities of Bloomington, Blaine, Brooklyn Center, Eden Prairie, Edina,
Excelsior, Golden Valley, Minnetonka, New Hope, Maple Grove, Plymouth, and Richfield. Of
the 12 cities, only Lakeville and Plymouth stated they would allow commissioners to serve on
more than one commission. The majority stated they do not allow commissioners to serve on
more than one commission at a time, but did not have adopted language or rules for this council
Study Session Meeting of April 23, 2012 (Item No. 5) Page 2
Subject: Boards and Commissions Policies
decision. Only 3 cities (Bloomington, Eden Prairie, and Edina) had specific adopted language
regarding service to only one commission. None of the cities have ever had family members
apply for the same commission.
Proposed amended language
Rules and Procedures for Boards and Commissions
C. Membership and Terms
Membership requirements are set by ordinance. A ll board and commission members are
appointed by the council or, in some cases, by the school board. Youth members may be
appointed and are conferred voting status except in the case of the Planning Commission and
Board of Zoning Appeals. Board and Commission members may not chair serve concurrently
on more than one board or commission; at a time and cannot serve on the same commission as a
member of the immediate family or registered domestic partner. Definition for immediate
family- the immediate family includes the following individual and the spouse or registered
domestic partner: mother, father, siblings, spouse or registered domestic partner, children and
grandparents. Commissioners may only serve one consecutive year as chair.
NEXT STEPS
If the Council agrees with the proposed language staff will prepare a consent report amending
the language for Rules & Procedures for Boards & Commission regarding membership for
Council consideration at the May 7, 2012 City Council Meeting.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
Attachments: Proposed Resolution
Prepared by: Nancy Stroth, City Clerk
Reviewed by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of April 23, 2012 (Item No. 5) Page 3
Subject: Boards and Commissions Policies
RESOLUTION NO. 12-____
RESOLUTION AMENDING AND RESTATING
RESOLUTION NO. 10-026 ADOPTED MARCH 15, 2010
APPROVING RULES AND PROCEDURES
FOR BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
WHEREAS, the St. Louis Park City Council has established certain boards and
commissions to serve as advisory to the City Council; and
WHEREAS, the City Council wishes its various boards and commissions to comply with
all regulations to which they are subject concerning conduct of meetings including those
provisions contained in the Minnesota State Statutes, the City Charter and the Municipal Code;
and
WHEREAS, the attached rules and procedures serve as a guideline for operating those
boards and commissions and they set standards for the conduct of staff and commission
members.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City of St. Louis Park hereby
amends the “Rules and Procedures for Boards and Commissions” attached as Exhibit A and shall
adhere to the rules as stated therein unless revised by a majority vote of the City Council.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council May 7, 2012
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Study Session Meeting of April 23, 2012 (Item No. 5) Page 4
Subject: Boards and Commissions Policies
Resolution No. 12-_____ Exhibit A
Rules and Procedures for Boards and Commissions
Amending Resolution No. 10-026
Adopted by City Council May 7, 2012
A. Boards
The St. Louis Park City Charter grants the council authority to form various boards and
commissions by ordinance. Boards and commissions serve in an advisory capacity to the City
Council and are conferred various degrees of decision making power. The City Council is the
sole policy making body of the city. Some boards and commissions include in their membership
persons appointed by the school board.
Boards and commissions of the city which have been created by ordinance and are governed by
the provisions of these rules and procedures are as follows:
• Board of Zoning Appeals
• Human Rights Commission
• Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission
• Planning Commission
• Police Advisory Commission
• Telecommunications Advisory Commission
In addition, other ad hoc groups may be formed as needed by resolution of the council.
B. Staff Liaisons
Each board and commission is assigned a staff liaison. Duties of the staff liaison are, in general,
to facilitate or assist in the meetings, to record attendance and to provide information and
direction as requested by the commission. It is also the responsibility of the staff liaison to
inform the city council of any problems or issues that may arise.
C. Membership and Terms
Membership requirements are set by ordinance. A ll board and commission members are
appointed by the council or, in some cases, by the school board. Youth members may be
appointed and are conferred voting status except in the case of the Planning Commission and
Board of Zoning Appeals. Board and Commission members may not chair serve concurrently on
more than one board or commission; at a time and cannot serve on the same commission as a
member of the immediate family or registered domestic partner. Definition for immediate
family- the immediate family includes the following individual and the spouse or registered
domestic partner: mother, father, siblings, spouse or registered domestic partner, children and
grandparents. Commissioners may only serve one consecutive year as chair.
D. Qualifications
Members must be St. Louis Park residents, but need not have expertise in any particular area.
Willingness to serve and be involved are the most important attributes of members. P er
Resolution No. 01-078, the city council will not consider applications for appointment to
advisory commissions from regular full-time or part-time St. Louis Park employees (as defined
Study Session Meeting of April 23, 2012 (Item No. 5) Page 5
Subject: Boards and Commissions Policies
in the city’s personnel manual). City Council will not consider applications for appointment to
commissions from other employees working for the city such as seasonal, temporary, part time,
paid on call firefighters or contract employees if such appointment could cause a conflict of
interest.
E. Attendance
Regular attendance at meetings is a requirement for continued membership on any board or
commission. Irregular attendance and frequent absences are detrimental to the entire group and
put undue pressure on t hose members who do attend meetings. R egular attendance allows
members to learn about and discuss issues in depth which contributes to more effective decision
making. Continued absenteeism is considered grounds for dismissal by the council.
F. By-Laws
Each board and commission shall create by-laws and meeting procedures. By-laws must be
consistent with the City Code and should follow the Council’s template for by-laws. Whenever
changes are made, copies of the by-laws should be forwarded to the Administrative Services
department for the Council’s review. Council has 30 days to review and amend the by-laws per
the City Code.
G. Meetings
Meeting times and locations are set according to each commission’s by-laws. Each commission
should defer to the Council’s meeting policy for meetings which occur on or near holidays. A
quorum of the board is made up of a majority of members currently appointed. All meetings
will be conducted in accordance with the Minnesota Open Meeting Law, the City Charter and the
Municipal Code of Ordinances. The proceedings of the meetings should be conducted using
standard parliamentary procedure. T he City Council has adopted The Standard Code of
Parliamentar y Procedure, as their guide and that publication is available in the Administrative
Services department. A simplified summary of these procedures is also available for use by
commission chairs and staff liaisons.
H. Minutes and other Records
Minutes of each meeting should be prepared and maintained by the staff liaison or designee.
Following commission approval minutes should be forwarded to the Administrative Services
department for placement on the city council agenda.
All board and commission records must be maintained in accordance with the city’s records
retention policy. Please contact the Administrative Services department if you have questions
regarding retention and preferred storage medium.
I. Annual Report
Each board or commission shall prepare a draft written report for the Council which includes
activities undertaken in the past year, a progress report on the previous year’s goals, and goals
for the coming year. Every effort should be made to submit the report to the Council by January
1st. After reviewing the report, the Council may meet with the group in a study session to discuss
Study Session Meeting of April 23, 2012 (Item No. 5) Page 6
Subject: Boards and Commissions Policies
the report and other issues of concern to the commission prior to approving the report and, as
needed, may request the Commission to also provide a mid-year progress report.
J. Recruitment
When a vacancy occurs it is the responsibility of the staff liaison to inform the Administrative
Services department of the vacancy. Recruitment is typically done using any combination of
advertising opportunity available. Local newspaper, Park Perspective, direct mailing,
neighborhood newsletter, the city’s website, etc. are all acceptable forms of advertisement.
Applications are maintained by the Administrative Services department and are forwarded to
interested citizens upon request. In certain instances a supplemental application may be created
to determine suitability of candidates.
Upon receipt of the application a representative of the Administrative Services department will
contact the applicant to acknowledge receipt of the application and to discuss the interview and
appointment process.
Applications will be retained in the active file six months following receipt.
K. Candidate Review Process
Written applications are forwarded to Councilmembers for review as openings occur.
Councilmembers will inform the Administrative Services department of the candidates they wish
to interview based upon their review of written materials within two weeks of receiving the
materials. Interviews are conducted by the City Council, usually prior to a Monday evening
meeting. Following the interview, the Mayor will inform the Administrative Services
department about the status of each applicant. The Administrative Services department will mail
a thank you letter to each applicant with information regarding next steps in the process.
L. Appointment
Appointments are made by the City Council at a regular meeting of the council. Council will
inform the Administrative Services department when an appointment is to be made so that the
appointment can be added to the council agenda.
Following the appointment the Administrative Services department will contact the new member
and inform them of their appointment. A copy of the application will also be forwarded to the
staff liaison.
The staff liaison will provide the new member with meeting information and discuss
expectations and pertinent issues with them prior to the next meeting of the board or
commission.
Appointments are sometimes made to unexpired terms, and often more than one vacancy exists
on a commission. In that case, the specific term occupied by the new member is determined by
the commission and communicated to the Administrative Services department.
M. Rosters
The staff liaison is responsible for keeping an updated roster of the commission which should
include contact information, term of office and date of appointment. The liaison is responsible
for notifying the Administrative Services department about roster changes.
Study Session Meeting of April 23, 2012 (Item No. 5) Page 7
Subject: Boards and Commissions Policies
N. Reappointment
Reappointments are made as needed by the city council. Performance and attendance by Board
and Commission members requesting reappointment will be considered by the Council. Council
may choose to re-interview any commission member as a m eans to determine whether the
commission member should continue to serve. A member may continue to serve beyond their
expiration date until a reappointment is made.
O. Resignation
When a resignation occurs, the staff liaison should contact the Administrative Services
department and forward a co py of any correspondence that may have been received.
Administrative Services will then initiate recruitment to fill the vacant position. A member may
continue to serve beyond their expiration date until a successor is appointed. Members may be
removed with or without cause by the City Council.
P. Recognition
At the beginning of each year the Council will recognize members who have left their position
during the prior year. Appreciation activities will be planned for all commission members on a
regular basis.
Q. Orientation
The Administrative Services department and the staff liaisons will provide orientation for new
board and commission members as well as new staff liaisons.
R. Conflict of Interest
No commissioner shall:
(1) Enter into any contractual arrangement with the city during the term serving as an appointed
board or commissioner member and for a period of one year after leaving office, unless
authorized by Minnesota statutes § 471.88.
(2) Use their position to secure any special privilege or exemption for themselves or others.
(3) Use their office or otherwise act in any manner which would give the appearance of or result
in any impropriety or conflict of interest.
Meeting Date: April 23, 2012
Agenda Item #: 6
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Environment/Sustainability Input
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
No action requested. Staff desires direction on the policy question noted below.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does Council wish to move ahead as outlined to set up a time limited environment/sustainability
task force as a means to provide recommendations on the approach the City should use to allow
for public input into the City’s environmental/sustainability policies and initiatives?
BACKGROUND:
On March 26, 2012 the City Council discussed public involvement in the City’s environmental
policies and initiatives. The discussion centered on “what is missing” in the environmental area?
To provide some background, this issue was a topic of discussion going back to 2007 and 2008
as part of the Strategic Direction the City Council adopted related to the environment.
Specifically the City Council identified the need to investigate “the need and purpose of an
energy and environmental commission” Below is information regarding past discussions by
Council on this topic:
• February 25, 2008 – Study Session – Discussed Strategic Direction related to the
Environment and the need for an energy/environmental commission.
• September 13, 2010 – Study Session - Environmental Activities Update.
• November 8, 2010 – Study Session - Process for Community Input on Environment.
• March 26, 2012 – Study Session – Environmental Input Discussion.
Next steps: At the March 26th study session, it was the consensus of the City Council to have
staff develop an outline for a time limited task force to define the approach for public input into
the City’s environmental/sustainability policies and initiatives. A draft outline for this process is
attached, and if approved, staff will move forward when Council provides direction on
membership of a task force.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
None at this time
VISION CONSIDERATION:
“St Louis Park is committed to being a leader in environmental stewardship. We will increase
environmental consciousness and responsibility in all areas of City business.”
Attachment: Draft: Environment/Sustainability Task Force
Prepared by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of April 23, 2012 (Item No. 6) Page 2
Subject: Environment/Sustainability Input
Draft: Environment/Sustainability Task Force
Purpose: To assist Council by recommending the approach the City should take for public input
into the City’s environmental policies and initiatives and/or sustainability. Task force would
meet for limited duration and make recommendation(s) to City Council.
Task force would meet approximately five times as follows:
1. Review background and current information on environmental and sustainability
activities, programs, staffing and overall scope of work in all departments of the city
and regulatory agencies.
2. Brainstorm ideas on possibilities and look into “what’s missing” regarding public
input into sustainability/environmental policies, efforts and initiatives.
3. Review other venues available that could offer resident interaction about
environmental issues (including and not limited to: on line forum, friends of the
environment, add to existing commission or group, connecting residents through on-
line methods, community gardens etc.).
4. Sift through ideas and begin to prioritize the ideas, develop options/recommendations.
5. Formalize recommendation to Council.
What are the timeline possibilities? (Both scenarios are based on 1 to 2 meetings per month)
• Start in May, set meetings and complete in August (+ fast track, - summer schedules
may dictate a longer time period needed; also dependent on time needed to select task
force members).
• Start in September, complete in December (+ more time, - finish line farther away).
Guiding Principles:
• The task force will meet no more than five meetings.
• The task force will end after it has finalized/ presented its recommendations.
• City Council has the final decision.
• Council may only select some of the recommendations.
• If a new “group” or commission is formed it will be open to residents from across the
city who will apply (if task force members want to be on the new “group” or
commission, they will receive the same consideration as the rest of the applicants).
How does this begin?
• Bridget Gothberg, Organizational Development would facilitate.
• Other staff will be present to provide information as needed.
• Task Force membership needs to be selected, with a recommendation of size
limitation between 8 – 15 people maximum.
Other considerations:
• Careful review and development of bylaws will be needed if any new commission or
group comes from this process.
• Consideration in the future that a new group or Commission could meet quarterly
(monthly meetings may not be necessary).
• Additional staffing in future may be needed to support group or commission.
Meeting Date: April 23, 2012
Agenda Item #: 8
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Project Update - Trunk Highway 169 Proposed Visual Barrier and Access Closure Project
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
No action required. The purpose of this report is to provide Council with an update regarding the
visual barrier construction and access closure project along Highway 169 at 22nd Street, 22nd
Lane, and 23rd Street.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
None at this time. Please let staff know of any comments or questions you might have.
BACKGROUND:
History
Mn/DOT originally initiated discussions regarding closing the Highway 169 Access Ramps at
22nd Street, 22nd Lane and 23rd Street in 2002. This proposal resurfaced again in 2011. Mn/DOT
held public informational meetings in May and August of 2011 to gain feedback from the
neighborhood. During this time the engineering firm of Bolton and Menk conducted a traffic
study for the City that indicated traffic impacts attributed to the closure would not be significant
based on the relative small volume of traffic that uses the ramps.
On October 3, 2011 Council passed Resolution No. 11-097 supporting the closure of the
Highway 169 Access Ramps at 22nd Street, 22nd Lane and 23rd Street and the construction of a
visual barrier (Fig. 3).
Proposed Project
This project includes closing the direct access ramps between Highway 169 and 23rd Street, 22nd
Lane, and 22nd Street (Fig. 1). Mn/DOT will construct a visual barrier at this location. The
visual barrier will consist of a 10-12 foot high wall. The main reason Mn/DOT is proposing a
visual barrier is because the project type (access closure) does not require the level of
environmental analysis required by the Federal Highway Administration, and this particular
location does not have a significant ranking under their noise abatement study. The visual
barrier will offer some noise attenuation, but the main purpose is a visual screen. A narrow (18’
wide) two-way street connecting 23rd Street, 22nd Lane and 22nd Street will remain after the
construction. Parking restrictions on the street will be necessary and a resolution providing for
the restrictions will be brought to Council in June.
Special Study Session Meeting of April 23, 2012 (Item No. 8) Page 2
Subject: Project Update - Trunk Highway 169 Proposed Visual Barrier and Access Closure Project
Public Involvement
Mn/DOT held the third informational meeting on March 27, 2012 to discuss the details of the
design and construction schedule of the upcoming project. The meeting was attended by City
staff and approximately 8 property owners. Representative from Mn/DOT presented the project
and showed a graphic (Fig. 2) depicting the visual barrier and the access modifications to
Highway 169 Frontage Road.
NEXT STEPS:
Mn/DOT will bid this project in mid-May and expects to begin construction in early July. The
project is expected to be completed this year.
Staff anticipates providing Council a final project update in early June along with a request to
modify the traffic controls in the area as a result of this project:
- Parking restrictions along both sides of the new frontage road
- Removal of the stop signs on west bound 22nd Street, 22nd Lane and 23rd Street
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Mn/DOT will fund this construction at no cost to the City.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
None.
Attachments: Figure 1 - Project Location
Figure 2 – Mn/DOT Visual Barrier Graphic
October 3, 2011 Report to Council
Prepared by: Jack Sullivan, Engineering Project Manager
Reviewed by: Mike Rardin, Director of Public Works
Scott Brink, City Engineer
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Special Study Session Meeting of April 23, 2012 (Item No. 8) Page 3
Subject: Project Update - Trunk Highway 169 Proposed Visual Barrier and Access Closure Project
Special Study Session Meeting of April 23, 2012 (Item No. 10) Page 4
Subject: Project Update - Trunk Highway 169 Proposed Visual Barrier and Access Closure Project
Meeting Date: October 3, 2011
Agenda Item #: 8a
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Trunk Highway 169: Proposed Access Closure and Visual Barrier Construction.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to approve the attached resolution supporting Mn/DOT’s proposal to close the existing
Highway 169 access ramps at 22nd Street, 22nd Lane, and 23rd Street, and construct a visual
barrier.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does Council support Mn/DOT’s proposed project?
BACKGROUND:
History
On March 14, 2011 the City Council was presented various options regarding the possible
construction of future noise walls and access closures along the east side of Highway 169. Based
on the rankings of a noise abatement study combined with Mn/DOT’s desire to eventually close
direct access ramps between local streets and freeways, Mn/DOT presented several different
options and funding scenarios for the City’s consideration. A noise wall between 16th Street and
I-394 (on the east side of Highway 169) has already been programmed by Mn/DOT and the City
for construction in 2015.
After following a public process (described below), the City Council reviewed Mn/DOT’s
proposal to close the access ramps and construct a visual barrier at 22nd Street, 22nd Lane, and 23rd
Street at a study session held on September 19, 2011. Council expressed support for the project.
Proposed Project
Mn/DOT desires to close the direct access ramps between Highway 169 and 23rd Street, 22nd
Lane, and 22nd Street, and at 16th Street (east side of the Highway). If the City agrees to closure
of the access at 22nd/23rd, Mn/DOT has stated they would construct a visual barrier at this
location at no charge to the City. The visual barrier would essentially consist of a 12 foot high
wall, rather than a 20 foot high standard noise wall. The main reason Mn/DOT is proposing a
visual barrier is because the project type (access closure) does not require the level of
environmental analysis required by the Federal Highway Administration, and this particular
location does not have a significant ranking under the noise abatement study. The visual barrier
will offer some noise attenuation, but the main purpose is a visual screen. According to
Mn/DOT, a 2012 letting is required in order to utilize available Safety Capacity Funds.
Construction of a barrier and closure of access to and from Highway 169 at 23rd Street, 22nd
Land, and 22nd Street was discussed previously, most recently in 2002 when a short public
process was conducted. Public reaction to the proposal was mixed, there was not enough support
for closing the access, and the project was deferred for future consideration.
Study Session Meeting of April 23, 2012 (Item No. 8)
Subject: Project Update - Trunk Highway 169 Proposed Visual Barrier and Access Closure Project Page 5
Similarly, if the City were amenable to closing the access at 16th Street, Mn/DOT would extend
the noise wall (programmed for 2015) an additional distance south across 16th Street. At both
locations, Mn/DOT desires long-term to eventually close these accesses for safety reasons. In
the event safety concerns or accidents should increase and eventually reach a stage where
Mn/DOT feels closure is necessary, they will close these ramps without installing the barriers.
Public Involvement
At Council’s direction, staff began a neighborhood process for exploring the possibility of
closing the access at 22nd Street, 22nd Lane, and 23rd Street by conducting a neighborhood
informational meeting on May 3, 2011 at the St. Louis Park Junior High School.
Over 30 residents attended the May 3 meeting, along with representatives of both Mn/DOT and
the City. In addition to the verbal comments received at the meeting, residents were also
encouraged to submit comment cards at the meeting’s conclusion. Staff contact information was
provided and residents were also encouraged to provide further feedback by E-Mail or telephone.
In general, many of the comments received fell under the following areas:
1) Concerns over the safety of the Highway 169/Cedar Lake Road interchange (particularly
access from Cedar Lake Road on to northbound Highway 169).
2) Existing cut-through traffic through the neighborhood (to and from the access ramps) was
stated as a safety concern (speeds, endangering pedestrians, etc.).
3) Safety concern regarding motorists on Highway 169 who often exit and immediately re-
enter Highway 169 at this location in order to “move farther ahead in the queue” when
Highway 169 is backed up.
4) Concerns over traffic impacts to Cedar Lake Road, Flag Avenue, the intersection of
Cedar Lake Road and Flag Avenue, and the 16th Street Access.
Staff subsequently retained the firm of Bolton and Menk to conduct a traffic study to further
assess and quantify impacts related to an access closure. In addition to analyzing the impact of a
closure at 22nd Street, 23rd Street, and 22nd Lane, the study also reviewed impacts related to the
access at 16th Street, both in a closed or open condition. Traffic projections for Flag Avenue,
Cedar Lake Road, and the intersections of Flag Ave/Cedar Lake Rd. and Highway 169/Cedar
Lake Road were also reviewed. In summary, the study indicated that any adverse traffic impacts
from a closure at 22nd Street, 23rd Street, and 22nd Lane would not be significant, largely because
of the relatively small amount of traffic that actually utilizes the ramps. In the event a closure
should be proposed in the future at 16th Street however, traffic mitigation measures for Flag
Avenue and the intersection of Flag Avenue at Cedar Lake Road would need to be considered.
A second informational meeting was conducted on August 18 with a slightly smaller number of
residents attending. At this meeting, the traffic report was presented by Bolton and Menk, and
additional questions were addressed by Mn/DOT and City staff. Additional comments were
also received. Although comments are varied and mixed, overall public sentiment appears to
lean towards closing the access at 22nd Street, 23rd Street, and 22nd Lane and construction of the
visual barrier.
Closure of the access ramps and construction of the wall would occur sometime in 2012.
Additional details and scheduling would be provided sometime early next year.
Study Session Meeting of April 23, 2012 (Item No. 8)
Subject: Project Update - Trunk Highway 169 Proposed Visual Barrier and Access Closure Project Page 6
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Mn/DOT would fund the project at no cost to the City.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
None.
Attachments: Resolution Supporting Closure and Construction of Barrier
Figure 1 (Project Location)
Prepared by: Scott Brink, City Engineer
Reviewed by: Mike Rardin, Director of Public Works
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of April 23, 2012 (Item No. 8)
Subject: Project Update - Trunk Highway 169 Proposed Visual Barrier and Access Closure Project Page 7
RESOLUTION NO. 11-097
RESOLUTION SUPPORTING CLOSURE OF THE HIGHWAY 169 ACCESS RAMPS
AT 22ND STREET, 22ND LANE AND 23RD STREET AND CONSTRUCTION OF A
VISUAL BARRIER
WHEREAS, the Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) desires to close the
access ramps between Highway 169 and 22nd Street, 22nd Lane, and 23rd Street for safety
reasons; and
WHEREAS, Mn/DOT seeks concurrence from the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota in
closing said access ramps; and
WHEREAS, Mn/DOT has offered to construct a visual barrier at no cost to the City for
said concurrence.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park, Minnesota, that:
1. The City of St. Louis Park supports Mn/DOT’s desire to close the Highway 169 access
ramps at 22nd Street, 22nd Lane, and 23rd Street.
2. The Director of Public Works is hereby authorized to work directly with Mn/DOT in
delivering a project that will close the access ramps and provide for the construction of a
12-foot high visual barrier in accordance with State and City requirements.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council October 3, 2011
City Manager
Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Study Session Meeting of April 23, 2012 (Item No. 8)
Subject: Project Update - Trunk Highway 169 Proposed Visual Barrier and Access Closure Project Page 8
Study Session Meeting of April 23, 2012 (Item No. 8)
Subject: Project Update - Trunk Highway 169 Proposed Visual Barrier and Access Closure Project Page 9
Meeting Date: April 23, 2012
Agenda Item #: 9
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
March 2012 Monthly Financial Report
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
No action required at this time.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
None at this time.
BACKGROUND:
This report is designed to provide summary information each month of the overall level of
revenues and expenditures in both the General Fund and the Park and Recreation Fund. These
funds should be a primary concern in analyzing the City’s financial health because they represent
the discretionary use of tax levy dollars.
Actual expenditures should generally run about 25% of the annual budget in March. Currently,
the General Fund has expenditures totaling 22.9% of the adopted budget and the Park and
Recreation Fund expenditures are at 24.9%. Revenues tend to be harder to gauge in this same
way due to the timing of when they are received, examples of which include property taxes and
State aid payments (Police & Fire, DOT/Highway, PERA Aid, etc.).
Expenditures in most of the General Fund and Park and Recreation Departments are running at
or below budget through March. A few variance comments for revenues and expenditures are
noted below along with a general discussion of reasons for the variance.
General Fund
Revenues:
• Through March, nearly 57% of the license and permit revenues have been recorded in the
General Fund. As in prior years, this is in part due to the fact that most of the 2012 liquor
and business license payments have already been received. In the Administration
Department, 100% of the budgeted liquor license revenues have been recorded. In the
Inspections Department, 96% of the business license revenues for the year have been
received, with most of the payments coming in late 2011 and deferred to 2012 to
accurately reflect the year that the license revenue is earned. Permit revenues are also
higher than budget through March at 37%.
Expenditures:
• The Community Outreach budget is at 57% because the full 2012 payment for Mediation
Services was made in January. T his expenditure is a substantial portion of the
Community Outreach General Fund budget.
Study Session Meeting of April 23, 2012 (Item No. 9) Page 2
Subject: March 2012 Monthly Financial Report
Parks and Recreation
Expenditures:
• The Organized Recreation Division is at 35.8% of budget because the full annual
Community Education contribution in the amount of $187,400 was paid to the School
District in March. This is consistent with prior years. Payment for the 4th of July
fireworks display in the amount of $15,500 was also made in March.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
None at this time.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Regular and timely reporting of financial information is part of the City’s mission of being
stewards of financial resources.
Attachments: Summary of Revenues & Expenditures
Prepared by: Darla Monson, Senior Accountant
Reviewed by: Brian Swanson, Controller
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
2011 2012 2012 Balance Budget
Actual Budget Mar YTD Remaining to Actual %
General Fund Revenues:
General Property Taxes 15,372,076$ 15,998,292$ -$ 15,998,292$ 0.00%
Licenses and Permits 2,801,255 2,368,799 1,344,124 1,024,675 56.74%
Fines & Forfeits 260,805 328,150 61,560 266,590 18.76%
Intergovernmental 1,229,595 1,163,677 267,834 895,843 23.02%
Charges for Services 1,041,986 1,270,354 35,991 1,234,363 2.83%
Miscellaneous Revenue 128,654 111,650 26,720 84,930 23.93%
Transfers In 2,550,876 2,023,003 500,250 1,522,753 24.73%
Investment Earnings - 125,000 - 125,000 0.00%
Other Income 22,686 3,450 1,255 2,195 36.38%
Total General Fund Revenues 23,407,933$ 23,392,375$ 2,237,734$ 21,154,641$ 9.57%
Park & Recreation Revenues:
General Property Taxes 4,000,561$ 4,171,506$ -$ 4,171,506$ 0.00%
Licenses and Permits 110 6,600 55 6,545 0.83%
Intergovernmental 149,875 68,902 5,835 63,067 8.47%
Charges for Services 1,097,259 1,070,750 131,989 938,761 12.33%
Miscellaneous Revenue 891,796 967,900 179,094 788,806 18.50%
Other Income 6,708 42,150 825 41,325 1.96%
Total Park & Recreation Revenues 6,146,308$ 6,327,808$ 317,798$ 6,010,010$ 5.02%
Summary of Revenues - General Fund and Park & Recreation
As of March 31, 2012
Study Session Meeting of April 23, 2012 (Item No. 9)
Subject: March 2012 Monthly Financial Report Page 3
2011 2012 2012 Balance Budget
Actual Budget Mar YTD Remaining to Actual %
General Government:
Administration 840,217$ 1,012,554$ 200,204$ 812,350$ 19.77%
Accounting 604,926 641,691 143,950 497,741 22.43%
Assessing 506,076 517,840 130,982 386,858 25.29%
Human Resources 628,995 667,612 142,454 525,158 21.34%
Community Development 1,082,311 1,076,376 264,615 811,761 24.58%
Facilities Maintenance 955,880 1,083,128 198,876 884,252 18.36%
Information Resources 1,423,244 1,507,579 293,627 1,213,952 19.48%
Communications & Marketing 256,537 265,426 48,932 216,494 18.44%
Community Outreach 84,300 8,185 4,680 3,505 57.18%
Total General Government 6,382,485$ 6,780,391$ 1,428,321$ 5,352,070$ 21.07%
Public Safety:
Police 6,943,324$ 7,273,723$ 1,803,032$ 5,470,691$ 24.79%
Fire Protection 3,061,860 3,346,931 785,441 2,561,490 23.47%
Inspectional Services 1,818,075 1,889,340 462,672 1,426,668 24.49%
Total Public Safety 11,823,260$ 12,509,994$ 3,051,145$ 9,458,849$ 24.39%
Public Works:
Public Works Administration 803,310$ 389,783$ 86,381$ 303,402$ 22.16%
Public Works Engineering 816,204 927,337 198,291 729,046 21.38%
Public Works Operations 2,462,641 2,604,870 580,244 2,024,626 22.28%
Total Public Works 4,082,156$ 3,921,990$ 864,917$ 3,057,073$ 22.05%
Non-Departmental:
General 76,397$ -$ 348$ (348)$ 0.00%
Transfers Out - - - - 0.00%
Tax Court Petitions - 180,000 - 180,000 0.00%
Total Non-Departmental 76,397$ 180,000$ 348$ 179,652$ 0.19%
Total General Fund Expenditures 22,364,297$ 23,392,375$ 5,344,731$ 18,047,644$ 22.85%
Park & Recreation:
Organized Recreation 1,263,320$ 1,305,747$ 467,037$ 838,710$ 35.77%
Recreation Center 1,424,052 1,466,246 267,975 1,198,271 18.28%
Park Maintenance 1,472,838 1,461,645 313,152 1,148,493 21.42%
Westwood 488,550 515,456 120,097 395,359 23.30%
Environment 398,063 390,009 86,127 303,882 22.08%
Vehicle Maintenance 1,268,550 1,188,705 318,339 870,366 26.78%
Total Park & Recreation Expenditures 6,315,374$ 6,327,808$ 1,572,727$ 4,755,081$ 24.85%
Summary of Expenditures - General Fund and Park & Recreation
As of March 31, 2012
Study Session Meeting of April 23, 2012 (Item No. 9)
Subject: March 2012 Monthly Financial Report Page 4
Meeting Date: April 23, 2012
Agenda Item #: 10
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
First Quarter Investment Report (January - March, 2012)
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
No action required at this time. This report is being provided for information sharing purposes.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
None at this time.
BACKGROUND:
The City’s investment portfolio is focused on short term cash flow needs and investment in
longer term securities. This is done in accordance with Minnesota Statute 118A and the City’s
Investment Policy objectives of: 1) Preservation of capital; 2) Liquidity; and 3) Return on
investment.
The total portfolio value has decreased by approximately $11.5 million since the beginning of
the year. This entire decrease was in the money market accounts, as a large amount of cash was
needed in the first quarter to pay the February 1 debt service payments and Pay As You Go TIF
note payments, as well as the on-going construction contract payments for the Fire Stations.
Less than $2 million of the 2010D Fire Station Bond proceeds are remaining as of March 31.
The majority of this is invested in commercial paper that matures in April and May. Commercial
paper are promissory notes issued by financial institutions and large corporations with very short
maturity periods ranging from one to nine months. The commercial paper was purchased to
mature incrementally over a five month period from January through May 2012. As each piece
of commercial paper matures, cash is made available to pay construction project expenses. The
rates on the commercial paper ranged from .23% to .68% compared to just .16% in the UBS
Money Market Fund. Since the bond proceeds could not be invested in long term securities, the
higher yields on the commercial paper have helped to keep the portfolio yield stable.
The overall yield of the portfolio has increased slightly from the fourth quarter of 2011 (1.12%)
to 1.33% at March 31. Approximately $6 million of available cash was invested in longer term
securities in the first quarter, which has helped to increase the yield. Cities generally use a short
horizon benchmark such as the two year Treasury (.33% at 3/31/2012) or some similar measure
for yield comparison of their overall portfolio.
Approximately 30% of the portfolio is invested in money markets and short term commercial
paper. As noted earlier, the remaining bond proceeds need to be available in the short term to
pay the monthly Fire Station contract payments, and it is also necessary to have cash readily
available for the normal cash flow needs for payroll and general operating expenses. The money
market account at Citizens Independent Bank continues to earn .41%. This is substantially
higher than the yield of either the 4M Fund Money Market (.02%) or the UBS Money Markets
Study Session Meeting of April 23, 2012 (Item No. 10) Page 2
Subject: First Quarter Investment Report (January - March, 2012)
(.16%). A $5 million balance is being maintained in the Citizens Bank Money Market to help
improve interest earnings on available cash.
The remainder of the portfolio is invested in longer term securities that will mature within one to
five years. About 60% of these longer term investments are in municipal debt, which are bonds
issued by States, local governments, or school districts to pay for special projects. The rest of the
longer term purchases are primarily in callable agency bonds, which are issued by government
agencies such as the Federal Home Loan Bank or Fannie Mae. They typically have more
reasonable interest rates to the final maturity date, but the issuers have the right to call the bonds
prior to maturity if interest rates decline. This has happened quite frequently in the current
market. Two securities were called prior to maturity in the first quarter, but new securities with
comparable rates were able to be purchased. Approximately $1 million of three and four year
CD’s complete the portfolio.
Here is a summary of the City’s portfolio at March 31, 2012:
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
None at this time.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable
Attachments: Quarterly Investment Report
Prepared by: Darla Monson, Senior Accountant
Reviewed by: Brian A. Swanson, Controller
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
12/31/11 3/31/12
<1 Year 54% 41%
1-2 Years 18% 16%
2-3 Years 10% 10%
3-4 Years 6% 18%
>4 Years 12% 15%
12/31/11 3/31/12
Money Markets $30,415,916 $15,874,505
Commercial Paper $4,177,371 $1,529,790
Certificates of Deposit $0 $966,161
Municipal Debt $26,792,131 $25,545,348
Agency Bonds $9,101,437 $15,079,239
City of St. Louis Park
Investment Portfolio
March 31, 2012
Institution Type CUSIP Maturity Date
Yield to
Maturity Par Value
Market Value at
3/31/2012
Estimated Avg
Annual Income
Citizens Indep Bank Money Market 0.41%5,024,573 5,024,573 20,601
4M Fund Money Market 0.02%2,529,086 2,529,086 506
Citigroup/Smith Barney GNMA 7.19% 20,573 23,309 1,676
23,309
Wells Fargo Advisors FFCB 31331KD49 10/03/2016 1.48% 1,000,000 1,000,080 14,800
1,000,080
UBS Muni Debt-Illinois State 452152FD8 04/01/2013 1.84% 1,000,000 1,009,850 18,350
UBS Muni Debt-NYC 64971MN40 02/01/2016 3.03% 1,000,000 1,081,780 30,250
UBS Muni Debt-NYC 64971MN40 02/01/2016 3.07% 1,000,000 1,081,780 30,700
UBS FNMA 3136FRYJ6 07/19/2016 2.32% 1,000,000 1,003,350 23,200
UBS Muni Debt -Dist of Columbia 25476FLE6 06/01/2015 1.33% 1,000,000 1,065,820 13,310
UBS FHLMC 3134G2XP2 08/23/2016 1.50% 2,000,000 2,006,800 30,000
UBS Muni Debt -Calif State 13063A7E8 10/01/2013 0.78% 2,000,000 2,086,420 15,680
UBS FNMA 3136FRZ30 09/21/2016 1.32% 1,000,000 1,004,140 13,200
UBS Muni Debt - Gilroy, CA 376087CZ3 04/01/2015 1.81% 1,125,000 1,190,981 20,363
UBS Muni Debt - Calif State 13063BNR9 10/01/2015 2.00% 1,000,000 1,026,790 20,000
UBS Muni Debt - Atl City, NJ 048339RR8 12/15/2015 2.70% 470,000 480,909 12,690
UBS FNMA 3136FTXU8 12/29/2016 1.25% 1,000,000 1,001,170 12,500
UBS FHLMC 3134G3CB4 12/05/2016 1.45% 1,000,000 1,003,270 14,500
UBS Barclays Bank CD 06740KFS1 01/11/2016 1.60% 240,000 242,136 3,840
UBS Amer Munic Pwr Ohio 02765UER1 02/15/2015 1.54% 1,000,000 1,059,800 15,400
UBS Freddie Mac 3134G3PE4 02/24/2016 0.85% 1,000,000 997,930 8,500
UBS Money Market 0.16% 8,077,701 8,077,701 12,924
UBS Money Market (Fire Station Bonds)0.16% 243,146 243,146 389
UBS Comm Paper (Fire Station Bonds)04/02/2012 0.61% 780,000 779,992 4,758
UBS Comm Paper (Fire Station Bonds)05/02/2012 0.68% 750,000 749,798 5,100
27,193,562
Sterne, Agee Muni Debt-Van Buren, MI Sch 920729GP9 05/01/2012 2.80% 100,000 100,199 2,800
Sterne, Agee Muni Debt-Waukegan, IL 942860MS3 12/30/2012 2.45% 1,500,000 1,538,145 36,750
Sterne, Agee Muni Debt-Greenwood Cnty Sch 397118EC0 03/01/2013 2.03% 740,000 753,357 15,022
Sterne, Agee FNMA 3136F9BZ5 03/18/2013 3.96% 1,000,000 1,035,230 39,600
Sterne, Agee Muni Debt-Van Buren, MI Sch 920729GQ7 05/01/2013 3.12% 300,000 307,776 9,360
Sterne, Agee Muni Debt-Milan, MI Sch 598801HF8 05/01/2013 3.16% 580,000 590,231 18,328
Sterne, Agee Muni Debt-Illinois State 452152FD8 04/01/2013 1.75% 1,000,000 1,009,850 17,500
Sterne, Agee Muni Debt-Waukegan, IL 942860MT1 12/30/2013 2.95% 1,500,000 1,577,625 44,250
Sterne, Agee Muni Debt-Outagamie Cnty WI 689900TH1 04/01/2014 2.53% 810,000 837,346 20,493
Sterne, Agee Muni Debt-Van Buren, MI Sch 920729GR5 05/01/2014 3.52% 705,000 738,882 24,816
Sterne, Agee Muni Debt-Union Co NJ 906347SC4 06/01/2014 4.04% 555,000 563,608 22,422
Sterne, Agee Muni Debt-Illinois State 4521518U0 01/01/2014 3.25% 1,225,000 1,269,958 39,813
Sterne, Agee Muni Debt-Illinois State 4521518T3 01/01/2013 2.63% 850,000 865,334 22,313
Sterne, Agee Muni Debt-Milwuakee Co, WI 602245WW8 10/01/2013 1.50% 1,000,000 1,013,650 15,000
Sterne, Agee Muni Debt-Smithfield, RI 832322NM9 01/15/2013 0.88% 275,000 276,774 2,406
Sterne, Agee Muni Debt-Smithfield, RI 832322NN7 01/15/2014 1.35% 275,000 281,537 3,713
Sterne, Agee Muni Debt-Smithfield, RI 832322NP2 01/15/2015 1.90% 275,000 282,244 5,225
Sterne, Agee Muni Debt-Smithfield, RI 832322NQ0 01/15/2016 2.40% 275,000 287,518 6,600
Sterne, Agee Muni Debt-Racine, WI 750046GB4 04/01/2014 0.70% 1,010,000 1,094,375 7,070
Sterne, Agee FNMA 3136FTC98 01/25/2016 0.50% 1,000,000 999,240 5,000
Sterne, Agee FNMA 3136FTV89 02/28/2017 0.65% 1,000,000 999,930 6,500
16,422,808
Wells Fargo Muni Debt-New York, NY 64966HXW5 03/01/2013 1.00% 1,000,000 1,015,680 10,000
Wells Fargo Muni Debt-State of WA 93974CLV0 08/01/2014 1.33% 1,000,000 1,057,130 13,300
Wells Fargo FHLB 313372RK2 03/27/2013 1.02% 1,000,000 1,007,490 10,200
Wells Fargo GE Capital CD 3616OXC62 01/06/2016 1.70%240,000 242,148 4,080
Wells Fargo Goldman Sachs Bank CD 38143AGR0 01/12/2015 1.50% 240,000 241,066 3,600
Wells Fargo Ally Bank CD 0200SQYM9 01/26/2015 1.15% 240,000 240,811 2,760
Wells Fargo FHLMC 3134G3HP8 01/27/2016 1.00% 1,000,000 1,000,650 10,000
Wells Fargo Freddie Mac 3134G3HW3 10/30/2015 1.00% 1,000,000 1,002,820 10,000
Wells Fargo Freddie Mac 3134G3MP2 08/24/2016 1.00% 1,000,000 993,830 10,000
6,801,625
GRAND TOTAL 58,995,043 782,156
Portfolio Yield 1.33%
Study Session Meeting of April 23, 2012 (Item No. 10)
Subject: First Quarter Investment Report (January - March, 2012)Page 3
Meeting Date: April 23, 2012
Agenda Item #: 11
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Eliot School Site Design Guidelines and Redevelopment.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
This report is intended to provide the history/background in relation to the development of
design guidelines for redevelopment of the Eliot School Site.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
None at this time. Please let staff know of any questions you might have.
BACKGROUND:
In February 2010, the St. Louis Park School Board decided to close Eliot Community Center,
with the intent of selling the property for redevelopment. The City and School Board agreed to
conduct a neighborhood process to create a set of Design Guidelines to set the stage for
redeveloping the site. The intent was that Eliot’s future use and development would be
compatible with the City’s goals, School District’s goals, and the neighborhood’s concerns and
desires.
The Design Guideline process was conducted in 2010. The Guidelines were accepted by the
City Council in late 2010 and were incorporated into the neighborhood section of the
Comprehensive Plan. They are available on the city’s website at
http://www.stlouispark.org/webfiles/file/Comm_Dev/design_guidelines_report_final.pdf
PROCESS TO DEVELOP DESIGN GUIDELINES:
An initial neighborhood meeting was held in May, 2010 to introduce the intent in creating a
process and guidelines for the Eliot site. Several neighbors volunteered to be a part of a task
force to develop the guidelines. The Task Force was established with 20 members, including 15
residents, the Ward 4 City Council member, a Planning Commissioner, a Parks & Recreation
Commissioner, and two School District representatives. Hoisington-Koegler Group Inc. (HKGi)
was retained to facilitate the process and develop the draft guidelines.
The Task Force met three times from June to August 2010, and agreed on the attached draft
guidelines. The group represented a variety of perspectives and the meetings included lively
discussion and good ideas. Members were respectful of different goals of the individuals and
groups involved. Common principles were drawn out of the discussions.
The process for developing the guidelines included:
• Analyzing the existing site, including the property, building and neighborhood context
• Establishing task force and identifying site reuse goals
• Creating a set of principles for redevelopment
• Developing alternative reuse concepts to help identify site reuse principles
• Crafting a draft set of site and building design guidelines
Study Session Meeting of April 23, 2012 (Item No. 11) Page 2
Subject: Eliot School Site Design Guidelines and Redevelopment
An overall neighborhood meeting was held in October, 2010, with all neighbors in the Eliot and
Eliot View neighborhoods being notified with a direct mailing to their homes. Approximately
24 neighbors, including 10 Task Force members attended.
SITE REUSE PRINCIPLES:
The Design Guidelines include a set of Site Reuse Principles along with more specific Site and
Building Design Guidelines (See Guidelines).
The Site Reuse Principles address the following areas:
1. Mix of Medium Density Residential
Land Uses
2. Transition Building Heights across
the Site from South to North
3. Complement Existing Development
Scale and Character
4. Neighborhood Open Space
5. Community Landmark and
Neighborhood Gateway
6. Neighborhood Connectivity
7. Redevelopment Feasibility
8. Owner-Occupied Housing
9. School Building Reuse
10. Interim Property Maintenance
FUTURE REDEVELOPMENT PROCESS:
It is the intent that the guidelines will be used by the City and School District in working with
potential developers to redevelop the property. Any development proposal would likely result in
the need for a Comprehensive Plan land use map change from “Civic” to “Medium Density
Residential,” as well as a change to the zoning on the property to meet the medium residential
land use designation.
Thus far, the School District has worked with one developer and entered into a purchase
agreement. This purchase agreement has since been terminated A concept plan for two
multiple-family buildings was developed using the Guidelines; this plan was not officially
submitted or fully analyzed by city staff.
A new developer is working with the School District on a new purchase agreement at this time.
As a concept is submitted, city staff will work with the developer to and achieve a development
that is in concert with the guidelines. When the site plan is determined to be acceptable, staff
will bring it to the City Council, Planning Commission and neighborhood for review prior to
processing any formal applications to amend the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance for
the redevelopment.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
St. Louis Park is committed to providing a well-maintained and diverse housing stock.
St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged community.
Attachments: None
Prepared by: Meg McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager