HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012/08/27 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - Study SessionAGENDA
AUGUST 27, 2012
5:45 p.m. SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING – Westwood Room
1. Call to Order
1a. Roll Call
2. Closed Executive Session - Westwood Room
Closed Executive Session with attorneys for the purpose of discussing litigation strategy with
the City’s attorney in Jason Martin vs. Officer John Herman.
3. Adjournment
6:30 p.m. CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION – Council Chambers
Discussion Items
1. 6:30 p.m. Future Study Session Agenda Planning – September 10, 2012
2. 6:35 p.m. Update on Southwest Light Rail Transit (SWLRT)
3. 6:50 p.m. Solid Waste Collection Program - Plastics Education
4. 7:50 p.m. Beekeeping in St. Louis Park
8:20 p.m. Communications/Meeting Check-In (Verbal)
8:25 p.m. Adjourn
Written Reports
5. Public Safety Software Update
6. Breck School – Private Activity Revenue Note, Series 2012A
7. 2012 Semi-Annual Housing Programs Report
8. Business Park Rezoning Process Update
9. Prism Dial-A-Ride Program Update
10. July 2012 Monthly Financial Report
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: August 27, 2012
Agenda Item #: 1
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other: SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING – CLOSED EXECUTIVE SESSION
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Closed Executive Session with attorneys for the purpose of discussing litigation strategy with the
City’s attorney in Jason Martin vs. Officer John Herman.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
No formal action is requested.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
BACKGROUND:
Attorney Jon Iverson and Representatives from LMCIT will update the City Council on this
matter.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
Attachments: None
Prepared by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting Date: August 27, 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 – September 10, 2012
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
The City Council and the City Manager to set the agenda for the regularly scheduled Study
Session on September 10, 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 the regularly scheduled Study Session on September 10, 2012.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
Attachment: Future Study Session Agenda Planning – September 10, 2012
Prepared by: Debbie Fischer, Office Assistant
Approved by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
Study Session Meeting of August 27, 2012 (Item No. 1) Page 2
Subject: Future Study Session Agenda Planning – September 10, 2012
Study Session, September 10, 2012 – 6:30 p.m.
Tentative Discussion Items
1. Future Study Session Agenda Planning – Administrative Services (5 minutes)
2. Navigating the “New Normal” Workshop – Community Development (120 minutes)
A panel of experts assembled and led by the Urban Land Institute Minnesota (ULI MN) will
discuss with the City Council the implications of the dramatic changes in demographics, the
economy and the environment facing the City of St. Louis Park in the years ahead. The
Planning Commission and Housing Authority Board have also been invited to participate in
the workshop.
3. Communications/Meeting Check-In – Administrative Services (5 minutes)
Time for communications between staff and Council will be set aside on every study session
agenda for the purposes of information sharing.
End of Meeting: 8:40 p.m.
Meeting Date: August 27, 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:
Update on Southwest Light Rail Transit (SWLRT)
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Jim Brimeyer will be present to brief Council on SWLRT – particularly from a preliminary
engineering standpoint.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the City Council want any additional information from Mr. Brimeyer?
BACKGROUND:
The next step in the SWLRT (the Greenline) project is Preliminary Engineering. The
Metropolitan Council had issued a Request for Proposal (RFP) for an Engineering Services
Consultant on October 21, 2011. Two proposals were received on December 16, 2011 and a
multi-agency evaluation panel evaluated the submittals. Since that time Met Council has
concluded that the original RFP, which did not call for an independent engineering peer review,
could be improved. They have concluded that it would be better to divide the Preliminary
Engineering project into smaller contracts, rather than a single large contract; and, also to hire an
independent engineering firm to conduct a peer review of the Preliminary Engineering
consultant’s work products. These changes are intended by the Met Council to provide an extra
measure of confidence that the project will be delivered effectively and safely.
In July the Met Council canceled the original Preliminary Engineering RFP/contracting process
and initiated a new process. New Requests for Proposals for Engineering Services have been or
are being issued for consultants to prepare project engineering documents to the 30% completion
level; and, for an independent engineering peer review consultant.
The due date for Preliminary Engineering consultant proposals is October 2, 2012. The intent is
for the contracts to be awarded by December 2012 or January 2013; and work to start in
February 2013.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged community.
Attachments: None
Prepared by: Kevin Locke, Director of Community Development
Approved by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
Meeting Date: August 27, 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:
Solid Waste Collection Program - Plastics Education
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
The purpose of this report is to provide Council information on recycling of plastic materials, as
it relates to the existing residential organized collection program.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the Council need any more information on this item at this time?
BACKGROUND:
History
Over the past 6 months staff has been meeting with Council to review the existing residential
program and discuss what program changes are being proposed with the 2013-2018 single family
and 4-plex residential organized collection program. One item that has been discussed is
expanding the types of materials collected, including plastics. During one of the previous study
sessions, Council requested staff to provide Council with additional plastic recycling education
information.
Collecting Additional Plastics
On May 21, 2012 Council approved the Hennepin County Recycling Grant Agreement for 2012-
2015. This agreement requires the City to adhere to Hennepin County’s Residential Recycling
Funding Policy which requires a minimum list of materials to be collected curbside. Included on
the list are all plastic containers and lids, #1-5. Municipalities have until January 1, 2013, to
implement the terms of the funding policy.
For some time staff has been negotiating for the collection of these additional plastics with
Eureka Recycling in an attempt to conform to these new County requirements (we currently
collect #1-2 plastics bottles with necks). Although hesitant at first, Eureka has agreed to make
the change to collect #1-5 plastics; they have also agreed to collect #7 plastics as well.
#3 and #6 Plastics
There may be some health concerns associated with the manufacture, use, and disposal of #3
plastics. Eureka states #3 plastics cannot be recycled and they have not been able to locate or
develop a domestic end market for #3 plastics, meaning they will most likely end up disposing of
them with their other residuals (garbage) which are taken to the HERC or to a landfill. However,
Hennepin County contends that #3 plastics are recyclable. Staff has had recent conversations
with Waste Management and Allied Waste and both stated they are currently recycling #3
plastics. Staff has done a fair amount of literature research and found #3 plastics to be one of the
less commonly recycled plastics, but it appears there are opportunities to recycle these materials.
It should be said that of the total plastics collected for recycling, #3 plastics are a very small
percentage.
Study Session Meeting of August 27, 2012 (Item No. 3) Page 2
Subject: Solid Waste Collection Program – Plastics Education
Finally, #6 Styrofoam is recyclable only if it is clean. Any contamination prevents its reuse; so
conditional recycling of Styrofoam at drop-off facilities is possible, but curbside collection
currently is not. Staff is not aware of any local haulers collecting Styrofoam curbside.
County Communications Strategy
To minimize confusion over plastics recycling and to maximize recycling quantities, county staff
feels it is best to keep the plastics recycling message simple for residents and simply collect as
many household plastic materials as possible. Waste Management and Allied Waste currently
collect and recycle #1 - #7 household plastics. All plastics that can be recycled are separated as
necessary at collector facilities and sent on for processing. Plastics which can’t be recycled are
sorted out and taken to the HERC or to a landfill. This “new” communications, collection, and
processing strategy spreading across industry does not appear unreasonable to staff.
Plastics Discussion with Industry Experts
In researching best practices associated with recycling, staff has found that there are varied
methods for dealing with plastics collection, reuse, and disposal. In addition, there are possible
health concerns associated with the manufacture, use, and disposal of some plastics.
The composition of plastics is a complex matter, one which city staff’s expertise is somewhat
limited. Therefore, to help Council better understand plastics manufacturing, recycling, re-use,
and marketing, staff has arranged for several industry experts (Wayne Gjerde of MPCA, Paul
Kronig of Hennepin County, and Brian Ukena of Eureka Recycling) to attend the study session
and provide Council with plastics information and answer questions.
Listed below are possible topics or questions that may be discussed:
• What different types of plastics are used for household/consumer goods?
• Until recently, most cities in the Twin Cities only collected #1-2 plastic bottles, what has
changed?
• What plastic types can and can’t be recycled? And why?
• Are all recycling materials collected truly being recycled?
• What is the difference between recycling and re-use? Does it matter?
• Are there end markets for #3, #6 plastics? All plastics?
• Are there health risks associated with #3 plastics? What are they?
• Why doesn’t Hennepin County require collection of #6-7 plastics?
• Discuss local markets vs. international markets for plastic materials.
• Why is it difficult to establish end markets for all recycling materials?
• What is being done on the legislative / manufacturing end to stop or minimize the use of
materials like #3 plastics that have possible health concerns and are more difficult to
recycle?
• What plastics recycling information should be provided to city residents?
Study Session Meeting of August 27, 2012 (Item No. 3) Page 3
Subject: Solid Waste Collection Program – Plastics Education
Listed below are links to articles that Council may be interested in viewing:
1. http://www.ecologycenter.org/ptf/misconceptions.html
2. http://www.eurekarecycling.org/page.cfm?ContentID=126
3. http://www.sustainablecitiesinstitute.org/view/page.basic/class/feature.class/Lesson_Next
_Gen_Curbside_Recycling
4. http://www.recycleyourplastics.org/
5. http://www.ecolife.com/recycling/plastic/guide-to-recycling-plastic.html
6. http://www.ecolife.com/recycling/plastic/how-to-recycle-pvc-plastic-3.html
7. http://www.ecolife.com/recycling/plastic/how-to-recycle-ps-plastic-6.html
8. http://environment.about.com/od/earthtalkcolumns/a/recycleplastics.htm
9. http://earth911.com/recycling/plastic/plastic-containers/
Next Steps
Based on Council direction, the following is planned:
1. Staff will prepare a contract amendment with Eureka Recycling to collect additional
plastic materials as described above (#1 - #5 and #7’s).
2. Staff will work with the City’s Communication Coordinator to prepare an educational plan
to inform residents of the new plastic materials to be collected.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
There will be a cost to the City for Eureka to collect and process additional plastic materials.
This detailed cost will be identified with the contract amendment presented to Council at a future
study session meeting.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
The City’s refuse and recycling activities support or complement the following Strategic
Direction adopted by the City Council.
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.
Focus areas:
• Educating staff / public on environmental consciousness, stewardship, and best practices.
• Working in areas such as…environmental innovations.
Attachments: None
Prepared by: Scott Merkley, Public Works Coordinator
Reviewed by: Michael P. Rardin, Director of Public Works
Approved by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
Meeting Date: August 27, 2012
Agenda Item: 4
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Special Meeting Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Special Session Other:
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Beekeeping in St. Louis Park
POLICY CONSIDERATIONS:
• Should the City of St. Louis Park prohibit or allow residential beekeeping within the city?
• If allowed, to what extent should it be regulated and/or permitted?
• Is further public input desired before the first reading of a draft ordinance?
SUMMARY: There are numerous policy arguments to support both sides of discussion. Those
supporting the practice and for allowing beekeeping in the city point to reasons of environmental
health, local food production, and the personal benefits of the hobby. Those against beekeeping
in the city are concerned with possible safety, maintenance, and nuisance issues.
There are multiple avenues a city can take when deciding how to handle beekeeping. They
include code silence on the issue, outright prohibition, regulated standards and practices, and
permitting/licensing. Some common regulations include hive setbacks, fences, flyway barriers,
water sources, and colony density.
In providing direction to staff on how to proceed in possibly drafting an ordinance for
consideration, Council should determine the desired level of public input in addition to the first
reading public hearing.
VISION CONSIDERATION: “St. Louis Park is committed to being a leader in environmental
stewardship.”
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Provide direction to City Staff on how to continue with drafting
an ordinance prohibiting, regulating, or permitting/licensing beekeeping, or whether to proceed
with no action. Provide further direction on the desired level of public input as discussion
continues.
ATTACHMENTS: Background
Summary of Beekeeping Ordinances
Prepared by: Ray French, Administrative Services Intern
Reviewed by: Ann Boettcher, Inspection Services Manager
Brian Hoffman, Inspections Director
Approved by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
Study Session Meeting of August 27, 2012 Page 2
Title: Beekeeping in St. Louis Park
BACKGROUND
DISCUSSION:
At the June 18, 2012 City Council Meeting, city staff advised the Council that the current City
Code is not clear about whether the raising of honey bees is permitted and that the City has
received questions and complaints about neighbors keeping bee hives. In response to those
concerns, a provision was included in the ordinance amendments before them that prohibited the
keeping of any bee colony or hive in the city. Due to the interest showed by resident beekeepers,
the Council decided further study into the issue was necessary.
Should the City of St. Louis Park prohibit or allow residential beekeeping within the city?
There are numerous factors on both sides of the issue for the Council to consider. Those in favor
of allowing beekeeping point to three primary areas. First, there are concerns over Colony
Collapse Disorder and the rapidly declining bee population. By allowing the keeping of bees, the
city is supporting environmental stewardship and encouraging the development of healthy plants
and wildlife. Additionally, allowing beekeeping promotes local food production (honey) and the
idea of home-grown and sustainable food sources. Lastly, beekeeping is a hobby that brings joy
to its practitioners and provides an ecological service.
Those opposed to residential beekeeping often point to three primary concerns with the practice.
First, some residents may consider beekeeping a nuisance. Issues frequently reported include
“yellow rain” on neighboring cars and patio furniture and a higher frequency of bees on
neighboring property than would normally occur. Another issue can arise if proper maintenance
of the bee colony is not kept. Without proper maintenance, a bee colony can deteriorate in ways
that lead to unhealthy behavior. Lastly, some residents may feel a potential safety issue due to
having such a large number of bees in a high density area.
These factors and concerns should be weighed by the City Council when deciding whether to
prohibit or allow residential beekeeping within the city. Beekeeping is being considered in many
cities and has been approved in Minneapolis, Centerville, and Cold Spring in the last few years.
Stillwater is currently considering a less-restrictive ordinance amendment to allow beekeeping in
the community.
If allowed, to what extent should it be regulated and/or permitted?
The following reflects the four typical methods for addressing beekeeping at the municipal level:
Unregulated:
This is the current state of the City code on beekeeping. Because the City does not classify the
keeping of bees one way or the other, there is a question of whether it is allowed or prohibited
through the code silence. This confusion has led to the current discussion. Some cities do not
discuss beekeeping in their code, either by affirmative choice or because the discussion has not
reached them yet, and include the Cities of Hopkins, Minnetonka, and Inver Grove Heights.
Regulating Standards and Practices
There are numerous strategies for regulating beekeeping that cities have taken. Some of the
primary methods of regulating beekeeping are through hive setbacks, flyway barriers, water
sources, fences, and colony density.
Hive Setbacks: These setbacks can range from 10 feet to 500 feet from the property line. The
most common setback is 25 feet, but is usually in conjunction with requiring a flyway barrier
Study Session Meeting of August 27, 2012 Page 3
Title: Beekeeping in St. Louis Park
when less than 25 feet from the property line. Some ordinances require the hive to be at the
center of the property, furthest away from adjoining property lines.
Flyway Barrier: This would be a natural/vegetative or artificial barrier about six feet tall, usually
within 10 feet of the hive. Many ordinances state that if the hive is less than 25 feet from the
property line, a flyway barrier must be installed. This forces the bees to fly over the neighbor’s
property as it leaves the hive.
Fences: A protective fence would be similar to those required for swimming pools or other
attractive nuisances, and would protect children and pets from inadvertent contact with the bee
hive. A fence can be used a flyway barrier, or it can be within a number of feet to the hive or on
the property line.
Water Source: Many ordinances require the beekeeper to provide a water source, often within 10
feet of the hive, to keep the bees from using other water sources on adjacent properties. These
can be anything from a puddle or bird bath to a swimming pool. By providing a water source
near the hive, the beekeeper reduces the opportunities for bees to interact with neighbors.
Colony Density: As listed on the Summary attachment, there are many different options for
density that a city could choose.
Other lesser-used regulations include requiring varying degrees of neighbor consent and the
opportunity for a hearing if requested by a neighbor or if the city has reason to believe a hive is
not in compliance. Lastly, the Cities of Brooklyn Park and Eagan allow beekeeping only in
agricultural zones of at least twenty and five acres, respectively.
Permitting & Licensing
Requiring some form of permit or license for beekeeping is one of the more widely-used avenues
of regulation. It is a feature of regulatory schemes in Minneapolis and St. Paul, and was recently
enacted in Centerville. As Stillwater is considering amendments to its ordinances on beekeeping,
a permitting process was added by their Planning Commission.
Many cities that require a permit for beekeeping issue annual permits upon certification of
compliance and the paying of an initial, one-time fee. Similarly, an installation permit for the bee
colony could be issued, requiring an inspection and a fee-for-service paid. An option to include
would be requiring the primary beekeeper to provide evidence of training or certification. There
also may be other provisions in the event that the beekeeper intends to sell the honey produced.
Prohibition:
One last way to address the issue of beekeeping is to prohibit the practice within city limits.
Some neighboring cities that currently prohibit the keeping of bees include Edina, Golden
Valley, Maple Grove, Plymouth, and South St. Paul.
Is further public input desired before the first reading of a draft ordinance?
Given the public interest in this issue, the Council may want to consider further opportunities to
gather input from residents and those with an interest in beekeeping prior to the consideration of
a draft ordinance.
NEXT STEPS:
Should the City of St. Louis Park prohibit or allow residential beekeeping within the city?
Study Session Meeting of August 27, 2012 Page 4
Title: Beekeeping in St. Louis Park
If allowed, to what extent should it be regulated and/or permitted?
(a) If the Council decides to prohibit beekeeping, city staff will return with an ordinance
amendment for first reading.
(b) If the Council decides to allow beekeeping, the second question to reach is to what extent
beekeeping should be regulated by the City and which regulations should be included. Staff
recommends that if beekeeping is allowed and regulated by the city, it should be set up in a way
that best protects the rights of property owners on small lots. Staff believes that the best way to
achieve this is in the form of an installation permit. Of the avenues available for regulation, staff
recommends the following requirements for a resident to meet before the permit is issued:
(1) Evidence of training as a beekeeper from an accredited program.
(2) A fee-for-service inspection of the bee colony.
(3) Specific installation requirements:
(a) A colony density similar to the proposed Stillwater ordinance.
(b) A water source must be provided within 10 feet of the hive.
(c) A protective fence either within 10 feet of the hive or on the property line.
(d) A prohibition of beekeeping on multiple family lots.
(e) A prohibition of beekeeping in front yards.
(f) Allowing one nucleus colony for each hive permitted.
(g) A setback requirement, either
(i) 25 feet from adjoining property lines, effectively eliminating beekeeping in most
of the city; or
(ii) if the hive is located less than 25 feet from the lot line, but no closer than 10 feet,
an artificial flyway barrier is required.
If the Council decides to allow beekeeping and regulate the practice through installation permits,
the city staff will return to an upcoming study session with a draft ordinance.
Is further public input desired before the first reading of a draft ordinance?
If the Council decides that additional public input is desired prior to the first reading of a draft
ordinance, staff and the Council can schedule a separate public hearing on the issue.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
If the Council proceeds with the installation permit process, the staff time dedicated to inspecting
bee colonies and issuing permits should be compensated by the fee-for service permit.
Study Session Meeting of August 27, 2012 Page 5
Title: Beekeeping in St. Louis Park
SUMMARY OF BEEKEEPING ORDINANCES
Footnotes 1 No required setback, but if a hive is less than 25 feet from the lot line, a flyway barrier is required.
2 Unless hives are more than 25 feet from lot lines, then no flyway barrier is required.
3 So long as colonies remain active outside the hive.
4 One more hive allowed temporarily if the resident beekeeper is providing swarm services in the City.
5 For each hive permitted, one nucleus colony is also permitted.
6 Beekeeping training required.
7 Self-latching fence at least ten feet from hive area and four to six feet tall.
8 No restrictions if hives set back 200 feet from all property lines or if adjacent property within 200ft is
undeveloped.
9 The hive(s) shall be located in the center of the property furthest away from adjoining property lines.
10 Not allowed on multiple family lots (three or more dwelling units).
11 100 feet from any lot used residentially or platted for future residential use and 150 feet from any
dwelling on a neighboring lot.
12 Not within 50 feet of any occupied dwelling, except the dwelling of the owner, or not within 25 feet of
public property line.
13 No hives in front yards.
City Permit Hive
setback
Fence Flyway
barrier
Water
source
Colony
density
MN Hobby
Beekeeper’s
Model Ord.
No Yes1 No Yes2 Yes3
<0.5 ac = 1
.5 - .75 ac = 2
.75 - 1 ac = 4
1 - 5 ac = 8;
>5 ac = no restriction4, 5
Minneapolis Yes6 Yes1 Yes7 Yes2 Yes3
<0.5 ac = 2
.5 - .75 ac = 4
.75 - 1 ac = 6
1 - 5 ac = 8
>5 ac = discretion4, 5, 8
St. Paul Yes Yes9 Yes7 Yes No 1 hive per 2,000
square feet of lot10
Stillwater
(proposed) Yes6 Yes1 No Yes2 Yes3
<0.5 ac = 1
.5 - .75 ac = 2
.75 - 1 ac = 4
1 - 5 ac = 8;
>5 ac = no restriction10
Bloomington No Yes11 No No No 1 ac per hive10
Centerville Yes 25 feet No No No .5 ac lot minimum,
2 hives maximum
Cold Spring Yes Yes12 Yes7, 13 Yes Yes 2 per parcel or lot4, 5, 10
Milwaukee Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 2 per parcel or lot
Meeting Date: August 27, 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:
Public Safety Software Update
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
No action requested at this time.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does Council wish to have more detailed information provided on the public safety software
situation at this time?
BACKGROUND:
The City of St. Louis Park Police Department has utilized computerized Records and Computer
Aided Dispatch systems since 1984. Later in the 1980’s computerized mobile devices started
being introduced into squads and have since become a standard feature. The CAD system also
serves the St. Louis Park Fire Department as the dispatch operation is part of the Police
Department. Since 1984, the Police Department has collaborated with several other metro area
agencies through the LOGIS consortium (www.logis.org). Such collaboration is designed to
share risks, costs, and information among the participating agencies. Agency representatives
research and select computerized software applications that LOGIS staff is then requested to
implement.
The software applications are replaced periodically as technology changes and more features are
requested. For approximately the last 10 years, the LOGIS police agencies have utilized a
Records – CAD – Mobiles software suite from Motorola. In 2008 the Public Safety Steering
Committee, composed of representatives from several public safety agencies, researched
alternative software packages and recommended acquisition of a new Motorola product that was
still in its development phase. While there were other software packages available at that time,
they either did not meet requirements of the public safety agency collaboration or the price point
was deemed unaffordable. The public safety agency representatives felt the Motorola suite was
the best among a very limited choice in this marketplace.
Following contract execution in 2009, Motorola continued development and began its
implementation of the new software suite code-named Premiere One. Since then, Motorola has
yet to be successful in implementing its software to the satisfaction of the LOGIS public safety
agencies. LOGIS staff is in agreement. In July it reached the point where the LOGIS Board of
Directors authorized staff to provide a notice of default and cure to Motorola relating to the
Premiere One project and take legal actions consistent with termination of the contract. The goal
would be to make LOGIS and member public safety agencies – St. Louis Park is one of about 25
agencies – whole for costs incurred during this project. Obviously, there are many legal steps to
complete in this process.
Study Session of August 27, 2012 (Item No. 5) Page 2
Subject: Public Safety Software Update
Since 2009, several things have evolved:
• First, Motorola has failed in its project implementation. Its promises have not
materialized.
• It appears other software products may have emerged in the public safety software
product arena. St. Louis Park public safety staff has been researching some of these
products.
• It may be that some of these products are more competitively priced than the product
choices in 2008, possibly making it cheaper to be on our own than collaborating with
other agencies. A full accounting of costs and services would be needed on this.
• Based on reviewing other public safety agencies, it seems clear there are companies that
are more reliable than Motorola has been with delivering promised public safety
software.
• It may be that more companies will have offerings for not only Police records systems,
but Fire records systems as well. Those were also very few in 2008, and could provide a
rise in software service levels for Fire as well.
• It may be that the advantage of sharing data across public safety agencies is not as critical
as it was once perceived to be. This is especially true as the State has evolved its own
data repository.
• As the number of collaborating public safety agencies has grown and St. Louis Park’s
business needs have diverged from those of other agencies, St. Louis Park Police
Department staff feel it may make more sense to be on our own for public safety software
(like Edina or Eden Prairie, as a couple examples), rather than collaborate with a larger
group of agencies. That said, Police may be interested forming a partnership with
Minnetonka and maybe others with whom we share a more common business process
(and therefore software application) in public safety.
For many of the same reasons stated above, it is likely that some remaining public safety
agencies collaborating through LOGIS will continue to work together to adopt a replacement
public safety software suite of products. To be sure, there are many other LOGIS infrastructure
services that hold value and need to be part of our own longer-term analysis. Still, St. Louis Park
Police staff feel that process may well take longer than the department wishes to wait, especially
given the almost 3 years since the contract with Motorola was signed, and possibly be more
expensive overall.
At the direction of the City Manager, the Police Department staff is currently identifying
consultants who could assist the Police Department in developing an RFP that ensures its
business process needs can be addressed by proposals for a replacement system. This will allow
us to test the marketplace and compare the value propositions offered by current vendor products
and products / packages that could be obtained through the larger consortium. Further, St. Louis
Park and Minnetonka agency staff have met. The respective city managers are planning to meet
on options as well. Following that analysis, a subsequent report (and possible request to enter
into a contract) will be submitted to the City Council.
It should be noted that while this entire analysis is carried out and completed, LOGIS will
continue to provide services with the existing Records – CAD – Mobiles software suite for St.
Louis Park. While this suite does not include all features agencies, including St. Louis Park, feel
are needed to meet current and emerging business needs, the city is not currently in danger of
losing existing capabilities to support Police and Fire functions and serve our constituents.
Study Session of August 27, 2012 (Item No. 5) Page 3
Subject: Public Safety Software Update
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Funds for the possible acquisition of a new public safety software suite and the potential to
replace some other services Police currently share through the LOGIS consortium have been
included in the 2013 Capital Replacement Fund
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
Attachments: None
Prepared by: Clint Pires, Chief Information Officer
Reviewed by: John Luse, Police Chief
Approved by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
Meeting Date: August 27, 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:
Breck School – Private Activity Revenue Note, Series 2012A
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
None at this time. This report is intended to update City Council on a request from Breck School
to issue private activity revenue bonds for the construction of improvements to the school facility.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
The proposed process is consistent with the City’s approved policy for issuing/refunding private
activity revenue bonds. Does the City Council have any questions or concerns with issuing the
private activity revenue bonds as proposed?
BACKGROUND:
Breck School plans to demolish the existing upper school, previously Golden Valley High School,
and build a new upper school. The project also includes modernizing the school's science
facilities. The construction started this summer and will be complete before the 2013-2014 school
year begins. Breck School is located in Golden Valley and draws students from many of the
western suburbs, including the City of Minnetonka and the City of St. Louis Park. The City of
Minnetonka will be issuing $6,500,000 in bonds and the City of St. Louis Park is also being asked
to issue $6,500,000 in bonds to help finance the project. This is an acceptable joint effort for
Breck School, the City of Minnetonka and the City of St. Louis Park to participate in. The bonds
will be bought by U.S. Bank National Association in a negotiated sale.
The synopsis of the process for issuing these bonds will include this Study Session report on
August 27, 2012. Next, if City Council has no objections based on the report, a public hearing which
is proposed for the regular City Council meeting of September 24, 2012 will be conducted. After
the public hearing is closed, the City Council will be asked to consider a resolution authorizing
issuance of the bonds and the execution of related documents. If the City Council approves the
resolution, this would allow the bonds to be issued on a date agreed upon by the parties.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Breck School will provide the City with an application for Private Activity Bond Issue, which will
be on file in the City Clerk’s office, along with the required fee of $2,500 in accordance with the
City’s policy. These bonds are not obligations of the City in any respect, but rather are payable
solely from revenues of Breck School. They will also pay a fee of 1/8th of one percent in two
semi-annual payments to the City based on the amount of bonds outstanding each year. These
monies will be deposited in the City’s Housing Rehabilitation Fund.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
By working with other entities such as Breck School, the City of St. Louis Park is demonstrating
its commitment to being a connected and engaged community.
Attachment: Letter from Kennedy & Graven, Chartered, Outlining Entire Process
Prepared by: Brian A. Swanson, Controller
Approved by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
Study Session Meeting of August 27, 2012 (Item No. 6)
Subject: Breck School – Private Activity Revenue Note, Series 2012A Page 2
Study Session Meeting of August 27, 2012 (Item No. 6)
Subject: Breck School – Private Activity Revenue Note, Series 2012A Page 3
Meeting Date: August 27, 2012
Agenda Item #: 7
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:
2012 Semi-Annual Housing Programs Report
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
The purpose of this report is to update to the Council on housing programs and activity. This
report is informational and no action is required.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
None at this time. Please let staff know of any comments or questions you might have.
BACKGROUND:
The Semi-Annual Report of Housing Programs and Activity with its attached Housing Matrix
has been presented to council since 2005. The Executive Summary provides a quick review of
the detailed report. Most notable for the first half of 2012 is that the apartment construction
building boom is underway with over 400 units under construction, and that residents are
continuing to improve their homes despite the economy.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable
VISION CONSIDERATION:
The City’s housing programs meet St. Louis Park’s Vision commitment to provide a well-
maintained and diverse housing stock; and to incorporate and provide incentives for “green”
building design; and provide affordable ownership opportunities.
Attachments: Semi-Annual Housing Programs Report - 2012
Prepared by: Kathy Larsen, Housing Programs Coordinator
Reviewed by: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
Housing Activity Report, June 30, 2012
1
Semi - Annual Housing Programs Report – June 2012
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this report is to apprise City policy makers of housing program activity in the
first half of 2012. The report provides historical trends and program descriptions. Below are key
points of 2012, with details following this summary.
1. Remodeling Activity
• Residents continue to maintain and invest in their properties; the 2012 projects are lower
in cost and most are financed without using city loans.
• Use of the city’s technical and design services equals and exceeds last year. Since
March, 60 home energy visits have been conducted through the new Community Energy
Services Program.
• Home additions and major remodeling projects have slowed to a rate 40% less than the
recession years of 2009-11, and the Move-Up Loan activity mirrors this slow-down of
additions.
• Discount Loan use is on pace with 2011, but slow compared to a five year average. Our
lender confirms that more SLP loans were closed in the first half of the year than any of
the other 18 cities they service. Slow lending reflects moderate-income households’
reluctance to take on additional housing debt at this time.
2. Affordable Home Ownership and Public Housing Update
• Preservation of 326 modest valued condos/townhomes at Greensboro Square and
Westwood Villa is occurring with city HIA loans. Seven HIAs have been established to
date, and Cedar Trails, the first, is scheduled to terminate in 2012.
• Live Where You Work, the homebuyer’s assistance program, activity reflects the slow
housing market; thirteen homebuyers used the program since it began in spring 2009, one
in 2012.
• Homes within Reach has provided affordable ownership for one low income family in
SLP so far in 2012.
• Habitat for Humanity celebrated their 2000th MN home, at the 3317 Texas Ave property
where Senator Franken participated in the work and celebration on August 15th. This is
the 9th Habitat home in SLP since 1999.
• The SLP Housing Authority has high occupancy and long waiting lists.
3. Housing Matrix
• St. Louis Park is experiencing a multifamily construction boom, over 400 apartment units
are under construction with plans for 58 more units at Ellipse 2.
• 22 rental townhomes are being constructed.
• 6 new large sf homes are being built, 5 of which are “ teardowns/rebuilds”.
4. Foreclosures The 2012 foreclosure rate is slowing, so far in 2012 there have been 65
foreclosures compared to 163 in 2011. Condo foreclosures are down even more, only 12 so
far this year compared to almost 100 in the previous 2 years.
Study Session Meeting of August 27, 2012 (Item No. 7)
Subject: 2012 Semi-Annual Housing Programs Report Page 2
Housing Activity Report, June 30, 2012
2
1. REMODELING ACTIVITY
Residential permitted activity measures remodeling and maintenance activity, this section shows
historical trends of remodeling activity.
Permit Trends
• “Alteration Residential” or general remodeling
The chart below shows the trend line of increasing general remodeling activity over time.
This work includes projects with permit valuations less than $37,500, (the average value per
job is approximately $7,000) and includes:
o remodeling of bathrooms and kitchens;
o finishing basement and attic space, porches
o conversion of existing space to bathrooms,
o window and door replacements, insulation,
o drain tile work, steps and foundation work.
This trend line below reflects: residents’ willingness to preserve and update housing; the
impact of the city’s proactive housing improvement assistance; and the ongoing needs of
older housing stock. General remodeling activity to date is on pace to match 2011.
Chart 1. Trend of Maintenance & Minor Remodeling Permits Since 2005
471 517
785 797
971 869
1129
463
0
500
1000
1500
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
1st
HalfNumber of Permits IssuedYear
Maintenance & Minor Remodeling Permits
Alteration Residential
• Roofing and siding activity
Roofing and siding permits are tracked separately. This chart illustrates the impact of storm
damage in 2008-9 and again in 2011. Almost 60% of the homes in the city have had roofs
replaced from 2008-2011. It is likely the number of reroofs will be low for the next decade
or so, as reflected by less than 60 in 2012.
Trend Line
Study Session Meeting of August 27, 2012 (Item No. 7)
Subject: 2012 Semi-Annual Housing Programs Report Page 3
Housing Activity Report, June 30, 2012
3
Chart 2. Roofing and Siding Permits Since 2005
• Additions and Major Remodeling
Unlike the maintenance and minor remodeling activity, residential additions and major
remodeling activity has slowed in the first half of 2012 as illustrated in the following chart.
If this pattern holds, 2012 activity will be down about 40% from previous years.
Chart 3. Number of Addition and Major Remodeling Permits Since 2005
• Permit Valuation 2005 – 1st half 2012
The 2012 valuation for single family remodeling activity is about the same or slightly ahead
of the 1st half of 2011. The following chart shows historical remodeling permit valuation for
additions, major remodels, remodeling and maintenance, garages/decks, re-roofs, and siding.
Additional permits with additional valuations were issued for plumbing, heating, and
electrical work.
55
86
102 89
55
40
48
14
45 50 50 46 50 53
46 14
0
40
80
120
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
1st HalfNumber of Permits IssuedYear
Addition and Major Remodel Permit Activity
Addition Residential Major Remodels
202 216 355
845
201
761
56
85 66 84
573 332
117 117 400
500
1000
1500
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
1st
HalfNumber of Permits IssuedYear
Roofing and Siding Permits
Reroof Reside
Roofing permits (4,828) were
off the chart in 2008.
Study Session Meeting of August 27, 2012 (Item No. 7)
Subject: 2012 Semi-Annual Housing Programs Report Page 4
Housing Activity Report, June 30, 2012
4
As the chart illustrates permit valuation varies significantly from year to year, but, with the
exception of the “year of the hail damage repairs” (2008), valuation has ranged between $14
and $27 million. This year is expected to be similar.
Chart 4. Permitted Residential Remodeling Since 2005
City Housing Improvement Services, Loans Trends and Program Descriptions
• Home Improvement Services.
Use of the city’s technical services is ahead of use in the 1st half of 2011. So far 44
remodeling advisor visits have been conducted; the architectural design service is on pace to
exceed the three previous years; and the Community Energy Services, Home Energy Visits
have been used by 60 residents since implementation in March.
Chart 5. Technical, Design and Energy Conservation Services Since 2005
$14
$15
$23
$68
$27
$17
$26
$8
0
20
40
60
80
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
1st HalfPermit Valuation -Million $Year
Residential Remodeling Permit Valuation
68
102
62 48 32 30 29
22
221
157 179
130 126
89 82
44
60
0
50
100
150
200
250
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 1st Half
2012Number of VisitsYear
Technical Home Improvement Services
Architect Services Remodeling Advisor Home Energy Visits
Study Session Meeting of August 27, 2012 (Item No. 7)
Subject: 2012 Semi-Annual Housing Programs Report Page 5
Housing Activity Report, June 30, 2012
5
• Home Remodeling Fair and Tour Trend
Both the Home Remodeling Fair and Tour attracted as many residents as ever; 396 – 500
residents visited each of the five tour homes; and approximately 1,500 attended the Annual
Fair.
• City Loan and Rebate Trends
The following chart shows that the number of Move Up loans, Discount loans and rebates
issued in recent years. The number of discount loans, ten, is consistent with 2011 activity.
CEE notes that home improvement loan use is slow in their service area. The number of
Move Up loans is down significantly in 2012 so fare. There also has been a drop-off in use
of energy rebates no doubt reflecting the economy.
Chart 6. Use of City Financial Incentives Since 2005
Study Session Meeting of August 27, 2012 (Item No. 7)
Subject: 2012 Semi-Annual Housing Programs Report Page 6
Housing Activity Report, June 30, 2012
6
Summary of Move-Up Activity Loan and Service Costs Since 2005
The following table provides a snapshot of participation and costs of the city incented home improvement programs and services since
2005.
Study Session Meeting of August 27, 2012 (Item No. 7)
Subject: 2012 Semi-Annual Housing Programs Report Page 7
Housing Activity Report, June 30, 2012
7
2. AFFORDABLE HOME OWNERSHIP, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK
GRANTS AND PUBLIC HOUSING UPDATE
Live Where You Work
The Live Where You Work Homebuyer Assistance Program began in spring 2009. The goal is
to promote home ownership within the City among employees of St. Louis Park businesses.
The city provides a deferred loan of $2,500 to an eligible employee and an additional $1,000 is
provided to employees purchasing vacant lender owned foreclosed properties. Employers are
invited to contribute a matching or lesser amount to the City’s contribution. The deferred loan
will be forgiven after 3 years if the employee continues to work for the employer and meets
other qualification requirements. The City contracts with CEE for loan administration. One
homebuyer has used this program in the 2012, for a total of thirteen participants to date.
Housing Improvement Area (HIA)
The HIA is a finance tool to assist with the preservation of the city’s existing housing stock. An
HIA is a defined area within a city where housing improvements are made and the cost of the
improvements are paid in whole or in part from fees imposed on the properties within the area.
The Association borrows low interest money from the City; improvements are completed; and
unit owners repay the loan through fees imposed on their properties, and collected with property
tax payments.
The first HIA was established in 2002, to date, seven HIA’s have been established and over ten
million dollar of improvements has been made to 792 units. Greensboro Condos HIA was
established in 2011, and improvements totaling nearly $4,000,000 are being completed this year.
Westwood Villa Association HIA will begin construction in July, 2012, for $1,400,000 worth of
improvements.
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
Activity completed in 2012 was funded with 2011 CDBG funds. Approximately $180,000,
funded improvements to a SLP Housing Authority home, the single family low-income
homeowner’s emergency repair and loan programs, Homes within Reach, STEP’s roof
replacement and Park & Rec Summer Youth Programming.
West Hennepin Affordable Housing Land Trust, aka Homes Within Reach (HWR).
Homes within Reach is a program of West Hennepin Housing Land Trust that purchases homes
and sells them to low income homebuyers. Buyers pay for the cost of the building only and lease
the land for 99 years. City funds are leveraged with Met Council and county HOME and AHIF
funds. Since the program began in 2007, nine homes have been sold to low income families,
one occurred in 2012. Typically WHAHLT does 1 or 2 homes each year in SLP.
Twin Cities Habitat for Humanity
The city has partnered with Habitat over the years to acquire nine blighted properties for rehab
or tear-down for new construction. In 2011 the city assisted Habitat with the purchase of one
property, with construction scheduled to be complete fall 2012.
Study Session Meeting of August 27, 2012 (Item No. 7)
Subject: 2012 Semi-Annual Housing Programs Report Page 8
Housing Activity Report, June 30, 2012
8
3. HOUSING MATRIX
The housing matrix shows at a glance the numbers and percentages of housing types, tenure
(owner or non-homesteaded), affordable units, senior designated units and large single family
homes. The matrix is a guide to evaluate future housing development proposals. The attached
matrix is updated semi-annually and presented to the City Council, Housing Authority and
Planning Commission and following are housing change highlights of the first half of 2012.
2012 1st Half Highlights
• Multifamily residential building boom, over 400 units under construction and plans
underway for another 58 units.
• Six new large single family homes are under construction, five of which were tear downs.
• Single family home expansions and major remodels are on pace to be 40% lower than
previous years.
• The percentage of owner occupied (homesteaded) units has dropped one percent in the 1st
half of this year. The citywide ratio of homestead to non-homestead property is 57/43.
• The chart shows percentages of homesteaded residential units over time. In the first half of
2012, 92% of single family detached homes are owner occupied and 74% of
condos/townhomes are owner occupied. Considering the ongoing volatile housing market,
owner occupancy in SLP is remaining relatively stable.
Chart 7. Percentage Owner Occupied Units since 2006
• The SLPHA 2011 Rental Study cites the St. Louis Park 2011 vacancy rate at 3.5%, which is
quite low. By the 2nd quarter of 2012, the regional rental vacancy was 2.7% (Star Tribune
7/25/12).
• Rental of duplexes remains strong and reflects strong rental market – 66% of the duplex units
are currently rental.
• There are approximately 2,300 non-homesteaded single family, condo/townhome and
duplexes. Many of the non-homesteaded units are owned by “snowbirds”, or occupied by the
owners’ family members.
Study Session Meeting of August 27, 2012 (Item No. 7)
Subject: 2012 Semi-Annual Housing Programs Report Page 9
Housing Activity Report, June 30, 2012
9
Large Single Family Homes
One of the City’s housing goals is to increase the number of larger homes available in the city.
The following charts illustrate expansion and new construction activity since we began tracking
this in 2005. In the first half of 2012, 20 large homes have been added; 6 are new construction, 5
of which are “tear-downs” and 14 existing homes added significant expansions.
Chart 8. Single Family New Construction and Expansions by Year
“Large single family homes” are being defined as exceeding 1,500 square feet of living space,
having 3 or more bedrooms, 2 or more baths and at minimum a 2 car garage. According to SLP
Assessing Department* there are now 2,010, or 17% of SLP single family homes that meet this
threshold. Although this size home is not considered large when compared to new housing, it is
when compared to SLP homes where 75% are less than 1,200 square feet.
*Our property assessment data systems have become more accurate over the years and Assessing
is confident this number is reflective of the number of “larger single family homes”.
Affordable Housing
Thirty-nine percent of the total city housing stock is considered affordable. The Met Council
revised the affordability guideline in 2011. The new affordable guideline is that housing is
affordable to households with incomes at or below 60% median area income, ($50,350 family of
four) paying thirty percent of their income for housing costs whether renting or owning. The
previous guideline was 50% MAI for rental, and 80% MAI for ownership.
Owner Occupied
• The 2012 affordable ownership purchase price is $171,500 or less.
• Based on the new guideline or 60% MAI versus 80% MAI there are significantly fewer
owner occupied homes considered affordable than in 2010.
• Yet, in 2012 the number of homes considered affordable increased more than 1,600 units due
to decreased estimated market values of lower priced single family homes and
condominiums.
Study Session Meeting of August 27, 2012 (Item No. 7)
Subject: 2012 Semi-Annual Housing Programs Report Page 10
Housing Activity Report, June 30, 2012
10
Rental
• The 2012 affordable monthly rent including utilities for a 2 bedroom apartment for a family
of four is $1,134.
• There is an estimated minimum of 5,318 affordable rental units – including known
subsidized units and estimated market rate units.
• The estimated number of market rate affordable rental units is based on the SLPHA Rental
Study. The 2011 Study represents responses from 96% of the multiple family units and 87%
of the buildings, which is a significantly higher response rate than in previous years, still this
number does not represent all the rental units in SLP.
Table 2. Comparison of Affordable Units from 2010 - 2012
2010
Guideline
2010
Numbers
2011
Guideline
2011
Numbers
2012
Guideline
2012
Number
Affordable
Ownership
Units
$233,100* 8,581 $160,250*
2,264 $171,500*
3,876
Affordable
Rental Units
Estimated &
Subsidized
$943** 3,734
$1,116**
4,138 $1,134**
5,318
Totals 11,261 6,402 9,194***
*House Value
** Monthly rent of 2BR apartment and family of 4.
*** 9,194 units represents 39% of total city housing units
Study Session Meeting of August 27, 2012 (Item No. 7)
Subject: 2012 Semi-Annual Housing Programs Report Page 11
Housing Activity Report, June 30, 2012
11
4. RELATED ISSUES
Foreclosures
Foreclosures are measured by the number of sheriff sales. The rate of residential foreclosures is
lower in the first half of 2012 with 65 sales, than the two previous years, matching the metro
area trend of fewer foreclosures. Ongoing foreclosures are primarily related to loss of
employment and underemployment. The chart below shows foreclosures since tracking began in
2006.
Chart 10. St. Louis Park Residential Foreclosures by Year 2006 - 2011
Along with an overall slowing of residential foreclosures, the pace of the condominium
foreclosures has slowed as noted in the trend chart below which shows foreclosure by housing
type over time. In the previous 2 years there were almost 100 condo foreclosures, so far in 2012
there have been twelve.
Chart 11. Residential Foreclosures by Housing Type
76 87
133
92 111
163
65
0
40
80
120
160
200
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 1st Half
2012Number of Sherrif Sales Year
Residential Foreclosures by Year
Study Session Meeting of August 27, 2012 (Item No. 7)
Subject: 2012 Semi-Annual Housing Programs Report Page 12
Housing Activity Report, June 30, 2012
12
Property Work Group
The City’s Property Watch Team, developed in 2006, monitors foreclosure activity and problem
properties. Staff from all departments track, monitor and respond to issues related to problem
foreclosed homes. The goal of this effort is to ensure that vacant, foreclosed homes do not
become “problem properties.” Inspections Department follows-up with vacant foreclosed
properties through the Property Maintenance Inspection process and complaints and works with
bankers, investors and the managing companies. In addition to the City’s concerted efforts,
bankers and lenders have become far more proactive in ensuring their investments are
maintained.
The city continues to promote the foreclosure prevention services provided by Community
Action Partnership of Suburban Hennepin County and Home Ownership Center through direct
mailings, Park Perspective, City’s social media and staff referrals.
Louisiana Court Update
As of December 2011, PPL/Louisiana Court is near 100% occupancy. This is continuing in
2012 as Metro Plains Management Company assumed property management of PPL’s Louisiana
Court complex in June 2011. Due to the continuing high occupancy at the development, use of
the Shallow Rent Subsidy Program has not been necessary.
Study Session Meeting of August 27, 2012 (Item No. 7)
Subject: 2012 Semi-Annual Housing Programs Report Page 13
Housing Activity Report, June 30, 2012
13
5. ST. LOUIS PARK HOUSING AUTHORITY UPDATE
The Housing Authority administers programs that ensure the availability of safe and desirable
housing options in the St. Louis Park community. These programs include the Public Housing
program, Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher rental assistance program, Shelter Plus Care rental
assistance program, Louisiana Court Max 200 Rental Assistance Program, and TRAILS family
self-sufficiency program. The Authority currently serves over 500 eligible, low-income
households through their housing programs.
Public Housing
The HA owns a low-rise apartment building (108 one-bedroom units and 2 two-bedroom
caretaker units) built in 1975, and 37 scattered site single-family units (3 to 5 bedrooms)
acquired and constructed between 1974 and 1996. Although the low-rise building is designated
for general occupancy, priority is given to elderly and disabled. The single-family scattered units
house families with children. The HA also holds the HUD Annual Contributions Contract
(ACC) and maintains a waiting list for 12 two-bedroom Public Housing apartment units located
at Louisiana Court. These units are owned and managed by Project for Pride in Living. The
units and occupancy rates for the Public Housing units are noted in the table.
Public Housing Total
Units
1-BR 2-BR 3-BR 4-BR 5-BR Occupancy
June 30,
2012
Hamilton House 108 108 100%
Scattered Site Single
Family
37 0 0 17 17 3 99%
Louisiana Court,
Metropolitan Housing
Opportunity (MHOP) Units
12
12
99%
Total (bedroom size) 108 12 17 17 3
Total 157
Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program
The HA is funded to administer up to 268 Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers. The rent
assistance program provides rent subsidies for low-income individuals and families in privately
owned, existing market rate housing units. The rent subsidy is paid directly to the owner of the
rental property by the HA with funds provided by HUD. The HA offers both tenant-based and
project-based vouchers. Forty vouchers of the HA’s allocation are designated for use in three
privately owned developments (Excelsior & Grand, Vail Place and Wayside) and are referred to
as project-based vouchers.
Shelter Plus Care
The Shelter Plus Care Program is designed to link rental assistance with supportive services for
hard-to-reach homeless persons with disabilities (primarily those who are seriously mentally ill
or have chronic problems with alcohol, drugs or both) and their families. Grants are provided to
be used for permanent housing which must be matched with supportive services that are equal in
value to the amount of rental assistance and appropriate to the needs of population to be served.
Study Session Meeting of August 27, 2012 (Item No. 7)
Subject: 2012 Semi-Annual Housing Programs Report Page 14
Housing Activity Report, June 30, 2012
14
St. Louis Park is the grant recipient and we partner with three sponsor organizations that
administer supportive housing programs. * Beginning in 2012, CIP and Perspective grants
provide funding for up to five units of Shelter Plus Care Rental Assistance at Wayside House.
Wayside House’s Project Based units were decreased by five units to fifteen.
Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers
(HUD Approved)
Units Utilization YTD
June 30, 2012
Tenant-Based (49 are Port-Outs) 219 100%
Tenant-Based Port - Ins 44 Avg./month
Project-Based: 37
Wayside House 12 80%
Excelsior & Grand 18 100%
Vail Place 7 100%
Shelter Plus Care Rental Assistance: 40
Perspectives Inc. 11 100%
Community Involvement Program (CIP) –
Scattered Site Homes
8
92%
CIP- Clear Spring Road 8 96%
Project for Pride In Living (PPL) 8 98%
*Wayside House 5 80%
Total 377
Waiting Lists
Assisted Housing Waiting List as of June 30, 2012
Public
Housing
1-BR 1-BR
Handicap
2-BR 3-BR 3-BR
Handicap
4-BR 5-BR Total
985 86 329 293 7 13 14 1727
Section 8 473
Excelsior &
Grand
79
MAX 200 80
Study Session Meeting of August 27, 2012 (Item No. 7)
Subject: 2012 Semi-Annual Housing Programs Report Page 15
Housing Activity Report, June 30, 2012
15
6. PROGRAM DESCRIPTIONS
Technical, Design and Conservation Services
Architectural Design Service Description
This service provides an architectural consultation for residents to assist with brainstorming
remodeling possibilities and to raise the awareness of design possibilities for expansions.
Residents select an approved architect from a pool developed in conjunction with the MN
Chapter of the American Institute of Architects. All homeowners considering renovations are
eligible for this service regardless of income, however to ensure committed participants,
residents make a $25 co-pay.
Remodeling/Rehab Advisor
The intention of this service is to help residents improve their homes (either maintenance or
value added improvements) by providing technical help before and during the construction
process. All homeowners are eligible for this service regardless of income. Resident surveys
indicated that homeowners valued the service and would recommend it to others. The City
contracts with the Center for Energy and Environment (CEE) for this service.
CES Home Energy Service Home Visit
CES is a comprehensive one-stop residential energy program designed to help residents save
energy. It moves beyond the traditional energy audit to include free neighborhood presentations
on how to save energy and money and offers a customized home energy visit. Unlike a typical
utility energy audit, the home visit includes installation of energy efficient: compact fluorescent
light bulbs, programmable thermostats, faucet aerators, high efficiency showerheads, pipe wrap,
water heater blankets, weather-stripping and more. Residents can opt for diagnostic services that
include a blower door test to measure air infiltration into the home and a gas appliances
combustion safety test. The analysis report provides residents with three actionable, practical
steps they can take to reduce their home energy use. The service also provides information about
recommended contractors, 0% interest energy loans, and assistance in securing utility and city
rebates.
The program began in March, 2012, is administered by the Center for Energy and Environment
(CEE). The city pays $60 per resident visit which is leveraged with funds from Xcel Energy,
Center Point Energy and CEE. After the pilot year, 2012, an evaluation will be conducted to
determine if the program continues.
Annual Home Remodeling Fair
The cities and community education departments of St. Louis Park, Hopkins, Minnetonka and
Golden Valley co-sponsor the fair. The fair provides residents an opportunity to attend seminars,
talk with vendors and city staff about permits, zoning, home improvement loans, and
environmental issues related to remodeling. The fair is a self-sustaining event and vendor
registration fees cover the costs.
Study Session Meeting of August 27, 2012 (Item No. 7)
Subject: 2012 Semi-Annual Housing Programs Report Page 16
Housing Activity Report, June 30, 2012
16
Home Remodeling Tour
The annual tour is designed to meet the housing goal to remodel and expand single family owner
occupied homes. The self-guided tour of six homes provides a showcase of a variety of home
remodeling projects to provide ideas, information and inspiration to other residents considering
remodeling.
Financial Programs
Discount Loan Program
This program encourages residents to improve their homes by “discounting” the interest rate on
the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency (MN Housing) home improvement loans. Residents
with incomes of $67,200 or less qualify for a greater discount than those with incomes of
$96,500 or less. Eligible improvements include most home improvement projects with the
exception of luxury items such as pools and spas.
The City contracts with CEE for loan administration. Implementation of discounting of MHFA
loans began in late 1999 as a pilot project. Successful marketing efforts have led the City to be
third among all Minnesota cities to use the MHFA loans, only exceeded by Minneapolis and St.
Paul.
Move – Up Transformation Loan
The purpose of this loan is to encourage residents with incomes at or below 120% of median area
income ($100,700 for a family of four) to expand their homes. The program provides deferred
loans for 25% of the applicant’s home expansion project cost, with a maximum loan of $25,000.
The revolving loan pool which will continue to fund future expansions; four loans have been
repaid when residents moved, for a total of approximately $120,000.
This loan requires significant upfront work by the residents, from deciding on the scope of the
project to selecting contractors. Loan guidelines are:
• Only residents making significant expansions are eligible. The minimum project cost must
exceed $35,000.
• The maximum loan amount is $25,000.
• The loan has 0% interest with a carrying cost fee of 3% paid by the borrower which covers
the lender’s administrative fee.
Green Remodeling Program & Energy Rebates
Revisions to the Green Remodeling Program included implementation of the Community Energy
Services program, use of energy rebates, and access to CEE’s Home Energy Loan. The city
provides a match of 50% of gas and electric utility rebates for energy efficient furnaces, water
heaters and air conditioners. In 2012 rebates were expanded to include qualifying air sealing and
insulation. The use of rebate incentives is slowing in 2012. The average rebate was $184, for a
total City cost of $4,042. In 2012, CEE provided 2 0% interest loans to residents making
qualifying energy improvements.
Study Session Meeting of August 27, 2012 (Item No. 7)
Subject: 2012 Semi-Annual Housing Programs Report Page 17
St. Louis Park Housing Types, Numbers and Percentages
HOUSING MATRIX
June 30, 2012
Housing Type
Net Units
added
1/1/12-
6/30/2012
# Units % Units # Units
Single Family
Detached 11,613 49%1
Duplex 424 2%0
Condos and
townhomes*3429 15% 22
Apartments 7959 34% 412
COOPs 121 1%0
Total 23,546 100% 435 13,458 57% 10088 43% 2,010 9% 3,876 16% 4185 18% 1133 5% 1029 4%
** Reported Affordable Market Rate Rental Units - based on 2011 SLPHA Rental Study with responses representing 96% of the mf units and 87% of the mf buildings
Data source: SLP Community Development, Development Activity in St. Louis Park, SLP Inspections and Assessing.
2,030
2
1,844
Large Family Homes, Affordable and Senior Housing
0
Large Family
Home - 1,500 sq
ft., 3+Bedrooms,
2+ Bath & 2+ Car
Garage
#
2,010
Housing Units
Public Subsidized
Affordable Units,
Includes Section 8
Housing Units
Owner
Occupied
(Homestead)
Non Home-
steaded
and/or
Rental
##
2011 Affordable
Market Rate
Units Owner
Occupied
950
278
901
7959
Senior
Designated
2011 Reported
Affordable
Market Rate
Rental Units **
#
0
0
0167
3,909
0
53
56
Housing Production by Type
##
1036
#
5510,663
146
2528
0
In 2011 the Met Council revised the affordable housing income standard. Rather than using 50% MAI for rental, and the 80% MAI for ownership, the new affordable
definition is that housing is affordable to households with incomes at or below 60% MAI ($50,350 family of four) paying thirty percent of their income for housing
costs whether renting or owning. The 2012 affordable purchase price is $171,500 or less and the a monthly rent of $1,1134, or less for a 2 bedroom apartment for a
family of four is considered affordable.
The percentage of owner occupied (homesteaded) units to rental or non owner occupied (non- homestead) units has shifted from the 60 homesteaded/40 non-
homesteaded ratio of the early 2000's. This is due in part to a change in homestead status of approx. 1,200 units since early 2000's and addition of new mf rental
units. *Total condo/townhome units adjusted per Assessing data.
42121
923
1060
08/22/2012
Study Session Meeting of August 27, 2012 (Item No. 7) Subject: 2012 Semi-Annual Housing Programs Report Page 18
Meeting Date: August 27, 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:
Business Park Rezoning Process Update
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
None.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the City Council have any questions or concerns about the proposed process for
consideration of rezoning parcels into the new Business Park Zoning District?
BACKGROUND:
The City Council adopted the new Business Park Zoning District in April, 2012, and the
ordinance went into effect in June. During the ordinance discussion, the City Council directed
Staff to develop a process for rezoning parcels into the new Zoning District. That process will
begin with meetings between business and property owners and Staff to explain the new Zoning
District; two larger open-house meetings have been scheduled for mid-September.
Business Park Zoning Summary
The Business Park Zoning District is based on the recommendations of the 2030 Comprehensive
Plan. The intent statements from the Comprehensive Plan regarding the new district are:
• Encouraging the creation of significant employment centers that accommodate a diverse
mix of office and light industrial uses and jobs.
• Application of the category for larger sites that can be redeveloped to provide:
§ A greater diversity of jobs
§ Higher development densities and jobs per acre
§ Higher quality site and building architectural design
§ Increased tax revenues for the community
• Appropriate uses may include office, office showroom-warehousing, research and
development services, light and high-tech electronic manufacturing and assembly, and
medical laboratories.
• Some retail and service uses may be allowed as supporting uses for the primary office
and light industrial uses of the employment center.
The district is something of a hybrid between the Industrial Park and Office districts, as it would
allow for some light assembly and manufacturing, but has a greater emphasis on office and
medical office types of uses. A summary table of uses is included as an attachment.
Communication Process
In the 2030 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map, there are 57 properties guided for future
Business Park use. Between those parcels, there are 41 separate owners; because of the
important role the Zoning Ordinance plays in the use of any individual parcel, communication
Study Session Meeting of August 27, 2012 (Item No. 8) Page 2
Subject: Business Park Rezoning Process Update
with each property owner is important through the rezoning process. Two open house meetings
with property owners / businesses have been scheduled:
• Tuesday, September 11, 10:00 AM to 11:30 AM
• Wednesday, September 12, 4:00 PM to 5:30 PM
The property owners will receive two notifications about the meetings, and follow up will be
completed with any owners who do not attend or otherwise contact Staff.
Beyond the property owners, invitations to the open houses will also be extended to the
neighborhood leaders for all neighborhoods located near the parcels under consideration for
rezoning. Neighborhoods to be included are Triangle, Wolfe Park, Minikahda Oaks, Elmwood,
South Oak Hill, Meadowbrook, and Brooklawns. A map is included depicting the
neighborhoods.
Following the open house meetings, the rezoning issue will be brought before the City Council at
a study session for discussion and a final update before scheduling a public hearing at the
Planning Commission.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not directly applicable.
Attachments: Summary Table – Business Park Uses
Overview Maps - Business Park Locations
Map of Business Park Adjacent Neighborhoods
Prepared by: Adam Fulton, Planner
Reviewed by: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
Study Session Meeting of August 27, 2012 (Item No. 8) Page 3
Subject: Business Park Rezoning Process Update
Summary Table – Business Park compared to Office and Industrial Park
Performance Standard / Use Business Park Office Industrial Park
Outdoor storage Prohibited Prohibited Accessory Use
Hours of operation Limited when adjacent to
residential
No restrictions Permit needed for
overnight use when
adjacent to residential
Offices Permitted Permitted Conditional Use
Permit
Banks / Medical Offices Permitted Permitted Not permitted
Restaurants / Retail / Service Permitted if < 25% of
building
Permitted Permitted only in a
Planned Unit
Development
Light manufacturing Conditional Use Permit Not permitted Permitted
Heavy manufacturing Not permitted Not permitted Permitted
Warehouse / Storage Permitted if < 50% of the
building
Not permitted Permitted
Large item retail (i.e.,
furniture)
Permitted if < 15% of the
building
Not permitted Permitted if < 15% of
the building
Planned Unit Developments Only jobs oriented Unrestricted Only retail / service
Setbacks when adjacent to
residential
30 feet or building height Half of
building height
35 feet or use of a
formula
Maximum building height 110 feet / 55 feet if adjacent
to single family residential
240 feet 75 feet
Maximum floor area ratio 2.0 1.5 0.5
HIGHWAY 7FRANCE35THHIGHWAY 100B
E
L
T
L
I
N
E
PARK GLEN
36TH
37TH
36 1/2
31ST
UTICASALEMEXCELSIORSERVICE DR
HI
G
H
W
A
Y
7
RALEIGHM
O
N
T
E
R
E
Y GLENHURSTKIPLING34THJOPPA
PARK CENTEROTTAWARANDALLTOLEDO33RDNATCHEZLYNN
HUNTINGTONINGLEWOODNB HWY100 S TO CORD25QUENTINMINIKAHDANB HWY100 S TO 36TH ST WPRIVATEHIGHWAY 7SERVICE DR HIGHW
A
Y
7 INGLEWOODGLENHURSTJOPPASALEM31ST
HUNTINGTON31ST
36TH
N
A
T
C
H
E
Z
RALEIGHHIGHWAY 7LYNNComprehensive Plan Land Use Map: Business Park AreasBeltline LRT Station Area
City of St. Louis Park 2030 Comprehensive PlanPrinted August 22nd, 2012
Legend
RL - Low Density Residential
RM - Medium Density Residential
RH - High Density Residential
MX - Mixed Use
COM - Commercial
IND - Industrial
OFC - Office
BP - Business Park
CIV - Civic
PRK - Park and Open Space
ROW - Right of Way
RRR - Railroad
1,000 Feet
Study Session Meeting of August 27, 2012 (Item No. 8)
Subject: Business Park Rezoning Process Update Page 4
W
O
O
D
D
A
L
EHIGHWAY 7
35TH
OXFORD37TH
GOODRICH
HAMILTON
HIGHWAY 100SERVICE DR HIGHWAY 7ALABAMAWALKER
36THXENWOOD
PRIVATE
COLORADOCAMERATA
YOSEMITEZARTHANPARK CENTERBRUNSWICK
WEBSTERMEDLEYSB HWY100 S TO WOODDALE AVE S
WEBSTERWALKERBRUNSWICKALABAMA35TH
PRIVATEYOSEMITEHIGHWAY 7HIGHWAY 100ZARTHANBRUNSWICKComprehensive Plan Land Use Map: Business Park AreasWooddale LRT Station Area
City of St. Louis Park 2030 Comprehensive PlanPrinted August 22nd, 2012
Legend
RL - Low Density Residential
RM - Medium Density Residential
RH - High Density Residential
MX - Mixed Use
COM - Commercial
IND - Industrial
OFC - Office
BP - Business Park
CIV - Civic
PRK - Park and Open Space
ROW - Right of Way
RRR - Railroad
600 Feet
Study Session Meeting of August 27, 2012 (Item No. 8)
Subject: Business Park Rezoning Process Update Page 5
LAKEOXFORDWALKER
HIGHWAY 7
37TH LOUIS
IANA
NORTHT
A
F
TPENNSYLVANIA
EDGEBROOKMO
N
I
T
O
R
EDGEWOODOREGONHOSPITAL SERVICE
SERVICE DR HIGHWAY 7
CAMBRIDGE
HIGHWAY 7 LAKESERVICE DR HIGHWAY 7
Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map: Business Park AreasLouisiana LRT Station Area
City of St. Louis Park 2030 Comprehensive PlanPrinted August 22nd, 2012
Legend
RL - Low Density Residential
RM - Medium Density Residential
RH - High Density Residential
MX - Mixed Use
COM - Commercial
IND - Industrial
OFC - Office
BP - Business Park
CIV - Civic
PRK - Park and Open Space
ROW - Right of Way
RRR - Railroad
740 Feet
Study Session Meeting of August 27, 2012 (Item No. 8)
Subject: Business Park Rezoning Process Update Page 6
Lenox
Wolfe Park
Elmwood
Sorensen
Fern Hill
Triangle
Oak Hill
Minikahda VistaBrooklawns
Meadowbrook
Bronx Park
Creekside
South Oak Hill
Birchwood
Brookside Browndale
Texa Tonka
Minikahda Oaks
Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map: NeighborhoodsNeighborhoods nearby Business Park areas
City of St. Louis Park 2030 Comprehensive PlanPrinted August 22nd, 2012
Legend
RL - Low Density Residential
RM - Medium Density Residential
RH - High Density Residential
MX - Mixed Use
COM - Commercial
IND - Industrial
OFC - Office
BP - Business Park
CIV - Civic
PRK - Park and Open Space
ROW - Right of Way
RRR - Railroad
2,400 Feet
Study Session Meeting of August 27, 2012 (Item No. 8)
Subject: Business Park Rezoning Process Update Page 7
Meeting Date: August 27, 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:
Prism Dial-A-Ride Program Update
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
No action at this time. The purpose of this report is to provide the Council with an update on the
status on the ridership services provided by the Prism door-to-door Dial-a-Ride Program
available to all residents in St. Louis Park. The program was first implemented in September
2011. The current contract expires December 31, 2012.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
The City entered into an initial six month contract with Prism on September 1, 2011 to provide
Dial-a-Ride transportation services to St. Louis Park residents. Previous to entering into this
contract, St. Louis Park was served by several transportation programs, each operating
independently and with various limitations. At the February 6 Council meeting, the Council
reviewed the ridership usage of the Dial-a-Ride program for the initial six months and extended
the contract through the end 2012. A review of ridership activity and a determination regarding
renewal of the contract to provide services in 2013 will be presented for Council’s consideration
at a meeting prior to the end of the year.
BACKGROUND:
City s taff and Courtney Whited, Prism Transportation Coordinator, met with the Council in July
2011 to discuss Prism’s proposed plan to expand their door-to-door Dial-a-Ride program to St.
Louis Park. Council supported the proposal and the potential benefits that a flexible
transportation program would provide and directed staff to proceed with the steps necessary to
enter into a contract with Prism to provide Dial-a-Ride services to St. Louis Park residents. The
City agreed to provide a funding contribution up to $10,000 to cover program operation costs for
the initial six month period of September 1, 2011 through February 29, 2012. The contract was
subsequently extended through the end of 2012. The 2012 City budget includes $20,000 in
funding to cover the City’s financial contribution supporting the program.
Ridership Statistics: January through June 2012. Marketing efforts have included articles in
the Sun Sailor, the Park Perspective and announcements on the City’s web site. Prism staff also
did direct outreach to the Lennox Senior Center, Park Nicollet, STEP, and the faith community.
Ridership for the first six months of 2012 is as follows:
Month Rides Provided
January 152
February 159
March 144
April 133
May 174
June 113
Total 875
Study Session Meeting of August 27, 2012 (Item No. 9) Page 2
Subject: Prism Dial-A-Ride Program Update
A total of 34 individuals utilized the Dial-a-Ride services for a total of 875 rides through the first
6 months of 2012. Prism indicated that an additional 28 individuals are registered with the Dial-
a-Ride program but have not used the service during the 6 month time period. Rider
characteristics are as follows:
Rider
Characteristics
Number
of Riders
Female 22
Male 12
Under 60 6
60 to 64 2
65 to 69 3
70 to 74 4
75 to 79 1
Over 80 18
White 32
Black 1
Asian 1
Ambulatory 21
Use Cane 4
Use Walker 1
Need Lift 8
Prism has indicated that the majority of the riders are seniors that are seeking a more attentive
service than what they would receive from an alternate transportation service. The door-to-door
Dial-a-Ride service is more direct than many services and provides the rider the feel of running
an errand. A ride to and from the store only takes 15 to 25 minutes each way versus 1 – 2 hours
on Metro Mobility or the bus. The service is more similar to taxi cab service. The most frequent
ride destination thus far has been to adult day care. Other destinations included medical
appointments, work, shopping and social service appointments.
Ride Destination Rides Provided
Medical 158
Adult Day Care 559
Shopping 34
Work 42
Social Service 6
Recreation 74
Visiting 2
Although Prism has indicated that typically ridership will continue to grow each month as more
residents hear about the service, the ridership thus far in St. Louis Park has remained relatively
constant. Prism has done a significant amount of outreach and will be undertaking renewed
marketing efforts in the next month.
Study Session Meeting of August 27, 2012 (Item No. 9) Page 3
Subject: Prism Dial-A-Ride Program Update
BUDGET STATUS:
The City’s 2012 budget includes up to $20,000 in funding for a Dial-a-Ride program. PRISM
Express estimates that the full cost of a one way ride is $11.50. PRISM bills the City monthly on
a per ride basis. The City currently reimburses PRISM at a rate of $5.50 per one way ride. The
additional ride expense is supplemented by contributions from a $5000 grant from the Park
Nicollet Foundation and the $3 fare charged to riders. The Housing Rehab Fund is the funding
resource for the City’s contribution. The estimated amount of the City’s contribution was
determined based on community size and the anticipated number of riders annually. The City’s
contribution for services provided from January through June totaled $4,812.50.
As of September 1st, Prism will be adjusting the Dial-a-Ride fare structure for riders 60 and over
to a sliding fee scale based on household income. Prism’s primary funding resource, the
Metropolitan Area Agency on Aging (MAAA), requires their funds to be used only for riders 60
years of age or older. MAAA contributes approximately $5.80 per ride for riders 60 years of age
and older. The scale is based on a household’s income as it relates to the federal poverty
guidelines and the rider fee scale will range from $3.50 per one way ride to a full fare of $11.50.
The fee is a suggested donation and riders are not turned away if they do not pay the fee.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
The need for a variety of transportation modes allowing residents and visitors to easily and
inexpensively travel throughout the city and the entire metro region was identified through the
Visioning process as one of the City’s primary focus areas. Creation of a dial-a-ride program
that expands ridership boundaries is consistent with many of the ideas and goals proposed by the
Visioning Transportation Action Team including:
• Creating a superior transportation system,
• Alleviate barriers,
• Transportation system should strive to be simple, convenient, safe and inexpensive for
everyone,
• All the transportation system components and modes should be integrated and designed
to support one another,
• Embrace existing and future technology to make transportation more convenient and cost
effective,
• Our transportation system is an innovative model for other communities, and
• Coordinate with neighboring cities’ transit efforts.
NEXT STEPS
Staff will continue to review the program’s performance through the initial year of operation and
provide an update to the Council and a recommendation regarding continued funding prior to the
end of the contract term.
Attachments: None
Prepared by: Michele Schnitker, Housing Supervisor
Reviewed by: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
Meeting Date: August 27, 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:
July 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 58% of the annual budget in July. Currently, the
General Fund has expenditures totaling 54.1% of the adopted budget and the Park and
Recreation Fund expenditures are at 61.3%. 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.).
Most departments continue to be running at or below budget through July. Comments on a few
revenue and expenditure variances are noted below.
General Fund
Revenues:
• License and permit revenues in the General Fund have been running well ahead of budget
all year. They are at 97.5% through July and will exceed 100% in August. This additional
revenue is due to several large commercial development projects that have started in
2012, which were not determined at the time the budget was prepared last summer.
Expenditures:
• The Community Outreach budget remains at 71% because the full 2012 payment for
Mediation Services was made early in the year. This expenditure is a substantial portion
of the Community Outreach General Fund budget.
Parks and Recreation
Expenditures:
• The Organized Recreation Division is at 67.5% of budget because the full annual
Community Education contribution in the amount of $187,400 has been paid to the
School District. The timing of this large expenditure is consistent with prior years and is
only a temporary variance. Also, some costs in this Division are seasonal, with larger
expenses occurring for recreational activities over the summer months.
Study Session Meeting of August 27, 2012 (Item No. 10) Page 2
Subject: July 2012 Monthly Financial Report
• The Recreation Center Division is at 62% because a large portion of the supplies budget
is spent over the summer months on pool supplies and concessions. This is only a
temporary variance.
• Expenditures in the Vehicle Maintenance Division are exceeding budget at 63.4%. The
variance is mainly due to parts and tires, motor fuel, and outside repair services, all of
which are unpredictable and difficult to budget. Staff will continue to monitor these
expenditures closely as the year progresses.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
None at this time.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Regular and timely reporting of financial information is part of the City’s mission of being
stewards of financial resources.
Attachments: Summary of Revenues & Expenditures
Prepared by: Darla Monson, Senior Accountant
Reviewed by: Brian Swanson, Controller
Approved by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
!"
#$#%
&’("
)*’%+(
, -.(-
%&
&("/’0
1*& "
!"
!"
&’("
)*’%+(
, -.(-
1*& "
!"
#$% !"
$&’
Study Session Meeting of August 27, 2012 (Item No. 10)
Subject: July 2012 Monthly Financial Report Page 3
2!"
2 -’
2’
3-".-
)""-4("
# ,
&%".-
)""- $,5’
)""-1- *
(#$
#
& +(
(#$
()!
-6 752!"
-6 75/’’
-6 751
()!
*%+
0 89
%1-0 0 0
)-0 0
*%+
,-+
!"
1’:!.
. )
5,
7;!
/("
<* ,
!",-+
#$,-+% !"
$&’
Study Session Meeting of August 27, 2012 (Item No. 10)
Subject: July 2012 Monthly Financial Report Page 4