HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011/03/14 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - Study SessionAGENDA
MARCH 14, 2011
6:30 p.m. CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION – Council Chambers
Discussion Items
1. 6:30 p.m. Future Study Session Agenda Planning – March 28, 2011
2. 6:35 p.m. Residential Survey Update
3. 7:20 p.m. Proposed St. Louis Park Open to Business Program
4. 7:50 p.m. Southwest Light Rail Transit and Freight Rail Studies Update
5. 8:50 p.m. Trunk Highway 169 Noise Wall Options
6. 9:35 p.m. Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission 2010 Annual Report and 2011
Work Plan
7. 9:40 p.m. Communications / Meeting Check-in (Verbal)
9:45 p.m. Adjourn
Written Reports
8. 2011 Valuation Report
9. 2011-2012 Wellness Incentive Program
10. Federal Early Retiree Reinsurance Program (ERRP) Disbursement
11. Redevelopment Project and EDA Contract Status Report: 1st Quarter 2011
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 Date: March 14, 2011
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 – March 28, 2011.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Council and the City Manager to set the agenda for the regularly scheduled Study Session on
March 28, 2011.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the Council agree with the agenda 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 March 28, 2011.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
None.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
None.
Attachment: Future Study Session Agenda Planning March 28, 2011
Prepared by: Kris Luedke, Office Assistant
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of March 14, 2011 (Item No. 1) Page 2
Subject: Future Study Session Agenda Planning – March 28, 2011
(Mayor Jacobs and Councilmember Mavity out)
Study Session, Monday, March 28, 2011 – 6:30 p.m.
Tentative Discussion Items
1. Future Study Session Agenda Planning – Administrative Services (5 minutes)
2. Nestlé Healthcare Nutrition Plant Closing – Community Development (45 minutes)
Staff wishes to discuss the impacts of the impeding closure of the Nestlé Healthcare Nutrition
Plant in St. Louis Park and discuss future uses for the land.
3. 2011 Real Estate Market Overview - Assessing (30 minutes)
Review of market performance, and an overview of assessment and appeals process.
4. Review of Expenses that are City vs. Property Owner or Combination – Administrative
Services (30 minutes)
Council requested information and discussion on review of expenses for projects or programs
that are paid for by the city vs. property owner or combination. Nancy Deno, Deputy City
Manager and Mike Rardin, Public Works Director will be present to go over the data.
5. Review of Council Meeting Audience Norms/Rules – Administrative Services (30 minutes)
Council requested a review of Council Meeting Audience Norms/Rules for St. Louis
Park. Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager, will be present to go over the information with
Council.
6. 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:
February 2011 Financial Report
West End TIF Note
Park Nicollet Redevelopment Contract Amendment
Plan by Neighborhood Chapter – Comp Plan
End of Meeting: 8:55 p.m.
Meeting Date: March 14, 2011
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:
Residential Survey Update.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Bill Morris, Diane Traxler or Peter Leatherman from Decision Resources will provide the
Council with an overview of the proposed residential survey and process. Staff and Decision
Resources are asking for Council’s feedback on the survey.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the Council have questions regarding the survey? Does the Council wish to make any
changes to the survey? Does the Council need any additional information on this item?
BACKGROUND:
Staff is working with Decision Resources, Inc. to conduct a city-wide residential survey this
spring. The purpose of the residential survey is to measure and gather information from the
community, track trends over time and find out how we are doing with Vision St. Louis Park.
Department Heads, various staff members, along with the consultant have been involved with
developing the survey. Content areas include:
• Baseline questions related to the first Vision 1994 (public safety, business & Children First)
• Updated questions relating to our 2006 Vision and Strategic Directions
• Additional questions designed to get a better understanding of how people feel about the city
• Four questions for the School District based on our conversation with them.
Next Steps:
a) After meeting with the Council, staff and the consultant will finalize the survey questions.
b) The March Park Perspective will publish information about the survey letting residents know
that calls will start in April.
c) Data will be tabulated and compiled in May/June 2011
d) Final report is expected to be presented to Council in June 2011
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
The cost for a survey of 134 questions is $20,500 funded in 2011 budget.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
The residential survey is aligned with the Council’s strategic direction, “St. Louis Park is
committed to being a connected and engaged community.”
Attachments: Draft Residential Survey Questions
Prepared by: Marney Olson, Community Liaison
Bridget Gothberg, Organizational Development Coordinator
Approved by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager
Study Session Meeting of March 14, 2011 (Item No. 2) Page 2
Subject: Residential Survey Update
Decision Resources, Ltd. CITY OF SAINT LOUIS PARK
3128 Dean Court Residential Study
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55416 REVISED 2.0 MARCH 2011
Hello, I'm __________ of Decision Resources, Ltd., a nationwide
polling firm located in the Twin Cities. We've been retained to
speak with a random sample of Saint Louis Park residents about
issues facing the community. This survey is being taken because
the City Council and City Staff are interested in your opinions and
suggestions about life in the community. All individual responses
will be held strictly confidential; only summaries of the entire
sample will be reported. (DO NOT PAUSE)
1. Approximately how many years have LESS THAN TWO YEARS.....1
you lived in Saint Louis Park? TWO TO FIVE YEARS.......2
SIX TO TEN YEARS........3
11 TO 20 YEARS..........4
OVER TWENTY YEARS.......5
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED......6
2. Thinking back to when you moved to Saint Louis Park, what
factors were most important to you in selecting the city?
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
3. As things now stand, how long LESS THAN ONE YEAR......1
in the future do you expect to ONE TO TWO YEARS........2
live in Saint Louis Park? TWO TO FIVE YEARS.......3
SIX TO TEN YEARS........4
OVER TEN YEARS..........5
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED......6
IF LESS THAN FIVE YEARS, ASK:
4. Why do you plan to move in the next ___ years?
_______________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________
5. How would you rate the quality of EXCELLENT...............1
life in this community -- excel- GOOD....................2
lent, good, only fair, or poor? ONLY FAIR...............3
POOR....................4
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED......5
Study Session Meeting of March 14, 2011 (Item No. 2) Page 3
Subject: Residential Survey Update
IF "GOOD," "ONLY FAIR," OR "POOR," ASK:
6. If you could advise the City Council, what actions
would you recommend to significantly improve the quali-
ty of life in Saint Louis Park?
_______________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________
7. What do you like MOST about living in Saint Louis Park?
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
8. In general, what do you think is the most serious issue
facing the community today?
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
As I read the following statements about public safety in Saint
Louis Park, please answer "yes" or "no." (READ LIST)
YES NO DKR
9. I have an overall feeling of safety
in Saint Louis Park. 1 2 3
IF "NO," ASK:
10. Could you tell me one or two reasons why you feel that
way?
_______________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________
YES NO DKR
11. I feel safe walking in my neighborhood
alone at night. 1 2 3
12. My household is a part of our area's
Neighborhood Watch. 1 2 3
13. I have participated in National Night
Out activities in the community. 1 2 3
14. I can rely on my neighbors for help in a
safety-threatening situation. 1 2 3
15. I have participated in block parties in
my neighborhood. 1 2 3
Study Session Meeting of March 14, 2011 (Item No. 2) Page 4
Subject: Residential Survey Update
16. Have you or anyone in your house- YES.....................1
hold had contact with the Fire De- NO......................2
partment during the past two DON'T KNOW/REFUSED......3
years?
IF "YES," ASK:
17. How would you rate the qual- EXCELLENT...............1
ity of service provided by GOOD....................2
the Fire Department -- excel- ONLY FAIR...............3
lent, good, only fair, or POOR....................4
poor? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED......5
IF A RESPONSE IS GIVEN, ASK:
18. Why did you rate the service as (______________)?
__________________________________________________
__________________________________________________
19. Have you or anyone in your house- YES.....................1
hold had contact with the Police NO......................2
Department during the past two DON'T KNOW/REFUSED......3
years?
IF "YES," ASK:
20. How would you rate the qual- EXCELLENT...............1
ity of service provided by GOOD....................2
the Police Department -- ex- ONLY FAIR...............3
cellent, good, only fair, or POOR....................4
poor? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED......5
IF "ONLY FAIR" OR "POOR," ASK:
21. Why did you rate the service as (only fair/poor)?
__________________________________________________
__________________________________________________
22. Have you or anyone in your house- YES.....................1
hold had contact with the Inspec- NO......................2
tions Department during the past DON'T KNOW/REFUSED......3
two years?
IF "YES," ASK:
23. How would you rate the qual- EXCELLENT...............1
ity of service provided by GOOD....................2
the Inspections Department -- ONLY FAIR...............3
excellent, good, only fair POOR....................4
or poor? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED......5
Study Session Meeting of March 14, 2011 (Item No. 2) Page 5
Subject: Residential Survey Update
IF "ONLY FAIR" OR "POOR," ASK:
24. Why did you rate the service as (only fair/poor)?
__________________________________________________
__________________________________________________
Moving on....
I would like to read you a list of a few city services. For
each one, please tell me whether you would rate the quality of
the service as excellent, good, only fair, or poor? (ROTATE)
EXCL GOOD FAIR POOR DK/R
25. Police protection? 1 2 3 4 5
26. Fire protection? 1 2 3 4 5
27. Recycling? 1 2 3 4 5
28. Brush pick-up? 1 2 3 4 5
29. Storm drainage and flood
control? 1 2 3 4 5
30. Park maintenance? 1 2 3 4 5
31. City-sponsored recreation
programs? 1 2 3 4 5
32. Animal control? 1 2 3 4 5
Now, for the next three city services, please consider only
their job on city-maintained streets and roads. That means
excluding interstate highways, state and county roads that are
taken care of by other levels of government. Hence, Interstate
394, Highway 100, Highway 169, Highway 7, County Road 25, Minne-
tonka Boulevard or Excelsior Boulevard, should not be considered.
How would you rate ....
EXCL GOOD FAIR POOR DK/R
33. City street repair and
maintenance? 1 2 3 4 5
34. Snow plowing? 1 2 3 4 5
35. Street lighting? 1 2 3 4 5
36. How would you rate Saint Louis EXCELLENT...............1
Park city services in comparison GOOD....................2
with neighboring communities -- ONLY FAIR...............3
excellent, good,--only fair, or POOR....................4
poor? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED......5
37. When you consider the property EXCELLENT...............1
taxes you pay and the quality of GOOD....................2
city services you receive, would ONLY FAIR...............3
you rate the general value of city POOR....................4
services as excellent, good, only DON'T KNOW/REFUSED......5
fair, or poor?
Study Session Meeting of March 14, 2011 (Item No. 2) Page 6
Subject: Residential Survey Update
Changing topics....
38. In general, do you think the City TOO HIGH................1
of Saint Louis Park's emphasis on ABOUT RIGHT.............2
environmental concerns is too TOO LOW.................3
high, about right, or too low? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED......4
IF "TOO HIGH" OR "TOO LOW," ASK:
39. Why do you feel that way?
_______________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________
40. Do you think the City should con- STRONGLY YES............1
tinue to promote energy efficiency YES.....................2
improvements in residential homes? NO......................3
(WAIT FOR RESPONSE) Do you feel STRONGLY NO.............4
strongly that way? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED......5
41. Do you think the City should con- STRONGLY YES............1
tinue to promote the construction YES.....................2
of energy-efficient public build- NO......................3
ings and infrastructure, such as STRONGLY NO.............4
street lights? (WAIT FOR RESPONSE) DON'T KNOW/REFUSED......5
Do you feel strongly that way?
IF "STRONGLY YES" OR "YES" IN EITHER QUESTION 40 OR 41, ASK:
42. Would you still support the YES.....................1
City of Saint Louis Park con- NO......................2
tinuing to undertake these DON'T KNOW/REFUSED......3
measures even if they cost
taxpayers more up front?
Moving on....
43. Other than voting, do you feel YES.....................1
that if you wanted to, you could NO......................2
have a say about the way things DON'T KNOW/REFUSED......3
are run in this community?
IF "NO," ASK:
44. Why do you feel you cannot have a say?
_______________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________
Study Session Meeting of March 14, 2011 (Item No. 2) Page 7
Subject: Residential Survey Update
Changing topics....
45. How much do you feel you know GREAT DEAL..............1
about the work of the Mayor and FAIR AMOUNT.............2
City Council -- a great deal, a VERY LITTLE.............3
fair amount, or very little? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED......4
46. From what you know, do you approve APPROVE/STRONGLY........1
or disapprove of the job perform- APPROVE.................2
ance of the Mayor and City Coun- DISAPPROVE..............3
cil? (WAIT FOR RESPONSE) And do DISAPPROVE/STRONGLY.....4
you feel strongly that way? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED......5
IF OPINION STATED, ASK:
47. Why do you feel that way?
_______________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________
48. During the past year, have you YES.....................1
visited or contacted Saint Louis NO......................2
Park City Hall either in-person, DON'T KNOW/REFUSED......3
on the telephone, by e-mail or
through social media, such as
Facebook or Twitter?
IF "YES," ASK:
49. Was your last contact with PERSONAL VISIT..........1
the City by a personal visit, TELEPHONE CALL..........2
a telephone call, by e-mail, E-MAIL..................3
or through social media? SOCIAL MEDIA............4
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED......5
50. On your last contact with the City, which Department
did you contact?
_______________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________
Thinking about your last contact with the City, for each of
the following characteristics, please rate the Saint Louis
Park City Hall facility or staff as excellent, good, only
fair, or poor....
EXC GOO FAI POO DKR
51. Ease of reaching a City Staff
member who could help you? 1 2 3 4 5
52. Courtesy of the City Staff? 1 2 3 4 5
53. Promptness of response? 1 2 3 4 5
Study Session Meeting of March 14, 2011 (Item No. 2) Page 8
Subject: Residential Survey Update
Moving on....
54. How would you rate general redev- EXCELLENT...............1
elopment in the City of Saint GOOD....................2
Louis Park -- excellent, good, ONLY FAIR...............3
only fair or poor? POOR....................4
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED......5
IF A RATING IS GIVEN, ASK:
55. Why do you feel that way?
_______________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________
56. Do you support or oppose the con- STRONGLY SUPPORT........1
tinued redevelopment in the City SUPPORT.................2
of Saint Louis Park? (WAIT FOR OPPOSE..................3
RESPONSE) Do you feel strongly STRONGLY OPPOSE.........4
way? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED......5
IF A RESPONSE IS GIVEN, ASK:
57. Why do you (support/oppose) the continued redevelopment
in the city?
_______________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________
58. What type of retail stores, if any, would you like to see
attracted to the City of Saint Louis Park?
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
59. What type of service businesses, if any, would you like to
see attracted to the City of Saint Louis Park?
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
I would like to read you a list of some characteristics of a
community. For each one, please tell me if you think Saint Louis
Park currently has too many or too much, too few or too little, or
about the right amount. (ROTATE)
Study Session Meeting of March 14, 2011 (Item No. 2) Page 9
Subject: Residential Survey Update
MANY FEW/ ABT DK/
/MCH LITT RGHT REFD
60. apartment units? 1 2 3 4
61. higher cost housing? 1 2 3 4
62. affordable housing? 1 2 3 4
63. starter homes for young families? 1 2 3 4
64. "move up" housing? 1 2 3 4
65. condominiums and townhouses? 1 2 3 4
66. assisted living for seniors? 1 2 3 4
67. nursing homes? 1 2 3 4
68. one level housing for seniors
maintained by an association? 1 2 3 4
As you may know, the populations of most inner ring suburban areas
are becoming more diverse in terms of age, household income, race,
and ethnicity.
69. In general, do you think that GOOD THING..............1
growing population diversity is a BAD THING...............2
good thing or a bad thing for the BOTH (VOL)..............3
community? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED......4
IF A RESPONSE IS GIVEN, ASK:
70. Could you tell me one or two reasons why you feel that
way?
_______________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________
71. Currently, how well prepared do VERY WELL...............1
you think the community is to meet SOMEWHAT WELL...........2
the growing diversity of residents NOT TOO WELL............3
-- very well, somewhat well, not NOT AT ALL WELL.........4
too well, or not at all well? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED......5
IF "NOT TOO WELL" OR "NOT AT ALL WELL," ASK:
72. Could you tell me one or two reasons why you feel that
way?
_______________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________
73. Do you, yourself, feel welcomed YES.....................1
in the community? NO......................2
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED......3
74. Do you feel accepted by the com- YES.....................1
munity? NO......................2
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED......3
Study Session Meeting of March 14, 2011 (Item No. 2) Page 10
Subject: Residential Survey Update
Now, let's discuss your neighborhood in more detail....
75. First, do you know what neighborhood you live in? (IF
"YES," ASK:) What is its name?
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
As I read the following statements about your neighborhood, please
answer "yes" or"no." (READ LIST)
YES NO DKR
76. The appearance of housing in my neighbor-
hood has improved during the past few
years. 1 2 3
77. Homes in my neighborhood are well-
maintained. 1 2 3
78. People know and care about their neighbors
and participate in solving problems with
their business and residential neighbors. 1 2 3
79. I would feel comfortable in discussing
neighborhood problems with my neighbors. 1 2 3
80. This neighborhood is a good place to raise
children. 1 2 3
81. People have pride and ownership in our
neighborhood. 1 2 3
82. I feel a part of my neighborhood. 1 2 3
83. How would you rate the overall EXCELLENT...............1
aesthetics, the pleasing appear- GOOD....................2
ance, of residential neighborhoods ONLY FAIR...............3
in Saint Louis Park -- excellent, POOR....................4
good, only fair, or poor? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED......5
84. How would you rate the overall EXCELLENT...............1
aesthetics, the pleasing appear- GOOD....................2
ance, of commercial and retail ONLY FAIR...............3
areas in Saint Louis Park -- ex- POOR....................4
cellent, good, only fair or poor? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED......5
85. Are there any specific areas in Saint Louis Park where
aesthetics should be improved? (PROBE FOR SPECIFICS)
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
86. Are there properties in your neighborhood you would consider
to be a problem? (IF "YES," ASK:) What makes the property
a problem?
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
Study Session Meeting of March 14, 2011 (Item No. 2) Page 11
Subject: Residential Survey Update
87. Are you aware you can report a YES.....................1
problem with a property by using NO......................2
the Inspections Report a Problem DON'T KNOW/REFUSED......3
(RAP) line or the report a problem
e-mail option?
Changing topics....
88. Do you leave the City of Saint YES.....................1
Louis Park on a regular or daily NO......................2
basis to go to work? NOT EMPLOYED/RETIRED....3
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED......4
IF "YES," ASK:
89. How would you rate the ease EXCELLENT...............1
of getting to and from work GOOD....................2
-- excellent, good, only fair ONLY FAIR...............3
or poor? POOR....................4
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED......5
90. How would you rate the ease of EXCELLENT...............1
getting from place to place within GOOD....................2
the City of Saint Louis Park -- ONLY FAIR...............3
excellent, good, only fair, or POOR....................4
poor? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED......5
IF "ONLY FAIR" OR "POOR," ASK:
91. Could you tell me why you rated it as (only fair/poor)?
_______________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________
92. Prior to this survey, were you YES.....................1
aware Hennepin County may pursue NO......................2
the construction of the Southwest DON'T KNOW/REFUSED......3
Light Rail line connecting Eden
Prairie and Saint Louis Park to
downtown Minneapolis?
93. How likely would you or members VERY LIKELY.............1
of your household be to regularly SOMEWHAT LIKELY.........2
use this service -- very likely, NOT TOO LIKELY..........3
somewhat likely, not too likely or NOT AT ALL LIKELY.......4
not at all likely? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED......5
Changing topics again....
94. Prior to this survey were you YES.....................1
aware of Saint Louis Park NO......................2
"Children First" Initiative? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED......3
Study Session Meeting of March 14, 2011 (Item No. 2) Page 12
Subject: Residential Survey Update
IF "YES," ASK:
95. And, were you aware of the YES.....................1
set of forty developmental NO......................2
assets focused on by this DON'T KNOW/REFUSED......3
initiative for assuring the
success of city children?
IF "YES," ASK:
96. Have you, yourself, been YES.....................1
actively involved in any NO......................2
activities to help the DON'T KNOW/REFUSED......3
asset-building process?
97. Prior to this survey, were you YES.....................1
aware of STEP, Saint Louis Park NO......................2
Emergency Program, the City's DON'T KNOW/REFUSED......3
non-profit food shelf?
Turning to parks and recreation....
Some residents have expressed an interest in the City providing
additional recreation or civic amenities for residents to use. For
each of the following amenities, please tell me if you or members
of your household would be very interested in that amenity,
somewhat interested, not too interested or not at all interested in
that amenity. (ROTATE)
VRI SMI NTI NAA DKR
98. Gymnasium space? 1 2 3 4 5
99. Playground area? 1 2 3 4 5
100. Swimming pool? 1 2 3 4 5
101. Walking and running track? 1 2 3 4 5
102. Fitness area with exercise
equipment? 1 2 3 4 5
103. Meeting rooms? 1 2 3 4 5
104. Areas for residents to socialize? 1 2 3 4 5
105. Areas for classes, such exercise
and yoga? 1 2 3 4 5
106. Artificial turf sports field? 1 2 3 4 5
107. Are there any other amenities you would like to see the City
provide? (IF "YES," ASK:) What would those be?
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
108. Would you support or oppose a STRONGLY SUPPORT........1
property tax increase to fund the SUPPORT.................2
City providing additional recrea- OPPOSE..................3
tion or civic amenities to resi- STRONGLY OPPOSE.........4
dents? (WAIT FOR RESPONSE) Do DON'T KNOW/REFUSED......5
you feel strongly that way?
Study Session Meeting of March 14, 2011 (Item No. 2) Page 13
Subject: Residential Survey Update
109. Do you think the City of Saint YES.....................1
Louis Park has enough places for NO......................2
residents to meet with family, DON'T KNOW/REFUSED......3
friends and business associates?
IF "NO," ASK:
110. What kind of places would you like to see available in
the City?
_______________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________
111. How important do you think it is VERY IMPORTANT..........1
to the quality of life in a com- SOMEWHAT IMPORTANT......2
munity to have a strong arts and NOT TOO IMPORTANT.......3
cultural presence -- very impor- NOT AT ALL IMPORTANT....4
tant, somewhat important, not too DON'T KNOW/REFUSED......5
important, or not at all impor-
tant?
Moving on....
112. What is your principal source of information about Saint
Louis Park City government and its activities?
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
113. How would you prefer to receive information about Saint
Louis Park City Government and its activities?
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
As you may know, the City currently cablecasts and webcasts City
Council, Planning and Telecommunications Advisory Commission
meetings, city news programming and high school sports and events.
114. How often do you watch City pro- FREQUENTLY..............1
duced programming -- frequently, OCCASIONALLY............2
occasionally, rarely or never? RARELY..................3
NEVER...................4
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED......5
115. How do you normally access the In- DSL.....................1
ternet -- DSL, broadband cable, BROADBAND CABLE.........2
satellite, wireless, dial-up SATELLITE...............3
modem or do you not have access WIRELESS................4
to the Internet? DIAL-UP MODEM...........5
NO ACCESS TO INTERNET...6
Study Session Meeting of March 14, 2011 (Item No. 2) Page 14
Subject: Residential Survey Update
IF RESPONDENT HAS ACCESS TO THE INTERNET, ASK:
116. Have you or any member of YES.....................1
your household accessed the NO......................2
City of Saint Louis Park's DON'T KNOW/REFUSED......3
website for information about
city services, news and
events?
IF "YES," ASK:
117. How would you evaluate EXCELLENT...............1
the content of the GOOD....................2
City's website -- excel- ONLY FAIR...............3
lent, good, only fair, POOR....................4
or poor? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED......5
118. How would you rate the EXCELLENT...............1
ease of navigating the GOOD....................2
City's website and find- ONLY FAIR...............3
ing information you POOR....................4
sought -- excellent, DON'T KNOW/REFUSED......5
good, only fair, or
poor?
I would like to ask you a few questions about the Saint Louis Park
Public Schools.....
119. How would you rate quality of edu- EXCELLENT...............1
cation provided by the Saint Louis GOOD....................2
Park Public Schools -- excellent, ONLY FAIR...............3
good, only fair, or poor? POOR....................4
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED......5
120. Do you think the School District YES/STRONGLY............1
has done a good job of holding YES.....................2
down costs while protecting the NO......................3
quality of education? (WAIT FOR NO/STRONGLY.............4
RESPONSE) Do you feel strongly DON'T KNOW/REFUSED......5
that way?
121. Have you or a member of your NO......................1
household taken a class or parti- YES/YES.................2
cipated in an activity at a school YES/NO..................3
or the community center during the DON'T KNOW/REFUSED......4
past year? (IF "YES," ASK:) Have
you taken two or more classes or
activities?
122. What is your primary source of information about the Saint
Louis Park Public Schools?
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
Study Session Meeting of March 14, 2011 (Item No. 2) Page 15
Subject: Residential Survey Update
Now, just a few more questions for demographic purposes....
Could you please tell me how many people in each of the following
age groups live in your household. Let's start oldest to youngest,
and be sure to include yourself....
123. First, persons 65 or over? NONE....................0
ONE.....................1
TWO OR MORE.............2
REFUSED.................3
124. Adults under 65? NONE....................0
ONE.....................1
TWO.....................2
THREE OR MORE...........3
REFUSED.................4
125. School-aged children, 5 to 18 NONE....................0
years old? ONE.....................1
TWO.....................2
THREE OR MORE...........3
REFUSED.................4
126. Pre-schoolers? NONE....................0
ONE.....................1
TWO OR MORE.............2
127. Do you reside in an apartment, APARTMENT...............1
townhouse or condominium, duplex, TOWNHOUSE/CONDO.........2
or a detached single family home? DUPLEX..................3
SINGLE-FAMILY HOME......4
SOMETHING ELSE..........5
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED......6
128. Do you own or rent your present OWN.....................1
residence? RENT....................2
REFUSED.................3
129. What is your age, please? 18-24...................1
25-34...................2
35-44...................3
45-54...................4
55-64...................5
65 AND OVER.............6
REFUSED.................7
130. Is your household telephone LAND-LINE ONLY..........1
service by land-line only, cell- CELL-HONE ONLY..........2
phone only, or both land-line and BOTH LAND AND CELL......3
cell-phone? REFUSED.................4
Study Session Meeting of March 14, 2011 (Item No. 2) Page 16
Subject: Residential Survey Update
131. Which of the following categories WHITE...................1
represents your ethnicity -- AFRICAN-AMERICAN........2
White, African-American, Hispanic- HISPANIC-LATINO.........3
Latino, Asian-Pacific Islander, ASIAN-PACIFIC ISLANDER..4
Native American, or something NATIVE AMERICAN.........5
else? (IF "SOMETHING ELSE," ASK:) SOMETHING ELSE..........6
What would that be? MIXED/BI-RACIAL.........7
DON'T KNOW..............8
REFUSED.................9
132. Is your pre-tax yearly household UNDER $25,000...........1
income over or under $50,000? $25,001-$50,000.........2
IF "OVER," ASK: $50,001-$75,000.........3
Is it over $75,000? (IF "YES," $75,001-$100,000........4
ASK:) Is it over $100,000? OVER $100,000...........5
IF "UNDER," ASK: DON'T KNOW..............6
Is it under $25,000? REFUSED.................7
Thank you for your time. Good-bye.
133. Gender. MALE....................1
FEMALE..................2
134. REGION OF CITY: WARD 1..................1
WARD 2..................2
WARD 3..................3
WARD 4..................4
LIST: ________________________________________
PHONER: ______________________________________
DATE: ________________________________________
PHONE NUMBER: ________________________________
Meeting Date: March 14, 2011
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:
Proposed St. Louis Park Open to Business Program.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Staff requests EDA permission to enter into a one year contract with the Metropolitan
Consortium of Community Developers (MCCD) for the provision of small business technical
assistance services within St. Louis Park.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the EDA wish to contract with the MCCD to bring its Open to Business program to St.
Louis Park?
BACKGROUND:
The Metropolitan Consortium of Community Developers (MCCD) is an association of 43 non-
profit community development agencies that work to improve housing and economic opportunity
throughout the Twin Cities area. It has offered enterprise facilitation services through staff
member Rob Smolund since 2004. In the years since, the MCCD program has added specialists
in the areas of business accounting, finance, real-estate development, and regulatory compliance.
This team of business development specialists and former business owners provide real world
advice and counseling to area small business clients on a customized basis. MCCD staff works
with more than 250 entrepreneurs every year, providing more than 1,500 hours of direct business
assistance. In so doing, MCCD also has substantial experience working with ethnic minorities,
and clients with household incomes below 50% of the area median.
Open to Business Technical Assistance Services
MCCD recently launched a new initiative called the Open to Business program in which it
contracts with selected cities in Hennepin County to provide small business assistance services
on behalf of the municipality. Through this program MCCD would provide one-on-one technical
assistance to existing St. Louis Park businesses, local aspiring entrepreneurs and parties
interested in opening a business in St. Louis Park. Technical assistance would include, but not
be limited to, the following:
• Free, confidential, small business consulting every month on a walk-in basis at City Hall.
MCCD staff can also meet clients by appointment at their place of business. Such
consulting will occur in the form of one-on-one assistance customized to meet the
individual needs of small business owners or operators.
• Guidance for prospective entrepreneurs who are considering opening a business in St.
Louis Park so as to allow them to “test drive” their new business idea.
• Help with feasibility studies, business plan development, marketing plans, cash flow and
financing projections, start-up financing, loan packaging, financial management and
tracking systems, operational analysis, lease reviews, as well as licensing and regulatory
compliance.
• Access to non-traditional financing for existing businesses and resident entrepreneurs.
• Draw on the diversity of backgrounds and expertise of the MCCD team of experts.
Study Session Meeting of March 14, 2011 (Item No. 3) Page 2
Subject: Proposed St. Louis Park Open to Business Program
In addition MCCD would develop strategic alliances with local banks so as to help formulate
loan packages involving multiple financing partners in order to move more small business
projects forward. Even if the client can obtain all their financing from a bank, MCCD staff can
assist in preparing their loan request and can advocate for the client with the bank. In essence,
MCCD staff members become an advisor, an advocate, and a partner on which that entrepreneur
may rely.
Open to Business provides access to Capital
MCCD also operates an Emerging Small Business Loan Program that can provide local
entrepreneurs access to micro-loans to help start or grow their businesses in partnership with
community banks. MCCD has engaged in direct lending to start-up and expanding small
businesses, in a wide variety of industries since 1989. As a participant in the Open to Business
program, the City can help local businesses secure small loans which can be difficult to obtain
and administer. Loans can be for as little as $1,000, and up to $25,000, for terms of up to 5 years.
Loan proceeds can be used for working capital, inventory, equipment and general business
operations.
Last year, MCCD started a new 4% Loan Program. This program is aimed at helping metro area
business owners finance production equipment and commercial building improvements. Under
this new lending initiative, MCCD will provide up to $40,000 in loan funds at an interest rate of
4%, provided that its funds are matched by an equal or greater amount by a bank. The program
is open to businesses that own their own facilities as well as to tenant businesses that intend to
purchase equipment and/or make leasehold improvements.
Other Services
While MCCD’s primary goal through the Open to Business program is to assist existing
businesses and better prepare prospective entrepreneurs for business success, it can also help
avoid expensive failures. MCCD, in its role as “trusted advisor”, has led many clients to realize
that starting a business may not be for them. By meeting with MCCD staff before signing leases
or purchasing equipment, these clients avoid spending life savings or incurring large sums of
debt on dubious ventures. Helping prevent business failures (which can, at times, result in
problems for the City) can also be considered a successful outcome.
Contract Terms
The cost to contract with MCCD for the provision of its Open to Business program is $10,000.
There are performance measures included within the contract which include quarterly reporting
requirements so as to monitor and evaluate the program’s effectiveness. The term of the contract
is for one year at the conclusion of which the EDA can decide whether it wishes to continue the
contract for another year.
Overview
Currently MCCD has contracts with the cities of Minnetonka and Brooklyn Park both of which
provided favorable reviews for the Open to Business program. Staff is familiar with MCCD’s
services as it has been referring entrepreneurs and small business owners to them for counseling
and small business loan assistance for several years. Staff has found Mr. Smolund to be a
valuable resource for such referrals. The general concept of the bringing the Open to Business
program to St. Louis Park on a monthly basis is to make it more convenient for local businesses
to avail themselves of the services and resources offered through the MCCD instead of sending
them to Minneapolis.
Study Session Meeting of March 14, 2011 (Item No. 3) Page 3
Subject: Proposed St. Louis Park Open to Business Program
By contracting with MCCD, St. Louis Park can offer a “city-branded” one-stop shop for small
business support services. This arrangement can provide the City with a “turnkey”, in-house
small business development program without having to hire additional staff. The Open to
Business program would augment the City’s other economic development initiatives and fulfill a
need for additional small business assistance within the community.
Given St. Louis Park’s central location and economic strength, entrepreneurs have considerable
interest in starting and growing businesses in the city. By providing business assistance services
and access to other sources of financing, the City can encourage additional small business
development that further grows its tax base, creates local jobs and increases community vitality.
Next Steps
Should the EDA wish to collaborate with MCCD on its Open to Business program, staff will take
steps to publicize the new initiative within the community. A news release will be distributed and
announcements will be placed on the City’s website and in utility mailings. Mr. Smolund will
also be asked to introduce the program at upcoming St. Louis Park Business Council and Rotary
meetings.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
The EDA is being asked to consider a contract with the Metropolitan Consortium of Community
Developers (MCCD) for the provision of small business assistance services within St. Louis Park
for one year. The cost of these services is $10,000 which would be drawn from the Development
Fund.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
This project supports the strategic direction of providing a well-maintained and diverse
[building] stock.
Prepared by: Greg Hunt, Economic Development Coordinator
Reviewed by: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Nancy Deno, EDA Deputy Executive Director/Deputy City Manager
Meeting Date: March 14, 2011
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:
Southwest Light Rail Transit and Freight Rail Studies Update.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
The purpose of the Study Session discussion is to (1) provide background information on
Southwest Light Rail Transit (SWLRT) planning including the project status with the
Metropolitan Council and Hennepin County Community Works, with the current and “next
steps” for the city; and (2) to discuss the current status of the freight rail routing studies and
proposed next steps for the city to undertake in relation to TC&W rail routing and rail issues.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
• What are the next steps the city should take regarding SWLRT planning?
• What are the next steps the city should take regarding evaluating the options for routing
freight rail traffic and undertaking public process?
The City has stated consistently since adopting a resolution in 2001 that a key condition for
acceptance of rerouting TCW freight rail traffic to the MNS tracks was establishing that there
were no other viable routes. This condition was restated in the July 6, 2010 City resolution.
The goal is successful implementation of SWLRT with as little freight rail activity in St. Louis
Park as possible; and, complete and effective mitigation of any freight rail negative impacts.
The challenge for the City moving forward will be how to achieve its twin goals of minimizing
freight rail impacts in the community and supporting the successful implementation of SWLRT.
For LRT to proceed, a means of accommodating freight rail needs to be found, whether it is in
St. Louis Park or elsewhere.
SOUTHWEST LRT BACKGROUND:
In 2009 a Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) was chosen by the SW LRT study teams and the
Metropolitan Council. The SWLRT “project” was then turned over from the Hennepin County
Regional Rail Authority (HCRRA) to the Metropolitan Council. The future planning and
implementation of the light rail will be undertaken by the Metropolitan Council.
Concurrently, Hennepin County designated the SWLRT corridor as a “Community Works”
project to “maximize the economic and community benefits of transit investments.”
Current SW LRT Project Schedule (See attachment)
Alternative Analysis 2006
LPA chosen 2009
Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) 2008-2011
Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) 2011-2013
Preliminary Engineering (PE) 2011-2013
Final design 2013
Construction 2014-2017
Operational 2017
Study Session of March 14, 2011 (Item No. 4) Page 2
Subject: Southwest Light Rail Transit and Freight Rail Studies Update
SW LRT Project Funding
Estimated cost 1.25 b
Funding sources:
FTA - Federal Transit Administration 50% $612 m
CTIB – County Transit Investment Board 30% $388 m
HCRRA 10% $125 m
State 10% $125 m
SW LRT Project Organization
The Metropolitan Council Management Committee will oversee the planning, development
and construction of the LRT line. Mayor Jacobs represents the city on this committee. Two
meetings of the Committee have been held to date. Staff committees will be formed in the near
future, requiring city planning and engineering staff time.
Next Steps: The next step for the city, in addition to continuing to be involved on committees,
is to comment on the DEIS document during the upcoming comment period. The document is
not currently public, however is expected be available in the April to May timeframe.
Hennepin County Community Works will provide support for the infrastructure and economic
development needed to ensure the light rail line is successful in the communities it serves.
Council Member Mavity represents the city on the Steering Committee (Councilmember
Finkelstein is the Alternate). Four meetings have been held to date. A Technical Implementation
Committee of staff from the various cities and agencies has formed, and several sub-committees
are working on specific issues at this time. An overall Work Plan is being developed.
Next Steps: The current work items include: establishing a vision; developing transitional
station area planning (access, circulation and parking), creating jobs and economic development
opportunities, and developing a market / redevelopment strategy. Planning and Engineering staff
are engaged in this process and working with several subcommittees.
HUD and Living Cities Grants
The Metropolitan Council has received two major grants for transit planning purposes. The
Metropolitan Council and the Community Works Partners are working to integrate the grant
funding into the Community Works work program.
One of the grants is from the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and
$800,000 is designated for the Southwest LRT corridor for the next two years. The purpose of
this funding is to:
o Support comprehensive transit corridor plans…(including) strategies to provide access to
living-wage jobs and affordable and life-cycle housing choices; align workforce
opportunities with corridor employment prospects; improve connections to sources of fresh
and locally-grown and ethnic foods; deploy innovative stormwater management
techniques;… encourage active living; support existing businesses; mitigate the impacts of
potential gentrification; and reduce energy use.
o Build local implementation capacity to advance inter-jurisdictional planning.
o Foster extensive, tailored community engagement strategies that will bring the voices of
people who are immigrant (or new Americans), low-income, and/or persons of color.
o Replicate pioneering “investment framework” efforts that coordinate infrastructure funding
among corridor jurisdictions to spur desired private sector investment in transit corridors.
Study Session of March 14, 2011 (Item No. 4) Page 3
Subject: Southwest Light Rail Transit and Freight Rail Studies Update
Living Cities, a collaborative of 22 of the world’s largest foundations and financial institutions,
has provided another grant to Metropolitan Council, of which $230,000 is designated for the
Southwest LRT corridor. The purpose of this funding is to:
o Support the development of a regional, cross-sector framework for equitable Transit-
Oriented Development that ensures that low-income residents, businesses and neighborhoods
along the planned Southwest lines benefit from transit-related investments.
o Advance corridor-wide frameworks to align public and private investments that support
community-driven planning while providing a predictable environment to stimulate private
investment.
o Increase the capacity of affordable housing and small business intermediaries.
Pre-planning Livable Communities Grants
In 2010 city planning staff applied for and received two grants from the Metropolitan Council
Livable Communities grant program to further the planning for the Beltline station area: (1) to
create an area-wide surface water plan and (2) to work with the local residential and business
neighbors on design guidelines for the station area.
Next Steps: Staff is creating a work plan for these items, and connecting with the Community
Works efforts to consider overall station area planning options.
Circulation and Access Planning
The Beltline station area has some congestion and circulation issues currently, and with
additional activity of transit riders and the potential for additional development or
redevelopment, circulation likely needs to be improved. Getting to the station by car, bus, bike,
or walking needs to be clear and facilitated. Business traffic needs to have better alternatives
than currently, with the number of cul-de-sac streets in the area adding to the congestion.
Without additional access options for riders, business and neighbors, the station area may
become more congested and may not work well for transit riders and area businesses and
residents.
Last fall the city engaged SRF Consulting to help identify the traffic issues and concerns in the
area and provide a wide range of options for the city to consider that could help to alleviate the
projected traffic congestion in the area.
Next Steps: Within the next two or so months, staff will bring these ideas with some analysis
to a City Council study session.
FREIGHT RAIL STUDIES UPDATE:
The most recent PMT meeting of the MNS Freight Rail study was held on February 24, 2011.
At this meeting, the following information was presented:
▪ A new design concept to tighten the proposed curve in Oxford Industrial Park. The
impacts of this include:
− Reduces impact on properties
− Begins ascent/grade change further west
− Deletes southern interconnect
▪ Some results of the EAW analysis were presented, including information on noise
and vibration
Study Session of March 14, 2011 (Item No. 4) Page 4
Subject: Southwest Light Rail Transit and Freight Rail Studies Update
▪ Other impact findings on:
− Fish/Wildlife
− Water Resources – Wetlands
− Water Resources – Floodplains
− Erosion and Sedimentation
− Water Quality – Stormwater Runoff
− Solid/Hazardous Wastes
▪ Recommendations on mitigation measures
▪ Information on traffic impacts
The information noted above is on the city’s web site at:
http://www.stlouispark.org/webfiles/file/presentation_pmt_%236_meeting_02-23-2011.pdf
Information and answers to questions still needed from the study include: construction cost
estimates; right-of- way impacts (how many parcels will be acquired, how many affected, etc);
will the vibration study be amended to discuss the questions raised about the impact levels;
proposed railroad profile; and proposed quiet zone improvements.
When this information is available, SEH, Inc. will continue to analyze the freight rail routing
alternatives for St. Louis Park. The information will be used by the City to prepare a comparison
of the MNS and Kenilworth alternatives. The comparison will include several pieces of
information or criteria as shown in the table attached to this report.
Additional questions surrounding this issue that still need to be addressed include: Who will
make the routing decision? What is the input from the railroads on these various alternatives?
What is the schedule for both the SWLRT and any freight rail reconstruction that would need to
happen with the various alternatives?
Next Steps for Community Input
Initially, meetings were planned for March to explain the SEH work to date, and in particular the
analysis regarding Kenilworth that was presented to the Council on February 14. However
because there have not been many questions about the SEH work thus far, and there is much
more interest in the MNS Study and a comparison to the Kenilworth routing option, those
meetings are not planned to be held at this time.
As noted above, staff has asked SEH to prepare a report that in essence will provide a
comparison of the MNS corridor and the Kenilworth corridor for accommodating freight traffic
based on a variety of criteria (see attached). Assuming that SEH receives the necessary
information from the MNS Study in a timely fashion, it is hoped that this comparative analysis
will be completed towards the latter part of April. Once this analysis is completed a process for
presenting this to the Council and the community is proposed to be initiated.
At that time, it is proposed that the city will conduct community input meeting(s) to present the
comparative analysis prepared by SEH with ample time provided for community members to
ask questions, provide input and feedback and voice their concerns. This process will likely
happen from approximately late April into May and possibly June. More specifics on this
process will be provided at the study session. As stated earlier this time frame is still tentative,
as it is dependent on the information received from the MNS study. Once the comparative
analysis and public process has been completed, it is hoped the Council will then have sufficient
information to develop an informed policy position on the freight routing issue.
Study Session of March 14, 2011 (Item No. 4) Page 5
Subject: Southwest Light Rail Transit and Freight Rail Studies Update
Criteria for a Future Decision
The challenge for the City moving forward will be on how to achieve its twin goals of
minimizing freight rail impacts in the community and supporting the successful implementation
of SWLRT. For LRT to proceed, a means of accommodating freight rail still needs to be found,
whether it is in St. Louis Park or elsewhere.
The goal is successful implementation of SW LRT with as little freight rail activity in St. Louis
Park as possible; and, complete and effective mitigation of any freight rail negative impacts.
Whatever the freight route option ultimately chosen, a sound solution to the freight rail issue will
need to be:
• Physically viable
• Financially viable
• Acceptable to involved agencies
• In the best long term interest of St. Louis Park
• Timely
A successful timely solution will require the cooperation and consensus of many stakeholders
and agencies working together. The complexity of the issues and the dispersed responsibilities
and authority for decision making means no one entity can find and implement a solution. There
is a reason why this issue is still left unresolved more than 10 years after it first surfaced; this is
not any easy problem to solve and trade-offs will inevitably need to be made.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
The primary financial impact of the freight rail studies for the City is staff time and consultant
expense necessary to review documents and provide input. As we move forward costs will be
incurred for consultants to assist the city. The exact amount is difficult to estimate at this time.
Funding would come from the Development Fund.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
SWLRT, Freight Rail planning and station area planning are consistent with the City’s strategic
vision to be a connected and engaged community.
Attachments: SW LRT Transitway Description
SW LRT Organizational Chart
SW LRT Project Schedule
MNS Study New Design Concept
Freight Rail Comparison Information
Prepared by: Meg McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Transitway Description•15 miles, 17 stations,•Will interline with CCLRT to provide direct ti t th U f Mconnections to the U of M and downtown St. Paul•Capital Cost: $1.25 billion•D il Rid29 660•Daily Rides:29,660•CEI: $31.15•OperatingCost: $48 millionOperatingCost: $48 million12Study Session Meeting of March 14, 2011 (Item No. 4) Subject: Southwest Light Rail Transit and Freight Rail Studies UpdatePage 6
Southwest Corridor Management Committee - SWCMCBusiness Advisory Committee - BACSouthwest Project Office SWPOCommunity Advisory Committee - CACCommunications Land Use AdvisoryProject AdvisoryRisk ManagementSteering Committee -CSCLand Use Advisory Committee - LUACProject Advisory Committee - PACRisk Management Advisory Committee -RMACStudy Session Meeting of March 14, 2011 (Item No. 4) Subject: Southwest Light Rail Transit and Freight Rail Studies UpdatePage 7
Southwest LRT Corridor Management Committee Suggested Membership• Metropolitan Council Member (Chair)• Hennepin County Commissioner• City of Minnetonka • City of Eden Prairie• Hennepin County Commissioner• Metro Transit General Manager• City of Edina• Commissioner of Transportation• City of Minneapolis• City of St. Louis Park•City of Hopkins• Commissioner of MN Management and Budget• Community Advisory Committee•City of Hopkins• Business Advisory CommitteeStudy Session Meeting of March 14, 2011 (Item No. 4) Subject: Southwest Light Rail Transit and Freight Rail Studies UpdatePage 8
Study Session Meeting of March 14, 2011 (Item No. 4) Subject: Southwest Light Rail Transit and Freight Rail Studies UpdatePage 9
Study Session Meeting of March 14, 2011 (Item No. 4) Subject: Southwest Light Rail Transit and Freight Rail Studies UpdatePage 10
Freight Rail Comparison Information
The following items have been suggested thus far as measures for providing a comparison of
freight rail in the Kenilworth corridor with freight rail on the MNS line.
List of comparison measures:
1. Number of homes:
a. within 25’
b. 26-50’
c. 51-100’
d. 101-200’
2. Number and type of street crossings
3. Number of institutions within 1/8 mile
4. Number of parks within 50 and 100 ft
5. Number of LRT stations within 50 ft
6. Property acquired
a. Type of properties
b. Sq. Ft. (acres)
c. Property value
d. Businesses relocated
e. Acquisition costs
7. Improvements
a. Track eliminated (ft)
b. Track upgraded (ft)
c. Whistle quiet zones
d. Pedestrian crossing improvements
e. Sound and vibration protection
8. Traffic and circulation impacts
a. LRT ridership and viability
b. Station area circulation impacts
9. Other
a. School disruptions
b. Lost economic development opportunities
10. Construction costs
11. Mitigation measures
Study Session Meeting of March 14, 2011 (Item No. 4)
Subject: Southwest Light Rail Transit and Freight Rail Studies Update Page 11
Meeting Date: March 14, 2011
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:
Trunk Highway 169 Noise Wall Options.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
The purpose of this report and study session presentation is to provide information to Council for
consideration regarding noise/barrier wall improvement alternatives along Highway 169. Staff
would like direction from Council as to what specific noisewalls should be pursued further. In
particular, direction with regards to Option H (proposed by Mn/DOT for 2012 construction) is
more immediately needed.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
How does the City Council wish to pursue the installation of noise walls along Hwy 169?
BACKGROUND:
Mn/DOT started a noise abatement program in 1997, consisting essentially of a comprehensive
study of noise levels adjacent to Mn/DOT highways throughout the entire state as required by
State Statute. In 2002, this Study was further updated to include the 8 county metro area because
the Metro District is currently the only Mn/DOT District funding this program.
Within this Study, the areas are ranked by their existing noise level, number of homes adjacent to
the roadway, and length of barrier necessary to shield the area. Mn/DOT is generally funding this
program through a combination of Federal and State Safety Capacity and Noise Abatement
funds, as well as local contributions. Based on their rankings and anticipated funding, Mn/DOT
is providing several different options for the City’s consideration.
At least one of the option locations (Option H) was explored and abandoned by Mn/DOT and the
City nearly 10 years ago, and is described further in this report.
Programmed – Option A – Mn/DOT and the City have already programmed construction of a
noise wall along the east side of Highway 169 between W. 16th Street and I-394 (See attached
Figure 1 – Option A) for construction in 2015. This segment is ranked 15th in Mn/DOT’s 2008
Noise Abatement Study, and consists of a 20’ high noise barrier. The total estimated
construction cost of this wall is $834,000. The City’s share of the cost is 10%, or $83,400,
which has been identified and reflected in the City’s Capital Improvement Program (C.I.P.).
Staff expects to work with Mn/DOT in conducting a public information process as that time
becomes closer.
Study Session Meeting of March 14, 2011 (Item No. 5) Page 2
Subject: Trunk Highway 169 Noise Wall Options
Additional Segments Proposed for City Consideration – Mn/DOT has informed staff that
funds may be available to construct additional walls or barriers for additional segments along the
east side of Highway 169 between W. 16th Street and W. 23rd Street, should the City wish to
pursue further. These segments all have a ranking of some degree under Mn/DOT’s noise
abatement study. Based on Mn/DOT’s programming and anticipated funding availabilities, the
locations and costs for these additional options are provided in the attached Table 1 and
illustrated per Figure 1. All options with the exception of Option H would require a contribution
from the City, and would not see construction until 2015 as proposed. These options are more
specifically described as follows:
Option B – Mn/DOT is offering to extend the Option A wall south to a location just south of W.
16th Street (an additional 200-300 feet), provided the access between W. 16th Street and Highway
169 is closed (See Figure 1). Mn/DOT proposes constructing this concurrently with Segment A
in 2015 at no additional charge to the City for the added wall length, conditioned on the access
closure.
Options C, D, and E – Options C, D, and E provide various options for extending additional 6
foot high fence, 10 foot high barrier wall, or 20 foot high noise wall for an additional distance
south of 16th Street to a location near the 1800 block of Independence Avenue. Lettings for
these options would be proposed in 2015 in order to occur concurrently with Options A and/or B.
Estimated costs to the City are reflected in Table 1.
Options F and G – Options F and G would be the same physical locations and constructions as
described under the other options above, but represent variations that could occur in the funding,
based on the timing and combining of specific options.
Option H – Mn/DOT is proposing Option H for City consideration, located between Cedar
Manor Lake and the large wetland area to the north of W. 22nd Street, a distance of about 2500
feet (See Figure 1). Mn/DOT is offering to construct a visual barrier at this location in 2012 and
at no cost to the City, provided the City is willing to approve closure of the exit and entrance
ramps to Highway 169 from W. 22nd Street, W. 22nd Lane, and W. 23rd Street. 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.
Similar to W. 16th Street, Mn/DOT desires long-term to eventually close this direct access 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.
Option H History - Construction of a wall and closure of access to and from Highway 169 at this
location has been 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 abandoned.
Study Session Meeting of March 14, 2011 (Item No. 5) Page 3
Subject: Trunk Highway 169 Noise Wall Options
Potential neighborhood traffic shifts and impacts were among the concerns expressed by
residents at that time. If Option H is pursued, a local traffic analysis would be recommended to
determine potential traffic shifts or impacts, as well as mitigation in the greater neighborhood
area, including Flag Avenue and the intersection of Cedar Lake Road and Flag Avenue.
Other Segments
The remainder of the City along Highway 169, south of W. 23rd Street, does not have any
locations that received a ranking under the Mn/DOT study. As a result, if the City desires to
construct noise walls south of W. 23rd Street, the cost would be 100 percent to the City. More
specifically, options and estimated costs for these noise walls are as follows, and located per
Figure 2:
Option I (W. 23rd Street to Cedar Lake Road) $480,000
Option J (BN Railroad to Minnetonka Blvd.) $375,000
Option K (W. 36th Street to Highway 7) $640,000
A noise wall already exists between W. 36th Street and Minnehaha Creek.
Next Steps - Because Mn/DOT funding for Option H is available in 2012, a public process
would need to be pursued relatively quickly if there is interest in pursuing this option further.
Option A is already programmed for construction.
Other options if pursued further (B, C, D, E, F, and G) could be let in 2015 according to
Mn/DOT, and a percentage of the construction costs would be shared by the City; the amount
depending on the type of improvement. If the City Council desires staff to pursue construction
of these additional segments, direction to do so would not be needed immediately.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
As previously described, the City’s share of the estimated costs for Option A has been
programmed into the Capital Improvement Program (C.I.P.) for 2015, funded with Municipal
State Aid (gas tax) funds. City costs for other options described that require a contribution from
the City would generally be funded through the use of General Obligation Bonds or other
funding sources yet to be identified.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
None
Attachments: Figure 1
Figure 2
Table 1
Prepared by: Scott Brink, City Engineer
Reviewed by: Mike Rardin, Director of Public Works
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
16TH ST W
HIGHWAY 169 SFLAG AVE SFORD RDMELROSE AVECLUB RD
16T
H
S
T
W
HILLSBORO AVE S22ND ST WKILMER AVEJORDAN AVE SPARKER RD
14TH ST W
23RD ST W
22ND LN W
STANLEN RD
CEDAR LAKE RD
FRANKLIN AVE
W
GETTYSBURG AVE SINDEPENDENCE AVE SDECATUR AVE SRUNNYMEADE LN FAIRWAY LN24TH ST W
24TH LN WHIGHWAY 169 SKILMER
AVEFLAG AVE
S
Figure 1T.H. 169 Proposed Noise Wall Alternatives(Refer to Table 1)
C, D, E
H
A
B
Study Session Meeting of March 14, 2011 (Item No. 5)
Subject: Trunk Highway 169 Noise Wall Options Page 4
HIGHWAY 169 SHIGHWAY 7
36TH ST W
34TH ST W
CEDAR LA
K
E
R
D
MINNETONKA BLVD
35TH ST W
33RD ST W
CLUB RD
FLAG AVE S28TH S
T
W
31ST ST W
VIRGINIA CIR N
AQUILA LN SVIRGINIA CIR S
29TH ST W
BOONE AVE SSTANLEN RD BURD PLJORDAN AVE SXYLO
N
A
V
E
S
32ND ST W
37TH ST
W
30 1/2 ST W
YUKON AVE SAQUILA AVE SCAVELL AVE SSB HWY169 S TO HWY7INDEPENDENCE AVE SDECATUR LNPHILLIPS PKWYGETTYSBURG AVE SHILLSBORO AVE SDECATUR AVE SVIRGINIA AVE S24TH CT W
TARGET SERVICE DRENSIGN AVE SBOONE CTHIGHWAY 169 SBOONE AVE SAQUILA AVE SGETTYSBURG AVE SBOONE AVE SVIRGINIA AVE SFLAG AVE SFLAG AVE SHIGHWAY 7
28TH S
T
W
Figure 2T.H. 169 Proposed Noise Wall Alternatives(Refer to Table 1)
I
J
K
Study Session Meeting of March 14, 2011 (Item No. 5)
Subject: Trunk Highway 169 Noise Wall Options Page 5
Study Session Meeting of March 14, 2011 (Item No. 5) Subject: Trunk Highway 169 Noise Wall OptionsPage 6
Meeting Date: March 14, 2011
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:
Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission 2010 Annual Report and 2011 Work Plan.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
This report summarizes work performed by the Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission
(“PRAC”) in 2010 and outlines the intentions of PRAC for work to be performed in 2011.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Are the actions of the PRAC in alignment with the expectations of the City Council?
Does the City Council wish to meet with PRAC to discuss the annual report and work plan?
BACKGROUND:
The Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission considers matters pertaining to long-range park
and recreation plans; and may offer recommendations in new development areas in relation to
park and recreation space. The City Council may request the Commission to study and advise on
other related items. The Commission consists of seven regular members and one voting youth
member. Meetings are held the third Wednesday of each month at 7 p.m.
In accordance with Council policy, the 2010 Year End Report and 2011 Work Plan attached in
full for City Council review.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
The 2011 PRAC Work Plan addresses participation in several focus areas of the Vision Process
including being a connected and engaged community; being a leader in environmental
stewardship; providing a well-maintained and diverse housing stock; and promoting and
integrating arts, culture and community aesthetics in all city initiatives.
Attachments: Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission 2010 Year End Report
Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission 2011 Work Plan
Prepared by: Stacy Voelker, Administrative Secretary
Reviewed by: Cindy Walsh, Director of Parks and Recreation
Approved by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager
Study Session Meeting of March 14, 2011 (Item No. 6) Page 2
Subject: Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission 2010 Annual Report and 2011 Work Plan
Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission (“PRAC”)
2010 Year End Report
The Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission Purpose:
The Commission shall study and consider all phases of public parks and recreation and
recommend to the City of St. Louis Park and Independent School District #283 a park and public
recreation program which best meets the needs of all residents of St. Louis Park.
2010 Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission
George Hagemann, City Representative, Chair
Christina Barberot, City Representative, Vice Chair
Sam Flumerfelt, Student Representative
George Foulkes, School Representative
Steve Hallfin, City Representative
Kirk Hawkinson, City Representative
Tom Worthington, City Representative
Vacant, School Representative
Parks and Recreation Department Staff
Cindy Walsh, Director
Rick Beane, Park Superintendent
Rick Birno, Recreation Superintendent
Mark Oestreich, Westwood Hills Nature Center Manager
Craig Panning, Manager of Buildings and Structures
Jim Vaughan, Environmental Coordinator
Stacy Voelker, Administrative Secretary
2010 Highlights
Youth Association and city organization representatives attend Commission meetings and
provide updates from their associations or organizations. Ideas to foster better relationships with
participants, other associations and the city are also discussed. In 2010, the Commission met
with the Lacrosse Association, Dakota Canine Club and he Baseball Association.
Concentrating on creating a green environment initiated discussions between members and staff
which included the type of recycling containers to include in parks. Staff set out various types of
containers in parks to find out which is most utilized. Members reviewed the statistic and
provided location suggestions to staff which were utilized in 2010.
Commission members visited the idea of installing artificial turf in the High School stadium at
the same time Benilde-St. Margaret’s school added it to their field. In response to the inquiry
staff conducted a turf feasibility study. Staff and members continued to discuss and included
questions on turf in the Community Recreation Study conducted in January of 2011.
Study Session Meeting of March 14, 2011 (Item No. 6) Page 3
Subject: Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission 2010 Annual Report and 2011 Work Plan
A Community Recreation Study was created, with the assistance of the Commission, to obtain
feedback from the community on what residents would like to see included in St. Louis Park.
Staff and the Commission worked with a consultant to develop questions presented to residents
via the survey in January of 2011.
The West End developers proposed a 120-unit apartment complex in the West End area.
Members reviewed the proposal and acquired $80,500 in park and trail dedication fees for park
dedication.
Members worked with staff to stay apprised of the spread of Emerald Ash Borer and educational
opportunities regarding the disease. Staff prepared and distributed flyers and information via the
website for residents to instruct what to look for in Ash trees and when to remove a potentially
susceptible tree.
Commission members reviewed and discussed art pieces that were added throughout the city.
Along with the Ellipse on Excelsior by Norman Andersen, public art added includes a “Green
Mosaic” in The Rec Center entrance created by Stacia Goodman, and the streetscape art project
along West 36th Street by Marjorie Pitz. Commission member, George Hagemann, is a Friends of
the Arts liaison and updates the Commission regularly.
Staff and members discussed over crowding at the Oak Hill Splash Pad in 2010. By taking
residential concerns into consideration, a new policy was created that provides residents use of
the Splash Pad for no charge while charging non-residents a slight fee and restricting group use.
The annual Minnehaha Creek clean up was held on Saturday, April 17 and volunteers cleaned up
the creek area by the Knollwood Mall canoe landing. Commission member obtained refreshment
donations from Target for the event. It was estimated approximately 100 individuals volunteered
at the clean up which was great success.
Commission members assisted staff in working with the four baseball associations (American
Legion, Traveling league, Little League, and Babe Ruth) to merge the individual associations
into one Baseball Association. The merger was finalized in 2009 and the association moved
forward in 2010 by creating bylaws and adding board members.
Throughout the year, staff presented and discussed Capital Improvement Projects with the
Commission.
Study Session Meeting of March 14, 2011 (Item No. 6) Page 4
Subject: Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission 2010 Annual Report and 2011 Work Plan
2011 Parks and Recreation Advisory
Commission Work Plan
2011 Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission
Christina Barberot, City Representative, Chair
Tom Worthington, City Representative, Vice Chair
James Beneke, School Representative
Sam Flumerfelt, Student Representative
George Foulkes, School Representative
George Hagemann, City Representative
Steve Hallfin, City Representative
Kirk Hawkinson, City Representative
2011 Goals
¾ Athletic Association Relationship: Invite each association to their monthly meetings to
continue a positive relationship.
¾ Athletic Association Research: Research how to further support association dissemination
of information to reduce costs.
¾ Commissions: Meet with other commissions as appropriate.
¾ Community Recreation Survey: Review survey results and assist in moving forward with
indicated priorities.
¾ Minnehaha Creek Clean-Up: Organize a clean up of the creek and creek shores.
¾ Park User Group Relationship: Assist in facilitating interested groups and other park and
recreation users (i.e. Friends of the Arts, Off-Leash Dog Park users, Historical Society, etc.).
¾ Playground Replacement Program: Encourage utilizing the Playground Replacement
Program through “Kids around the World’ by evaluating playgrounds to be replaced and
advising which could be utilized in another country.
¾ Recreation Resources: Invite Council to participate in exploring the city’s recreation
resources (i.e. bike ride, canoe trip).
¾ Staff Appreciation Luncheon: Serve an appreciation luncheon for staff.
Meeting Date: March 14, 2011
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:
Communications/Meeting Check-In (Verbal).
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Not Applicable.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Not Applicable.
BACKGROUND:
At every Study Session, verbal communications will take place between staff and Council for the
purpose of information sharing.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Not Applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not Applicable.
Attachments: None
Prepared and Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting Date: March 14, 2011
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:
2011 Valuation Report.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
No formal action required at this time. Staff has prepared a written report summarizing the 2011
Valuations to update City Council.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable at this time. This report is intended to assist the Council to more thoroughly
understand the local real markets and making decisions as part of the Local Board of Appeals and
Equalization process.
BACKGROUND:
The Assessing Division annually renders an opinion of valuation and classification for all parcels of
real estate in St. Louis Park. The attached report summarizes the aggregate conclusions. To follow-
up the written report, the Assessor will present an overview during the March 28 study session to
include an overview of the MN property tax system, the assessment process and the valuation
picture for the community as of January 2, 2011.
Related to the report, the presentation will also cover the appeal process in preparation for the St.
Louis Park Local Board of Appeal and Equalization scheduled for April 25, 2011.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Composition of the community’s real estate valuations and corresponding tax capacity has an
impact on the budget process.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable
Attachments: 2011 Valuation Report
Prepared by: Cory Bultema, City Assessor
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of March 14, 2011 (Item No. 8) Page 2
Subject: 2011 Valuation Report
2011 Valuation Report
(Payable 2012 Tax Period)
Assessing Staff
General Information – 952-924-2535
Cory Bultema – City Assessor – 952-924-2536
Marty Fechner – Assessment Technician/Appraiser – 952-924-2533
Mark Hoppe – Appraiser I – 952-924-2529
Deb Lynch – Appraiser II – 952-924-2532
Bridget Nathanson – Appraiser II – 952-924-2530
Kelley Schomer – Appraiser – 952-924-2638
Contents:
Summary of the St. Louis Park 2011 Assessment Roll….. Pages 2 – 6
The Appeal Process……………………………………… Page 7
Overview of the Minnesota Property Tax System………..Page 8
The Assessment Process…………………………………..Page 9
Study Session Meeting of March 14, 2011 (Item No. 8) Page 3
Subject: 2011 Valuation Report
Summary of the St. Louis Park 2011 Assessment Roll
The 2011 Notice of Valuation and Classification is mailed to each property owner in March. The
notice reflects the property value as of January 2, 2011 and applies to the Pay 2012 tax period. The
total valuation of the city stands at $5,248,322,200. This reflects a 1.0% “net” decline in total value
versus the 2010 assessment. A comparative review is the value composition is made as follows:
Historical Composition of Assessment: 2009 Assess 2010 Assess 2011 Assess
Residential Uses 69.6% 68.3% 67.4%
Apartment Uses 9.3% 9.4% 10.1%
Commercial Uses 21.1% 22.3% 22.5%
The above reference to the assessment composition indicates a value shift from residential to
apartments and commercial-industrial uses. This is expected given the recent value trending for
residential parcels which include single-family homes, condos and townhomes. Also playing a
significant role are recent redevelopment efforts which are critical in fully built-out communities
such as St. Louis Park. Further understanding of the value composition and year-over-year trending
is explored in the chart following.
Assessed market value change for dominant sectors (comparison of 2011 assessment versus
2010)
Single-Family Residential - 2.5% Static Basis versus - 2.0% with Improvements
Condominium - 4.0% Static Basis versus - 4.0% with Improvements
Townhomes - 2.4% Static Basis versus - 2.4% with Improvements
Apartments + 0.7% Static Basis versus + 3.1% with Improvements
Commercial-Industrial + 0.3% Static Basis versus + 1.1% with Improvements
St. Louis Park Total - 1.7% Static Basis versus - 1.0% with Improvements
Value change on a static basis reflects the property types in a direct comparison from one year to
the next and does not include improvement values arising from renovations and new construction.
While the static basis comparison is interesting, the value change including improvements is much
more accurate in terms of understanding the economic activity for the community. While new
construction and renovations continue in the residential sectors, they are down from past years. The
apartment sector benefited from the Ellipse (coming on-line for 2011). Continued commercial
sector growth in and around the West End project as well as other spot locations also mitigated the
overall value trends.
Assessors as a rule always reference the true market… i.e. the data by which we set the assessment
to mirror what is actually happening. The following chart provides a comparative reference for St.
Louis Park versus our immediate neighbors across multiple years.
Historic Median Sale Price– includes Single-Family Homes, Condos, Townhomes, Twin homes
% Change % Change
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 from 09 from 05
St. Louis Park 230,000 233,000 233,500 226,950 212,500 213,703 + 0.6%- 7.0%
Edina 357,000 389,500 378,000 387,500 324,950 339,000 + 4.3%- 5.0%
Golden Valley 262,000 267,900 272,400 257,450 220,000 235,000 + 6.8%-10.3%
Hopkins 190,950 205,900 205,000 170,000 164,900 150,350 - 8.8%-21.3%
Minnetonka 292,000 270,000 285,000 263,500 242,000 265,000 + 9.5%- 9.2%
Source: Minneapolis Association of Realtors Sales Data (MAAR)
Study Session Meeting of March 14, 2011 (Item No. 8) Page 4
Subject: 2011 Valuation Report
The preceding chart reflects aggregate figures for all (primarily) ownership based residential uses.
Viewed on a long term, St. Louis Park has retained value in line with surrounding communities.
And yet, when contemplating the sale price trends from 2010 to 2011, our performance seems to be
weakening. Why? A number of factors are noted for your reference. They include price points,
absorption of distressed properties and the relative performance within the dominant residential use
property types (single-family homes, condos, townhomes). We will begin with two charts reviewing
the performance variation in the traditional market, the foreclosure market and short sales.
Single-Family Homes – Median Sale Price – Traditional vs Foreclosure vs Short Sale
Traditional Market Foreclosure Market Short Sale Market
2009 2010 Change 2009 2010 Change 2009 2010 Change
St. Louis Park 228,500 228,725 0.1% 160,750 146,696 -8.7% 165,000 180,000 9.1%
Edina 408,500 441,525 8.1% 304,700 245,000 -19.6% 315,000 357,250 13.4%
Golden Valley 250,000 286,000 14.4% 157,613 154,000 -2.3% 168,900 180,000 6.6%
Hopkins 229,845 209,900 -8.7% 147,950 120,500 -18.6% 194,210 165,000 -15.0%
Minnetonka 300,000 327,500 9.2% 230,000 220,000 -4.3% 277,500 250,000 -9.9%
Twin Cities 219,900 225,000 2.3% 123,600 126,900 2.7% 160,000 160,000 0.0%
Source: Minneapolis Area Association of Realtors "The Thing"
Condo & Townhomes – Median Sale Price – Traditional vs Foreclosure vs Short Sale
Traditional Market Foreclosure Market Short Sale Market
2009 2010 Change 2009 2010 Change 2009 2010 Change
St. Louis Park 163,300 180,000 10.2% 102,950 83,000 -19.4% 180,000 170,000 -5.6%
Edina 146,150 150,000 2.6% 86,750 83,000 -4.3% 97,500 116,025 19.0%
Golden Valley 169,750 205,750 21.2% 78,750 125,000 58.7% 68,300 50,000 -26.8%
Hopkins 151,250 115,000 -24.0% 71,000 60,000 -15.5% 64,000 59,950 -6.3%
Minnetonka 174,950 165,000 -5.7% 110,000 110,250 0.2% 130,000 115,000 -11.5%
Twin Cities 160,000 160,000 0.0% 105,000 100,000 -4.8% 121,000 117,000 -3.3%
Source: Minneapolis Area Association of Realtors "The Thing"
Lender mediated sales are defined as those where the property is coming out of a foreclosure and/or
a “short” sale where the financial institution is involved in the listing of the property due to the
owner’s equity being potentially negative. Across the 13 county Twin City Metro Area: the 2008
market share of these sales represented 32% of the total transactions; in 2009 this market share
increased to 43%; and in 2010 the trend “improved” slightly to 40% of all sales.
St. Louis Park was at 17.7% for 2009 and increased to 20.0% in 2010 for year-over-year market
share. In the raw statistical sense, speaking, this is positive although the trending is
worrisome. Comparative performance, however, is important to understand. St. Louis Park
ranked 21st lowest for market share of lender mediated sales in 2009. Our rank improved to 8th
lowest in 2010. The assessment is tempered by these facts with the knowledge that we do expect
the distressed market to continue into 2011 given the local volume of sheriff sale actions during
2010, the timing associated with their absorption and the fundamental economic factors which have
improved only slightly.
We complete our review of the overall residential sector by breaking it down into two distinct
categories… low density (single-family homes) and mid-to-high density (condo-townhome).
Study Session Meeting of March 14, 2011 (Item No. 8) Page 5
Subject: 2011 Valuation Report
Single-family homes comprise over 50% of the community’s total value. Our contemplation
included the traditional sales review, on-market listings at multiple points throughout the year,
accessing the MLS sale info as well as statistics for the traditional and lender-mediated markets
(monthly and quarterly updating basis), quintile inspections which focused on the northwest
environs of the city and, of course, new construction and renovation permit reviews.
We are seeing a distinct market reaction where the quality properties are retaining their value much
better than those with lesser fundamental quality or unique attributes (such as wooded lots and
advantageous views). Review of the sale transactions from neighborhood to neighborhood for the
2011 assessment was reasonably tight… the dominant adjustment range was -2.0% to -3.0% and a
total range between -7.6% and +1.9% overall. Six neighborhoods were increased in the aggregate
valuation sense.
The single-family residential stock remains fairly durable, in the competitive sense, versus
immediately adjacent jurisdictions which play a role in our market. Our sale count continues to be
relatively healthy although it is important to note the issue of the traditional market versus the
lender mediated market. From a valuation standpoint, assessing staff has been monitoring both the
traditional sales and those of the lender mediated (foreclosure and short sale) sub-markets
extensively over the last three years.
There are forty-five (45) distinct Condominium complexes in the community with a decidedly
diverse stock in terms of structural vintage, design format (apartment conversions, lo-rise, hi-rise,
row-house and most everything in between), and a wide pricing structure ranging from 70,000 per
unit to over 500,000 per unit. This sub-market exhibited very complex movements in 2009 and
2010 with valuations based on both sales and on-market listings within, as well as between, each
competitively ranked complex. The total complex valuations moved in a range of -0.2% to -11.5%
with both market forces and intra-complex issues taken into consideration. The median adjustment
was -4.0% overall.
The low end stock (generally below 90,000 per unit) has partially leveled off following a two year
state of distress with the general economy, foreclosures, short sales and physical issues associated
with an aging stock. This segment of the SLP universe was adjusted on a significant percentage
basis for the 2010 assessment. For the 2011 assessment many complexes are stabilizing and we
tempered valuation adjustments relative to a) review of each complex and b) market evidence that a
floor value of 70,000 exists in this price niche.
The mid-range stock fared reasonably well with many individual unit movements approaching zero.
This market segment seems to be performing well for the 2011 assessment and comprises a majority
of the St. Louis Park units (average unit value at 143,024). The upper stock, generally defined as
200,000+ values, came down in most cases with a few specific complexes of more recent
construction showing signs of increased foreclosure and short sales. This is a distinct reversal of the
2010 assessment where the strongest performers were the newer projects which dominate the mid-
to-upper price brackets.
There are eighteen (18) distinct Townhome complexes in the community. About one-half of them
are relatively small with less than 20 units in the complex. The other half are predominantly in the
20-70 unit bracket with just a few larger complexes. In general, the same market forces are at play
in this niche as that of the condos with several mitigating factors. They include: a higher unit value
to begin with (average unit value at 182,305) which seems to be more economically durable; also
it is our perception that the physical designs tend to be less problematic albeit with some
Study Session Meeting of March 14, 2011 (Item No. 8) Page 6
Subject: 2011 Valuation Report
exceptions; and the rate of lender mediated transactions and on-market offerings tends to be less
dramatic. Complex movements tended to be in the 0% to – 8.2% with the median adjustment at –
2.4% for the 2011 assessment.
The Apartment sector has exhibited the least value change over the past few years. This is
partially due to one project (Camerata) coming on-line in 2009 and another (Ellipse) complete in
2011 along with a slightly increasing market for the 2011 assessment. Traditionally speaking, the
apartment market normally performs in a reverse image of the lower pricing brackets of the owner-
occupied residential market. We note, however, that this historic performance parameter has ceased
to be reliable due to the pricing influence arising from the foreclosure market forces in single-family
homes, condos and townhomes. In terms of value change, the smaller properties (fewer than 10
units) were reduced by 0.4% as this niche is small investor grade which is again heavily influenced
by competition in the single-family, condo and townhome foreclosure sub-markets. The remainder
of the apartment stock increased in value by 1.0% net of improvements.
The Commercial and Industrial properties were the strongest over the past three years in
terms of value growth albeit in contrast to relatively weak residential and apartment sectors. It is
important to realize that these properties comprise about 5% of our total parcel count while
accounting for 22.5% of the total value and, most importantly, 35.5% of the total tax capacity for
the 2010 assessment. The following table gives some background on performance over time:
Commercial & Industrial Valuation Change: 2009-to-2010 & 2010-to-2011
2009 to 2010 2010 to 2011
Dominant Use Categories Static Gross Static Gross
Restaurant & Grocery -5.7%12.8% -0.6%-0.6%
Hotel & Motel -16.8%3.5% +7.9%+7.9%
Office (All Types) -2.1%-0.2% -1.9%-1.5%
Retail (Free Standing, Big Box and Multi-Tenant) -5.6%17.2% -2.5%+0.3%
Industrial -3.3%-2.1% -0.9%-0.6%
Total Commercial & Industrial -5.0%1.9% +0.3%+1.1%
As can be surmised in reviewing the trends above, raw statistics can be very misleading. As noted
previously, the static value change reflects the direct comparison of the existing properties from one
year to the next. The gross change includes the value of renovations and new construction. For
commercial and industrial use properties, especially for “mature” communities, continuous
redevelopment is vital to long term health. St. Louis Park has been remarkably fortunate in
this regard
As can be seen above, the city’s commercial-industrial value actually increased for both the 2010
and 2011 assessment periods. These value increases are largely attributed to the West End
development project along with smaller developments interspersed throughout the community.
When the analysis turns to the existing stock, however, the picture is decidedly less optimistic.
The commercial-industrial markets clearly began a decline in 2008 throughout the metro area. The
fundamental economic forces leading to that decline can be summarized as jobs, the availability of
financing and slowing absorption of newer construction stock following years of robust growth.
Study Session Meeting of March 14, 2011 (Item No. 8) Page 7
Subject: 2011 Valuation Report
In terms of the dominant use categories, office buildings are a major value component of the total
stock. The trending has been for increasing vacant space throughout the west metro which is well
illustrated by recent reports showing rates of 14.6% vacant one year ago increasing to 17.3%
currently. Vacant and “shadow” space are forecasted to stabilize in the short term and likely to lead
to flat or nominal change in rental rates across the class A and B stock while the Class C stock is
already at reduced rates.
Another dominant use category of significant note is that of retail. While retail has struggled in the
metro market, in this respect the west sector has a relatively low vacancy rate currently under 10%.
Given the scale of the West End development, however, it has been noted that vacancies have
rippled throughout the community as many owners have contacted the assessing office to report that
existing tenants are requesting renegotiated leases in the middle of their terms. We do not expect
any significant positive movement in this sector and have set the assessment accordingly.
We close our review with the industrial market. We have reviewed the overall market and taken a
more conservative approach given the state of the economy. Industrial, as its own sub-market, was
reduced for the 2010 assessment by 2.1% and reduced again for the 2011 assessment by 0.6% as we
locally equalized properties and very few valuations moved more than a few percentage points in
either direction.
Study Session Meeting of March 14, 2011 (Item No. 8) Page 8
Subject: 2011 Valuation Report
The Appeal Process
We receive inquiries and questions about market value, the assessment process and how the
property tax system operates throughout the year. An open dialogue between staff and the property
owner is a key aspect of the mass appraisal system. We recognize that some properties receive
statistic-based adjustments to market value and the assessing staff welcomes an opportunity to
individually re-verify property attributes which are of public record. We also re-examine properties
in cases where there is doubt over the accuracy of our records. A very large majority of property
owners’ concerns can be resolved through this informal review.
In portraying the ongoing real estate “crisis,” many major media outlets fail to recognize that there
are significant nuances to real estate submarkets. The benchmark that is consistently cited by the
media is that average sales prices or sale volumes are rapidly declining, and they make no reference
to the performance of the various submarkets whether it is nationally or locally. For example, the
residential foreclosure and short sale market phenomenon has occupied bold headlines for much of
2008, 2009 and 2010. Yet when we closely review the sub-markets it is clear that our local market
is performing at a much more stable pace than is the norm. Also on the residential front, the
applicability and accuracy of sources such as Case-Shiller and Zillow have been found to be
frequently inaccurate in local context.
Two important points are stressed in the informal and formal appeal processes:
1. By statute the assessing staff utilizes the traditional market in setting valuations. We do
not disregard the impact of the distressed sale sub-market, but we do not utilize these
sales as comparables when traditional sales exist. This is not only by legal precedent but
also good appraisal methodology… we are seeing a marked increase in poor quality fee
appraisals using distressed sales which clearly do not understand the nuances of our
market.
2. Appeals on the basis of comparative assessment are not valid at the Local Board level.
By appealing on this basis, the property owner is essentially asking for a complete
reassessment of the entire community. Market transactions set the market. Comparative
assessment analysis (referred to as “equality” in assessor-speak) is handled through a
very well defined process at the tax court level. Equality is judged by the actual market
performance over the sales study period and the Minnesota Department of Revenue
publishes these reports annually.
Where there is evidence a property has been incorrectly valued, we will review and adjust the
assessed market value. Where we cannot have a meeting of the minds with the property owner, the
appeal process is well defined and offers multiple opportunities for re-valuation. In addition to
informal review, the appeal process is summarized as follows:
1. Local Board of Appeal and Equalization – The Local Board is scheduled to convene on April 25
with a likely re-convene date of May 9, 2011. Staff serves as the respondent in this setting and will
again provide complete information regarding each property that is the subject of appeal. This
process is greatly improved if property owners contact the Assessing division in advance of the
meeting if they intend to make an appeal so that we may educate them on how to prepare their
appeal.
Study Session Meeting of March 14, 2011 (Item No. 8) Page 9
Subject: 2011 Valuation Report
2. County Board of Review – Property owners may appeal the decision of the Local Board of
Review to the County Board of Review which meets on June 13, 2011. An application to appeal at
the County level is required by May 25 and we routinely inform all Local Board appellants of these
time frames.
3. Tax Court – Property owners may appeal directly to the Minnesota State Tax Court. Petitions
regarding the 2011 Assessment may be filed until April 30, 2012.
Overview of the Minnesota Property Tax System
Minnesota law establishes a specific process and time line for the entire property tax system,
including the assessment of property. The system is summarized as follows:
1. All real property is valued at market value annually and classified according to usage. In
addition there are a multitude of sub-classifications and credits which are administratively
updated.
2. State law defines how the value and class rate are translated into tax capacity as well as
refinements for subsidies and credits (e.g. homestead, veteran exclusion, limited market value,
etc.).
3. Budgets for each taxing jurisdiction, which include decisions on the use of various funding
sources, are set annually. Funding sources include the property tax levy, voter approved
market value referendums, bonding, special assessments and other sources such as user fees.
4. The total property tax levy is divided by the total capacity of each jurisdiction (city, county,
school district and others) to determine the total levy extension multiplier. The respective
multiplier for each jurisdiction is applied to each individual property to calculate property
taxes. It is essential to understand that the property tax “rate” is a math equation as used in the
Minnesota system.
The Assessing function deals with the first step above as staff renders an opinion of market value
and classification annually for property tax purposes of 17,000+ parcels in St. Louis Park. The
conversion of value and class into tax capacity is also subject to refinements for the sub-
classifications and credits as set by the legislature. The assessment of all properties must be made
in compliance with standards established by the Minnesota Department of Revenue and Minnesota
Statutes.
Market value is defined in Minnesota Statute 272.03 subd 8 as:
The usual selling price at the place where the property to which the term is applied shall be at the
time of assessment; being the price which could be obtained at a private sale or an auction sale, if
it is determined by the assessor that the price from the auction sale represents an arm's-length
transaction. The price obtained at a forced sale shall not be considered (emphasis added).
Market value is well described as a moving target. Market supply/demand, interest rates, general
economic conditions and seasonal cycles all play a significant role over time. The Minnesota
property tax system accommodates these issues by requiring an annual opinion of value as of
January 2nd. The assessing staff monitors the sales activity throughout the assessment period and
adjusts the valuation of each property in order to reflect market conditions.
Study Session Meeting of March 14, 2011 (Item No. 8) Page 10
Subject: 2011 Valuation Report
Classification of the property use is also defined by Minnesota statute. The rationale for this
requirement is that the Minnesota property tax system applies differing classification rates in
determining how the value is translated into tax capacity. The following table presents a summary
of the dominant property types and their associated class rates:
Base Homestead Non-Homestead e.g. Tax Capacity at Taxable Values
Property Type Values Base Over-Base Base Over-Base 250,000 500,000 1,000,000
Comm & Industrial 150,000 N/A N/A 1.50% 2.00% 4,250 9,250 19,250
Residential * 500,000 1.00% 1.25% 1.00% 1.25% 2,500 5,000 11,250
As can be seen above, the class system greatly favors residential properties in terms of the base tax
capacity rate which is used in the tax calculation process. This difference widens further as
commercial properties are subject to additional state based levies for education while residential
properties are reduced by subsidy factors such as the market value homestead credit. Voter
approved referenda are market value based so all properties are taxed equally on each dollar of
property value.
Study Session Meeting of March 14, 2011 (Item No. 8) Page 11
Subject: 2011 Valuation Report
The Assessment Process
Parcel Review and Valuation
The purpose of the assessment process is to annually render an accurate and equitable opinion of
market value of each parcel of property. Doing so requires current information about the properties
being assessed and the local real estate market. In addition to the economic market forces at work,
the individual property location, use and physical characteristics play a significant role in the
valuation. The St. Louis Park Assessing division maintains a record of every property in the city
including its size, location, physical characteristics and condition.
The Minnesota property tax system requires periodic inspections. The current cycle of inspection is
on a five year rotating schedule which may be altered due to physical change of the property
(renovations, remodeling, additions and damage). Approximately 20% (or a quintile) of all
properties are physically reviewed each year. This does not mean that all properties have an interior
inspection which may be precluded by scheduling difficulties or an owner’s preference. The goal of
periodic and interim inspections is to assess the characteristics and corresponding market value of
each property as closely as possible versus the property’s competitive position.
It is important to know that the valuation process for residential properties in the State of Minnesota
is based on mass appraisal. In years past, St. Louis Park and other cities used trending factors to
revalue all the properties (approximately 80%) not in the quintile districts that are physically
reviewed each year. Today the valuations are modeled by the use of a computer assisted mass
appraisal (CAMA) methodology. To summarize, the physical characteristics for each property are
maintained in a large data base which calculates the individual valuations based upon the location,
style and physical characteristics for each property with annual adjustments made to the data tables
to mirror market performance based on competitive properties that have sold during the comparison
time period.
The mass appraisal process is different from the individual appraisal system used by banks,
mortgage companies and others. The mass appraisal system used in St. Louis Park involves the
comparison of thousands of properties with the actual residential market transactions from the same
neighborhood, and market sales of the same quality and type of property throughout the city. New
houses, additions and remodeling are valued based on their characteristics and the value impact of
the improvement.
Having the local assessment system operate effectively also requires as much information about the
local real estate market as possible. The Assessing division makes a record of all property sales
using the Certificate of Real Estate Value (CRV) filed at Hennepin County for each property sale.
This information is frequently augmented with sales information obtained regularly from the
Multiple Listing Service (MLS) and other sources, including follow-up re-inspections in the case
where the sale price indicates that we may have imperfect information.
In all cases, the sales information collected by the Assessing division is closely scrutinized.
Evidence suggesting anything but an arms-length transaction (a forced sale, foreclosure, a sale to a
relative, etc.) results in the sales information being excluded from the market value comparison.
This is important as the market information constitutes the measurable database for the statistical
comparisons necessary to make the property assessment.
Study Session Meeting of March 14, 2011 (Item No. 8) Page 12
Subject: 2011 Valuation Report
Assessment Statistics
The two most common methods of measuring the quality and equity of assessed values are those of
the median ratio and coefficient of dispersion (COD). Simply put, the ratio is the measure of the
assessed value divided by the sale price of a closed arm’s length transaction. An example: a home
assessed at $380,000 sells for $400,000, the sales ratio is 95.0% (380,000 / 400,000).
The median ratio is the exact mid-point of all ratios where ½ of the sales are above and ½ below
that ratio. While the Minnesota Department of Revenue standard of acceptable performance ranges
from 90% to 105%, most jurisdictions are wary of approaching the 100% mark on a mass appraisal
basis. The target ratio has been around 95% for many years to accommodate the fact that the
median ratio, by its nature, is the mid-point. This is well illustrated by the bell curve chart below.
Median Median
100.0% 95.0%
95 97.5 102.5 105 90 92.5 97.5 100
The COD reflects the quality and equity of the assessment as it measures the dispersion from the
midpoint, or median. The more closely the assessed values are grouped around the midpoint, the
more equitable the assessment. Lower COD’s indicate that the individual ratios are closely
distributed near the median. In terms of accepted standards, a COD for residential properties
around 10.0 is good. The COD standard for commercial, industrial and apartment properties is
higher at 15.0 as these properties are more unique in value attributes.
The 2011 assessment is statistically broken down as follows:
Property Classification Median Ratio Coefficient of Dispersion
Commercial-Industrial 93.0 11.9 8 Qualified Sales
Apartments 96.5 (County) 0.0 1 Qualified Sale
Residential (Single-Family) 95.4 4.2 304 Qualified Sales
Condominiums 94.4 8.3 74 Qualified Sales
Townhomes 95.1 7.4 16 Qualified Sales
As can be seen above, the going-in 2011 ratio compliance is statistically sound. The sales period
being referenced is the state mandated sales study of October 2009 through September 2010. Our
analysis has also taken into account transactions in the period from October 2010 through
December 2010 given the current market forces at play. Slight variations around the target ratio
have been made to reflect market conditions as of the assessment date and the ratio has been time
adjusted on a preliminary basis. The MN Department of Revenue provides final time adjusted
figures approximately eighteen months after the assessment is completed which is utilized in the tax
court process.
Meeting Date: March 14, 2011
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:
2011-2012 Wellness Incentive Program.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
No action requested this time. This report is being provided for informational purposes. Please
let staff know of any questions, comments or concerns that you might have.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does Council wish to have staff implement a Wellness Incentive Program for 2011-2012?
BACKGROUND:
Why provide a wellness incentive? As health care costs continue to rise year after year, we have
searched for ways to keep our premiums low. Methods such as switching health care providers,
offering consumer driven health plans, creating VEBA/HRA accounts, and reducing plan options
have been implemented. At a certain point, the only remaining way to lower costs is to have
healthier employees. One way to make employees healthier is to focus on prevention.
The City of St. Louis Park has for many years offered and encouraged preventive wellness
activities such as health risk questionnaires, on-site flu vaccinations, on-site biometric screening,
free preventive medical and dental exams as a part of insurance coverage, employee assistance
programs, health and fitness discounts, and countless other health and wellness seminars,
challenges and events.
These wellness activities have all been offered to staff on a voluntary basis with no incentive for
participating. Research shows that providing an incentive for wellness activities greatly increases
participation.
Which preventive activities are being encouraged in this program? The Wellness Incentive
Program will encourage the six following preventive activities, which have been shown to have a
positive relationship with improving the health and wellness of participants:
1. Health Risk Assessment Questionnaire: This instrument provides the employee with a
health score and identifies areas in which they may be at risk for health issues. Follow up
counseling is available for those at high risk.
2. Biometric Screen: Employees are given a finger stick blood draw and notified of their
cholesterol, blood pressure, and glucose results. Follow up literature and counseling is
provided to employees who have high risk results.
3. Influenza Vaccination: Employees are given a flu shot to prevent sickness.
4. Preventive Medical Examination: Employees must complete an annual preventive exam
with their medical provider, or certify they are up to date on their medical preventive
services. Preventive medical services are provided free with the City of St. Louis Park
medical insurance.
Study Session Meeting of March 14, 2011 (Item No. 9) Page 2
Subject: 2011-2012 Wellness Incentive Program
5. Preventive Dental Examination: Employees must complete an annual preventive exam
with their dental provider, or certify they are up to date on their dental preventive
services. Preventive dental services are provided free with the City of St. Louis Park
dental insurance.
6. Certified Non-smoker (or participation in a smoking cessation program): Smoking
cessation programs are available free of charge through the City’s health insurance.
How will employees qualify for the Wellness Incentive? Benefit-eligible employees must
complete a form and certify they have completed at least five (5) of the six (6) eligible wellness
activities in 2011 to receive the incentive in 2012. The City Manager will have full authority for
setting program criteria and awarding the incentive to staff.
What is the recommended incentive amount? It is recommended that the City of St. Louis Park
provide an additional $25 per month employer contribution to employees who successfully meet
the requirements of the Wellness Incentive Program. The $25/month Wellness Incentive will be
provided to eligible employees in addition to the regular employer contribution for 2012. The
2012 employer contribution amount has not yet been determined, but a recommendation of this
amount will be provided to Council (based on premium increases and budget) in fall 2011.
Other info? Our benefit consultants have reviewed the proposed Wellness Incentive plan to
ensure compliance with regulations such as HIPAA and the ADA. This program is currently
offered as a one year incentive. Future incentives, if any, will be recommended to Council after
review of the first year. It is recommended that the full Wellness Incentive amount be provided
to ALL benefit earning employees (i.e., not pro-rated for part-time employees) who successfully
meet program requirements.
What are the next steps?
• Communication with Benefits Committee, all employees, and meet and confer with union
groups to explain and promote program.
• If Council has no comments on this program, the item will be presented at the next
regular meeting as a consent item for approval.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
If approved, the Wellness Incentive Program funding need will be reflected in the proposed 2012
budget. Based on an estimated 60% employee participation rate, the cost of this program would
be approximately $45,000/year.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable
Attachment: Draft Resolution
Prepared by: Ali Fosse, HR Coordinator
Reviewed by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of March 14, 2011 (Item No. 9) Page 3
Subject: 2011-2012 Wellness Incentive Program
DRAFT
RESOLUTION NO. 11-____
RESOLUTION APPROVING
2011-2012 WELLNESS INCENTIVE PROGRAM
WHEREAS, the City Council has established a benefit plan that provides an effective
means for providing employee group benefits; and
WHEREAS, the City Council establishes contribution amounts for each calendar year;
and
WHEREAS, the administration of such plans will be in accordance with plan documents
as approved by the City Manager, who will also set policy and procedures for benefit level
classification and administration of plans; and
WHEREAS, organizations with healthy staff often report higher morale and
productivity, and lower absenteeism and health costs; and
WHEREAS, the City wishes to encourage and incent staff to participate in activities
designed to improve the health and wellness of our staff to reap more of the aforementioned
benefits;
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park that a Wellness Incentive Program is approved as follows:
• Benefit-eligible employees who successfully complete the components of the program as
determined by the City Manager in 2011 are eligible for the incentive in 2012, and
• The amount of the incentive is set at $25 per month as additional employer contribution
in 2012. This amount is not pro-rated for part time employees (will be provided in full),
and
• The City Manager has the authority to set final program criteria, determine if criteria has
been met, and has complete authority in awarding the incentive to staff.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council March 21, 2011
City Manager
Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Meeting Date: March 14, 2011
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:
Federal Early Retiree Reinsurance Program (ERRP) Disbursement.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
No action requested at this time. This report is being provided for informational purposes.
Please let staff know of any questions, comments or concerns that you might have.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does Council wish to implement the proposed ERRP disbursement and distribution plan as
recommended by staff?
BACKGROUND:
What is ERRP? As a part of the Affordable Care and Patient Protection Act of 2010, an Early
Retiree Reinsurance Program (ERRP) was established by the federal government. This is a
temporary program (program ends when the $5 billion allocated funds are exhausted) that
provides approved entities with a reimbursement. The amount of the reimbursement is calculated
from costs incurred by our early retirees. The purpose and intent of the ERRP program is to
lower premium costs for all plan participants who may have high premiums because of claims
incurred by retirees still on our health insurance plans.
Did the City apply for the funds? The City of St. Louis Park applied and was approved to
participate in this program in July, 2010. We received our first reimbursement for funds (from
claims incurred from January – November, 2010) in the amount of $114,157.66 on January 12,
2011. Future reimbursements (if any) will be received quarterly.
Are there restrictions on fund distribution? We are prohibited from using reimbursement funds
as general revenue. The City must be able to demonstrate that funds (including any interest
accrued) were used exclusively to reduce or offset increases in plan participants’ health benefit
premium contributions, copayments, deductibles, coinsurance, or a combination of these costs.
What is the recommendation for distribution in our City? It is recommended that the City of St.
Louis Park transfer all the ERRP reimbursement funds directly to our plan participants. In
determining the method for distribution, we contacted other cities, our benefits consultant and
legal counsel. Our premiums for 2011 were reviewed and the lowest single premium on our plan
is tied to the $2,500 deducible plan for $420 per month. In order to treat all health care
participants in the same manner regardless of their plan choice, it is recommended that for one
month in 2011, all premiums are reduced by $420 for each plan participant. This will be a clear
pass through of the reimbursement from ERRP to those who pay the premiums. The timing of
this premium reduction will happen as soon as administratively possible.
Study Session Meeting of March 14, 2011 (Item No. 10) Page 2
Subject: Federal Early Retiree Reinsurance Program (ERRP) Disbursement
Who qualifies as a plan participant? Any individual that purchases health insurance from the
City and is required to pay in funds to BCBS for the premium is considered a plan participant.
This includes active employees who participate in our health insurance program, retirees who
continue on our plan and those on COBRA. Employees who opt out of paying for insurance
premiums are not eligible for this reimbursement under federal program guidelines. Those
qualified must be actively participating in payment of premiums on the date(s) of the premium
disbursement.
Have we had any experience with this in the past? In December 2003, Medica declared a
premium holiday to return cost savings to employers. Medica determined to not charge
premiums to the employer for a half month, and the City elected to pass those savings on to
employees who were enrolled with Medica. ERRP is a different program since we had to apply
and funds were granted to our City. Now we are required to develop a plan to pass the
reimbursement on within federal regulations to reduce the premium paid by the employee (it
cannot be used to reduce the cost of the employer contribution).
What about the possibility of receiving future funds? We will continue to participate in ERRP.
As stated above, additional funds may be distributed to the City based on federal funding
availability. After we obtain approval from Council on disbursement, we will move ahead as
planned and will also review this method used for disbursement and make a recommendation on
changes for future (if any) disbursements for Council review and approval. Any reimbursement
funds remaining after this ERRP premium reduction will be banked for future disbursements. If
this disbursement method is successful, and no other methods of disbursement are recommended,
it is recommended that the City Manager be authorized to approve future premium
disbursements. If the disbursement method is recommended to change, staff will present the
updated program to Council for review and approval.
What are the next steps?
• Communication with Benefits Committee, all employees (union and non union), and
former employees who are plan participants and purchase health insurance through our
program.
• If Council has no comments on this program and the method of disbursement of ERRP
funds, this item will be presented at the next regular meeting as a consent item for
approval.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
None
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not directly applicable.
Attachment: Draft Resolution
Prepared by: Ali Fosse, HR Coordinator
Reviewed by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of March 14, 2011 (Item No. 10) Page 3
Subject: Federal Early Retiree Reinsurance Program (ERRP) Disbursement
DRAFT
RESOLUTION NO. 11-____
RESOLUTION APPROVING
FEDERAL EARLY RETIREE REINSURANCE PROGRAM (ERRP)
DISBURSEMENT
WHEREAS, in the Affordable Care and Patient Protection Act of 2010, an Early Retiree
Reinsurance Program (ERRP) was established by the Federal government to provide approved
entities with a reimbursement of health care expenses incurred by our early retirees and;
WHEREAS, the purpose and intent of the ERRP program is to lower premium costs for
all plan participants who may have high premiums because of claims incurred by retirees and;
WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park applied and was approved to participate in this
program with the first reimbursement for funds received on January 12, 2011 and;
WHEREAS, due to program requirements, we are prohibited from using reimbursement
funds as general revenue and must be able to demonstrate that funds (including any interest
accrued) were used exclusively to reduce or offset increases in plan participants’ health benefit
premium contributions, copayments, deductibles, coinsurance, or a combination of these costs
and;
WHEREAS, we will continue to participate in the ERRP with any funds remaining after
this ERRP premium reduction banked for future disbursements. If this disbursement method is
successful, and no other methods are recommended, the City Manager is authorized to approve
future premium disbursements. If the disbursement method is recommended to change, staff will
present the updated program to Council for review and approval.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park that the following method for ERRP fund disbursement will be applied in 2011:
• The disbursement of funds received in January, 2011 will be applied to one month where
all premiums are reduced by $420 for each plan participant, and
• A plan participant is an individual that purchases health insurance from the City and is
required to pay a premium at the time the disbursement is issued, and
• The appropriate City officials are hereby authorized and directed to make this change in
payroll for the ERRP disbursement at a time approved by the City Manager.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council March 21, 2011
City Manager
Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Meeting Date: March 14, 2011
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:
Redevelopment Project and EDA Contract Status Report: 1st Quarter 2011.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
None.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
This report summarizes the current status of various redevelopment projects in St. Louis Park
with which the EDA has contracts.
BACKGROUND:
The attached report is meant to keep the EDA and City Council informed on a quarterly basis as
to the status of various redevelopment projects in the city to which the EDA is a party. It is also
meant to apprise city officials of any anticipated actions or issues relative to the contracts
corresponding to these projects.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Not Applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not Applicable.
Attachments: Redevelopment Project & EDA Contract Status Report: 1st Quarter 2011
Prepared by: Julie Grove, Economic Development & Planning Assistant
Greg Hunt, Economic Development Coordinator
Reviewed by: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Nancy Deno, EDA Deputy Executive Director and Deputy City Manager
Redevelopment Project and EDA Contract Status Report
1st Quarter 2011
Project
(Developer)
Required
Completion
Date
Percent
Sold &/or
Leased
Current Project Status
Former Bikemasters Bldg Renovation
(CKJ Properties, LLC)
18,000 SF building renovation 12/1/2011 10% leased
Building renovation currently
underway.
Pending Contract Actions:
Development Contract executed. Monitoring compliance.
Former Flame Bldg Renovation
(Hardcoat Inc)
33,600 SF building renovation 12/1/2011 Hardcoat to
occupy
23,600 SF
Seeking
tenant for
remaining
10,000 SF
Property closing to occur by end of
April. Final building renovation
plans to be brought to City Council
in May. Construction to commence
in June.
Pending Contract Actions:
Contract pending execution.
Wooddale Catered Living
(Greco Development)
Mixed used bldg
115 senior assisted living rentals
3/31/2012 0% leased
10,000 SF commercial space 3/31/2012 0% leased
Construction expected to commence
by June.
Pending Contract Actions:
An updated Redevelopment Contract with Greco was approved June 7, 2010. Redeveloper expects to
close on its financing with HUD in April and plans to start construction soon after. Due to the delay
in obtaining financing approval, a First Amendment to the Contract will be required to adjust the
project’s required completion schedule.
Ellipse on Excelsior
(Bader Development)
Mixed used bldg
132 market rate apartments
3/1/2011 92% leased
16,394 SF of ground floor
commercial space
3/1/2011 100%
leased
Building completed. Apts nearly
full. Commercial spaces leased.
Tenants include: Tu’s Nails,
Partners in Pediatrics, Mill Valley
Kitchen and a physical therapist.
Pending Contract Actions:
A Second Amendment to the Redevelopment Contract was approved September 7th allowing use of
the EDA’s property of 3924 Excelsior Blvd.
Study Session Meeting of March 14, 2011 (Item No. 11)
Subject: Redevelopment Project and EDA Contract Status Report: 1st Quarter 2011 Page 2
Project
(Developer)
Required
Completion
Date
Percent
Sold &/or
Leased
Current Project Status
The West End
(Duke Realty)
350,000 SF retail/restaurant 6/1/2010 73% leased
Building completed, seeking tenants
Little Szechuan Restaurant &
Sopranos Italian Kitchen are under
construction now.
28,00 SF 2nd floor office space 6/1/2010 60% leased Baker & Associates
120 unit apt. 12/31/2016 See note Construction anticipated
Spring/Summer 2011
1.1 million SF Class A office
space
6/1/2021
0% leased
Construction will likely occur in the
next few years once the office mkt
recovers and sufficient tenant
commitments are secured.
Pending Contract Actions: An Amended & Restated Redevelopment Contract and a single TIF Note
were approved 5/19/10. Redeveloper has requested the TIF note be reissued as two separate Notes;
this will require EDA action. An Assignment & Assumption Agreement was approved 9/20/10
allowing The Excelsior Group to purchase a one-acre parcel from Duke and construct a 120 unit
upscale apartment complex on the site. A Minimum Assessment Agreement will be needed for the
apartments.
Melrose Eating Disorders Institute
(Park Nicollet Methodist Hospital)
3-story 67,000 SF medical bldg 6/30/2009
100%
occupied by
PN
Building completed, occupied
Pending Contract Actions:
None
Lake St Office Center
(Real Estate Recycling)
4.000 SF medical office building 12/31/2009 75% leased Building completed, Twin Cities
Vein & Laser is the tenant.
Pending Contract Actions:
None. Contamination Cleanup Grant with DEED successfully closed out on 2/10/11.
Highway 7 Corporate Center
(Real Estate Recycling)
79,000 SF office/tech bldg 12/31/2007 90% leased Building completed, nearly full
Pending Contract Actions:
None. The long term future of the Purple parking lot is currently subject to SWLRT planning and the
Gold parking lot is subject to Highway 7 & Louisiana Avenue interchange planning.
Study Session Meeting of March 14, 2011 (Item No. 11)
Subject: Redevelopment Project and EDA Contract Status Report: 1st Quarter 2011 Page 3
Project
(Developer)
Required
Completion
Date
Percent
Sold &/or
Leased
Current Project Status
Hoigaard Village
(Union Land II Dunbar Development )
“Harmony Vista” – 78 units,
25,000 SF retail 2/28/2008 96% leased
70 % leased
Building completed, apts fully
leased, seeking commercial tenants
“The Camerata” – 220 units 9/1/2008 98% leased Building completed, fully leased.
“The Adagio” – 56 units 12/31/2011 0% leased
“Melody Row” – 20 townhomes 12/31/2011 0% leased
Developer seeking financing.
Townhomes several years away.
Pending Contract Actions:
Final approval of Tax Exempt TIF Bonds scheduled for October 18th. Extensions to stages 2 & 3 will
require Fifth Amendment to the Redevelopment Contract which is also scheduled for October 18th. In
the next couple months redeveloper plans to speak to the EDA regarding updated concept plans for
The Adagio building.
Brookside Lofts
(Master Dev & Foundation Land)
27-unit loft condo building 12/31/2006 100% sold Building completed, occupied
14-unit townhouse building 12/31/2006 100% sold Building completed, occupied
5 single family houses 12/31/2006 5 sold 5 houses completed, occupied
Pending Contract Actions:
None
Aquila Commons
(Stonebridge Dev)
106 unit senior housing
cooperative 12/31/2007 86% sold Building completed, 15 units unsold
Pending Contract Actions:
Currently reviewing Redeveloper’s adherence to purchaser income/net worth restrictions as specified
in Contract.
Village In The Park
(Rottlund Homes)
78 Townhomes 6/1/2007 100% sold Building completed, occupied
66 loft-style condominiums 6/1/2007 100% sold Building completed, occupied
60 senior condominiums 6/1/2007 100% sold Building completed, occupied
Pending Contract Actions:
Sale of VIP II property at 36th St and Wooddale Ave to Greco Development should occur in April.
TIF Note was paid off February 1, 2010.
Edgewood Business Center
(Real Estate Recycling)
79,000 SF office/warehouse 12/4/2004 100%
leased Building completed, fully leased
Pending Contract Actions:
Contamination Cleanup Grant with DEED successfully closed out on 9/23/10.
Study Session Meeting of March 14, 2011 (Item No. 11)
Subject: Redevelopment Project and EDA Contract Status Report: 1st Quarter 2011 Page 4
Project
(Developer)
Required
Completion
Date
Percent
Sold &/or
Leased
Current Project Status
Wolfe Lake Professional Center
(Belt Line Industrial Park, Inc)
2-story, 54,742 SF office bldg 3/31/2004 92% leased Building completed, nearly full
1-story, 10,038 SF commercial
“West” bldg 5/31/2005 100 %
leased Building completed and full
Pending Contract Actions:
None.
Park Commons East
Excelsior & Grand
(TOLD Development)
Phase I – 338 apts, 62,700 SF
retail space 7/1/2003 Building completed, occupied
Phase NE-124 Condos, 4,500
retail space 4/30/2006 Building completed, occupied
Phase E – 86 condos & 14,235
SF retail space 4/1/2006 Building completed, occupied
Phase NW – 96 condos, up to
5,000 SF retail space 6/1/2007
Apts 94.5%
occupied.
Condos
100% sold.
Retail 100%
leased. Building completed, occupied
Pending Contract Actions:
None
Fern Hill
(Park Land Company)
30 condos & 11,200 SF
commercial space 12/1/2001 100% sold
& leased Building completed, occupied
Pending Contract Actions:
None
Mill City – LA Oaks
(MSP Real Estate)
200 mkt rate apartments 6/1/2002 99.5%
occupied Building completed, occupied
Pending Contract Actions:
None.
Zarthan & 16 Street
(CSM Hospitality & Rottlund Homes)
Marriott Springhill Ste-127 units 3/1/2002 Hotel Building completed, occupied
Marriott TownePlace Ste-107
units 8/1/2001 Hotel Building completed, occupied
86 owner occupied townhomes 1/1/2003 100% sold Building completed, occupied
Pending Contract Actions:
None.
Study Session Meeting of March 14, 2011 (Item No. 11)
Subject: Redevelopment Project and EDA Contract Status Report: 1st Quarter 2011 Page 5
Redevelopment Project and EDA Contract Status Report
1st Quarter 2010
Project
(Developer)
Required
Completion
Date
Percent
Sold &/or
Leased
Current Project Status
Park Center
(Silver Crest Properties)
45 unit assisted living facility 6/1/2001 100%
occupied Building completed, occupied
Pending Contract Actions:
Monitoring Redeveloper’s adherence to renter income restrictions as specified in Contract.
Victoria Ponds
(SVK Development)
72 duplex townhomes 12/1/2002 100% sold Buildings completed, occupied
Pending Contract Actions:
None.
PNMC – Phase II
(Park Nicollet Health Services)
49,310 SF medical office 5/7/2001
100%
occupied by
PN
Building completed, occupied
50,690 SF medical office 12/31/2006 Not built PN paid EDA financial settlement
45,000 SF medical office 12/31/2010
Pending Contract Actions:
Staff is working with Park Nicollet on a settlement to address Redeveloper’s obligations to contract
Phase II under the Redevelopment Contract. Such a settlement will require a Third Amendment to the
Contract which will soon be scheduled for discussion in study session.
Study Session Meeting of March 14, 2011 (Item No. 11)
Subject: Redevelopment Project and EDA Contract Status Report: 1st Quarter 2011 Page 6
Redevelopment Project and EDA Contract Status Report
1st Quarter 2010
Redevelopment Project and EDA Contract Status Report
1st Quarter 2010
Study Session Meeting of March 14, 2011 (Item No. 11)
Subject: Redevelopment Project and EDA Contract Status Report: 1st Quarter 2011 Page 7