HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010/07/12 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - Study SessionAGENDA
JULY 12, 2010
Box lunches will be available at 5:45 p.m.
6:00 p.m. BOARD AND COMMISSION INTERVIEWS – Westwood Room
6:30 p.m. CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION – Council Chambers
Discussion Items
1. 6:30 p.m. Future Study Session Agenda Planning – July 19 and July 26, 2010
2. 6:35 p.m. Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission Annual Report and 2010 Work
Plan
3. 6:50 p.m. Human Rights Commission Annual Report and Work Plan
4. 7:05 p.m. Turf
5. 7:20 pm. Project for Pride in Living’s (PPL) Louisiana Court (LC) Development
6. 8:05 p.m. Affordable Housing in St. Louis Park
7. 9:05 p.m. Communications (Verbal)
9:10 p.m. Adjourn
Written Reports
8. Change Order to Contract 119-09 – Street Project – Highway 7 - Wooddale Avenue
Intersection Improvement Project – Project No. 2004-1700
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: July 12, 2010
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 –July 19 and July 26, 2010.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Council and the City Manager to set the agenda for the Special Study Session on July 19 and the
regularly scheduled Study Session on July 26, 2010.
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 July 26, 2010. In addition, on occasion, special study
sessions are required as is the case for July 19. For that reason, please find attached the tentative
agenda and proposed discussion items scheduled for that date.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
None.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
None.
Attachment: Future Study Session Agenda Planning for July 19 and July 26, 2010
City Council Items for Follow-up
Prepared by: Nancy Stroth, City Clerk
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of July 12, 2010 (Item No. 1) Page 2
Subject: Future Study Session
Tentative Discussion Items
Special Study Session, Monday, July 19, 2010 – 6:30 p.m.
1. Legislative Update – Administrative Services (45 minutes)
Gary Carlson from the League of Minnesota Cities will present a legislative update with a
focus on state finances and City budget implications.
End of Meeting: 7:15 p.m.
Study Session, Monday, July 26, 2010 – 6:30 p.m.
1. Future Study Session Agenda Planning – Administrative Services (5 minutes)
2. Communications – Administrative Services (5 minutes)
Time for communications between staff and Council will be set aside on every study session
agenda for the purposes of information sharing.
End of Meeting: 6:40 p.m.
Reports
• Financial Report for June
City Council Items for Follow-upCouncilmember Councilmember Councilmember CouncilmemberCouncilmember Councilmember Councilmember OneTwoThreeFourFiveSixSevenAffordable Housing Update (being discussed on 7/12/10)15105103HighTurf (being discussed on 7/12/10)wait for specific request22a412LowCharitable Gambling (in process)215645Low/MedCivic Facility Study 52314HighReplacement of BN Bridge over Virginia Ave6Need More Info4811Need More InfoHighHuman Rights Commission Annual Report (being discussed on 7/12/10)8Written Report7a107-MedParks and Recreation Commission Annual Report (being discussed on 7/12/10)9Written Report799-MedWomen, Minority Owned and Small Business Policy (Completed)7Written Report676--Council Workshop Recap (discussed on 6/28/10)43325-?Convention and Visitors Bureau (Direction given)341131-Environmental Inventory/Update 10922MedDiscussion on City Attorney Services1188?lowStudy Session Meeting of July 12, 2010 (Item No. 1) Subject: Future Study Session Agenda PlanningPage 3
Meeting Date: July 12, 2010
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:
Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission Annual Report and 2010 Work Plan.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
This report summarizes work performed by the Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission
(“PRAC”) in 2009 and outlines the intentions of PRAC for work to be performed in 2010.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Are the actions of the PRAC in alignment with the expectations of the City Council?
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 2009 Year End Report and 2010 Work Plan were submitted
for Council review at the February 8, 2010 study session.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
The 2010 PRAC Work Plan contemplates participation in several focus areas of the Vision Process.
Attachments: Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission 2009 Year End Report
Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission 2010 Work Plan
By-Laws
Prepared by: Stacy Voelker, Administrative Secretary
Reviewed by: Cindy Walsh, Director of Parks and Recreation
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of July 12, 2010 (Item No. 2) Page 2
Subject: Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission Annual Report and 2010 Work Plan
Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission (“PRAC”)
2009 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.
2009 Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission
Kirk Hawkinson, Chair
George Hagemann, Vice Chair
Christina Barberot, City Representative
Jenny Coig, School Representative
George Foulkes, School Representative
Sam Flumerfelt, Student Representative
Steve Hallfin, City Representative
Tom Worthington, City 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
2009 Highlights
Youth Association representatives attend Commission meetings and provide updates from their
associations. Also discussed are ideas to foster better relationships with participants, other
associations and the city. In 2009, the Commission met with the Hockey Association, Boys
Traveling Basketball Association, and the Football Association.
Throughout the year, staff presented and discussed Capital Improvement Projects with the
Commission.
Study Session Meeting of July 12, 2010 (Item No. 2) Page 3
Subject: Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission Annual Report and 2010 Work Plan
The Commission met with volunteers from the Dakota Park neighborhood regarding the Off-Leash
Dog Park to discuss suggested improvements. At the request of the Dog Park group, and approved
by the Commission, members recommended the addition of lights at the entrance of the Dog Park,
move the entrance closer to the Dakota Park parking lot, install a drinking fountain, and create a
separate small dog area. Also in 2009, the fees to utilize the Dog Park were changed, providing an
advantage to residents. Residents will no longer be charged an additional fee to utilize the dog park
as it will be included in their license fee. The fee for non-residents will remain unchanged.
Commission members reviewed and discussed art pieces that were added throughout the city. Along
with a welcome sign in the Aquila neighborhood and a Browndale Park sign, public art added
includes “The Bee Way” by Foster Willey, Jr. at the West End project; an interactive light display,
“Aurora Organ”, by Camille Utterback inside the West End project; streetscape art project along
West 36th Street by Marjorie Pitz; and Normal Anderson’s initial design for the Ellipse site.
Commission member, George Hagemann, is a Friends of the Arts liaison and updates the
Commission regularly.
Commission member George Hagemann, along with members of the Police Advisory Commission
and members of the community, were involved in a bicycle safety committee. The committee
discussed more effective ways to provide education to the public regarding trail crossings, work with
the police on enforcing the laws, and work cooperatively to solve issues that arise with an emphasis
on bicycling rights. The goal of the committee is to educate community members and police staff to
improve the dynamics of bicycling in St. Louis Park. Both the Police Advisory Commission and the
Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission provided recommendations that are incorporated into
this year’s park and trail map.
In 2009, the Commission applied for and received a grant from the Minnehaha Creek Watershed
District in an amount of $2,000 to purchase equipment for the Minnehaha Creek clean up. The city
purchased hip waders, garbage grabbers, bags, gloves and refreshments with the grant. The
Minnehaha Creek clean up was held on Saturday, April 18. It was estimated over 100 individuals
volunteered at the clean up which was great success.
The Commission actively participated in the Parks, Open Space and Natural Recourse
Comprehensive Plan put together by the Community Development department. They reviewed the
plan and approved it in March.
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.
Study Session Meeting of July 12, 2010 (Item No. 2) Page 4
Subject: Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission Annual Report and 2010 Work Plan
2010 Parks and Recreation Advisory
Commission Work Plan
2010 Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission
George Hagemann, Chair
Christina Barberot, Vice Chair
Jenny Coig, School Representative
Sam Flumerfelt, Student Representative
George Foulkes, School Representative
Steve Hallfin, City Representative
Kirk Hawkinson, City Representative
Tom Worthington, City Representative
2010 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 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 Recreation Resources: Invite Council to participate in exploring the city’s recreation resources
(i.e. bike ride, canoe trip). In 2010, PRAC would participate in the bike ride that the council
will be having in May.
¾ Staff Appreciation Luncheon: Serve an appreciation luncheon for staff.
Study Session Meeting of July 12, 2010 (Item No. 2) Page 5
Subject: Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission Annual Report and 2010 Work Plan
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
PARKS AND RECREATION ADVISORY COMMISSION BY-LAWS
Adopted March 13, 1957
Revised April 10, 1963
Revised November 8, 2000
Revised April 11, 2007
Article I - The Commission
1.1 Name of Commission. The name of the Commission shall be the “Parks and Recreation
Advisory Commission”, which is referred to herein from time to time as “The Commission”.
1.2 Powers. The powers of the commission shall be vested in the Commissioners thereof in
office from time to time.
1.3 Mission, Vision, and Values Statements. The Commission shall operate under the tenets
of the cities mission, vision, values and statements.
1.31 Goals
• The commission shall operate under annual goals which are stated in the work
plan form.
1.4 Purpose and Duties.
1.41 Purpose
• This 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.
1.42 Duties
• Duties of the Commission shall be advisory, and shall be such as are set forth in
Ordinance #540 – dated September 4, 1956 and as amended by Ordinance
#1403 dated April 17, 1978 of the City of St. Louis Park and of the Agreement
between School District #283 and the City of St. Louis Park dated August 13,
1956, and as amended in 1972. They shall include the following:
a. Study of current park and recreation programs, and desires of citizens for
such services.
b. Staff and commissioners will work together to keep acquainted with the best
recreation and park standards for communities.
c. Study and recommendation of long-range park and recreation plans for St.
Louis Park and be involved in public meetings where appropriate.
d. Provide recommendations and act in an advisory capacity to city staff and
city council regarding parks, recreation programs, nature center,
environmental/forestry, trails, facilities, park maintenance and related CIP
projects.
Study Session Meeting of July 12, 2010 (Item No. 2) Page 6
Subject: Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission Annual Report and 2010 Work Plan
Article II - Officers
2.1 Officers. The officers of the Commission shall be Chairman and Vice-Chairman whose
duties shall be such as their titles imply. A recording secretary shall be appointed by the
Chairman and need not be a member of the Commission.
2.2 Chair. The chair shall preside at all meetings of the commission. The chair shall also be
responsible for appointing Commission members to task force committees. The Chair’s
position rotates annually and the chair serves for one year.
2.3 Vice-Chair. The vice-chair shall perform the duties of the chair in the absence or incapacity
of the chair; and in case of the resignation or death of the chair, the vice-president shall
perform such duties as imposed on the chair until such time as the commission shall select a
new chair.
2.4 Secretary. The recording secretary shall be appointed by the Chair and need not be a
member of the Commission. The secretary shall be responsible for ensuring proper notice of
all meetings is given. The secretary shall also be responsible for the minutes of all meetings
and for the recording of all official actions of the commission in accordance with MN
Statute and City policy. The secretary shall perform other duties as the commission shall
prescribe.
2.5 Staff Liaison. A staff liaison to the Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission shall be
appointed by the city manager and shall be subject to the administrative rules and
regulations of the city. The staff liaison may facilitate or assist in the meetings and shall be
responsible for recording attendance of commission members. The staff liaison is responsible
for keeping the city manager informed regarding the business of the commission and shall
communicate to the city manager any problems or issues that may arise. The staff liaison
shall also be responsible for assisting the commission in considering their financial needs and,
if deemed necessary by the commission, shall request appropriate funding from the city
council through the annual budget process.
2.6 City Staff. Other city staff, from various departments, may interact with the Commission as
appropriate depending on the issue.
2.7 Delegation of Duties. Officers may delegate duties of their position to other personnel as
deemed appropriate by the commission.
Article III - Election of Officers
3.1 Elections and Terms of Office. The chair, vice-chair and secretary shall be elected from the
commission membership by its members at the regular meeting in December of each year, or
as shortly thereafter as possible. Terms of office shall be for three years and shall run from
January 1st through December 31st of each year, or until a duly elected successor takes
office. Officers may be elected to an unlimited number of successive terms.
3.2 Vacancies. Should the office of chair, vice-chair or secretary become vacant, the commission
shall elect a successor from its membership at the next regular meeting, and such election
shall be for the unexpired term of said office. Member vacancies will be filled in a timely
manner.
Study Session Meeting of July 12, 2010 (Item No. 2) Page 7
Subject: Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission Annual Report and 2010 Work Plan
Article IV – Meetings
4.1 Meetings. All meetings shall be open to the public. All meetings of the commission shall be
conducted in accordance with the Minnesota Open Meeting Law.
4.2 Annual Meeting. The annual meeting of the commission shall be the regular meeting in
December at which time elections will be held and the schedule for the following year’s
regular meeting schedule will be considered.
4.3 Regular Meetings. The regular meetings of the commission shall be held monthly on the
third Wednesday of each month. The commission may, by a majority vote, change the
regular meeting dates for any reason provided proper public notice of the changed meeting is
provided to the public.
4.4 Holidays. The Commission shall hold regular meetings as set forth in section 4.3 provided
however, that when the day fixed for any regular meeting of the Commission falls upon any
of the following holidays: Ash Wednesday, Chanukah, Christmas, Veterans Day,
Independence Day, Thanksgiving Day, President’s Day, Martin Luther King Jr. Day, New
Year's Day, Passover (first two nights), Rosh Hashanah, and Yom Kippur, such meeting shall
be held at the same hour on the next succeeding Wednesday not a holiday. (For Chanukah,
Christmas, Passover, Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur, the holiday includes the evening
before the holiday.) All regular meetings of the Commission shall be held in The Rec Center
of the city or other public building as noted.
4.5 Special Meetings. Special meetings of the Commission may be called by the chair or two
commissioners, or by the city council, for the purpose of transacting any business designated
in the call. The call for special meeting shall be delivered in compliance with state law. The
secretary must deliver to the commissioners at least three days prior to the meeting a notice
of the date, time, place and purpose of the special meeting. If however, all commissioners
attend and participate in the meeting, these notice requirements are not necessary. The
presence of any commissioner at a special meeting shall constitute a waiver of any formal
notice unless the commissioner appears for the special purpose of objecting to the holding of
such meeting. Notice of the date, time, place and purpose of a special meeting must also be
posted by the secretary at least three days prior to the date of the meeting.
4.6 Emergency Meetings. An emergency meeting may be called by the chair due to
circumstances which require immediate consideration. The secretary may notify
commissioners by any means available. A good faith effort shall be made to provide notice of
the meeting to any news medium that has filed a written request for notice of meetings. The
notice shall include the purpose of the meeting.
4.7 Quorum and Voting. The presence of a majority of all currently appointed members of the
commission shall constitute a quorum for the purpose of conducting its business and
exercising its powers and for all other purposes. In the event a quorum is not reached, a
smaller number of members may meet to discuss the business of the commission and
recommendations may be made, however, formal action must be reserved for such time as a
quorum of the commission is reached.
Study Session Meeting of July 12, 2010 (Item No. 2) Page 8
Subject: Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission Annual Report and 2010 Work Plan
Article V - Agenda and Records of Proceedings
5.1 Agenda Preparation. The agenda for regular and special meetings of the commission shall
be prepared by the secretary subject to approval by the chair. Items to be placed on the
agenda may be proposed by the chair, a commission member, the staff liaison or at the
request of the city council. Residents, businesses, or other interested parties may contact
individual commission members or the staff liaison to request that an item be placed on the
agenda for consideration. All agenda topics presented by the city council will be placed on an
appropriate agenda; requests from other parties will be placed on an appropriate future
agenda at the discretion of the chair.
5.2 Approval of the Agenda. The agenda shall be approved at each meeting prior to discussion
of any item on the agenda. At the time of agenda approval, items may be removed and the
order of business may be modified by a majority vote of members present at the meeting.
Prior to adjournment, members present may communicate items recommended for inclusion
on future agendas.
5.3 Record of Proceedings. All minutes and resolutions shall be in writing. Records shall be
kept in accordance with MN Statute and Rules regarding preservation of public records and
the MN Data Privacy Act.
Article VI - Attendance and Performance of Duties
6.1 Attendance. Regular attendance at meetings is a requirement for continued membership.
Commission members are expected to attend regular and special commission meetings and
assigned committee meetings. Planned absences communicated to the commission chair,
secretary or staff liaison in advance of the meeting will be deemed excused. Any other
absence will be deemed unexcused. The commission will approve and record the approval of
all excused and unexcused absences.
6.2 Reporting. Council will be informed if a member receives three unexcused absences in any
calendar year, if a member attends scheduled meetings irregularly or if a member is
frequently absent from scheduled meetings.
6.3 Performance of Duties. Commissioners are expected to adequately prepare for meetings.
Commissioners unable to complete an assigned task should notify the commission chair as
soon as possible. The commission may ask the Council to review a member's appointment
based upon its assessment of significant non-performance of duties.
Article VII - Commission Activities
7.1 Annual Work Plan. The commission will adopt an annual work plan that details activities
and projected timelines for the calendar year.
• The chair may appoint commission members to be primarily responsible for each work
plan activity.
• The commission may establish task force committees to oversee work plan activities,
chaired by members appointed by the chair.
Study Session Meeting of July 12, 2010 (Item No. 2) Page 9
Subject: Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission Annual Report and 2010 Work Plan
• Commission work plans will be submitted to the City Council by January 1st or as
shortly thereafter as practicable.
• Commission members will attend a study session to discuss the annual work plan with
the City Council. A written mid-year progress report is due by July 31 of each year.
7.2 Task Forces. The commission may create task force committees to investigate and perform
duties related to subjects of interest to the commission and to oversee work plan activities.
• Task force committees will be chaired by commission members appointed by the
commission chair.
• A task force consists of at least two appointed commission members, one of whom will
be designated committee chair or committee co-chair by the commission chair. A
majority of the task force must be present to conduct business, including at least two
commission members.
• The commission may consolidate or dissolve existing task forces at any time.
• The task force chair may appoint other commission members and representatives from
the broader community to the task force.
• The task force chair shall report about task force activities as an agenda item at regular
commission meetings.
7.3 City Council Annual Report. The commission will submit an annual report to the City
Council summarizing the past year's activities. The report may highlight issues of concern
and other information the commission feels appropriate to convey to the city council.
• The commission chair or designee will prepare the report for approval by the
commission. Commission members may submit signed addenda presenting alternative
conclusions or perspectives.
• The report and addenda are submitted with the current year work plan by January 1 or
as soon thereafter as possible.
Article VIII - By-Laws and Rules
8.1 Amendments. Commission members must be given one month's advance notice regarding
proposed amendments prior to formal commission action. Amendments to these procedures
can only be considered at a regular meeting of the commission.
8.2 City Council’s Rules and Procedures for Boards and Commissions. These By-Laws are
subject to the City Council’s Rules and Procedures for Boards and Commissions, amended
by Resolution 06-148 on September 18, 2006 and Chapter 2, Administration, the St. Louis
Park City Code.
Meeting Date: July 12, 2010
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:
Human Rights Commission Annual Report and Work Plan.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
The purpose of this report is to provide the City Council with the 2009 annual report and 2010
work plan prepared by the Human Rights Commission (HRC) in preparation for meeting with the
HRC at the Study Session.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Are the actions of the HRC in alignment with the expectations of the City Council?
BACKGROUND:
The Human Rights Commission advises the City Council on how to ensure equal opportunity and
participation in housing, employment, public service, public accommodations and education. The
commission consists of eleven regular members, one of which is an attorney and another that is
appointed by the School Board. The commission also may have two voting youth members.
Meetings are held on the third Tuesday of each month at 7:00 pm.
The City Council reviewed the HRC 2009 Annual Report and 2010 Work Plan at the February
22nd study session.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
Attachments: 2009 Human Rights Commission Annual Report
2010 Human Rights Commission Work Plan
Human Rights Commission Bylaws
Diversity Lens Project
Prepared by: Marney Olson, Community Liaison
Reviewed by: John Luse, Chief of Police
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of July 12, (Item No. 3) Page 2
Subject: Human Rights Commission Annual Report and Work Plan
Human Rights Commission 2009 Annual Report
The Human Rights Commission Mission: The purpose of the Human Rights Commission shall
be to advise the city council in its efforts to ensure all citizens protection of their human rights and
full and equal opportunity for participation in the affairs of this community. The commission assists
individuals and groups in cultivating a community that embraces principles of equity and respect for
all of its citizens.
Community Involvement: In 2009, the Human Rights Commission has actively participated in
several events in the community. In May the HRC partnered with the Police Advisory Commission
at the Children First Ice Cream Social. HRC brochures, posters, coloring sheets and buttons were
available along with the Diversity Lens created by the HRC. The HRC also participated in the June
Community Open House at the Rec Center/Aquatic Center. The HRC also participated in
National Night Out at Meadowbrook for the second year in a row.
These events were great opportunities to let the community know about the HRC and share the
Diversity Lens Magnet.
Vision: An ongoing project for the HRC has been to examine the Diversity section of Vision St.
Louis Park and develop goals/recommendations for actions. The Diversity Lens, created with input
from the HRC and city staff, is now available in magnet form. In 2009 and continuing into 2010, a
subcommittee is working on creating a brochure that will accompany the Diversity Lens. The
brochure will explain the purpose for the lens and how it can be used by the community.
Human Rights Award: Each year the HRC sponsors a Human Rights Award and the 2009
recipient is Kathy McKay. Kathy McKay was nominated for her work with the Iraqi I& American
Reconciliation Project (IARP). Kathy became involved in the IARP as a volunteer Executive
Director in 2007. The mission of the IARP is to promote reconciliation between the people of the
United States and Iraq.
Kathy has been involved in a variety of ways to promote this mission. She has worked on letter
writing projects between children of both countries; multiple exhibits of original art by current Iraqis
including a two month art exhibit at Sabes Jewish Community Center and two nights of multi-faith
programming at the JCC; initiation and successful establishment of the sister city relationship
between Najaf and Minneapolis; and most recently planning and implementation of a delegation of
13 Iraqi professionals for a two-week visit to the Twin Cities including St. Louis Park.
The overarching goal of the project and of Kathy’s involvement is to increase the awareness,
sensitivity and appreciation of people from a centuries-old culture that has come to the attention of
Americans.
Kathy has lived in St Louis Park since 1982. Her son attended school in St. Louis Park and now her
grandchildren are attending school here. Kathy has been an election judge in St. Louis Park and is a
psychologist who works in the disability field.
Study Session Meeting of July 12, (Item No. 3) Page 3
Subject: Human Rights Commission Annual Report and Work Plan
Bias/Hate Crimes: The HRC reviews all Bias/Hate Crimes and responds to the victims with a letter
and HRC brochure when appropriate. The HRC was notified of the following Bias/Hate Crimes in
2009.
Offense
Date
Police Case # Summary Information
7/29/09 09004425 Burglary and Damage to Property including two swastikas –
Jewish Community Center
5/22/09 09002964 Informational Report only – resident interpreted religious
publication as anti-Semitic.
4/15/09 09002140 Harassment – religious harassment in the work place.
4/9/09 09002042 Road hazard – several boards formed a swastika in the middle of
the road.
Divestment Resolution: Ms. Ellen Kennedy of the University of Minnesota Center for Holocaust
and Genocide Studies and Jan Kleinman, St. Louis Park resident, spoke at the September
commission meeting regarding a creating a resolution regarding divestment from businesses that
contribute to genocide in Darfur.
Per the direction of the HRC, Ms. Olson and Lt. Dreier met with the City’s Finance Director and
Deputy City Manager to discuss the divestment of these funds. The Finance Director stated that the
City can no longer invest in commercial paper per our investment policy. Our investments are only
with federal or local government agencies; therefore, we do not invest in companies that contribute
to genocide.
The commission had much discussion around this issue and voted at the January 19, 2010 meeting
to send the resolution to council. The Human Rights Commission would like council to consider
passing the attached resolution.
Bylaw Revision: The HRC discussed reducing the number of meetings from 12 (meeting monthly)
to 9 meetings per year. The commission would not meet in June, July or November. These months
have typically had lower attendance and there are also opportunities for the HRC to participate in
community events during these time frames.
Study Session Meeting of July 12, (Item No. 3) Page 4
Subject: Human Rights Commission Annual Report and Work Plan
Human Rights Commission
2010 Work Plan
Mission: The purpose of the human rights commission shall be to advise the city council in its
efforts to ensure all citizens protection of their human rights and full and equal opportunity for
participation in the affairs of this community. The commission assists individuals and groups in
cultivating a community that embraces principles of equity and respect for all of its citizens.
• In 2010 the commission would like to evaluate the current mission statement and
consider expanding the mission to include issues outside of the St. Louis Park
community.
HRC Participation in Community Events:
• In 2010, the HRC plans to partner with and participate in many existing community
events including:
o Children First Ice Cream Social
o Fire Department Open House
o Meadowbrook National Night Out
o Other events as appropriate
• Identify human rights and diversity events that are available to the residents of St. Louis
Park in the metro area. Rather than duplicating efforts that already exist, find ways to
notify our residents of these events such as through the use of an HRC webpage.
• Diversity Film – part of a multi year film series.
Vision St. Louis Park – The Diversity Lens
• Use the Diversity Lens as a tool to make connections with local agencies, organizations, etc.
HRC members present the Diversity Lens which will give these organizations a tool and
reminder to incorporate diversity into their events.
o Create a brochure and web copy to accompany the Diversity Lens.
o Compile a list of agencies/organizations to approach to share the Diversity Lens.
o Create a list of activities that are going on in SLP that we could participate in or talk
to the planning committee about the Diversity Lens
Connecting with our community and surrounding communities
• Continue to build a better connection with the Adult Education and ELL Programs.
• Connect with local (metro & state) Human Rights Commissions
Ongoing Commission Work
• Respond to bias crimes as they occur in partnership with the Police Department
• Select annual Human Rights Award winner(s) for St. Louis Park
• Sponsor a Human Rights Essay Contest and/or Poster Contest winner for the state
competition.
• Partner with other boards and commissions as appropriate.
Study Session Meeting of July 12, (Item No. 3) Page 5
Subject: Human Rights Commission Annual Report and Work Plan
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION BY-LAWS
Revised March 20, 2007 and Approved by City Council on April 16, 2007.
The St. Louis Park Human Rights Commission was established May 20, 1968.
Article I - The Commission
1.1 Name of Commission. The name of the Commission shall be the “St. Louis Park Human
Rights Commission”, which is referred to herein from time to time as “The Commission”.
1.2 Powers. The powers of the commission shall be vested in the Commissioners thereof in
office from time to time.
1.3 Mission, Vision, Values, and Goal Statements. The Commission shall operate under the
tenets of these mission, vision, values and goal statements.
1.31 Mission
• The purpose of the human rights commission shall be to advise the city council
in its efforts to ensure all citizens protection of their human rights and full and
equal opportunity for participation in the affairs of this community. The
commission assists individuals and groups in cultivating a community that
embraces principles of equity and respect for all of its citizens.
1.32 Vision
• The Commission adheres to the vision set forth by the City
1.33 Values
• The Commission adheres to the values set forth by the City
1.34 Goals
• Study and review programs and policies and advise and aid the city council in
enlisting the cooperation of agencies, organizations and individuals in the city in
an active program directed to create equal opportunity and eliminate
discrimination.
• Make recommendations to the city council regarding formulation and
implementation of human rights programs for the city. The programs shall be
directed toward increasing the effectiveness and direction of all individuals and
agencies of the city through planning, policy-making and education in the area
of human rights.
• Advise the city council with respect to human rights issues arising out of or in
connection with the plans or operations of any city department or agency and
recommend the adoption of such specific policies or actions as may be needed to
protect human rights in the city.
• Advise and recommend to the city council programs or legislation to eliminate
inequalities of opportunity in the area of human rights.
Study Session Meeting of July 12, (Item No. 3) Page 6
Subject: Human Rights Commission Annual Report and Work Plan
• Publish and distribute to the public at large any materials necessary or advisable
to carry out its functions, subject to requirements of the city council.
• Make studies, surveys and investigations necessary or advisable to carry out its
functions.
• Sponsor such meetings, institutes, and forums and other educational activities as
will lead to clearer understanding of local human rights issues and contribute to
their proper resolution.
Article II - Officers
2.1 Officers. The officers of the Commission shall be Chair, and Vice-Chair.
2.2 Chair. The chair shall preside at all meetings of the commission. The chair shall also be
responsible for appointing Commission members to task force committees. The Chair’s
position rotates annually and the chair serves for one year.
2.3 Vice-Chair. The vice-chair shall perform the duties of the chair in the absence or incapacity
of the chair; and in case of the resignation or death of the chair, the vice-chair shall perform
such duties as imposed on the chair until such time as the commission shall select a new
chair. The Vice-Chair serves for one year.
2.4 Secretary (if applicable). The secretary shall be responsible for ensuring proper notice of all
meetings is given. The secretary shall also be responsible for the minutes of all meetings and
for the recording of all official actions of the commission in accordance with MN Statute
and City policy. The secretary shall perform other duties as the commission shall prescribe.
2.5 Staff Liaison. A staff liaison to the Human Rights Commission shall be appointed by the
city manager and shall be subject to the administrative rules and regulations of the city. The
staff liaison may facilitate or assist in the meetings and shall be responsible for recording
attendance of commission members. The staff liaison is responsible for keeping the city
manager informed regarding the business of the commission and shall communicate to the
city manager any problems or issues that may arise. The staff liaison shall also be responsible
for assisting the commission in considering their financial needs and, if deemed necessary by
the commission, shall request appropriate funding from the city council through the annual
budget process.
2.6 Delegation of Duties. Officers may delegate duties of their position to other personnel as
deemed appropriate by the commission.
Article III - Election of Officers
3.1 Elections and Terms of Office. The chair and vice-chair shall be elected from the
commission membership by its members at the regular meeting in December of each year, or
as shortly thereafter as possible. Terms of office shall be for one year and shall run from
January 1st through December 31st of each year, or until a duly elected successor takes
office.
Study Session Meeting of July 12, (Item No. 3) Page 7
Subject: Human Rights Commission Annual Report and Work Plan
3.2 Vacancies. Should the office of chair or vice-chair become vacant, the commission shall elect
a successor from its membership at the next regular meeting, and such election shall be for
the unexpired term of said office.
Article IV - Meetings
4.1 Meetings. All meetings of the commission shall be conducted in accordance with the
Minnesota Open Meeting Law.
4.2 Annual Meeting. The annual meeting of the commission shall be the regular meeting in
December at which time elections will be held and the schedule for the following year’s
regular meeting schedule will be considered.
4.3 Regular Meetings. The regular meetings of the commission shall be held on the third
Tuesday of the month at City Hall at 7:00 p.m. The commission may, by a majority vote,
change the regular meeting dates for any reason provided proper public notice of the
changed meeting is provided to the public.
4.4 Holidays. The Commission shall hold regular meetings as set forth in section 4.3. [provided
however, that when the day fixed for any regular meeting of the Commission falls upon any
of the following holidays: Ash Wednesday, Chanukah, Christmas, Veterans Day,
Independence Day, Thanksgiving Day, President’s Day, Martin Luther King Jr. Day, New
Year's Day, Passover (first two nights), Rosh Hashanah, and Yom Kippur, such meeting shall
be held at the same hour on the next succeeding Tuesday not a holiday. (For Chanukah,
Christmas, Passover, Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur, the holiday includes the evening
before the holiday.) All regular meetings of the Commission shall be held in the City Hall of
the City or other public building as noticed.
4.5 Special Meetings. Special meetings of the Commission may be called by the chair or two
commissioners, or by the city council, for the purpose of transacting any business designated
in the call. The call for special meeting shall be delivered in compliance with state law. The
secretary must deliver to the commissioners at least three days prior to the meeting a notice
of the date, time, place and purpose of the special meeting. If however, all commissioners
attend and participate in the meeting, these notice requirements are not necessary. The
presence of any commissioner at a special meeting shall constitute a waiver of any formal
notice unless the commissioner appears for the special purpose of objecting to the holding of
such meeting. Notice of the date, time, place and purpose of a special meeting must also be
posted by the secretary on the principal bulletin board of the city at least three days prior to
the date of the meeting.
4.5 Emergency Meetings. An emergency meeting may be called by the chair due to
circumstances which require immediate consideration. The staff liaison may notify
commissioners by any means available. A good faith effort shall be made to provide notice of
the meeting to any news medium that has filed a written request for notice of meetings. The
notice shall include the purpose of the meeting.
4.5 Quorum and Voting. The presence of a majority of all currently appointed members of the
commission shall constitute a quorum for the purpose of conducting its business and
exercising its powers and for all other purposes. In the event a quorum is not reached, a
Study Session Meeting of July 12, (Item No. 3) Page 8
Subject: Human Rights Commission Annual Report and Work Plan
smaller number of members may meet to discuss the business of the commission and
recommendations may be made, however, formal action must be reserved for such time as a
quorum of the commission is reached.
Article V - Agenda and Records of Proceedings
5.1 Agenda Preparation. The agenda for regular and special meetings of the commission shall
be prepared by the staff liaison subject to approval by the chair. Items to be placed on the
agenda may be proposed by the chair, a commission member, the staff liaison or at the
request of the city council. Residents, businesses, or other interested parties may contact
individual commission members or the staff liaison to request that an item be placed on the
agenda for consideration. All agenda topics presented by the city council will be placed on
an appropriate agenda, requests from other parties will be placed on an appropriate future
agenda at the discretion of the chair. .
5.2 Approval of the Agenda. The agenda shall be approved at each meeting prior to discussion
of any item on the agenda. At the time of agenda approval, items may be removed and the
order of business may be modified by a majority vote of members present at the meeting.
Prior to adjournment, members present may communicate items recommended for inclusion
on future agendas.
5.3 Record of Proceedings. All minutes and resolutions shall be in writing and shall be copied
in the journal of the proceedings of the Authority. Records shall be kept in accordance with
MN Statute and Rules regarding preservation of public records and the MN Data Privacy
Act.
Article VI - Attendance and Performance of Duties
6.1 Attendance. Regular attendance at meetings is a requirement for continued membership.
Commission members are expected to attend regular and special commission meetings and
assigned committee meetings. Planned absences communicated to the commission chair or
committee task force chair in advance of the meeting will be deemed excused. Any other
absence will be deemed unexcused. The commission will approve and record the approval of
all excused and unexcused absences.
6.2 Reporting. Council will be informed if a member receives three unexcused absences in any
calendar year, if a member attends scheduled meetings irregularly or if a member is
frequently absent from scheduled meetings.
6.3 Performance of Duties. Commissioners are expected to adequately prepare for meetings.
Commissioners unable to complete an assigned task should notify the commission chair or
task force chair as soon as possible. The commission may ask the Council to review a
member's appointment based upon its assessment of significant non-performance of duties.
Article VII - Commission Activities
7.1 Annual Work Plan. The commission will adopt an annual work plan that details activities
and projected timelines for the calendar year.
• The chair may appoint commission members to be primarily responsible for each work
plan activity.
Study Session Meeting of July 12, (Item No. 3) Page 9
Subject: Human Rights Commission Annual Report and Work Plan
• The commission may establish task force committees to oversee work plan activities,
chaired by members appointed by the chair.
• Commission work plans will be submitted to the City Council by January 1st or as
shortly thereafter as practicable.
• Commission members will attend a study session to discuss the annual work plan with
the City Council. A written mid-year progress report is due by July 31 of each year.
7.2 Task Forces. The commission may create task force committees to investigate and perform
duties related to subjects of interest to the commission and to oversee work plan activities.
• Task force committees will be chaired by commission members appointed by the
commission chair.
• A task force consists of at least two appointed commission members, one of whom will
be designated committee chair or committee co-chair by the commission chair. A
majority of the task force must be present to conduct business, including at least two
commission members.
• The commission may consolidate or dissolve existing task forces at any time.
• The task force chair may appoint other commission members and representatives from
the broader community to the task force.
• The task force chair shall report about task force activities as an agenda item at regular
commission meetings.
7.3 City Council Annual Report. The commission will submit an annual report to the City
Council summarizing the past year's activities. The report may highlight issues of concern
and other information the commission feels appropriate to convey to the city council.
• The commission chair or designee will prepare the report for approval by the
commission. Commission members may submit signed addenda presenting alternative
conclusions or perspectives.
• The report and addenda are submitted with the current year work plan by January 1 or
as soon thereafter as possible.
Article VIII - By-Laws and Rules
8.1 Amendments. These By-Laws may be amended by a majority of all voting member of the
commission. Commission members must be given one month's advance notice regarding
proposed amendments prior to formal commission action. Amendments to these procedures
can only be considered at a regular meeting of the commission.
8.2 City Council’s Rules and Procedures for Boards and Commissions. These by-laws are
subject to the City Council’s Rules and Procedures for Boards and Commissions, amended
by Resolution 06-148 on September 18, 2006 and Chapter 2, Administration, the St. Louis
Park City Code.
Study Session Meeting of July 12, (Item No. 3) Page 10
Subject: Human Rights Commission Annual Report and Work Plan
Diversity
Lens
2009
Study Session Meeting of July 12, (Item No. 3) Page 11
Subject: Human Rights Commission Annual Report and Work Plan
St. Louis Park, MN Diversity Lens Project
Project Objectives / Description:
The Diversity Lens initiative was created to facilitate respect for diversity and the various world views
represented by the citizens of St. Louis Park. Through open education, information dissemination
and community interaction the initiative encourages each resident, business, city officials and staff
member, and visitor to appreciate that each person has developed a unique lens through which they
view the world.
Tools / References:
• The 10 Lenses: Your Guide to Living and Working in a Multicultural World Mark A.
Williams
• Census information
• New Resident Packet Update/Insert
Diversity Lens Roll Out:
• Adopt following definition of diversity:
o Diversity: The concept of diversity encompasses acceptance and respect. It means
understanding that each individual is unique, and recognizing our individual
differences.
These can be along the dimensions of race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation,
socio-economic status, age, physical abilities, religious beliefs, political beliefs, or
other ideologies.
It is the exploration of these differences in a safe, positive, and nurturing
environment. It is about understanding each other and moving beyond simple
tolerance to embracing and celebrating the rich dimensions of diversity contained
within each individual.
• Request each city department include verbiage about inclusiveness and respect for diversity
(Ex.: Community Development)
• Develop education / training tools for Diversity Lens to educate city staff, officials, etc. about
diversity in general and the St. Louis Park Diversity Lens initiative specifically.
• Create literature, website copy, and new resident information to support the diversity lens.
Study Session Meeting of July 12, (Item No. 3) Page 12
Subject: Human Rights Commission Annual Report and Work Plan
St. Louis Park, MN Diversity Lens Project
St. Louis Park - Diversity Lens Campaign Outline:
Vision Statement:
WE cultivate understanding and educate US to inspire inclusiveness within our community!
Audiences:
City Officials and Staff / Organizations: PARTICIPANT
• Goals / Recommendations:
o Educate department staff about the “Diversity Lens”
o Include statement of value for diversity in mission statement of each department.
Ex: Community Development
o Internal education sessions about diversity
Residents: RECIEVERS: EDUCATE
PARTICIPANT
• Goals / Recommendations:
o Educate community / citizenry about SLP vision & mission
o Educate residents about the “Diversity Lens”
o Promote participation in SLP events to foster inclusiveness.
o Neighborhood Association involvement to re-enforce community.
o Active outreach in schools / by School District
Visitors: RECEIVERS: UNDERSTANDING
• Goals / Recommendations:
o City and Citizens should understand the Diversity Lens vision statement
o Clearly and visually support diversity mission with marketing collateral.
o Inspire all organization (civic & business) to engage and welcome visitors.
Businesses: PARTICIPANT
• Goals / Recommendations:
o Educate employees about SLP diversity vision & mission.
o Educate employees about “Diversity Lens”.
o Promote participation in communicating to the broader community, their
employees, and clients
Study Session Meeting of July 12, (Item No. 3) Page 13
Subject: Human Rights Commission Annual Report and Work Plan
St. Louis Park, MN Diversity Lens Project
Preliminary Timeline:
• December 2009: Present to Human Rights Committee
• February/March 2010: Present recommendations to St. Louis Park City Council
• April 2010: Initiate Program
Partners: How do we roll this out?
• Human Rights Commission members
• Communications Department – help in developing communications material (creative,
website, media, etc.)
• Directors – “buy in” to the program
Definitions:
Participant: will participate in the active roll out of the Diversity Lens (Involved and Active role)
Receivers: audience that received the information
Meeting Date: July 12, 2010
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:
Turf
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
No formal action required. Staff requests feedback on the information provided in this report and
the policy question noted below.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the City Council desire staff to undertake further efforts on partnering with the St. Louis Park
School District and other potential users/funders for capital funding for the construction of an
artificial turf field?
BACKGROUND:
At the March 22, 2010 City Council meeting, staff presented the feasibility study to construct a turf
field at the St. Louis Park High School site. The report was developed by Andy Ewald, St. Louis
Park High School Athletic Director, Cindy Walsh, Rick Birno and Rick Beane. Attached is a copy of
the feasibility report outlining the estimated expenses and revenues associated with the construction
and operation of an artificial turf field on a full-size soccer/football/lacrosse field. These estimates
have been developed through research of similar organizations who have installed artificial turf
facilities. The information in this report should be considered as rough estimates. A more detailed
cost estimate will require soil testing, engineering analysis for storm water, and further parking
analysis.
The City Council discussed the turf issue with the School District at their April 19, 2010 joint
meeting. During the discussion it became clear that, at least at this point in time, the School District
does not have capital funds to put towards a turf project. At the end of the conversation staff was
unclear as to whether it should continue to work with the School District on this matter. As a result
staff is requesting clarity as to what the wishes of the City Council might be on this issue.
Estimated Expenses
The attached report includes a breakdown of the estimated costs associated with the construction
and installation of an artificial turf field. The total cost for artificial turf at the St. Louis Park High
School Field is estimated to be $1,500,000.
In addition to the installation and construction costs, there would be an annual operational expense
of approximately $10,000. Estimated annual revenue is approximately $25,000.
Study Session Meeting of July 12, 2010 (Item No. 4) Page 2
Subject: Turf
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Funding for all or a part of this potential project is not included in the Parks Capital Improvement
Plan currently.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Installing turf on the High School football field would increase the use of the site considerably and
provide an additional amenity in the community. As a result, such a project could be considered as
creating or enhancing a community gathering place which would be in alignment with the Strategic
Direction of being a connected and engaged community.
Attachments: Turf Feasibility Study
Turf Study Area Map
Prepared by: Cindy Walsh, Director of Parks and Recreation
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of July 12, 2010 (Item No. 4) Page 3
Subject: Turf
St. Louis Park High School Field Turf Feasibility Study
Date: March 18, 2010
To: St. Louis Park City Council & School District #283 School Board
From: St. Louis Park Parks & Recreation Department
St. Louis Park High School Athletic Department
Subject: Feasibility Study for Installation of Artificial Turf on the High School Stadium Field
Listed below are estimates of the expenses associated with the construction and operation of an
artificial turf field on a full-size soccer/football/lacrosse field. These figures have been developed
through research of similar organizations who have installed artificial turf facilities. The information
in this report should be considered rough estimates. A more detailed cost estimate will require soil
testing, engineering analysis for storm water, further parking analysis, etc.
Estimated Construction Expenses
A. Design - engineering - testing - mobilization - demo - etc.
Estimate: $250,000
B. Soil preparation (import - export - grading - silt fence - etc.)
This is assuming that the soils do not contain contaminated material or poor soils. The
estimated cost will increase substantially if poor or contaminated soils are found on the site.
Estimate: $200,000
C. Storm water storage (difficult to estimate without appropriate engineering)
It is necessary to provide an area for the storm water to collect because artificial turf is
considered an impervious surface. State law and the local Watershed District require
stormwater management on a project of this type. Adding impervious area to a site causes
more stormwater to be shed from that site instead of soaking into the ground naturally.
Stormwater management, which can take the form of ponds, rain gardens, or even
underground storage, provides a number of benefits for the city. It helps reduce localized
flooding, which is common in St. Louis Park where we have stormwater pipes that are getting
older and were designed to provide a lower level of protection than current standards, and it
also helps meet water quality requirements.
Study Session Meeting of July 12, 2010 (Item No. 4) Page 4
Subject: Turf
This estimate reflects the worse case scenario which would require underground storage
beneath the field area. Because there isn’t any open space nearby to create a storm water pond,
it is likely that underground storage may be the only option.
Estimate: $250,000
D. Synthetic turf (estimated lifespan is 13 years)
Since it has been suggested that there could be significant savings by purchasing and installing
an additional turf field at the same time as Benilde-St. Margaret’s constructs their field, staff
contacted their supplier, Field Turf. There would not be significant savings to install another
artificial turf field in the same time frame. Field Turf indicated that they may be able to
provide a maximum savings of $15,000 (about .15 per-square foot on a 100,000 square foot
facility).
Estimate: $750,000
E. General landscaping, field maintenance equipment, turf supplies
This figure reflects the landscaping that would need to be done around the field once the
artificial turf has been installed. It also reflects the purchase of three pieces of equipment to
maintain the turf: a groomer, which brushes and loosens the turf, a top dresser to fill in the
turf with rubber pellets, and a Vac/Seperator which is used to clean the artificial turf.
Estimate: $50,000
Total Cost for Artificial Turf at the St. Louis Park High School Field
Estimate: $1,500,000
Estimated Operational Maintenance Expenses
Although an artificial turf field is less costly to maintain than a natural grass turf field, there are costs
associated with cleaning the turf, striping, and lining, and adding rubber pellets.
Estimate: $10,000 annually (the cost is approximately $20,000 annually to maintain the current
outdoor stadium field for mowing, lining, fertilizer, seeding and staff time).
Condition of Existing School Facilities
The school district has reviewed the amenities that support the stadium field and determined that
the condition of the lights, press box, bleachers and scoreboard are in fair to good condition. The
lights, scoreboards and bleachers are expected to last 10 years. The school district may need to
consider upgrading the press box within the next 5 years. The concession stand does need to be
upgraded at some point in the near future. In addition, there are no indoor bathrooms. Portable
units are used for all events. The concession building could be upgraded and indoor bathrooms
added for $250,000.
Study Session Meeting of July 12, 2010 (Item No. 4) Page 5
Subject: Turf
Estimated Revenues
Potential revenue generation is from mid April through October. Most local organizations surveyed
generate revenue for the rental of an artificial turf facility during this six-month period. The rates
per hour vary based on a number of factors:
• City sponsored/Park & Rec/Youth athletic assoc.: $25 - $50 per hour
• 50/50 groups (resident/non-resident): $35 - $75 per hour
• Private groups/for profit: $50 - $120 per hour
In addition to the rental fees, Parks and Recreation could implement new programs and expand
existing adult leagues, tournaments, and athletic camps. The estimated total additional revenue
from all these activities is $25,000 per year.
Other Considerations
There are a number of variables in considering artificial turf on the high school field. The current
stadium field is located north of Central Community Center and south of Lake Street. This is
currently used by varsity athletics and for big events approximately 20 times per year. There is no
parking lot directly adjacent to this facility. Any significant additional use of this site could create
concerns with the neighbors for on-street parking.
The School District does have another field site in back of the high school that is used by high
school athletics and is the site of track and field activities. This area is close to a parking lot, but
does not have lights, bleachers, concessions or storage. If artificial turf is placed this field, parking is
close and could facilitate more events. However, other improvements would need to be added.
The earlier cost estimates and revenue projections are for an open air site with approximately six
months of use. To dome the facility, which would increase usage possibilities significantly, the
additional cost would be approximately $2 million. This includes an air supported dome, lighting,
entrance building, bathrooms and mechanicals. The life span of an air supported dome structure is
approximately 20 years. Zoning requirements would also need to be considered.
O
High school stadium field
High school practice field
Study Session Meeting of July 12, 2010 (Item No. 4)
Subject: Turf Page 6
Meeting Date: July 12, 2010
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:
Project for Pride in Living’s (PPL) Louisiana Court (LC) Development.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
No formal action at this time. As a follow-up to the study session discussion of June 14, this report
provides background information to assist with the Council’s decision on whether to proceed with a
number of initiatives staff is recommending the Council consider taking to improve the financial
stability of LC. Proposed initiatives include refinancing the bonds for the project, establishment of a
pilot shallow rent subsidy program for 10 to 20 units at LC, and the contribution of a portion of the
existing debt service reserve fund (excess reserve dollars after a refinancing is completed) as an equity
contribution to assist in lowering the debt on the project and support the planned rehab activities as
outlined in the proposed refinancing plan submitted by PPL. The report also provides information
on the Park Center TIF District related to the status of the fund and potential uses, including
additional financial contributions to LC.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
From a policy perspective, the City Council is being asked to consider whether or not it supports the
following actions regarding the PPL/LC project.
• To refinance the bonds issued for the LC project in order to take advantage of reduced
interest rates now available;
• To contribute excess debt service reserve funds to buy down the debt on the project;
• To establish a pilot shallow rent subsidy program at LC that would provide rental assistance
to current applicants on the Section 8 waiting list, and put current vacant apartment units to
use and improve LC’s cash flow;
• To provide for an additional equity contribution to the project and/or to provide funding to
assist with project rehab needs;
• To utilize Park Center TIF District Funds for the rent subsidy program, equity contribution
and/or project rehab needs.
BACKGROUND:
The City issued General Obligation bonds to finance the purchase and renovation of LC in 2000.
This was done as part of a concerted effort by the City, working with PPL, to transform LC in to a
quality affordable housing asset for the community, For the most part, the initial goals of the project
have been reached but the transformation of LC has continued to be a challenge financially. In 2005
and 2006, additional funding was provided from the original funders of the project to address
needed capital improvements, replenish financial reserves and provide a limited number of rent
subsidies for targeted tenant populations. The City provided a $400,000 deferred loan and
additional funding commitments were secured from Hennepin County, Minnesota Housing
Study Session Meeting of July 12, 2010 (Item No. 5) Page 2
Subject: Louisiana Court Update
Finance Agency (MHFA) and Enterprise (Limited Partner). In 2005, the Tax Credit Limited
Partnership for the development was transferred from US Bank to Enterprise and the management
of the complex was transferred from PPL to an independent property management company.
Enterprise has proven to be a responsive and active Limited Partner providing the project with
approximately $500,000 in gap funding for operational costs over the past 5 years. In addition,
Enterprise has approximately $1,000,000 set aside for further assistance with future operational costs
and/or to use as an equity contribution in restructuring the future debt on the development.
Although it was hoped that the 2006 stabilization initiatives would address the long term financial
viability of the development, the project has continued to struggle financially. A secondary goal of
the 2006 stabilization effort was to stabilize the project until 2010 when the project’s financing
could be restructured and the overall debt on the project could be reduced. Current economic
conditions offer an opportunity to strengthen LC financially by refinancing at a lower interest rate.
In accordance with the terms of the General Obligation Bonds sold by the City to assist in financing
the acquisition and rehab of the development in 2000, 2010 is the first opportunity to refinance the
Bonds and lower the debt on the project.
In addition to refinancing, PPL has proposed a debt restructuring plan that includes funding
contributions from the County, MN Housing, the Limited Partner and the Family Housing Fund
to lower the overall debt on the project and to assist in funding a limited amount of rehab. Both of
these initiatives would further strengthen the financial position of the development and reduce the
City’s risk and exposure going forward.
At the June 14 Study Session, the Council reviewed the financial and operational status of the
development and discussed the financial restructuring plan proposed by PPL. Staff endorsed the
Plan recommending that the City refinance the bonds, contribute a portion of the debt service
reserve and create a shallow rent subsidy program that would be targeted for use at Louisiana Court.
The Park Center TIF funds are the proposed funding resource for the Shallow Rent Subsidy
Program. These funds are restricted for use for affordable housing related initiatives.
There was general agreement amongst the Council to refinance the current debt for a period equal to
that remaining on the current bond term (20years). The Council also indicated a willingness to
contribute the excess debt service reserve funds as an equity contribution. The Council indicated an
interest in pursuing the idea of the Shallow Rent Subsidy Program but requested further information
on program description and administration. In addition, the Council expressed an interest in
providing additional funding to the project either as an equity contribution and/or funds to assist in
financing rehab and capital improvements. Council directed staff to provide some financial
contribution options to consider for LC as well as information on other initiatives for which Park
Center funds could be utilized.
CITY FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS:
Since 2006, the LC’s cash flow has continued to be less than anticipated. Decreased net revenues
have made it impossible for PPL to meet the required 120% debt service ratio. The primary reason
for the decreased revenue has been a greater number of vacancies than budgeted and higher than
Study Session Meeting of July 12, 2010 (Item No. 5) Page 3
Subject: Louisiana Court Update
expected operating expenses combined with too much debt on the project. Despite the financial
challenges, PPL has remained current on all debt service payments with the exception of deferring
required scheduled reserve deposits. The current outstanding balance on the General Obligation
Bonds is approximately $3.77 million. Staff is recommending that the Council consider taking the
following initiatives to further strengthen the financial position of the development and reduce the
City’s risk and exposure going forward.
Debt Reduction and Refinancing
Refinancing: Although it is generally agreed that the project needs a combination of debt
reduction and capital improvements, limited funding prevents both issues being addressed to the
extent needed. PPL’s current financial restructuring plan (see attachment) focuses on lowering
the debt service on the project through equity contributions from the funding partners and a
request to the City to refinance the bonds to take advantage of lower interest rates. Funding
contributions are being requested from MN Housing, Hennepin County, the City (excess debt
service reserve), the Family Housing Fund and the Limited Partner, Enterprise. Lacking
additional funding resources, the prioritization of debt reduction over capital improvements
appears to be the best plan at this time. Lowering the debt on the project would improve the
development’s financial status significantly, although, this action alone does not appear to be
enough to remedy the developments financial deficit for the long-term. The combination of
grants, refinancing and assistance should make it possible for Louisiana Court to cash flow for
the next 10 yrs, but at a narrow margin and with not much funding for capital improvements.
The combination of lowered interest rate and reduced debt will greatly improve the
development’s financial stability and enhance the property’s ability to do improvements and to
secure grants for improvements in the future. PPL is projecting that annual debt service
payments will decrease annually from $325,000 to $140,000.
The refinancing model that staff is presenting to Council assumes a 20 year term which is the
remainder left on the current bonds. Enterprise has asked that the City consider extending the
term on the new bond issuance to 25 or 30 years. Extending the term of the bond is another
way that the City could lower the annual debt payment on the project without investing any
additional funding in the project. A longer debt service would mean that instead of PPL owning
the project outright in 20 years, they would still have an outstanding debt on the project for an
additional 5 to 10 years. If the Council is interested in exploring a longer term, staff would
suggest we ensure that there is an opportunity for the City to require a transfer of the ownership
if the project does not meet operational expectations. Extending the term would compound
the annual decrease in debt payments that would result from an additional equity contribution
to the project to further lower the overall debt.
Refinancing will trigger the required payoff of the $400,000 deferred loan between PPL and the
City. Staff recommends that the payoff be subordinated at this time with the balance of the loan
remaining in place.
From the City’s position as the first mortgagee, reissuance of the bonds at a lower interest rate
and contribution of the excess debt service reserve funds is a low cost way for the City to assist
Study Session Meeting of July 12, 2010 (Item No. 5) Page 4
Subject: Louisiana Court Update
Louisiana Court with the current financial situation. Refinancing at a lower debt amount will
further reduce the City’s risk as the first mortgage holder, offering further protection of the
City’s investment. Firm funding commitments have been received from Hennepin County and
the Family Housing Fund. MN Housing’s grant application deadline is mid June with funding
awards scheduled to be announced in October. Enterprise, the Limited Partner, will make a
decision regarding their use of the approximately $1,000,000 after the City and MN Housing
decide how to proceed. Unless bonds rates start to increase, refinancing will occur in the fall
following the funding decision by MN Housing.
Debt Service Reserve Contribution:
Refinancing at a lower total debt reduces the amount of debt service reserve required and makes
it possible for the City to contribute a portion of the existing debt service reserve as an equity
contribution. Currently, the balance in the debt service reserve, $325,000, is equal to one year
of bond payments. Following the refinancing, the annual debt service payment will decrease to
approximately $140,000. The City will continue to retain a reserve equal to one year of debt
service payments, freeing up approximately $185,000 to be used as an equity contribution to the
project. Permission to use these excess funds as an equity contribution will require authorization
from Metropolitan Council since the debt reserve fund was originally capitalized with Livable
Community Grant funds.
Equity/Rehab Financial Contribution:
As previously mentioned, the project would benefit from a combination of debt reduction and
capital improvements but limited funding prevents both issues being addressed to the extent
desired. Debt reduction over capital investment appears to be the best plan at this time but
additional investment in capital improvements will be needed over the next 10 years to address
ongoing maintenance/rehab needs and to implement upgrades required to maintain and improve
marketability.
Although, implementation of PPL’s plan will greatly improve the financial stability of the
project, it is the City’s objective that the development be successful, financially self sufficient and
able to meet future operational, rehab and capital improvement financial commitments. To
further support this objective and enhance the likelihood of this being accomplished, the City
could consider an additional financial contribution to the project to further reduce the debt
and/or to fund rehab and capital improvements focused on operational expenses and increasing
marketability of the development.
Under the current Plan proposed by PPL, the combination of grants, refinancing and assistance
should make it possible for LC to cash flow for the next 10 years, but at a narrow margin and
with not much funding for capital improvements. With an additional contribution from the
City, the annual debt service would be further reduced and cash flow would improve. Improved
cash flow would provide PPL with the financial means to address ongoing maintenance and
rehab needs. An additional financial contribution to address identified rehab needs and
upgrades in the units could improve the marketability of the development. This in turn would
lower the vacancy, increase rent revenues, improve cash flow and further improve the financial
status of the development.
Study Session Meeting of July 12, 2010 (Item No. 5) Page 5
Subject: Louisiana Court Update
If the City Council were interested in this approach, staff proposes the City consider an
additional $200,000 – 500,000 in equity contribution. From a practical standpoint, it should be
noted that once the bonds are refinanced the call date on the bonds will be reset and it will be for
another 10 years before the next opportunity to refinance. For this reason, the staff would
propose that an equity contribution to further reduce the debt service be a priority. Each
$100,000 reduction in debt translates into an annual debt service reduction of approximately
$6,800.
Equity Contribution Estimated Annual Debt Service Savings
0 $140,000 0
$100,000 $133,200 $6,800
$200,000 $126,400 $13,600
$300,000 $119,600 $20,400
$400,000 $112,800 $27,200
$500,000 $106,000 $34,000
Providing an additional $350,000 equity contribution would result in a lower annual debt
service payment similar to that which would be accomplished by extending the term of the
bonds for an additional 30 years versus the 20 years being proposed. The City’s contribution to
debt reduction could be provided by expansion of the City’s existing deferred loan from
$400,000 to $750,000.
PPL’s plan proposes $124,509 for capital improvements. Funding will be used primarily to
upgrade kitchens and bathrooms, replace fuse boxes with circuit breakers and replace doors and
millwork as funds allow.
In an effort to address marketability and lower vacancy, PPL is in the process of upgrading 6 of
the units that are currently vacant. Although the cost to rehab the units varies, depending on
each unit’s particular needs and previous rehab, PPL estimates the average cost to thoroughly
update a unit at approximately $12,000. If the City Council was interested, staff recommends
that the Council consider providing funding to assist in the effort to rehab vacant units to
improve marketability. As of June 1, the development had 23 vacant units. A financial
contribution of $120,000 would rehab approximately 10 units. Funds in the refinancing plan
designated for capital improvements will rehab several additional units. As vacancy decreases
and cash flow improves, PPL will continue to update and rehab units as turnovers occur. At
least one of the funders has also indicated a potential to access future funds to continue this
effort to upgrade units. If funding allows, efforts will also be made to improve occupied units to
enhance retention of existing residents.
Staff is proposing that Park Center TIF funds be the resource for funding the equity
contribution and/or to fund additional rehab at the development. The funding could be
provided in the form of a grant or a deferred loan.
Study Session Meeting of July 12, 2010 (Item No. 5) Page 6
Subject: Louisiana Court Update
Revenue Enhancement/Affordable Housing Shallow Rent Subsidy
Several other initiatives could be used to further stabilize the project. They have the potential to
create and retain affordable housing opportunities while leveraging additional rent revenues for
the development.
Staff is recommending that the City develop, fund and implement a shallow rent subsidy
program that would provide a $200 monthly rent subsidy for 10 to 20 units at Louisiana Court.
Eligible participants would be current and future applicants on the Housing Authority’s Section
8 Voucher Program waiting list. The HA currently has over 580 applicants on the waiting list.
Due to federal funding constraints, the Housing Authority has not issued a new Section 8
Voucher to an applicant off the general waiting list in almost two years. Creating a shallow rent
subsidy program would be a cost effective way to provide affordable housing to 10 to 20 families
in need while taking advantage of an available housing resource in the community. In June, the
vacancy rate at LC was at 18% (23 units). (Program details are attached)
Annual Rent Subsidy
$200 per unit
Add’l Market Rent
Leveraged(approx.)
10 units $24,000 $60,000
20 Units $48,000 $120,000
*There would be an additional administrative cost of approx.
$4000 to $5000.
Funding for the program would be provided by the Park Center TIF district funds. Staff is
proposing that the program be operated as a 3 year pilot at LC with the potential to expand in
the future, after careful evaluation, to other developments throughout the City. The Program
outline is attached.
Staff is also exploring the possibility of converting the twelve Hollman Public Housing units at
Louisiana Court to Project Based Section 8 Rental Assistance. Authorization from HUD to
convert the units requires a very lengthy application process so this is not an immediate solution
to the revenue shortfall but a conversion could result in approximately $55,000 in additional
rent revenue.
PARK CENTER TIF:
The Park Center TIF district was created in 1997 and will expire on December 31, 2023. As of
December 31, 2010, the fund balance in the district was $771,361. The estimated annual tax
increment generated from the district is approximately $120,000. The district has the potential to
generate an additional $1,560,000. Total TIF generated from the district will be approximately
$2,331,000. The increment may be used to pay eligible costs for “housing projects” anywhere
within the City limits intended for occupancy by low and moderate income families. Attached is a
memo from Stacie Kvilvang, Financial Consultant, with a detailed description of eligible uses of the
increment.
Study Session Meeting of July 12, 2010 (Item No. 5) Page 7
Subject: Louisiana Court Update
Each year the City’s budget includes funding for a variety of housing related programs focused on
promoting housing preservation, expansion and homeownership. The majority of these programs
are income restricted and would be eligible for funding from the Park Center TIF District. Last year
the City expended approximately $310,000, not including loans and staff salaries, for housing
related programs. The primary source of funding for these programs is the Housing Rehab Fund.
The Park Center TIF funds could be utilized to assist in financing some of these program activities
reducing the need to use Housing Rehab funds. The current fund balance in the Housing Rehab
fund is $468,000 and annual fund revenues are approximately $500,000. Revenues coming into the
Housing Rehab Fund are derived from the 1/8 of 1% fee the City charges on private activity revenue
bonds the City has issued over time. It should be noted that there are other expenses unrelated to the
housing programs charged to the Housing Rehab Fund annually.
It also should be noted that the Park Center TIF funds can be used this year and next for the City’s
Construction Assistance Program. This is a special short term economic stimulus program
authorized by the state as a means to create jobs now.
FUTURE:
The viability of LC as a vital community asset and attractive affordable housing option for the
residents of St. Louis Park is dependent on its long term financial strength.
When the City partnered to redevelop LC ten years ago, the City took the unusual step of issuing
General Obligation Bonds to assist in financing the acquisition and rehab of the development. The
City supported the project concept and determined that rehabbing and retaining this development
as an affordable housing resource was a worthwhile endeavor. At the same time, the Council didn’t
envision that the City would need to provide ongoing subsidy to sustain the development.
The Plan proposed by PPL should make it possible for LC to cash flow for the next 10 years.
However, considering the on-going challenges of making LC work financially and the inability of
this project to generate funds for PPL, it seems that at some point it might be better for both PPL
and the City (as mortgage holder) if PPL were to be out from under the burden of responsibility for
the real estate and focus instead on the mission of helping residents.
Staff is proposing that any re-issuance of G. O. Bonds should also include a requirement to adhere
to certain performance standards that insure LC is well maintained and well managed during the life
of the bonds and, that the City have the right to initiate a transfer of the property to a new owner
should the City determine a change in ownership is in the best interest of the community.
Performance standards will include a requirement to meet all financial requirements as noted in the
bond documents including, meeting a minimum debt service coverage ratio, making required reserve
contributions, meeting minimum occupancy rate thresholds, City staff will work with Ehlers and
Associates and Kennedy and Graven to make certain that “performance conditions” will be included
as part of the refinancing agreement to ensure that there is an opportunity to explore an ownership
transfer in the future if warranted.
Study Session Meeting of July 12, 2010 (Item No. 5) Page 8
Subject: Louisiana Court Update
The owner of LC needs to be able to take full financial responsibility for the development, whether
that means being able to operate LC continually at a loss in service of a greater mission; or, selling
LC to a non profit housing developer whose primary mission is affordable housing; or, returning the
development to private ownership as modest priced market rate housing.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Continued support of the project is consistent with the City’s visioning strategy and housing goals
including the City’s commitment to providing a well maintained and diverse housing stock,
strengthening neighborhoods, promoting property maintenance to foster quality housing and
community aesthetic and to promote and facilitate a mix of housing types, prices and rents that
maintains a balance of affordable housing for low and moderate income households.
NEXT STEPS:
Based on the direction received from the Council, staff will continue to work with PPL and the
other funding partners on the financial restructuring plan for LC. Staff will continue to consult with
Ehlers & Associates and Kennedy & Graven to determine steps needed to reissue the bonds and to
ensure that steps are taken to safeguard the City’s interest. Staff will keep the Council updated as
new developments occur.
Attachment: PPL Proposed Refinancing Plan: 20 Year Term
PPL Proposed Refinancing Plan: 30 Year Term
Ehlers TIF Use Memo
Shallow Rent Subsidy Program Outline
Prepared by: Michele Schnitker, Housing Supervisor
Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of July 12, 2010 (Item No. 5)
Subject: Louisiana Court Update Page 9
Study Session Meeting of July 12, 2010 (Item No. 5)
Subject: Louisiana Court Update Page 10
3060 Centre Pointe Drive
Roseville, MN 55113-1105
Phone: 651-697-8506
Fax: 651-697-8555
skvilvang@ehlers-inc.com
Memo
To: Michelle Schnitker
From: Stacie Kvilvang
Date: June 30, 2010
Subject: Use of Park Center Tax Increment
The City is looking at the feasibility of providing a shallow subsidy program to Louisiana Court. The
source of funding for this program is tax increment from the Park Center TIF District. At the June 14,
2010 City Council work session, council members inquired what other projects and/or programs the tax
increment in this District could be used for.
Park Center is a housing TIF district that was created in 1997 and will expire on December 31, 2023. As
of December 31, 2010, this District had a cash balance of $771,361, and continues to generate
approximately $100,000 annually. This increment may be used to pay eligible costs for “housing
projects” as defined by MS 469.174, Subd. 11, located anywhere within the City limits. A housing
project is a rental or owner-occupied housing development intended for occupancy by low and moderate
income families. The income guidelines are defined in MS 469.1761 as follows:
Rental Housing: 20% of the units occupied by families at 50% of median income (20/50) or
40% of the units occupied by families at 60% of median income (40/60).
Owner Occupied: Assistance to homeowner’s with an income at or below 100% of the
median income for a family of two or less (currently $73,100) or 115% of
the median income for a family of three or more (currently $84,065).
In addition to being available for housing projects, this increment can be used for any type of private
development that creates jobs (including construction jobs), as long as construction commences by July 1,
2011, in accordance with 2010 Laws of Minnesota, Chapter 216, H.F. No. 2695, Section 32.
Typically TIF is utilized for capital expenditures, but may be used for non capital expenditures on a
limited basis. Examples of potential rental housing projects would include:
1. New affordable rental housing as part of redevelopment (20/50 or 40/60 election)
2. Renovation of an existing rental housing development (20/50 or 40/60 election)
3. Providing subsidy to an existing project that is earmarked for additional affordability (20/50 or
40/60 election)
Examples of potential owner-occupied projects would include:
1. Site acquisition and demolition for infill lots that will be sold for new housing construction
2. Acquisition of foreclosed homes for resale to income qualified buyers
3. Rehabilitation loans for home improvements (including HIA owners)
4. Second mortgages to qualified home buyers
Please contact me at 651-697-8506 with any questions.
Study Session Meeting of July 12, 2010 (Item No. 5)
Subject: Louisiana Court Update Page 11
Shallow Rent Subsidy Program: Outline
Eligibility:
Households who have an active application on St. Louis Park HA’s Section 8 Voucher
waiting list. Participants need to meet Section 8 Voucher participant program eligibility
requirements. Participation in the Shallow Subsidy Program will not impact the applicant’s
placement of the Section 8 Voucher waiting list.
Tenant Selection Process:
HA responsibility: All applicants on the Section 8 Waiting List will have an
opportunity to place their name on the Shallow Subsidy Program waiting list
regardless of where they live now. Applicants on the list will be placed in order of
their Section 8 application date and preferences. Final eligibility will be determined
when an applicant comes to the top of the waiting list. The rent subsidy will be
offered to interested eligible applicants in the order of placement on the waiting list
based on the unit size available. Eligible applicants must meet the HA’s Section 8
occupancy standards for family size and composition as outlined in the HA’s
Administrative Plan. Eligible applicants will be forwarded to PPL for further non-
income screening.
PPL responsibility: PPL will be responsible for screening applicants in accordance
with their occupancy policies. Participants must meet PPL’s tenant screening
criteria, including criminal background checks.
Rent Subsidy:
The HA will determine rental eligibility based on the same policies and procedures applied to
the Section 8 Voucher program. The HA will calculate 30% of the tenants gross adjusted
monthly income. The participant will receive a Shallow Rent Subsidy equal to the difference
between the rent and 30% of the tenant’s gross adjusted income up to a maximum of $200
per month. Resident income recertification will be completed annually by the Property
Manager in accordance with Housing Choice Voucher program The updated rent
calculation will be completed by the HA’s Section 8 Manager to ensure that tenant income is
within program guidelines. Resident rent portion increases will require a thirty-day notice of
increase. Resident portion decreases will become effective the first of the month following
completion of the recertification.
Interim adjustments will be calculated when there is an income source change or an income
increase greater than or equal to $200/month. Income decreases have no minimum
threshold. Annual certification will be completed on the household anniversary date.
Program Duration:
Staff is proposing that the program be operated as a 3 year pilot at Louisiana Court (LC)
with the potential to expand in the future, after careful evaluation, to other developments
throughout the City.
Study Session Meeting of July 12, 2010 (Item No. 5)
Subject: Louisiana Court Update Page 12
Transition Plan:
In order to facilitate their transition from the Shallow Rent Subsidy Program and resume
paying market rent, each participant will meet with staff from PPL’s Center for Working
Families for a financial information session and for introduction to the services and
programs available through PPL. Based on information gathered at these two source
sessions, the Service Coordinator will assist the family in completing an achievement plan
based on their strengths and needs.
Unit Inspection Procedures:
Move-In / Move-Out Inspections: An independent, HQS inspection will be completed
prior to move-in. The cost will be borne by Shallow Rent Subsidy rental assistance fund.
Furthermore, the Property Manager will conduct a unit inspection with each resident at time
of move-in and will complete Apartment Inspection Form to record inspection results in
accordance with their project policies.
Termination Process:
Termination of residency for reasons other than nonpayment of rent will only occur if the
resident is unable or unwilling to comply with the lease agreement, house rules and
regulations despite repeated and consistent interaction with PPL’s Service Coordinator
and/or Property Manager.
In the event that a resident violates the terms of the lease and the Property Manager deems
that termination of residency is necessary as a result, a standard Notice to Vacate will be sent
to the resident which will specify the date on which the resident is expected to vacate. In the
event that the resident fails to vacate the premises by the specified date, the Property
Manager may file for Unlawful Detainer with Hennepin County and seek to have the
resident evicted.
Funding Source:
Park Center TIF
Study Session Meeting of July 12, 2010 (Item No. 5)
Subject: Louisiana Court Update Page 13
Meeting Date: 071210
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:
Affordable Housing in St. Louis Park
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
No action is required at this time. This report is intended to update the City Council regarding
affordable housing in the City and provide background information for the Council’s policy
discussion.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the City Council desire to maintain or change the current policies and strategies related to
affordable housing in St. Louis Park?
Does the City Council desire additional information to assist with its policy discussion?
BACKGROUND:
At the April 26 Study Session the City Council requested background information on the status and
need for affordable housing in St. Louis Park and our current policies and programs. The request
grew out of a discussion about the West End and the developer’s interest in incorporating housing
into the project area. The possibility of requiring an affordability component in the West End
housing project, or other future housing developments, was raised and it was concluded that before
the Council discussed possibly changing polices, a more complete picture of the affordable housing
situation and how it relates to the City’s Vision, goals and policies would be appropriate.
The following questions raised by the City Council, and the corresponding responses, are intended
to inform and guide the Council’s discussion.
1. What is the definition of affordable and work force housing?
The US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) defines housing as affordable if it
costs the occupant no more than 30% of their income for gross housing costs, including utilities and
taxes and insurance for owners. Although the term frequently applies to rental housing for those in
the lower income ranges, the concept applies to both renters and owners in all income ranges.
The Metropolitan Council establishes annual affordability guidelines; the 2009 guidelines are:
Study Session Meeting of July 12, 2010 (Item No. 6) Page 2
Subject: Affordable Housing
a. Owner occupied housing is affordable if the value is below $233,000 for a four person
household earning 80% or less of the median area income, or $64,400 annually.
b. Rental housing is considered affordable if monthly rent and utilities for a 2 bedroom unit is
at or below $943, for a household earning 50% or less of the median area income or $41,950
annually.
“Subsidized affordable housing” is subsidized by government and/or non profits that provide
affordable housing for low income residents. It is characterized by housing with rent and income
restrictions, or units with rent based on income. Section 8 Rental Assistance Housing Vouchers are
different from subsidized buildings, in that rental assistance is provided to individuals renting in
private market housing.
“Market rate affordable housing” can be both private sector rental and owner occupied units that are
affordable without governmental subsidies.
“Work force housing” is loosely defined as owner occupied homes affordable to workers that live and
work in a community. Mn Housing Finance Agency uses an income guideline for their workforce
ownership programs where the monthly carrying costs of a home does not exceed 30–35% for a
household with an income of $83,900 (2009).
2. Where is affordable housing located in the community?
The location maps (attached) illustrate that both subsidized and market rate affordable housing is
scattered throughout the city, and that we are meeting our goal that low income developments not
be concentrated in one area. The maps also show that more affordable owner occupied units are
located in the central, older portion of the City. The maps show the location of:
a. Affordable subsidized rental and owner occupied housing
b. Affordable market rate owner occupied housing
c. Rental apartment buildings. Of the owners responding to the 2009 SLPHA Rental Study,
the average rents of all but 3 bedroom units are below the affordability guideline established
by Met Council for rental housing.
3. What are the City’s policies and strategic directions on affordable housing?
Comprehensive Plan and Vision
The 2009 adopted Comprehensive Plan’s Housing Plan reiterates the City’s Vision which is that St.
Louis Park is committed to providing a well-maintained and diverse housing stock. In particular, the
City’s focus will be on the three following strategies:
a. Remodeling and expanding move-up, single-family, owner-occupied homes.
b. Property maintenance to foster quality housing and community aesthetics.
c. Working towards affordable single-family home ownership throughout the city.
Study Session Meeting of July 12, 2010 (Item No. 6) Page 3
Subject: Affordable Housing
This Vision for Housing reflects Vision St. Louis Park, the City’s Strategic Plan, and the results of
the 2003-2005 Housing Summit. During the City’s 2006 visioning process, housing was identified
as one of eight specific vision areas for the community. The Vision action team for housing, which
consisted of 17 citizens and City staff, developed the Vision for Housing based on the information
gathered during the extensive interview process that occurred as part of the visioning process.
The City’s housing goals, strategies, and initiatives also evolved during the 2003-2005 Housing
Summit process and were adopted by the City Council in March 2005. The Housing Summit’s
goal was to educate, revisit, and consider any necessary changes to the City’s housing policies,
strategies, and goals. A series of meetings were held between the City Council, Planning
Commission, Housing Authority Board, School Board, County Commissioner, and a business
representative. The discussions that were held at these meetings and subsequent changes made to the
City’s housing goals, strategies, and initiatives have been incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan.
The City’s 12 housing goals encompass seven broad categories: Housing Production; Housing
Condition and Preservation; Owner/Rental Ratio; Affordable, Workforce, and Supportive Housing;
Large Homes for Families; Senior Housing; and Land Use. Below are the affordable housing goals
and strategic directions.
The City’s Established Affordable, Workforce and Supportive Housing Goals are:
a. Promote and facilitate a mix of housing types, prices and rents that maintains a balance of
affordable housing for low and moderate income households. Future affordability goals
negotiated with the Metropolitan Council should reflect the average percentages of other
first ring suburbs in Hennepin County.
b. Mixed income units should be disbursed throughout the City and not concentrated in any
one area of the City or any one development.
c. Strategies to achieve these goals are:
i) Explore partnerships to encourage the private development of housing for employment
growth related to expansions such as Park Nicollet and Methodist Hospital.
ii) Continue acceptance and limited financial support of transitional and supportive
housing programs for specialized groups and affordable multifamily housing providers.
The City Established the St. Louis Park Housing Authority
In addition to the City’s policies and goals, the St. Louis Park Housing Authority develops,
integrates, and operates housing and housing assistance programs to ensure the availability of safe,
affordable and desirable housing options that meet the diverse, lifecycle housing needs of all of the
residents of St. Louis Park
The primary function of the HA is to administer the federally assisted rental assistance programs and
City authorized programs created to promote preservation, maintenance and expansion of all
housing including the Move up in the Park Program.
Study Session Meeting of July 12, 2010 (Item No. 6) Page 4
Subject: Affordable Housing
4. How much affordable housing is in the City?
a. Affordable Owner Occupied Housing Numbers.
Based on City property assessment data, fifty seven percent, or 8,581 units, of owner
occupied units are affordable. Affordable ownership, based on the Metro Council’s
definition, is housing affordable to households at or below 80% of the median area income.
In 2009 this housing value was $233,000.
b. Affordable Rental Housing Numbers.
i) The number of affordable rental units is an estimate based on known subsidized units
and data from the SLPHA’s Annual Rental Study. The 2009 SLPHA annual rental study
is not inclusive of all rental property since responses were received from owners
representing seventy percent of the multifamily buildings. Rents are considered
affordable based on unit size and household income; for a 2 bedroom unit, this is $943
for households at or below 50% of the median area income, or $41,950 annually. The
reported average monthly rent for a 2 bedroom apartment is $895.
ii) An estimated forty four percent, 3,796 affordable rental units are affordable, with:
• 791 subsidized units
• 325 rental units affordable through use of Sec 8 Housing Voucher,
• 2,680 market rate affordable units as reported from owners representing 70% of
apartments in the city –this is likely an undercount.
c. There are 858 subsidized units (rental and owner occupied) available to very low income
residents and 325 Section 8 Housing Vouchers, see attached table. The waiting lists for HA
subsidized units indicate a need for housing for very low income residents:
i) The HA opened the waiting list for Hamilton House in February, 2010 and received
over 1,000 requests for applications.
ii) The most recent opening for the Section 8 Housing Voucher waiting list was in 2005
when over 3,000 applications were requested. The HA has not issued a voucher from
the general waiting list in the past two years.
5. How do the numbers of affordable units relate to the City’s Vision, Strategic Directions
and Met Council goals?
a. The City’s Vision is that St. Louis Park is committed to providing a well-maintained and
diverse housing stock by focusing on the following strategic directions:
i) Remodeling and expanding move-up, single-family, owner-occupied homes;
ii) Property maintenance to foster quality housing and community aesthetics;
iii) Working towards affordable single-family home ownership throughout the city.
Study Session Meeting of July 12, 2010 (Item No. 6) Page 5
Subject: Affordable Housing
Because St. Louis Park is a fully developed community, the major emphasis has been to
preserve affordable units primarily through physical improvements to properties occupied by
low and moderate income households. The Table of “City Support of New and Existing
Affordable Housing from 2000-2010” shows that over 1,900 units occupied by low and
moderate income households, have received some measure of City related financial assistance
to rehab and preserve the units. See Attachment.
Affordable ownership opportunities have increased (12 units) through partnerships with the
Homes Within Reach Housing Land Trust and the Live Where You Work Program. The
City has continued limited financial support of transitional and supportive housing programs
for specialized groups and affordable multifamily housing providers.
b. How well does St. Louis Park meet the established affordable, workforce and supportive
housing goals?
i) There is less affordable housing in the City in 2010 than there was in 2000, both in
numbers and as a percentage of housing units. The loss of affordable units is reflective of
market forces and the significant increase in housing values that occurred in the 2000s.
Housing prices at the lower end increased in value and a number new housing units with
rents and housing values at the upper end have been added. Although there has been a
decline in the City’s housing values in recent years, values have been retained better than
many communities.
ii) Affordable ownership opportunities have increased (12 units) through partnerships with
the Homes Within Reach Housing Land Trust and the Live Where You Work Program.
The City has continued limited financial support of transitional and supportive housing
programs for specialized groups and affordable multifamily housing providers.
c. How do we meet the Met Council goals for affordable housing?
Our current goals were negotiated with the Met Council for the period 1996-2010. The
goal was that 76-79% of owner occupied housing be affordable, and 59-63% of rental
housing be affordable. In 2000 we met this goal, while in 2010 we do not, with 57% of
owner occupied housing affordable and approximately 45% of rental housing affordable.
The Met Council is updating each community’s affordable and life cycle housing goals for
the coming decade (2011-2020). The City will need to negotiate and adopt new goals with
the Met Council by September 1, 2010 in order to remain eligible for grants and loans made
through the Livable Communities Act. At this time, the Met Council has indicated SLP
should create 328 to 501 affordable and life cycle housing units by 2020 to meet the regional
needs. This will be discussed with Council in greater detail at a subsequent meeting.
6. How do we relate to other communities from an affordable housing perspective?
The following charts for ownership and rental compare the percentages of affordable housing in
2000 and 2010 for St. Louis Park and neighboring communities.
Study Session Meeting of July 12, 2010 (Item No. 6) Page 6
Subject: Affordable Housing
a. Affordable ownership comparisons with other communities
Fifty-seven percent of the owner occupied units in St. Louis Park have values considered
affordable by Met Council’s definition. The two charts below show how St. Louis Park
compares with neighboring communities as well as changes over the past 10 years. In 2000
over 80% of owned homes were considered affordable; in 2010 the percentage has dropped
to 57%. Of the cities noted below St. Louis Park, Bloomington, Golden Valley and Edina,
have the least number of less affordable ownership units. It should be noted that although
all but one of the other communities also experienced a decrease in the number of affordable
units, St. Louis Park’s decrease was the largest percentage.
Affordable Ownership of St. Louis Park and Neighboring Communities
in 2000 and 2010
Data Source: 2000 Met Council. 2010 Hennepin County, St. Louis Park and Edina Assessing Departments
b. Publicly assisted affordable rental unit comparison with other communities.
There are 791subsidized rental units and 325 Section 8 Housing Vouchers, for a total of
1,116 assisted units or 5% of the total SLP housing stock. Regionally, the Met Council and
more recently HousingLink track this information, the agencies count differently. In 2000,
the Met Council tallied publicly assisted rental units and Section 8 Housing Vouchers, while
HousingLink tallies only subsidized rental units. So the numbers are not quite comparing
apples to apples. Nonetheless the two charts do illustrate how SLP ranks with other
Hennepin County suburbs.
Percentage of Ownership Units Affordble to
Households with 80% Median Area Income 2000
31%
61%
71%
80%
83%
96%
97%
97%
98%
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
Edina
Golden Valley
Bloomington
St. Louis Park
Hopkins
Richfield
Crystal
Robbinsdale
Brooklyn Center
Percentage of Ownership Units Affordble to
Households with 80% Median Area Income 2010
24%
47%
57%
66%
78%
92%
93%
94%
99%
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
Edina
Golden Valley
St. Louis Park
Bloomington
Hopkins
Crystal
Robbinsdale
Richfield
Brooklyn Center
Study Session Meeting of July 12, 2010 (Item No. 6) Page 7
Subject: Affordable Housing
Percentage of Publicly Assisted Rental Units in St. Louis Park and Neighboring
Communities in 2000 and 2008
7. What has been the trend of affordable housing in SLP over the last 10 years?
In St. Louis Park, and metro wide, new construction of affordable housing has become more
difficult because of limited availability of funding. Availability of funding for federal housing rental
assistance programs is also limited. In the latter part of this decade, much of the federal and state
housing dollars have been directed at addressing the foreclosure problem and preservation of existing
multifamily affordable rental properties.
In the early part of the decade there was significant construction of condominiums and townhomes
which resulted in 2,135 new housing units, primarily condos, townhomes and apartments in SLP.
Of the new housing units constructed, 90 are affordable.
Over the past decade the focus in St. Louis Park has been preserving existing affordable housing
through: low income loan and grant programs; the Housing Improvement Area program to
maintain affordable condominiums and townhomes; and developing affordable home ownership
through programs like WHALT (West Hennepin Affordable Housing Land Trust) and the Live
Where You Work Program.
8. How much affordable housing has the City incented or created in the last 10 years and
what financial tools were used?
The City has a history of leveraging funding with other entities to incent, create and preserve
affordable housing. Because St. Louis Park is a fully developed community, an emphasis has been
on preserving affordable units while creating new units within parameters of city policy and market
forces.
Publicly Subisdized Rental Units as % of Total
Housing 2008
0.9%
0.9%
1.0%
2.0%
2.2%
2.4%
2.9%
3.7%
3.8%
3.9%
7.9%
1.7%
0.0% 2.5% 5.0% 7.5% 10.0%
Golden Valley
Crystal
Richfield
Edina
New Hope
Bloomington
Columbia Heights
Fridley
Hopkins
St. Louis Park
Brooklyn Center
Robbinsdale
Publicly Subisdized Rental Units as % of Total
Housing 2000
2.3%
3.2%
3.3%
5.4%
5.5%
5.8%
6.6%
8.5%
9.3%
10.8%
12.5%
3.3%
0.0% 2.5% 5.0% 7.5% 10.0% 12.5% 15.0%
Edina
Bloomington
Golden Valley
Crystal
St. Louis Park
Columbia Heights
Fridley
Hopkins
New Hope
Richfield
Robbinsdale
Brooklyn Center
Study Session Meeting of July 12, 2010 (Item No. 6) Page 8
Subject: Affordable Housing
a. Affordable units created in past decade.
Ninety newly constructed affordable units have been added to the city’s housing stock over
the past decade; sixty-seven of which received some type of city related assistance as noted in
the following table.
New Construction of Affordable Units from 2000-2010
Affordable
units #
Type Financial Assistance
Urban Park Apts. 23 MF rental Tax Credits, No City Funds
Excelsior & Grand 18 MF rental SLPHA - Project Based Section 8
Vail Place 7 MF rental/supportive CDBG, Sec 8 and other funders
Aquila Commons 42 MF Co-op ownership TIF
b. The City’s efforts to preserve existing affordable housing have been significant over the past
decade. The attached Table of “City Support of New and Existing Affordable Housing from
2000-2010 outlines tools and amount expended and shows that over 1,900 units have
received some measure of City related financial assistance to rehab and preserve the units.
Funding tools include: SLPHA, CDBG, GO Bonds, Housing Rehab Fund, TIF, County
and MN Housing and Met Council. Over 43.3 million has been invested in affordable
housing in St. Louis Park over the past ten years.
9. What are the incentives or programs the federal, state, county and city have to promote
affordable housing?
Federal
a. Tax Credits. The federal tax credit program has become the primary source of funding for
the creation of new housing units. The Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) is a
dollar-for-dollar tax credit in the US for affordable housing investments. It was created to
give incentives for the utilization of private equity in the development of affordable housing
aimed at low-income Americans. LIHTC accounts for nearly 90% of all affordable rental
housing created in the United States today. The Urban Park Apartments were developed
using this tool. LIHTC were also used to fund PPL/Louisiana Court.
b. HUD provides limited affordable housing resources in the form of HUD financing for the
creation of new developments.
c. Funds such as HOME and CDBG are used for the preservation of existing affordable
housing and are allocated through the County. SLP has received about $200,000 annually
for many years.
Study Session Meeting of July 12, 2010 (Item No. 6) Page 9
Subject: Affordable Housing
d. The rental subsidy programs designated for participants meeting specific categories, i.e.
Shelter Plus Care provides rental assistance and services for homeless persons with
disabilities, HOPWA for persons with HIV, Family Unification Vouchers for families that
need housing to reunite parents and children, and Section 8 vouchers for nonelderly persons
with disabilities.
e. The federal home mortgage interest deduction promotes home ownership for both market
rate and affordable ownership. It is estimated that in 2012, the federal deduction will be
over two and one-half times larger than HUD’s budget.
State
a. The State of Minnesota’s market value homestead credit (MVHC) provides financial
incentive to homeowners based on home value. It is a state mandated property tax reduction
program which is based on valuation. The credit is progressive in that lower value homes
receive larger tax credits than higher value homes. The credit equal 0.4% of the taxable
market value with a maximum credit of $304. The credit begins to phase out at a taxable
market value of $76,000 and is effectively negated as the taxable value approaches $414,000.
St. Louis Park was to have received $630,000 to $640,000 in 2008 and 2009 from the state,
but the governor’s unallotment cut this funding. In 2010 payments to cities for the MVHC
have been cut from the State’s budget which results in the City paying this unfunded
mandate that assists owners of lower valued homes.
b. The MN Housing Finance Agency offers products and services to help Minnesotans buy and
fix up homes and supports the development and preservation of affordable rental housing by
offering financing and on-going asset management of affordable rental housing
developments.
MN Housing works collaboratively with the Met Council and Family Housing Fund on
annual RFPs. St. Louis Park has successfully submitted RFPs to leverage funds with MN
Housing to improve owner occupied homes for low and moderate income residents, and
capital improvements for the SLPHA properties. In addition the affordable housing
providers in SLP have all used MN Housing Funds.
MN Housing also allocates the federal Low Income Tax Credits through an annual request
process and administers the First Time Home Buyer program.
c. TIF Housing Districts. State TIF statutes allow cities to create TIF districts to fund
affordable housing projects. The Park Center TIF district generates about $120,000 annually
that can be used for affordable housing purposed anywhere in SLP.
Study Session Meeting of July 12, 2010 (Item No. 6) Page 10
Subject: Affordable Housing
County
Hennepin County funds and administers housing programs including Affordable Housing Incentive
Funds, HOME, CDBG and Neighborhood Stabilization Programs for dealing with foreclosed
properties. The County accesses county, state and federal funds for their programs.
City
SLP has the authority to establish TIF housing districts and can also use TIF dollars in other types of
districts to assist new housing developments. In some cases in may be possible to provide assistance
to support creating affordable housing. The City also has the HRA levy, Housing Rehab Funds and
GO Bonds to assist with affordable housing.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable at this time.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Affordable housing is addressed in the City’s Vision in that St. Louis Park is committed to providing
a well-maintained and diverse housing stock. In particular, the City’s focus will be on the three
following strategies: remodeling and expanding move-up, single-family, owner-occupied homes;
property maintenance to foster quality housing and community aesthetics and; working towards
affordable single-family home ownership throughout the city.
Attachments: Location Maps
Table. Affordable Subsidized Housing in SLP
Table. City Support of New and Existing Affordable Housing from 2000-
2010
Background Data for Market Rate Affordable Housing
Prepared by: Kathy Larsen, Housing Program Coordinator
Michele Schnitker, Housing Supervisor
Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Legend
Single Family Detached Homes
Condos, Townhomes and Co-ops
2010 Affordable Market Rate Owner Occupied Units
Fifty-seven percent of the City's owner occupied units are affordable based on
the Met Council's guideline of affordable housing value in 2009 of $233,000 or
less.
Study Session Meeting of July 12, 2010 (Item No. 6)
Subject: Affordable Housing Page 11
3
394
394
100
7
100
7
100
7
169
169
3
25
5
20
5
Legend
MULTIFAMILY OWNERSHIP
MULTIFAMILY RENTAL
SINGLE FAMILY OWNER OCCUPIED
SINGLE FAMILY RENTAL
MunicipalBoundary
2010 Affordable Subsidized Housing
This map illustrates that affordable housing is located throughout the city and
not concentrated in any one area.
Study Session Meeting of July 12, 2010 (Item No. 6)
Subject: Affordable Housing Page 12
3
394
394
100
7
100
7
100
7
169
169
3
25
5
20
5
Legend
Apartment Building / Complex Location
MunicipalBoundary
2010 Apartment Buildings and Complexes
The average reported monthly rent in the City is below the Met Council's guideline
for affordable rents. In SLP the average two bedroom apartment rents for $895,
while the affordable guideline rent is $943.
Study Session Meeting of July 12, 2010 (Item No. 6)
Subject: Affordable Housing Page 13
Affordable Subsidized Housing in St. Louis Park - 2010
Affordable Rental
Housing
Type of Housing
Number of
Units
Address
Project for Pride in
Living
Tax Credit 117 2704,05,11,17,22, 27, 30, 41, 42, 54
Louisiana Court and 2740 & 2750
Louisiana Ave S
Park Glen
Townhomes
Tax Credit 34 4400 Park Glen Road
Urban Parks
Apartments
Tax Credit 23 3601 Phillips Parkway
174
Lou Park Project Based Sec. 8 32 1351 Hampshire Ave S
Oak Park Village Project Based Sec. 8 100 7276 ½ Oak Park Village Dr
Menorah Plaza Project Based Sec. 8 45 3600 Phillips Parkway
Menorah West Project Based Sec. 8 151 4925 Minnetonka Blvd.
328
Public Housing – HA Low Income 147 2400 Nevada Ave
MHOP – LC/HA Low Income 12 2704,05,11,17,22, 27, 30, 41, 42, 54
Louisiana Court and 2740 & 2750
Louisiana Ave S
159
Project Based Section
8 - HA
• Excelsior &
Grand
Low Income/2
Bedroom Units
18 3820 Grand Way
• Vail Place Supportive 7 3725 Sumter Ave S
• Wayside Supportive 20 1341 and 1349 Jersey Ave S
45
Shelter Plus Care
• Perspectives Supportive 11 2753, 59, 60, 68 Louisiana Court
• Comm.
Involvement
Program
Supportive
5*
2825 Alabama Ave S, 3603 Rhode
Island Ave S, 1452 Idaho Ave S
16
Perspectives (non S+C
units)
Support/Transitional
and Permanent
41
2753, 59, 60, 68 Louisiana Court
Community
Involvement Program
Study Session Meeting of July 12, 2010 (Item No. 6)
Subject: Affordable Housing Page 14
(non S + C units)
• Kelly
Apartments
Supportive/HUD 42 6 3384 Library Lane
• Single Room
Occupancy
Supportive/HUD 811
& County
22
See Attached List
69
Total 791
* can change – up to 11
Affordable
Homeownership
Type of Housing
Number of
Units
Address
Homes Within Reach Land Trust 7
Habitat for
Humanity
Assisted/work equity 8
Aquila Commons Limited Equity Coop 42 8200 West 33rd St
Total 67
Perspectives – a total of 56 units; 4 are resident managers
Scattered Site Affordable Units/Homes:
Community Involvement Program (29 units throughout city) plus Kelly apt noted
above)
Homes Within Reach (7 units)
Habitat for Humanity (8 units)
SLPHA Scattered Sites (37 units)
Study Session Meeting of July 12, 2010 (Item No. 6)
Subject: Affordable Housing Page 15
SLPHA FundedCity FundedState FundedNew Affordable UnitsPreservation of Existing UnitsOperating & Capital ImprovementShelter Plus CareHousing Assistance PaymentCDBGGO BondsHousing Rehab FundLine of CreditTIFLivable Communties GrantMet Council LHIAMN HousingRental HousingPublic Housing (PH) Hamilton House108$5,172,549$333,000 Scattered Sites37$65,000 12 MHOP units PPL/Lou CrtSection 8 Project Based Rental Vail Place7$19,504,716$25,000 Wayside House20$214,150 Excelsior & Grand18Section 8 Tenant Based Rental 223Community Involvement Programs (11 units Shelter + Care)29$215,881$128,800Perspectives (11 units Shelter +Care)52$421,019$157,350Project for Pride in Living/ Lou Crt128$446,750$4,414,900$1,000,000$353,000MF Owner Occupied Aquila Commons Coop42$1,050,000Condominiums 742$3,935,195$3,813,969SF Owner OccupiedEmergancy Repair Grant120$484,283Defered Home Improvement Loan41$511,935Discount Mn Housing Loan 80% MAI 373$657,545$25,000$28,760Property Inspection/ Rehab Loans27$147,007$147,007Homes within Reach7$34,000$50,000Live Where You Work5$13,500TOTAL721907$5,172,549$636,900$19,504,716$2,067,268$8,350,095$4,632,021$50,000$1,050,000$1,000,000$378,000$508,767$43,350,316Study Session Meeting of July 12, 2010 (Item No. 6) Subject: Affordable HousingPage 16
Background Data for Market Rate Affordable Housing
Rental – Data from the 2009 St. Louis Park Rental Study, 70% of apartment units
represented in survey.
Table 1. Affordability of Market Rate Rental (non – subsidized rentals)
2009 SLPHA Rental Study - Market
Rate Affordable Units from 70% of
all MF rental units
2009 SLPHA Rental Study -
Rents in St. Louis Park
(includes utilities)
Unit
Size
Reported
Affordable
MF Rental
Units
Reported
Total MF
Rental
Units
Unit
Size
Average
Rent
Median
Rent
Met
Council
Affordable
Rent
eff 130 155 eff $589 $550 $733
1BR 1,385 2,012 1BR $703 $648 $786
2BR 1,084 1,656 2BR $895 $775 $943
3BR 81 1,142 3BR $1,142 $1,065 $1,090
Total 2680 4965
% 54% 100%
Owner Occupied Housing – Data from SLP Assessing based on 2010 Estimated Market
Values
Table 2. Number of Market Rate Affordable Owner Occupied Housing Units
# Units
At or
less than
$171,000
60%
MAI
At or
less than
$233,000
80%
MAI
At or less than
$298,125
MN Housing 1st
Time Homebuyer
SF detached 11,634 417 5831 8831
Condos & Townhomes 3,446 1964 2750 3171
Totals 15,080 2,381 8,581 12,002
Percentage 16% 57%80%
SLP Assessing 2010 EMV
Study Session Meeting of July 12, 2010 (Item No. 6)
Subject: Affordable Housing Page 17
Meeting Date: July 12, 2010
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 (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: July 12, 2010
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:
Change Order to Contract 119-09 – Street Project – Highway 7 - Wooddale Avenue Intersection
Improvement Project – Project No. 2004-1700.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
The purpose of this report is to update the Council on the status of resolving a contract matter with
the contractor, Ames Construction Company.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the Council have questions or concerns relating to the proposed Change Order? If, so please
inform City staff. Absent unresolved concerns or questions from Council, staff is planning to bring
this matter to an upcoming Council meeting for formal action.
BACKGROUND:
Project Information
On August 13, 2009, bids were opened for the Highway 7/Wooddale Intersection Project. After
review and tabulation of the bids, and authorization by the State of Minnesota, the City Council
awarded a contract in the amount of $11,568,953.11 to Ames Construction Company. After
contracts, bonds, and other documents were received and approved, a notice to proceed dated
September 25, 2009 was issued to the contractor. Mn/DOT has been providing the inspection and
construction administration on behalf of the City for this project.
The project intent has always been to complete the project in a manner that would minimize both
overall costs and inconveniences to the general public as much as reasonably possible. With that in
mind, the original contract schedule provided for completing a significant amount of construction
prior to December of 2009 in order to reach a substantial completion (opening of the intersection to
traffic) by September 1, 2010. The work anticipated for completion last fall included the majority
of the underground utility work (including the MCES force main), and completion of the south
frontage road. That work is just now nearing completion.
Construction of the project last fall did not get underway as rapidly as originally intended and
anticipated. Generally, the relatively late start combined with the complexity of issues encountered
with several private utilities (gas, electric, communications, etc.) did not allow the project to proceed
as quickly as everyone would have liked. The possibility of even delaying the construction start until
2010 was even considered. However, efforts were made by the Contractor, Mn/DOT, the City, and
the various private utilities to complete as much work as reasonably possible last fall. The City also
requested the Contractor to submit a revised schedule and staging plan that would still allow the
project to be substantially completed (open to full access) by December 15, 2010. This request was
made formally to the contractor in a letter dated January 22, 2010.
Study Session Meeting of July 12, 2010 (Item No. 8) Page 2
Subject: Change Order to Contract 119-08 – Hwy 7/Wooddale Avenue
In a letter to Mn/DOT dated March 25, 2010 and copied to the City, Ames Construction presented
a revised schedule and re-staging plan that provided for substantially completing the project by
December 15, 2010 as requested by the City. Ames also requested that additional compensation in
the form of a Change Order in the amount of $1,615,860 be issued. Ames based this request on an
argument that utility delays beyond their control or responsibility necessitated a significant re-staging
effort and modification of the plans in order to meet the December completion date. To generalize
further, the contractor argued that completing the work in the newly condensed time frame required
changes to the sequencing and intensity of the work, including additional overtime hours, materials
and equipment, and significant modifications to the progression of work activities. Mn/DOT also
reviewed and concurred with the proposed revised schedule and work plan. However, the issue of
additional compensation has been contested.
ANALYSIS
While acknowledging the Contractor’s need to re-stage and re-sequence much of the contract work,
the City has differed with the contractor with regards to who should bear the responsibility of any
increased costs. The City’s position throughout this process is that the contract documents clearly
support no obligation on the part of the City to provide compensation as argued by the Contractor.
Through several meetings that have occurred amongst staff and legal representatives of both Ames
and the City, both parties have strongly argued their respective cases, while trying to reach an
understanding and possible agreement at the same time. Both parties have expressed a willingness
and interest in reaching a mutual agreement relatively quickly at a staff level in order to avoid further
delays to the project and incurring possible additional future costs.
As with all projects of this nature, the contract includes provisions for liquidated damages in the
event completion dates are not attained. With the condensed time-frame proposed for the project
and the possibility of completing the bridge decking late into the fall season (when pouring concrete
becomes much more restrictive and expensive), there are still some relative unknowns with regards to
risk and costs that cannot be predicted or quantified reliably at this time. As a result, an agreement
has been reached with the contractor where unknown risks may be offset by incentives if the project
is completed before the winter season. As a result, the following tentative agreement for Change
Order compensation has been mutually agreed upon by both parties: Base compensation in the
amount of $200,000 and incentive pay in the amount of $200,000 if the intersection is substantially
complete (open to traffic) by November 19, 2010. It should be noted that incentive compensation
is very common for highway projects of this nature, and Mn/DOT is very agreeable to administering
a Change Order in this manner.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
The total Change Order (with incentives) would amount to less than 3.5% of the total contract and
would be covered primarily by STP (federal) funds. Based on the bid received last year and
remaining STP funds, $658,750 (80% of this is federal dollars and 20% City) are available to fund
eligible project contingencies should the need arise. Any STP funds not used for this project will be
redistributed by the Met Council through their regional solicitation process at some future date.
Previous Change Orders and Work Orders approved administratively by the City Manager to date
have totaled just over $100,000.
Study Session Meeting of July 12, 2010 (Item No. 8) Page 3
Subject: Change Order to Contract 119-08 – Hwy 7/Wooddale Avenue
Should the Council be acceptable to the settlement that has been negotiated, it will be presented to
Council as an item for consideration at the next regular meeting, along with a more detailed
tabulation of the project costs.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
The following Strategic Direction and focus area was identified by Council in 2007:
St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged community.
Focus will be on:
• Promoting regional transportation issues and related dedicated funding sources
affecting St. Louis Park including but not limited to Hwy. 100 and SWLRT.
Attachments: None
Prepared by: Scott Brink, City Engineer
Reviewed by: Michael P. Rardin, Director of Public Works
Tom Scott, City Attorney
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager