HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009/03/09 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - Study SessionAGENDA
MARCH 9, 2009
5:30 p.m. Board and Commission Interview and Selection Meeting, Westwood Room
6:30 p.m. CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION, COUNCIL CHAMBERS
Discussion Items
1. 6:30 p.m. Future Study Session Agenda Planning – March 23, 2009
2. 6:35 p.m. Northside Fire Station Location
3. 7:35 p.m. Southwest Transit Station Area Planning and Southwest Transit DEIS Update
4. 8:35 p.m. Solid Waste Program Update
5. 9:05 p.m. Communications (Verbal)
Written Reports
6. Recycling Program Update
7. Hoigaard Village Project Update
8. Pay 2010 Assessed Valuation Report
9:15 p.m. Adjourn
Auxiliary aids for individuals with disabilities are available upon request. To make arrangements, please call the
Administration Department at 952/924-2525 (TDD 952/924-2518) at least 96 hours in advance of meeting.
Meeting Date: March 9, 2009
Agenda Item #: 1
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Future Study Session Agenda Planning – March 23, 2009.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Council and the City Manager meet to set the agenda for the regularly scheduled study session for
March 23, 2009.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the Council agree with the agenda as proposed?
BACKGROUND:
At each study session, approximately five minutes are set aside to discuss the next study session
agenda. For this purpose, attached please find the tentative agenda and proposed discussion items
for the regularly scheduled study session on March 23, 2009.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
None.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
None.
Attachment: Future Study Session Agenda Planning for March 23, 2009
Prepared by: Marcia Honold, Management Assistant
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting of March 9, 2009 (Item No. 1) Page 2
Subject: Future Study Session Agenda Planning
Tentative Discussion Items
Study Session, Monday, March 23, 2009 – 6:30 p.m.
1. Future Study Session Agenda Planning – Administrative Services (5 minutes)
2. Technology and TAC Update – Information Resources (60 minutes)
The City Council and the TAC Commissioners will meet to discuss the Annual Report and
Work Plan with Council as well as the direction for future citywide technology initiatives.
3. Park Perspective Newsletter – Information Resources (30 minutes)
Staff will lead Council in a discussion about possible alternatives to printing the Park
Perspective Newsletter? What does the Council think about the options staff has developed?
4. Property Values Update – Finance (30 minutes)
Staff will provide a brief presentation on the real estate markets and help Council prepare for
their role as the Local Board of Appeals and Equalization.
5. Excess Land Proceeds – Community Development and Park & Recreation (45 minutes)
Staff will lead Council in a discussion about options for excess land proceeds.
6. Planning Commission 2008 Year End Report and 2009 Work Plan – Administrative
Services (5 minutes)
Council will review and discuss the Planning Commission’s 2008 Year End Report and 2009
Work Plan on March 23. Does the Council wish to provide feedback to the Commissioners
at a future study session?
7. Communications – Administrative Services (5 minutes)
Time for communications between staff and Council will be set aside on every study session
for the purposes of information sharing.
Reports:
Economic Recovery Act – Administrative Services
Wind Turbines – Administrative Services
Oak Hill II Redevelopment Contract Extension – Community Development
February 2009 Financial Reports - Finance
End of Meeting: 9:30 p.m.
Meeting Date: March 9, 2009
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:
Northside Fire Station Location.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Based on the information in this staff report and the discussion at the study session, Council is
requested to provide direction to staff on one of the following alternatives:
1) Confirm reconstruction of a station at the existing Louisiana Avenue site; or
2) Keep options open and continue exploration of a station being built on the Eliot School
site. This would include undertaking further public process with the neighborhoods and
discussions with the School District; or
3) Re-initiate the search process for an alternative site; or
4) Request staff to come back with further information prior to deciding on the next course
of action.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Which of the above alternatives does the City Council want city staff to pursue?
BACKGROUND:
Identifying the north side fire station location will be the final component in determining location of
essential city operations during the current facilities construction planning. Past analysis and
Council decisions have led to designing an expansion of the Municipal Service Center site on
Oxford Street to accommodate the Utilities Operations and serve as a temporary Fire Department
location.
Council previously decided to continue with a two station fire department operation to maintain
flexibility and prompt emergency response times throughout the city. The existing south side
Wooddale Fire Station location was determined as an ideal site for providing emergency services.
The new station will be constructed on an expanded site created by the city purchasing the three
residential lots to the south. This site is large enough to accommodate either the main or satellite
station.
With the south side station site identified, the process focused on identifying possibilities for the
north side station. Due to the small lot size of the current station, as well as grade changes and
proximity to the park, this site poses challenges for reuse. Staff explored other sites that may possibly
allow for easier development and construction of a fire station in the area. The general Louisiana
Avenue and Cedar Lake Road location meets important criteria in site selection as Louisiana Avenue
provides an important north/south access route in the city for emergency vehicles. A site would
Meeting of March 9, 2009 (Item No. 2) Page 2
Subject: Northside Fire Station Location
ideally be 1 – 2 acres in size and avoid having emergency vehicles traveling on local residential
streets. Using these criteria lead staff to consider the Eliot School site on Cedar Lake Road as a
potentially viable station option.
Initial discussions with the school district indicated potential for acquisition and redevelopment at
this site. Working with the city’s consultant staff created a concept of how a station could be located
on the south side of the property with access to Cedar Lake Road, requiring demolition of the
existing building to create a building site. Staff invited the Eliot and Eliot View neighborhoods to a
public informational meeting on April 8, 2008 to discuss the concept of constructing a fire station
on Eliot site. A number of people who attended the meeting sent a clear message to the City
indicating it was felt the City had not yet exhausted all other site options other than the Eliot site.
City Staff discussed this matter with the City Council on April 28, 2008 and it was determined that
staff should take a step back and reexamine other possibilities, understanding this did not remove the
Eliot site from consideration. Staff then began the process of identifying sites other than Eliot. This
lead to a refocus on the existing Station 2/Northside Park location.
Focusing attention on the possibilities for the existing station site, our consulting architect provided
a more detailed analysis of site modifications and possibilities associated with an acceptable station
design. Additionally, knowing that a new station would need to extend into Northside Park, SRF
Consultants evaluated park redevelopment possibilities if a portion of the park area were necessary
for the fire station construction.
Northside Park has been identified in past CIP’s as needing site maintenance and improvements to
the parking, athletic fields and other facilities provided there. The study by SRF identified how the
park amenities could be provided at either a redeveloped Northside Park or another park location.
Our consulting architect BKV then returned with a workable design for the station on a larger
rectangular site running parallel to Louisiana Avenue. The site would involve construction of
retaining wall or terracing approximately eight feet above the surrounding park area so that the main
apparatus bay would be the accessed off of Louisiana Avenue. Redeveloping both the fire station
and park has the advantage of allowing for a shared design solution for stormwater control.
With the above information in hand staff began to undertake the necessary public process from
November 2008 to February 2009 with Northside Park users/athletic groups and the neighborhoods
which would be affected. The neighborhood groups were very supportive of maintaining the station
in its current location. This is similar to the response from the Elmwood neighborhood regarding
the south side Wooddale Station. Meetings were also held with the Birchwood Neighborhood
Steering Committee and Willow Neighborhood Steering Committee and Willow Neighborhood
Group. Both the athletic groups and neighborhoods provided responses welcoming the
reconstruction and improvements to the park system and the concept of moving the hockey rink to
Birchwood Park if the station occupies that part of Northside Park.
Meeting of March 9, 2009 (Item No. 2) Page 3
Subject: Northside Fire Station Location
DISCUSSION:
The current station site and the Eliot site have now been more fully evaluated. The following is a
comparison of the sites and the many factors to consider:
Alternative #1 - North Side Fire Station Site
This alternative involves the reconstruction of a station on an expanded site at the existing north side
location. A portion of North Side Park along Louisiana would be utilized for an elevated pad
accommodating the fire station building, drive, and parking areas (see attached plan). The park
amenities and layout would be adjusted to the smaller site through a complete park reconstruction
project. In addition, it would be proposed that the hockey rink be located to Birchwood Park.
Analyses of the significant components of this alternative are as follows:
• Property Acquisition – None - the city owns this property
• Demolition and Site Preparation – Estimated costs for demolition are $50,000 and site
preparation is $572,000. Attached are the estimated site costs (soils and retaining wall) for
the Louisiana site as well as graphic attachments of the preliminary block concept from BKV
Group. The cost estimate for fill may be reduced if we utilize fill needing to be removed
from the Municipal Service Center site.
• Tenant Relocation Cost – None.
• Fire Department Operation – During construction, Fire personnel and equipment would be
housed temporarily at the new South Side Fire Station and remodeled Municipal Service
Center.
• Building Cost - $4.4 million (assumes a satellite station).
• Public Process – The surrounding neighborhoods and park users are supportive of using the
existing location. Several Northside Park user meetings were held to discuss the possibility of
constructing a new fire station at the current location which would require using part of the
park. This would necessitate improvements and changes to the park. Consensus of the user
groups was that they would support the park improvements to allow for the construction of
a new fire station on the current site.
• Northside Park Redevelopment- Reconstructing the fire station on the existing Northside
site would require a redevelopment of almost the entire site. This redevelopment is needed
at the park regardless of whether the new fire station is built there. Rehabilitating Northside
Park has been in the City’s CIP. However, improvements were not pursued until a decision
was made on the fire station location. We anticipate the complete park redevelopment to be
approximately $1 million. This cost would not vary significantly whether rehabbed or
reconfigured to accommodate the fire station.
• Birchwood Park - If the fire station is rebuilt in this location, the hockey rink would need to
be removed and relocated. Staff would recommend moving it to Birchwood Park. The
existing site at Birchwood would need to be modified to accommodate a hockey rink that
serves a more regional use. The building at Birchwood Park is in need of rebuilding
regardless of the fire station location. Staff believes we would have to modify the lighting
and add parking to accommodate the new hockey rink at an estimated cost of $38,000 for
the lights and $20,000 for additional parking spaces.
Meeting of March 9, 2009 (Item No. 2) Page 4
Subject: Northside Fire Station Location
• Traffic –This has always been a concern at this site. Often during the day access to and from
the station is blocked by traffic backed up from Cedar Lake Road. One of the main safety
concerns that currently exists is that fire personnel have to exit the trucks in the traffic lane to
guide them back into the station. This issue would be remedied under the proposed plan
by turning the station ninety degrees and having vehicles leave the station building in a
southerly direction and then accessing Louisiana Ave. Upon return, the trucks would drive
directly onto the station site with room to maneuver and back into the station on the station
site itself and not on Louisiana Ave. Another possible aid staff has considered to assist with
traffic conflicts on Louisianan Ave would be the addition of a signal light for southbound
traffic on Louisiana, north of the station. Cost is approximately $100,000. Other
improvements could also be made to the traffic preemption system at the intersection of
Louisiana and Cedar Lake Road. Further traffic studies may have to be done to maximize
traffic control possibilities.
• Timeline – Selection of an architect, demolition and site preparation could be completed in
2010 with construction starting 2011. This action allows us to move forward on designing
both stations simultaneously, reducing design costs by an estimated $50,000 – 100,000.
• Next Steps – If this location is selected, staff will proceed with the process of selecting an
architect to complete a design for both fire stations.
Alternative #2 Eliot School Site on Cedar Lake Road
This alternative involves the acquisition of the Eliot site from the school district, relocation of the
tenants, removal of the existing building, and the construction of the north side fire station. For
purposes of this analysis it is assumed the fire station would be located directly adjacent to Cedar
Lake Road to allow for more direct access and mitigate impacts on the surrounding residential area.
• Property Acquisition - $3 – 3.5 million dollars to acquire the property from the school
district.
• Demolition and Site Preparation – Approximately $500,000 to demolish the building and
prepare the site for construction. The cost could increase if substantial asbestos abatement is
needed.
• Tenant Relocation Cost – Unknown at this time. Relocating tenants would involve hiring a
relocation consultant who would then determine the relocation benefits the tenants would be
eligible to receive. This cost could be substantial.
• Disposition of Existing Station – The existing Fire Station #2 property would be available
for sale or another city use. A financial investment would be required if the City were to
retain the building for municipal purposes.
• Fire Department Operation – The Fire Department can continue to operate in the current
location while the new fire station is being constructed at the Eliot School site.
• Building Cost - $ 4.4 million (assumes a satellite station). This 4 acre site is also large enough
to accommodate a main station.
• Public Process – An Eliot/Eliot View Neighborhood Meeting was held April 8, 2008 with 74
people in attendance. Many in attendance seemed very concerned if the north side fire
station was constructed on the Eliot site and felt staff should resume looking for another site
or construct a new station at the current location.
Meeting of March 9, 2009 (Item No. 2) Page 5
Subject: Northside Fire Station Location
• Traffic –Like the Louisiana Ave site, this site also has traffic issues. Rush hour traffic on
Cedar Lake Road is often very heavy with west bound traffic backed up as far east as Jersey
Ave. For this reason access onto Cedar Lake Road would require some type of traffic control
device, either on Idaho or Hampshire, depending on how the station is positioned on the
site. This would require a full signalized intersection, costing approximately $170,000, to
stop traffic during emergency responses. As over 80% of the emergency response trips from
this site will be going west on Cedar Lake Road to Louisiana (main north south route) a
signal preemption system may be required to be wired into the Louisiana intersection from
the station to start controlling traffic as soon as possible. The cost of this is unknown.
Further traffic studies may have to be done to maximize traffic control possibilities.
• Timeline – Acquiring the property and successfully relocating all tenants would likely not be
completed until 2011, possibly delaying construction of the station by a year.
• Next Steps – Taking into consideration the public’s concern with constructing a fire station
at this location, significant public process would be required before making a commitment to
this site and a purchase negotiated.
Comparative Summary – A comparison summarizing the advantages and disadvantages of Eliot
School Site and Northside Fire Station Site is as follows:
Advantages
Eliot School Site
• Larger site which enhances flexibility for design of station - can build a satellite or
main station on the site
• Existing north side station can remain operational during construction
• Provides flexibility for other uses or the sale of the remaining 2 acres of land
• Flat site which lowers site preparation costs.
• School District owns site – site is already tax exempt
Northside Fire Station Site
• City owns the property – site is already tax exempt
• Able to expedite design and construction of station
• Much lower overall project cost
• Neighborhood support
• Direct access to Louisiana Avenue ( which is used for most runs)
• Shared design solution with park improvements for storm water runoff.
Meeting of March 9, 2009 (Item No. 2) Page 6
Subject: Northside Fire Station Location
Disadvantages
Eliot School Site
• Neighborhood opposition
• Additional cost - $3 million plus
• Neighborhood process, property acquisition and tenant relocation could delay
construction
• Traffic issues
Northside Fire Station Site
• Limited to satellite station design
• Requires fire personnel to be temporarily housed at a different location
• Difficult site grades to work with which increases cost
• Traffic issues
Alternative Scenario – If Council does not find either of the researched sites acceptable, staff would
initiate a new search to find other properties in the general Louisiana Avenue and Cedar Lake Road
area that would be viable for construction of a fire station. This most likely would involve acquiring
commercial or residential property and removal of any existing structure(s), causing added delay for
the project.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Cost Comparison
Eliot School Site Northside Fire Station Site
Property Cost $3 to $3,500,000 $ 0
Relocation Costs $Unknown $ 0
Demolition of Existing Bldg’s $ 450,000 $ 50,000
Site Preparation $ 50,000 $ 571,348
Building Construction $4,400,000 $4,400,000
Traffic Control $ 170,000 $ 100,000
Northside Park Improvements* $ 0 $ 0
Birchwood Park Improvements $ 0 $ 58,000
Total Estimated Costs $8,070,000 to 8,570,000 $5,179,348
+ tenant relocation
*Northside Park requires improvements regardless of the fire station location. No additional cost is
expected if fire station remains or is relocated.
* The Eliot estimate does not assume any proceeds from the potential sale of the remaining Eliot site
and or the existing station two site.
Meeting of March 9, 2009 (Item No. 2) Page 7
Subject: Northside Fire Station Location
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
Attachments: BKV Estimates and Illustration of Excavation and Retaining Walls at Fire
Station #2
Site Plans
Prepared by: Brian Hoffman, Director of Inspections
Luke Stemmer, Fire Chief
Cindy Walsh, Parks & Recreation Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
E:\Ted\projects\1183-09 st louis park fs study\LTR-HOFFMAN-022009.doc
February 20, 2009
Mr. Brian Hoffman
Director of Inspections
City of St. Louis Park
5005 Minnetonka Boulevard
St. Louis Park, Minnesota 55416-2290
Re: Estimated costs of excavation and retaining walls at Fire Station
#2
Dear Mr. Hoffman:
Per your request BKV Group has taken a look at the selected alternative
for the renovation of Fire Station #2 located at the corner of Louisiana
Avenue and Minnetonka Boulevard. The selected alternative matches
the attached images.
EXCAVATION ESTIMATE
The estimate for excavation is based upon the following criteria:
1. Remove the high side to the eastern portion of the site 10'
2. Remove the low side of the western portion site 10'
3. Provide engineered fill to set the site area back to its original
elevations
4. Provide additional fill to raise the low area required for the building
pad area up to base grade
5. All removal is assumed to be disposed of as it is deemed unsuitable
for re-use on the site and the unavailability of any on site storage
areas available.
The estimated costs for this work following the above criteria:
Removal of East side of site 4,188 cu. yds. @ $9.00 per cy= $37,692
Removal of west edge of site 10,068 cu. yds. @ $9.00 per cy= $90,612
Replace soil to original grade 14,256 cu. yds. @ $12 per cy= $171,072
Fill to raise building pad elev. 10,068 cu. yds. @ $9 per cy =
$90,612
Total estimated site prep cost = $389,988
RETAINING WALL
The estimated cost for the retaining wall is based upon a 10'-0" high
retaining wall with required footing and foundation beginning at the base
of the existing hill on the east side of the site, and wrapping around the
building forming the north and west wall of the building, and the north,
south and west edge of the parking and drive areas. It also assumes a
triangular shaped wall from the low side of the existing hill up to building
grade on the north and south sides of the site.
Retaining wall 7,024 s.f. @ $25/ s.f. = $175,600
Footing 480 cu. yd. @ $12/cy = $ 5,760
Total =
$181,360
Sum Total: $571,348
Meeting of March 9, 2009 (Item No. 2)
Subject: Northside Fire Station Location Page 8
E:\Ted\projects\1183-09 st louis park fs study\LTR-HOFFMAN-022009.doc
These costs are based on an estimated quantity of soil removal and
retaining wall design within the building and drive area only, are being
provided for budgetary purposes. These numbers may be either
increased or decreased when the final documents are complete. Please
let us know if you have questions regarding this information, of if there is
additional analysis you require.
Sincerely,
BKV Group
Ted Redmond, AIA
Managing Partner
Meeting of March 9, 2009 (Item No. 2)
Subject: Northside Fire Station Location Page 9
Meeting of March 9, 2009 (Item No. 2) Subject: Northside Fire Station LocationPage 10
Meeting of March 9, 2009 (Item No. 2) Subject: Northside Fire Station LocationPage 11
Meeting of March 9, 2009 (Item No. 2) Subject: Northside Fire Station LocationPage 12
Meeting Date: March 9, 2009
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:
Southwest Transit Station Area Planning and Southwest Transit DEIS Update.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
No action required. Consultant Hay-Dobbs and PAC representative Jim Brimeyer will be in
attendance to update Council on the SW Transit Project.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Is the direction of the consultants planning process consistent with the City Council’s intent for the
areas surrounding the transit stations?
Does the City Council have questions or concerns regarding the SW Transit Project overall and/or
the alternatives being considered?
Is there additional information the City Council desires?
BACKGROUND:
Station Area Planning
Hennepin County Regional Rail Authority (HCRRA) has hired Hay-Dobbs consulting firm to
conduct planning for 12 station areas along the Southwest Transit corridor. Three stations are in St.
Louis Park: Beltline, Wooddale and Louisiana (please see attached map). Hay-Dobbs has worked
with City Staff and a group of stakeholders to identify issues and opportunities around the station
areas. At the study session they will present their work completed to date on the station areas in St.
Louis Park.
In October, 2008 the consultants and city staff held a meeting with a group of stakeholders that
included elected and appointed officials, neighbors, business leaders and others in the community.
The summary from the meeting is attached for your review. A second meeting of the stakeholder
group is planned for Tuesday, March 10th.
Three “conceptual site development” plans are attached showing some ideas for intensification of
land uses around the station areas. Hay-Dobbs will present these plans for your questions and
provide other information to gain your input into the process at the Study Session. The Station
Area Plans are to be completed by August 2009.
Meeting of March 9, 2009 (Item No. 3) Page 2
Subject: Southwest Transit Station Area Planning and Southwest Transit DEIS Update
Relationship to Comprehensive Plan
The land uses shown around the station areas by Hay-Dobbs relate closely to the proposed changes
in the City’s Comprehensive Plan update. Some of the suggestions by the consultant may be longer
term, and thus the land use will not be proposed for changes at this time. For the industrial areas
around the Beltline and Louisiana stations, the addition of a “Business Park” category and
designation of some of the properties will direct development and redevelopment for more business
and employment intensity. Changes proposed by the consultant and in the Comprehensive Plan
update around the Wooddale station area will be largely consistent with the Elmwood Study.
Southwest Transit DEIS Update
HCRRA has hired HDR Engineering to complete the Draft Environmental Impact Statement
(DEIS) for the Southwest Transitway. The initial “scoping” phase of the process for the study is
now complete. One “sub” alternative route to LRT 3C was added through this process, submitted
by Minneapolis Council Member Remington; maps of LRT 3C and the new alternative are
attached. The sub-alternative follows the original LRT 3C route through Uptown to north on
Nicollet (or Blaisdell or 1st Avenue), then would turn on 11th Street to Royalston Avenue and
interline with the existing Hiawatha LRT line. Interlining means a rider could stay on the same
train and ride the Hiawatha route to the airport or Mall of America.
PAC representative Jim Brimeyer will attend the meeting to discuss the DEIS process further. A
representative from the County or consulting team may also attend.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged community.
Attachments: Stations Graphic
Vision Session Summaries
Conceptual Site Plans
LRT 3C Alternative Route Map
11th/12th 3C Sub Alternative Route Map
Prepared by: Meg J. McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor
Reviewed by: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting of March 9, 2009 (Item No. 3) Page 3
Subject: Southwest Transit Station Area Planning and Southwest Transit DEIS Update
Meeting of March 9, 2009 (Item No. 3) Page 4
Subject: Southwest Transit Station Area Planning and Southwest Transit DEIS Update
Vision Session Summary
October 7, 2008
Station Area Planning
For
Light Rail Transit
ST. LOUIS PARK
I. Benefit of Light Rail Transit to the Southwest Corridor
A. Access
1. Would provide needed local connections for bicycles and parking needs
2. Would provide good connections to major sporting events, Job Centers,
entertainment and retail opportunities.
B. Opportunities
1. St. Louis Park would heavily use LRT for their daily commutes, for events and on
special occasions.
2. Parking costs would be saved when traveling to a downtown area or the University of
Minnesota for work, shopping, entertainment, etc.
3. Residential growth could occur in the corridor
4. May become a health care corridor
5. When using other transit connections, could be utilized for travel to several major
destinations including schools, colleges, etc.
C. Connections
1. Will require accompanying “feeder” bus systems
2. Bus riders from the south will be coming to St. Louis Park to transfer on to LRT.
3. When using other transit connections, could be utilized for travel to several major
destinations including schools, colleges, etc.
II Description of St. Louis Park
A. Characteristics
1. Stable, mature, strong and innovative residential community
2. Strong neighborhoods with aging infrastructure
3. Older city needing maintenance
4. Has a “sense of place”. When people move, they stay in the neighborhood.
B. Services
1. Have good parks but need additional trails
2. A “breakthrough” community providing good city services and public
facilities
3. Good schools but with a declining enrollment
Meeting of March 9, 2009 (Item No. 3) Page 5
Subject: Southwest Transit Station Area Planning and Southwest Transit DEIS Update
4. Have excellent health care facilities and services
C. City Government
1. Good leadership and good process for having public involvement in city
decisions
2. Have progressive residents. First to recycle and adopt anti-burning ordinance. Are
risk-takers.
D. Infrastructure
1. Extensive infrastructure but not always in good shape
2. TH 100 and 7 provide great access for the community but are congested with 80%
“through” traffic. They are barriers to cross divide the community
3. Have railroads that do not serve St. Louis Park businesses. They serve “through”
traffic and are barriers.
E. Economics
1. Have some old industries (Skunk Hollow)
2. Some existing businesses are not good land uses
3. Some existing industrial property can be used for development
III Wooddale Station
A. Should have a bicycle and pedestrian focus
B. Difficult to accommodate parking
C. Smart density (“you are my destiny”-Back to the Future)
D. Not a commuter stop
IV Beltline Station
A. Connection
1. The “community”
2. Parks and trails
3. Roadways
4. Better connections north-south then east-west
5. Should broaden community connections (trails) walk to stores. Shop in
St. Louis Park
B. Environment
1. Protect Bass Lake
2. Enhance natural features
3. Integrate rather than isolate uses, manifest natural features.
C. Development
1. Maximize development at all stations. At Beltline, at least a 2 level parking ramp
should be provided with shops built in along the perimeter. This should be a large bus
transfer station. Possible retail/housing above the ramp. May need to relax design
standards. Needs bicycle parking.
2. Most of the available land is currently industrial but should be converted to mixed use
Meeting of March 9, 2009 (Item No. 3) Page 6
Subject: Southwest Transit Station Area Planning and Southwest Transit DEIS Update
3. Opportunities for development on the west side of the station area
4. Should pursue new “clean” businesses and expand housing with flexible zoning
reflecting current and future demographics that aims toward young first time buyers and
an aging population of single family homeowners with just two people. Houses need to
be build smaller and have fewer bathrooms and bedrooms. Lot sizes should be smaller.
One size does not fit all. Housing must be affordable and safe, however, it must also be
recognized that as young families grow, they will be looking for “move up” housing.
D. Transportation
1. Need safe connections to Excelsior and Grand
2. Consider tunnel connection between two neighborhoods
3. Integrate transportation systems at stations
E. Design
1. High quality
2. Be more reflective of an urban community than suburban
3. Promote sustainability
V. Louisiana Avenue Station
A. Expectations for use
1. Methodist Hospital and heavy traffic on Louisiana Avenue is expected to result in
heavy usage at this station.
2. Station should be a “big dot on the map”
3. Good connections from all directions
4. Short distance for commuters
B. Parking Possibilities
1. Shared with industrial uses to accommodate commuters and special events
C. Development
1. Should be multi-story high-end development
2. Leverage Hospital investments
3. Mix of uses today (not planned)
4. Consider residential/Light Industrial/Hospital
5. Build a civic center?
6. Build on existing uses
a. Residential/assisted living
b. Hotel
D. Connections
1. Meadow Creek?
2. Continued streetscape
3. Greater trail access
STATION AREA PLANNING ST LOUIS PARK BELTLINEWooddaleLouisiana PROJECT NO: 08018.001
N
Beltline station
conceptual site Development plan
800'0'400'
DATE: 26 Feburary, 2009
Meeting of March 9, 2009 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Southwest Transit Station Area Planning and Southwest Transit DEIS Update Page 7
STATION AREA PLANNING ST LOUIS PARKBeltlineWOODDALELouisiana PROJECT NO: 08018.001
N
WOODDALE stAtiOn
800'0'400'
DATE: 26 Feburary, 2009
cOncEptuAL sitE DEvELOpmEnt pLAn
Meeting of March 9, 2009 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Southwest Transit Station Area Planning and Southwest Transit DEIS Update Page 8
STATION AREA PLANNING ST LOUIS PARKBeltlineWooddaleLOUISIANA PROJECT NO: 08018.001
N
lOUISIANA dOwNtOwN StAtION
800'0'400'
DATE: 26 Feburary, 2009
cONceptUAl SIte develOpmeNt plAN
Meeting of March 9, 2009 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Southwest Transit Station Area Planning and Southwest Transit DEIS Update Page 9
Meeting of March 9, 2009 (Item No. 3) Subject: Southwest Transit Station Area Planning and Southwest Transit DEIS UpdatePage 10
Southwest Transitway
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
11th/12th Street Concept
11th/12th Street Concept11th/12th Street Concept
Royal
st
o
n
Franklin
28th StreetLyndaleUptown
West LakeIntermodal
Lake of
the Isles
Cedar
Lake
Franklin Ave
Nicollet Ave26th StreetHennepin AveLyndale AveWa
s
h
i
n
g
t
o
n
A
v
e
Lake St
11t
h
S
t
r
e
e
t12th
S
t
ree
t
Henn
e
pi
n
Henn
e
pi
n
A
v
e
12th
S
t
r
ee
t
11t
h
S
t
r
e
e
t
Henn
e
pi
n
Owo-Way Couplet
Blaisdell Ave1st Ave12t
h
S
t
r
e
e
t
Legend
11th/12th Street Concepts & Alignments
Shared Alignments, At Grade
Blaisdell Avenue, At Grade
Nicollet Avenue, At Grade
1st Avenue South, At Grade
Nicollet Avenue, Tunnel
Blaisdell Avenue, Tunnel
1st Avenue South, Tunnel
1st & Nicollet Combined, At Grade
0 1,500 3,000750
Feet
Hiawatha Light Rail
Hiawatha LRT Stations
Target Field (Under Construction)
Glenwoo
d
A
v
e
Meeting of March 9, 2009 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Southwest Transit Station Area Planning and Southwest Transit DEIS Update Page 11
Meeting Date: March 9, 2009
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:
Solid Waste Program Update.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
The purpose of this report is to provide Council with information on the City’s practices associated
with overfilled garbage carts and cart placements.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does Council want to change or otherwise modify the current volume based method for charging
residents for refuse collection and disposal and/or where residents may place carts on collection day?
BACKGROUND:
History
Overfilled Carts
In 2003, the Council approved moving to a volume based garbage collection program to incent
refuse reduction and increase recycling as well as fairly charge residents for garbage disposal based on
the volume of refuse they generate. The new program moved to a cart collection system with eight
service levels ranging from 30 gallon to 540 gallon service. Before 2003 there were two service levels,
a one-can (30 gallon) service and an unlimited service.
Carts are the only known way to charge residents for the amount of refuse they generate. Residents
are instructed to only fill the carts with the amount of garbage that fits completely within their cart
with the lid closed. For the several times a year when residents generate more garbage than fits in
their carts, residents may purchase extra refuse stickers ($2.25 each) to adhere to bags of garbage
outside the cart. On the inside of every lid instructions state “Do not overfill cart: lid must close”
and “Bags outside of the cart will not be collected without an Extra Refuse sticker on them”.
Carts, with lids down, have greatly reduced the litter problem throughout the City. In the past most
of the old metal cans were without lids and there was a huge litter and animal problem with
raccoons, squirrels, and crows getting into the garbage.
The practice for addressing overfilled carts has been in place since 2003, but recently is being more
strictly enforced now that we have a staff member in the field to verify resident and contractor
compliance with City requirements. When the Contractor encounters an overfilled cart, the City
requires the Contractor to leave an educational tag and leave the overfilled cart. This prompts a call
from the resident to either the Contractor or the City, and allows us to explain to residents that carts
should not be overfilled. We explain the value of recycling, fairly charging residents based on the
Meeting of March 9, 2009 (Item No. 4) Page 2
Subject: Solid Waste Program Update
amount of garbage they generate, proper service level selection, reduction of animal and litter
problems in their neighborhoods, along with the use of extra refuse stickers for the those times when
they generate extra garbage. The first time a resident receives an overfilled cart educational tag and
calls in, the City will provide them with a “courtesy pickup” and either goes back that day or the
next day and empties the cart at no charge. Repeat violators are required to pay $15 for a special
pickup or hold their garbage for collection the following week.
Besides having instructions on the inside of every cart lid since 2003, staff has routinely provided
education to residents relating to overfilled carts with Park Perspective articles, webpage information,
direct mailings, and utility billing stuffers.
Cart Placement
Carts placed in the street or on the sidewalk create public safety concerns to the traveling public,
issues for our maintenance staff, and damage potential to the City-owned carts. When the
Contractor finds carts placed either in the street or on the sidewalk, the City requires the Contractor
to empty the cart and leave an educational tag informing the resident not to place the cart in the
street or on the sidewalk. The Contractor’s cart placement practice is to return the cart where it was
found, unless the cart was found either in the street or on the sidewalk. If a resident does not want
the Contractor to place the cart in their driveway, the resident needs to clear snow in the boulevard
area large enough for the cart (and recycling bin) to be placed.
Summary
With the recent increase in resident education on both filling of carts and cart placement, tagging
(and associated resident complaints) has increased. Tagging is the most effective form of public
education staff has identified to date. Monitoring indicates this has been proving effective and
tagging and associated complaints have been decreasing. Staff visibly notes a large decrease in
overfilled carts now compared to the last few months.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable at this time.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
The activities above support or complement the following Strategic Direction adopted by the City
Council:
St. Louis Park is committed to being a leader in environmental stewardship. We will increase
environmental consciousness and responsibility in all areas of city business.
Focus areas:
• Educating staff / public on environmental consciousness, stewardship, and best practices.
• Working in areas such as…environmental innovations.
Prepared by: Scott Merkley, Public Works Coordinator
Reviewed by: Mike Rardin, Public Works Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting of March 9, 2009 (Item No. 4) Page 3
Subject: Solid Waste Program Update
Meeting of March 9, 2009 (Item No. 4) Page 4
Subject: Solid Waste Program Update
Meeting Date: March 9, 2009
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:
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: March 9, 2009
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:
Recycling Program Update.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
The purpose of this report is to provide Council with an update on issues related to recycling of
plastics.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the City Council have any concerns about the approach staff will be using to educate our
residents on the recycling of plastics?
BACKGROUND:
History
Contract
On October 1, 2008 the City entered into a 5-year contract with Eureka Recycling (Eureka) for
collection and processing of recycling materials. The City chose Eureka for several reasons including
their mission to educate residents on reducing waste, their commitment to improving environmental
stewardship, additional materials to be collected, and their willingness to share revenue from the sale
of recyclable materials with the City.
Confusion about Plastics Recycling
Residents are experiencing a typical transition issue in not understanding what plastics are recyclable.
Our previous hauler collected all types of plastics, leading residents to believe that all plastics are
recyclable. In reality, the non-recyclable plastics that are collected end up in the garbage stream. In
fact, only plastic bottles with a number 1 or number 2 are recyclable. Residents are confused and
sometimes upset when Eureka drivers leave behind non-recyclable plastic, like yogurt tubs and
margarine containers. While staff has provided residents recycling plastics education articles in both
the Park Perspective and on the City’s website, both Eureka and staff believe a more intense targeted
education effort is needed.
Proposed Plastics Education Campaign
A plastics education campaign has been developed to provide residents thorough and innovative
education so they understand what types of plastics can be recycled. This campaign will use multiple
methods of communication: a public access cable spot, Eureka’s recycling hotline, the City’s website,
neighborhood leader involvement, newsletter articles, educational tagging by drivers, and City email
alerts.
Meeting of March 9, 2009 (Item No. 6) Page 2
Subject: Recycling Program Update
The campaign focuses on residents who set out non-recyclable plastics. Eureka has developed new
tags that drivers will leave behind when residents set out non-recyclable plastics in their bin. The tags
will provide information about plastic recycling and encourage residents to call the Recycling
Hotline to learn more and then automatically be entered into a drawing to be eligible for a one-time
recycling reward (a $50 credit to their utility bill).
The campaign will last for a 6 week period, during which time the Eureka drivers will distribute the
new educational tags. Residents receiving tags will be instructed to call the hotline to be eligible for
the recycling reward drawing. Eureka hotline staff will track a list of callers. The following week(s)
Eureka and city staff will revisit the households that were previously tagged and called the hotline to
verify if they are now correctly sorted recycling. If they have done so, they will become eligible for
the drawing for a recycling reward. Drawings will be held for each of the 3 recycling routes for all 5
days of the week, so the recycling rewards will be evenly distributed throughout the city.
Get Caught Recycling Program
Following the completion of the 6 week plastics education campaign, the City will re-start our
Get-Caught-Recycling program. On a monthly basis, a random list of addresses (rotated by
collection day) is computer generated and City staff checks to see if recycling is being done properly.
The first 2 residents on the list that have recycled properly will be given a one-time recycling reward
(a $50 credit to their utility bill).
Project Schedule
The Plastics Education Campaign last approximately 6 weeks and run from mid-March through
April.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
The cost of the Plastics Campaign will be $750 in recycling rewards and approximately $500 for the
educations tags. The related costs will come from the Solid Waste Fund. Staff has reviewed the
issuance of recycling reward credits with both the City Attorney and the Finance Department.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
The activities above support or complement the following Strategic Direction adopted by the City
Council:
St. Louis Park is committed to being a leader in environmental stewardship. We will increase
environmental consciousness and responsibility in all areas of city business.
Focus areas:
• Educating staff / public on environmental consciousness, stewardship, and best practices.
• Working in areas such as…environmental innovations.
Prepared by: Scott Merkley, Public Works Coordinator
Reviewed by: Mike Rardin, Public Works Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting Date: March 9, 2009
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:
Hoigaard Village Project Update.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
None at this time.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the report below provide sufficient information on the current status of the Hoigaard Village
project or does the City Council wish to make further inquires of Mr. Frank Dunbar at a subsequent
study session?
BACKGROUND:
The EDA’s Amended Redevelopment Contract with Union Land II LLC requires the Redeveloper
to report to the EDA each year in March regarding the status of its Hoigaard Village project. In
keeping with this requirement, the Redeveloper was asked to submit a written report which is
presented below.
Harmony Vista
Retail: The retail space was sold and is now operated by a private group who has secured a lease of
approximately 7,000 SF with a dialysis center and they are finishing their space at this time. They
have signed a lease with a coffee shop for the western-most space. Regretfully they were unable to
come to terms with the wine/sandwich shop who located their facility in Minnetonka. The group
has a couple of other retail uses they are negotiating with but they have not disclosed who they are to
us at this time.
Residential: Of the 73 units, 53% are leased. We have developed a lease-to-own set of documents
and have made the residents aware that we would be receptive to signing these documents when they
feel they are in a position to purchase the units. To date, none have actually signed although a
significant number have indicated a desire to sign the lease-to-own program at some time in '09.
We will give them substantial credit on their rent at the time they elect to purchase.
The Camerata
The Camerata Apartments are going very well. We are 48% leased. We have had tremendous traffic
and anticipate substantial lease activity during the spring and summer. We could not be more
pleased with the way Camerata has been received by the marketplace.
Meeting of March 9, 2009 (Item No. 7) Page 2
Subject: Hoigaard Village Project Update
The Adagio
We continue to work diligently with the Volunteers of America to create an independent senior
facility on this site. We are maintaining a careful eye on the financing climate which would then
allow VOA-Minnesota to proceed with the development. We are cautiously optimistic that this
would occur in '09.
Medley Row
We are pad-ready to start construction on the town homes when the market is receptive. We
continue to be in touch with Edina Realty who would be our sales agent when the market returns for
town homes.
Overall, we remain committed and enthusiastic about the development opportunity at Hoigaard
Village. Obviously the economic situation has provided us a real challenge. We will continue to stay
with the development to achieve ultimate success in the development program. We have
experienced other challenges such as the coffee odors from across the railroad tracks, the crime that
has hit our developments and the horn noise from the trains as they cross over Highway 100. City
Staff has been working with us on these issues and hopefully we will find solutions for each of them
in the very near term.
Thank you for your continued support. Please do not hesitate to contact me at any time regarding
any aspect of the Hoigaard Village development.
Thank you,
Frank Dunbar
STAFF COMMENTS:
Officials at nearby McGarvey Coffee have been cooperative and responsive whenever Inspections
staff has contacted them regarding odor complaints.
The Police Dept has met with Mr. Dunbar and his property management staff regarding the theft of
entertainment equipment from the community rooms at Harmony Vista and The Camerata.
Discussions have been held on ways to further improve security and prevent such occurrences from
happening in the future.
NEXT STEPS:
Staff would like feedback on the Redeveloper’s report and whether the City Council wishes to ask
the Redeveloper any follow-up questions at a future study session.
Meeting of March 9, 2009 (Item No. 7) Page 3
Subject: Hoigaard Village Project Update
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
Attachments: None
Prepared by: Greg Hunt, Economic Development Coordinator
Reviewed by: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, EDA Executive Director and City Manager
Meeting Date: March 9, 2009
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:
Pay 2010 Assessed Valuation Report.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
No action required at this time. This item is provided to the City Council as background for the
2009 taxable valuation notices that are to be mailed March 9, 2009. These values will be used for
calculation of taxes payable in 2010. Detailed information is being compiled and will be presented
and explained at the study session on March 23.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Is there any further information the Council would like to receive regarding value changes prior to
the Board of Equalization meetings scheduled for April 13 – April 27?
BACKGROUND:
This year’s assessment process has been one of the most difficult in recent memory because of the
turmoil in the housing market. Coupled with fears of recession, foreclosures, and shrinking median
sale prices, there is a distinct dichotomy between actual sales transactions in different sectors of the
market. Our purpose in presenting this information at study session is to give the City Council a
full appreciation of the state of our property market. This should help the City Council in
undertaking its role as the Board of Equalization and respond to questions it might receive prior to
the Board meetings in April.
Attached are a “Frequently Asked Questions” document and a quick fact sheet on the various
residential and commercial/industrial segments of our community. We highlight these as activity
tells a very different story in each segment.
The good news is that St. Louis Park remains a strong residential market in contrast to some other
places in the Metro area. We continue to see decent sales activity and prices for the most part are
holding close to our estimated market values.
Our commercial and industrial property classes continue to be strong even though the number of
sales transactions has fallen from previous years. The interest in St. Louis Park is great as evidenced
by construction activities in the Park Place Blvd. area and the rapid leasing of the Hwy. 7 Corporate
Center show.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
The actions taken at the Board of Equalization will have tax ramifications for the individual property
owners in 2010.
Meeting of March 9, 2009 (Item No. 8) Page 2
Subject: Pay 2010 Assessed Valuation Report
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
ATTACHMENT: 2009 Valuation Report
Frequently Asked Questions/Quick Fact Sheet on Values
Prepared by: Bruce DeJong, Finance Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting of March 9, 2009 (Item No. 8) Page 3
Subject: Pay 2010 Assessed Valuation Report
2009 Valuation Report
(Payable 2010 Tax Period)
Assessing Staff
Cory Bultema – City Assessor – 952-924-2536
Marty Fechner – Assessment Technician/Appraiser – 952-924-2533
Mark Hoppe – Appraiser I – 952-924-2529
Deb Lynch – Appraiser II – 952-924-2532
Bridget Nathanson – Appraiser II – 952-924-2530
Kelley Schomer – Appraiser – 952-924-2639
Meeting of March 9, 2009 (Item No. 8) Page 4
Subject: Pay 2010 Assessed Valuation Report
Overview of the Minnesota Property Tax System
Minnesota law establishes a specific process and time line for the entire property tax system, including the
assessment of property. The system is summarized as follows:
1. All real property is valued at market value annually and classified according to usage.
2. State law defines how the value and class rate are translated into tax capacity. Further refinements and
credits affect certain properties (e.g. limited market value, homestead credit, veteran exclusion, etc.).
3. Budgets for each taxing jurisdiction, which include decisions on the use of various funding sources, are
set annually. Tax funding sources include the property tax levy, voter approved market value
referendums, bonding, special assessments and other sources such as user fees.
4. The total property tax levy is divided by the total capacity of each jurisdiction (city, county, school
district and others) to determine the total levy extension multiplier. The respective multiplier for each
jurisdiction is applied to the individual property to calculate property tax.
The Assessing function deals with the first step above as staff renders an opinion of market value and
classification annually for property tax purposes (approximately 17,000 parcels in St. Louis Park for 2009).
The assessment of all properties must be made in compliance with standards established by the Minnesota
Department of Revenue and Minnesota Statutes.
Market value is defined in Minnesota Statute 272.03 subd 8 as:
The usual selling price at the place where the property to which the term is applied shall be at the time of
assessment; being the price which could be obtained at a private sale or an auction sale, if it is determined
by the assessor that the price from the auction sale represents an arm's-length transaction. The price
obtained at a forced sale shall not be considered (emphasis added).
Market value is well described as a moving target. Market supply/demand, interest rates, general economic
conditions and seasonal cycles all play a significant role over time. The Minnesota property tax system
accommodates these issues by requiring an annual opinion of value as of January 2nd. The assessing staff
monitors the sales activity throughout the assessment period and adjusts the valuation of each property in
order to reflect market conditions.
Classification of the property use is also defined by Minnesota statute. The rationale for this requirement is
that the Minnesota property tax system applies differing classification rates in determining how the value is
translated into tax capacity. The following table presents a summary of the dominant property types and
their associated class rates:
Base Homestead Non-Homestead
e.g. Tax Capacity at Taxable
Values
Property Type Values Base
Over-
Base Base
Over-
Base 250,000 500,000 1,000,000
Comm &
Industrial 150,000 N/A N/A 1.50% 2.00% 4,250 9,250 19,250
Residential * 500,000 1.00% 1.25% 1.00% 1.25% 2,500 5,000 11,250
As can be seen above, the class rate system favors residential properties in terms of the base tax capacity rate
which is used in the tax calculation process. This difference widens further in the actual tax calculations as the
commercial property type is subject to an additional state tax levy, for education, while residential properties
are reduced by subsidy factors such as the market value homestead credit, this old house program and in prior
years, the limited market value legislation. Voter approved referenda are market value based so business and
residential property are taxed equally on each dollar of property value.
Meeting of March 9, 2009 (Item No. 8) Page 5
Subject: Pay 2010 Assessed Valuation Report
The Assessment Process
Parcel Review and Valuation
The purpose of the assessment process is to annually render an accurate and equitable opinion of market value
of each parcel of property. Doing so requires current information about the properties being assessed and the
local real estate market. In addition to the economic market forces at work, the individual property location,
use and physical characteristics play a significant role in the valuation. The St. Louis Park Assessing division
maintains a record of every property in the city, including its size, location, physical characteristics and
condition.
The Minnesota property tax system requires periodic inspections. The current cycle of inspection is on a five
year rotating schedule which may be altered due to physical change of the property (renovations, remodeling,
additions and damage). Approximately 20% (or a quintile) of all properties are physically reviewed each year.
This does not mean that all properties have an interior inspection which may be precluded by scheduling
difficulties or an owner’s preference. The goal of periodic and interim inspections is to assess the
characteristics and corresponding market value of each property as closely as possible versus the property’s
competitive position.
It is important to know that the valuation process for residential properties in the State of Minnesota is based
on mass appraisal. In years past, St. Louis Park and other cities used trending factors to revalue all the
properties (approximately 80%) not in the quintile districts that are physically reviewed each year. Today the
valuations are modeled by the use of a computer assisted mass appraisal (CAMA) methodology. To
summarize, the physical characteristics for each property are maintained in a very large data base which
calculates the individual valuations based upon the location, style and physical characteristics for each
property with annual adjustments made to the data tables to mirror market performance based on competitive
properties that have sold during the comparison time period.
The mass appraisal process is different from the individual appraisal system used by banks, mortgage
companies and others. The mass appraisal system used in St. Louis Park involves the comparison of thousands
of properties with the actual residential market transactions from the same neighborhood, and market sales of
the same quality and type of property throughout the city. New houses, additions and remodeling are valued
based on their characteristics and the value impact of the improvement.
Having the local assessment system operate effectively also requires as much information about the local real
estate market as possible. The Assessing division makes a record of all property sales using the Certificate of
Real Estate Value (CRV) filed at Hennepin County for each property sale. This information is frequently
augmented with sales information obtained regularly from the Multiple Listing Service (MLS) and other
sources, including follow-up re-inspections in the case where the sale price indicates that we may have
imperfect information.
In all cases, the sales information collected by the Assessing division is closely scrutinized. Evidence suggesting
anything but an arms-length transaction (a forced sale, foreclosure, a sale to a relative, etc.) results in the sales
information being excluded from our market value comparison. This is important, because the real estate
sales information constitutes the database for the statistical comparisons necessary to make the property
assessment.
Meeting of March 9, 2009 (Item No. 8) Page 6
Subject: Pay 2010 Assessed Valuation Report
Assessment Statistics
The two common methods of measuring the quality and equity of assessed values are those of the median
ratio and coefficient of dispersion (COD). Simply put, the ratio is the measure of the assessed value divided
by the sale price of a closed arm’s length transaction. An example: a home assessed at $380,000 sells for
$400,000, the sales ratio is 95.0% (380,000 / 400,000).
The median ratio is the exact mid-point of all ratios where ½ of the sales are above and ½ below that ratio.
While the Minnesota Department of Revenue standard of acceptable performance ranges from 90% to 105%,
most jurisdictions are wary of approaching the 100% mark on a mass appraisal basis (although this is the
exact definition by statute). A sales ratio of slightly less than 100% is desirable in order to avoid having ½ of
the sold properties valued at more than their actual market value. The target ratio has been 95.0% for many
years to accommodate the fact that the median ratio, by its nature, is the mid-point.
The COD reflects the quality and equity of the assessment and measures the dispersion from the midpoint, or
median. The more closely the assessed values are grouped around the midpoint, the more equitable the
assessment. Lower COD’s indicate that the individual ratios are closely distributed near the median. In
terms of accepted standards, a COD for residential properties below 10.0 is good. The COD standard for
commercial, industrial and apartment properties is higher at 15.0 as these properties are more unique in value
attributes.
As can be seen below, the ratio compliance for the primary property types versus the 2009 assessment is
statistically sound. The sales period being referenced is the state mandated sales study of October 2007
through September 2008. Our analysis has also taken into account transactions in the period from October
2008 through December 2008 given the current market forces at play. The stratification ratios for the single-
family residential stock are reported as follows:
Assessed Value Range Median Ratio Coefficient of Dispersion
0 – 174,999 93.4 4.8
175,000 to 249,999 95.0 5.5
250,000 to 349,999 95.0 4.9
350,000 to 499,999 94.8 3.5
500,000 to 700,000 93.7 1.4
700,000+ 93.7 1.7
Meeting of March 9, 2009 (Item No. 8) Page 7
Subject: Pay 2010 Assessed Valuation Report
Summary of the St. Louis Park 2009 Assessment Roll
The 2009 Notice of Valuation and Classification is mailed to each property owner in mid March. The notice
reflects the property value as of January 2, 2009 and applies to the Pay 2010 tax period.
The total valuation of the community stands at $5,577,976,300 as of January 2, 2009. Residential uses
comprise approximately 68.9% of the total value versus 9.5% for apartments and 21.6% for the commercial
and industrial uses.
Value change reflects the property types on a static basis (i.e. the direct comparison of parcels from one year to
the next) which does not include improvement values arising from renovations and new construction. In the
aggregate sense, the total static value declined 1.3% from 2008 to 2009. When including the value associated
with improvements, the total value decrease calculated for the City of St. Louis Park would be refined to
0.4%. In terms of comparative performance, the dominant use sectors are summarized as follows:
Single-Family Residential - 2.3% Static Basis versus -1.9% with Improvements
Condominium - 3.0% Static Basis versus -3.0% with Improvements
Townhomes - 0.2% Static Basis versus -0.1% with Improvements
Apartments +1.0% Static Basis versus +3.6% with Improvements
Commercial-Industrial +0.7% Static Basis versus +2.4% with Improvements
As can be surmised above and hearing the recent news, the residential uses have experienced a difficult year in
comparison to the strong growth of the past decade. Condos and townhomes comprise 19.6% of the total
housing stock. Adjustments to this sector are in the range of +2% to -8% predominantly, which is based on
a complex-by-complex analysis considering each distinct project, those that are directly competitive and
improvements made in the past year. We note that the newer construction projects have uniformly reported a
distinct slowdown in buyer activity and expect that this will result in further pricing reductions.
Within the single-family sector, the following data provides an overview of our competitive position.
Median Average Days On Sale Price Finished
Annual 2008 Sale Price Sale Price Market % of List Sq.Ft.
St. Louis Park 226,950 247,163 112 94.1% 1,595
Golden Valley 257,450 312,842 130 92.9% 2,214
Edina 387,500 528,724 124 94.1% 2,434
Hopkins 172,250 201,030 130 91.4% 1,538
Minnetonka 263,250 319,769 141 92.0% 2,227
Source: Minneapolis Association of Realtors Sales Data
The above actual market transactions illustrates how the St. Louis Park market interacts with our neighbors.
We have a distinct ability to exist as a competitively priced alternative to many of our peer communities while
also offering a variety of pricing brackets. While the listing duration has increased significantly versus the past
decade, our on-market time and sale-to-list percentage remain fairly durable versus local market areas.
Meeting of March 9, 2009 (Item No. 8) Page 8
Subject: Pay 2010 Assessed Valuation Report
The following chart continues an exploration of comparative market performance over time.
%
Change
%
Change
Median Sale
Price 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 07-to-08 02-to-08
St. Louis Park 184,950 199,000 215,000 230,000 234,500 233,250 226,950 -2.70% 22.70%
Golden Valley 214,950 225,900 249,000 260,500 268,000 270,850 257,450 -4.90% 19.80%
Edina 285,000 295,500 322,250 360,000 385,000 379,000 387,500 2.20% 36.00%
Hopkins 154,250 175,000 176,450 194,450 205,900 206,000 172,250 -16.40% 11.70%
Minnetonka 240,000 255,000 280,000 290,000 271,768 285,000 263,250 -7.60% 9.70%
Source: Minneapolis Association of Realtors Sales Data
The median sale price is reported as it most closely reflects the bulk of our housing stock. However, the
above change in aggregate single-family residential value for St. Louis Park should not apply in all instances.
There were significant variations among the price points. This is particularly important in the case of the
single-family residential market which comprises over 2/3rds of our total parcel count. We note that the
lower bracket homes have the most definitive trending in terms of our assessed values in correlation to the
actual market transactions.
For the 2009 assessment, the lower priced homes (less than $175,000) fared the poorest in terms of value
retention. We have reduced the assessed values in this bracket within a range of -5% to -30%, with
significant variations due to location and condition. This segment of the single-family market, comprising
about 5% of the total parcel count, is in direct competition to a significant portion of the foreclosure market
and also the competing sub-markets associated with condos, townhomes and apartments. In the 2008
assessment report, we reported that we expected this market segment to experience intensifying market
adjustment. More definitive statistics are presented at the end of the residential discussion regarding the
foreclosure market factors.
The mid-bracket homes ($175,000 to $500,000) were slightly down within a range of -4% to +2% versus
the sale transactions. This bracket accounts for 90% of the total single-family parcels.
The upper bracket homes (over $500,000) were adjusted upward in value approaching 10% in the 2008
assessment. In doing so we noted that we had closely reviewed the sales activity from 2006 up to 2008. The
sales performance in this bracket clearly indicated that the assessment adjustment was necessary. We are
heartened to report that the movement made in the 2008 assessment closely mirrored the market. This
bracket was essentially unchanged for the 2009 assessment within a range of -2% to +8% on a few sub-
market refinements of isolated increases and decreases.
To conclude our overview of the single-family residential market, a total of 76.4% of the properties were
reduced in their assessed market value; 19.6% were essentially unchanged and 4.0% were increased.
Lender Mediated Sales versus the Traditional Market
The media rightfully noted that the foreclosure phenomena as a defining factor in the 2008 market. St. Louis
Park city staff has been very active on this front with a working committee meeting monthly to monitor and
respond. In the Assessing office, our primary task has been associated with logging and studying the sales as
they occur while serving as a resource to the committee’s other departments in a comprehensive response
which has included increased police patrols, monitoring occupancy and utility usage, code enforcement
actions, contacting the lenders to enforce the point of sale programs, and perhaps most importantly…
discussing trends and what they mean.
Meeting of March 9, 2009 (Item No. 8) Page 9
Subject: Pay 2010 Assessed Valuation Report
From a valuation standpoint, the emerging trends clearly show a split market developing. The following table
serves as a pointed discussion topic.
Median % Change Mkt Share Traditional % Change Lender % Change
Annual 2008 Sale Price from 2007 Mediated Market Sale from 2007 Mediated
from
2007
St. Louis Park $226,950 -2.7% 14.0% $237,000 0.9% $165,000 -5.7%
Golden Valley $257,450 -4.9% 13.7% $280,000 1.8% $189,900 0.0%
Edina $387,500 2.2% 8.1% $410,000 6.5% $188,000 -16.1%
Hopkins $172,250 -16.4% 32.2% $222,083 5.3% $ 87,240 -36.7%
Minnetonka $263,250 -7.6% 14.7% $274,900 -5.0% $196,000 -8.4%
Source: Minneapolis Association of Realtors Sales Data
Lender mediated sales are defined as those where the property is coming out of a foreclosure and/or a “short”
sale where the financial institution is involved in the listing of the property due to the owner’s equity being
potentially negative. In 2008 the market share of these sales represented 31.7% of the total transactions in
the 13 county Twin City metropolitan market area with a high end share at 71.8% (North Minneapolis) and
a low end share at 7.8% (Mac/Groveland in St. Paul). The lower value brackets are clearly the most affected
with 55% of all lender mediated sales below $150,000 and increasing to 74% at a price point of $190,000
across the metro area.
The essential factor in contemplating lender mediated sales and their effect on the traditional market is
reviewing their saturation of the total market activity. When the volume of on-market and recent sales of
lender mediated properties reach saturation, these properties essentially become the market as the traditional
market sellers are unable to compete.
There is no readily defined threshold for this tipping point. In our perception the key indicators appear to be
a market share over 25% and whether the traditional market is receding in response to both the overall
economy and the foreclosure market dominance.
As can be seen above, the market share of lender mediated transactions in St. Louis Park was at 14.0% for the
2008 year. Comparatively speaking, this is positive. Of the 100 market areas defined by the Minneapolis
Area Association of Realtors, St. Louis Park is ranked: in the bottom fifth for market share of lender mediated
sales; in the bottom fifth for on-market supply of lender mediated offerings; and, with a traditional sales
market actually showing a slight appreciation. Our assessment is tempered by these positive attributes in the
knowledge that we do expect the lender mediated market to be a factor moving into 2009.
The apartment sector is interesting in 2009. Of the dominant use types, the apartment market has exhibited
the weakest performance over the preceding five years in terms of value change. Traditionally speaking, the
multi-family sector tends to perform in a reverse image of the lower pricing brackets of the competing
residential market. We note, however, that we are only slightly optimistic that the apartment market will
move upward significantly given the trends in single-family homes, condos and townhomes being made
available for rental. Our analysis does show a slight increase in apartment rents and occupancy and we will
watch the market closely.
Meeting of March 9, 2009 (Item No. 8) Page 10
Subject: Pay 2010 Assessed Valuation Report
The commercial and industrial properties have been the strongest over the past three years in terms of value
growth. This sector of our real estate portfolio comprises 21.6% of the total value and 34.2% of our total tax
capacity in contrast to being less than 5% of our total parcel count. The horizon, however, is cloudy.
The office market experienced a nine year high in space absorption in 2006, and yet new development
coming on-line in 2007 pushed the vacancy rate in the Southwest suburbs to 13 percent as compared with the
7.7 percent rate in 2006. A total of 1.1 million square feet of Class A office space was added to the market,
and 60 percent of this speculative space remained unoccupied at the end of 2007. The year of 2008 did not
improve this trend as most speculative projects were halted in the west metro market area. Negative job
growth in the Twin Cities metro area also contributed to the increase in vacancy rates for that time period. It
is expected that the vacancy rate will increase moving forward unless there is a positive rebound in the local
economy.
While the outlook for the office market has evolved from bullish to a mix of the bull and bear, the actual
market transactions for office properties remained very strong from the latter half of 2006 through mid-2007.
This performance cooled in terms of transactions into 2008 with relatively few sales occurring. And so we
contemplate the class A market as being mixed to down slightly.
Switching to the B and C office markets, mixed signals were the norm. While many properties in the B/C
market have struggled with vacancy rates, the market has shown signs of stability and improvement given the
renovations ongoing at Metropoint (formerly Interchange) and the 2007 sale of the Park Place East/West
properties for $49.6 million which equates to $123 per square foot.
The credit crisis that materialized in August 2007 has cast an atmosphere of uncertainty for future office
transactions as underwriting standards have considerably tightened and lending activity has slowed. Concerns
about the strength of the economy, consumer spending, bailouts and recession are all contributing factors
creating an unsettled market.
There still are a large amount of international funds seeking investment opportunities as exhibited by the
recent purchase of the first building in the Excelsior Crossings office complex under construction in Hopkins.
A German-based investment fund bought the building that will be occupied by Cargill for $200 per square
foot.
Metro area retail properties experienced a slight increase in vacancy rates during 2007, ticking up one percent
from 2006. The outlook on retail progressing into 2008 and now 2009 is very guarded. We do not expect
any significant positive movement in this sector and have set the assessment accordingly. The overall trends
in multi-tenant retail properties were reviewed as being down with a few exceptions being local equalizations
and nominal increases associated with renovations and improvement values.
We close our review with the industrial market. We have reviewed the overall market and taken a more
conservative approach given the state of the economy. Industrial, as its own sub-market, was reduced for the
2008 assessment by 0.8% and essentially flat for 2009 at 0.2% increase as we locally equalized properties and
very few valuations moved more than a few percentage points in either direction.
Meeting of March 9, 2009 (Item No. 8) Page 11
Subject: Pay 2010 Assessed Valuation Report
The Appeal Process
We receive inquiries and questions about market value, the assessment process and how the property tax
system operates throughout the year. An open dialogue between staff and the property owner is a key aspect
of the mass appraisal system. We recognize that some properties receive statistic-based adjustments to market
value and the assessing staff welcomes an opportunity to individually re-verify property attributes which are of
public record. We also re-examine properties in cases where there is doubt over the accuracy of our records.
A very large majority of property owners’ concerns can be resolved through this administrative review.
Current Media Coverage - In portraying the current real estate “crisis,” some major media outlets fail to
recognize that there are some nuances to real estate submarkets. The benchmark that is consistently cited by
the media is that average sales prices are rapidly declining, and they make no reference to the performance of
the various submarkets whether it is nationally or locally.
For example, the foreclosure market has occupied bold headlines for much of 2008. Yet when we closely
review the sub-markets it is clear that our local market is performing at a much more stable pace than is the
norm. As such we fully expect a higher volume of calls regarding the assessed valuation for 2009, we have
revised our value notice to encourage informal inquiry and discussion more so than preceding years. Where
there is evidence a property has been incorrectly valued, we will review and adjust the assessed market value
during this informal appeal process. Where we cannot have a meeting of the minds with the property owner,
the appeal process is well defined.
A property owner who is not satisfied with the assessing staff’s review may make an appeal to the Local Board
of Review, which meets on April 13, or they may appeal directly to State Tax Court. Property owners can
reach the Assessing division by phone at 952-924-2639 and should call the division by April 3 to notify staff
of their intent to appeal. The formal appeal process is summarized as follows:
1. Local Board of Appeal and Equalization – The Local Board is scheduled to convene on April 13 with a
likely re-convene date of April 27, 2009. Staff will again provide complete information regarding each
property that is the subject of appeal. This process is greatly improved if property owners contact the
Assessing division in advance of the meeting if they intend to make an appeal.
2. County Board of Review – Property owners may appeal the decision of the Local Board of Review to the
County Board of Review which meets on June 15, 2009. An application to appeal at the County level is
required no later than June 3. We routinely inform all Local Board appellants of these time frames.
3. State Tax Court – Property owners may appeal directly to the Minnesota State Tax Court.
Meeting of March 9, 2009 (Item No. 8) Page 12
Subject: Pay 2010 Assessed Valuation Report
How are market values determined?
The Assessing division maintains records for every property in the city (style, size, quality, age, condition).
Adjustments to the assessed market value are based on review of the property characteristics versus actual
market transactions using a computer assisted mass assessment (CAMA) program. When a property is under
review or appeal, the appraisers reconsider the property individually against comparables in the market.
Bottom line….the assessed market value should reflect the property’s actual market value as of January 2nd.
Many property owners are concerned about declining values and their equity. What should they do?
The assessed values are based on actual market sales of similar properties located within St. Louis Park. In
addressing equity concerns, we strongly recommend that the owner continue to maintain their property,
which is an investment as well as a home or business. We have found that well maintained properties
consistently enjoy a better retention and appreciation of market value. St. Louis Park properties, in general,
are relatively well maintained and have enjoyed greater value stability versus many of the metro area
communities.
If my market value is going down, does that mean my taxes are going down?
Not necessarily - the 2009 assessed market value is used to calculate taxes to be paid in 2010. The budget for
2010 has not been set yet and we cannot say with certainty what will happen. The City Council makes
budget decisions with considerable thought as to the value of the services provided.
What if I have questions or do not agree with my property valuation or classification?
The first step is to call the Assessor’s office and ask to speak with the appraiser who handles your property.
We recommend verification of the property’s physical attributes (style, size, finished areas, condition, etc.)
and we also can discuss sales in your neighborhood. If the property owner has evidence of a differing
valuation or classification, the appraisal staff is more than happy to review it.
How does the appeal process work?
The first step is to contact the Assessing division and ask to speak with the appraiser who handles the
neighborhood and/or property type. The majority of concerns are handled with a discussion of the property
characteristics and the sales activity in the neighborhood. If the property owner intends to appeal, the options
are as follows:
¾ The St. Louis Park Local Board of Appeal and Equalization is set for April 13th at 6:30 pm. We
ask that all property owners contact the Assessing division for an appeal application on or before
April 3rd. The property owner may appeal in person, by letter or via an authorized representative. In
all cases, we ask for early contact in order for staff to have time to respond to questions and review
the valuation.
¾ The Hennepin County Board of Appeal and Equalization begins on June 15, 2009. An
application for the County level appeal is required no later than June 3rd. To appear before the
County Board, the property owner is required to have first appealed at the City of St. Louis
Park Local Board.
¾ Minnesota State Tax Court. Property owners may appeal Local and County Board actions to the
state tax court –or– they may appeal directly to the tax court. There are two divisions which are the
Small Claims Division and the Regular Division. The valuation notice gives more information
regarding how each division works and the filing requirements. The deadline to file for state tax
court is April 30th, 2010 for the 2009 assessed value period.
2009 Valuation Notices
Frequently Asked Questions
Meeting of March 9, 2009 (Item No. 8) Page 13
Subject: Pay 2010 Assessed Valuation Report
2009 Assessed Market Value -- Quick Fact Sheet
The total valuation of the city stands at $5,577,976,300 as of January 2, 2009 (down 0.4% vs 2008)
Residential uses 69.9% of total value in 2008 versus 68.9% of total value in 2009
Apartment uses 9.1% of total value in 2008 versus 9.5% of total value in 2009
Commercial & industrial uses 20.9% of total value in 2008 versus 21.6% of total value in 2009
Assessed market value change for dominant sectors (static comparison of 2009 assessment vs 2008)
Single-Family Residential - 2.3% Static Basis versus -1.9% with Improvements
Condominium - 3.0% Static Basis versus -3.0% with Improvements
Townhomes - 0.2% Static Basis versus -0.1% with Improvements
Apartments +1.0% Static Basis versus +3.6% with Improvements
Commercial-Industrial +0.7% Static Basis versus +2.4% with Improvements
Assessed market value adjustments at residential home pricing points: Low Mid High
Below $175,000 5% of Total Parcels Ranging from: - 5% -18% - 30%
$175,000 to $350,000 79% of Total Parcels Ranging from: - 5% -2% + 2%
$350,000 to $500,000 11% of Total Parcels Ranging from: - 4% - 0 - + 8%
Over $500,000 5% of Total Parcels Ranging from: - 2% - 0 - + 8%
Regarding the ranges, most property value changes clustered around the mid-point with individual
and neighborhood variations responsible for the lower and higher adjustments. The lower bracket
stock is by far the softest performer with competitive alternatives (i.e. condos, townhomes, and
foreclosures) as notable factors. In general, the mid-range brackets are down slightly although
relatively stable, while the upper brackets are stable to up slightly although marketing times are
extended.
Change in assessed market value for single-family homes (2009 assessment vs 2008)
76.4% of Parcels Decrease in Market Value
19.6% of Parcels No Change in Market Value
4.0% of Parcels Increase in Market Value
Actual sales performance illustrating our competitive position versus neighboring communities.
Median
%
Change
Mkt
Share Traditional
%
Change Lender
%
Change
Annual 2008 Sale Price
from
2007 Mediated
Sale
Market
from
2007 Mediated
from
2007
St. Louis Park 226,950 -2.7% 14.0% 237,000 0.9% 165,000 -5.7%
Golden Valley 257,450 -4.9% 13.7% 280,000 1.8% 189,900 0.0%
Edina 387,500 2.2% 8.1% 410,000 6.5% 188,000 -16.1%
Hopkins 172,250 -16.4% 32.2% 222,083 5.3% 87,240 -36.7%
Minnetonka 263,250 -7.6% 14.7% 274,900 -5.0% 196,000 -8.4%
Source: Minneapolis Association of Realtors Sales Data
Contact References for Assessing Division – Public Access # Value Notices: 952-924-2639
Cory Bultema, City Assessor 952-924-2536 Bridget Nathanson, Commercial 952-924-2530
Deb Lynch, Residential 952-924-2532 Mark Hoppe, Residential 952-924-2529
Marty Fechner, Residential/Tech 952-924-2533 Kelley Schomer, Residential 952-924-2639