Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2019/02/11 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - Study SessionAGENDA FEB. 11, 2019 6:30 p.m. STUDY SESSION – Community room Discussion items 1. 6:30 p.m. Future study session agenda planning 2. 6:35 p.m. 2019 bonding review and financial modeling update 3. 8:05 p.m. Elections outreach and education plan 8:50 p.m. Communications/updates (verbal) 8:55 p.m. Adjourn Written reports 4. Annual Open to Business Program update 5. Proposed allocation of 2019 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds 6. Zoning regulations for ground floor transparency requirements 7. Historic Walker Lake small area plan 8. TexaTonka reinvestment and small area plan) 9. Council workshop follow-up 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: Study session Meeting date: February 11, 2019 Discussion item: 1 Executive summary Title: Future study session agenda planning Recommended action: The city council and city manager to set the agenda for the study session meeting (*written reports only) on Feb. 25, 2019 and the study session on March 11, 2019. Policy consideration: Not applicable. Summary: This report summarizes the proposed agenda for the study session meeting (*written reports only) on Feb. 25, 2019 and the study session on March 11, 2019. Also attached to this report is: -study session discussion topics and timeline -Proposed topic for future study session discussion: One-for-one replacement policy for NOAH properties - proposed by councilmember Rog Financial or budget considerations: Not applicable. Strategic priority consideration: Not applicable. Supporting documents: Tentative agenda – Feb. 25 and March 11, 2019 Study session discussion topics and timeline Study Session topic proposal for future study session discussion Prepared by: Debbie Fischer, Administrative Services Office Assistant Reviewed by: Maria Carrillo Perez, Management Assistant Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Study session meeting of February 11, 2019 (Item No. 1) Page 2 Title: Future study session agenda planning Feb. 25, 2019. 5:30 p.m. – Boards and commissions annual meeting – Council chambers Study Session (*written reports only) 1.SWLRT update 2.CSAH 25 update 3.Small cell aesthetic requirements 4.Building readiness for Smart Cities March 11, 2019. 6:30 p.m. – Study session – Community room Tentative discussion items 1.Future study session agenda planning – Administrative services (5 minutes) 2.Report on use of body-worn cameras – Police (30 minutes) Chief Harcey will present information regarding the Body Worn Camera (BWC) audit as requested by Resolution 18-134. The presentation will include: •General reflections and learnings from the police department on the implementation and use of BWC’s •Criteria tracked to include, at a minimum, hours of utilization, officer compliance, how often reports are filed to document when cameras are not turned on, how often and under what circumstances officers review footage prior to writing reports, requests to view footage and police department response •Any police department proposed changes or updates to the BWC policy •Other information that would be useful to the city council and the public to help understand and evaluate this initial trial and implementation 3.Crime/drug free rental ordinance work group appt. – Community development (45 minutes) Applications from individuals interested in serving on the crime/drug free rental housing ordinance workgroup will be presented to the council for their review and appointment as members of the workgroup. 4.Mixed use zoning district – Community development (45 minutes) Presentation and discussion regarding proposed updates to the mixed use zoning district. Communications/meeting check-in – Administrative services (5 minutes) Time for communications between staff and council will be set aside on every study session agenda for the purposes of information sharing. Written reports 5.Outdoor parking lighting requirements End of meeting: 8:40 p.m. Study session meeting of February 11, 2019 (Item No. 1) Page 3 Title: Future study session agenda planning Study session discussion topics and timeline Discussion topic Comments Date Scheduled Finalize Council Norms Reviewed on 5/7/18; adoption postponed on 5/21/18. Discussed at Jan. Retreat March 18, 2019 Firearm sales Discussed 5/21/18 & 7/23. Written report provided at 9/24 study session. PC currently reviewing ordinance options. Policy on city facilities adopted 10/15 1st Qtr. 2019 Zoning guidelines for front-facing buildings with windows not papered Discussed 7/9/18. Referred to PC for review & recommendation. 1st Qtr. 2019 Design guidelines - New home construction Discussed 7/9/18. Referred to PC for review & recommendation. 1st Qtr. 2019 Retail/service/liquor stores size Discussed on 6/11/18; referred to PC. Discussed 11/26/18 Ongoing Crime free ordinance/affordable housing strategies Discussed 5/14/18. 1st reading housing trust fund 10/1/18; Other affordable housing strategies/Crime Free Ordinance – Nov/Dec, 12/10 and 12/17/18 and 1/14/19 council discussion; Certain provisions of crime free ord. suspended; Work group being formed CFO work group to be discussed 3/11/19 Revitalization of Walker Lake area Part of preserving Walker building reports: 8/28/17, 9/25/17, 1/22/18, design study 2/12/18, update 4/23/18, design study update 8/27/18; SS report 2/11/19 Ongoing Immigration & supporting families Discussed 8/6 and referred to HRC. HRC held comm. mtg. in Oct. Council/HRC discussion on 12/10; referred back to HRC for refinement of recommendations. TBD Discuss and evaluate our public process TBD STEP discussion: facilities Discussed on 1/14/19 TBD Easy access to nature, across city, starting with low-income neighborhoods TBD SEED’s community greenhouse/resilient cities initiative TBD Community center project April, 2019 Utility pricing policy TBD Westwood Hills Nature Center Access Fund TBD Accessory dwelling units/home-based businesses TBD Study session meeting of February 11, 2019 (Item No. 1) Page 4 Title: Future study session agenda planning Meeting: Study session Meeting date: February 11, 2019 Discussion item: 2 Executive summary Title: 2019 bonding review and financial modeling update Recommended action: No action required. Staff requests feedback on the policy questions noted below: Policy consideration: Does the City Council agree with the planned approach to bond issuance for the upcoming 2019 projects as outlined in the staff report? Does the City Council agree with the next steps outlined in the staff report? Summary: Staff has been working with Ehlers and Associates (Municipal Advisor) regarding the 2019 general obligation (G.O.) bond issuance. While these are only preliminary estimates, the G.O. bond issue is anticipated to happen in March 2019, since the projects are either approved or are expected to be approved in the near future. The G.O. bond issue will include the following (includes issuance costs and capitalized interest): Westwood Hills Nature Center (est. $12.89 million) SWLRT contribution and Fiber (est. $1.7 million) Connect the Park (est. $2.7 million) Cedar Lake Road (est. $4.9 million) During the study session staff will walk through additional information on bonding, discuss next steps, and also review the city’s debt modeling/financial plan. Financial or budget considerations: Total estimated G.O. bond issue for 2019 is $22.2 million. This total will be adjusted when final bids and pricing are available. As noted later in this report, these bonds will be issued as either G.O Charter bonds or G.O Tax Abatement bonds. Strategic priority consideration: • St. Louis Park is committed to continue to lead in environmental stewardship. • St. Louis Park is committed to providing a variety of options for people to make their way around the city comfortably, safely and reliably. • St. Louis Park is committed to creating opportunities to build social capital through community engagement. Supporting documents: Discussion 2019 bond run estimates Ehlers graphs/charts – (Annual levy amounts and tax impact for all tax supported debt 2010 bonds – 2019 proposed bonds) Prepared by: Tim Simon, Chief Financial Officer Reviewed by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Study session meeting of February 11, 2019 (Item No. 2) Page 2 Title: 2019 bonding review and financial modeling update Discussion 2019 Bonding Summary The city has a number of projects in 2019 that are proposed to be financed with general obligation bonds: Project Amount (est. only) Term True Interest Cost (est. only) Repayment Source General Obligation Westwood Hills Nature Center $12,890,000 15 year 3.57% Tax levy Abatement SWLRT $1,470,000 10 year 3.07% Tax Levy Charter Fiber $260,000 10 year 3.07% Tax Levy Charter Connect the Park $2,690,000 10 year 3.07% Tax Levy Charter Cedar Lake Road $4,910,000 15 year 3.39% MSA(1) Charter Total $22,220,000 N/A N/A N/A (1) = MSA = municipal state aid funds from the State of MN. Overview of Bond Market The bond market has started to see interest rate increases and many are predicting more rate increases in the near future, but the market is still providing relatively historic lows over a 30- year trend, and it continues to be good time to be in the municipal bond market. The market is still very competitive with multiple bidders, and often premium bids, on each bond sale. Study session meeting of February 11, 2019 (Item No. 2) Page 3 Title: 2019 bonding review and financial modeling update Future Debt Plans and S&P Rating Implications As is city practice with any bond issue, staff recently had Ehlers and Associates look at our current and future debt plans from our debt modeling and estimate if any of those plans would have an adverse effect on our credit rating. In summary, while many factors go into a credit rating (economy, budget performance, management etc.), Ehlers doesn’t see too much of a variance based on our planned issuance over the next 5-10 years, and we should continue to maintain our strong credit quality. Westwood Hills Nature Center Financing On November 19th, 2018 City Council awarded bids for the Westwood Hills Nature Center and approved a bond reimbursement resolution. Given the need for six affirmative votes to use the G.O. Charter bond approach to issuance, the G.O. Tax Abatement approach will be used instead. The use of the G.O. Tax Abatement approach was discussed with Council at its study session on March 26, 2018. As noted in the staff report, this type of issuance is commonly used by other cities for municipal facilities where they do not have the same authorization or flexibility we do via our city charter. Staff had originally discussed a 20-year G.O. bond to finance the project. Since that time, staff has been working with Ehlers to determine the most appropriate structure to finance the project. As a result of analyzing our current outstanding bonds and related maturities, we are recommending a 15-year bond issue that will “wrap around” our existing debt (predominately the 2014 and 2016 bonds which have larger debt service payments). This would allow us to (1) save approximately $200,000 in interest costs, (2) have a more rapid amortization of the debt which is looked upon favorably by the rating agencies, and (3) lessen the tax impact over the next five years by structuring the bonds with interest only payments over those years and including larger principal payments later on when other debt has been paid off. This is a similar strategy the school recently used with their large bond issue. In addition, staff is recommending utilizing forecasted savings in the general fund from 2018 for the 2020 and February 1, 2021 interest payments, which would allow for a lower debt service levy to start in 2020. This overall approach allows for more incremental changes to the tax levy in the near future. Study session meeting of February 11, 2019 (Item No. 2) Page 4 Title: 2019 bonding review and financial modeling update Connect the Park, SWLRT, and Fiber The City has been issuing charter bonds for these projects for a number of years. No change to the structure and repayment terms of 10 years is expected. Note – 6 affirmative votes of the council are needed to use the charter bond approach to fund these projects Cedar Lake Road improvements Cedar Lake Road is part of our municipal state-aid road system. The estimated cost of this project is $4.9m. We receive approximately $1.4m per year in state-aid construction dollars. The City has the authority to issue charter bonds for larger projects and to use all or a portion of our state-aid construction allocation to reduce or eliminate the debt service levy for this portion of the bonds. Based on our 10-year forecast for municipal state aid projects, we would not use all of our allocation up immediately as we anticipate the need to issue more charter bonds in 2020 that will also be repaid with state-aid. These bonds will have a 15-year term. Note – 6 affirmative votes of the council are needed to use the charter bond approach to fund these projects Debt modeling Staff will walk through our debt modeling tool at the meeting and review with Council any updates since our last review on November 5, 2018. This will help provide a big picture view of where things stand from an overall financial planning perspective. Other item Stacie Kvilvang from Ehlers and Associates and Martha Ingram from Kennedy & Graven (bond counsel) will be in attendance to answer questions. Study session meeting of February 11, 2019 (Item No. 2) Page 5 Title: 2019 bonding review and financial modeling update Ehlers and Associates is recommending the following next steps (tentative) City Council call for sale of bonds February 19th Public hearing notice published February 21st Public hearing on Abatement March 4th Rating call Week of March 11th Sale of bonds March 18th Closing on bonds 2nd week of April St Louis Park, Minnesota $22,220,000 General Obligation Bonds, Series 2019A Issue Summary Assumes Current Market Non-BQ AAA rates plus 25bps Total Issue Sources And Uses Dated 04/10/2019 | Delivered 04/10/2019 Nature Center (Abatement)SWLRT Fiber Sidewalks/ Trails Sidewalk/ Trails - Cedar Lake Cedar Lake Road Issue Summary Sources Of Funds Par Amount of Bonds $12,890,000.00 $1,470,000.00 $260,000.00 $1,100,000.00 $1,590,000.00 $4,910,000.00 $22,220,000.00 Total Sources $12,890,000.00 $1,470,000.00 $260,000.00 $1,100,000.00 $1,590,000.00 $4,910,000.00 $22,220,000.00 Uses Of Funds Total Underwriter's Discount (0.800%)103,120.00 11,760.00 2,080.00 8,800.00 12,720.00 39,280.00 177,760.00 Costs of Issuance 76,574.27 8,732.68 1,544.55 6,534.65 9,445.54 29,168.31 132,000.00 Deposit to Capitalized Interest (CIF) Fund 360,937.00 33,246.75 5,797.77 24,811.79 36,001.15 -460,794.46 Deposit to Project Construction Fund 12,345,494.00 1,418,590.00 250,000.00 1,060,250.00 1,532,013.00 4,838,769.00 21,445,116.00 Rounding Amount 3,874.73 (2,329.43)577.68 (396.44)(179.69)2,782.69 4,329.54 Total Uses $12,890,000.00 $1,470,000.00 $260,000.00 $1,100,000.00 $1,590,000.00 $4,910,000.00 $22,220,000.00 Series 2019A GO Bonds - l | Issue Summary | 2/ 6/2019 | 9:30 AM Study session meeting of Feburary 11, 2019 (Item No. 2) Title: 2019 bonding review and financial modeling update Page 6 St Louis Park, Minnesota $22,220,000 General Obligation Bonds, Series 2019A Issue Summary Assumes Current Market Non-BQ AAA rates plus 25bps Debt Service Schedule Date Principal Coupon Interest Total P+I CIF Cash Net New D/S Fiscal Total 04/10/2019 -------- 08/01/2019 -------- 02/01/2020 --584,817.04 584,817.04 (460,794.46)-124,022.58 124,022.58 08/01/2020 --361,742.50 361,742.50 -(223,260.00)138,482.50 - 02/01/2021 175,000.00 2.200%361,742.50 536,742.50 -(223,260.00)313,482.50 451,965.00 08/01/2021 --359,817.50 359,817.50 --359,817.50 - 02/01/2022 720,000.00 2.300%359,817.50 1,079,817.50 --1,079,817.50 1,439,635.00 08/01/2022 --351,537.50 351,537.50 --351,537.50 - 02/01/2023 740,000.00 2.400%351,537.50 1,091,537.50 --1,091,537.50 1,443,075.00 08/01/2023 --342,657.50 342,657.50 --342,657.50 - 02/01/2024 750,000.00 2.450%342,657.50 1,092,657.50 --1,092,657.50 1,435,315.00 08/01/2024 --333,470.00 333,470.00 --333,470.00 - 02/01/2025 770,000.00 2.550%333,470.00 1,103,470.00 --1,103,470.00 1,436,940.00 08/01/2025 --323,652.50 323,652.50 --323,652.50 - 02/01/2026 785,000.00 2.650%323,652.50 1,108,652.50 --1,108,652.50 1,432,305.00 08/01/2026 --313,251.25 313,251.25 --313,251.25 - 02/01/2027 1,035,000.00 2.900%313,251.25 1,348,251.25 --1,348,251.25 1,661,502.50 08/01/2027 --298,243.75 298,243.75 --298,243.75 - 02/01/2028 2,235,000.00 3.200%298,243.75 2,533,243.75 --2,533,243.75 2,831,487.50 08/01/2028 --262,483.75 262,483.75 --262,483.75 - 02/01/2029 2,310,000.00 3.300%262,483.75 2,572,483.75 --2,572,483.75 2,834,967.50 08/01/2029 --224,368.75 224,368.75 --224,368.75 - 02/01/2030 2,385,000.00 3.400%224,368.75 2,609,368.75 --2,609,368.75 2,833,737.50 08/01/2030 --183,823.75 183,823.75 --183,823.75 - 02/01/2031 1,925,000.00 3.450%183,823.75 2,108,823.75 --2,108,823.75 2,292,647.50 08/01/2031 --150,617.50 150,617.50 --150,617.50 - 02/01/2032 1,985,000.00 3.500%150,617.50 2,135,617.50 --2,135,617.50 2,286,235.00 08/01/2032 --115,880.00 115,880.00 --115,880.00 - 02/01/2033 2,060,000.00 3.550%115,880.00 2,175,880.00 --2,175,880.00 2,291,760.00 08/01/2033 --79,315.00 79,315.00 --79,315.00 - 02/01/2034 2,135,000.00 3.600%79,315.00 2,214,315.00 --2,214,315.00 2,293,630.00 08/01/2034 --40,885.00 40,885.00 --40,885.00 - 02/01/2035 2,210,000.00 3.700%40,885.00 2,250,885.00 --2,250,885.00 2,291,770.00 Total $22,220,000.00 -$8,068,309.54 $30,288,309.54 (460,794.46)(446,520.00)$29,380,995.08 - Significant Dates Dated 4/10/2019 First Coupon Date 2/01/2020 Yield Statistics Bond Year Dollars $237,936.17 Average Life 10.708 Years Average Coupon 3.3909555% Net Interest Cost (NIC)3.4656646% True Interest Cost (TIC)3.4658912% Bond Yield for Arbitrage Purposes 3.3746092% All Inclusive Cost (AIC)3.5342875% IRS Form 8038 Net Interest Cost 3.3909555% Weighted Average Maturity 10.708 Years Series 2019A GO Bonds - l | Issue Summary | 2/ 6/2019 | 9:30 AM Study session meeting of Feburary 11, 2019 (Item No. 2) Title: 2019 bonding review and financial modeling update Page 7 St Louis Park, Minnesota $22,220,000 General Obligation Bonds, Series 2019A Issue Summary Assumes Current Market Non-BQ AAA rates plus 25bps Debt Service Schedule Date Principal Coupon Interest Total P+I CIF Cash Net New D/S 105% of Total MSA Funds Levy/(Surplus) 02/01/2020 --584,817.04 584,817.04 (460,794.46)-124,022.58 130,223.71 130,223.71 - 02/01/2021 175,000.00 2.200%723,485.00 898,485.00 -(446,520.00)451,965.00 474,563.25 161,101.50 313,461.75 02/01/2022 720,000.00 2.300%719,635.00 1,439,635.00 --1,439,635.00 1,511,616.75 465,601.50 1,046,015.25 02/01/2023 740,000.00 2.400%703,075.00 1,443,075.00 --1,443,075.00 1,515,228.75 469,098.00 1,046,130.75 02/01/2024 750,000.00 2.450%685,315.00 1,435,315.00 --1,435,315.00 1,507,080.75 466,788.00 1,040,292.75 02/01/2025 770,000.00 2.550%666,940.00 1,436,940.00 --1,436,940.00 1,508,787.00 464,191.88 1,044,595.13 02/01/2026 785,000.00 2.650%647,305.00 1,432,305.00 --1,432,305.00 1,503,920.25 466,391.63 1,037,528.63 02/01/2027 1,035,000.00 2.900%626,502.50 1,661,502.50 --1,661,502.50 1,744,577.63 467,987.63 1,276,590.00 02/01/2028 2,235,000.00 3.200%596,487.50 2,831,487.50 --2,831,487.50 2,973,061.88 468,439.13 2,504,622.75 02/01/2029 2,310,000.00 3.300%524,967.50 2,834,967.50 --2,834,967.50 2,976,715.88 467,515.13 2,509,200.75 02/01/2030 2,385,000.00 3.400%448,737.50 2,833,737.50 --2,833,737.50 2,975,424.38 465,887.63 2,509,536.75 02/01/2031 1,925,000.00 3.450%367,647.50 2,292,647.50 --2,292,647.50 2,407,279.88 468,785.63 1,938,494.25 02/01/2032 1,985,000.00 3.500%301,235.00 2,286,235.00 --2,286,235.00 2,400,546.75 465,701.25 1,934,845.50 02/01/2033 2,060,000.00 3.550%231,760.00 2,291,760.00 --2,291,760.00 2,406,348.00 467,302.50 1,939,045.50 02/01/2034 2,135,000.00 3.600%158,630.00 2,293,630.00 --2,293,630.00 2,408,311.50 468,142.50 1,940,169.00 02/01/2035 2,210,000.00 3.700%81,770.00 2,291,770.00 --2,291,770.00 2,406,358.50 468,205.50 1,938,153.00 Total $22,220,000.00 -$8,068,309.54 $30,288,309.54 (460,794.46)(460,794.46)$29,380,995.08 $30,850,044.83 $6,831,363.08 $24,018,681.75 Significant Dates Dated 4/10/2019 First Coupon Date 2/01/2020 Yield Statistics Bond Year Dollars $237,936.17 Average Life 10.708 Years Average Coupon 3.3909555% Net Interest Cost (NIC)3.4656646% True Interest Cost (TIC)3.4658912% Bond Yield for Arbitrage Purposes 3.3746092% All Inclusive Cost (AIC)3.5342875% Series 2019A GO Bonds - l | Issue Summary | 2/ 6/2019 | 9:30 AM Study session meeting of Feburary 11, 2019 (Item No. 2) Title: 2019 bonding review and financial modeling update Page 8 St Louis Park, Minnesota $12,890,000 General Obligation Bonds, Series 2019A Nature Center (Abatement) Assumes Current Market Non-BQ AAA rates plus 25bps Debt Service Schedule Date Principal Coupon Interest Total P+I CIF Cash Net New D/S Fiscal Total 04/10/2019 -------- 08/01/2019 -------- 02/01/2020 --360,937.00 360,937.00 (360,937.00)--- 08/01/2020 --223,260.00 223,260.00 -(223,260.00)-- 02/01/2021 --223,260.00 223,260.00 -(223,260.00)-- 08/01/2021 --223,260.00 223,260.00 --223,260.00 - 02/01/2022 --223,260.00 223,260.00 --223,260.00 446,520.00 08/01/2022 --223,260.00 223,260.00 --223,260.00 - 02/01/2023 --223,260.00 223,260.00 --223,260.00 446,520.00 08/01/2023 --223,260.00 223,260.00 --223,260.00 - 02/01/2024 --223,260.00 223,260.00 --223,260.00 446,520.00 08/01/2024 --223,260.00 223,260.00 --223,260.00 - 02/01/2025 --223,260.00 223,260.00 --223,260.00 446,520.00 08/01/2025 --223,260.00 223,260.00 --223,260.00 - 02/01/2026 --223,260.00 223,260.00 --223,260.00 446,520.00 08/01/2026 --223,260.00 223,260.00 --223,260.00 - 02/01/2027 225,000.00 2.900%223,260.00 448,260.00 --448,260.00 671,520.00 08/01/2027 --219,997.50 219,997.50 --219,997.50 - 02/01/2028 1,405,000.00 3.200%219,997.50 1,624,997.50 --1,624,997.50 1,844,995.00 08/01/2028 --197,517.50 197,517.50 --197,517.50 - 02/01/2029 1,450,000.00 3.300%197,517.50 1,647,517.50 --1,647,517.50 1,845,035.00 08/01/2029 --173,592.50 173,592.50 --173,592.50 - 02/01/2030 1,500,000.00 3.400%173,592.50 1,673,592.50 --1,673,592.50 1,847,185.00 08/01/2030 --148,092.50 148,092.50 --148,092.50 - 02/01/2031 1,550,000.00 3.450%148,092.50 1,698,092.50 --1,698,092.50 1,846,185.00 08/01/2031 --121,355.00 121,355.00 --121,355.00 - 02/01/2032 1,600,000.00 3.500%121,355.00 1,721,355.00 --1,721,355.00 1,842,710.00 08/01/2032 --93,355.00 93,355.00 --93,355.00 - 02/01/2033 1,660,000.00 3.550%93,355.00 1,753,355.00 --1,753,355.00 1,846,710.00 08/01/2033 --63,890.00 63,890.00 --63,890.00 - 02/01/2034 1,720,000.00 3.600%63,890.00 1,783,890.00 --1,783,890.00 1,847,780.00 08/01/2034 --32,930.00 32,930.00 --32,930.00 - 02/01/2035 1,780,000.00 3.700%32,930.00 1,812,930.00 --1,812,930.00 1,845,860.00 Total $12,890,000.00 -$5,588,037.00 $18,478,037.00 (360,937.00)(446,520.00)$17,670,580.00 - Significant Dates Dated 4/10/2019 First Coupon Date 2/01/2020 Yield Statistics Bond Year Dollars $159,894.42 Average Life 12.405 Years Average Coupon 3.4948293% Net Interest Cost (NIC)3.5593219% True Interest Cost (TIC)3.5684187% Bond Yield for Arbitrage Purposes 3.3746092% All Inclusive Cost (AIC)3.6288791% IRS Form 8038 Net Interest Cost 3.4948293% Weighted Average Maturity 12.405 Years Series 2019A GO Bonds - l | Nature Center (Abatement) | 2/ 6/2019 | 9:30 AM Study session meeting of Feburary 11, 2019 (Item No. 2) Title: 2019 bonding review and financial modeling update Page 9 St Louis Park, Minnesota $12,890,000 General Obligation Bonds, Series 2019A Nature Center (Abatement) Assumes Current Market Non-BQ AAA rates plus 25bps Debt Service Schedule Date Principal Coupon Interest Total P+I CIF Cash Net New D/S 105% of Total 02/01/2020 --360,937.00 360,937.00 (360,937.00)--- 02/01/2021 --446,520.00 446,520.00 -(446,520.00)-- 02/01/2022 --446,520.00 446,520.00 --446,520.00 468,846.00 02/01/2023 --446,520.00 446,520.00 --446,520.00 468,846.00 02/01/2024 --446,520.00 446,520.00 --446,520.00 468,846.00 02/01/2025 --446,520.00 446,520.00 --446,520.00 468,846.00 02/01/2026 --446,520.00 446,520.00 --446,520.00 468,846.00 02/01/2027 225,000.00 2.900%446,520.00 671,520.00 --671,520.00 705,096.00 02/01/2028 1,405,000.00 3.200%439,995.00 1,844,995.00 --1,844,995.00 1,937,244.75 02/01/2029 1,450,000.00 3.300%395,035.00 1,845,035.00 --1,845,035.00 1,937,286.75 02/01/2030 1,500,000.00 3.400%347,185.00 1,847,185.00 --1,847,185.00 1,939,544.25 02/01/2031 1,550,000.00 3.450%296,185.00 1,846,185.00 --1,846,185.00 1,938,494.25 02/01/2032 1,600,000.00 3.500%242,710.00 1,842,710.00 --1,842,710.00 1,934,845.50 02/01/2033 1,660,000.00 3.550%186,710.00 1,846,710.00 --1,846,710.00 1,939,045.50 02/01/2034 1,720,000.00 3.600%127,780.00 1,847,780.00 --1,847,780.00 1,940,169.00 02/01/2035 1,780,000.00 3.700%65,860.00 1,845,860.00 --1,845,860.00 1,938,153.00 Total $12,890,000.00 -$5,588,037.00 $18,478,037.00 (360,937.00)(446,520.00)$17,670,580.00 $18,554,109.00 Significant Dates Dated 4/10/2019 First Coupon Date 2/01/2020 Yield Statistics Bond Year Dollars $159,894.42 Average Life 12.405 Years Average Coupon 3.4948293% Net Interest Cost (NIC)3.5593219% True Interest Cost (TIC)3.5684187% Bond Yield for Arbitrage Purposes 3.3746092% All Inclusive Cost (AIC)3.6288791% Series 2019A GO Bonds - l | Nature Center (Abatement) | 2/ 6/2019 | 9:30 AM Study session meeting of Feburary 11, 2019 (Item No. 2) Title: 2019 bonding review and financial modeling update Page 10 St Louis Park, Minnesota $1,470,000 General Obligation Bonds, Series 2019A SWLRT Assumes Current Market Non-BQ AAA rates plus 25bps Debt Service Schedule Date Principal Coupon Interest Total P+I CIF Net New D/S Fiscal Total 04/10/2019 ------- 02/01/2020 --33,246.75 33,246.75 (33,246.75)-- 08/01/2020 --20,565.00 20,565.00 -20,565.00 - 02/01/2021 50,000.00 2.200%20,565.00 70,565.00 -70,565.00 91,130.00 08/01/2021 --20,015.00 20,015.00 -20,015.00 - 02/01/2022 145,000.00 2.300%20,015.00 165,015.00 -165,015.00 185,030.00 08/01/2022 --18,347.50 18,347.50 -18,347.50 - 02/01/2023 145,000.00 2.400%18,347.50 163,347.50 -163,347.50 181,695.00 08/01/2023 --16,607.50 16,607.50 -16,607.50 - 02/01/2024 150,000.00 2.450%16,607.50 166,607.50 -166,607.50 183,215.00 08/01/2024 --14,770.00 14,770.00 -14,770.00 - 02/01/2025 155,000.00 2.550%14,770.00 169,770.00 -169,770.00 184,540.00 08/01/2025 --12,793.75 12,793.75 -12,793.75 - 02/01/2026 155,000.00 2.650%12,793.75 167,793.75 -167,793.75 180,587.50 08/01/2026 --10,740.00 10,740.00 -10,740.00 - 02/01/2027 160,000.00 2.900%10,740.00 170,740.00 -170,740.00 181,480.00 08/01/2027 --8,420.00 8,420.00 -8,420.00 - 02/01/2028 165,000.00 3.200%8,420.00 173,420.00 -173,420.00 181,840.00 08/01/2028 --5,780.00 5,780.00 -5,780.00 - 02/01/2029 170,000.00 3.300%5,780.00 175,780.00 -175,780.00 181,560.00 08/01/2029 --2,975.00 2,975.00 -2,975.00 - 02/01/2030 175,000.00 3.400%2,975.00 177,975.00 -177,975.00 180,950.00 Total $1,470,000.00 -$295,274.25 $1,765,274.25 (33,246.75)$1,732,027.50 - Significant Dates Dated 4/10/2019 First Coupon Date 2/01/2020 Yield Statistics Bond Year Dollars $9,988.25 Average Life 6.795 Years Average Coupon 2.9562161% Net Interest Cost (NIC)3.0739544% True Interest Cost (TIC)3.0742676% Bond Yield for Arbitrage Purposes 3.3746092% All Inclusive Cost (AIC)3.1737094% IRS Form 8038 Net Interest Cost 2.9562161% Weighted Average Maturity 6.795 Years Series 2019A GO Bonds - l | SWLRT | 2/ 6/2019 | 9:30 AM Study session meeting of Feburary 11, 2019 (Item No. 2) Title: 2019 bonding review and financial modeling update Page 11 St Louis Park, Minnesota $1,470,000 General Obligation Bonds, Series 2019A SWLRT Assumes Current Market Non-BQ AAA rates plus 25bps Debt Service Schedule Date Principal Coupon Interest Total P+I CIF Net New D/S 105% of Total 02/01/2020 --33,246.75 33,246.75 (33,246.75)-- 02/01/2021 50,000.00 2.200%41,130.00 91,130.00 -91,130.00 95,686.50 02/01/2022 145,000.00 2.300%40,030.00 185,030.00 -185,030.00 194,281.50 02/01/2023 145,000.00 2.400%36,695.00 181,695.00 -181,695.00 190,779.75 02/01/2024 150,000.00 2.450%33,215.00 183,215.00 -183,215.00 192,375.75 02/01/2025 155,000.00 2.550%29,540.00 184,540.00 -184,540.00 193,767.00 02/01/2026 155,000.00 2.650%25,587.50 180,587.50 -180,587.50 189,616.88 02/01/2027 160,000.00 2.900%21,480.00 181,480.00 -181,480.00 190,554.00 02/01/2028 165,000.00 3.200%16,840.00 181,840.00 -181,840.00 190,932.00 02/01/2029 170,000.00 3.300%11,560.00 181,560.00 -181,560.00 190,638.00 02/01/2030 175,000.00 3.400%5,950.00 180,950.00 -180,950.00 189,997.50 Total $1,470,000.00 -$295,274.25 $1,765,274.25 (33,246.75)$1,732,027.50 $1,818,628.88 Significant Dates Dated 4/10/2019 First Coupon Date 2/01/2020 Yield Statistics Bond Year Dollars $9,988.25 Average Life 6.795 Years Average Coupon 2.9562161% Net Interest Cost (NIC)3.0739544% True Interest Cost (TIC)3.0742676% Bond Yield for Arbitrage Purposes 3.3746092% All Inclusive Cost (AIC)3.1737094% Series 2019A GO Bonds - l | SWLRT | 2/ 6/2019 | 9:30 AM Study session meeting of Feburary 11, 2019 (Item No. 2) Title: 2019 bonding review and financial modeling update Page 12 St Louis Park, Minnesota $260,000 General Obligation Bonds, Series 2019A Fiber Assumes Current Market Non-BQ AAA rates plus 25bps Debt Service Schedule Date Principal Coupon Interest Total P+I CIF Net New D/S Fiscal Total 04/10/2019 ------- 02/01/2020 --5,797.77 5,797.77 (5,797.77)-- 08/01/2020 --3,586.25 3,586.25 -3,586.25 - 02/01/2021 25,000.00 2.200%3,586.25 28,586.25 -28,586.25 32,172.50 08/01/2021 --3,311.25 3,311.25 -3,311.25 - 02/01/2022 25,000.00 2.300%3,311.25 28,311.25 -28,311.25 31,622.50 08/01/2022 --3,023.75 3,023.75 -3,023.75 - 02/01/2023 25,000.00 2.400%3,023.75 28,023.75 -28,023.75 31,047.50 08/01/2023 --2,723.75 2,723.75 -2,723.75 - 02/01/2024 25,000.00 2.450%2,723.75 27,723.75 -27,723.75 30,447.50 08/01/2024 --2,417.50 2,417.50 -2,417.50 - 02/01/2025 25,000.00 2.550%2,417.50 27,417.50 -27,417.50 29,835.00 08/01/2025 --2,098.75 2,098.75 -2,098.75 - 02/01/2026 25,000.00 2.650%2,098.75 27,098.75 -27,098.75 29,197.50 08/01/2026 --1,767.50 1,767.50 -1,767.50 - 02/01/2027 25,000.00 2.900%1,767.50 26,767.50 -26,767.50 28,535.00 08/01/2027 --1,405.00 1,405.00 -1,405.00 - 02/01/2028 25,000.00 3.200%1,405.00 26,405.00 -26,405.00 27,810.00 08/01/2028 --1,005.00 1,005.00 -1,005.00 - 02/01/2029 30,000.00 3.300%1,005.00 31,005.00 -31,005.00 32,010.00 08/01/2029 --510.00 510.00 -510.00 - 02/01/2030 30,000.00 3.400%510.00 30,510.00 -30,510.00 31,020.00 Total $260,000.00 -$49,495.27 $309,495.27 (5,797.77)$303,697.50 - Significant Dates Dated 4/10/2019 First Coupon Date 2/01/2020 Yield Statistics Bond Year Dollars $1,680.17 Average Life 6.462 Years Average Coupon 2.9458548% Net Interest Cost (NIC)3.0696520% True Interest Cost (TIC)3.0691620% Bond Yield for Arbitrage Purposes 3.3746092% All Inclusive Cost (AIC)3.1735374% IRS Form 8038 Net Interest Cost 2.9458548% Weighted Average Maturity 6.462 Years Series 2019A GO Bonds - l | Fiber | 2/ 6/2019 | 9:30 AM Study session meeting of Feburary 11, 2019 (Item No. 2) Title: 2019 bonding review and financial modeling update Page 13 St Louis Park, Minnesota $260,000 General Obligation Bonds, Series 2019A Fiber Assumes Current Market Non-BQ AAA rates plus 25bps Debt Service Schedule Date Principal Coupon Interest Total P+I CIF Net New D/S 105% of Total 02/01/2020 --5,797.77 5,797.77 (5,797.77)-- 02/01/2021 25,000.00 2.200%7,172.50 32,172.50 -32,172.50 33,781.13 02/01/2022 25,000.00 2.300%6,622.50 31,622.50 -31,622.50 33,203.63 02/01/2023 25,000.00 2.400%6,047.50 31,047.50 -31,047.50 32,599.88 02/01/2024 25,000.00 2.450%5,447.50 30,447.50 -30,447.50 31,969.88 02/01/2025 25,000.00 2.550%4,835.00 29,835.00 -29,835.00 31,326.75 02/01/2026 25,000.00 2.650%4,197.50 29,197.50 -29,197.50 30,657.38 02/01/2027 25,000.00 2.900%3,535.00 28,535.00 -28,535.00 29,961.75 02/01/2028 25,000.00 3.200%2,810.00 27,810.00 -27,810.00 29,200.50 02/01/2029 30,000.00 3.300%2,010.00 32,010.00 -32,010.00 33,610.50 02/01/2030 30,000.00 3.400%1,020.00 31,020.00 -31,020.00 32,571.00 Total $260,000.00 -$49,495.27 $309,495.27 (5,797.77)$303,697.50 $318,882.38 Significant Dates Dated 4/10/2019 First Coupon Date 2/01/2020 Yield Statistics Bond Year Dollars $1,680.17 Average Life 6.462 Years Average Coupon 2.9458548% Net Interest Cost (NIC)3.0696520% True Interest Cost (TIC)3.0691620% Bond Yield for Arbitrage Purposes 3.3746092% All Inclusive Cost (AIC)3.1735374% Series 2019A GO Bonds - l | Fiber | 2/ 6/2019 | 9:30 AM Study session meeting of Feburary 11, 2019 (Item No. 2) Title: 2019 bonding review and financial modeling update Page 14 St Louis Park, Minnesota $1,100,000 General Obligation Bonds, Series 2019A Sidewalks/Trails Assumes Current Market Non-BQ AAA rates plus 25bps Debt Service Schedule Date Principal Coupon Interest Total P+I CIF Net New D/S Fiscal Total 04/10/2019 ------- 02/01/2020 --24,811.79 24,811.79 (24,811.79)-- 08/01/2020 --15,347.50 15,347.50 -15,347.50 - 02/01/2021 50,000.00 2.200%15,347.50 65,347.50 -65,347.50 80,695.00 08/01/2021 --14,797.50 14,797.50 -14,797.50 - 02/01/2022 105,000.00 2.300%14,797.50 119,797.50 -119,797.50 134,595.00 08/01/2022 --13,590.00 13,590.00 -13,590.00 - 02/01/2023 110,000.00 2.400%13,590.00 123,590.00 -123,590.00 137,180.00 08/01/2023 --12,270.00 12,270.00 -12,270.00 - 02/01/2024 110,000.00 2.450%12,270.00 122,270.00 -122,270.00 134,540.00 08/01/2024 --10,922.50 10,922.50 -10,922.50 - 02/01/2025 115,000.00 2.550%10,922.50 125,922.50 -125,922.50 136,845.00 08/01/2025 --9,456.25 9,456.25 -9,456.25 - 02/01/2026 115,000.00 2.650%9,456.25 124,456.25 -124,456.25 133,912.50 08/01/2026 --7,932.50 7,932.50 -7,932.50 - 02/01/2027 120,000.00 2.900%7,932.50 127,932.50 -127,932.50 135,865.00 08/01/2027 --6,192.50 6,192.50 -6,192.50 - 02/01/2028 120,000.00 3.200%6,192.50 126,192.50 -126,192.50 132,385.00 08/01/2028 --4,272.50 4,272.50 -4,272.50 - 02/01/2029 125,000.00 3.300%4,272.50 129,272.50 -129,272.50 133,545.00 08/01/2029 --2,210.00 2,210.00 -2,210.00 - 02/01/2030 130,000.00 3.400%2,210.00 132,210.00 -132,210.00 134,420.00 Total $1,100,000.00 -$218,794.29 $1,318,794.29 (24,811.79)$1,293,982.50 - Significant Dates Dated 4/10/2019 First Coupon Date 2/01/2020 Yield Statistics Bond Year Dollars $7,409.17 Average Life 6.736 Years Average Coupon 2.9530216% Net Interest Cost (NIC)3.0717934% True Interest Cost (TIC)3.0720153% Bond Yield for Arbitrage Purposes 3.3746092% All Inclusive Cost (AIC)3.1722871% IRS Form 8038 Net Interest Cost 2.9530216% Weighted Average Maturity 6.736 Years Series 2019A GO Bonds - l | Sidewalks/Trails | 2/ 6/2019 | 9:30 AM Study session meeting of Feburary 11, 2019 (Item No. 2) Title: 2019 bonding review and financial modeling update Page 15 St Louis Park, Minnesota $1,100,000 General Obligation Bonds, Series 2019A Sidewalks/Trails Assumes Current Market Non-BQ AAA rates plus 25bps Debt Service Schedule Date Principal Coupon Interest Total P+I CIF Net New D/S 105% of Total 02/01/2020 --24,811.79 24,811.79 (24,811.79)-- 02/01/2021 50,000.00 2.200%30,695.00 80,695.00 -80,695.00 84,729.75 02/01/2022 105,000.00 2.300%29,595.00 134,595.00 -134,595.00 141,324.75 02/01/2023 110,000.00 2.400%27,180.00 137,180.00 -137,180.00 144,039.00 02/01/2024 110,000.00 2.450%24,540.00 134,540.00 -134,540.00 141,267.00 02/01/2025 115,000.00 2.550%21,845.00 136,845.00 -136,845.00 143,687.25 02/01/2026 115,000.00 2.650%18,912.50 133,912.50 -133,912.50 140,608.13 02/01/2027 120,000.00 2.900%15,865.00 135,865.00 -135,865.00 142,658.25 02/01/2028 120,000.00 3.200%12,385.00 132,385.00 -132,385.00 139,004.25 02/01/2029 125,000.00 3.300%8,545.00 133,545.00 -133,545.00 140,222.25 02/01/2030 130,000.00 3.400%4,420.00 134,420.00 -134,420.00 141,141.00 Total $1,100,000.00 -$218,794.29 $1,318,794.29 (24,811.79)$1,293,982.50 $1,358,681.63 Significant Dates Dated 4/10/2019 First Coupon Date 2/01/2020 Yield Statistics Bond Year Dollars $7,409.17 Average Life 6.736 Years Average Coupon 2.9530216% Net Interest Cost (NIC)3.0717934% True Interest Cost (TIC)3.0720153% Bond Yield for Arbitrage Purposes 3.3746092% All Inclusive Cost (AIC)3.1722871% Series 2019A GO Bonds - l | Sidewalks/Trails | 2/ 6/2019 | 9:30 AM Study session meeting of Feburary 11, 2019 (Item No. 2) Title: 2019 bonding review and financial modeling update Page 16 St Louis Park, Minnesota $1,590,000 General Obligation Bonds, Series 2019A Sidewalk/Trails - Cedar Lake Assumes Current Market Non-BQ AAA rates plus 25bps Debt Service Schedule Date Principal Coupon Interest Total P+I CIF Net New D/S Fiscal Total 04/10/2019 ------- 02/01/2020 --36,001.15 36,001.15 (36,001.15)-- 08/01/2020 --22,268.75 22,268.75 -22,268.75 - 02/01/2021 50,000.00 2.200%22,268.75 72,268.75 -72,268.75 94,537.50 08/01/2021 --21,718.75 21,718.75 -21,718.75 - 02/01/2022 155,000.00 2.300%21,718.75 176,718.75 -176,718.75 198,437.50 08/01/2022 --19,936.25 19,936.25 -19,936.25 - 02/01/2023 160,000.00 2.400%19,936.25 179,936.25 -179,936.25 199,872.50 08/01/2023 --18,016.25 18,016.25 -18,016.25 - 02/01/2024 160,000.00 2.450%18,016.25 178,016.25 -178,016.25 196,032.50 08/01/2024 --16,056.25 16,056.25 -16,056.25 - 02/01/2025 165,000.00 2.550%16,056.25 181,056.25 -181,056.25 197,112.50 08/01/2025 --13,952.50 13,952.50 -13,952.50 - 02/01/2026 170,000.00 2.650%13,952.50 183,952.50 -183,952.50 197,905.00 08/01/2026 --11,700.00 11,700.00 -11,700.00 - 02/01/2027 175,000.00 2.900%11,700.00 186,700.00 -186,700.00 198,400.00 08/01/2027 --9,162.50 9,162.50 -9,162.50 - 02/01/2028 180,000.00 3.200%9,162.50 189,162.50 -189,162.50 198,325.00 08/01/2028 --6,282.50 6,282.50 -6,282.50 - 02/01/2029 185,000.00 3.300%6,282.50 191,282.50 -191,282.50 197,565.00 08/01/2029 --3,230.00 3,230.00 -3,230.00 - 02/01/2030 190,000.00 3.400%3,230.00 193,230.00 -193,230.00 196,460.00 Total $1,590,000.00 -$320,648.65 $1,910,648.65 (36,001.15)$1,874,647.50 - Significant Dates Dated 4/10/2019 First Coupon Date 2/01/2020 Yield Statistics Bond Year Dollars $10,840.25 Average Life 6.818 Years Average Coupon 2.9579452% Net Interest Cost (NIC)3.0752856% True Interest Cost (TIC)3.0756574% Bond Yield for Arbitrage Purposes 3.3746092% All Inclusive Cost (AIC)3.1747870% IRS Form 8038 Net Interest Cost 2.9579452% Weighted Average Maturity 6.818 Years Series 2019A GO Bonds - l | Sidewalk/Trails - Cedar L | 2/ 6/2019 | 9:30 AM Study session meeting of Feburary 11, 2019 (Item No. 2) Title: 2019 bonding review and financial modeling update Page 17 St Louis Park, Minnesota $1,590,000 General Obligation Bonds, Series 2019A Sidewalk/Trails - Cedar Lake Assumes Current Market Non-BQ AAA rates plus 25bps Debt Service Schedule Date Principal Coupon Interest Total P+I CIF Net New D/S 105% of Total 02/01/2020 --36,001.15 36,001.15 (36,001.15)-- 02/01/2021 50,000.00 2.200%44,537.50 94,537.50 -94,537.50 99,264.38 02/01/2022 155,000.00 2.300%43,437.50 198,437.50 -198,437.50 208,359.38 02/01/2023 160,000.00 2.400%39,872.50 199,872.50 -199,872.50 209,866.13 02/01/2024 160,000.00 2.450%36,032.50 196,032.50 -196,032.50 205,834.13 02/01/2025 165,000.00 2.550%32,112.50 197,112.50 -197,112.50 206,968.13 02/01/2026 170,000.00 2.650%27,905.00 197,905.00 -197,905.00 207,800.25 02/01/2027 175,000.00 2.900%23,400.00 198,400.00 -198,400.00 208,320.00 02/01/2028 180,000.00 3.200%18,325.00 198,325.00 -198,325.00 208,241.25 02/01/2029 185,000.00 3.300%12,565.00 197,565.00 -197,565.00 207,443.25 02/01/2030 190,000.00 3.400%6,460.00 196,460.00 -196,460.00 206,283.00 Total $1,590,000.00 -$320,648.65 $1,910,648.65 (36,001.15)$1,874,647.50 $1,968,379.88 Significant Dates Dated 4/10/2019 First Coupon Date 2/01/2020 Yield Statistics Bond Year Dollars $10,840.25 Average Life 6.818 Years Average Coupon 2.9579452% Net Interest Cost (NIC)3.0752856% True Interest Cost (TIC)3.0756574% Bond Yield for Arbitrage Purposes 3.3746092% All Inclusive Cost (AIC)3.1747870% Series 2019A GO Bonds - l | Sidewalk/Trails - Cedar L | 2/ 6/2019 | 9:30 AM Study session meeting of Feburary 11, 2019 (Item No. 2) Title: 2019 bonding review and financial modeling update Page 18 St Louis Park, Minnesota $4,910,000 General Obligation Bonds, Series 2019A Cedar Lake Road Assumes Current Market Non-BQ AAA rates plus 25bps Debt Service Schedule Date Principal Coupon Interest Total P+I Fiscal Total 04/10/2019 ----- 02/01/2020 --124,022.58 124,022.58 124,022.58 08/01/2020 --76,715.00 76,715.00 - 02/01/2021 --76,715.00 76,715.00 153,430.00 08/01/2021 --76,715.00 76,715.00 - 02/01/2022 290,000.00 2.300%76,715.00 366,715.00 443,430.00 08/01/2022 --73,380.00 73,380.00 - 02/01/2023 300,000.00 2.400%73,380.00 373,380.00 446,760.00 08/01/2023 --69,780.00 69,780.00 - 02/01/2024 305,000.00 2.450%69,780.00 374,780.00 444,560.00 08/01/2024 --66,043.75 66,043.75 - 02/01/2025 310,000.00 2.550%66,043.75 376,043.75 442,087.50 08/01/2025 --62,091.25 62,091.25 - 02/01/2026 320,000.00 2.650%62,091.25 382,091.25 444,182.50 08/01/2026 --57,851.25 57,851.25 - 02/01/2027 330,000.00 2.900%57,851.25 387,851.25 445,702.50 08/01/2027 --53,066.25 53,066.25 - 02/01/2028 340,000.00 3.200%53,066.25 393,066.25 446,132.50 08/01/2028 --47,626.25 47,626.25 - 02/01/2029 350,000.00 3.300%47,626.25 397,626.25 445,252.50 08/01/2029 --41,851.25 41,851.25 - 02/01/2030 360,000.00 3.400%41,851.25 401,851.25 443,702.50 08/01/2030 --35,731.25 35,731.25 - 02/01/2031 375,000.00 3.450%35,731.25 410,731.25 446,462.50 08/01/2031 --29,262.50 29,262.50 - 02/01/2032 385,000.00 3.500%29,262.50 414,262.50 443,525.00 08/01/2032 --22,525.00 22,525.00 - 02/01/2033 400,000.00 3.550%22,525.00 422,525.00 445,050.00 08/01/2033 --15,425.00 15,425.00 - 02/01/2034 415,000.00 3.600%15,425.00 430,425.00 445,850.00 08/01/2034 --7,955.00 7,955.00 - 02/01/2035 430,000.00 3.700%7,955.00 437,955.00 445,910.00 Total $4,910,000.00 -$1,596,060.08 $6,506,060.08 - Significant Dates Dated 4/10/2019 First Coupon Date 2/01/2020 Yield Statistics Bond Year Dollars $48,123.92 Average Life 9.801 Years Average Coupon 3.3165631% Net Interest Cost (NIC)3.3981858% True Interest Cost (TIC)3.3921393% Bond Yield for Arbitrage Purposes 3.3746092% All Inclusive Cost (AIC)3.4658303% IRS Form 8038 Net Interest Cost 3.3165631% Weighted Average Maturity 9.801 Years Series 2019A GO Bonds - l | Cedar Lake Road | 2/ 6/2019 | 9:30 AM Study session meeting of Feburary 11, 2019 (Item No. 2) Title: 2019 bonding review and financial modeling update Page 19 St Louis Park, Minnesota $4,910,000 General Obligation Bonds, Series 2019A Cedar Lake Road Assumes Current Market Non-BQ AAA rates plus 25bps Debt Service Schedule Date Principal Coupon Interest Total P+I 105% of Total MSA Funds Levy/(Surplus) 02/01/2020 --124,022.58 124,022.58 130,223.71 130,223.71 - 02/01/2021 --153,430.00 153,430.00 161,101.50 161,101.50 - 02/01/2022 290,000.00 2.300%153,430.00 443,430.00 465,601.50 465,601.50 - 02/01/2023 300,000.00 2.400%146,760.00 446,760.00 469,098.00 469,098.00 - 02/01/2024 305,000.00 2.450%139,560.00 444,560.00 466,788.00 466,788.00 - 02/01/2025 310,000.00 2.550%132,087.50 442,087.50 464,191.88 464,191.88 - 02/01/2026 320,000.00 2.650%124,182.50 444,182.50 466,391.63 466,391.63 - 02/01/2027 330,000.00 2.900%115,702.50 445,702.50 467,987.63 467,987.63 - 02/01/2028 340,000.00 3.200%106,132.50 446,132.50 468,439.13 468,439.13 - 02/01/2029 350,000.00 3.300%95,252.50 445,252.50 467,515.13 467,515.13 - 02/01/2030 360,000.00 3.400%83,702.50 443,702.50 465,887.63 465,887.63 - 02/01/2031 375,000.00 3.450%71,462.50 446,462.50 468,785.63 468,785.63 - 02/01/2032 385,000.00 3.500%58,525.00 443,525.00 465,701.25 465,701.25 - 02/01/2033 400,000.00 3.550%45,050.00 445,050.00 467,302.50 467,302.50 - 02/01/2034 415,000.00 3.600%30,850.00 445,850.00 468,142.50 468,142.50 - 02/01/2035 430,000.00 3.700%15,910.00 445,910.00 468,205.50 468,205.50 - Total $4,910,000.00 -$1,596,060.08 $6,506,060.08 $6,831,363.08 $6,831,363.08 - Significant Dates Dated 4/10/2019 First Coupon Date 2/01/2020 Yield Statistics Bond Year Dollars $48,123.92 Average Life 9.801 Years Average Coupon 3.3165631% Net Interest Cost (NIC)3.3981858% True Interest Cost (TIC)3.3921393% Bond Yield for Arbitrage Purposes 3.3746092% All Inclusive Cost (AIC)3.4658303% Series 2019A GO Bonds - l | Cedar Lake Road | 2/ 6/2019 | 9:30 AM Study session meeting of Feburary 11, 2019 (Item No. 2) Title: 2019 bonding review and financial modeling update Page 20 Par Amount $13,025,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $9,900,000 $8,880,000 $12,890,000 $9,330,000 $56,025,000 Tax Impact on  $275,100 SF Home Levy Year / Collect Year Txbl GO 2010D - Fire Station GO 2014A - Connect the Park GO 2016A - Rec Center Imp GO 2017A - Connect the Park, SWLRT & Fiber GO 2018A - Connect the Park, Fiber & Softball Fields GO 2019 - Nature Center GO 2019 - Connect the Park, SWLRT & Fiber Tax Supported 100% of Debt Levy 2018 / 2019 926,735 591,150 1,234,255 417,572 250,845 - - 3,420,557 $130.64 2019 / 2020 926,378 591,360 1,230,318 418,307 259,665 - 313,462 3,739,490 $142.83 2020 / 2021 925,199 591,360 1,231,132 413,477 257,355 434,043 577,169 4,429,734 $169.19 2021 / 2022 922,965 591,150 1,231,322 413,739 254,835 434,043 577,285 4,425,338 $169.02 2022 / 2023 925,004 590,730 1,230,889 413,687 252,105 434,043 571,447 4,417,904 $168.74 2023 / 2024 922,982 595,350 1,229,832 418,569 254,415 434,043 575,749 4,430,940 $169.24 2024/ 2025 925,506 594,405 1,234,662 417,729 251,055 434,043 568,683 4,426,083 $169.05 2025 / 2026 927,152 - 1,232,457 416,574 257,985 624,043 571,494 4,029,705 $153.91 2026 / 2027 922,669 - - 413,346 256,148 1,798,533 567,378 3,958,073 $151.17 2027 / 2028 922,733 - ‐                                    - 254,153 1,794,693 571,914 3,543,492 $135.34 2028 / 2029 927,169 - ‐                                    ‐                                    1,798,163                           569,993 3,295,324 $125.86 2029 / 2030 925,300 - ‐                                    ‐                                     ‐                                     1,798,523                            ‐                                     2,723,822 $104.03 2030 / 2031 927,802 - ‐                                    ‐                                     ‐                                     1,796,428                            ‐                                     2,724,230 $104.05 2031 / 2032 - - ‐                                    ‐                                    ‐                                     1,796,828                           ‐                                     1,796,828 $68.63 2032 / 2033 - - ‐                                   ‐                                    ‐                                     1,799,495                           ‐                                     1,799,495 $68.73 2033 / 2034 - - ‐                                   ‐                                    ‐                                     1,799,195                           ‐                                     1,799,195 $68.72 Totals 18,506,666 5,926,410 11,704,232 4,215,360 2,548,560 17,176,110 5,464,573 65,541,910 N/A Annual Levy Amounts Annual Levy Amounts and Tax Impact For All Tax Supported Debt 2010 Bonds ‐ 2019 Proposed Bonds  ‐  500  1,000  1,500  2,000  2,500  3,000  3,500  4,000  4,500  5,000 2018 / 2019 2019 / 2020 2020 / 2021 2021 / 2022 2022 / 2023 2023 / 2024 2024/ 2025 2025 / 2026 2026 / 2027 2027 / 2028 2028 / 2029 2029 / 2030 2030 / 2031 2031 / 2032 2032 / 2033 2033 / 2034ThousandsLevies for Tax  Supported Debt Txbl GO 2010D ‐ Fire Station GO 2014A ‐ Connect the Park GO 2016A ‐ Rec Center Imp GO 2017A ‐ Connect the Park, SWLRT & Fiber GO 2018A ‐ Connect the Park, Fiber & Softball Fields GO 2019 ‐ Nature Center GO 2019 ‐ Connect the Park, SWLRT & FiberAnnual Debt LevyLevy Year/  Collect Year Study session meeting of Feburary 11, 2019 (Item No. 2) Title: 2019 bonding review and financial modeling update Page 21 Meeting: Study session Meeting date: February 11, 2019 Discussion item: 3 Executive summary Title: Elections outreach and education plan Recommended action: No action is required. The goal of this discussion is to review the plan that has been developed to improve the education and outreach relationship with all St. Louis Park voters. Policy consideration: Does the scope of the proposed education and outreach plan meet the identified needs of St. Louis Park voters? Summary: Ranked-choice voting presents a significant change to the voting method that people are accustomed to in St. Louis Park. This change also presents a significant opportunity to develop programs dedicated to educating and engaging the community around all aspects of elections and the services we provide. Over the next few years there are many changes that St. Louis Park voters will experience. In 2019 the first ranked-choice election will be held. In 2020 the state will participate in the first ever Presidential Primary in early March, a traditional August Primary, and later that year voters will participate in the Presidential election at projected record rates. The elections team will be responsible for not only administering these elections, but also for educating voters. Following the 2020 election, the city will also go through a redistricting process using 2020 census data that will require us to engage the community to re- evaluate our precinct boundaries and polling location needs to best serve voters. Our strategic priority to build social capital through community engagement can be implemented within elections through a targeted outreach and education program designed to promote inclusion through civic participation. Voters in St. Louis Park already participate in elections at a relatively high rate, similar to other nearby communities. Existing data shows that St. Louis Park has more registered voters, and regularly exceeds peer communities in turnout percentages. However, existing data also shows that there is still room for improvement, particularly in traditionally underserved populations and in municipal elections when overall engagement drops off. We know that there are many reasons why people are active or inactive in elections. We primarily want to focus our efforts in areas that will be most impactful to the community from the beginning. The mission of the strategic plan outlined by the elections team is to close the civic literacy gap in St. Louis Park. This is not something that can happen after one meeting or one education session, and it is not something that many communities focus on. In order to build social capital and provide more education our plan focuses on a relational model that seeks to form lasting partnerships with civically engaged community leaders to reach a broader scope of voters. Financial or budget considerations: Funds have been included in the 2019 budget Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to creating opportunities to build social capital through community engagement. Supporting documents: Discussion, Outreach and Education Programs Table Prepared by: Michael Sund, Elections Specialist – Outreach and Education Robert Stokka, Elections Specialist Reviewed by: Melissa Kennedy, City Clerk and Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Study session meeting of February 11, 2019 (Item No. 3) Page 2 Title: Elections outreach and education plan Discussion Strategy: The elections team has devised a strategic plan using our experiences with voters in St. Louis Park and existing research data about voter behavior in general to address the gap for voters being introduced to ranked-choice voting. Our intention is to simultaneously address other disparities in knowledge and access for our voting process and to develop relationships with community members. These ongoing efforts will help us ensure that community capital is generated through our elections and voting. Our strategy works to address the existing civic literacy gap. This is a concept developed by the Center for Civic Design which uses design thinking and applies it to elections administration. It encourages the use of a variety of materials in plain language to address the gaps in understanding for voters at every stage of learning about and participating in civic processes. These materials focus on areas that voters find confusing or misleading, and provide tactics to address those challenges. We also used purpose mapping exercises to develop a strategic map that utilizes SWOC/T and stakeholder analysis. These internal documents, along with our racial equity and inclusion work, guide our development of program materials to address existing gaps. Research: Using the American Community Survey provided by the Census Bureau and historical voter data provided by the Office of the Secretary of State, we have begun to research the composition of the electorate in St. Louis Park. We have also begun research to identify and understand the groups of people who generally do not participate in the democratic process, or who only participate in even-year elections. We are using this data to develop targeted materials, programs, and messaging. We are also using the information to create baseline data by which we will be able to measure the effectiveness of our materials and programming over time to see if improvements are being realized or to identify additional areas for improvement. Target Audiences: Based on our research and personal experience with the St. Louis Park electorate, we are breaking our target audiences down into a few groups, some of which may overlap: Future voters - We are working with St. Louis Park area schools and Community Education to introduce civics to students and youth in a more collaborative way. Working with Superintendent Osei and other district staff we have established a Student Election Program at the high school and have committed to teaching a 6-class series for middle school students through community education in the spring. These efforts serve the dual purpose of both engaging youth about elections and civic leadership on a more consistent basis, as well as recruiting future student election judges who will serve a critical role in being able to staff polling places in coming years. This project allows us to create an ongoing relationship with students who will eventually become voters and, in the interim, can help us inform the adults in their lives and encourage them to become or continue to be active voters. 19 - 39 years old - Voters under the age of 40 make up the majority of the electorate in St. Louis Park. They are frequent voters in even years, but participate at much lower rates in municipal elections. In order to engage this audience we are creating digital content for social media and regular sites people in this demographic frequently use to get information and communicate. Additionally, we are collaborating with local community partners to engage residents at events they already attend and places they gather, such as local sporting or arts/entertainment events, community or neighborhood gatherings, local businesses, and large-scale events such as Parktacular. Study session meeting of February 11, 2019 (Item No. 3) Page 3 Title: Elections outreach and education plan 40 - 65 years old - This tends to be our most engaged group of voters. They are registered at higher rates and prefer early voting (absentee) to other methods. They are more likely to be single-family home owners and to be longtime residents. We intend to create leadership opportunities to encourage people who already actively participate in their community to engage their peers about the upcoming election and the changes related to ranked-choice voting. 65 and older - Seniors in our community make up the majority of our election judges and are a group that receive targeted services from the city, such as health care facility voting. Because this age group is more likely to be educated on voting and familiar with the community, we are seeking their feedback on election materials. We are also expanding existing outreach programs to seniors who don’t live in statutorily defined health care facilities but live in large residential communities such as Park Shore, Menorah Plaza, and Tower Light. Working Professionals - We are engaging the business community through avenues like the Rotary Club and the St. Louis Park Business Roundtable. Our goal is to partner with small businesses to assist with the distribution of election materials. We also seek to communicate with large employers in the area to engage their employees in the election process through messaging from their leadership and by providing space for us to work with employees. This could also lead to the recruitment of new election judges who can eventually take the place of some of our long-time judges who may be looking to retire from their work on Election Day. Community Leaders - People who are already active within the community are some of our core partners, including leaders in the civics space like the League of Women Voters and FairVote. We are also seeking partnerships with religious organizations and multicultural groups to bring education opportunities and conversations to places people already gather in our community. We will continue to develop these partnerships alongside other community engagement efforts the city may already be working on. For example, collaboration on the work already being done by Darius Gray, our new Community Organizer, and work on the 2020 Census with Community Development staff. Historically underrepresented communities – The elections team has met with Alicia Sojourner, race equity manager and worked with data analytics to identify communities that have been historically left out of the voting process. This group can have a diverse set of needs but all experience roadblocks when seeking to engage in the electoral process. Our team will use this research to design several specialized events and materials to address specific needs. This can include our efforts in mobile voting, language translation of material and our ambassador program. In our research voters seek resources from two common sources, local officials and community leaders. Our ambassador program is designed to bridge the gap between our elections office and underrepresented communities in partnership with community leaders. Elected Officials and Candidates - We are presenting our plan and materials to the city council as well as the St. Louis Park School Board. We are also working to update our candidate filing materials to be inclusive for potential candidates seeking to understand what the requirements are for running for office, what councilmembers do and the role they serve, city operations, the commitment level required to be on council, and the details of ranked-choice voting and how some aspects of the election will be different than in past years. Due to our need to remain impartial and unbiased, certain work in this particular area is out of the scope of the elections team. To bridge that gap we have discussed this challenge and are partnering with outside non- Study session meeting of February 11, 2019 (Item No. 3) Page 4 Title: Elections outreach and education plan profits, like League of Women Voters and FairVote, to provide avenues for potential candidates to learn more about campaigning in a ranked-choice election and other details that may impact their decision to run for office. Longtime Residents - Registration and participation are high in even year elections. We are going to research, report and take action on working with longtime residents to better understand how odd-year elections affect them. We are using data to identify trends in regional (ward) participation and the differences that our geographic information system (GIS) can reveal. These will lead to regionally focused events held in targeted areas of the community highlighting that there is an election this year, that voting will be different and how it will impact this community. New Residents - People who are new to St. Louis Park are already welcomed by a packet they receive while homesteading. We are developing simple, short materials to distribute in that packet that include a welcome letter, a get started guide, voter registration materials, and a magnet with key elections information and contact details. Because 1/3 of our voters and nearly half of our residents live in multi-family housing we are partnering with organizations like SPARC and local property owners and building managers to distribute the same information when a resident signs a lease or purchases a condo or other multi-family housing unit. Ideally these partnerships will give city staff access to community space within larger buildings to hold brief education or drop-in sessions for residents. New Voters - Residents who have never voted, typically do not vote, or who have not voted in a long time are a core focus of the work done by the Center for Civic Design. Research has revealed that these voters usually do not participate due to basic lack of understanding of the process of voting itself, and out of a lack of traditional knowledge surrounding voting. They may not have any family members or friends who vote, or may not know where to begin or what to expect. Our action-oriented guides, both online and distributed via educational pamphlets will include the step-by-step process without distracting information about how previous city elections have worked. They will also include ongoing resources to stay engaged, such as social media or subscriptions through GovDelivery texts and emails that can remind or inform voters of crucial deadlines and dates and stay active in elections. Occasional Voters - These voters are likely our core audience. They are familiar with voting but may only participate in even-year or presidential year elections. They typically seek to understand the value proposition of voting in municipal elections. The change in voting method will need to be communicated; however, exit polling completed by FairVote indicated that most regular voters understood the ranking process. These voters typically have questions regarding tabulation and the path their specific vote takes after they have cast their ballot. We will be creating short pocket guides for voters that provide easy-to-understand and basic information and identify other resources for those that want to learn more. Additionally, we will be recording videos that specifically follow each potential voting scenario (ex. ranking the same candidate for all three choices, skipping a ranking, not ranking, etc.) on a ranked-choice ballot and how each scenario is tabulated and affects the outcome of a race. The videos will be short and will hopefully encourage “occasionally engaged” voters to click through to more educational resources on our website or to attend an event in the community. Avid Voters - These voters are a resource. They understand and follow elections in news media and regularly participate. They tend to vote out of a respect for the process itself or out of a sense of civic duty. Our overall outreach campaign is starting with and targeting this group in the Study session meeting of February 11, 2019 (Item No. 3) Page 5 Title: Elections outreach and education plan February Park Perspective with a very detailed FAQ regarding all things ranked-choice. The same information is also available on our website. We hope these interested, active voters will become educators informally in their community or participate in volunteer events with city staff. Timeline: We are focusing on a three-stage approach centered around our mock elections. Each mock election has a strategic goal or purpose and will begin a new stage of work. Mock Election #1 - This will be held with the St. Louis Park High School and will only be open to students, not the public. Students attending the Career Fair on April 24th will have an opportunity to vote on an issue that is important to them. Student education on ranked-choice and voting will be coordinated with the school district to take place in the weeks leading up to April 24. Students in 9th – 11th grade attend the career fair and will represent three distinct groups of voters. We hope to use this opportunity to further educate and engage youth in our partnership with St. Louis Park schools. The main goal of this mock election is to test our internal administrative procedures including ballot design and printing, equipment testing and programming, polling place procedures and materials (signage, instructions by demo judges), transmission of results, tabulation, and reporting of results. It is best to do this for the first time using a smaller, fixed number of voters and ballots. Mock Election #2 - This event will take place at Parktacular in June. This will serve as a major outreach event for the elections team and will allow us to talk to a general audience of voters. Anyone who wants to participate and cast a ballot is welcome, they don’t have to be registered voters and they don’t have to be 18 or older. We hope to educate people on ranked-choice voting and build awareness around the upcoming municipal election this year. We will use this to test an absentee-like procedure and the instructional materials we are required to distribute with absentee ballots. Volunteers and city staff will work with each voter to help them understand their mock ballot, get feedback on ballot design and instructional materials, and answer questions before people vote. These ballots will be run through a central count machine, similar to what happens with absentee ballots now, and then we will again perform our tabulation process and report results to the community. Mock Election #3 - This will be a large, city-wide event in late August/early September. We will open four precincts (one in each ward) for residents to come in and vote. Precincts will be staffed by our election judges who will go through training prior to working and will use the materials and supplies we have developed for use in precincts. This election will be run almost exactly like a real election, with a few exceptions. The polls will be open for a shorter period of time, and voters will not have to go through a check-in and registration process prior to voting. This is primarily because we want to encourage as many potential voters to participate as possible and we want to limit the need to produce and program unnecessary resources – such as loading voter data on poll pads or requiring someone to go through the registration process. We will have resources available for voters to register if they need to, but it will not be a requirement. Also, no absentee voting will be offered for this mock election simply because we will need to dedicate our internal resources at this time of the year to preparing for the real election in November, recruiting and training election judges, and preparing for the start of absentee voting at the end of September. This mock election will allow us to test any remaining administrative procedures, get feedback from election judges and voters prior to the real election in November, stir up some excitement Study session meeting of February 11, 2019 (Item No. 3) Page 6 Title: Elections outreach and education plan and positive publicity for the upcoming election, decrease voter anxiety about ranked-choice, and further promote civic engagement. This will also begin a busy period of outreach and educational events to promote the upcoming election, voter registration, and the opportunities available for voters to participate. We know that voters typically seek information on voting weeks to days prior to actually participating. While they may have participated in an educational session earlier in the year, the information will be much more relevant and memorable if delivered close to Election Day. Program/relationshipPurpose/goalStudent Election ProgramMonthly educational and collaboration session with St. Louis Park High School students who will have opportunities to learn about civic processes, collaborate on community engagement strategies, and identify future career paths in local government. Interested students will be asked to help with outreach and education activities on a regular basis and serve as election judges in November. Community Education ProgramsThe elections team will teach a series of 6 classes (one series for middle school students and one series for adults) with curriculums based on learning about civics, local government, and elections at the state and local levels. Elections Ambassador ProgramIdentified community leaders and stakeholders who can act as liaisons to connect the communities they interact with on a regular basis with resources to learn about and participate in elections and can provide feedback on barriers and effectiveness of different communication strategies. A similar type of program was used effectively in Minneapolis and also for the Vision 3.0 process in St. Louis Park. Election Judge WorkgroupFocus group comprised of 6‐10 election judges helping to test, design and provide feedback on materials to be used during absentee voting and at the polls on Election Day, and to help develop new election judge training modules. Mock ElectionsThree separate events where we can test internal administrative procedures, get feedback on ballot design, inform the public on how to vote in a ranked‐choice elections and let voters interact with the new system and ask questions.Election Outreach ToolkitSet of educational and interactive materials for civically engaged groups (League of Women Voters, Election Ambassadors, neighborhood leaders, candidates, etc.) and individuals to interact and engage with their friends, family, and neighbors on ranked‐choice voting and basic elections information. Will be available online and print form in Q2 of 2019.Traveling Education ProgramSeries of lesson plans and presentations of varying lengths of time that can be used when the elections team is requested to attend meetings or events to provide information. Requests can be made directly on our website or by contacting elections staff.  Each lesson plan is largely interactive and utilizes activities to engage audiences in the process of elections and how ranked ‐choice voting works.  These activities include a board game, interactive/live online voting and tabulation elements, short videos, and worksheets to design a polling place and ballots.Study session meeting of February 11, 2019 (Item No. 3) Title: Elections outreach and education planPage 7 Neighborhood Association ProgramThe elections team plan to work with neighborhood leaders in conjunction with the new CommunityOrganizer (Darius Gray) to engage these leaders in election outreach activities and establish opportunities for the leaders to connect the elections team with the neighborhood they serve. Boards and CommissionsThe elections team has visited the Human Rights Commission and the Multi‐Cultural Advisory Commission both to seek their advice and to engage their members in election outreach opportunities. The team is coordinating visits to other commissions with staff liaisons. Ongoing education opportunities for all members is planned. St. Louis Park Employee TrainingThe elections team will be engaging all employees in every division of the city such that they will know what ranked‐choice voting is, will be able to answer very basic questions about elections and/or redirect questions they may receive in the office or the community to elections staff.Key collaborationsThe elections team has met and will continue to meet regularly with key civic groups including the League of Women Voters, Fair Vote, and the St. Louis Park school district to educate each group, coordinate messaging, and collaborate on identified outreach needs and opportunities in the community. Mobile votingPilot project that will be tested in 2019 at 2‐3 traditionally underserved areas of the community to see if voter participation can be increased and to gain more information about the barriers that prevent regular participation within particular communities. Using the community outreach vehicle the elections team will take a mobile version of city hall to a specific area of the community during the absentee voting period, outside of regular office hours, and help people register to vote and/or vote early by absentee.Study session meeting of February 11, 2019 (Item No. 3) Title: Elections outreach and education planPage 8 Meeting: Study session Meeting date: February 11, 2019 Written report: 4 Executive summary Title: Annual Open to Business Program update Recommended action: None. Please inform staff of any questions you might have. Policy consideration: This report is an annual update on the Open to Business program which provides small business technical assistance services to St. Louis Park businesses and residents. Summary: The Open to Business Program began in St. Louis Park in 2011. The city’s Economic Development Authority (EDA) contracts with the Metropolitan Consortium of Community Developers (MCCD) to provide one-on-one business technical assistance to entrepreneurs, businesses and residents in St. Louis Park. The services provided to clients in 2018 included business plan development, cash flow projections, lease review, regulatory assistance, purchasing, loan packaging, strategic planning, tax advice, network referrals, real estate analysis, financial planning, marketing, business licensing, and business purchase evaluation. During the past year, MCCD staff met with 26 clients, providing 265 hours of service in the city. Of the clients served, 57% were women, 48% were low-income, and 22% were persons of color. The majority of businesses served were in the food, health/fitness and service industries; and most of the clients were new entrepreneurs or start-up businesses. The majority of the clients heard about the program through city staff or publications. In addition, MCCD facilitated four loans for St Louis Park businesses and residents last year: $1,500 to a game manufacturer, $25,000 to a food establishment, $35,500 to a landscape company, and $12,500 to a service business, leveraging $884,000 in outside capital. A total of 20 jobs were created or retained as a result of the Open to Business program in St. Louis Park last year. Counseling sessions occur the fourth Monday of each month from 9 a.m. to 11 a.m. at City Hall or by appointment at the place of business. There is no charge to those receiving these services. Financial or budget considerations: The 2018 annual fee for the Open to Business program was $10,000; half of which was covered by a grant from Hennepin County. The fee for 2019 is set to increase to $12,500, with the EDA and Hennepin County each paying half of the cost. Strategic priority consideration: Not applicable. Supporting documents: Annual Open to Business Report from MCCD Prepared by: Julie Grove, Economic Development Specialist Reviewed by: Greg Hunt, Economic Development Coordinator Karen Barton, Community Development Director Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager & EDA Executive Director City/County: Time Frame: Clients Served: Client Inquiries 3 New Entrepreneur/Start-up 13 Existing Business 10 Total 26 How did client hear about OTB: •Municipality (newsletter)12 •Friends/Family 3 •Entrepreneur 3 •Bank Referral 2 •Internet 2 •Other 1 Direct & Facilitated Financing approved: # of loans 4 Amount $74,980 Capital Leveraged: $884,000 Jobs retained or created from OTB closed loan clients: 20 Program related hours TA/Admin: 265 Types of Services Provided: Cash flow analysis & projections Business plan development Business Purchase evaluation Lease review/ negotiation Loan packaging Strategic planning Tax advice and assistance Record keeping Network/referrals Regulatory assistance Real estate analysis Personal Financial planning Marketing message and presentation advice Business registration/ licensing St. Louis Park 1/1/18-12/31/18 Industry Segment: Construction / Real Estate 1 Food 6 Health / Fitness 5 Manufacturing 1 Professional / Consulting 1 Retail 2 Service 6 Wholesale / Distribution 1 Client Demographics Demographic # of Clients TA Hours Women Entrepreneurs 13 100 Minority Clients 5 66 Low Income Clients 11 104 Types of Businesses: Fitness Club Floral Studio Story game on wooden disk Food Sustainability and equity center Furniture & Design Shop Hair Salon Health & Wellbeing Coach High end furniture tool repair Landscape Design & Installation Leadership consultant Massage Therapy Mexican Restaurant Non profit Dance and Theater group Organic juice bar Personal training Safety wear manufacturer Tattoo retail shop Teen Center coffee shop Wine Bar Yoga Studio Updates Study session meeting of February 11, 2019 (Item No. 4) Title: Annual Open to Business Program update Page 2 St. Louis Park Client Highlights: Closed Loans- Vibe Organic Juice Bar, LLC As the interest in juicing for health has grown over the last few years, Amber Thielen decided to open the first organic juice bar in St. Louis Park. In addition to juices and smoothies, Amber offers salads, vegie sandwiches, Buddha bowls and other healthy treats. The business opened in March with financing help from MCCD and Women Venture. Field Outdoor Spaces, inc. Founded in 2005 by Jason Rathe St. Louis Park resident, Field Outdoor Spaces is a full service landscape company, which can help with all components of construction, carpentry (fences/trellises/pergolas), stone work, paver and natural stone patios, walls, water features, as well as expert planting. Jason was told by his landlord that he needed to vacate his space by October of 2018. After several months of searching, he found a nearly perfect commercial building in northeast Minneapolis that had a garage and yard space for storage. BankCherokee asked MCCD to provide gap financing so that the company could conserve its working capital as it entered the busy spring season. UPTOWN TATTOO INC- If you ask around Minneapolis where the best place is to get tattooed, chances are someone will mention Uptown Tattoo. The company’s artists, including owner Nik Skrade, a Saint Louis Park resident, have their work displayed on human canvasses throughout Minnesota. As the most frequented tattoo shop in the state, Uptown Tattoo has a reputation for quality and integrity among its clients. Partnering with Minneapolis CPED, MCCD provided financing to help Nik update his 18-year-old studio space. Client Consulting: •Advised existing business on a strategy to deal with the city's building inspection requirements on a building he purchased to expand his furniture and design business. •Assist client with marketing and financial management for his safety wear manufacturing company •Assist entrepreneur with marketing her massage therapy business, creating a consistent message and record keeping methods. •Assisted entrepreneur with subordinated financing to preserve working capital to purchase a property for his landscaping business •Helped entrepreneur strategize on growth plans and evaluate a potential merger with another company for her estate management business •Develop financial projection so client knows when she can start taking a salary •Continue to coach client on various strategies to develop a training facility and a curriculum catered to empowering young women through mental and physical strength •Assisted existing SLP business with options to either relocate or expand in place and whether to lease or own their space for a fitness studio Study session meeting of February 11, 2019 (Item No. 4) Title: Annual Open to Business Program update Page 3 Credit Builder Loans: In 2018, MCCD provided two credit builder loans to St. Louis Park residents. MCCD works in partnership with several nonprofit organizations to offer the credit building program. Our partners provide financial counseling in conjunction with small personal loans from MCCD. This combination of counseling with loans is helping program participants improve their credit scores, thus allowing for better interest rates for various types of lending. Testimonial from St. Louis Park clients: “I have a budding idea. It might just be crazy, might just be dreaming, I'm not sure yet. So, you're the first person that I'd like to run it by.” “Thank you for taking the time to meet on such short notice. It was a great pleasure to speak with you. I appreciate your candidness about operating a business and the wealth of information that you shared, along with the good advice” “Thanks for meeting with me yesterday. You gave me a lot of good advice and things to think about.” “We’ve worked with a lot of consultants over the years. Rather than imposing a template on us, Rob Smolund met us “where we are.” The value of working with Rob is that he brought a process that helped us to be creative and take a focused look at the bottom line” Study session meeting of February 11, 2019 (Item No. 4) Title: Annual Open to Business Program update Page 4 2018 SLP year end As of 2019-01-11 13:59:02 • Generated by Rob Smolund Number of Clients Business Majority Owner Business Trade Name Low- Income Owned Minority Owned Woman Owned Business Description Industry Business Stage Business Source City Impacted - Business City Impacted - Resident Summary Comments All assistance Provided Total TA Hours Q1 TA Hours Q2 TA Hours Q3 TA Hours Q4 TA Hours Equity Approved MCCD Financing Amount Approved Outside Financing Amount Jobs Created Jobs Retained 1 Steve Sitkoff Xtreme Visibility safety wear Wholesale / Distribution Existing - Opportunity Friends and Family Saint Louis Park Minneapolis Assist client with marketing and financial management for his safety wear manufacturing company Cash Flow Analysis & Projections;Marketing;Strategic planning;Loan packaging;Operation/logistics 12 6 4 0 2 1 Jacob Kramlich Storyology  B to C Promotions / Games Manufacturing Start-up Municipality Saint Louis Park Saint Louis Park Continued assistance with strategic planning for this client trying to bring his brain health game to scale. Loan packaging;Networking/referrals;Marke ting;Strategic planning;Licensing Assistance;Cash Flow Analysis & Projections 21.5 6 4 5.5 6 $1,500 1 Amy Lieberman Estate Matters LLC managing estates Service Existing - Opportunity Friends and Family Saint Louis Park Minnetonka Helped entrepreneur strategize on growth plans and evaluate a potential merger with another company for her estate management business Business purchase evaluation;Strategic planning;Operation/logistics 2.5 0 0 2.5 0 1 Cana Potter Muse Flora Floral Studio Retail Pre-start planning Municipality Saint Louis Park Saint Louis Park Develop proforma so client knows when she can start taking a salary Financial Management Assistance;Marketing;Cash Flow Analysis & Projections 10.5 5 2.5 3 0 1 Aldrin D'souza Plyoflo yoga studio Service Start-up Municipality Saint Louis Park Edina Opened a gym featuring plyoflo classes that incorporate Vinyasa Yoga and Plyometrics into one class 1 1 0 0 0 1 Colleen Klungseth Querencia, LLC Fitness club Health / Fitness Pre-start planning Municipality Saint Louis Park Minneapolis Continue to coach client on various strategies to develop a training facility and a curriculum catered to empowering young women through mental and physical strength Real estate analysis;Business Plan Development;Cash Flow Analysis & Projections;Personal Financial planning;Business purchase evaluation;Financial Management Assistance;Strategic planning 34.5 1 20.5 8 5 1 Amber Thielen Vibe Organic Juice Bar  Organic Juice Bar take out restaurant Food Pre-start planning Bank Referral Saint Louis Park Plymouth Closed on loan that was approved in 2017 for this SLP organic juice bar Other Loan Related 5.5 5.5 0 0 0 $ 96,000 $ 25,000 $ 55,000 4 1 Suzanne Costello SPDT  Non profit dance and theater group Service Existing - Challenged Friends and Family Saint Louis Park Saint Louis Park Made referral to attorney for this non profit dance and theater group to discuss exit strategy Networking/referrals 1 0 1 0 0 1 Anne Saxton Draft Horse Restaurant Food Existing - Challenged Other Minneapolis Saint Louis Park Help client with cash flow projections 1 1 0 0 0 1 Tracy Kubalak BIO Studio Hair Salon Service Start-up Entrepreneur Minnetonka Saint Louis Park Client had additional questions on QuickBooks bookkeeping.Record keeping/bookkeeping 0.5 0 0.5 0 0 1 Christine Parry Empower Health & Performance Personal Training Health / Fitness Existing - Challenged Entrepreneur Saint Louis Park Saint Louis Park Past client that had some additional bookkeeping questions regarding year end TA for Existing Clients 2 0 0 2 0 1 Jason Rathe Field Outdoor Spaces, Inc Landscape design & installation Construction / Real Estate Existing - Opportunity Bank Referral Minneapolis Saint Louis Park Assisted entrepreneur with subordinated financing to preserve working capital to purchase a property for his landscaping business TA for Existing Clients;Other Loan Related;Loan Committee 33.5 32.25 0 1.25 0 $ 35,500 $ 35,500 $ 640,000 15 1 Kevin King Premier Teambuilding Solutions  Leadership consultant Professional / Consulting Start-up Municipality Saint Louis Park Saint Louis Park Assisted entrepreneur with strategic growth planning and marketing Marketing;Strategic planning 2 2 0 0 0 1 Danica Krizic Improved Health Massage Massage Therapy Health / Fitness Start-up Other Saint Louis Park Hopkins Assist entrepreneur with marketing her massage therapy business, creating a consistent message and record keeping methods. Cash Flow Analysis & Projections;Marketing;Networking/ref errals;Financial Management Assistance;Strategic planning 14 8 6 0 0 2 Julio Margalli Mexico City Cafe Mexican restaurant Food Pre-start planning Web Saint Louis Park Saint Louis Park Helped entrepreneur with a business plan framework for his catering and café business Business Plan Development;Loan packaging;Lease review/negotiation;Real estate analysis;Regulatory assistance;Licensing Assistance;Zoning Assistance;Strategic planning;Cash Flow Analysis & Projections;Marketing 35 0 5 2 28 1 Thom Miller SLP Nest Teen Center coffee shop Food Pre-start planning Municipality Saint Louis Park Saint Louis Park Helped organizers of a teen center/coffee shop with business planning and financial projections Business Plan Development;Cash Flow Analysis & Projections;Regulatory assistance 8.5 0 8.5 0 0 1 Greg Rich Habitation Furnishing + Design Furniture and Design shop Retail Existing - Challenged Municipality Saint Louis Park Wayzata Advised existing business on a strategy to deal with the city's building inspection requirements on a building he purchased to expand his furniture and design business. Regulatory assistance;Strategic planning 2 0 2 0 0 1 Julie Rappaport SLP Seeds  Food sustainability and equity center Food Pre-start planning Municipality Saint Louis Park Saint Louis Park Assisted non profit with some ideas on how to initially present concept in a visually pleasing way Business Plan Development 1.5 0 1.5 0 0 1 Alison Hanson The Vine Room of Hopkins Wine Bar Food Start-up Municipality Saint Louis Park Minnetonka Assisted client in evaluating opening a Wine Bar in St. Louis Park. Business Plan Development;Lease review/negotiation;Loan Facilitation 13.25 0 0 0 13.25 1 Rutager West BCTW Legacy Tools High end furniture tool repair Service Pre-start planning Municipality Saint Louis Park Saint Paul Assisted hobby entrepreneur with business structure for his high end furniture tool repair business Business Registration 3 0 0 3 0 1 Dominic Skrade Uptown Tattoo Tattoo - retail Service Existing - Opportunity Municipality Minneapolis Saint Louis Park Financing - leasehold improvements, facilitating CPED financing Other Loan Related;Initial Consultation 18.25 0 0 18.25 0 $45,000 $12,500 $12,500 1 1 Kate Jackson ENSO Wellbeing Coaching  health & wellbeing coaching Health / Fitness Existing - Challenged Entrepreneur Saint Louis Park Saint Louis Park Client wants training and best practices on QuickBooks and social media advertising Initial Consultation;Record keeping/bookkeeping 7 0 0 7 0 2 Christine Leventhal Fit Studios Fitness facility Health / Fitness Existing - Opportunity Municipality Saint Louis Park Minneapolis Assisted existing SLP business with options to either relocate or expand in place and whether to lease or own their space Lease review/negotiation;Real estate analysis 7 0 0 0 7 Individuals 25 11 5 13 Total Direct TA Hours 237 68 56 53 61 0 0 Businesses 23 48%22%57% Office Hours, Program Administration, Public Events/Meetings 28 8 6 6 8 Totals 265 75.75 61.5 58.5 69 $176,500 $74,500 $707,500 4.00 16.00 # of direct capital access 4 Total Outside Capital Leverage $884,000 Study session meeting of February 11, 2019 (Item No. 4) Title: Annual Open to Business Program update Page 5 Meeting: Study session Meeting date: February 11, 2019 Written report: 5 Executive summary Title: Proposed allocation of 2019 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds Recommended action: No action required at this time. This report is being provided to inform council of the proposed allocation of 2019 CDBG funds. Policy consideration: Does the city council concur with the recommendations made for the allocation of $155,550 in 2019 CDBG funds? Summary: Each year the city must decide how to use its annual allocation of CDBG funds. CDBG funds are U.S. Housing and Urban Development (HUD) funds distributed through Hennepin County. The city must submit its proposed use of the allocation to Hennepin County by February 28, 2019. Prior to submittal, the city must hold a public hearing. The hearing and official city council action is scheduled for February 19, 2019. The city’s estimated direct allocation is $155,550. This year’s proposed use of CDBG funds reflects the city’s priorities to preserve existing housing and increase affordable home ownership opportunities with $125,550 allocated for the low income home deferred rehab loan and $30,000 to Homes Within Reach. Beginning in 2018 fifteen percent of the overall CDBG budget is being set aside by Hennepin County for public service activities and awarded through a single combined, competitive RFP covering all the cities in the county program. Financial or budget considerations: CDBG funds allow cities, within HUD guidelines, to fund projects that meet the national low income objectives and the needs of the cities. The federal budget has not been finalized; however, Hennepin County estimates the St. Louis Park 2019 allocation will be $155,550. The St. Louis Park set aside amount for public service programs is estimated at $27,450. The 2019 CDBG year runs from July 1, 2019 through June 30, 2020. Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to providing a broad range of housing and neighborhood oriented development. Supporting documents: Discussion Prepared by: Marney Olson, Assistant Housing Supervisor Reviewed by: Michele Schnitker, Housing Supervisor/Deputy CD Director Karen Barton, Community Development Director Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Study session meeting of February 11, 2019 (Item No. 5) Page 2 Title: Proposed allocation of 2019 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds Discussion Background: The national objectives of the CDBG program are to benefit low and moderate- income persons, prevention or elimination of slum or blight and/or to meet a particular urgent community development need. The CDBG program allows for up to 15% of allocated funds to be used to fund public services. The city council has typically focused CDBG funds on improvements to the housing stock for low-income families or on affordable homeownership. Beginning in 2018, Hennepin County has begun setting aside fifteen percent of the overall CDBG budget for public service activities to be awarded through a single combined, competitive RFP, in lieu of having each city award public service funding individually. Hennepin County has advertised the RFP process and sent information to a long list of public service providers including past recipients. STEP and Senior Community Services have requested letters of support for their applications. Present considerations: The proposed use of the $155,550 estimated allocation include $125,550 for the low income single family home deferred rehab loan administered by Hennepin County and $30,000 to Homes Within Reach which is the affordable housing land trust. If there are any increases or decreases to the allocation the deferred rehab loan will be adjusted accordingly. The low income single family deferred loan program is a deferred rehab loan program for homeowners with annual incomes of 50% area median income (AMI) or less with a 0% interest loan or a 3% simple interest loan for households at or below 80% AMI. The rehab focuses on improvements to address needed maintenance and repair, with a focus on providing long-term maintenance-free housing. The maximum loan amount is $30,000, is interest-free, and is deferred until the sale of the home or forgiven after 15 years. Homes Within Reach is a program of the West Hennepin Housing Land Trust (WHAHLT) that purchases homes and sells them to low income homeowners. Buyers pay for the cost of the building only and lease the land for 99 years. St. Louis Park funds are leveraged with Met Council and Hennepin County HOME funds. Next steps: February 7, 2019 Publication of public hearing notice February 13, 2019 Discussion at Housing Authority Board Meeting February 19, 2019 Public hearing and resolution approval of proposed activities February 28, 2019 Deadline for submission of CDBG application to Hennepin County Meeting: Study session Meeting date: February 11, 2019 Written report: 6 Executive summary Title: Zoning regulations for ground floor transparency requirements Recommended action: Review proposed ordinance and provide staff with comments if there are concerns based on planning commission’s recommendation of denial. Policy consideration: Staff intends to bring the proposed ordinance to city council for a first reading of an Ordinance in March unless city council directs staff to do otherwise. Summary: After several months of reviewing ground floor transparency requirements, the planning commission voted 6 to 0 to recommend denial of the ground floor transparency ordinance draft. The vote was based on concerns about lack of flexibility both externally and internally for retail and commercial spaces, and placing undue burden on businesses. The city has used similar standards to increase the amount of ground floor transparency in planned unit developments since the 2001 to increase the interaction between the internal spaces of a building and the public realm. However, planning commission members were concerned about requiring prescriptive amounts of transparency along ground floor, street facing facades, as well as restricting the first three feet of space within the building. They were also hesitant to strictly limit the sign area in windows, and they were not convinced the flexibility afforded in the ordinance could be administered both consistently (fairly) and as broadly as businesses may need. Financial or budget considerations: None at this time. Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to providing a broad range of housing and neighborhood oriented development. Supporting documents: Discussion Draft ordinance Planning commission study session minutes Planning commission public hearing minutes from January 16, 2019 City council study session minutes July 9, 2018 Examples of transparency requirements - St. Louis Park and other cities Prepared by: Jennifer Monson, Planner Reviewed by: Sean Walther, Planning and Zoning Supervisor Karen Barton, Community Development Director Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Study session meeting of February 11, 2019 (Item No. 6) Page 2 Title: Zoning regulations for ground floor transparency requirements Discussion Background: In summer 2018, city council directed staff and the planning commission to consider zoning standards for ground floor window transparency to increase vibrancy along the city’s commercial streets. The planning commission and city council have since discussed the importance of ground floor transparency requirements and have provided feedback on a draft ordinance during several study sessions. The city has regulated the amount of ground floor transparency in planned unit developments to increase the interaction between the internal spaces of a building with the public realm. In the past, there has been very little pushback with developers on these requirements; however, commercial and especially retail tenants, who tend to be more focused on the interior layouts of their spaces than the building’s exterior design (except perhaps the building orientation toward parking lots), have tried to reduce the amount of required window transparency. Ground floor transparency regulations are particularly important in areas where there is high pedestrian traffic as transparency can help create a vibrant and safer street by allowing people inside buildings to easily observe street life. Ground floor windows and transparent doors may also strengthen the commercial viability of a use by attracting customers and adding to the enjoyment of the pedestrian’s experience on the street. The attached draft ordinance responds to feedback from the planning commission and city council. The intent of the ordinance is to provide flexibility, especially for small businesses and existing buildings, yet advance the city’s goals for a safe and active pedestrian realm and vibrant streets. The limitations on window paintings and signage that are included in the ordinance would be applied to all businesses, existing and new in the C-1 and C-2 Districts, and retail, service, and restaurant uses in the O and BP Districts. The remainder of the ordinance will be applied when upgrades and renovations to buildings occur. The regulation establishing a minimum percentage of transparency on the front and side street facing facades would not apply to existing buildings. This requirement will be enforced on all new buildings and buildings which expand the gross floor area of the building by more than 50 percent. Public hearing: There were no comments received during the public hearing. Planning Commission: The planning commission voted 6 to 0 to recommend denial of the ordinance. Planning commission members were concerned about requiring prescriptive amounts of transparency along ground floor, street facing facades, as well as restricting the first three feet of space within the building. They were also hesitant to strictly limit the sign area in windows, and they were not convinced the flexibility afforded in the ordinance could be administered both consistently (fairly) and as broadly as businesses may need. Present considerations: Staff is bringing the proposed ordinance forward for city council’s consideration since this topic was specifically requested by the council for planning commission and staff to look at. The planning commission, while agreeing with the intent of the ordinance to provide safer and more vibrant streets, decided that any ordinance regulating a minimum amount of transparency for a building and requiring a visual depth within the floor area of a tenant space was too restrictive. The planning commission voiced the opinion that minimum window transparency should be a guide for development, not a requirement. Study session meeting of February 11, 2019 (Item No. 6) Page 3 Title: Zoning regulations for ground floor transparency requirements The planning commission felt it was important to take a vote on the ordinance and forward their recommendation to the city council, rather than tabling the item for further commission consideration. Staff stands behind the policies included in the draft ordinance. These requirements are based on industry standards found across the county and past experiences with St. Louis Park developers. Next steps: Staff will schedule the first reading of an Ordinance in March unless the city council directs staff to do otherwise. Study session meeting of February 11, 2019 (Item No. 6) Page 4 Title: Zoning regulations for ground floor transparency requirements Draft Ordinance Section 36-4 Definitions ************ Ground Floor Transparency means the measurement of the percentage of a facade that has highly transparent, low reflectance windows at the pedestrian level, measured between 2’ and 8’ above grade. ************ 36-366 Architectural design ** (b)Standards. ** (3)Ground floor transparency. a.The following façade design guidelines shall be applicable to all ground floor street-facing facades in the C-1 and C-2 Districts, and retail, service, and restaurant uses in O and BP Districts: i.Window paintings and signage shall cover no more than 10 percent of the total window and door area. ii.Visibility into the space shall be maintained for a minimum depth of three (3) feet. Display of merchandise is allowed within this three (3) feet. iii.Interior storage areas, utility closets and trash areas shall not be visible from the exterior of the building. iv.No more than 10 percent of total window and door area shall be glass block, mirrored, spandrel, frosted or other opaque glass, finishes or material including window painting and signs. The remaining 90 percent of window and door area shall be highly transparent, low reflectance windows with a minimum 60 percent transmittance factor and a reflectance factor of not greater than 0.25. v.For all new buildings constructed after January 1, 2019, and existing buildings which expand the gross square footage of the building by more than 50 percent, the minimum ground floor transparency shall be 65 percent on the front façade, and 20 percent on all other ground floor street facing facades. vi.The city acknowledges a degree of flexibility may be necessary to adjust to unique situations. Alternatives that provide an increase in pedestrian vibrancy and street safety including but not limited to public art and pedestrian scale amenities may be considered and may be approved by Study session meeting of February 11, 2019 (Item No. 6) Page 5 Title: Zoning regulations for ground floor transparency requirements the Zoning Administrator, unless the development application requires approval by City Council, in which case the City Council shall approve the alternate transparency plan. (3)(4) Additions and accessory structures. The exterior wall surface materials, roof treatment, colors, textures, major divisions, proportion, rhythm of openings, and general architectural character, including horizontal or vertical emphasis, scale, stylistic features of additions, exterior alterations, and new accessory buildings shall address and respect the original architectural design and general appearance of the principal buildings on the site and shall comply with the requirements of this section. (4)(5) Screening. a.The visual impact of rooftop equipment shall be minimized using one of the following methods. Where rooftop equipment is located on buildings and is visible within 400 feet from property in an R district, only the items listed in subsections 1 and 2 shall be used. 1.A parapet wall. 2.A fence the height of which extends at least one foot above the top of the rooftop equipment and incorporates the architectural features of the building. 3.The rooftop equipment shall be painted to match the roof or the sky, whichever is most effective. b.Utility service structures (such as utility meters, utility lines, transformers, aboveground tanks); refuse handling; loading docks; maintenance structures; and other ancillary equipment must be inside a building or be entirely screened from off-site views utilizing a privacy fence or wall that is at least six feet in height. A chain link fence with slats shall not be accepted as screening. c.All utility services shall be underground except as provided elsewhere in this chapter. (5)(6) Parking ramps. All new parking ramps shall meet the following design standards: a.Parking ramp facades that are visible from off the site shall display an integration of building materials, building form, textures, architectural motif, and building colors with the principal building. b.No signs other than directional signs shall be permitted on parking ramp facades. Study session meeting of February 11, 2019 (Item No. 6) Page 6 Title: Zoning regulations for ground floor transparency requirements c.If the parking ramp is located within 20 feet of a street right-of-way or recreational trail, the facade facing the street shall be subject to the same requirements for exterior surface materials as for buildings. (6)(7) Awnings and canopies. a.Awnings and Canopies. 1.Construction. Awnings and canopies shall have noncombustible frames. If an awning can be collapsed, retracted or folded, the design shall be such that the awning does not block any required exit. 2. Projection. Awnings and canopies less than 25 feet in width may extend up to two feet from the face of the nearest curb line measured horizontally. 3.Clearance. All portions of any awning and canopy shall provide at least eight feet of clearance or any walkway and twelve feet of clearance over nay driveway or roadway. 4.Supports. Canopy posts or other supports located within a public right-of- way or easement shall be placed in a location approved by the city engineer. b.Permit required. A building permit shall be issued prior to the installation of any awning or canopy. In addition to the building permit, an encroachment agreement shall be issued by the city engineer prior to the installation of any awning or canopy that extends into, upon or over any street or alley right-of- way, park or other public property. The encroachment agreement shall include provisions that hold the owner of the awning or canopy liable to the city for any damage which may result to any person or property by reason of such encroachment or the removal of such encroachment. Additional conditions may be imposed on encroachment permits to protect the health, safety or welfare of the public or to protect nearby property owners from hardship or damage or to protect other public interests as determined by the city engineer. c.Submission requirements. The following information shall be submitted prior to the installation of an awning or canopy. 1.Application form and fee. A separate fee shall be required for the building permit and encroachment agreement. 2.Dimensioned and scaled site plan and building elevations. 3.Four sets of drawings for each awning or canopy proposed. d.Projections to be safe. All such projections over public property shall be structurally safe, shall be kept in a safe condition and state of repair consistent with the design thereof and repaired when necessary in the opinion of the city Study session meeting of February 11, 2019 (Item No. 6) Page 7 Title: Zoning regulations for ground floor transparency requirements engineer or building official by and at the expense of the person having ownership or control of the building from which they project. e.Removal upon order. The owner of an awning or canopy, any part of which projects into, upon, over or under any public property shall upon being ordered to do so by the city engineer remove at once any part or all of such encroachment and shall restore the right-of-way to a safe condition. Such removal and restoration of the right-of-way will be at the sole expense of the property owner. The city may, upon failure of the property owner to remove the encroachment as ordered, remove the encroachment, and the reasonable costs of removing such encroachment incurred by the city shall be billed and levied against the property as a special assessment. Study session meeting of February 11, 2019 (Item No. 6) Page 8 Title: Zoning regulations for ground floor transparency requirements Planning commission study session minutes July 11, 2018 3.Window Transparency Ordinance Ms. Monson introduced the topic. She said the Council discussed window transparency at its July 16 study session and wants to look further at regulations for transparency requirements; particularly for high pedestrian areas and ground floor retail. She said staff is asking for the commission’s guidance on how to craft and apply the proposed regulations. The Chair commented that it’s hard to provide flexibility. What can you do to meet the intent but still meet your needs. Commissioner Kraft asked about levels of transparency, and reasons why it might not be 100% transparent. Ms. Monson spoke about the amount of depth between the pedestrian level and the use. The Chair spoke about the difficulty of providing transparency and privacy. Ms. Monson provided transparency requirement examples at Excelsior & Grand, Shops at West End, Elmwood, PLACE and Bridgewater. The Chair stated that visual in/visual out is an important element. Commissioner Kraft asked how violations are handled. Staff responded that similar to signage, there is enforcement. Commissioner Carper said he’d like to see something that shows what exists today to see all the variation; for example on Excelsior Blvd. He spoke about businesses also needing to function and losing important sales space to transparency requirements. Commissioner Kraft spoke about Byerly’s downtown which is very active, very glassy and has lots of display. The Chair asked if we are looking at particular uses or particular streets. Mr. Walther responded we are still considering applying the rules based upon both the uses on the first floor and the adjacency to the streets. Ms. Monson remarked that uses can change. If requirements are based on street location the transparency might not be workable everywhere but there may be other alternative elements that could be added to make it more pedestrian friendly. Ms. Monson said staff will come up with examples for review. Study session meeting of February 11, 2019 (Item No. 6) Page 9 Title: Zoning regulations for ground floor transparency requirements October 17, 2018 3.Transparency Requirements Ms. Monson discussed Council’s desire to look at transparency requirements for commercial buildings in general and as part of the MX district. She spoke about proposed requirements which would require ground floor window transparency for all street facing facades at the front of the building. This would include C1 and C2 districts as well as retail service and restaurants in the Office and BP districts. There was a lengthy discussion about wrap around transparency for secondary streets. There was discussion about active permitted uses being maintained for a minimum depth of 15 feet as being too onerous for businesses. January 16, 2019 UNOFFICIAL MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA January 16, 2019 – 6:00 p.m. COUNCIL CHAMBERS MEMBERS PRESENT: Lynne Carper, Matt Eckholm, Jessica Kraft, Lisa Peilen, Carl Robertson, Joe Tatalovich, Alanna Franklin (youth member) MEMBERS ABSENT: Claudia Johnston-Madison STAFF PRESENT: Jennifer Monson, Sean Walther 1.Call to Order – Roll Call 2.Approval of Minutes of December 19, 2018 Commissioner Tatalovich made a motion to approve the December 19, 2018 minutes. Commissioner Peilen seconded the motion, and the motion passed on a vote of 6-0. 3.Public Hearings A.Zoning Ordinance – window transparency on ground floor street facing facades Applicant: City of St. Louis Park Case No.: 18-70-ZA Jennifer Monson, Planner, presented the staff report. Study session meeting of February 11, 2019 (Item No. 6) Page 10 Title: Zoning regulations for ground floor transparency requirements Commissioner Peilen asked about businesses on Minnetonka that cover their windows with brown paper and asked if the proposed ordinance would require the business to remove the paper. Ms. Monson said that the proposed ordinance would require the removal of paper coverings. Commissioner Peilen asked about a separate part of the ordinance dealing with directional signage on parking ramps. Discussion followed. Mr. Walther said that directional signage on parking ramps would be allowed under the sign code, and is not prohibited by the architectural ordinance. He suggested the planning commission review this item at a later time as it is not part of the proposed ordinance. Commissioner Carper agreed. Commissioner Kraft asked about signage for unleased space. Mr. Walther said the city limits the square footage for leasing signs under the sign code. Ms. Monson said she agreed with Mr. Walther and said the proposed ordinance is for occupied spaces. Leasing signs would still have to meet the sign code. Commissioner Carper asked a question relating to the window coverage. He discussed Trader Joe’s and their inward facing store front. He stated that Trader Joe’s uses signs on the back of their shelving against the windows. He said CVS is another example. He asked how the ordinance would apply to Lunds & Byerlys. Ms. Monson explained that Trader Joe’s signage is approved under a plan unit development and has its own specific signage regulations and requirements. She said she would have to double check to see what the code says. As for Lunds and Byerly’s, staff would have to research what is considered the front façade of the building. It’s a large lot surrounded by streets. Mr. Carper asked about the TexaTonka Shopping Center. Ms. Monson said the Texa-Tonka center has a lot of window signage. There are no opaque or mirrored windows. There is a lot of window signage which is easier and more affordable to take down versus replacing windows. Commissioner Carper asked if the city is deciding what a window looks like in terms of the display or what is placed within the three feet of depth. Ms. Monson said that as long as it’s visible within the first three feet of the space, we don’t care what is placed there. Study session meeting of February 11, 2019 (Item No. 6) Page 11 Title: Zoning regulations for ground floor transparency requirements Commissioner Carpers asked Ms. Monson if the ordinance prohibits anything within the three feet from being displayed. Ms. Monson clarified that displays are permitted, as long as you can see past the merchandise for the first three feet into the commercial space. Commissioner Carper asked what kind of percentage of that view into the space is being discussed. Ms. Monson said ten percent of the window area is allowed to be blocked. The remaining 90 percent would need to remain open for the first three feet. Commissioner Peilen asked a few follow up questions regarding parking ramp signage, ensuring the ordinance does not preclude directional parking signs. Chair Robertson said he does sees all those as directional signage. Commissioner Peilen asked how the ordinance addresses temporary signs. Ms. Monson responded that temporary signs are allowed as long as they follow the temporary sign code requirements. Commissioner Carper asked if staff researched other city’s transparency ordinances. Ms. Monson explained that staff researched many other ordinances both local and across the country including Minneapolis, St. Paul, Seattle, Boulder, Denver, and Cincinnati, including examples from developments in St. Louis Park. Commissioner Carper asked Ms. Monson if she consulted with any professional such as architects who are designing the buildings, store planners who plan the inside of them and even potential business who may want to move into the community but could change their mind due to the nature of this ordinance. Ms. Monson explained they have discussed the ordinance with the planning commission which has a variety of people from different backgrounds including several architects. She stated that staff reached out to St. Paul as they have adopted similar standards for the Grand Ave corridor. St. Paul never responded, but staff took into consideration the standards St. Paul and other cities adopted when crafting the ordinance. Commissioner Carper explained that with his extensive history in retail he’s a bit uncomfortable with the ordinance. He asked Ms. Monson if other window transparency ordinances were studied in areas of high pedestrian activity, and stated downtown Hopkins and 50th and France as examples. Ms. Monson explained that staff researched many other ordinances both local and across the country. She stated that each treat it a bit differently, and that Minneapolis uses pedestrian overlay zones. Study session meeting of February 11, 2019 (Item No. 6) Page 12 Title: Zoning regulations for ground floor transparency requirements Chair Robertson asked if anyone had further questions for staff. Seeing none, he opened the public hearing. No one was present to speak so he closed the public hearing, and brought the discussion back to the commission. Chair Robertson explained that planning commission has had several discussions about transparency and that he is still uncomfortable with this ordinance though he understands the intent. He stated that he believes you cannot design by formula. It can make buildings very monotonous as everything looks the same. He would prefer to see transparency as a set of guidelines rather than an ordinance. Chair Robertson said the ordinance does not give the architect enough freedom and is very limiting. He does not believe it will work. Commissioner Eckholm said his first reaction would be to disagree with Commissioner Robertson, but remembered attending a downtown Minneapolis meeting where they were discussing the new YMCA on Nicollet. He said there was difficulty meeting Minneapolis’ zoning and the innovative concept that the developer came up with, was still not approved. Ms. Monson said the ordinance realizes that not everyone can or should meet this ordinance. That there is flexibility in the ordinance for staff, city council, or planning commission to alter the requirements. Chair Robertson said this is a thought, but it’s still not clear what is allowed and how well it will be received. Commissioner Carper explained he is uncomfortable with the ordinance and doesn’t think all businesses can get a planned unit development like Trader Joe’s. He also expressed concerns about restricting the floor space within the building by three feet. Ms. Monson explained staff feels the ordinance can be easily met and that Trader Joe’s and Cub Foods signage and art would be considered alternate pedestrian amenities under the code. Commissioner Peilen expressed concerns that the ordinance is a response to a problem with a couple buildings but it goes far into regulating. Chair Robertson responded that zoning codes increase cost and understands that there are good reasons to it. He believes we need to also focus on affordable commercial space. Commissioner Kraft believed the intent of the ordinance is great, but believes there are other ways to make a more active and inviting streetscape. She suggested ways to equally prioritize different options; transparency is one option another is art along with other multitude creative solution to better meet the intent of what were after. Study session meeting of February 11, 2019 (Item No. 6) Page 13 Title: Zoning regulations for ground floor transparency requirements Commissioner Carper said he agrees with spirit and intent of the ordinance but feels this may need more work. He suggested breaking the ordinance into parts. Chair Robertson asked Mr. Walther if the commission should vote on the ordinance and take the chance it wouldn’t pass or to table it and see it brought back again soon. Mr. Walther said there is no specific direction. This was a city generated request by council and they would like to see it come to them at some stage for their action. They are looking for Planning Commission’s input. Chair Robertson said there was good conversation and feels some of things that were troubling don’t seem to be addressed far enough. He stated that he would like to make sure City Council has enough information on where the Planning Commission stands. His preference would be to go forward with the vote. Commissioner Carper clarified that city council can choose to act on this ordinance in any matter they choose, so a yes and no by the planning commission does not guarantee anything. Commissioner Carper moved that the Planning Commission approve the zoning ordinance on window transparency on the ground-floor street facing facades. Commissioner Peilen seconded the motion. Chair Robertson said the motion does not carry on a vote of 0-6 against the motion. Mr. Walther said the vote needs to have an affirmative motion to recommend denial of the ordinance. Chair Robertson requested a second motion. Commissioner Carper made a second motion to recommend denial of the zoning ordinance for window transparency on the ground-floor street facing facades. Commissioner Tatalovich seconded the motion, and the motion passed on a vote of 6-0. 4.Other Business 5.Communications 6.Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 7:30pm and was followed by a study session. Study session meeting of February 11, 2019 (Item No. 6) Page 14 Title: Zoning regulations for ground floor transparency requirements Examples of transparency requirements in St. Louis Park and around the county: St. Louis Park, Planned Unit Developments West End •Within the pedestrian zone (3-7ft a.f.f.), all tenant storefront facades shall consist of at least 60% glazing •Visibility required for 3ft in depth. •Maximum 10% opaque or with signs. Parkway 25 (1)Façade. The following façade design guidelines shall be applicable to all ground floor non-residential facades: a.For street-facing facades, no more than 10% of total window and door area shall be glass block, mirrored, spandrel, frosted or other opaque glass, finishes or material including window painting and signage. The remaining 90% of window and door area shall be clear or slightly tinted glass, allowing views into and out of the interior. b.Visibility into the space shall be maintained for a minimum depth of three feet. This requirement shall not prohibit the display of merchandise. 4800 (5) Façade. The following design requirements shall be applicable to all ground floor, non-residential facades along Excelsior Boulevard: a. Façade Transparency. 1. The façade shall be primarily transparent materials at the pedestrian level. 2. No more than 10% of the total window and door area shall be glass block, mirrored, spandrel, frosted or other opaque glass, finishes or material including window painting and signs. The remaining 90% of window and door area shall be clear or slightly tinted glass, allowing view into and out of the interior. 3. Visibility into the tenant spaces from the exterior windows and doors shall be maintained for a minimum depth of three feet. This requirement shall not prohibit the display of merchandise. Display windows may be used to meet the transparency requirement. PLACE a.The following façade design guidelines shall be applicable to all ground floor non- residential street-facing facades and all ground floor non-residential facades on the west façade of Site D South, including live/work type II units: 1.The minimum ground floor transparency shall be 60% at the pedestrian level. 2.No more than 10% of total window and door area shall be glass block, mirrored, spandrel, frosted or other opaque glass, finishes or material including window painting and signs. The remaining 90% of window and door area shall be clear or slightly tinted glass, allowing views into and out of the interior. Study session meeting of February 11, 2019 (Item No. 6) Page 15 Title: Zoning regulations for ground floor transparency requirements 3. Active permitted uses, not including storage areas or utility closets, shall be maintained for a minimum depth of 15 feet. 4. Visibility into the space shall be maintained for a minimum depth of ten feet. This requirement shall not prohibit the display of merchandise. The Elmwood (1) Façade. The following façade design guidelines shall be applicable to all ground floor non-residential street-facing facades: a. Minimum ground floor transparency shall be 65% at the pedestrian level. b. No more than 10% of total window and door area shall be glass block, mirrored, spandrel, frosted or other opaque glass, finishes or material including window painting and signs. The remaining 90% of window and door area shall be clear or slightly tinted glass, allowing views into and out of the interior. c. Active permitted uses, not including storage areas or utility closets, shall be maintained for a minimum depth of 15 feet. d. Visibility into the space shall be maintained for a minimum depth of ten feet. This requirement shall not prohibit the display of merchandise. Bridgewater Bank Corporate Center (1) Façade. a. The following façade design guidelines shall be applicable to all ground floor street-facing facades: i. Minimum ground floor transparency shall be 70% at the pedestrian level. ii. No more than 10% of total window and door area shall be glass block, mirrored, spandrel, frosted or other opaque glass, finishes or material including window painting and signs. The remaining 90% of window and door area shall be clear or slightly tinted glass, allowing views into and out of the interior. iii. Active permitted uses shall be maintained for a minimum depth of 15 feet. Storage areas and utility closets are prohibited within this 15 feet. iv. Visibility into the space shall be maintained for a minimum depth of ten feet. This requirement shall not prohibit the display of merchandise. Form-Based Codes Draft Shop Front Ground Floor: 65% to 70% All other ground floors and building sides: 20% on street, 15% on visible side and rear St Paul, Minnesota (Traditional Neighborhoods) Door and window openings - minimum and character. (a) For new commercial and civic buildings, windows and doors or openings shall comprise at least fifty (50) percent of the length and at least thirty (30) percent of the area of the ground floor along arterial and collector street facades. (b) Windows shall be designed with punched and recessed openings, in order to create a strong rhythm of light and shadow. (c) Glass on windows and doors shall be clear or slightly tinted, and allow views into and out of the interior. Study session meeting of February 11, 2019 (Item No. 6) Page 16 Title: Zoning regulations for ground floor transparency requirements (d) Window shape, size and patterns shall emphasize the intended organization of the facade and the definition of the building. Minneapolis, Minnesota Transparency (pedestrian overlay): (a)Window area. At least forty (40) percent of the first floor façade of any nonresidential use that faces a public street or sidewalk shall be windows or doors of clear or lightly tinted glass that allow views into and out of the building at eye level. Windows shall be distributed in a more or less even manner. Minimum window area shall be measured between the height of two (2) feet and ten (10) feet above the finished level of the first floor. Portland, Oregon Transparency: (mixed-use districts) Window coverage requirements on key streets are 40% of ground floor area generally; and 60% of ground floor area in areas with the new Centers Main Street overlay zone. Seattle, Washington Design Guidelines: Street-Level Transparency: Ensure transparency of street-level uses (for uses such as nonresidential uses or residential lobbies), where appropriate, by keeping views open into spaces behind walls or plantings, at corners, or along narrow passageways. Choose semi-transparent rather than opaque screening. Boulder, Colorado Form Based Code Ground Story Transparency. Ground story transparency means the measurement of the percentage of the ground story facade that has highly transparent, low reflectance windows with a minimum sixty percent transmittance factor and a reflectance factor of not greater than 0.25. 75% ground commercial floors 20% all other floors Cincinnati, Ohio (a)Minimum Standard. Windows and transparent doors must be a minimum percentage of the street frontage, as specified in Schedule 1409-23 below. The percentage of the building's street elevation is measured between 2.5 feet and 7.0 feet in height above grade. Glass block, opaque or darkly tinted glass is not considered to be transparent. Refer to Figure 1409-23-A. Schedule 1409-23: Transparency Standard for Ground Floor Windows and Doors Street Transparency Percentage Each Street Frontage (lineal feet) Primary Street Secondary Street 40 or less 80 30 41—80 70 40 81 or more 60 50 Study session meeting of February 11, 2019 (Item No. 6) Page 17 Title: Zoning regulations for ground floor transparency requirements 3. Rules of Measurement a. Zone of Transparency The Zone of Transparency is the area between 2 feet and 9 feet above the finished upper surface of the floor of the Street Level across the entire street- facing Street Level building facade. See Figure 13.1-100. i. A building facade is “street-facing” if it faces a name or numbered street, which shall be determined by extending a line the width of the facade and perpendicular to it to the zone lot boundary. If any portion of said line touches the right-of-way of a name or numbered street at the zone lot boundary, then said facade is “street-facing.” See Figure 13.1-101. ii. The required amount of transparency shall be provided within the zone of transparency for the subject building, unless an exception or alternative is permitted by this Code. b. Street Level Transparency Street Level transparency, primary or side street, is measured as the total amount of linear feet of windows or permitted alternatives provided within the Zone of Transparency divided by the total length of that same street-facing building facade (including any open parking structure entrances). 4. Window Requirements Windows shall be provided to satisfy the transparency requirement, except where a transparency alternative is permitted. All windows used to satisfy the transparency requirement shall comply with the following: a. All windows shall be a minimum of 5 feet in vertical dimension within the zone of transparency; and. b. Window glazing shall be clear and shall transmit at least 65 percent of the visible daylight (visible transmittance shall be 0.65 or greater); and c. No interior or exterior modifications, including temporary and permanent signage, window tinting, furnishings, fixtures, equipment or stored items within 3 feet of the windows will be permitted to reduce the effective minimum transparency standards by more than 25%. Open display of individual merchandise is permitted. Denver, Colorado Meeting: Study session Meeting date: February 11, 2019 Written report: 7 Executive summary Title: Historic Walker Lake small area plan Recommended action: None at this time; this report is for information only. Policy consideration: None at this time. Please let staff know of questions you might have. Summary: Activation and revitalization efforts for Historic Walker Lake have been a city priority for several years. In October 2018, the city began a process to create a small area revitalization plan and design guidelines for the Historic Walker Lake study area. The small area plan will provide development concepts and project ideas that enhance the area’s identity, activity, appeal, and economic vitality. The study includes a parking analysis with land use and policy recommendations, and will include recommended design standards to regulate future investment that occurs in the area. The plan will also identify opportunities for public art, wayfinding and placemaking. Finally, the study will include an implementation plan that includes cost estimates and identifies potential funding sources. Since hiring the consultant, Asakura Robinson, in October, the city has hosted two community meetings and a business owner meeting for the Historic Walker Lake revitalization and small area plan. In addition, over 40 percent of area businesses and property owners have been surveyed to better inform the plan. Financial or budget considerations: None at this time. The small area plan funding was approved as part of the 2018 budget. Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to providing a broad range of housing and neighborhood oriented development. Supporting documents: Map of Historic Walker Lake study area Discussion Public meeting summary Nov. 14, 2018 (Available on the city’s website or for viewing in the city’s Community Development Department.) Existing conditions draft (Available on the city’s website or for viewing in the city’s Community Development Department.) Prepared by: Jennifer Monson, Planner Julie Grove, Economic Development Specialist Reviewed by: Sean Walther, Planning and Zoning Supervisor Karen Barton, Community Development Director Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Study session meeting of February 11, 2019 (Item No. 7) Page 2 Title: Historic Walker Lake small area plan Discussion Background: The city has hosted two community meetings and a business owner meeting for the Historic Walker Lake revitalization and small area plan, and conducted a survey of the business owners. The community meeting on November 14, 2018, was held at St. Louis Park’s Central Community Center to discuss the district’s strengths and weaknesses and share ideas for the future. Approximately 20 people were in attendance, including neighborhood representatives and business and property owners. A summary of previous planning efforts was presented, including the 2016 Activation Plan and the 2018 street infrastructure project that will be constructed in 2019 and 2020. The meeting presentation was recorded and is available on the city’s website. A summary of the meeting is also attached to this report. The outcome of that meeting was an existing conditions report highlighting the area’s history, previous planning efforts, planned transportation improvements including bikeways and Southwest Light Rail, a summary of the number of area businesses, a survey of the existing building supply and an analysis of the area. A second community meeting was held on February 5 at the Oak Hill II Office Building, in the west side of the study area, to review the draft community concepts and to provide strategies and develop ideas for implementation. Eight people attended the meeting, including six people who have not attended any previous meetings. The presentation included a summary of the existing conditions report, as well as ideas for future implementation. These ideas included a shared parking model for the district, building design standards for reinvestment and any redevelopment, a preliminary analysis on zoning issues, and ideas for implementation through a business association. The meeting presentation and discussion was recorded and will be placed on the city’s website. The meeting summary report will be added to the Historic Walker Lake webpage in the coming weeks. The feedback received at the meeting was very positive, though some concerns were expressed regarding possible gentrification as Historic Walker Lake becomes more vibrant. Support was voiced specifically for additional art opportunities including a theater and community gathering events and spaces. Due to the evening’s snowy weather, additional outreach opportunities are being explored for this phase of the plan. A group of area business and property owners gathered on December 19, 2018 to discuss their interest in starting a business association within the Historic Walker Lake area. Over 25 business and property owners were in attendance, and the overwhelming response from attendees was positive. Asakura Robinson and the city will be working with this group to further the discussions for a business association within the area as a means of implementation for the small area plan. Some business association outcomes may include cohesive marketing strategies for the district, better communication between existing and future businesses and building owners, a greater presence of businesses within the neighborhoods and St. Louis Park as a whole, and increased businesses opportunities within the district. Stakeholders are excited to further explore the possibility of a district business association. Additionally, Asakura Robinson has been surveying and completing face-to-face interviews with area business owners to learn more about business operations and individual buildings. 48 percent of the businesses in the area have been located in Historic Walker Lake for more than 20 years. Over 60 percent of businesses own their property, and while their space may not suit all of their needs today, they remain in the area because of the costs associated with relocating Study session meeting of February 11, 2019 (Item No. 7) Page 3 Title: Historic Walker Lake small area plan and either leasing, purchasing or constructing a new building. Nearly 50 percent of all businesses within Historic Walker Lake have been interviewed since October. Present considerations: The next phase of the plan will include more specific recommendations for design guidelines, wayfinding, public art locations and parking requirements. In addition, the city and Asakura Robinson have begun preliminary discussions of ways to retain affordable commercial space within the district. A third neighborhood meeting will be held in the coming month to gather additional feedback from surrounding neighborhoods and business and property owners in Historic Walker Lake, regarding the recommendations of the plan. Next steps: Staff will continue to update city council as the small area plan progresses. Following the third neighborhood meeting, Asakura Robinson and staff will present the plan to the planning commission and city council for their consideration. Additional steps will depend on the final plan recommendations, but are likely to include proposed amendments to the zoning ordinance, specifically relating to parking, use, building size, setbacks and massing requirements. Other Historic Walker Lake updates on Historic Walker Lake initiatives Business District Grant Application: Hennepin County is once again offering a Business District Initiative grant to help suburban cities enhance the economic vitality of priority business districts. Applications are due February 28th. Staff is submitting an application for the creation of a one-time facade improvement program in the Historic Walker Lake area. If the grant is awarded, the city will offer a matching grant to businesses and property owners in the Historic Walker Lake Business District for exterior façade improvements such as windows, doors, awnings, exterior restoration or painting, signage, etc. This program would aim to help revitalize and sustain the district by encouraging businesses and property owners to make lasting physical improvements. Hennepin County will award the grants in March or April 2019. If St. Louis Park is awarded a grant, staff will provide the council with a more detailed description of the façade grant program. Historic Walker Lake Business District Loan Program: Staff is finalizing a new, low-interest loan program designed to provide financial assistance to small business in the Historic Walker Lake Business District. The program aims to expand financing opportunities for local entrepreneurs while creating jobs and enhancing the vitality and character of the Historic Walker Lake area. More information on this program will be brought to the council in March. Historic Walker Lake Small Area Revitalization Plan Study Area LAKE ST WLIB R A R Y L N WALKER ST G O R H AM A V E BR O W N L O W A V ELOUIS IANA AVE S REP U B L I C A V E2ND ST NWIDA H O A V E S W O O D D A L E A V E 34TH ST W BRUNSWICK A VE SDAKOTA AVE SDAKOTA AVE S7 0 520 1,040260FeetSource: Community Development 2018 Study session meeting of February 11, 2019 (Item No. 7) Title: Historic Walker Lake small area plan Page 4 Meeting: Study session Meeting date: February 11, 2019 Written report: 8 Executive summary Title: TexaTonka reinvestment and small area plan Recommended action: None at this time. Please inform staff of any questions you may have. Policy consideration: None at this time. Summary: Paster Properties, a St. Louis Park owned and operated development company, purchased the TexaTonka Shopping Center and Texa-Tonka Lanes at the end of January 2019. Paster Properties intends to reinvest in the 1950’s shopping center by restoring the center to its original mid-century modern architecture. They will be removing the center portion of the building and will construct an outdoor courtyard with a solar canopy above. The parking lot will be repaved and additional landscaping will be added throughout the site. Construction is anticipated to start spring 2019; the developers will be working with tenants through the building upgrades. Texa-Tonka Lanes will remain as it currently is today for the immediate future. In addition, city staff will be undertaking a small area plan in 2019 for the commercial and vacant land near the intersection of Texas Avenue and Minnetonka Boulevard as the city anticipates further reinvestment in the TexaTonka commercial area in the coming years. The small area plan will likely include conceptual site plans, building plan scenarios, and design guidelines for the TexaTonka commercial areas, as well as a traffic study. Staff have met with neighborhood leaders from the TexaTonka and Aquila neighborhoods and have been in contact with residents from the Cobblecrest and Cedar Manor neighborhoods to discuss the small area plan and gather preliminary ideas and concerns for any future reinvestment and redevelopment. Staff will update council as the small area plan progresses, and further public input is received. Financial or budget considerations: None at this time. The funding for the small area plan was included in the 2019 budget. Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to providing a broad range of housing and neighborhood oriented development. Supporting documents: Images of TexaTonka Shopping Center TexaTonka small area plan study area Prepared by: Jennifer Monson, Planner Reviewed by: Sean Walther, Planning and Zoning Supervisor Karen Barton, Community Development Director Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Study session meeting of February 11, 2019 (Item No. 8) Page 2 Title: TexaTonka reinvestment and small area plan Existing conditions TexaTonka Shopping Center Reinvestment concepts TexaTonka Shopping Center – Paster Properties Study session meeting of February 11, 2019 (Item No. 8) Page 3 Title: TexaTonka reinvestment and small area plan Meeting: Study session Meeting date: February 11, 2019 Written report: 9 Executive summary Title: Council workshop follow-up Recommended action: No formal action requested. The purpose of this report is to provide the council with a summary of the systems thinking action plans from the annual workshop. Policy consideration: Is the city council in agreement with the next steps for the systems thinking action plans? Summary: The city council held its annual workshop on January 10 and 11 to discuss carver governance, SWOT results, complete the Intercultural Conflict Style Inventory (ICSI), discuss council norms and create systems thinking action plans for 2019. The attached systems thinking actions plans were completed by four groups consisting of staff and city council at the workshop on January 11. Next Steps: A follow up to the city council norms will be held March 18, 2019. In addition, staff and council will begin working on the 2019 system thinking action plans. Financial or budget considerations: N/A Strategic priority consideration: •St. Louis Park is committed to being a leader in racial equity and inclusion in order to create a more just and inclusive community for all. •St. Louis Park is committed to continue to lead in environmental stewardship. •St. Louis Park is committed to providing a broad range of housing and neighborhood oriented development. •St. Louis Park is committed to providing a variety of options for people to make their way around the city comfortably, safely and reliably. •St. Louis Park is committed to creating opportunities to build social capital through community engagement. Supporting documents: Discussion City council workshop- System Thinking Action Plan City council workshop minutes Prepared by: Maria Carrillo Perez, Management Assistant Reviewed by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Page 2 Study session meeting of February 11, 2019 (Item No. 9) Title: Council workshop follow-up Discussion Background: The city worked with Kay Adams from Umoja Collective to design and facilitate a workshop for the city council and key city staff. The goal of the workshop was to equip staff and council with tools to be a more effective team. The consultant led the group into a discussion on the increasing challenges facing local government. These challenges put increasing pressure on local government leaders to govern under volatile, uncertain, chaotic and ambiguous (VUCA) conditions. Examples of VUCA conditions include civil rights springs, uncertain tax revenues, staff retirements, increased citizen engagement, changing demographics, worsening disparities, aging infrastructures, the high rate of technological change and many more. Habits of a System Thinker is a tool created by the Waters Foundation that describes ways of thinking about how systems work and how actions impact results overtime. This tool helps individuals and groups by encouraging flexible thinking and appreciating different perspectives. The system thinker tool gives local government leaders a framework for dealing with VUCA conditions. City leaders must rely on system thinking skills to effectively and efficiently deliver city services to residents. This framework promotes teamwork and collaboration amongst city staff and council. The Habits of a System Thinker tool has fourteen (14) habits. For the purpose of the council workshop, the facilitator focused on four key habits. Four groups, consisting of staff and council, were tasked with completing a deep dive into a habit and developing an action plan around it. Using the ToP Facilitation Model, Kay Adams guided the group into developing possible initiatives/ideas for staff and council. All initiatives were posted and each participant voted on their favorite three (3) ideas. Each group then selected one of the top ideas to develop an action plan. The habit, idea and groups were divided into the following: Habit 1: Systems thinkers consider an issue fully and resist the urge to come to a quick conclusion. They take the time they need to fully understand the dynamics of a system/issue before taking action. Idea: Study sessions need to stay at the big bowl level, focused on ends not means. Group participants: Mayor Jake Spano, Councilmember Thom Miller, Director of Operations and Recreation (Cindy Walsh), Racial Equity Manager (Alicia Sojourner), and Chief Information Officer (Clint Pires). Habit 2: Systems thinkers consider the short-term, long-term and unintended consequences of actions. They look ahead and anticipate not only the immediate results but also the effects of actions taken today down the road. Idea: Continue to be responsive to constituents AND focus on the urgent and important. Group participants: Councilmember Steve Hallfin, Councilmember Margaret Rog, Management Assistant (Maria Carrillo Perez), Director of Engineering (Debra Heiser) and Fire Chief (Steve Koering). *Team 2 continued their work and completed their action plan on 2/4/2019. Page 3 Study session meeting of February 11, 2019 (Item No. 9) Title: Council workshop follow-up Habit 3: Systems thinkers change their perspectives to increase understanding. They actively search for different points of view and are able to change their minds as they learn about new perspectives. Idea: Hold council study session meeting in the community (city goes to the community not always the community goes to the City of St. Louis Park) Group participants: Councilmember Tim Brausen, Councilmember Anne Mavity, Director of Community Development (Karen Barton), Deputy City Manager (Nancy Deno), and Police Chief (Mike Harcey). Habit 4: Systems thinkers make meaningful connections within and between systems. They actively explore how relationships among pieces of a system affect their understanding of the whole. Idea: Public Process/Engagement: Right size community engagement process that insures inclusivity Group participants: Councilmember Rachel Harris, City Manager (Tom Harmening), Communications and Marketing Manager (Jacque Smith), Chief Financial Officer (Tim Simon) and Director of Inspections (Brian Hoffman). Each group was given time to develop an action plan on each idea and then tasked with presenting to the group. The detailed action plans are attached. Next steps: •Finalize and provide report to the city council on February 11, 2019 •Staff will work on completing the action plans •Communication and updates to the city council as needed •Check in with the city council on carver governance, norms and progress on action plans mid-year 2019 City Council Workshop- System Thinking Action Plan HABIT 1 Systems thinkers consider an issue fully and resist the urge to come to a quick conclusion. They take the time they need to fully understand the dynamics of a system/issue before taking action. HABIT 2 Systems thinkers consider the short- term, long-term and unintended consequences of actions. They look ahead and anticipate not only the immediate results but also the effects of actions taken today down the road. HABIT 3 Systems thinkers change their perspectives to increase understanding. They actively search for different points of view and are able to change their minds as they learn about new perspectives. HABIT 4 Systems thinkers make meaningful connections within and between systems. They actively explore how relationships among pieces of a system affect their understanding of the whole. Idea: Study sessions need to stay at the big bowl level, focused on ends not means. Idea: Continue to be responsive to constituents AND focus on the urgent and important. Idea: Hold council study session meeting in the community (city goes to the community not always the community goes to the City of St. Louis Park) Idea: Public Process/Engagement: Right size community engagement process that insures inclusivity Vision of success: o Staff reports written at big bowl level/ remove detail. o Staff reports call out the big bowl desired outcomes. o Session completes without discussion on small bowl details. o Staff and council feel policy direction is clear as session concludes. Responsibilities/Roles: o Staff writes report and verbally reports at the big bowl level. o Mayor facilitates at big bowl level. o City council self regulates. Timeframe: o Next study session meeting Next Steps: o January 14 session – council picked a topic for deep dive. Remainder would be at summary level. Accountability: o Regular check backs that are scheduled for evaluation. Vision of success: o Develop a template/guideline response (with flexibility for personalization) for use by the city council to help in responding to constituents for the following categories of requests: 1)Urgent (immediate action is needed) 2)Important (possible future agenda) 3)Not at this time/Parking lot 4)Out of scope of governance Responsibilities/Roles: o Staff develops template o Council Approves o Individual council members will make judgment calls on which guideline to use Timeframe: o Develop draft in March and have final by June 1. Next Steps: o Pilot- test- refine – scale up o Bring to council for feedback Accountability: o Formal report back at 2020 retreat (within one year), reflect throughout the year as needed Vision of success: o Discussion topics are aligned with locations (when possible). o More face to face connections and trusting relationships with residents o Transparency, building trust, enhanced community engagement, educational Responsibilities/Roles: o Staff will determine locations/details o Council is consulted Timeframe: o 2-3 meetings in 2019, 4 meetings in 2020 (one in each ward/quarterly) Next Steps: o Marketing and outreach to community o May need to re-think agenda’s and community participation o New organizers: outreach and ideas o Hold a meet and greet prior to meeting for community members to talk to council (social, more relaxed setting prior to meeting with food) Accountability: •Measure: # of offsite meetings, attendance (new faces and voices) •Survey – satisfaction (community/resident, staff, council) Vision of success: o Common understanding/language by council and staff of community engagement strategies Responsibilities/Roles: o Outreach staff, communications, other departments (based on topic/issue) o Council is consulted Timeframe: o Within the next year Next Steps: o Develop overall plan for approach o Consult with council o Roll out pilot testing “test, refine, scale up” Accountability: o Report back at 2020 retreat (within one year) Study session meeting of February 11, 2019 (Item No. 9) Title: Council workshop follow-up Page 4