The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2019/10/28 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - Study SessionAGENDA OCT. 28, 2019 6:30 p.m. STUDY SESSION – Community room Discussion items 1. 6:30 p.m. Future study session agenda planning and prioritization 2. 6:35 p.m. Electronic delivery devices/vaping products 3. 7:20 p.m. Notice of eviction 8:50 p.m. Communications/updates (verbal) 8:55 p.m. Adjourn Written reports 4. September 2019 monthly financial report 5. Third quarter investment report (July – Sept. 2019) 6. South Cedar Trails Homeowners Association Housing Improvement Area (HIA) 7. 2020 Zero Waste Packaging Acceptable Materials and Exemptions List and Administrative Rules report 8. Update - PLACE Via Sol and Via Luna projects 9. Zoning guidelines for ground floor street facing transparency requirements 10. Proposed rezoning of some C2 parcels to C1 11. Off-sale intoxicating liquor licenses 12. Community technology advisory commission update 13. Cable television franchise renewal needs assessment update 14. Municipal state aid system revisions 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: October 28, 2019 Discussion item: 1 Executive summary Title: Future study session agenda planning and prioritization Recommended action: The city council and city manager to set the agenda for the regularly scheduled study session on Nov. 12, 2019 and the special study session scheduled for Nov. 18, 2019. Policy consideration: Not applicable. Summary: This report summarizes the proposed agenda for the regularly scheduled study session on Nov. 12, 2019 and the special study session scheduled for Nov. 18, 2019. Also attached to this report is the study session discussion topics and timeline Financial or budget considerations: Not applicable. Strategic priority consideration: Not applicable. Supporting documents: Tentative agenda – Nov. 12 and 18, 2019 Study session discussion topics and timeline Prepared by: Debbie Fischer, administrative services office assistant Approved by: Tom Harmening, city manager Study session meeting of October 28, 2019 (Item No. 1) Page 2 Title: Future study session agenda planning and prioritization Nov. 12, 2019. 6:15 p.m. Special city council meeting – Community room 2a. Canvass results of the Municipal General Election held Nov. 5, 2019 6:30 p.m. Study session – Community room Tentative discussion items 1.Future study session agenda planning 2.2020 budget update – Administrative services (60 minutes) Staff will provide an update on the 2020 budget and the CIP 2020-2029. 3.Annual TIF district management plan – Administrative Services/Community Dev. (60 minutes) Annual review of development/redevelopment projects taking place in the city and overview of the TIF Districts. Stacie Kvilvang from Ehlers will be joining us for the review/overview. 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 4.Parkway residences EAW &PUD applications 5.Historic Walker Lake parking ordinance 6.2019 Connect the Park – Dakota South Bikeway (4019-2000) Nov. 18, 2019. Immediately following the city council meeting Special study session – Community room Tentative discussion items 1.Via PLACE update – Community development (45 minutes) PLACE will be providing a verbal update on the status both the Via Luna and Via Sol projects. Study session meeting of October 28, 2019 (Item No. 1) Page 3 Title: Future study session agenda planning and prioritization Study session discussion topics and timeline Priority Discussion topic Comments Timeline 1 Discuss public process expectations and outcomes Staff is working on the approach for undertaking this discussion. Jan. 27, 2020 2 Prioritizing transit options thru investments, and engineering and operations decisions SS discussion 10/21/19. Next steps: staff reach out to Metro Transit, bench company, and Met Council rep. TBD 3 Easy access to nature, across city, starting w/ low-income neighborhoods TBD 4 Westwood Hills Nature Center Access Fund *On hold pending direction from school district.*On hold 5 Election holiday discussion 4th Qtr. 6 SEED’s community green- house/resilient cities initiative *On hold until Food Access and Security study is complete, and recommendations have been made.*On hold 7 Community and neighborhood sidewalk designations 4th Qtr. 8 Revisit housing setback, FRA, and more to maintain and create more affordable housing TBD 9 Quarterly public forums at city council meetings SS discussion on 9/23/2019. December 2019 Accessory dwelling units/ home-based businesses SS discussion 6/10/2019. Referred to planning commission. Staff to prepare ADU ordinance for pc discussion Qtr. 3 2019. Home occupation-based businesses pc discussion Qtr. 4 2019 or Qtr. 1 2020 Qtr. 4 2019 and Qtr. 2 2020 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 updates 8/27/18; SS report 2/11/19; SS discussion 5/28/19, planning commission to review ordinances for implementation Qtr. 3 & 4 2019; construction of phase 1 completed Qtr. 4 2019 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 discussed on 3/25/19; Work group had 1st meeting in May, two meetings in June, one in July and August. Upcoming meetings on Sept 26, Oct 9, Oct 30. In process - Pending workgroup recommend- ation Immigration and 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 STEP discussion: facilities Discussed on 1/14/19; city, STEP & school toured Central Community Ctr and continuing discussions TBD Meeting: Study session Meeting date: October 28, 2019 Discussion item: 2 Executive summary Title: Electronic delivery devices/vaping products Recommended action: None at this time. The purpose of the study session is to provide the city council time to discuss a possible ban of electronic delivery devices commonly known as vaping products. NOTE: After further research city attorney Soren Mattick has concluded the council is not prohibited from adopting an ordinance that disallows the sale of vaping products in St. Louis Park. Mr. Mattick will attend the study session to discuss this matter further. Policy consideration: Does the city council need any further information on the sale of vaping products in the city? Summary: On October 14, 2019, the city council discussed the study session topic proposal of banning vaping products in the city due to the health risks that have emerged. There are currently twenty-one active licensed tobacco establishments in St. Louis Park. Of the licensed establishments, eight are currently selling electronic delivery devices. At least two national chains have announced that they are discontinuing the sale of e-cigarettes and vaporizers. In addition to the twenty-one licensed establishments, there is one pending license for West End Tobacco and Cigar. Based on ordinances adopted by the council in 2017, only persons 21 years and older can be sold tobacco products and no flavored products are allowed to be sold in the city. In addition, vaping delivery mechanisms or electronic delivery devices cannot be sold to anyone under 21. Enforcement of the tobacco license ordinance is done by the St. Louis Park police department. The department undertakes measures to test compliance in the first half of the year. If an establishment fails and commits a violation, they are warned and offered training. In the second half of the year, there is a second check where enforcement is taken on violations in the form of citations. Financial or budget considerations: Not applicable. Strategic priority consideration: Not applicable. Supporting documents: None Prepared by: Maria Solano, management assistant Reviewed by: Nancy Deno, deputy city manager/HR director Approved by: Tom Harmening, city manager Meeting: Study session Meeting date: October 28, 2019 Discussion item: 3 Executive summary Title: Notice of eviction Recommended action: None at this time. The purpose of this report is to review and discuss the impacts of a proposed strategy intended to promote tenant protection. Policy consideration: Does the council support a tenant protection policy requiring owners to provide a notice to tenants prior to filing an unlawful detainer eviction action for nonpayment of rent? Summary: At the March 25 study session staff reviewed a proposed Notice of Eviction policy to promote tenant protection for all rental residents in St. Louis Park. The implementation of a Notice of Eviction policy would require rental property owners/managers to provide a notice to tenants prior to the filing of an unlawful detainer eviction action for nonpayment of rent. Several questions were raised during the session prompting council to direct staff to return to a future study session for further discussion of the policy. Council also asked staff to arrange for representatives from organizations knowledgeable in tenant/management law and practices to attend the session and provide input on the impacts of the policy from both the tenant’s and the landlord’s perspectives. Attending the meeting to discuss the notice of eviction topic include representatives from HOMELine, Volunteer Lawyers Network & the Housing Court Project and Minnesota Multi-housing Association. Financial or budget considerations: Implementation and ongoing management and monitoring of these policies/programs will require additional city staff time, as well as direct costs related to educating rental property owners of the new requirements. Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to providing a broad range of housing and neighborhood oriented development. Supporting documents: Discussion Prepared by: Michele Schnitker, community development deputy director and housing supervisor Reviewed by: Karen Barton, community development director Approved by: Tom Harmening, city manager Study session Meeting of October 28, 2019 (Item No. 3) Page 2 Title: Notice of eviction Discussion Background: A bill was introduced this past legislative session that would have required that a notice be provided to tenants prior to filing an unlawful detainer eviction action. The notice is meant to ensure that residents are informed and aware of the consequences of unresolved financial obligations to the landlord that are in violation of the lease. The bill failed to obtain a hearing in the senate and did not move forward in the legislative session. Below is a local policy for council consideration that is similar to the legislative bill but more limited in scope. Notice of eviction/SLP Before bringing an unlawful detainer eviction action alleging a material breach of the lease for nonpayment of rent or other unpaid financial obligations, a landlord must provide written notice to the residential tenant specifying the allegations of nonpayment of rent or other unpaid financial obligations and must state the total amount due along with a specific accounting of the amount of the total due. The notice must be delivered personally or mailed to the residential tenant at the address of the leased premises. If the alleged material breach of the lease or the rent delinquency is not corrected within 14 days of the delivery or mailing of the notice, the landlord may proceed with filing a complaint based on any allegations in the notice. The landlord must attach a copy of the notice to the complaint. Staff has consulted the city’s legal counsel on the city’s authority to implement a notice prior to eviction requirement. Counsel’s opinion is that the city has the local authority to implement the new policy and impose new requirements but cautioned that there is always a risk that the city could be challenged. Next steps: Should city council direct staff to move forward with the policy, staff will initiate a process with local property owners to discuss the proposed ordinance and obtain feedback. Additionally, implementation of the notice of eviction policy will require a codification in the ordinance, most likely in the tenant protection ordinance. Staff will return to a future meeting to review the proposed ordinance. Meeting: Study session Meeting date: October 28, 2019 Written report: 4 Executive summary Title: September 2019 monthly financial report Recommended action: No action required at this time. Policy consideration: Monthly financial reports are part of our financial management policies. Summary: The monthly financial report provides an overview of general fund revenues and departmental expenditures and a comparison of budget to actual throughout the year. A budget to actual summary for the four utility funds is also included in this report. Financial or budget considerations: At the end of September, general fund expenditures were at approximately 72.2% of the adopted annual budget, which is about 2.8% under budget. Strategic priority consideration: Not applicable. Supporting documents: Discussion Summary of revenues and expenditures – general fund Budget to actual – enterprise funds Prepared by: Darla Monson, accountant Reviewed by: Tim Simon, chief financial officer Nancy Deno, deputy city manager/HR director Approved by: Tom Harmening, city manager Study session meeting of October 28, 2019 (Item No. 4) Page 2 Title: September 2019 monthly financial report Discussion Background: This monthly report provides summary information of the overall level of revenues and departmental expenditures in the general fund compared to the adopted budget throughout the year. A budget to actual summary for the four utility funds is also included in this report. Present considerations: General Fund Actual expenditures should generally be at 75% of the annual budget at the end of September. General Fund expenditures were under budget at 72.1% through September. Revenues are harder to measure in the same way due to the timing of when they are received, examples of which include property taxes, grants and State aid payments. Comments on specific variances are noted below. License and permit revenues have exceeded the annual budget because of several large commercial and multi-family permits that include PLACE, Bridgewater Bank, Yeshiva School, St. Louis Park School District, Westwood Lutheran Church, Elan West End Apartments, Urban Park Apartments, The Block restaurant, Aldi and the nature center. The Rec Center has an expenditure variance of about 4% that is normal after the summer months due to seasonal expenses for temporary staffing and pool expenses. Utility Funds The Water Fund is exceeding budgeted expenditures due to watermain repair work. Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Actual $2,885 $5,979 $8,957 $11,824 $15,327 $18,496 $22,069 $25,368 $28,214 Budget $3,257 $6,515 $9,772 $13,029 $16,287 $19,544 $22,801 $26,058 $29,316 $32,573 $35,830 $39,088 $0 $5,000 $10,000 $15,000 $20,000 $25,000 $30,000 $35,000 $40,000 $45,000 $ THOUSANDS Monthly Expenditures -General Fund Summary of Revenues & Expenditures - General Fund As of September 30, 2019 20192019201720172018201820192019BalanceYTD Budget Budget Audited Budget Audited BudgetYTD Sept Remaining to Actual %General Fund Revenues: General Property Taxes24,748,436$ 24,837,901$ 25,705,886$ 26,597,928$ 26,880,004$ 13,895,097$ 12,984,907$ 51.69% Licenses and Permits3,745,736 3,985,517 3,924,648 4,001,644 4,103,424 4,386,527 (283,103) 106.90% Fines & Forfeits254,200 293,236 269,200 282,146 279,700 216,202 63,498 77.30% Intergovernmental1,631,669 1,899,006 1,864,877 2,006,435 1,760,900 834,636 926,264 47.40% Charges for Services2,027,637 2,051,552 2,162,410 2,180,589 2,187,319 1,684,230 503,089 77.00% Rents & Other Misc 1,274,415 1,294,452 1,318,037 1,427,744 1,367,012 1,032,087 334,925 75.50% Transfers In1,899,927 1,951,218 1,929,090 1,929,076 1,999,877 1,462,408 537,469 73.12% Investment Earnings 140,000 125,984 160,000 251,494 180,000 135,535 44,465 75.30% Other Income30,450 54,303 40,950 35,802 31,300 34,613 (3,313) 110.58% Use of Fund Balance *58,541 - 523,835 298,156 64,801 233,355 21.73%Total General Fund Revenues35,811,011$ 36,493,169$ 37,898,933$ 38,712,858$ 39,087,692$ 23,746,137$ 15,341,555$ 60.75%General Fund Expenditures: General Government: Administration 1,049,123$ 1,056,796$ 1,341,606$ 1,340,282$ 1,837,620$ 1,157,560$ 680,060$ 62.99% Finance 957,275 924,832 978,752 964,036 1,034,199 765,886 268,313 74.06% Assessing707,139 652,015 759,865 710,715 772,746 556,242 216,504 71.98% Human Resources754,699 730,731 796,666 735,050 805,620 552,716 252,904 68.61% Community Development1,366,055 1,353,476 1,479,911 1,559,721 1,502,521 1,116,011 386,510 74.28% Facilities Maintenance1,132,774 1,128,339 1,162,342 1,223,109 1,170,211 802,477 367,734 68.58% Information Resources1,570,712 1,421,685 1,589,432 1,526,028 1,674,937 1,085,745 589,192 64.82% Communications & Marketing646,841 722,199 755,940 829,732 805,674 594,733 210,941 73.82% Community Outreach26,553 24,403 27,637 12,085 Engineering376,601 339,876 525,834 552,432 570,377 402,335 168,042 70.54%Total General Government8,587,772$ 8,354,352$ 9,417,985$ 9,453,190$ 10,173,905$ 7,033,704$ 3,140,201$ 69.13% Public Safety: Police9,217,988$ 9,255,342$ 9,930,681$ 9,877,014$ 10,335,497$ 7,760,305$ 2,575,192$ 75.08% Fire Protection4,407,656 4,319,457 4,657,973 4,630,520 4,813,078 3,509,098 1,303,980 72.91% Building 2,419,073 2,271,301 2,544,762 2,295,910 2,555,335 1,780,037 775,298 69.66%Total Public Safety16,044,717$ 15,846,100$ 17,133,416$ 16,803,444$ 17,703,910$ 13,049,441$ 4,654,469$ 73.71% Operations & Recreation: Public Works Administration266,249$ 245,942$ 230,753$ 208,050$ 290,753$ 181,218$ 109,535$ 62.33% Public Works Operations3,019,017 2,809,715 3,091,857 2,998,935 3,111,481 2,060,537 1,050,944 66.22% Organized Recreation1,472,996 1,470,613 1,582,490 1,499,780 1,579,569 1,189,921 389,648 75.33% Recreation Center1,744,651 1,856,529 1,860,755 2,004,937 1,949,657 1,546,552 403,105 79.32% Park Maintenance1,721,732 1,797,271 1,830,530 1,866,744 1,833,297 1,350,685 482,612 73.68% Westwood Nature Center602,400 572,942 622,346 599,704 643,750 453,457 190,293 70.44% Natural Resources550,235 430,995 559,662 376,359 484,784 321,754 163,030 66.37% Vehicle Maintenance1,384,038 1,088,375 1,253,367 1,210,279 1,242,236 934,031 308,205 75.19%Total Operations & Recreation10,761,318$ 10,272,383$ 11,031,760$ 10,764,788$ 11,135,527$ 8,038,154$ 3,097,373$ 72.18% Non-Departmental: General 31,909$ 31,859$ 43,422$ 52,421$ -$ -$ -$ 0.00% Transfers Out- 885,000 - 1,040,000 0.00% Council Programs198,000 110,105 0.00% Contingency385,295 188,254 74,350 24,440 74,350 92,803 (18,453) 124.82%Total Non-Departmental417,204$ 1,105,113$ 315,772$ 1,226,966$ 74,350$ 92,803$ (18,453)$ 124.82%Total General Fund Expenditures35,811,011$ 35,577,947$ 37,898,933$ 38,248,388$ 39,087,692$ 28,214,101$ 10,873,591$ 72.18%*Primarily related to E911 capital items from restricted fund balance.Study session meeting of October 28, 2019 (Item No. 4) Title: September 2019 monthly financial reportPage 3 Budget to Actual - Enterprise FundsAs of September 30, 2019 Current BudgetSept Year To DateBudget Variance% of BudgetCurrent BudgetSept Year To DateBudget Variance% of BudgetCurrent BudgetSept Year To DateBudget Variance% of BudgetCurrent BudgetSept Year To DateBudget Variance% of BudgetOperating revenues: User charges 6,857,853$ 4,282,705$ 2,575,148$ 62.45% 7,513,922$ 4,811,342$ 2,702,580$ 64.03% 3,409,250$ 2,016,000$ 1,393,250$ 59.13% 2,900,839$ 2,002,084$ 898,755$ 69.02% Other 375,750 500,454 (124,704) 133.19% 30,000 14,110 15,890 47.03% 153,500 84,234 69,266 54.88% - - Total operating revenues7,233,603 4,783,160 2,450,443 66.12% 7,543,922 4,825,452 2,718,470 63.96% 3,562,750 2,100,234 1,462,516 58.95% 2,900,839 2,002,084 898,755 69.02%Operating expenses: Personal services1,397,512 1,080,682 316,830 77.33% 717,237 643,696 73,541 89.75% 599,774 412,921 186,853 68.85% 807,245 488,090 319,155 60.46% Supplies & non-capital324,800 208,424 116,376 64.17% 68,600 15,175 53,425 22.12% 222,550 113,148 109,402 50.84% 12,500 2,150 10,350 17.20% Services & other charges1,736,196 1,663,876 72,320 95.83% 4,784,255 3,314,270 1,469,985 69.27%2,952,323 1,804,592 1,147,731 61.12% 325,903 349,513 (23,610) 107.24% Depreciation * Total operating expenses3,458,508 2,952,981 505,527 85.38% 5,570,092 3,973,140 1,596,952 71.33% 3,774,647 2,330,661 1,443,986 61.75% 1,145,648 839,753 305,895 73.30%Operating income (loss)3,775,095 1,830,178 1,944,917 48.48% 1,973,830 852,312 1,121,518 43.18% (211,897) (230,428) 18,531 108.75% 1,755,191 1,162,331 592,860 66.22%Nonoperating revenues (expenses): Interest income 15,172 15,172 0.00% 7,200 7,200 0.00% 18,100 18,100 0.00% 14,175 14,175 0.00% Debt issuance costs- - - - - - - Interest expense/bank charges(478,969) (467,595) (11,374) 97.63% (137,428) (84,936) (52,492) 61.80% (25,500) (11,631) (13,869) 45.61% (37,672) (25,447) (12,225) 67.55% Total nonoperating rev (exp)(463,797) (467,595) 3,798 100.82% (130,228) (84,936) (45,292) 65.22% (7,400) (11,631) 4,231 157.17% (23,497) (25,447) 1,950 108.30%Income (loss) before transfers3,311,298 1,362,583 1,948,715 41.15% 1,843,602 767,375 1,076,227 41.62% (219,297) (242,058) 22,761 110.38% 1,731,694 1,136,884 594,810 65.65%Transfers inTransfers out(620,034) (465,026) (155,009) 75.00% (848,335) (636,251) (212,084) 75.00% (241,057) (180,793) (60,264) 75.00% (332,165) (249,124) (83,041) 75.00%NET INCOME (LOSS)2,691,264 897,558 1,793,706 33.35% 995,267 131,124 864,143 13.17% (460,354) (422,851) (37,503) 91.85% 1,399,529 887,760 511,769 63.43%Items reclassified to bal sht at year end: Capital Outlay(5,383,474) (669,226) (4,714,248) 12.43% (1,530,238) (52,351) (1,477,887) 3.42%- - - (3,139,505) (47,690) (3,091,815) 1.52%Revenues over/(under) expenditures(2,692,210) 228,332 (2,920,542) (534,971) 78,773 (613,744) (460,354) (422,851) (37,503) (1,739,976) 840,070 (2,580,046) *Depreciation is recorded at end of year (non-cash item).Water SewerSolid WasteStorm WaterStudy session meeting of October 28, 2019 (Item No. 4) Title: September 2019 monthly financial reportPage 4 Meeting: Study session Meeting date: October 28, 2019 Written report: 5 Executive summary Title: Third quarter investment report (July – Sept. 2019) Recommended action: No action required at this time. Policy consideration: Reporting on investments quarterly is part of our financial management policies. Summary: The quarterly investment report provides an overview of the City’s investment portfolio, including the types of investments held, length of maturity and yield. Financial or budget considerations: The total portfolio value at September 30, 2019 is $58 million. Approximately $32.5 million is invested in longer term securities that include U.S. Treasury notes, Federal agency bonds, municipal debt securities and certificates of deposit. The remainder of the portfolio is held in money market accounts and commercial paper for the bond construction projects and cash flow needs between property tax settlements. The overall yield to maturity decreased to 2.09% from 2.23% the prior quarter as interest rates declined. Strategic priority consideration: Not applicable. Supporting documents: Discussion Investment portfolio summary Prepared by: Darla Monson, accountant Reviewed by: Tim Simon, chief financial officer Nancy Deno, deputy city manager/HR director Approved by: Tom Harmening, city manager Study session meeting of October 28, 2019 (Item No. 5) Page 2 Title: Third quarter investment report (July – Sept. 2019) Discussion Background: The City’s investment portfolio is focused on short term cash flow needs and investment in longer term securities. This is done in accordance with Minnesota Statute 118A and the City’s investment policy objectives of: 1) Preservation of capital; 2) Liquidity; and 3) Return on investment. Present considerations: The portfolio value decreased during the thrid quarter to $58 million at September 30, 2019 from $67.4 million at June 30, 2019. Approximately $3.5 of bond proceeds were spent during the quarter on projects in progress. Cash was also needed for the semi- annual debt service and pay as you go TIF note payments due August 1, in addition to the summer pavement management area street project. The overall yield of the portfolio decreased to 2.09%, compared to 2.23% at June 30. This is the combined yield including both cash held in money market accounts and long-term investments, and interest rates on both declined during the quarter. Cities will typically use a benchmark such as the two year Treasury (1.63% on Sept. 30, 2019) or a similar measure for yield comparison of their overall portfolio. There was approximately $16.5 million in money market accounts at the end of the quarter for cash flow purposes for construction contract payments, payroll and on-going operating expenses until the next tax settlement in early December. Money market rates decreased by about .25% from the prior quarter to between 1.83% - 1.98%. Approximately $8 million of the 2019 bond proceeds are invested in very short-term commercial paper securities set to mature incrementally to fund projected construction costs for the nature center and Cedar Lake Road projects. There is also a $1 million commercial paper investment of operating cash that matures in early 2020. Commercial paper are promissory notes issued by banks and large corporations and usually have higher rates than money market accounts for investing cash in the shorter term. Rates on the four commercial paper securities in the portfolio range from 2.09% - 2.24% and mature within 90 days. Another $1.9 million of the portfolio is invested in certificates of deposit. There are 8 CD’s in the portfolio, each with a face value of $245,000 or less, which guarantees that each CD is insured by the FDIC up to $250,000. The rates range between 1.75% - 2.3%. Four CD’s matured during the quarter and 2 more will mature by the end of the year. The remaining $30.6 million of the portfolio is invested in other long-term securities which include municipal bonds ($2.3 mil), Federal agency bonds ($8.3 mil) and U.S. Treasury notes ($20 mil). Municipal bonds are issued by states, local governments, or school districts to finance special projects. Agency bonds are issued by government agencies such as the Federal Home Loan Bank and Fannie Mae and may have call dates where they can be called prior to final maturity. Rates on treasury notes purchased for the portfolio have dropped about .25% since June. Study session meeting of October 28, 2019 (Item No. 5) Title: Third quarter investment report (July – Sept. 2019) This table is a summary of the City’s portfolio at September 30, 2019: Next steps: None at this time. 6/30/19 9/30/19 <1 Year 55% 52% 1-2 Years 16% 18% 2-3 Years 14% 12% 3-4 Years 13% 13% >4 Years 2% 5% 6/30/19 9/30/19 Money Markets/Cash $17,242,159 $16,532,615 Commercial Paper $15,266,157 $8,927,315 Certificates of Deposit $2,841,941 $1,884,535 Municipal Debt $3,453,645 $2,322,487 Agencies/Treasuries $28,582,216 $28,342,553 Page 3 City of St. Louis Park Investment Portfolio Summary September 30, 2019 Institution/Broker Investment Type CUSIP Maturity Date Yield To Maturity Par Value Market Value at 9/30/2019 Estimated Avg Annual Income Citizens Indep Bank Money Market 0.17%1,474 1,474 3 4M Liquid Asset Money Market 1.83%1,248,468 1,248,468 22,847 4M Plus Money Market 1.91%3,023,265 3,023,265 57,744 4M Liquid Asset Money Market (bond proceeds)1.83%86,515 86,515 1,583 4M Plus Money Market (bond proceeds)1.91%3,442,619 3,442,619 65,754 UBS Institutional Money Market 1.98% 2,997,157 2,997,157 59,344 UBS Institutional Money Market (bond proceeds)1.98% 5,733,117 5,733,117 113,516 16,532,615 UBS Comm Paper - Natixis NY Branch (bond proceeds) 63873KXN2 10/22/2019 2.24% 3,000,000 2,996,130 67,200 UBS Comm Paper - MUFG Bank Ltd NY (bond proceeds) 62479MYC1 11/12/2019 2.09% 1,950,000 1,945,145 40,755 UBS Comm Paper - Banco Santander (bond proceeds) 05971SYE6 11/14/2019 2.14% 3,000,000 2,992,140 64,200 PFM Comm Paper - MUFG Bank Ltd NY 62479LAD7 01/13/2020 2.11% 1,000,000 993,900 21,100 8,927,315 PFM CD - Capital One Bank VA 140420PS3 10/08/2019 2.10% 240,000 240,010 5,040 PFM CD - State Bk India IL 856283XJ0 10/15/2019 2.10% 240,000 240,019 5,040 PFM CD - Goldman Sachs Bank NY 38148JHB0 01/14/2020 2.20% 240,000 240,216 5,280 PFM CD - Amer Express UT 02587DXE3 01/30/2020 1.95% 240,000 240,074 4,680 PFM CD - Camden Nat'l Bank ME 133033DR8 02/26/2020 1.80% 240,000 240,178 4,320 PFM CD - Private Bank & Tr IL 74267GVA2 02/27/2020 1.75% 240,000 240,230 4,200 PFM CD - World's Foremost Bk NE 9159919E5 08/06/2020 2.30% 200,000 197,676 4,600 PFM CD - Comenity Cap Bk UT 20033AND4 10/13/2020 2.00% 245,000 246,132 4,900 1,884,535 PFM Muni Debt - Connecticut St 20772JKN1 10/15/2020 1.78% 1,000,000 1,001,610 17,800 PFM Muni Debt - California St 13063DGA0 04/01/2021 2.80% 450,000 456,548 12,600 PFM Muni Debt - MN State Txble GO 60412ASE4 08/01/2022 1.76% 200,000 205,814 3,520 PFM Muni Debt - San Jose CA Txbl GO 798135H51 09/01/2023 2.13% 650,000 658,515 13,845 2,322,487 PFM FNMA 3135G0T60 07/30/2020 1.60%1,250,000 1,246,600 20,000 PFM US Treasury Note 912828L32 08/31/2020 1.09% 600,000 597,420 6,540 PFM FHLB 3130ACE26 09/28/2020 1.48% 575,000 572,378 8,510 PFM FHLMC 3137EAEJ4 09/29/2020 1.69% 530,000 528,797 8,957 PFM FHLMC 3137EAEK1 11/17/2020 1.91% 800,000 800,824 15,280 PFM US Treasury Note 912828N48 12/31/2020 1.02% 150,000 149,901 1,530 PFM US Treasury Note 912828N48 12/31/2020 1.12% 750,000 749,505 8,400 PFM Freddie Mac 3137EAEL9 02/16/2021 2.47% 800,000 806,472 19,760 PFM Fannie Mae 3135G0U27 04/13/2021 2.55% 500,000 505,955 12,750 PFM US Treasury Note 912828Q78 04/30/2021 1.86% 250,000 248,623 4,650 PFM US Treasury Note 912828Q78 04/30/2021 1.87% 675,000 671,281 12,623 PFM US Treasury Note 912828R77 05/31/2021 2.02% 1,600,000 1,591,008 32,320 PFM Fannie Mae 3135G0U35 06/22/2021 2.76% 700,000 712,411 19,320 PFM FHLB Global 3130A8QS5 07/14/2021 1.25% 750,000 742,733 9,375 PFM US Treasury Note 912828D72 08/31/2021 1.73% 650,000 654,011 11,245 PFM US Treasury Note 912828D72 08/31/2021 1.85% 1,150,000 1,157,096 21,275 PFM FHLB 3130AF5B9 10/12/2021 3.02% 750,000 769,883 22,650 PFM US Treasury Note 912828T67 10/31/2021 1.72% 700,000 694,316 12,040 PFM US Treasury Note 912828T67 10/31/2021 1.64% 575,000 570,331 9,430 PFM US Treasury Note 912828T67 10/31/2021 1.85% 200,000 198,376 3,700 PFM FNMA 3135G0U92 01/11/2022 2.65% 400,000 408,544 10,600 PFM US Treasury Note 912828X47 04/30/2022 2.12% 500,000 503,380 10,600 PFM US Treasury Note 912828X47 04/30/2022 2.18% 800,000 805,408 17,440 PFM US Treasury Note 912828X47 04/30/2022 2.69% 1,300,000 1,308,788 34,970 PFM US Treasury Note 912828TJ9 08/15/2022 2.76% 1,050,000 1,051,397 28,980 PFM US Treasury Note 912828N30 12/31/2022 3.00% 950,000 966,217 28,500 PFM US Treasury Note 912828N30 12/31/2022 2.78% 1,000,000 1,017,070 27,800 PFM US Treasury Note 912828N30 12/31/2022 2.51% 2,550,000 2,593,529 64,005 PFM US Treasury Note 912828N30 12/31/2022 2.55% 1,675,000 1,703,592 42,713 PFM US Treasury Note 912828R69 05/31/2023 2.53% 1,000,000 1,001,949 25,300 PFM US Treasury Note 912828R69 05/31/2023 1.83% 350,000 350,684 6,405 PFM US Treasury Note 912828T91 10/31/2023 1.78% 1,225,000 1,227,634 21,805 PFM US Treasury Note 912828T91 10/31/2023 1.55% 250,000 250,537 3,875 PFM Fannie Mae 3135G0V34 02/05/2024 2.58% 475,000 492,908 12,255 PFM FHLB 3130AFW94 02/13/2024 2.58% 500,000 518,945 12,900 PFM FHLB 3130AGWK7 08/15/2024 1.55% 175,000 174,055 2,713 28,342,553 GRAND TOTAL 58,009,505 1,211,085 Current Portfolio Yield To Maturity 2.09% Study session meeting of October 28, 2019 (Item No. 5) Title: Third quarter investment report (July – Sept. 2019)Page 4 Meeting: Study session Meeting date: October 28, 2019 Written report: 6 Executive summary Title: South Cedar Trails Homeowners Association Housing Improvement Area (HIA) Recommended action: No action at this time. This report is an update on the South Cedar Trails Homeowners Association’s request for the city to establish a South Cedar Trails HIA. Policy consideration: The city is authorized by the state to establish HIA’s as a finance tool for private housing improvements. The city adopted the HIA policy in 2001 (see attached) Summary: The South Cedar Trails Homeowners Association (association) is a 32-unit townhome development built in 1977. The townhomes are located on the south side of Cedar Lake Rd just west of Sabes Jewish Community Center. The association contacted the city in April 2019 to learn more about the HIA tool and requirements. Assistant Housing Supervisor, Marney Olson, attended the May 29, 2019 association meeting to give an HIA overview to members of the association. At the June 26, 2019 meeting the association voted on requesting the city establish an HIA and the vote was 32-0. Since that time the association board has been working with the city on the application requirements and hired a consultant to complete a reserve study. The association is finalizing the application and following the complete submittal of the application will be requesting the city council hold a public hearing to consider establishing the South Cedar Trails HIA. The association needs many improvements to the property as there has been limited maintenance for the past 18 years. The buildings require new roofing and siding and in order to meet the deadline for insurance to cover half of the cost, the association is moving forward with this work and has approved an assessment to homeowners separate from the HIA. At this time the HIA request is expected to include: parking lot, landscaping and drainage, fencing, garage doors, and windows in some of the units. The estimated loan amount is $800,000. Next steps: Upon receipt of the completed application city staff and the city’s financial advisor, Ehlers and Associates, will review the application to determine if the application meets the HIA policy and intentions of the statute. The association will request the city council hold a public hearing to consider establishing the South Cedar Trails HIA. Financial or budget considerations: Once the final application is received staff will determine the appropriate method for funding the project if approved by council. Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to providing a broad range of housing and neighborhood oriented development. Supporting documents: Housing Improvement Area (HIA) policy Prepared by: Marney Olson, assistant housing supervisor Reviewed by: Karen Barton, community development director Approved by: Tom Harmening, city manager Study session meeting of October 28, 2019 (Item No. 6) Page 2 Title: South Cedar Trails Homeowners Association Housing Improvement Area (HIA) CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK HOUSING IMPROVEMENT AREA POLICY 1.PURPOSE 1.01 The purpose of this policy is to establish the City's position relating to the use of Housing Improvement Area (HIA) financing for private housing improvements. This policy shall be used as a guide in processing and reviewing applications requesting HIA financing. 1.02 The City shall have the option of amending or waiving sections of this policy when determined necessary or appropriate. 2. AUTHORITY 2.01 The City of St. Louis Park has the authority to establish HIAs under 1994 Minnesota Laws, Chapter 587, Article 9, Section 22 through 3 1, and extended in 2000, M.S. 428A.21 2.02 Within a HIA, the City has the authority to: A. Make housing improvements B. Levy fees and assessments C. Issue bonds to pay for improvements 2.03 The City Council has the authority to review each HIA petition, which includes scope of improvements, association’s finances, long term financial plan, and membership support. 3. ELIGIBLE USES OF HIA FINANCING 3.01 As a matter of adopted policy, the City of St. Louis Park will consider using HIA financing to assist private property owners only in those circumstances in which the proposed private projects address one or more of the following goals: A. To promote neighborhood stabilization and revitalization by the removal of blight and/or the upgrading of the existing housing stock in a neighborhood. B.To correct housing or building code violations as identified by the City Building Official. C.To maintain or obtain FHA mortgage eligibility for a particular condominium or townhome association or single-family home within the designated HIA. D. To increase or prevent the loss of the tax base of the City in order to ensure the long-term ability of the City to provide adequate services for its residents. E.To stabilize or increase the owner-occupancy level within a neighborhood or association. Study session meeting of October 28, 2019 (Item No. 6) Page 3 Title: South Cedar Trails Homeowners Association Housing Improvement Area (HIA) F. To meet other uses of public policy, as adopted by the City of St. Louis Park from time to time, including promotion of quality urban design, quality architectural design, energy conservation, decreasing the capital and operating costs of local government, etc. 4. HIA APPROVAL CRITERIA 4.01 All HIA financed through the City of St. Louis Park should meet the following minimum approval criteria. However, it should not be presumed that a project meeting these criteria would automatically be approved. Meeting these criteria creates no contractual rights on the part of any association. A. The project must be in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinances, or required changes to the Plan and Ordinances must be under active consideration by the City at the time of approval. B. The HIA financing shall be provided within applicable state legislative restrictions, debt limit guidelines, and other appropriate financial requirements and policies. C. The project should meet one or more of the above adopted HIA Goals of the City of St. Louis Park. D. The term of the HIA should be the shortest term possible while still making the annual fee affordable to the association members. The term of any bonds or other debt incurred for the area should mature in 20 years or less. E. The association in a HIA should provide adequate financial guarantees to ensure the repayment of the HIA financing and the performance of the administrative requirements of the development agreement. Financial guarantees may include, but are not limited to the pledge of the association's assets including reserves, operating funds and/or property. F. The proposed project, including the use of HIA financing, should be supported by a majority of the owners within the association. The association should include the results of a membership vote along with the petitions to create the area. G. The Association must have adopted a financial plan that provides for the Association to finance maintenance and operation of the common elements within the Association and a long-range plan to conduct and finance capital improvements therein, which does not rely upon the subsequent use of the HIA tool. H. HIA financial assistance is last resort financing and should not be provided to projects that have the financial feasibility to proceed without the benefit of HIA financing. Evidence that the association has sought other financing for the project should be provided and should include an explanation and verification that an assessment by the Study session meeting of October 28, 2019 (Item No. 6) Page 4 Title: South Cedar Trails Homeowners Association Housing Improvement Area (HIA) association is not feasible along with letters from private lenders or other evidence indicating a lack of financing options. I. The homeowner's association must be willing to enter into a development agreement, which may include, but is not limited to, the following terms: establishment of a reserve fund staffing requirements annual reporting requirements conditions of disbursement required dues increases notification to new owners of levied fees J. The improvements financed through the HIA should primarily be exterior improvements and other improvements integral to the operation of the project, e.g. boilers. In the case of a homeowner's association, the improvements should be restricted to common areas. The improvements must be of a permanent nature. The association must have a third party conduct a facility needs assessment to determine and prioritize the scope of improvements. K. HIA financing should not be provided to those projects that fail to meet good public policy criteria as determined by the Council, including: poor project quality; projects that are not in accord with the Comprehensive Plan, zoning, redevelopment plans, and the City policies; projects that provide no significant improvement to the neighborhood and/or the City; and projects that do not provide a significant increase in the tax base and/or prevent the loss of tax base. L. The financial structure of the project should receive a favorable review by the City's Financial Advisor and Bond Counsel. The review will include a review of performance and level of outstanding debt of previous HIAs. M. The average market value of units in the association should not exceed the maximum home purchase price for existing homes under the State’s first-time homebuyer program. (In 2001, the metro amount is $175,591) N. The association is to submit an application along with application fee as set from time to time by resolution of the City Council. Adopted by the City of St. Louis Park on the 16th day of July 2001. Meeting: Study session Meeting date: October 28, 2019 Written report: 7 Executive summary Title: 2020 Zero Waste Packaging Acceptable Materials and Exemptions List and Administrative Rules report Recommended action: None at this time. This report provides staff’s recommendations for the 2020 acceptable materials, exemptions and administrative rules. The City Council will be asked to take action on this item at the November 18 City Council meeting. Policy consideration: Does council support staff’s recommendation for the 2020 Acceptable Materials and Exemption List and Administrative Rules? Summary: The Zero Waste Packaging ordinance went into effect on January 1, 2017. Each year staff review items that should be temporarily exempt (allowed), even though they are not recyclable or compostable, as well as administrative rules to guide implementation of the ordinance. In 2019, there were three items on the exempt list. Staff recommends keeping those exemptions and adding two other material types due to a significant shift in compliant product availability. The reasons for each exemption are provided in the discussion. Existing exemptions – recommend to keep 1. Paper food wraps and liners (e.g. fast food wrappers) 2. Asian takeout pails (plastic-lined, fold-top style paper) 3. Portion cups and lids (rigid polystyrene #6, two ounce or smaller) New exemptions – recommend to add 4. Modeled fiber products (e.g. clamshells, containers, bowls, etc.) 5. Paper plates The proposed 2020 Administrative Rules keep in effect the 2019 rules for catering on city property and remove two rules which were incorporated directly into the ordinance during the amendment process in June 2019. Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to continue to lead in environmental stewardship. Supporting documents: Discussion 2020 Zero Waste Packaging Acceptable Materials and Exemptions List 2020 Administrative Rules Prepared by: Emily Barker, solid waste specialist Reviewed by: Kala Fisher, solid waste manager Mark Hanson, public works superintendent Cynthia S. Walsh, director of operations and recreation Approved by: Tom Harmening, city manager City council meeting of October 28, 2019 (Item No. 7) Page 2 Title: 2020 Zero Waste Packaging Acceptable Materials and Exemptions List and Administrative Rules report Discussion Background: The Zero Waste Packaging (ZWP) ordinance went into effect on January 1, 2017. The ordinance requires that restaurants and food trucks utilize packaging that is recyclable or compostable. It also requires that restaurants with seating have appropriate waste disposal options for items used on-site (in-house). Since 2017, city staff have prepared a list of temporarily exempt items that are not recyclable or compostable, but which are being allowed due to limited compliant alternatives. In addition, administrative rules are written to clarify certain aspects of the ordinance. These are reviewed annually and presented to council. Present considerations: In preparation for 2020, staff have reviewed the current temporary exemptions and administrative rules and are proposing changes to both. Exemptions For 2020, staff proposes to keep the three material exemptions from 2019 and add two additional material categories. The exemptions, and reasoning, are as follows: 1. Paper food wraps and liners: These are commonly used to line reusable food baskets and wrap items such as sandwiches, burgers and tacos. They are not compostable due to various grease barriers, which may be plastic, foil or chemical. Most options that would be compostable do not offer the same grease resistance or leak-proof properties. Given the lack of compostable options, staff recommend they continue to be exempted. 2. Asian takeout pails: These plastic-lined, fold-top style paper containers are an industry standard for many Asian restaurants, including several in St. Louis Park. In the past, staff had identified two options meeting the compostable requirement, but both had very limited availability through special order requiring high quantity purchases, so the decision was made to exempt these items. In 2019 staff learned that one of those options lost its third-party verification for compostability, limiting availability further. Given the lack of a compostable version of these pails, staff recommend they continue to be exempted. There has been a request made to remove this exemption. The following is the timeline of that request and staff response. • April 2019: During the ordinance amendment process, a request was made by Zero Waste West Metro Minnesota (ZWWMM), a local advocacy group, to remove the exemption. Staff noted the request and explained the discussion would be revisited in the fall during the normal exemption review process. • June 2019: A petition created by ZWWMM was given to Mayor Spano with signatures from 24 restaurants, also requesting the change. On June 27, city staff sent a letter to 21 of the businesses (three were outside St. Louis Park) informing them of the city’s exemption process and the opportunity to provide additional comments in the fall. • September 2019: On September 27, an email soliciting feedback on existing exemptions or requests for new exemptions was sent to the city’s Zero Waste Packaging email list, which included any petition signers that provided email. It is important to note that no additional comments were received regarding the pails. City council meeting of October 28, 2019 (Item No. 7) Page 3 Title: 2020 Zero Waste Packaging Acceptable Materials and Exemptions List and Administrative Rules report • October 2019: On October 17, staff met with representatives from ZWWM to share the staff recommendation to continue the exemption. Staff also contacted restaurants in town that may be impacted by the removal of the exemption; seven of the ten utilize these pails and the majority of them are small businesses. There are approximately 115 restaurants total in the city. 3. Portion cups (two ounce or smaller) and lids: While compliant alternatives exist for the rigid polystyrene (#6, PS) portion cups, they have several limitations. • Recyclable options – available, but recyclability is limited due to food contamination and size. If these cups aren’t clean (as is often the case when used for condiments) they are too dirty to recycle. Additionally, small items like portion cups are difficult for recycling facilities to sort properly, often ending up in the trash or as a contaminant in glass. • Compostable – available, but functionality varies depending on use. Many compostable plastics cannot be used for hot condiments, such as nacho cheese. 4. Molded fiber products: As you may have heard, many of the molded fiber compostable products currently on the market will be losing their third-party certification through BPI, effective January 1, 2020. This is due to a class of chemicals called perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), or fluorinated chemicals, which are used to provide moisture and grease resistance. Examples of these products include clamshells, salad bar containers and bowls. These are being used in many local restaurants that are affected by the ZWP ordinance. Given this situation and the lack of replacement products which will meet compostable standards by the start of 2020, staff recommends a new temporary exemption on these products. The issue of PFAS has been growing over the last few years. BPI made the decision to end certification for any products which have intentionally added PFAS or have levels over 100 ppm total fluorine when tested. City staff have reached out to product manufacturers to gather more information on how they are responding to this loss of certification. Several are in the process of developing PFAS-free products, but few, if any, will be widely available by the start of 2020. In September, city staff convened a meeting with individuals from the City of Minneapolis, City of St. Paul, Hennepin County, Minnesota Department of Health (MDH), Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and Specialized Environmental Technologies (the compost facility where city curbside organics are processed) to discuss the issue and how the various entities could work together in addressing the challenges presented by PFAS in food packaging. MDH provided background on PFAS for the group, and discussion followed on strategies that could be taken. The consensus was to allow the non-certified items to be used for 2020, under an exemption, with the assumption that the manufacturers will have products available in the near future. This approach seeks to limit disruption for businesses and residents, but also closely monitors product developments. City staff intend to stay in regular contact with product manufacturers, third-party certification/approval programs, the compost facility and other local government entities during this time. City council meeting of October 28, 2019 (Item No. 7) Page 4 Title: 2020 Zero Waste Packaging Acceptable Materials and Exemptions List and Administrative Rules report 5. Paper plates: For the same reason as molded fiber products, this exemption would apply to any paper plate. This exemption would not extend to polystyrene (#6) foam plates. It will continue to be a requirement that a food establishment utilizing any of the exempt materials must inform customers that the items are not recyclable or compostable. The business must clearly indicate to customers that the items must be placed in the garbage. This shall be done in print, such as on menus, posted signage or directly on the packaging. Administrative Rules Updates made to Chapter 12 during the ordinance amendment process earlier in 2019 added two of the previous administrative rules directly to the ordinance. Therefore, only one rule will remain for 2020. • As in 2019, for any catering taking place at city-owned facilities where organics and recycling collection containers are available, caterers who provide single-use food service items will need to ensure they follow the ordinance. This applies to city-sponsored events or private events. This same expectation has been in place for food trucks from the beginning and is a reasonable expectation for catering at city-owned facilities. This will ensure that event locations such as the ROC, the Rec Center, City Hall and Westwood Hills Nature Center are minimizing trash generated during events. Catering activities which take place on private property or at city-owned facilities without organics and recycling will be exempt from the ordinance. 2020 changes to the ordinance which enhance our ordinance In addition, staff wish to note the following changes to the ordinance which were adopted in 2019. While these are separate from the annual exemption process, they will also take effect in 2020. • Effective January 1 for all food establishments o Compostable utensils: Food establishments will be required to utilize compostable utensils, when not providing reusable options. o Straws by request: Food establishments shall no longer provide straws to customers, unless requested. A front-of-house straw dispenser or other self-serve setup will meet the requirement of the ordinance. • Effective January 1 for food trucks and July 1 for all other food establishments o Compostable cup labeling: Food establishments will need to ensure that all compostable cups and containers are labeled to indicate compostability. o Cup and container lids: Food establishments will need to ensure that lids used for compostable cups and containers are compostable and lids used for recyclable cups and containers are recyclable. Next steps: Staff will be presenting the Acceptable Materials and Exemption list and Administrative Rules as an action item for council approval consideration on November 18, 2019. Once approved, they will be shared with impacted businesses. St. Louis Park Public Works Division • 7305 Oxford St., St. Louis Park, MN 55426 www.stlouispark.org • Phone: 952.924.2562 • Fax: 952.924.2560 • TTY: 952.924.2518 Attachment 1 Zero Waste Packaging Ordinance 2020 Acceptable Materials and Exemption List Acceptable materials Pursuant to subsection 12-205 of the ordinance, the public works division has developed the following list of packaging materials that meet the ordinance provisions for 2020. Recyclable packaging – The following materials meet the definition for recyclable packaging under subsection 12-202 of the ordinance. 1.Plastic a.Polyethylene Terephthalate (#1 PET or PETE) b.High Density Polyethylene (#2 HDPE) c.Polypropylene (#5 PP) 2.Metal a. Aluminum (foil and containers) Compostable packaging – The following materials meet the definition for compostable packaging in subsection 12-202 of the ordinance. 1.Third-party verified compostable products – must be BPI Certified Compostable, Cedar Grove Accepted or Compost Manufacturing Alliance Approved. Temporarily exempt materials Pursuant to subsection 12-205 and 12-206 of the ordinance, the public works division has developed the following list of packaging materials that do not meet the definition for zero waste packaging in subsection 12-202. However, due to the limited alternatives currently available, these items are temporarily exempt from this ordinance and acceptable through December 31, 2020. 1.Paper food wraps (e.g. fast food wrappers) 2.Asian takeout pails: plastic-lined paper, fold-top style 3.Portion cups (two ounce or smaller) and lids: rigid polystyrene (#6, PS) 4.Molded fiber products (e.g. clamshells, containers, bowls, etc.) 5.Paper plates Food establishments that choose to utilize temporarily exempt items must provide information to customers to clearly indicate these items cannot be recycled or composted and must be placed in the garbage. This must be done in print, for example on menus, posted signage or directly on the packaging. Study session meeting of October 28, 2019 (Item No. 7) Title: 2020 Zero Waste Packaging Acceptable Materials and Exemptions List and Administrative Rules report Page 5 St. Louis Park Public Works Division • 7305 Oxford St., St. Louis Park, MN 55426 www.stlouispark.org • Phone: 952.924.2562 • Fax: 952.924.2560 • TTY: 952.924.2518 Attachment 2 Zero Waste Packaging Ordinance Administrative Rules City Code Ch. 12, Article VI Effective January 1, 2020 1.Catering activities Section 12-202 defines food establishments by using the Hennepin County Code of Ordinances, Chapter 3.3.1. Caterers are included in this definition and are thus required to comply with the ordinance. However, due to the fact that catering is often provided by licensed food establishments from outside the city at event locations that are not normally impacted by the ordinance, the public works division created an administrative rule temporarily exempting catering activities. Most catering activities occurring in the City of St. Louis Park will continue to be temporarily exempt through December 31, 2020. However, as in 2019, catering activities taking place at city-owned facilities where both recycling and organics are available will need to be in compliance. The following locations are included: •City Hall o Community Room o Council Chambers o Westwood Room •Fire Station 1 o Training Room •Municipal Service Center o Multi-purpose/Lunchroom •Police Department o Roll Call/Training Room •Rec Center o Aquatic Park o Banquet Room o Gallery Room o ROC •Westwood Hills Nature Center “Catering activities” means the preparation of food under contract in support of an event such as a reception, party, luncheon, conference, ceremony or trade show. Study session meeting of October 28, 2019 (Item No. 7) Title: 2020 Zero Waste Packaging Acceptable Materials and Exemptions List and Administrative Rules report Page 6 Meeting: Study session Meeting date: October 28, 2019 Written report: 8 Executive summary Title: Update - PLACE Via Sol and Via Luna projects Recommended action: No action required at this time. Policy consideration: Not applicable. Please inform staff of any questions you might have. Summary: Attached is an update from PLACE relative to the current status of its Via Sol and Via Luna projects. Staff has requested monthly updates from PLACE to share with the council/EDA. As indicated in their letter, PLACE has terminated Stantec from the projects and has subsequently hired new architects and engineers to complete the projects. Changing the architects and engineers triggers additional State requirements regarding architect and engineer of record status and review of plans. Please see the attached letter from the city attorney to PLACE referencing the Minnesota Building Code regarding architects and engineers of record. The letter from PLACE also notes submittal of the PUD amendment application on August 5, 2019. The PUD amendment application submitted at that time was incomplete. PLACE provided the necessary documentation on October 7, 2019 and the application is now complete. PLACE anticipates building permit approval for the Via Luna apartment building and hotel on January 28, 2020. Per the Building and Energy Department, permit issuance may take longer depending upon the completeness of the plans submitted. Additionally, PLACE has changed their construction method for the Via Luna apartment building to a “lift process”. This is a construction method not typically used in the United States and to staff’s knowledge, has never been done in Minnesota. As such, the structural review process may take longer than typical since the city will need to hire a consulting structure engineer due to the unique building design. PLACE has indicated they will be requesting an extension to acquire the South Parcels for its Via Luna/Fairfield Inn projects. Also of note, the Housing Allocation bonds associated with the Via Luna apartment building will expire on January 31, 2020. Although PLACE was able to extend these bonds on two prior occasions, State law has since changed, and these bonds cannot be extended past that date. PLACE will be providing an in-person update to council on November 18, 2019. Financial or budget considerations: None specific to this report. Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to providing a broad range of housing and neighborhood oriented development. Supporting documents: PLACE Via project status update - October 21, 2019 Letter to PLACE from City Attorney – October 11, 2019 Prepared by: Greg Hunt, economic development coordinator Reviewed by: Karen Barton, community development director Approved by: Tom Harmening, EDA executive director and city manager Via - PLACE St. Louis Park Community Status Update October 21, 2019 PHASE I Via Sol (North Residential) Project team member, Stantec, was terminated from the project. The roles formerly held by Stantec have been ﬁlled by the following ﬁrms as responsible parties in charge: 1.MSR - Architect 2.Barr - Civil Engineer, Landscape Architect 3.ISS - Structural Engineer Project drawings are being reviewed by the project team members who are taking on Stantec’s architecture and engineering scopes of work. The project team is now all local to the Twin Cities. The City Building and Energy Department is requiring all construction documents to be resubmitted under the new team before proceeding with construction. The delay is expected to be as much as twelve weeks. PHASE II Via Luna (South Live/Work) Project team member, Stantec, was terminated from the project. The roles formerly held by Stantec have been ﬁlled by the following ﬁrms as responsible parties in charge: 1.LHB - Architect 2.Barr - Civil Engineer, Landscape Architect 3.MBJ - Structural Engineer A preliminary PUD amendment application for the South Site (Via Luna and the hotel) was submitted to the City on August 5, with the completed application submitted on October 7. Planning & Zoning staff has conﬁrmed that PUD amendment application is complete. PUD amendment approval is expected by December 16. Application for Building Permit is expected to be submitted on December 17. Building Permit approval is expected on January 28, 2020. PLACE is a nonproﬁt with a mission to create places that foster a sustainable, just, and inspiring world. 729 N Washington Avenue Sixth Floor Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 info@welcometoplace.org welcometoplace.org T (612) 309-3889 Study session meeting of October 28, 2019 (Item No. 8) Title: Update - PLACE Via Sol and Via Luna projects Page 2 Greater Minnesota Housing Fund will arrange ﬁnancing for Via Luna, including the sale of 4% low-income housing tax credits and housing bonds, and permanent ﬁnancing. Marriott Hotel See update above on the PUD amendment process for the South Site. PLACE is seeking ﬁnal ﬁnancing package for the hotel from PACE Equity, including PACE ﬁnancing for sustainable design, and permanent ﬁnancing. Sincerely, Chris Velasco President Study session meeting of October 28, 2019 (Item No. 8) Title: Update - PLACE Via Sol and Via Luna projects Page 3 Study session meeting of October 28, 2019 (Item No. 8) Title: Update - PLACE Via Sol and Via Luna projects Page 4 Study session meeting of October 28, 2019 (Item No. 8) Title: Update - PLACE Via Sol and Via Luna projects Page 5 Meeting: Study session Meeting date: October 28, 2019 Written report: 9 Executive summary Title: Zoning guidelines for ground floor street facing transparency requirements Recommended action: None currently. This report is for informational purposes only. Please inform staff of questions you might have. Policy consideration: Does city council wish to require a minimum amount of ground floor transparency for street facing facades? Summary: In the summer of 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. 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. City council and planning commission then had a joint meeting in April to discuss the proposed ordinance and the commission’s concerns. City council requested the planning commission review the ordinance again. On October 16, 2019, planning commission voted 6 to 0 to recommend approval of the ordinance with one change: requiring a minimum of 50 percent ground floor transparency for street facing facades rather than 65 percent, which was previously proposed. This item will be brought to city council on November 4, 2019 for council’s consideration. Financial or budget considerations: None. Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to providing a broad range of housing and neighborhood oriented development. Supporting documents: Draft ordinance Prepared by: Jennifer Monson, planner Reviewed by: Gary Morrison, assistant zoning administrator Karen Barton, community development director Approved by: Tom Harmening, city manager Study session meeting of October 28, 2019 (Item No. 9) Page 2 Title: Zoning guidelines for ground floor street facing transparency requirements Ordinance No. ___-19 Ordinance relating to Section 36-4 Definitions and Section 36-366 Architectural Design to establish transparency requirements for ground floor street facing facades in the C-1 and C-2 Districts, and retail, service, and restaurant uses in the O and BP Districts The City of St. Louis Park does ordain: Section 1. The City Council has considered the advice and recommendation of the Planning Commission (Case No. 18-70-ZA). Section 2. Sections of Chapter 36 of the St. Louis Park City Code are hereby amended by adding underscored text and deleting strikethrough text. Section breaks are represented by ***. CHAPTER 36 ZONING 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. Study session meeting of October 28, 2019 (Item No. 9) Page 3 Title: Zoning guidelines for ground floor street facing transparency requirements 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 50 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 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. Study session meeting of October 28, 2019 (Item No. 9) Page 4 Title: Zoning guidelines for ground floor street facing transparency requirements 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. 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 Study session meeting of October 28, 2019 (Item No. 9) Page 5 Title: Zoning guidelines for ground floor street facing transparency requirements 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 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. Section 3. This ordinance shall take effect (December 13, 2019) Reviewed for administration: Adopted by the City Council Nov. 18, 2019 Thomas K. Harmening, city manager Jake Spano, mayor Attest: Approved as to form and execution: Melissa Kennedy, city clerk Soren Mattick, city attorney First reading November 4, 2019 Second reading November 18, 2019 Date of publication November 28, 2019 Date ordinance takes effect December 13, 2019 Meeting: Study session Meeting date: October 28, 2019 Written report: 10 Executive summary Title: Proposed rezoning of some C2 parcels to C1 Recommended action: None at this time. This report is for informational purposes only. Policy consideration: Does city council wish to rezone parcels from C2 General Commercial to C1 Neighborhood Commercial? Summary: Consistent with the recently adopted comprehensive plan, the city proposes to rezone 78 properties from C-2 General Commercial to C-1 Neighborhood Commercial. The changes are meant to promote smaller businesses and smaller scale development in areas that are next to low density residential neighborhoods. Purpose of the commercial districts. The purpose of the C-1 Neighborhood Commercial zoning district is to provide for low-intensity, service-oriented, commercial uses for surrounding neighborhoods. Limits are placed on the type, size, and intensity of commercial uses in the C-1 district to ensure compatibility with adjacent neighborhood uses. The lots and buildings in this district tend to be smaller scale and tend to serve a smaller market. In contrast, The purpose of the C-2 district is to allow the concentration of commercial uses that have a mutually beneficial relationship to each other and are located away from low density residential areas. C-2 commercial areas are typically located near the highway intersections, are typically on larger lots and serve a regional market. Uses in the commercial districts. Apart from the scale of uses desired in each district, there are other significant differences. For example, the C-1 district does not allow liquor stores or auto repair facilities. The proposed rezoning would cause two liquor stores (Knollwood Liquors and Texa-Tonka Liquors) and four auto repair facilities to become legal, non-conforming uses. These uses could continue to operate and be sold and operated by a new owner. They could not expand and once the non-conforming use is abandoned or replaced by a legal use, it could not revert to the previous non-conforming use. Planning commission. The commission discussed the areas shown in the attached exhibits at a study session on October 16, 2019 and agreed with pursuing zoning changes to all 78 parcels. Next steps: City staff will conduct an open house beginning at 6 p.m. on November 7, 2019 at city hall for the property owners impacted by the proposed rezoning. Staff will also invite the property owners located within 350 feet of the subject properties. A public hearing before the planning commission is tentatively scheduled for November 20, 2019. Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to providing a broad range of housing and neighborhood oriented development. Supporting documents: Area maps showing proposed rezoning Prepared by: Gary Morrison, assistant zoning administrator Reviewed by: Sean Walther, planning & zoning supervisor Karen Barton, community development director Approved by: Tom Harmening, city manager Legend Rezone C2 to C1 POS Park and Open Space R-1 Single-Family Residence R-2 Single-Family Residence R-3 Two-Family Residence R-4 Multiple-Family Residence R-C High-Density Multiple-Family Residence M-X Mixed Use C-1 Neighborhood Commercial C-2 General Commercial BP Business Park O Office I-P Industrial Park I-G General Industrial PUD Planned Unit Development Proposed Rezoning from C-2 to C-1 Cedar Lake R d Highway 7 Minnetonka Blvd Louisiana AveHighway 100Texas AveExcelsior Blv d Study session meeting of October 28, 2019 (Item No. 10) Title: Proposed rezoning of some C2 parcels to C1 Page 2 Cedar Lake Road/Louisiana Avenue Study session meeting of October 28, 2019 (Item No. 10) Title: Proposed rezoning of some C2 parcels to C1 Page 3 Texa‐Tonka Study session meeting of October 28, 2019 (Item No. 10) Title: Proposed rezoning of some C2 parcels to C1 Page 4 Knollwood Study session meeting of October 28, 2019 (Item No. 10) Title: Proposed rezoning of some C2 parcels to C1 Page 5 Excelsior Blvd/Highway 100 Study session meeting of October 28, 2019 (Item No. 10) Title: Proposed rezoning of some C2 parcels to C1 Page 6 Excelsior Blvd/36 ½ Street Study session meeting of October 28, 2019 (Item No. 10) Title: Proposed rezoning of some C2 parcels to C1 Page 7 Minnetonka Boulevard/County Road 25 Study session meeting of October 28, 2019 (Item No. 10) Title: Proposed rezoning of some C2 parcels to C1 Page 8 Minnetonka Boulevard/State Highway 100 Study session meeting of October 28, 2019 (Item No. 10) Title: Proposed rezoning of some C2 parcels to C1 Page 9 Meeting: Study session Meeting date: October 28, 2019 Written report: 11 Executive summary Title: Off-sale intoxicating liquor licenses Recommended action: None currently. Please inform staff of questions you might have. Policy consideration: Does the city council support extending the current limit on the number on off-sale intoxicating liquor licenses three more months? Summary: The city council adopted Resolution 17-196 that limited the number of off-sale intoxicating liquor licenses to 15 licenses in December 2017. In February 2017 the council adopted Resolution 18-026 reducing the limit to 13 licenses. The sunset provision was extended first to December 31, 2018, and then again until December 31, 2019 by Resolutions 18-071 and 18-198 respectively). In 2019, the city rezoned several parcels that were previously zoned general commercial (C-2). The zoning was changed to better align with the future land use guidance in the newly adopted St. Louis Park 2040 comprehensive plan. This also effectively reduced the number of locations where off-sale intoxicating liquor stores are allowed. Also, in 2019, the city amended rules in the neighborhood commercial (C-1) zoning district to limit the size of retail and service uses. These uses on C-1 properties can only be up to 7,500 square feet in area administratively, or up to 10,000 square feet in area with a conditional use permit. The goal is to promote smaller businesses and avoid development that is out of scale. The city is now undertaking more zoning map amendments that would change the zoning of multiple properties from C-2 to C-1. This would effectively reduce the number of parcels that allow off-sale intoxicating liquor stores. More importantly, this change significantly limits the scale of buildings and retail and services uses allowed in areas that are adjacent to low density residential uses. This process will extend into the first quarter of 2020; therefore, staff recommends the city council extend the temporary limitations on the number of off-sale intoxicating liquor licenses for 3 more months until the zoning changes are effective. City Code Section 3-72 allows city council to restrict the number of any type of liquor license by resolution. The city attorney is comfortable with staff’s proposal to extend the limit on the number of off-sale liquor licenses for another 3 months. Financial or budget considerations: None. Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to providing a broad range of housing and neighborhood oriented development. Supporting documents: None. Prepared by: Sean Walther, planning and zoning supervisor Reviewed by: Karen Barton, community development director Melissa Kennedy, city clerk Approved by: Tom Harmening, city manager Meeting: Study session Meeting date: October 28, 2019 Written report: 12 Executive summary Title: Community technology advisory commission update Recommended action: None – this report is intended to keep the council informed about the ongoing activities of the community technology advisory commission. Policy consideration: Does the ongoing work of the community technology advisory commission meet the council’s expectations in supporting the city council and the city in achieving progress in the city’s five strategic priorities? Summary: Since meeting with the city council June 24, 2019, commission members have met several times to rework existing bylaws and city code to allow for the new community technology advisory commission. At the same time, they created a work plan that was submitted to council. Achieving the work plan steps has been the commission’s focus. Financial or budget considerations: Costs related to the commission’s current work are minimal and primarily involve staff time to assist. Strategic priority consideration: The commission’s work on the application and use of technology for the purpose of improving city services and quality of life for St. Louis Park’s citizens, businesses and visitors will help support all five strategic priorities. Supporting documents: Discussion September 10, 2019, unofficial meeting minutes Updated work plan Prepared by: Jacque Smith, communications and marketing manager Reviewed by: Clint Pires, chief information officer Melissa Kennedy, city clerk Maria Solano, senior management assistant Approved by: Tom Harmening, city manager Study session meeting of October 28, 2019 (Item No. 12) Page 2 Title: Community technology advisory commission update Discussion Background: The city council has approved bylaw and city code changes allowing for the telecommunications advisory commission to change its mission and its name to the community technology advisory commission. This change will become official Nov. 1, 2019. In addition to discussing the required changes to its bylaws and city code, the commission has been busy with the steps of its work plan that was submitted to city council. Present considerations: The commission wanted to update the council on its activities and welcomes any feedback. Next steps: The commission next meets Wednesday, Oct. 30, to continue advancing its work plan, including community engagement that will include an online survey and in-person meetings with interested residents. Based on that feedback, the commission will form additional subcommittees for various tasks. Study session meeting of October 28, 2019 (Item No. 12) Page 3 Title: Community technology advisory commission update Telecommunications Advisory Commission September 10, 2019 Unofficial Minutes Present: Bruce Browning, Cindy Hoffman, Abe Levine, Rolf Peterson, David Dyer Staff: Clint Pires, Jacque Smith, John McHugh Absent: Maren Anderson (excused), Mohamed Mohamud Chair Levine called the meeting to order at 6:05 p.m. 1.Call to order/roll call 2.Adoption of agenda a.Peterson moved, Browning seconded. All approved. 3.Approval of August 7, 2019, minutes a.Dyer moved, Hoffman seconded. All approved. 4.No comment from the public. 5.Communications from the chair/commissioners Levine said tonight we’d talk about putting together community input and who’s going to participate. Pires reminded Levine of the meeting with Verizon; he’ll give an update later. 6.Update on transition to community technology advisory commission Smith provided an update on the steps as outlined in the agenda. Approval of bylaws and first reading of city code are on the Sept. 16 council agenda; second reading will take place Oct. 7. This will be followed by publishing in the Sun Sailor to take effect Nov. 1, 2019. After that time website and other items will be changed Levine said he has talked to some youth about serving on the commission; many of the seniors are too busy. Levine thought approaching the St. Louis Park High School principal about likely recruits from grades 10-12 might be an avenue. There was some discussion about private schools although it didn’t seem to be a good fit. Levine asked if someone could introduce him to the high school principal. Peterson will work to make contact with the school district. Pires said we can get a contact for Benilde; Levine said he would visit and Browning offered to go along. 7.Community engagement ideas Levine said that first we should talk about how to organize the committee. Should it be all one committee or broken up into silos? Levine clarified that community engagement will be a committee on its own. Levine made notes including the following: •Talking points (website, Nextdoor, social media, SurveyMonkey) •Venues for input (consider equity) •SurveyMonkey •Use facilitator for meetings with community Study session meeting of October 28, 2019 (Item No. 12) Page 4 Title: Community technology advisory commission update • Attending other commissions • CTAC webpage formation and marketplace • Discover/communicate with other similar commissions Discussion of what the commission wants to learn as part of community engagement. The commission discussed the idea of some type of advertisement on Wifi access points. Hoffman mentioned community boards at Bunny’s and Park Tavern and other businesses to spread the word and gain community engagement. Smith suggested the commission back up and discuss what they want to learn, versus focusing on tactics. Levine developed a list of items under community input. • Mission statement • Topics to cover • Questions to ask • Full commission discussion • Action plans and work assignments Pires reminded the commission to keep the council’s strategic priorities in mind as they consider community input. Levine asked if the commission wants to get a few people together to work on this, or the entire commission. Peterson said he liked the idea of a small subcommittee on this group. Peterson and Hoffman volunteered; Browning will participate. Pires suggested one tip, that nothing prevents the committee from meeting with others who are not members of the commission. Levine went back to tactics list to see if there were items that could be done now. For example, other cities with similar commissions. How could this info be found? Pires suggested looking at League of Cities in each state. Pires said staff could provide contacts at LMC who might be able to help. Levine said he’ll talk to LMC contacts. Levine said attending other commissions could happen now. Pires cautioned about being sure they don’t get caught out prematurely in being asked for specific items. However, attending to learn would be a good idea. Smith will send out a list of commissions and staff liaisons. Commission members will come to October 30 meeting with a list of which commission meetings they’ll attend. Levine asked for someone to look at potential places for input. Dyer volunteered. 8. Connection with similar commission from other agencies 9. Consider remaining schedule of meetings for other city commissions; assign members to attend meetings 10. Formation of committees/chairs to research technologies, providers, implementation issues and risks 11. Staff items Study session meeting of October 28, 2019 (Item No. 12) Page 5 Title: Community technology advisory commission update Pires gave a summary of an August meeting with Verizon reps. Levine and Browning, along with city staff, met with a local Verizon rep and one of the company’s smart cities expert. They shared a number of ideas from Verizon’s perspective. Pires has asked that current streetlights be mapped. Pires demonstrated DataLink which can show layers of data on the city map, such as transportation infrastructure which includes streetlights. He talked about city plans to replace streetlights along with some of the challenges and some of the areas that might be happening soon. Pires pointed out that most city- owned streetlights are located in non-residential areas. Pires reviewed the information resources organization chart with the commission. Dyer asked about US Internet; Pires provided an update on their progress. They are working with the Walker-Lake businesses, including putting in conduit and will support businesses in the area. Along with south Sorenson, this area is growing. Pires estimated they have about 3000 customers. Browning asked about CenturyLink. Levine said they’re in a world of hurt financially. Pires said the city hasn’t seen permitting for fiber; it’s essentially stopped. 12.October 30 meeting planning a.A brief history of fiber and futures in St. Louis Park (Clint Pires) b.Deliverables i.Commission members should be prepared to share with other boards/commissions they plan to attend and when. ii.The community engagement subcommittee (Browning, Hoffman, Peterson) will present its conclusions after holding meetings, including next steps. Dyer volunteered to provide information on possible venues. iii.Staff will provide contacts for boards/commissions, League of Minnesota Cities, Benilde-St. Margaret Browning moved, Hoffman seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor. Meeting adjourned 7:41 p.m. Board and Commission Annual Workplan Approved: TBD Updated: July 10, 2019 1 Work Plan Template│ community technology advisory commission Time Frame Initiative Strategic Priorities Purpose (see page 2 for definitions) Outcome (fill in after completed) 4Q 2019 Establish committees to research technologies, providers, implementation issues and risks. ☐New Initiative ☒Continued Initiative ☐Ongoing Responsibility ☐1 ☐ 2 ☐ 3 ☐4 ☐ 5 ☒ N/A ☒Commission Initiated Project ☐Council Initiated Project ☐Report Findings (council requested) ☐Formal Recommendation (council requested) •Community engagement committee established and meeting regularly •Technical committee to be established at Oct. 30 meeting to address a specific initiative 3Q-4Q 2019 Attend meetings of other city boards and commissions to learn how technology might help their activities and related city services ☒New Initiative ☐Continued Initiative ☐Ongoing Responsibility ☐1 ☐ 2 ☐ 3 ☐4 ☐ 5 ☒ N/A ☒Commission Initiated Project ☐Council Initiated Project ☐Report Findings (council requested) ☐Formal Recommendation (council requested) •Ongoing effort; on the agenda of each meeting. 3Q-4Q 2019 Connect with similar commissions from other agencies ☒New Initiative ☐Continued Initiative ☐Ongoing Responsibility ☐1 ☐ 2 ☐ 3 ☐4 ☐ 5 ☒ N/A ☒Commission Initiated Project ☐Council Initiated Project ☐Report Findings (council requested) ☐Formal Recommendation (council requested) •Commission has been provided with League of Minnesota Cities contacts to research activities of other Minnesota cities. •Commission has modeled some activities on similar commissions in Tacoma and Seattle, Wash. 3Q 2019 Develop a plan for community engagement. Determine methods for informed public input on activities and priorities. ☒New Initiative ☐Continued Initiative ☐Ongoing Responsibility ☐1 ☐ 2 ☐ 3 ☐4 ☒ 5 ☐N/A ☒Commission Initiated Project ☐Council Initiated Project ☐Report Findings (council requested) ☐Formal Recommendation (council requested) •Community engagement committee has contacted local private school Benilde-St. Margaret, resulting in recruitment of a youth member for the commission. •Committee has developed an online survey for residents to help the commission understand what the needs/wants are of the community. Deployment is Study session meeting of October 28, 2019 (Item No. 12) Title: Community technology advisory commission update Page 6 Board and Commission Annual Workplan Approved: TBD Updated: 2 City of St. Louis Park Strategic Priorities 1.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. 2.St. Louis Park is committed to continue to lead in environmental stewardship. 3.St. Louis Park is committed to providing a broad range of housing and neighborhood oriented development. 4.St. Louis Park is committed to providing a variety of options for people to make their way around the city comfortably, safely and reliably. 5.St. Louis Park is committed to creating opportunities to build social capital through community engagement OR Other Purpose: definitions scheduled for November and will take place through the city’s social media accounts, Nextdoor and website, among other outlets. •Commission is researching possible venues for in-person focus groups in early 2020. Study session meeting of October 28, 2019 (Item No. 12) Title: Community technology advisory commission update Page 7 Board and Commission Annual Workplan Approved: TBD Updated: 3 Modifications: Work plans may be modified, to add or delete items, in one of three ways: •Work plans can be modified by mutual agreement during a joint work session. •If immediate approval is important, the board or commission can work with their staff liaison to present a modified work plan for city council approval at a council meeting. •The city council can direct a change to the work plan at their discretion. Parking Lot •Project initiated by the board or commission Commission Initiated Project •Project tasked to a board or commission by the city council Council Initiated Project •Initiated by the city council •Board and commission will study a specific issue or topic and report its findings or comments to the city council in writing •No direct action is taken by the board/commission Report Findings •Initiated by the city council •Board and commission will study a specific issue or topic and makes a formal recommendation to the city council on what action to take •A recommendation requires a majoirty of the commissioners' support Formal Recommandation Study session meeting of October 28, 2019 (Item No. 12) Title: Community technology advisory commission update Page 8 Board and Commission Annual Workplan Approved: TBD Updated: 4 Items that are being considered by the board/commission but not proposed in the annual work plan. Council approval is needed if the board/commission decides they would like to move forward with an initiative. Initiative Comments: Produce a quarterly report for the city council of relevant technology activities and advances. Produce final reports on completed commission activities, with recommendations for consideration by other commissions or by the city council. Enhance the commission’s presence on the city website. Provide analysis of proposed or considered technology for the community and city operations and provide recommendations and feedback to staff, the city council and other commissions. Study session meeting of October 28, 2019 (Item No. 12) Title: Community technology advisory commission update Page 9 Meeting: Study session Meeting date: October 28, 2019 Written report: 13 Executive summary Title: Cable television franchise renewal needs assessment update Recommended action: The report is presented for information only. No action is required. Policy consideration: As franchise renewal discussions continue, staff will ask council for its input on the items of most importance in the franchise agreement. The needs assessment will allow for council and staff to make informed decisions throughout that process. Summary: The city’s current franchise agreement with Comcast is set to expire in January 2021. The city has notified Comcast of its intent to conduct informal renewal negotiations in accordance with the federal Cable Act. In preparation for negotiations, the city has begun the process of evaluating Comcast’s past performance under the existing franchise and to determine the future cable-related Public-Educational-Government (PEG) community needs and interests of the city, which is the criteria prescribed by the Cable Act. In August the city hired The Buske Group to conduct a needs assessment to gather insightful community input, to assess current and future equipment and technology needs and to assist in planning for the future of cable television and PEG programming produced by the city. Financial or budget considerations: The cost for the assessment is not to exceed $32,020, an expense that was budgeted for in the cable television (franchise) fund as part of the franchise renewal process. Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to creating opportunities to build social capital through community engagement. Supporting documents: Discussion Invitation letter for Nov. 19, 2019, needs assessment info meeting Prepared by: Jacque Smith, communications and marketing manager Reviewed by: Clint Pires, chief information officer Approved by: Tom Harmening, city manager Study session meeting of October 28, 2019 (Item No. 13) Page 2 Title: Cable television franchise renewal needs assessment update Discussion Background: The city’s current franchise agreement with Comcast is set to expire in January 2021. The city has notified Comcast of its intent to conduct informal renewal negotiations in accordance with the federal Cable Act. In preparation for negotiations, the is assessing Comcast’s past performance under the existing franchise and determining the future cable- related Public-Educational-Government (PEG) community needs and interests of the city which is the criteria prescribed by the Cable Act. The Buske Group began working with city staff on the needs assessment in August 2019. The process will continue into 2020, with a final report issued in late April 2020. To date, the following activities have taken place: •The Buske Group has been provided with all documentation related to the current cable franchise agreement. •Consultants with The Buske Group visited the city October 15 and toured the city’s cable facilities. They were provided with a thorough inventory of all equipment purchased with cable franchise funds. •The first community meeting for the needs assessment process is set for 11 a.m.-1 p.m. Nov. 19, 2019, in the council chambers at St. Louis Park City Hall. A list of invitees representing a wide variety of constituencies was developed by staff, and invitations were sent in late October. The goal is for at least 30-40 people to attend this meeting. •In preparation for the Nov. 19 meeting, Sue Buske will spend Nov. 18 with staff and touring the city to learn more about the community. •Three in-person focus groups will take place January 22 and 23, 2020. Invitation lists are being developed for these focus groups. In addition, attendees of the Nov. 19 meeting will be asked to spread the word about the focus groups to those they think may be interested. •An online survey will be deployed in late January and will be available through March for collection of additional information from residents and others who are interested. Present considerations: On Sept. 26, 2019, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) “In- Kind” Order, or 621 Order, took effect. It has the potential to significantly reduce franchise fee and public, educational and government (PEG) fee revenue received by cities from cable operators; some estimates place the financial impact at 25-50% or more of existing franchise fee revenue. This has the potential to reduce revenue that has already been anticipated in the 2020 budget. To date the city has not been contacted by current cable franchisees regarding any changes to the expected franchise payments as a result of the 621 Order. On Oct. 7, 2019, the National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors (NATOA), of which the city is a member, along with several other organizations including The United States Conference of Mayors and the National League of Cities, filed a motion for stay with the FCC asking for delay of the effective date of the 621 Order until appeals of the order have been resolved. The city has contributed $5,000 toward a coordinated nationwide effort to challenge the order in federal court. On Oct. 24, 2019, a petition for review was filed seeking review of the 621 Study session meeting of October 28, 2019 (Item No. 13) Page 3 Title: Cable television franchise renewal needs assessment update order on the grounds that the order is arbitrary and capricious, violates federal law and is otherwise contrary to the law. While the challenge is underway, city staff continues preparations for this anticipated change, including: •Assessment of program origination sites at city and school district facilities that are currently provided at no charge as part of the franchise agreement as the new FCC order may permit Comcast to assess “maintenance costs” for each fiber connection; •Assessment of the community and business need for each of the five ParkTV channels; and •Inventory of the various free and discounted Comcast cable viewing services provided to city buildings and ranking of those services according to business need. The work provided by The Buske Group will assist with the first and second items; city staff will work with departments on the third item. City staff is working in close partnership with Brian Grogan, attorney at law, Moss & Barnett, throughout this process. Next steps: City staff continues to work on logistics and planning for the Nov. 19, 2019, needs assessment meeting and for the January 2020 focus groups and for the online survey. St. Louis Park Information Resources Department • 5005 Minnetonka Blvd., St. Louis Park, MN 55416 www.stlouispark.org • Phone: 952.924.2500 • TTY: 952.924.2518 Oct. 23, 2019 Dear community leader: The City of St. Louis Park has the chance to plan for future communications needs of our community through upcoming Comcast cable franchise renewal process. We need your assistance! Comcast Communications and the City of St. Louis Park will soon enter into negotiations to renew the existing 15-year franchise agreement authorizing Comcast to provide cable services in St. Louis Park. Given the enormous changes in technology and media over the past 15 years, the process of granting a new franchise to Comcast deserves serious consideration and opportunity for public input. A major component of this process is a community needs assessment, which will help determine future community channels, equipment and resources that will be available to St. Louis Park residents, community groups, schools and the city. Learn more Nov. 19, 11 a.m. – 1 p.m. The city is hosting a special informational meeting for community leaders and key stakeholders to provide an overview of the franchise renewal process. The meeting will be led by Sue Buske, a highly experienced communications consultant who is working with the city on the franchise renewal process: Tuesday, Nov. 19, 11 a.m. – 1 p.m. Council chambers, St. Louis Park City Hall 5005 Minnetonka Blvd., St. Louis Park Lunch will be provided. At the meeting, you’ll learn more about the process and how you can be involved in the community needs assessment. Your participation in the assessment will help in planning for the future cable and communications needs of the community during the upcoming Comcast cable franchise renewal process. RSVP by Nov. 12 RSVPs are requested by Tuesday, Nov. 12, by email at jsmith@stlouispark.org or by phone at 952.924.2632. If you can’t attend, be sure to designate someone else from your organization to attend. Your involvement will help ensure your organization’s needs are heard and considered for future planning. I look forward to seeing you Nov. 19. Have a great day! Sincerely, Jacque A. Smith Communications and Marketing Manager City of St. Louis Park jsmith@stlouispark.org 952.924.2632 Study session meeting of October 28, 2019 (Item No. 13) Title: Cable television franchise renewal needs assessment update Page 4 Meeting: Study session Meeting date: October 28, 2019 Written report: 14 Executive summary Title: Municipal state aid system revisions Recommended action: None currently. A resolution supporting this item will be brought to the city council at the Nov. 4, 2019 meeting. Policy consideration: Does the city council have questions regarding the recommended revisions to the city’s state aid system? Summary: The City of St. Louis Park has 148.62 miles of street under its jurisdiction. A portion of these streets are designated as Municipal State Aid (MSA) streets. This makes them eligible for funds from the state gas tax. In 2018, staff completed a city-wide audit of the street mileage in St. Louis Park as a part of putting together our annual MSA certificate of mileage for MnDOT. During this review, the following was determined: •There are streets designated as MSA that are not generating construction needs. •There are MSA street segments that no longer meet the requirements for being on the state aid system. •There is excess mileage available for designation. To address these items, staff has put together recommended MSA system revisions. MnDOT state aid has reviewed the recommended revisions and will approve this designation request upon receipt of a city council resolution ordering the same. Financial or budget considerations: Annually, the city receives $2 million in MSA funds. The MSA funding formula is based on the construction needs for the mileage reported annually and the city population. The act of designating all the mileage available to the city results in maximizing the funds available for maintenance and construction of our MSA system. Approving these revisions is expected to result in an increase to our annual funding from the state. Due to the nature of the state aid funding formula, it is difficult to give an exact number; however, staff expects it to be between $50 – 75,000 in additional annual funding. Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to providing a variety of options for people to make their way around the city comfortably, safely and reliably. Supporting documents: Discussion MSA revision map Prepared by: Debra Heiser, engineering director Approved by: Tom Harmening, city manager Study session meeting of October 28, 2019 (Item No. 14) Page 2 Title: Municipal state aid system revisions Discussion Background: The municipal state aid (MSA) system is a collection of higher volume and key streets located in 148 Minnesota cities, of which 84 are in the Twin Cities metropolitan area. The roughly 3,700 miles of state aid streets constitute around 16 percent of centerline miles of all city streets. The Minnesota Constitution dedicates a portion of statewide revenues for local roads and bridges. Among its features, the constitution dedicates specific transportation-related taxes to transportation purposes; allocates tax revenues by formula; and creates an MSA fund for financial assistance to cities. The primary source of funding is nine percent of the 95 percent of the Highway Users Tax Distribution Fund (HUTD). A city must have a population over 5,000 in order to qualify for MSA aid. The Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) administers the state aid program. MnDOT determines amounts annually based on a combination of tax receipts and future estimates. Aid apportionments are released each January and distributed on a calendar-year basis. MnDOT apportions the direct aid to cities following a formula in state statute, so that: •50 percent is divided proportionally based on the population of each city (compared to the total for all municipal state aid cities); and •50 percent is proportional based on city construction needs. The “needs” calculation under the aid formula is structured to enable comparison across the cities and does not identify total costs to bring municipal state aid streets up to state standards. MnDOT has also adopted administrative rules governing the program, which cover topics such as minimum roadway design and engineering standards, apportionment between construction and maintenance, and contract and bidding requirements. Each year it is the city engineer’s responsibility to submit the necessary information that explains their road, structure, and railroad crossing construction needs to the Commissioner of Transportation for our MSA system. St. Louis Park’s state aid system: An urban municipality’s MSA system is comprised of 20 percent of a city’s county road and local improved street mileage. County roads and County State Aid Highways (CSAH) that have reverted to the municipality may be included above the 20 percent mileage limitation. St. Louis Park has 148.62 miles of streets under our jurisdiction. St. Louis Park can designate up to 31.92 miles of street as MSA. This is our 20 percent mileage (29.72) plus 3.54 miles for county road turnbacks. Currently, the city has 0.24 miles undesignated. The City Engineer of each state aid city is required to submit a completed annual certification of mileage form on or before January 15 of each year. As a part of preparing that certification, city engineers are encouraged to look at the overall system and make changes if the MSA designation of a street no longer makes sense or no longer meets the minimum requirements for designation. The action of designating a street as MSA does not increase the number of vehicles using the road, rather, the road is designated as MSA because people are actually using it. For a segment to be designated as MSA it must terminate with another state aid street, a state highway, or a county roadway. Due to these connections, more drivers use these roads and they serve as collectors. As Study session meeting of October 28, 2019 (Item No. 14) Page 3 Title: Municipal state aid system revisions the term implies, collector roads, collect and distribute vehicular traffic from neighborhoods and commercial areas and provide a critical link between local streets, which are primarily designed for property access and minor arterials, which are designed for higher vehicular mobility. Collector streets have an equal emphasis on land access and vehicular mobility. Once designated as MSA routes, these street segments generate construction needs for the city. These construction needs make up 50 percent of the formula for how much funding the city receives annually. These funds are used to maintain and reconstruct the MSA roads in the city. Present considerations: In late 2018, staff completed a citywide audit of the street mileage in St. Louis Park as a part of putting together our annual certificate of mileage. During this review, the following was determined: •There are streets designated as MSA that are not generating construction needs. •There are MSA street segments that no longer met the requirements for being on the state aid system. •There is excess mileage available for designation. To address these items, staff has put together the following recommended MSA system revisions. MnDOT state aid has reviewed the recommended revisions and will approve this designation request upon receipt of a city council resolution ordering the same. MSA revocations During our review of the system, staff determined that there were segments that were not generating needs, were not eligible for state aid designation, or generated lower needs than a parallel route. Staff recommends that the following segments be removed from the MSA system. Details regarding the reasons for these revocations are included below: Street name Termini Location Length (miles) Dakota and Edgewood W 26th Street to BNRR north right-of-way -0.16 Edgewood Avenue From BNRR North R/W to 85 Ft South of Eliot View Road -0.25 Edgewood Avenue Dakota and Edgewood - 85 ft S of Eliot View to Cedar Lake Rd -0.09 Dakota Avenue W 28th Street to W 27th Street -0.12 Dakota Avenue W 27th Street to W 26th Street -0.14 W 16th Street Ford Road to TH169 -0.27 Walker Street Lake Street to 415 ft West of Library Lane -0.07 Walker Street 415 ft West of Library Lane to Dakota Avenue -0.12 Walker Street Walker Street (185 ft South) to TH7 North Service Road -0.03 Total revoked miles -1.25 When a segment is on the MSA system, the needs are based on the characteristics of the street. Details such as traffic volume, width, and street material type are used to determine how much money each segment needs for reconstruction. Due to street characteristics, the following segments are recommended to be removed from the system: Study session meeting of October 28, 2019 (Item No. 14) Page 4 Title: Municipal state aid system revisions •Dakota and Edgewood (from W 26th Street to BNRR north right-of-way) This street segment does not exist on the ground. This “future street” has been included in planning documents, however, since it does not exist, it is not generating construction needs for the city. In addition, staff has done additional investigation to design the bicycle and pedestrian bridge in this location. This investigation indicates that the construction of a vehicle bridge would be very difficult, making it highly unlikely that this street segment will ever be constructed. Finally, MnDOT has indicated that it is necessary to remove this segment from our system prior to their approval of the Dakota bicycle and pedestrian bridge scheduled for construction next year. For a segment to receive MSA designation it must terminate with another state aid street, a state highway, or a county roadway. The following street segments do not meet this minimum requirement: •Dakota Avenue (from 28th Street to 26th Street) and Edgewood Avenue (from Cedar Lake Road to the north railroad right-of-way) Removing the “non-existing street” segment over the BN railroad right of way described above makes these segments no longer compliant with this requirement. •W 16th Street (from Ford Road to Trunk Highway 169) MnDOT disconnected this road from TH169 in 2017 as a part of the TH169 project. This segment no longer meets the minimum requirements. •Walker Street (from Lake Street to TH7 North Service Road) This segment does not meet the requirement for designation. Also, due to the nature of the design and alignment, it would be difficult to build this street to meet state aid standards. MSA additions The city’s street system has a limited number of segments that meet the minimum requirements for state aid designation. This is because many of our streets terminate at a railroad and do not go through to connect to another state aid street, a state highway, or a county roadway. After careful review, it is recommended that the following street segments be added to our state aid system. Street name Termini Location Length (miles) 34th Street W Aquila Avenue S to Texas Avenue 0.42 37th Street W Texas Avenue to Walker Street 0.47 Service Dr Highway 100 S Westside Drive to Utica Avenue S 0.29 Service Dr Hwy 394 S Pennsylvania to Texas Avenue 0.19 Total additions 1.37 Designating these street segments will better meet the financial and transportation needs of the city. Study session meeting of October 28, 2019 (Item No. 14) Page 5 Title: Municipal state aid system revisions Summary of overall changes What follows is a compilation of the proposed revisions discussed above. As shown below 0.12 miles will still be undesignated, which is not unusual in the context of the MSA system. It is difficult to find a combination of segments that add up exactly to the mileage available to us. Revocations Street name Limits Segment Length (miles) W 16th Street Ford Road to TH169 163-286-010 -0.27 Dakota and Edgewood W 26th Street to BNRR north right-of-way 163-280-120 -0.16 Edgewood Avenue From BNRR North R/W to 85 Ft South of Eliot View Road 163-280-130 -0.25 Edgewood Avenue Dakota and Edgewood - 85 ft S of Eliot View to Cedar Lake Rd 163-280-140 -0.09 Dakota Avenue W 28th Street to W 27th Street 163-280-101 -0.12 Dakota Avenue W 27th Street to W 26th Street 163-280-110 -0.14 Walker Street Lake Street to 415 ft West of Library Lane 163-282-050 -0.07 Walker Street 415 ft West of Library Lane to Dakota Avenue 163-282-055 -0.12 Walker Street Walker Street (185 ft South) to TH7 North Service Road 163-282-060 -0.03 Total revoked mileage -1.25 Additions Street name Limits Segment Length (miles) 34th Street W Aquila Avenue S to Texas Avenue NA 0.42 37th Street W Texas Avenue to Walker Street NA 0.47 Service Dr Highway 100 S Westside Drive to Utica Avenue S NA 0.29 Service Dr Hwy 394 S Pennsylvania to Texas Avenue NA 0.19 Total additions 1.37 Total revoked mileage -1.25 Unassigned mileage -0.24 Net Unassigned Mileage -0.12 Next steps: Designating these streets as state aid will not change how they are managed or how people use them. Rather it makes them eligible for state aid funding when it comes time to rehabilitate the pavement. All the street segment additions are in good condition and will not require pavement rehabilitation for 15 to 20 years. From a capital planning perspective, the additions will generate higher construction needs and a subsequent increase in our annual funding. This will assist in delivering the MSA projects in our 10-year CIP and beyond. £¤ ?A@ £¤ £¤ \]^ \]^ ?A@ \]^ ?A@ GWX GWX GWX ?A@ GWX ?A@ GWX GWX GWX 169 169 169 7 394 394 100 394 100 25 3 100 3 5 5 17 LYNNAVESMINNETONKA BLVD LOUISIANAAVESMINNETONKA B LVD 29TH ST W TEXASAVESMORNINGSIDE RD EXCELSIOR BLVD 36TH ST W L A K E S T W M O N T E R E Y D R 16TH ST W WO O D D A L E A V E QUENTINAVESPARKCENTERBLVD42ND ST W VERNONAVESKIPLINGAVES25TH ST WHAMPSHIREAVES BELTLINEBLVDUTICAAVESC E D A R L A K E R D 32ND ST W W A Y Z A TA BLVD WOODD A L E A V EALABAMAAVES16THSTW SERVICE DR H IG H W A Y 7 35TH ST W GAMBLE DR WAYZATA BLVD FRANCEAVESLOUISIANAAVES28TH ST W 33RD ST W YOSEMITEAVESCAMBRIDGE ST QUENTINAVESMONTEREYAVESTEXASAVES34TH ST W ZARTHANAVES4 1 S T S T WZARTHANAVES C E D A R LAKE RD WEBSTERAVESC E D A R L A K E RD COOLIDGEAVESPARKPLACEBLVDBROOKAVESMACKEYAVES29TH ST W FOREST RD UTICAAVESWALKER STVIRGINIAAVES JOPPAAVESGLENHURSTAVESLAKESTW 31ST ST W INGLEWOODAVESWALK ER STGEORGIAAVES TOLEDOAVES22ND S T W 26TH ST W CLUB RD GOODRICH AVE 14TH ST W XENWOODAVESDAKOTAAVESLOUISIANAAVES36TH ST W PENNSYLVANIAAVESSHELARDPKW YFRANCEAVES2ND ST NWGLENHURSTAVESC O U N T Y R O A D 2 5 VIRGINIA CIR N XENWOODAVESOXFOR D S T PARKLANDSRD26TH ST W RHODEISLANDAVESEXCELSIORBLVDEXCEL SI O R B L V DAQUILAAVES34TH ST W YOSEMITEAVESC A V E LL AVESCOLORADOAVESFORD RD28TH ST W 27TH ST W GORHAMAVEIDAHOAVESBRUNSWICKAVESFLAGAVESJOPPAAVES36TH ST W 35TH ST W CEDARWOOD R D BRUNSWICKAVESOTTAWAAVES41ST ST W LI B R A R Y L N25THSTW BROOKSIDEAVES41ST ST W V ICT O RIA W A YUTAHDR 36TH ST WVIRGINIAAVES35TH ST WBOONEAVES KENTUCKYAVESWESTWOODHILLSDR27TH ST W27TH ST W UTICAAVESBURDPL FLAGAVES33RD ST W 36TH ST W 39TH ST W Q U E B E C AVES26TH ST W 31ST ST W VALLAC H E R A V E 32ND ST W 40TH ST W 16TH ST W FRANKLIN AVE W BARRY ST 18TH ST W 22ND ST W HAMILTON ST DIVISION ST 24TH ST W 34TH ST W 25 1/2 ST W XENWOOD AVE S C O U N T Y R O A D 2 5 S E R V I C E D R HIGHW AY 737THSTW 361/2 ST W 18TH ST W BASSW OOD RD 16TH ST W EDGEB R O O K D R BRUNSWICKAVES31ST ST W DAKOTAAVES30 1/2 ST W 26TH ST W W A Y Z A TA BLVD31STSTW E L IO T V IE W R D ALABAMAAVESOXFORD S TCOLORADOAVESP A R K E R R D ZARTHANAVES3 7 T H ST WUTAHAVES34 1/2 ST W INGLEWOODAVESKIPLINGAVESJORDANAVESSUMTERAVESAQUILALNSJOPPAAVESF O R D R D BRUNSWICKAVESJERSEYAVESHUNTINGTON AVE S 2 3RD S T W LYNN AVE SKENTUCKYAVESB R O W N L O W A V E ALLEYUTICAAVESWEBSTERAVESVIRGINIAA V E S31ST ST WAQUILAAVES SALEM AVE SQUEBECAVESQUEBECAVESZINRANAVESMARYLANDAVESOREGONAVESVERNONAVESIDAHOAVESNEVADAAVESVIRGINIA CIR S EDGEWOODAVESHAMPSHIREAVESJERSEYAVESBLACKSTONEAVESFLORIDAAVESPENNSYLVANIAAVESIDAHOAVESMARYLANDAVESDAKOTAAVESSALEMAVESRALEIGHAVESQUENTINAVESHUNTINGTONAVESALABAMAAVESTOLEDOAVESSALEMAVESNEVADAAVESNORTH S TMELROSEAVE S 37TH S T W WEBSTERAVESUTAHAVES3 5 T H S T WDUKE DR40TH L N W 22ND ST WJORDANAVES S TAN LE N R D X Y L O N AVESP A R K G L E N R D CEDARWOOD RD RALEIGHAVESPOWELLRD 28TH ST W 2 3 R D STW H O S P I TA L SERVICEDRRIDGEDR1015.9 ft. 1112.9 ft. 1250.5 ft.1556.8 ft.3859 ft.2491.9 ft. 2225.7 ft. 0 0.5 10.25 Miles ´ 2019 Proposed MSA Changes Legend Proposed MSA Additions (7,290 ft.) Proposed MSA Removals (6,222 ft.) Existing MSA Streets Municipal Boundaries Study session meeting of October 28, 2019 (Item No. 14) Title: Municipal state aid system revisions Page 6