Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2018/04/09 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - Study SessionAGENDA APRIL 9, 2018 6:00 p.m. CONVENE LOCAL BOARD OF APPEAL & EQUALIZATION – Council Chambers 6:30 p.m. STUDY SESSION – Community Room Discussion Items 1. 6:30 p.m. Future Study Session Agenda Planning – April 16 & 23, 2018 2. 6:35 p.m. Petition for Safer Highway 7 Intersections 3. 7:20 p.m. Westwood Hills Nature Center Project – Update on Design Development 4. 8:20 p.m. Funding of Non-Profit Organizations 9:05 p.m. Communications/Updates (Verbal) 9:10 p.m. Adjourn Written Reports 5. 2017 Annual Housing Programs Activity Report 6. On-Street Parking Restrictions 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: LBAE Meeting Date: April 9, 2018 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: 2018 St. Louis Park Board of Appeal & Equalization RECOMMENDED ACTION: Mayor to convene the meeting; the following agenda is suggested. 1. Convene the St. Louis Park Local Board of Appeal and Equalization 2. Roll Call of Board Members – Declaration of Quorum 3. Motion to Appoint Chair 4. Acknowledgement of Trained Member (Brausen) 5. a. Accept Roster of Appellants b. Call for Any Additional Appellants c. Motion to Close Roster of Appellants (subject to DOR instructions) 6. Motion to set Date and Time for Continued Proceedings (Reconvene) Suggested as April 23, 2018 prior to Study Session 7. Instruct Assessor to: a. Inform Appellants of Reconvene Date & Board Process via Telephone and Mail b. Inform Appellants of the County Board Application Date (May 16 deadline) c. Re-Inspect and Re-Appraise Parcels Under Appeal 8. Completion of the Local Board Certification Form 9. Motion to Recess POLICY CONSIDERATION: Local Boards and/or Open Book Meetings are required by law. The Board must complete its business within 20 days (April 9 is day one, April 28 is therefore the deadline). SUMMARY: Minnesota statute requires that all properties are valued at full market value. All property owners, tenants and those having an interest in real property are entitled to appeal their classification and market value. The property classification is determined by the actual use of the property. The market value is an opinion based on records maintained for every property and the market conditions as of the date of assessment (January 2). In most jurisdictions and following our historic practice, the St. Louis Park Board of Appeal and Equalization is accomplished in two meetings. The first meeting is used to convene the Board, set the Board process, accept the roster of appeals and announce that appeals are resolved at the reconvene meeting. The second meeting (reconvene) is used to hear and decide the merit of each appeal. The Local Board process depends on active participation from all parties involved including the board members, the property owner and assessing staff. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not applicable for budgeting from the perspective of the taxing jurisdictions. Changes made by the Board may affect the property owner’s share of the total property tax budget levy in the Pay 2019 tax period. VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Summary of Duties & Responsibilities Sample Letter (To be sent to each appellant on April 10) Prepared by: Cory Bultema, City Assessor Reviewed by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director Reviewed by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Local Board of Appeal & Equalization (LBAE) Meeting of April 9, 2018 Page 2 Title: 2018 St. Louis Park Board of Appeal & Equalization SUMMARY OF DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES LOCAL BOARD OF APPEAL AND EQUALIZATION Most of the responsibilities listed under the Local Board of Appeal and Equalization are statutory, primarily found in Minnesota Statutes 274.01. • The valuation notices shall be in writing and be sent by ordinary mail at least ten calendar days before the meeting of the board. The valuation notice will include the dates, places and times set for the meetings of the Local Board of Appeal and Equalization as well as the Hennepin County Board of Appeal and Equalization. • The City Clerk shall give published and posted notice of the meeting. The meetings must be held between April 1 and May 31 including reconvene meetings. The board must complete its work and adjourn within 20 calendar days – convene date is day one. • The Local Board of Appeal and Equalization is an official public meeting similar to a City Council public hearing and cannot convene without a quorum. The local assessor, the county assessor, or one of his/her assistants is required to attend. • At least one member present at each meeting of the Local Board of Appeal and Equalization must be certified as having completed the DOR Board of Appeal and Equalization training. The compliance date is December 1 of the year prior to the current year’s meeting. • The board should run the meeting as a fair and impartial review of the appeals. The property owner is the appellant and the assessing staff act as the respondent. The board may ask questions to clarify facts and background on the appeal. It is suggested that all appeals are heard before the Board begins deliberations on each. • Local Boards of Appeal and Equalization must see that all taxable property is properly valued and classified for the current assessment year only. The board does not have the authority to reopen prior assessments on which taxes are due and payable. The board may add a property to the assessment roll if it has been omitted. • Individual board members cannot participate in actions or discussions of appeals involving their own property, property of relatives, or property in which they have a financial interest. • The Local Board may not increase or decrease all assessments in a district of a given class of property. Changes by class may be made by the County Board of Equalization. • The Local Board may not make a market value or classification change that would benefit the property in cases where the owner or other person having control over the property will not permit the assessor to inspect the property and the interior of any buildings or structures. • Although the Local Board of Appeal and Equalization has the authority to increase or decrease individual assessments, the total of such adjustment must not reduce the aggregate assessment by more than one percent. If the total reductions would exceed one percent, none of the adjustments may be made. The assessor shall correct any clerical errors or double assessments discovered by the board without regard to the one percent limitation. Local Board of Appeal & Equalization (LBAE) Meeting of April 9, 2018 Page 3 Title: 2018 St. Louis Park Board of Appeal & Equalization • If an assessment was made after the local board meeting or if a taxpayer can establish not having received the notice of market value at least five days before the meeting, they can appeal to the County Board of Appeal and Equalization. • The board may find instances of undervalued properties. The board must notify the owner of the property that the value is going to be raised. The property owner must have the opportunity to appear before the board if they so wish. • The local boards do not have the authority to address exemption issues. Only the county assessor (and the tax court) has the authority to exempt property. They also have no jurisdiction over special programs for which an application process is required (Veterans Exclusion, Market Value Homestead Exclusion, Green Acres, etc.). • A taxpayer may appear in person, by council, or written communication to present his or her objection to the board. The focus of the appeal must center on the factors influencing the estimated market value or classification placed on the property. • All changes will be entered into the assessment record by the county assessor’s office. • Before adjourning, the local board should prepare an official list of the changes. The law requires that the changes be listed on a separate form. All assessments that have been increased or decreased should be shown on the form along with their market values. • Administrative Rules from the Department of Revenue beginning with the 2013 Local Board of Review: The Assessor may not make administrative changes to the valuation or classification less than 10 days prior to the Board. All contemplated changes should be brought to the Board for review and approval. Each appeal must be ruled on separately. • Directive from the Department of Revenue beginning with the 2015 Local Board of Review: assessing staff from Hennepin County will attend Local Board meetings. • Directive from the Department of Revenue (April 2017) – the Board is required to hear appeals from those who show up at the reconvene meeting. A comment: It has been the practice of the St. Louis Park Board to close the roster at the completion of the initial convene meeting date – the new DOR directive effectively eliminates roster closure until adjourned. To comply with the DOR directive it is recommended that the Board decide last moment appeals on a case-by- case basis which may be as simple as acknowledging the appeal with no change to preserve the owner’s right to be eligible for the County Board. • Following each board meeting, a letter is sent to the owner of each property in appeal. The sample letter following the initial convene meeting is attached. • At the convene meeting on April 9, the Board will be given two outlines to assist you in conducting an efficient and productive meeting. One will be the Agenda as the Board process is quite specific in format. The other will be the Board roster which is updated at 4:30 pm. Further reference, if you desire, can be provided via the MN Department of Revenue Board Training Manual (2018 update). This manual gives considerably greater detail as to the process and role of the Board in the assessment process. Local Board of Appeal & Equalization (LBAE) Meeting of April 9, 2018 Page 4 Title: 2018 St. Louis Park Board of Appeal & Equalization SAMPLE LETTER TO ALL BOARD ROSTER PROPERTIES Address line 1 April 10, 2018 Address line 2 Address line 3 Re: St. Louis Park Local Board of Appeal & Equalization Subject Address Property ID #: xx-xxx-xx-xx-xxxx Dear : The Board convened on April 9 and the above-referenced property has been entered onto the appeal roster. You are receiving both a telephone call and this letter to inform you that the reconvene date has been scheduled for X:XX pm on April 23, 2018 in the City Hall Council Chambers located at 5005 Minnetonka Boulevard, St. Louis Park, MN 55416. Appeals will be heard at this meeting. The following are important for you to know: • The property owner may appear in person, by representative, and/or by written communication to the Board. Assessing staff will visit with you or your representative to understand your perspective and explain our perspective as well. • If the Assessing staff has not already inspected your property within the last year, they must complete an interior and exterior inspection to form the basis of a revaluation. Important: Refusing access precludes the Board from taking action that would benefit the owner (MN statute 274.01). • Assessing staff will then complete their revaluation and contact you prior to the April 23 meeting to inform you of their conclusion. This is an important component of the Local Board process. If the assessing staff and you as the owner can mutually agree to resolve the matter, the agreement will be reported to the Board. While it is common that that the Board ratifies mutual agreement, please note that the Board is the decision maker on the issue. This method of resolution is often preferred by property owners as it is not necessary to speak before the board. • When agreement cannot be reached, the Board hears the case. Past practice has been as follows: You, as the appellant, are allowed about 5-10 minutes to present information supporting your value position. The assessing staff, as the respondent, is allowed about 3-5 minutes to present information and their conclusion. The Board hears the information and decides the market value and/or classification as of January 2, 2018. The Board has full authority to sustain, increase, or decrease individual assessments. The Board does not have authority to reopen prior assessments. The Board does not have authority to change current and past real estate taxes. Local Board of Appeal & Equalization (LBAE) Meeting of April 9, 2018 Page 5 Title: 2018 St. Louis Park Board of Appeal & Equalization • The Board appreciates receiving written information before the meeting. We strongly recommend fact based locally competitive market information pertaining directly to your property (competitive sales, appraisals, etc.). National or regional information, while interesting, may not correlate to this specific local market. The assessing staff prepares a written report on all parcels under appeal and submits it to the Board prior to the meeting. If you would like your written documentation to be included in the Board packet, please provide it to my office by 12:00 Noon on Wednesday April 18 to allow time for copying/scanning. Otherwise, please prepare ten (10) copies of your written materials to be brought to the Board meeting on April 23. • Upon completion of the Local Board, you will be notified via letter of the Board action. If you do not agree with the Local Board decision, you are eligible to attend the Hennepin County Board of Appeal & Equalization which convenes in June. An application to appear before the County Board is required by May 16, 2018. If you have any further questions on the Local Board process, do not hesitate to contact me directly. Cory Bultema, City Assessor Direct Dial 952-924-2536 Meeting: Study Session Meeting Date: April 9, 2018 Discussion Item: 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: Future Study Session Agenda Planning April 16 & April 23, 2018 RECOMMENDED ACTION: The City Council and the City Manager to set the agenda for the Special Study Session scheduled for April 16 and the regularly scheduled Study Session on April 23, 2018. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the Council agree with the agendas as proposed? SUMMARY: This report summarizes the proposed agenda for the Special Study Session scheduled for April 16 and the regularly scheduled Study Session on April 23, 2018. Also attached to this report is the Study Session Prioritizaton & Tentative Discussion Timeline.. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Tentative Agenda – April 16 & 23, 2018 Study Session Prioritization & Projected Discussion Timeline Prepared by: Debbie Fischer, Administrative Services Office Assistant Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Study Session Meeting of April 9, 2018 (Item No. 1) Page 2 Title: Future Study Session Agenda Planning – April 16 & 23, 2018 APRIL 16, 2018 5:30 p.m. – Special Study Session – Community Room Tentative Discussion Items 1. Comp Plan Review – Community Development (110 minutes) Staff will provide an overview of the Comprehensive Plan Update process, and then present the housing and residential land use goals and strategies to the Council for discussion. APRIL 23, 2018 Time TBD – Reconvene Local Board of Appeal & Equalization (LBAE) -- Council Chambers Immediately following Reconvene LBAE – Study Sesssion – Council Chambers (if time is available) Tentative Discussion Items 1. Future Study Session Agenda Planning – Administrative Services (5 minutes) 2.Topics yet to be determined (depending on time availability) 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 3. 2018 March Monthly Financial Report 4. 2018 Quarterly Investment Report (Jan – Mar) 5. 2040 Comp Plan Update 6.Bridgewater TIF District 7. Neighborhood Association Grants 8. Hennepin County 2018 Projects Update 9.SWLRT Update Study Session Meeting of April 9, 2018 (Item No. 1) Page 3 Title: Future Study Session Agenda Planning – April 16 & 23, 2018 Study Session Prioritization & Projected Discussion Timeline Priority Discussion Topic Comments Date Scheduled 4 Affordable Housing Preservation Policies/Ordinance First reading of TPO approved on 3/5 2nd reading 4/16 4 Communication to HRC on Council Expectations Most recently discussed on 9/11/17 TBD 4 Race Equity/Inclusion Courageous Conversations Most recently discussed on 9/11/17 TBD 4 Policy for Funding Non-profits Will be discussed at upcoming study session April 9, 2018 4 Finalize Outcomes of Council Retreat (Includes Norms) Scheduled May 7, 2018 3 The Nest Postponed per their request April/May 2018 3 Creating an Affirming Environment for Transgender Individuals TBD 3 Design Guidelines for New Home Construction TBD 3 Develop a Youth Advisory Commission 2nd Qtr 2018 3 Historical Society Space Part of Walker Bldg discussions on 8/28/17 & 11/20/17 and 12/11/17 Ongoing 3 Living Streets Policy After Vision 3.0 work is completed 2nd Qtr 2018 3 Off-sale Liquor License Regulations May, 2018 3 Overview of Crime Free Ordinance TBD 3 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 Ongoing 3 SEED’s Community Green House / Resiliant Cities Initiative TBD 2 Bird Friendly Glass TBD 2 Dark Skies Ordinance (Light Pollution) TBD 2 Community Center Project TBD Other Comments / Suggested Topics (Not yet prioritized.) Zoning Guidelines for Front-facing Buildings with Windows Not Papered Over Establish a Local Housing Trust Fund Discuss and Evaluate Our Public Process Easy Access to Nature, Across the City, Starting w/ Low-income Neighborhoods Priority Key 5 = High priority/discuss ASAP 4 = Discuss sooner than later 3 = Discuss when time allows 2 = Low priority/no rush 1 = No need to discuss Meeting: Study Session Meeting Date: April 9, 2018 Discussion Item: 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: Petition for Safer Highway 7 Intersections RECOMMENDED ACTION: Susan Niz, representing the Allies of St. Louis Park, will be in attendance to present a petition requesting certain improvements that will lead toward increased safety of Highway 7 intersections and pedestrian crossings at the Knollwood Mall area. POLICY CONSIDERATION: What additional information or action does the council desire from staff? SUMMARY: On February 15, 2018, a 15-year-old boy died when he was struck by vehicles traveling on Highway 7 in St. Louis Park. The victim was crossing Highway 7 in a southbound direction several car lengths west of the Texas Avenue S. intersection. In response to this tragic incident the Allies of St. Louis Park developed a petition on the change.org website. The petition is titled “Safer Hwy. 7 Intersections at Knollwood in Honor of Daunte Jamal Moore. At the time this report was written over 1,300 people had signed on to the petition, which states the following: “We, the Allies of St. Louis Park, and in partnership with our neighboring Hopkins community, respectfully demand immediate action toward increased safety of Highway 7 intersections and pedestrian crossings at the Knollwood Mall area. We ask for improved lighting, reduced speed limits, and improved walk signals and signage for pedestrians. These intersections lie between grocery stores and rental complexes and the increased safety for pedestrians as well as drivers must be a priority. We do not want one more accident, such as the one that led to the death of 15-year-old Hopkins student Daunte Jamal Moore on Thursday, February 15. We ask that changes be implemented expeditiously and collaboratively and that our elected leaders courageously advocate for the completion of these improvements.” Trunk Highway 7 is a MnDOT road. Any work within the right-of-way, or modifications of intersections, requires cooperation and approval from MnDOT. MnDOT has been invited to the meeting to speak to their 2018 project on Highway 7. More information is provided in the “Discussion” section of this report regarding the MnDOT project and the improvements to be made. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: None at this time VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion Prepared by: Debra M. Heiser, Engineering Director Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Study Session Meeting of April 9, 2018 (Item No. 2) Page 2 Title: Petition for Safer Highway 7 Intersections DISCUSSION BACKGROUND: In 2018, the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) will be completing a mill and overlay of Highway 7. This project will extend the life of the pavement by providing a new driving surface. MnDOT will also be installing new signals at the two intersections at Texas Avenue So. and Blake Road / Aquila Avenue. What follows are the planned bicycle and pedestrian improvements at each of the intersections: Intersection of Highway 7 and Texas Avenue So. •Audible Pedestrian Signals (APS) and countdown timers. •Improved sidewalk pedestrian ramps. •Upgraded pedestrian push buttons for the signal to meet American with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements. •Sidewalk connection from Highway 7 to the Frontage road on both sides of Texas Avenue. This will connect up with the sidewalk being constructed as a part of the city’s reconstruction project. •Texas Avenue will have a continuous north south bike lane along with bike detection so the signal will know when a person on a bike is trying to cross Highway 7. Intersection of Highway 7 and Blake Road / Aquila Avenue •Audible Pedestrian Signals (APS) and countdown timers. •Improved sidewalk pedestrian ramps. •Upgraded pedestrian push buttons for the signal to meet American with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements. In addition to the work already included in this project, staff has reached out to MnDOT to request that they also add the following to their project to enhance pedestrian and bicycle safety along this corridor: •A chain link fence to provide a barrier along the north right-of-way line to discourage mid- block crossings of the highway. •Additional streetlights on the signals to illuminate both the Texas and Blake / Aquila intersection. The standard for signals is to install two overhead streetlights kitty corner from each other. MnDOT has agreed to install overhead streetlights on all four corners. •Carrying the bike lane striping through the Highway 7 / Texas Avenue intersection to raise visibility to this bikeway. MnDOT has agreed to include these improvements in the project. In addition to the city requested enhancements, MnDOT is proposing to close the right-in access from westbound Highway 7 into the Shoppes at Knollwood parking lot. This access is located about halfway between Texas Avenue and Aquila Avenue. MnDOT indicates that closing this access will greatly improve highway safety for both pedestrian and vehicles using Highway 7 in this area. The concern is that leaving an uncontrolled gap in the barrier fence along the north right- of- way line will nullify efforts to discourage pedestrians from crossing between the signalized intersections. MnDOT will be reaching out to Knollwood in the coming months to discuss this change. Closing this access point would require MnDOT to seek approval from the city council (Municipal Consent). Study Session Meeting of April 9, 2018 (Item No. 2) Page 3 Title: Petition for Safer Highway 7 Intersections One of the requests in the petition is for posted speeds to be reduced in the area. A means by which to do this would be for the city council to formally request that MnDOT undertake a speed study for this area. Schedule: This project is scheduled to start construction in April, with completion in September 2018. Meeting: Study Session Meeting Date: April 9, 2018 Discussion Item: 3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: Westwood Hills Nature Center Project – Update on Design Development RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff and consultants will present an update on the design development phase for the Westwood Hills Nature Center project. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Is Council supportive of the results of the design development phase and the goal to work towards a Zero Energy building? SUMMARY: The Westwood Hills Nature Center (WHNC) project has been discussed and included in the City’s CIP and long range financial plan since 2015. The City Council was presented the Master Plan for WHNC on May 23, 2016; approved entering into an agreement with Hammel, Green and Abrahamson, Inc. (HGA) on June 19, 2017 to design a new interpretive center knowing that the total cost of the project would be $12 million; authorized entering into an agreement with RJM Construction on September 5, 2017 to provide construction management services; and on December 18, 2017, approved the schematic design phase and authorized staff to begin the design development phase. Per Council’s direction, the HGA design team used the Master Plan as a guide to create the schematic design and refined through the design development phase. Sustainability strategies and energy analysis have been developed and sustainability rating systems have been reviewed. Based on Council direction, the design team is working towards a “Zero Energy” certified building, which means one hundred percent of the building’s energy needs on a net annual basis are supplied by on-site renewable energy https://www.living-future.org/net-zero/certification/. Generally, zero energy is accomplished through maximizing passive climatic opportunities, choosing efficient mechanical systems, and continuing to fine tune the building’s operation to reduce energy loads dramatically. Offsite energy may need to be used during some years as elements that are beyond our control (weather) play a huge role in meeting our sustainability goals. If Council continues to direct staff towards a certified Zero Energy building, all components in the Life Cycle Analysis need to be integrated (please see attached “Life Cycle and Energy Cost Analysis” for this data). FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: As discussed by the Council on March 26, the proposed source of funding would be the issuance of general obligation bonds to be repaid by a levy on all taxable properties in the community over a 20 year period. The estimated impact on a median valued single family home is approximately $34-$37/yr. VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to being a leader in environmental stewardship. We will increase environmental consciousness and responsibility in all areas of city business. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion Life Cycle and Energy Cost Analysis Westwood Hills Nature Center Building Floor Plan Prepared by: Jason T. West, Recreation Superintendent Cynthia S. Walsh, Operations and Recreation Director Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Study Session Meeting of April 9, 2018 (Item No. 3) Page 2 Title: Westwood Hills Nature Center Project – Update on Design Development DISCUSSION BACKGROUND: On May 23, 2016 Council was presented the results of the master planning process for the Westwood Hills Nature Center (WHNC). The poor conditions of this facility, along with the success of the programs offered at this site with limited program space, were the impetus behind a master planning process. The building is aging and has inefficient systems and exterior. Water intrusion is a chronic problem and the heating system is in poor condition and does not function properly. Investing in the maintenance and capital needs of the building are not cost effective long term due to the condition and small size of the building. Public access to the building is distant from parking and accessibility is an issue. As a part of the master plan work, a public process took place which included public meetings, surveys at special events, online surveys, etc. Citizen input played a key role in shaping this plan. Input was also gathered from the community in regards to the master plan and the proposed interpretive center at recent events. FINDINGS FROM THE MASTER PLAN: The common themes that emerged from the master plan are as follows: • Move the building location closer to the parking lot for convenience and accessibility yet keeping it tucked into the trees for a more natural setting as much as possible. • Create a gathering space where people can use the indoor space without interfering with the classrooms. • Increase the size of meeting rooms to accommodate 50 people in each small multi-purpose room and open up to have the capacity for 150 participants for special events and large gathering space. • Increase the number of parking stalls to accommodate all users of the building and outside amenities. • Design the interpretive center building to be energy efficient. • Current interpretive center location would be repurposed as an outdoor education/community gathering space. PROJECT SCHEDULE Process to date • 2008: All municipal facilities were surveyed to develop a maintenance and improvement schedule as part of the long range financial planning process. The MSC, Fire Stations, and City Hall were prioritized to resolve specific issues. • 2012: Over the years it became clear that the Westwood Hills Nature Center building was oversubscribed due to the popularity of the site and the programming provided. Further analysis concluded that making a significant investment to repair the many deficiencies and update the building was not a good long term solution that would meet the service needs today and in the future. • 2013: Financial resources were added into the CIP to begin the Master Plan process. • 2015: Master Plan process started. • 2015 – 2016: Public input (public meetings, on-line and in person surveys, marketing materials). • May 2016: City Council presented the Master Plan. • June 19, 2017: Council authorized retaining Hammel, Green and Abrahamson, Inc. (HGA) to design a new interpretive center. Study Session Meeting of April 9, 2018 (Item No. 3) Page 3 Title: Westwood Hills Nature Center Project – Update on Design Development • September 5, 2017: Council authorized an agreement with RJM Construction to provide construction management services for this project. • October 2017: Public input (on-line and in-person surveys, marketing materials, social media, website updates and project calendar). • December 18, 2017: Council approved the Schematic Design and authorized moving forward with design development. • February – April 2018: Public input (conducted over 15 public meetings, shared the process through social media and website updates, created marketing materials, architects and staff created design documents and refined building plan etc.). Moving Forward Assuming the City Council decided to move forward with the project, outlined below is the anticipated schedule: • May 7, 2018: Request Council to approve design development and enter into construction document phase. • November 2018: Request Council to approve construction documents, authorize plans and specs and authorize bids. • Late November or December 2018: Approve bids and authorize the project. • Spring 2019: Construction begins as soon as weather permits. • Fall 2020: Construction is complete including deconstruction of current building. SCHEMATIC DESIGN PHASE: The schematic design addressed the program and space desires of the Master Plan. This schematic design was presented to the Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission at their November 29 meeting. The Commissioners provided great suggestions about pedestrian flow and trail circulation. They were supportive of a design that works towards zero energy hoping that those elements could be used as teaching tools. They recommended that the schematic design be presented to the City Council. City Council approved the schematic design on December 18, 2017. DESIGN DEVELOPMENT PHASE: Through the design development phase the building footprint was decreased by approximately 2,000 square feet to contain the project cost to the established budget of $12 million. The design development includes spaces for four mews for raptors, three multi-purpose rooms that will accommodate 25 people in room A and 50 people each in room B and C, all which open into one larger space that can be used for programs or rentals with room for 125. In addition, the building design includes a catering kitchen for use by people renting the classrooms, separate exhibit and gathering space, a small lounge area for people to sit and observe nature, a conference room for use by staff or small neighborhood/resident gatherings, staff offices and all the back of house space for storage, mechanical, raptor and animal care etc. Through the design development phase color pallets, flooring, walls, textures, finishes, furniture, etc. are being chosen, as well as, soil boring, bird glass, mechanical refinement, audio/visual details, life cycle cost analysis, and making sure the construction and building meets all state and city codes. Split Rock Studios is designing the exhibits with the intent to integrate the building into site and exhibit design to support the nature center’s educational programming. Designing the exhibits appropriately is important as we consider working towards zero energy since they can be one of the largest energy users. Split Rock Studios has completed their Schematic Design Phase II where there are four separate exhibit zones: pollinators, wetland, woodland snag, and prairie mound. This will be shared with Council at the April 9 Council Study Session. Study Session Meeting of April 9, 2018 (Item No. 3) Page 4 Title: Westwood Hills Nature Center Project – Update on Design Development Staff has also been working with consultants to complete the following: • Wetland delineation • Site survey • Trees located within survey area • All utilities • The proposed new building site has been staked • Soil borings and geotechnical soil testing • Acoustic analysis • Exhibit lighting analysis • Audio/Visual analysis • Energy analysis • Exhibit coordination with Split Rock Studios • Exterior/Interior material concept design • Bird glass and window system research • Storm water management design • Code review with design team 2018 DESIGN DEVELOPMENT PUBLIC PROCESS PRESENTATIONS: Feb. 8: Present to Discover St. Louis Park Staff Feb. 12: Present to Health in the Park – City Hall Feb. 13: Present to Dept. Head Team Feb. 13: Present to CEAC – Lenox Community Center Feb. 22: Present at a WHNC Public Meeting Feb. 26: Present at DRC Feb. 27: Present at Root and Shoots – High School Feb. 27: Present at Senior Men’s Group – Lenox Community Center Feb. 28: Present at a WHNC Public Meeting (HGA presents) March 2: Present at Sunrise Rotary March 12: Present at School Board Meeting – High School March 15: Present at DSLP – Marriott March 28: Present at Multicultural Advisory Committee April 3: Present at WHNC Volunteer Breakfast April 4: Present at Joint Commission Meeting (PRAC, Planning Com., Sustainability Commission) April 11: Present at Realtor Forum – City Hall April 16: Present to Noontime Rotary – Double Tree West End One of the suggestions that came out of the public process was the possibility of providing a means by which people could donate to the project. Staff will be exploring ideas of how we may incorporate donation opportunities into the project. SOIL CONDITIONS: The City has contracted with American Engineer Testing (AET) to conduct soil testing through soil borings and cone testing. The test results found organic/marsh material as deep at 15 feet in certain spots where the building would be located on the site. One of the solutions might be to use geopiers to anchor the concrete slab of the building. We are in the process of examining the budget impacts this may have on the project. We will be making the necessary adjustments to the project design to stay within the budget. If there are any significant tradeoffs that need to occur, staff will bring those options back to the City Council. Study Session Meeting of April 9, 2018 (Item No. 3) Page 5 Title: Westwood Hills Nature Center Project – Update on Design Development SUSTAINABILITY GOAL: As a firm, HGA brings a wealth of knowledge in the area of sustainable design. HGA has also brought on consultant Chris Piche’ from the Integral Group. Chris brings a broad understanding of high performance building engineering systems to this project. His approach is rooted in the philosophy that environmentally responsible design must constantly evolve to suit the technology available in balance with the project. To that end, the design of this building currently includes sustainable design that integrates HVAC, plumbing, solar, and a number of other elements to achieve Zero Energy status. Zero Energy buildings are highly energy efficient buildings in which the total consumption of energy from all sources is balanced by onsite renewable energy generation on an annual basis. The Zero Energy Building Certification (ZE) is a newly available certification (as of March 2017), and builds on years of leadership towards zero energy building design from both the International Living Future’s Institute (ILFI) and the New Building Institute (NBI). ILFI is the organization behind the Living Building Challenge –which is arguably the most progressive green building certification available for buildings today. The New Building’s Institute has been a third-party auditor and verifier for zero energy buildings since 2009 and is also responsible for establishing an industry-wide definition for Zero Energy buildings, as well as documenting these projects through the Zero Energy Database. Zero energy buildings are among the most progressive sustainable design projects in the world today. Due to the new and innovative nature of this goal, St. Louis Park has the opportunity to create a project which is among the first (or perhaps be the first) non-residential Zero Energy Project in Minnesota--leading the way for future sustainable design work in our cold-climate region. LIFE CYCLE AND ENERGY COST ANALYSIS: The attached analysis was developed in response to council’s question of how the energy saving strategies proposed compare to the cost to implement the energy saving strategies. This first required HGA to develop building and mechanical plans to sufficient detail to perform energy modeling and a cost analysis. There are four major components providing most of the reduced energy consumption and production for the proposed building. While the design incorporates other strategies like building orientation for ventilation and passive solar, the analysis was only for items which could be individually evaluated. Pursuing a Zero Energy goal requires all the components work collectively. Without an enhanced thermal envelope for example, the mechanical systems would need to be increased in capacity. Lifetime operation savings was chosen rather than simple energy cost savings to reflect the total cost of equipment, maintenance, and replacement costs, in addition to energy costs over the lifetime of the building. Please refer to the attachment for detailed data regarding the Life Cycle and Energy Cost Analysis. Staff will review this in greater detail at the study session. Page 1 of 3 Whole Building Comparison1 Baseline WHNC Building Zero Energy WHNC Building Construction Cost difference -- +$1.36M Annual Energy Savings -- $12,000 Lifetime Operational Savings (maintenance/operations, replacement, and energy costs) -- $808,000 Lifetime Cost (NPV) Savings -- $32,000 Zero Energy Component Comparison Cost impacts for individual components of zero energy building design Building Envelope Comparison2 (walls, roof, floor, and glazing) Baseline Envelope High Performance Envelope Construction Cost difference -- +$524,000 Annual Energy Savings -- $1,800 Lifetime Operational Savings -- $190,000 Mechanical Systems Comparison3 Air Cooled Chiller, Boilers, Fan Coil System Geothermal Heat Pump System Construction Cost difference -- +$405,000 Annual Energy Savings -- $3,700 Lifetime Operational Savings -- $310,000 Lighting Systems Comparison4 Conventional System High Performance System Construction Cost difference -- +$85,000 Annual Energy Savings -- $500 Lifetime Operational Savings -- $45,000 Photovoltaic Comparison5 No PV 40 EUI Energy Offset PV System Construction Cost difference -- +$350,000 Annual Energy Savings -- $6,000 Lifetime Operational Savings (includes 25-yr PV replacement) -- $262,500 Westwood Hills Nature Center Life Cycle and Energy Cost Analysis Summary Tables and Notes– DRAFT 4/02/2018 Page 6Study Session Meeting of April 9, 2018 (Item No. 3) Title: Westwood Hills Nature Center Project – Update on Design Development Page 2 of 3 1Whole Building Comparison Baseline WHNC Building ·Meets the current program. ·Has conventional envelope and mechanical systems. ·50 year life span quality level. ·Meets the WHNC site conditions. ·Meets SLP generator requirements. ·Meets minimum SLP green rating system requirements. ·No on-site energy generation. ·Estimated building and site cost of approximately $8.1M. ·Net Present Value (cost of the building over its life span, in today’s dollars) is approximately $10.91M. Zero Energy WHNC Building ·Meets the current program ·Has high performance envelope and ground source heat pump with radiant floor systems ·50 year life span quality level ·Meets the WHNC site conditions ·Meets SLP generator requirements ·Meets Zero Energy Certification Requirements ·On-site energy generation with photovoltaic arrays ·Estimated Building and Site Cost of approximately $9.5M ·The Discounted payback for the proposed building is approximately 50 years. ·Net Present Value (cost of the building over its life span, in today’s dollars) is approximately $10.88M, a savings of $32,000 over the baseline building. 2Building Envelope Comparison Baseline Building Envelope built for 50 year life span ·R-15 wall, 2” of continuous insulation ·R-25 roof, 4” of continuous insulation ·Doubled-paned, glazing system with standard window assembly (support and framing system) High Performance Building Envelope built for 50 year life span ·R-30 wall, 3” of continuous insulation, with cavity insulation ·R-60 roof, 10” average of continuous insulation ·Doubled-paned, high-performance, low-leakage, improved thermal break window system with operable windows. ·Enhanced, below-slab insulation system of R-10 (2” of continuous insulation) Detailed Impacts ·First Cost Difference of $524,000 ·The high performance envelope provides a 15% energy savings (reduction in Energy Use Intensity – EUI) when compared to the baseline building. ·If the high performance envelope is removed from the project, there would be $1,800 per year added energy cost when compared to the “Basic” chiller and boiler system that meets project requirements. ·The high performance envelope allows for mechanical systems to be reduced – in terms of both peak capacity of heating and cooling systems as well as some local terminal equipment. If the high performance envelope were to be reduced, there would be a cost increase to mechanical systems of approximately 5% or roughly $40k to $50k. ·The high performance envelope allows for an improved user comfort. Westwood Hills Nature Center Page 7Study Session Meeting of April 9, 2018 (Item No. 3) Title: Westwood Hills Nature Center Project – Update on Design Development Page 3 of 3 3Mechanical System Comparison Conventional System ·To meet the basic needs of a new Westwood Hills Nature Center for the City of St Louis Park, the mechanical system could be a more conventional air cooled chiller system with gas fired boilers serving distributed fan coil units. High Performance System ·The proposed high performance mechanical systems for the new Westwood Hills Nature Center are distributed geothermal heat pump units, with radiant heating systems, and connected to a geothermal well field. Detailed Impacts ·The geothermal heat pump system adds approximately $405,000 in mechanical system first costs when compared to the “Basic” chiller and boiler system. ·The geothermal heat pump system reduces energy consumption (Energy Use Intensity – EUI) by approximately 50%. Due to energy rate structures, the energy cost savings for the geothermal heat pumps is approximately $3,700 per year in energy cost savings or approximately a 22% energy cost savings. ·When using life-cycle analysis, the “Basic” WHNC chiller and boiler system has a Net Present Value (NPV) of $2,380,000 while the geothermal heat pump system has a NPV of $2,430,000. The resultant Discounted Payback for the geothermal heat pump systems is approximately 50 years. ·Utility rebates are anticipated to be nominal and would improve the results slightly. ·For the “Basic” chiller and boiler system, additional project costs including screenwalls for the chiller and additional mechanical room space are not included in the first cost impact but should be considered. 4Lighting Systems Comparison Conventional Lighting System ·Base energy code compliant lighting system to include LED lighting, dimming, daylight harvesting control, vacancy sensor control. High Performance Lighting System ·The proposed high performance lighting system to include the base energy code compliant features listed above plus an advanced lighting and control system, daylight balancing/automatic dimming, 10% lower lighting power density (LPD) than code, and shade control. 5Photovoltaic Comparison Baseline – No Photovoltaic System Impacts: ·Annual Energy Cost Increase of approx. $6,000 (consumption kWh). PV Option – Photovoltaic System to meet 40 EUI Building Energy Offset, with 25 year replacement Impacts: ·First Cost Difference of $350,000. ·Since PV is being used as part of a zero-energy building certification, and not just to generate renewable power or save money from purchasing electricity, then panel replacement must occur at about 25 years to maintain full energy production, as panel production currently decreases at about ½ % per year. ·At 25 year replacement, it is anticipated that cost will be reduced due to PV infrastructure already in place being reused, and the efficiency output of PV will be higher due to presumed technology developments. ·Energy Cost difference of ~$6,000 per year savings for complete 50 year life cycle. Page 8 Westwood Hills Nature Center Study Session Meeting of April 9, 2018 (Item No. 3) Title: Westwood Hills Nature Center Project – Update on Design Development Study Session Meeting of April 9, 2018 (Item No. 3) Title: Westwood Hills Nature Center Project – Update on Design Development Page 9 Meeting: Study Session Meeting Date: April 9, 2018 Discussion Item: 4 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: Funding of Non-Profit Organizations RECOMMENDED ACTION: The city council asked for a study session discussion on the city’s policy or approach for funding non-profit organizations. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does council need any additional information on this item? SUMMARY: From a high level perspective, the city’s past and current practice of providing resources to non-profits can be broken into two parts, primarily related to funding sources. Non-Profits Funded by CDBG Dollars Going back a large number of years, the Council has had a long standing policy of only allocating CDBG dollars to eligible non-profits in the community for bricks and mortar type improvements or for programs the city sponsored. Entities that have received CDBG funds for building or grounds improvements include Perspectives, Wayside House, STEP, West Hennepin Affordable Housing Land Trust (WHAHLT), and Community Action Partnership for Suburban Hennepin County (CAPSH). Non-Profits Funded by Other Sources (Dev. Fund, Housing Rehab Fund, Gen, Fund etc.) The City has a practice of funding non-profits that serve a public purpose by addressing a need or priority the Council feels is important to the community. Examples include STEP, Cornerstone, Friends of the Arts and others. The important consideration is that the non-profit provide a service that meets a public purpose which has been defined by the Minnesota Supreme Court as follows: • The activity will benefit the community as a body. • The activity directly relates to functions of government. • The activity does not have, as its primary objective, the benefit of a private interest. To assist with the study session discussion the following information is attached: • Non-profit funding for the past 5 years, including 2018. • Housing Authority (HA) program funding information. • League of MN Cities information on public purpose expenditure which includes a general summary on allowable funding (attached). FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: None at this time. VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: • Non-Profit Funding 5 Year Summary – St. Louis Park • League of Minnesota Cities Information on Public Purpose Expenditures Prepared by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager City Council Meeting of April 9, 2018 (Item No. 4) Page 2 Title: Funding of Non-Profit Organizations St. Louis Park Non-Profit Funding 2013 – 2018. To assist with the conversation, data was collected showing funding of different agencies or programs for the past 5 years including what is budgeted for 2018. Note that the above information does not include grant funding the city provides to individuals or entities via an application based approach such as the Neighborhood Grant Program, Arts and Culture Grant Program, Healthy Living Grant Program, and the Rainwater Rewards Grant Program. Funding 2013 Actual 2014 Actual 2015 Actual 2016 Actual 2017 Actual 2018 Budget Cornerstone Police - General Fund 32,636$ 32,636$ 35,000$ 35,000$ 35,000$ 37,500$ MoveFwd (formerly Teens Alone)Police - General Fund 5,000$ -$ 5,000$ 5,000$ 5,000$ 6,000$ Cornerhouse Police - General Fund 6,877$ 7,085$ 7,085$ 7,227$ 7,372$ Nothern Star Juvenile Diversion Police - General Fund 9,500$ 9,500$ 9,500$ -$ -$ 9,500$ Friends of the Arts EDA/Dev. Fund 20,000$ 20,000$ 20,000$ 20,000$ 40,000$ 40,000$ STEP Housing Rehab Fund 40,000$ 40,000$ 40,000$ 45,000$ 45,900$ 46,820$ STEP Emergency Housing Fund Housing Rehab Fund -$ -$ 15,000$ -$ -$ Senior Community Services (1)Housing Rehab Fund -$ -$ -$ 68$ 10,000$ Prism-Dial a Ride Housing Rehab Fund 7,095$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)*CDBG FY2014 CDBG FY2015 CDBG FY2016 CDBG FY2017 Allocated CDBG FY2018 Proposed Community Action Partnership - Hennepin County Emergency Repair Grant (CAPSH)45,000$ 45,000$ 45,000$ 45,000$ 40,000$ Hennepin County Low Income Deferred Loan 63,449$ 88,000$ 70,000$ 79,578$ 107,050$ WHAHLT/Homes Within Reach 20,000$ 20,000$ 20,000$ 30,000$ 20,000$ St. Louis Park Operations & Recreation (Meadowbrook Program)7,500$ 6,731$ 6,811$ 7,500$ -$ Wayside Supportive Housing Rehab -$ 19,500$ -$ -$ -$ Perspectives Louisiana Court Rehab 20,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ PPL Louisiana Court 20,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Housing Authority - Rehab 23,359$ -$ -$ -$ -$ *CDBG is a federally funded program. There are no city dollars included in these awards. The program only funds projects that meet the CDBG eligibility guidelines. These are not donations, they are third party grant agreements for services and are reimbursed upon successful completion of the eligible project. City Council Meeting of April 9, 2018 (Item No. 4) Page 3 Title: Funding of Non-Profit Organizations In addition, because the city operates a housing authority (HA) that administers both the Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) and the Public Housing (PH) rental assistance programs, we are able to apply and be awarded grants that fund initiatives related to programming that serves the participants of these programs. Award of these grants is a competitive process through HUD. Although funds are from the federal level, we apply and secure funding to support these programs: • The HA contracts with two non-profit agencies for positions that provide referral and case management services to the residents at Hamilton House and economic counseling and planning for HCV and PH residents participating in the Family Self- Sufficiency program. Both of these programs are funded with HUD grants that the HA receives. o Vail Place: $82,000 (2017) – for a service coordinator position at Hamilton House o Avivo: $32,391 (2017) – for a Family Self Sufficiency position to serve the Housing Choice Voucher and Public Housing participants. • We also have a partnership with Perspectives for rental assistance – again provided through a grant the HA receives from HUD through the Continuum of Care program o Perspectives: $101,789 (2017) – for rent assistance • In addition we contract with both Wayside and Vail Place to provide HCV project based rental assistance to residents at their supportive housing facilities. The amount of project based voucher (PBV) rental assistance is based on the average monthly rental assistance provided on 12/31/17. Project Based HCV rental assistance is provided at the following buildings: o Wayside Supportive Housing (not the treatment program):15 units ($106,020) o Vail Place: 8 units ($56,544) o Excelsior & Grand: 18 units ($127,224) (a for profit development) 145 University Ave. West www.lmc.org 6/12/2017 Saint Paul, MN 55103-2044 (651) 281-1200 or (800) 925-1122 © 2017 All Rights Reserved This material is provided as general information and is not a substitute for legal advice. Consult your attorney for advice concerning specific situations. INFORMATION M EMO Public Purpose Expenditures Understand the general criteria for a valid public expenditure. Find a list of commonly analyzed expenditures, including factors relied upon to determine the validity or invalidity of donations to organizations, contributions toward economic development, expenditures on certain employee expenses, and more. RELEVANT LINKS: I. Criteria for valid public expenditures For an expenditure of public funds to qualify as a lawful expenditure, it should have: •A public purpose. A public purpose for the expenditure must exist. •Authority. Specific or implied authority for the expenditure must arise out of a statute or from the city’s charter. Specific authority usually is clear. In contrast, whether a statute or charter provision implicitly provides authority for an expenditure often becomes subject to interpretation. Cities should consult with their city attorneys regarding whether implied authority for a specific expenditure exists. Minn. Const. art. X, § 1. Minn. Const. art. XI, § 2. Minn. Const. art. XII, § 1. Minn. Stat. § 469.191. Handbook, Community Development and Redevelopment. The Minnesota Constitution allows taxation for furthering a public purpose, but generally prohibits enacting local or special ordinances or laws to tax for a private purpose. Minnesota’s Constitution also generally prohibits cities from donating money or loaning the credit of the state for the specific purpose to aid an individual, an association, or a corporation. This does not mean, however, that a city can never contribute to an association or a corporation; but, in order to do so, the expenditure must further a public purpose and must be authorized by a statute or charter. For example, a specific state law allows cities to give donations (of up to $50,000 per year) to any incorporated developmental society or organization for promoting, advertising, improving, or developing the economic and agricultural resources. Also, various statutory economic development tools make it possible for cities to make certain contributions toward development and redevelopment. Again, cities should consult with their city attorneys or bond attorneys regarding allowable expenditures for development. Since, as stated above, a public expenditure must always further a public purpose, analysis of what qualifies as a “public purpose” becomes crucial. Study Session Meeting of April 9, 2018 (Item No. 4) Title: Funding of Non-Profit Organizations Page 4 RELEVANT LINKS: League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 6/12/2017 Public Purpose Expenditures Page 2 Visina v. Freeman, 89 N.W.2d 635 (Minn. 1958). The meaning of “public purpose” constantly is evolving. The Minnesota Supreme Court has followed a liberal approach, generally finding a “public purpose” when the activity in question meets all the following: •The activity will benefit the community as a body. •The activity directly relates to functions of government. •The activity does not have, as its primary objective, the benefit of a private interest. R.E. Short Co. v. City of Minneapolis, 269 N.W.2d 331 (Minn. 1978). The Minnesota Supreme Court has recognized that an incidental benefit to a private interest does not, per se, deprive the spending activity of its public nature, if the primary purpose of the expenditure is public. City of Pipestone v. Madsen, 178 N.W.2d 594 (Minn. 1970). The Minnesota Supreme Court further clarified that activities that promote the following objectives for the benefit of all the city’s residents further a public purpose: •Public health •Safety •General welfare •Security •Prosperity •Contentment By no coincidence, these interests also represent the foundation of all legitimate council actions. Councilmembers are elected or appointed to govern by and for these interests, acting as specialists on what best serves the local population. Therefore, it is wise for a city council to work with its city attorney and to document, in writing, reasonable findings of the council in its determination of a valid public. Abrahamson v. St. Louis Sch. Dist., 802 N.W.2d 393 (Minn. App. 2011), affirmed in part and reversed in part in Abrahamson v. St. Louis Cnty. Sch. Dist. 2142, 819 N.W.2d 129 (Minn. 2012). Attorney general (AG) opinions provide guidance in analyzing the validity of a public expenditure. However, the AG opinions serve only as guideposts, with courts making the final decision if an expenditure gets challenged. Judicial review focuses on (1) whether the expenditure benefits the community as a whole; and (2) whether the expenditure relates to the functions of government. The following issues could arise from an invalid expenditure: Walser Auto Sales v. City of Richfield, 635 N.W.2d 391 (Minn. App. 2001) (taxpayer lawsuit). •Taxpayer lawsuits. Depending on the outcome, a council may have to cover the expense of defending itself in a taxpayer lawsuit and, if the taxpayer wins, dealing with a court order finding the expenditure not valid. Personal liability for the expenditure also might fall upon individual councilmembers in some situations since they have a fiduciary responsibility to spend the public’s money for a public purpose. Study Session Meeting of April 9, 2018 (Item No. 4) Title: Funding of Non-Profit Organizations Page 5 RELEVANT LINKS: League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 6/12/2017 Public Purpose Expenditures Page 3 See generally, State Auditor’s Statements of Position. •Non-compliance finding by the state auditor. The state auditor has the authority to find that the city made an unauthorized expenditure of public funds. This could result in future special audits and embarrassment for the city. •Public mistrust. The council could lose the trust of the people in the community. •Changes in law. Substantial violations may prompt the adoption of more restrictive legislation on city expenditures. Appendix A, Public Purpose Expenditure Chart. A later section of this memo contains a checklist cities can use to make a preliminary determination of whether specific expenditures qualify as a proper use of public funds. II.Common questions on public spending Common questions often arise regarding certain public expenditures. Please note this section does not represent an exhaustive list of all valid or invalid city expenditures. Many statutes limit the authority to spend money by type of cities. For example, some statutes specifically give spending authority only to statutory cities or only to home rule charter cities. Minn. Stat. § 410.01. Also, many statutes give authority for certain expenditures only to cities of a certain class. Population determines which of the following class a city falls under: •First class cities. A first-class city has a population over 100,000. (Cities do not generally lose first class status if their population drops below 100,000, unless the population drops more than a certain amount). •Second class cities. A second-class city has a population over 20,000, but not more than 100,000. •Third class cities. A third-class city has a population over 10,000, but not more than 20,000. •Fourth class cities. A fourth-class city has a population that is 10,000 or less. Minn. Stat. § 410.33. The analyses of the expenditures in this section primarily apply to statutory cities since home rule charter cities may have additional authority for expenditures in their city charters. Charter cities should check their charters for more details. Generally, home rule charter cities will consult the general statutory law that provides statutory cities with authority for an expenditure when the following conditions exist: Study Session Meeting of April 9, 2018 (Item No. 4) Title: Funding of Non-Profit Organizations Page 6 RELEVANT LINKS: League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 6/12/2017 Public Purpose Expenditures Page 4 •The city’s charter is silent on the particular matter. •No general law exists prohibiting a charter city from making the expenditure. •No general law exists that expressly states a city’s charter must prevail over general law on that particular matter. A.Advertising Minn. Stat. §§ 469.187-.189. City officials often ask if they may spend money on advertising. Generally, cities have statutory authority for advertising expenditures. In some instances, however, this authority may be limited to a certain type of advertising for a specific purpose or also may vary based on the class of the city. A.G. Op. (Jan. 30, 1930). Councilmembers should carefully review an expenditure beforehand to ensure it qualifies as an advertising expenditure anticipated by the statutes. The attorney general has deemed a donation, under the guise of advertising, improper. A city seeking to expend monies on advertising expenditures not outlined in this memo should contact the League for further information or consult its city attorney for a legal opinion. 1.First class cities Minn. Stat. § 469.187. Any first-class city may levy a tax, not exceeding 0.00080 percent of the estimated market value, and the council may direct the use of the proceeds for city publicity purposes. The council may establish and provide for a publicity board or bureau to administer the fund, subject to the conditions and limitations that the council prescribes by ordinance. 2.Second and third class cities Minn. Stat. § 469.188. Minn. Stat. § 410.01. Any second or third class city (whether a statutory or home rule charter city) may levy a tax to use for advertising: •Agricultural resources of the community. •Industrial business of the community. •All other resources of the community. 3.Second, third, and fourth class cities Minn. Stat. § 469.189. Minn. Stat. § 410.01. The governing body of any second, third, or fourth class statutory or home rule charter city may annually appropriate money to advertise the city, its resources and advantages. Limitations on the appropriations include using the money: Study Session Meeting of April 9, 2018 (Item No. 4) Title: Funding of Non-Profit Organizations Page 7 RELEVANT LINKS: League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 6/12/2017 Public Purpose Expenditures Page 5 •to advertise the city; or •for cooperative programs that involve promotion of the area by more than one municipality and its resources and advantages. 4.Statutory cities Minn. Stat. § 469.186. Section II–HH, Tourism. Any statutory city may spend money to create a bureau of information and publicity to (1) furnish tourists with information; (2) provide outdoor advertising and (3) prepare, publish, and circulate information and facts concerning community recreational facilities, business resources and industrial resources. B.Airports Minn. Stat. § 360.032. Minn. Stat. § 360.043. Minn. Stat. §§ 360.011-.076. All cities, towns, and counties in Minnesota have the power to acquire, maintain, and operate airports. In addition, cities, towns, and counties may assist other municipalities in exercising the powers and authority those other municipalities have under the aeronautics code. This assistance may take the form of a gift or lease of real property, a donation or loan of personal property, or the appropriation of money. C.Bridges Minn. Stat. § 441.26. Minn. Stat. § 410.01. All statutory cities may spend money to assist in the improvement and maintenance of roads and bridges outside the city limits, so long as the roads lead into the city. Fourth class home rule charter cities also have this authority. Minn. Stat. § 441.48. Minn. Stat. §§ 441.47-.55. All cities have the power to acquire, purchase, construct, maintain, and operate bridges and the bridges’ approaches. To use this authority, however, a city must pass an ordinance determining to exercise powers granted by certain state statutes. Minn. Stat. § 458.02. Minn. Stat. § 458.03 D.Ports, Docks All cities with a population from 4,000 to 50,000 may acquire land on a navigable stream in the city by purchase or condemnation. The city may, on this land or on a portion of this land, construct, erect, and maintain: •Docks, quays, levees, wharves, landing places, railroads, and other transportation loading and unloading places. •Water freight and passenger stations. •Terminals and terminal buildings for carriers. •Necessary equipment and appurtenances. Study Session Meeting of April 9, 2018 (Item No. 4) Title: Funding of Non-Profit Organizations Page 8 RELEVANT LINKS: League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 6/12/2017 Public Purpose Expenditures Page 6 E.Businesses Minn. Stat. Ch. 469. Several statutes empower cities to provide money or real property for economic development purposes under various programs. Section II-L, Economic development Likewise, there is limited authority to provide low-cost land for housing redevelopment purposes. Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development, 332 Minnesota Street, Suite E-200, St. Paul, MN 55101; (651) 259-7114 or (800) 657-3858. These different programs are discussed briefly in a later section of this memo. For further information, contact the League or the Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development (DEED). F.Cemeteries Minn. Stat. § 412.221, subd. 9. Statutory cities may acquire, hold, and manage cemetery grounds. These cities may acquire cemeteries by purchase, gift, devise, condemnation, or otherwise. Minn. Stat. § 471.84. Minn. Stat. § 410.01. LMC information memo, Cemetery Regulations. Any statutory city, town, or fourth class home rule charter city may appropriate up to $10,000 per year to any public or privately owned cemetery located within or outside the city’s boundaries. The cemetery must be used for burial of the dead without restriction. The statute does not specify a particular use of the money by the cemetery. Alternatively, a city may enter a joint powers agreement with another governmental entity for the operation of a cemetery. In addition to the joint powers agreement, neighboring cities and towns may jointly agree to maintain a cemetery, with the same $10,000-per-year restriction for each. G.Community celebrations Minn. State Auditor, Statement of Position Public Expenditure: Donations and Dues. City officials often ask if the city may hold a celebration for the community or contribute to an organization that will be holding a community celebration. Although no general authorization exists for festival expenditures, some statutory authority does support these types of expenditures in limited circumstances. The League cautions against spending money on celebrations outside of parameters set forth below and recommends consulting with city attorneys regarding expenditures on fairs or celebrations. 1.County fairs Minn. Stat. § 38.12. Any city or town hosting the fairs of county and district agricultural societies or associations may appropriate money to the agricultural society or association if both: Study Session Meeting of April 9, 2018 (Item No. 4) Title: Funding of Non-Profit Organizations Page 9 RELEVANT LINKS: League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 6/12/2017 Public Purpose Expenditures Page 7 •The society or association is a member of the Minnesota State Agricultural Society; and •The fair is held within the city’s or town’s corporate limits or within close-proximity to the corporate limits. 2.Memorial Day observances Minn. Stat. § 465.50. All cities have the authority to spend money for Memorial Day observances in commemoration of the noble and valiant deeds of the nation’s dead soldiers. Cities may spend up to $300 annually for each 75,000 of population. 3.Centennial and historical celebrations Minn. Stat. § 471.93. Section II-R, Historical. The statutes do not specifically authorize cities to spend money for city centennial celebrations. An argument can be made, however, that cities may spend money on such local celebrations under a statute allowing cities to spend money to commemorate important historical events that occurred in the city. A later section of this memo discusses this authority in more detail. H.Community centers Minn. Stat. § 471.935. Minn. Stat. §§ 471.15-.191. Office of State Auditor, Statement of Position: Expenditure of Public Funds to Schools and Senior Programs, Oct. 14, 2016. Any city may appropriate money to support the facilities, programs, and services of a public or private nonprofit senior citizen or youth center. No specific authority expressly allows cities to finance other community centers, but many cities have done so through the state recreation statutes. I.Decorations Minn. Stat. § 412.221, subd. 34. Statutory cities may spend money on decorations, signs, plaques, and attached accessories for public streets, buildings, and parks. Cities should use caution to ensure that decorations, such as those for the Christmas holidays, are not primarily religious in nature. J.Donations A.G. Op. 59-a-22 (Dec. 4, 1934). MN State Auditor, Statement of Position Public Expenditure: Donations and Dues. Minn. Stat. § 469.191. Cities often get asked to make donations to organizations operating for good causes. Generally, without express authority by charter or statute, cities do not have authority to appropriate or give away public funds as donations to any person, corporation or private institution. This does not mean, however, that a city can never contribute to an association or a corporation; but, to do so, the expenditure must further a public purpose and must be authorized by a statute or charter. Indeed, some statutes specifically allow support for certain organizations and causes. Study Session Meeting of April 9, 2018 (Item No. 4) Title: Funding of Non-Profit Organizations Page 10 RELEVANT LINKS: League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 6/12/2017 Public Purpose Expenditures Page 8 Handbook, Community Development and Redevelopment. For example, a specific state law exists that allows cities to give donations (of up to $50,000 per year) to any incorporated developmental society or organization. Also, various statutory economic development tools make it possible for cities to make certain contributions toward development and redevelopment. Again, cities should consult with their city attorneys or bond attorneys regarding allowable expenditures for development. 1.Nonprofit organizations in general The attorney general and the state auditor, over the years, have considered the question of whether cities can donate public funds to various groups. Public expenditures to the following groups or organizations do not have statutory authority and are invalid: A.G. Op. 59-a-3 (May 21, 1948). A.G. Op. 218-r (Aug. 15, 1951). A.G. Op. 59-a-22 (Aug. 7, 1951). A.G. Op. 476-b-2 (Apr. 20, 1944). A.G. Op. 218-r (Feb. 10, 1942). A.G. Op. 476-b-2 (Apr. 29, 1954). Office of State Auditor, Statement of Position: Expenditure of Public Funds to Schools and Senior Programs, Oct. 14, 2016. •Supporting the Boy Scouts. •Sponsoring a local bowling team. •Sponsoring a local kittenball team (like softball). •Helping the American Legion build a Legion Hall. •Supporting the Red Cross. •Supporting a campaign to stop expansion of a neighboring city airport. •Supporting schools. Minn. Stat. § 412.221, subd. 2. Minn. Stat. § 349.213. Minn. Stat. § 349.12. Cities have other options to support nonprofits. For example, the city could use its contracting power to indirectly support nonprofits, such as contracting with a club to spend a Saturday cleaning up public grounds in exchange for money. Also, if a city maintains a fund created from gambling proceeds, those proceeds may be used for many types of charitable contributions that further a lawful purpose. The city should consult with its city attorney to ensure that the use of gambling proceeds complies with the statutory requirements of a lawful purpose expenditure. 2.Artistic organizations Minn. Stat. § 471.941. Counties, cities, and townships may appropriate money to support artistic organizations. The governing body may divide the appropriation among multiple artistic organizations in proportions determined by the governing body. An association, corporation, or other group that provides an opportunity for people to participate in the creation, performance, or appreciation of artistic activities qualifies as an “artistic organization”. The statute provides examples of “artistic activities” that cities can support; however, it, by no means, represents an exclusive list. Study Session Meeting of April 9, 2018 (Item No. 4) Title: Funding of Non-Profit Organizations Page 11 RELEVANT LINKS: League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 6/12/2017 Public Purpose Expenditures Page 9 3.Incorporated development societies or organizations Minn. Stat. § 469.191. A.G. Op. (June 27, 1997) (informal letter opinion to Staples). Section II-K, Dues. State law authorizes cities “to appropriate not more than $50,000 annually to any incorporated development society or organization of the state for promoting, advertising, improving, or developing the economic and agricultural resources of the city.” Because of the limitations regarding donations, cities interested in donating up to $50,000 in any given year to an incorporated development society or organization should consult their city attorney. For example, the attorney general’s office has opined that, while this authority allows a city to contribute up to $50,000 annually to a chamber of commerce, it does not allow a city to become a member of the chamber of commerce, or to pay dues to it. 4.Community food shelves Minn. Stat. § 465.039. Minn. Stat. § 465.037. Minn. Stat. § 469.191. Sections II-S, Hospitals and EMS and II-L, Economic development. Any city or county may appropriate an amount to provide grants to nonprofit organizations that operate community food shelves and provide food to the needy without charge. Authority also exists to provide public money to support hospitals and certain economic development organizations. These circumstances are discussed in more detail in a later part of this memo. 5.Prevention of cruelty to animals Minn. Stat. § 343.11. If a city has a society for the prevention of cruelty to animals (“SPCA”), it may appropriate monies, not otherwise appropriated, for the maintenance and support of that SPCA “in the transaction of the work for which they are organized”. However, no part of such an appropriation may go to pay the salary of any officer of the society. 6.Solicitation of donations by firefighters Minn. Stat. § 465.90. Despite any law or ordinance to the contrary, any city may, by resolution, allow full-time firefighters employed by the city and while on duty, or volunteer firefighters serving the city while not on duty, to solicit charitable contributions from motorists. A city that wishes to do this must follow certain strict requirements set forth in the statute, including restrictions on type of charitable organization, frequency and time frame of solicitations and proof of insurance. Study Session Meeting of April 9, 2018 (Item No. 4) Title: Funding of Non-Profit Organizations Page 12 RELEVANT LINKS: League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 6/12/2017 Public Purpose Expenditures Page 10 7.Surplus city equipment Minn. Stat. § 471.3459. Donation of Surplus City Equipment to a Nonprofit Organization., LMC Model Policy. In 2016, the Minnesota Legislature passed a law allowing a “local government,” including statutory and home rule charter cities, to donate “surplus equipment” to a “nonprofit organization.” Surplus equipment includes equipment used by a local government public works department, and also includes cellular phones, emergency medical and firefighting equipment no longer needed by the local government (because the phones or equipment no longer meet industry standards for emergency medical services, police, or fire departments; have minimal value; or have no resale value). Before donating surplus equipment, a city must adopt a policy on how it will determine what qualifies as surplus eligible for donation and how it will select nonprofit organizations eligible to receive donations. One caveat worth mentioning—the policy “must address the obligations of the local government to disclose to the nonprofit that the surplus equipment may be defective and cannot be relied upon for safety purposes.” K.Dues A.G. Op. (June 27, 1997) (informal letter opinion to Staples). MN State Auditor, Statement of Position Public Expenditure: Donations and Dues. According to the attorney general, cities cannot join or become members of “private” organizations, absent specific statutory authority—even if there is specific authority to contribute to the organization. Without authorization for membership, cities do not have authority to pay for membership. Minn. Stat. § 471.96. All cities, counties, and towns may appropriate money for membership in county, regional, state, and national associations of a civic, educational, or governmental nature. The associations must have, as their purpose, the betterment and improvement of municipal governmental operations. This authorization also allows these public entities to participate in the meetings and activities of these associations. Minn. Stat. § 465.58. All cities and urban towns in Minnesota may appropriate money to pay dues to become members of the League of Minnesota Cities. L.Economic development Minn. Stat. Ch. 469. A number of statutes empower cities to provide money or real property for economic development purposes under various programs, including up to $50,000 to an incorporated development society or organization discussed in II(J)(3) above. An analysis of the economic development statutes and their requirements fall outside the scope of this memo; however, cities should know that, in certain circumstances, the statutes permit contributions for economic development. Study Session Meeting of April 9, 2018 (Item No. 4) Title: Funding of Non-Profit Organizations Page 13 RELEVANT LINKS: League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 6/12/2017 Public Purpose Expenditures Page 11 The following list provides a broad summary of some of the more common tools available for encouraging development: Minn. Stat. § 469.185. Minn. Stat. §§ 116J.993- .995. Minn. Stat. § 469.191. Minn. Stat. §§ 469.124-.134. Minn. Stat. §§ 469.090- .1082. Minn. Stat. § 469.192. Minn. Stat. §§ 469.1812- .1816. •Conveyance of city-owned land for a nominal amount to encourage business and industry, under certain conditions. •“Business subsidies,” including contributions of personal property, real property and/or infrastructure. •Grants to certain economic development organizations. •Creation of development districts. •Economic Development Authority programs. •Economic development loans. •Tax abatement. Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development, 332 Minnesota Street, Suite E-200, St. Paul, MN 55101; (651) 259-7114 or (800) 657-3858. Handbook, Community Development and Redevelopment. The League recommends consulting with city attorneys or city bond counsel when considering any of these tools. Also, for further information about economic development programs, contact the League or the Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development (DEED). Finally, Chapter 14 of the Handbook for Minnesota Cities, entitled Community Development and Redevelopment, provides guidance on awarding business subsidies or utilizing various development tools. M.Elections Cities can spend money to hold general and special elections authorized by law. 1.Special elections/advisory elections A.G. Op. 472-o (July 31, 1959). A.G. Op. 185-b-2 (June 28, 1962). A.G. Op. 185-b-2 (Apr. 6, 1962). LMC information memo, City Special Elections. Special elections, whether authorized by statutes or by charter provisions, represent a valid public expenditure. In the alternative, elections on questions that the public has no authority to answer, either by statute or charter provision, constitute advisory elections, which are prohibited, and expenditures on these types of elections are not valid. Many home rule charter cities have charters containing initiative and referendum provisions. These provisions give these charter cities additional powers regarding the types of questions that can be put on the ballot at a special election. Voters in these cities often have the right to petition for special elections in certain circumstances. 2.Advocating/educating on a ballot question A common question regarding ballot issues revolves around whether a city can spend money for advertisements encouraging voters to support the city’s position on a local ballot question, such as a “yes” vote for a special election to issue bonds or a “no” vote on a city charter issue. Study Session Meeting of April 9, 2018 (Item No. 4) Title: Funding of Non-Profit Organizations Page 14 RELEVANT LINKS: League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 6/12/2017 Public Purpose Expenditures Page 12 A related question arises, as well, as to whether a city can spend money either to support or oppose a state constitutional amendment ballot initiative. a.Local ballot initiatives A.G. Op. 159-a-3 (May 24, 1966). Office of the State Auditor, Statement of Position: Expenditure of Public Funds on Ballot Issue Advocacy, Apr. 2014. Traditionally, case law and the attorney general have allowed local subdivisions to publish and distribute publications intended merely to inform the public of financial conditions and the potential effects of the passage or failure of a ballot question. However, cities generally have not been allowed to expend funds to promote or defeat passage of a local ballot question by presenting one-sided information on the issue. The state auditor acknowledged an exception to this, stating elected officials may appear before citizens to orally advocate for a position, so long as no expenditure of public funds has occurred. Abrahamson v. St. Louis Cnty. Sch. Dist. 2142, 819 N.W.2d 129 (Minn. 2012). A 2012 Minnesota Supreme Court decision, however, questioned the extent to which a city either can inform its residents of a ballot measure or warn its citizens of the direct financial consequences that may occur should a ballot measure succeed or fail. While the court declined to opine on whether a city could legally spend money to promote a position on a ballot measure, the court cautioned that any such expenditures would be subject the city to campaign finance laws. Furthermore, the court stated any statement made by a city “with reckless disregard of whether it is false” could be punishable as a misdemeanor. Given the uncertainty left by this decision, cities should consult their city attorney prior to any expenditures associated with efforts to inform voters about any ballot question. b. State constitutional ballot initiatives A.G. Op. 442-a-20 (July 10, 1952). Historically, the attorney general also has frowned upon expenditures made to support a position on a state constitutional ballot initiative. A 1952 opinion addressed a situation where a town wanted to spend money to advocate the adoption of a constitutional amendment. The attorney general found the expenditure illegal, stressing that use of taxpayer money to support one political position was improper since taxpayers can have differing opinions about almost any political question. A.G. Op. (June 30, 2006) (informal letter opinion). In a later opinion, however, the attorney general has recognized that, in limited circumstances, spending money to advocate a position could be proper. Study Session Meeting of April 9, 2018 (Item No. 4) Title: Funding of Non-Profit Organizations Page 15 RELEVANT LINKS: League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 6/12/2017 Public Purpose Expenditures Page 13 Office of the State Auditor, Statement of Position: Expenditure of Public Funds on Ballot Issue Advocacy, Apr. 2014. The attorney general and the state auditor both have stated that, where a state action or proposal could have a “direct and substantial effect” on the interests of a local governmental entity, that entity could spend public funds to protect or promote its interests—even by financially supporting one side of a ballot issue. The attorney general and state auditor quickly point-out, however, a city cannot spend public funds for advocacy of a position where the proposed measures’ effect would be “only indirect and in common with the public at large.” The city council has the discretion to make findings as to whether a measure has a “direct and substantial effect.” Therefore, cities that wish to spend money to encourage a particular vote on a local ballot initiative should first consult with their city attorneys. Abrahamson v. St. Louis Cnty. Sch. Dist. 2142, 819 N.W.2d 129 (Minn. 2012). Lastly, in light of the 2012 Minnesota Supreme Court case, cities that spend any money to promote a position on a state constitutional amendment must do so in compliance with campaign finance and fair campaign practice laws. c. Local sales tax Minn. Stat. § 297A.99, subd. 1(d), (e). State statutes currently ban cities from expending funds to promote or otherwise advertise a referendum to support special legislation imposing a local option sales tax. Cities can, however, expend money to: •Conduct the referendum. •Disseminate information included in the resolution and indicating the city council’s approval of the local sales tax. •Provide notice of and conduct public forums at which both proponents and opponents of the referendum have equal time to express their opinions on the merits of the referendum. •Provide facts and data on the impact of the proposed sales tax on consumer purchases. •Provide facts and data related to the programs and projects to be funded with the sales tax. N.Employees/staff/public officials Cities often ask about various employee costs. These include: •Pay, expenses, and benefits. •Miscellaneous items (bonds, recognition events, and flowers). Study Session Meeting of April 9, 2018 (Item No. 4) Title: Funding of Non-Profit Organizations Page 16 RELEVANT LINKS: League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 6/12/2017 Public Purpose Expenditures Page 14 1.Pay, expenses, and benefits Minn. Stat. § 412.111. Statutory cities may create departments and advisory boards and appoint officers, employees and agents as deemed necessary for the proper management and operation of city affairs. In doing so, the council may define the duties of its officers, employees and other staff, as well as fix the compensation for those positions. a.Bonuses A.G. Op. 270-d (Aug. 12, 1977). A.G. Op. 107-a-3 (Jan. 22, 1980). The attorney general has said that a bonus for past services is void as a gratuity, in the absence of some type of agreement or understanding. A.G. Op. (Feb. 6, 1998) (informal letter opinion to Champlin). However, the attorney general acknowledged the possibility of paying a bonus to employees and opined that “an agreed monetary bonus might be provided as part of a salary plan to employees who meet performance or longevity standards”. MN State Auditor, Petition Report: City of Becker. Based on this AG opinion, it seems reasonable to assume that, if the bonus arose from a prior agreement or understanding of how or when payment of the bonus would occur, then the bonus would be valid. b. Discounted or free items or services from city-owned business The state auditor has determined that no specific authority permits offering discounts to city employees because of their status as city employees on merchandise sold by city-owned businesses, such as discounts on clothes in a city-owned golf course pro shop. Discounts on merchandise to nonemployees or employees for reasons other than status of employees (like any season pass holder) may pass muster so long as the city’s council has approved a policy outlining the discounting practice. c.Insurance benefits Minn. Stat. § 471.61, subd. 1. Minn. Stat. § 471.61, subd. 2a. Minn. Stat. § 471.61, subd. 5. Municipalities may insure or protect their officers and employees and their dependents under group health insurance, life insurance, and accident insurance. The city may pay all or any part of the premium or charges on the insurance or protection. Such a payment represents additional compensation paid to the officer or employee, but does not qualify as income for purposes of determining contributions or benefits under a public pension or retirement system. Any city or town may insure or protect its retired officers and employees and their dependents under a group life, health, accident, medical and surgical benefits, or hospitalization insurance or benefits. Study Session Meeting of April 9, 2018 (Item No. 4) Title: Funding of Non-Profit Organizations Page 17 RELEVANT LINKS: League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 6/12/2017 Public Purpose Expenditures Page 15 A city also may contract with an insurance company for the voluntary purchase of long-term care insurance by employees and their dependents. d. Mileage reimbursement Minn. Stat. § 471.665. Cities may pay a mileage reimbursement for staff who travel for city business and use their own vehicles. The city council sets the maximum amount to be reimbursed. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) sets the rate considered tax deductible for business use. If a city sets its rate higher than the IRS rate, any additional amounts represents income to the employee. In lieu of the mileage allowance, the council may pay a monthly or periodic allowance to any officer or employee for using his or her personal vehicle for city business. However, no allowance in lieu of mileage may be paid to councilmembers unless provided by special law or the city’s charter. e.Preventive health and employee recognition (plaques, dinners, parties) Minn. Stat. § 15.46. Office of the Minnesota State Auditor, Statement of Position: Employee Recognition Programs and Events, Feb. 2014. MN State Auditor, Petition Report: City of Becker. State law allows a statutory or home rule charter city to (1) establish and operate a program of preventive health and employee recognition services for its employees; (2) to provide necessary staff, equipment, and facilities and (3) to expend funds, as necessary, to achieve the objectives of the program. The state auditor has released a statement of position that narrowly interprets this statute, requiring the programs to be in writing and to state clear wellness and recognition objections. The city council must approve the program, with the council determining the amount necessary to achieve the objectives of the program. The state auditor also cautions that “in-kind” benefits to employees of statutory cities must have express authorizations by statute. Cities should consult with their city attorneys before offering in-kind benefits, such as employee privileges (like free rounds of golf) or discounts on items (like season passes) as part of wellness programs. f. Public officials’ expenses Minn. Stat. § 465.54. MN State Auditor, Petition Report: City of Becker. Statutory cities may pay the expenses incurred by councilmembers for their official duties relating to their city’s bureau of information and tourism. This does not include trips for lobbying purposes or for meetings and conventions not connected with specific municipal projects pending before the official making the trip. This also does not include paying for employees to participate in events, such as playing in golf tournaments. Study Session Meeting of April 9, 2018 (Item No. 4) Title: Funding of Non-Profit Organizations Page 18 RELEVANT LINKS: League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 6/12/2017 Public Purpose Expenditures Page 16 g.Severance pay Minn. Stat. § 465.72. LMC Research and Information Services at (800) 925-1122 or (651) 281-1200. Cities may pay severance pay to their employees, and adopt rules for the payment of severance pay to employees who leave employment. Severance pay cannot exceed the equivalent of one year of pay. Severance pay does not include compensation for accumulated sick leave or other payments in the form of contributions by an employer toward premiums for group insurance policies for former employee. The city must pay severance pay in a manner mutually agreeable to the employee and the employer, and must pay it over a period of not more than five years from retirement or termination. For more information regarding the requirements for these types of severance pay situations, contact the League. h. Vacation leave Minn. Stat. § 471.66. Any city council may grant paid or unpaid vacations to its regularly employed employees and officers. The city council may adopt vacation policies by ordinance or resolution, including determining the terms and conditions of vacations. No elected official may receive monetary compensation for unused vacation or sick leave accruals. 2.Miscellaneous items Cities often ask if it is proper to spend money on the following miscellaneous items for their officers and staff: a.Official Performance Bonds Minn. Stat. § 415.18. Minn. Stat. § 412.111. City councils may pay to provide fidelity or faithful performance bonds for city officers and employees who, by statute, must furnish them. b. Flowers Minn. Stat. § 471.895. No specific authority exists for purchasing flowers for a staff member or city official who is ill or has lost a family member. Additionally, even if employees contribute their own money towards flowers, potential problems could arise if purchased for a supervisor under the state’s gift law. LMC information memo, Official Conflict of Interest. The gift law prohibits a person from giving a gift to an elected or appointed official if the official has the power to make a decision that could impact a financial interest of the person giving the gift. Study Session Meeting of April 9, 2018 (Item No. 4) Title: Funding of Non-Profit Organizations Page 19 RELEVANT LINKS: League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 6/12/2017 Public Purpose Expenditures Page 17 Since many city supervisors qualify as “appointed” officials and, those supervisors often give feedback that directly affects salary raises for the staff they manage, a potential violation of the gift law may result when staff members give the supervisor any gift beyond those authorized by law. O.Entertainment (musical) Minn. Stat. § 412.221, subd. 15. Minn. Stat. § 410.33. Statutory city councils may spend money to provide free musical entertainment. Many home rule charter cities contain similar authority in their charters. If the city’s charter is silent on the matter, it may turn to the same statute relied upon by statutory cities to get authorization for providing free musical entertainment. Minn. Stat. § 449.06. Minn. Stat. § 410.01. Fourth class home rule charter cities may levy a tax for providing musical entertainment to the public in public buildings or on public grounds. The maximum amount that may be spent in any year is $3,500. Minn. Stat. § 449.08. Minn. Stat. § 410.01. Any third-class city may levy a tax to pay for free musical entertainment for the public. The annual expenditure is limited to $3,000. Minn. Stat. § 449.09. Minn. Stat. § 410.01. There also is a more general law that permits towns, statutory cities, and home rule charter cities of the second, third, and fourth class to levy a tax for funding a band, orchestra or chorus. To use this authority, the council must get permission from the city’s voters. Minn. Stat. § 449.10. Minn. Stat. § 449.11. To put the question on the ballot, the city first must have received a petition signed by 10 percent of the voters proposing the funding. The statute provides the language of the ballot question. Once the city receives the petition, the council must put the question to the voters at the next general municipal election. Minn. Stat. § 449.09. If a majority of voters, who vote on the question, approve it, the city levies the tax and the money must be kept in a special fund. The money may be used for maintenance, transportation and employment of a band, orchestra, or chorus for municipal purposes. If the musical group is discontinued or, the city decides, by vote, not to employ a band, orchestra, or chorus, the governing body may transfer the sums already levied and collected to the general fund P.Furniture, office supplies Minn. Stat. § 412.221, subd. 1. Statutory cities may purchase office supplies, such as furniture, equipment, and stationery supplies, necessary for city purposes. Charters of home rule charter cities usually have similar authority. Study Session Meeting of April 9, 2018 (Item No. 4) Title: Funding of Non-Profit Organizations Page 20 RELEVANT LINKS: League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 6/12/2017 Public Purpose Expenditures Page 18 Minn. Stat. § 410.32. Minn. Stat. § 412.301. Notwithstanding any contrary provision of other law or the charter, all statutory cities and charter cities may, by resolution and without public referendum, issue capital notes subject to the city debt limit to purchase capital equipment, which includes computer hardware and software, whether bundled with machinery or equipment or unbundled, together with application development services and training related to the use of the computer hardware and software. Cities should work with their city attorney or bond counsel to make sure these capital notes comply with the specific statutory requirements, including the required two-thirds vote of the governing body. Q.Garbage Minn. Stat. § 412.221, subd. 22. Minn. Stat. § 410.33. Statutory cities may adopt ordinances to regulate or provide for the disposal of sewage, garbage, and other refuse. Home rule charter cities often have similar authority in their charters. If their charter is silent on the matter, they may rely upon the authority set forth in statute for statutory cities. R.Historical Minn. Stat. § 471.93. Minn. Stat. § 410.01. All statutory cities and second, third, or fourth class home rule charter cities may appropriate money to commemorating the anniversary of any important and outstanding event in the city’s history. This authority allows cities to spend money on the following: •Collecting data and material pertaining to the history of the city. •Preserving, storing, and housing data and material pertaining to the history of the city. •Printing, publishing distributing and exhibiting data and material pertaining to the history of the city. •Preserving historic data for future generations. Minn. Stat. § 138.053. The governing body of any home rule charter or statutory city may annually appropriate, from its general fund, an amount not to exceed .02418 percent of estimated market value, derived from ad valorem taxes on property or other revenues, to the historical society of its respective county to further the promotion of historical work and to aid in defraying the expenses of carrying on the historical work in the county. However, the city may only appropriate these funds to a historical society affiliated with and approved by the Minnesota Historical Society. Study Session Meeting of April 9, 2018 (Item No. 4) Title: Funding of Non-Profit Organizations Page 21 RELEVANT LINKS: League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 6/12/2017 Public Purpose Expenditures Page 19 S.Hospitals and EMS Minn. Stat. § 412.221, subd. 16. Minn. Stat. §§ 447.05-.06. Minn. Stat. § 410.01. All statutory cities may spend money to provide hospitals. Third and fourth class home rule charter cities may establish, acquire, and operate hospitals. These cities may also acquire property by gift, purchase, or condemnation for the location of a municipal hospital. Minn. Stat. § 447.045. Cities with municipal liquor stores may spend money from the liquor dispensary fund to construct a community hospital. The dollar amounts vary depending upon the class and type of city and the type of liquor store. In some cases, a city must get voter approval before proceeding. Minn. Stat. § 465.037. Any city or town may make grants for the use of a private, nonprofit or public hospital or to an emergency medical services agency that serves the city or town. The city council or town board must authorize the grant (after an affirmative vote of the town electors at the annual or special town meeting). Minn. Stat. § 447.45. Cities may issue revenue bonds to finance the acquisition and betterment of nursing homes and related facilities. Cities may jointly create hospital districts with the power to own and operate hospitals, nursing homes, and similar facilities. T.Housing Minn. Stat. Ch. 462C. Cities may adopt and develop municipal housing programs that can do the following: Minn. Stat. § 462C.16. •Make or purchase mortgage or rehabilitation loans to finance the acquisition or rehabilitation of single family housing for low- and moderate-income individuals and families. •Make or purchase loans to finance multifamily housing developments or the rehabilitation of multifamily housing developments if the program is submitted for review. •Establish, by ordinance, a local housing trust fund or participate in a joint powers agreement to establish a regional housing trust fund. LMC Research and Information Service at (800) 925-1122 or (651) 281-1200. Minn. Stat. §§ 469.001-.047. Section II-L, Economic development. Cities and participants in these programs must meet various criteria to qualify. Contact the League for more information. Housing and Redevelopment Authorities (HRAs) also have special authority to encourage the recovery and rehabilitation of blighted housing. Minn. Stat. § 462C.16. With respect to local housing trust funds, a nonprofit organization may administer the fund, which then can encourage private charitable donations to the fund. Money in the local or regional house trust fund may pay for administrative expenses, as long as not more than 10 percent of the balance of the fund goes toward these administrative expenses. Study Session Meeting of April 9, 2018 (Item No. 4) Title: Funding of Non-Profit Organizations Page 22 RELEVANT LINKS: League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 6/12/2017 Public Purpose Expenditures Page 20 The money in this fund may also: fund grants, loans, and loan guarantees for the development, rehabilitation, or financing of housing; match other funds from federal, state, or private resources for housing projects; or provide down payment assistance, rental assistance, and homebuyer counseling services. U.Individuals and public entities Part I, Criteria for valid public expenditures. As a reminder, the basic principle of valid public expenditures requires spending public money to further a public purpose. As a result, it makes sense that public money may not generally be used for the benefit of an individual. Of course, some limited exceptions exist. This section discusses some of the more common questions city officials have asked about using city money to help individuals. 1.Forgiving property taxes and special assessments Minn. Stat. § 435.193. LMC information memo, Special Assessment Toolkit. Cities generally lack authority to forgive taxes or special assessments that have been levied to properties. However, state statutes allow for hardship assessment deferral in certain situations and permit cities to defer special assessments on property owned by persons 65 years of age or older, persons retired because of permanent or total disability, or, in some instances, members of the National Guard or other military reserves called to active duty. To do so, the city must adopt an ordinance or resolution establishing standards and guidelines for determining the existence of a hardship and for determining the existence of a disability. Minn. Stat. §§ 469.1812- .1816. Property tax abatement is an economic development tool available to cities, counties, and school districts. Each taxing authority may abate its portion of taxes against a property identified for development for a limited number of years. Several criteria must be met to use this tool. For further information about property tax abatement, contact the League. 2.Aid to remedy emergency situations Section II–J, Donations to organizations. A.G. Op. 218-r (Feb. 10, 1942). A.G. Op. 476-b-2 (Oct. 11, 1946). No specific statutory authority permits cities to spend money to help individuals who may have suffered losses due to a natural disaster, such as a flood or tornado. As mentioned earlier, the attorney general has found that a city cannot donate money directly to the Red Cross or to similar organizations; however, the statutes allow cities to assist other cities recovering from natural disasters. Minn. Stat. § 12.02, subd. 1(3). The emergency management statutes provide for rendering of mutual aid among political subdivisions of the state. Study Session Meeting of April 9, 2018 (Item No. 4) Title: Funding of Non-Profit Organizations Page 23 RELEVANT LINKS: League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 6/12/2017 Public Purpose Expenditures Page 21 Minn. Stat. § 12.37. Also, under one of the emergency management statutes, a political subdivision may enter contracts and incur obligations to combat disaster and provide emergency assistance to victims of disasters. In these situations, political subdivisions can provide this assistance without complying with the normal formalities, including those pertaining to the appropriation and expenditure of public funds. Minn. Stat. § 12.331. Minn. Stat. § 12.03, subds. 2, 3. Under the emergency management statutes, cities may provide personnel, equipment and supplies to another political subdivision that requests assistance because of an emergency. “Emergency” is defined as an unforeseen combination of circumstances that calls for immediate action to prevent a disaster from developing or occurring. “Disaster” is defined as (1)a situation that creates an actual or imminent serious threat to the health and safety of persons; or (2) a situation that has resulted or is likely to result in catastrophic loss to property or the environment, and for which traditional sources of relief and assistance within the affected area are unable to repair or prevent the injury or loss. 3.Public entities Minn. Stat. § 38.345. Minn. Stat. § 38.331, subd. 2. The council of any city may spend money on county extension work. The statute defines “county extension work” as “educational programs and services provided by extension educators in the areas of agriculture; agricultural finance; economic development; nutrition; youth leadership development (including 4-H programs); leadership; and environment and natural resources.” Minn. Stat. § 465.035. Any public corporation may lease or convey its land for nominal consideration to the state of Minnesota or any government subdivision; to the U.S. government or any agency of the federal government; to another public corporation or to the Minnesota State Armory Building Commission. This authority also allows public land to be similarly conveyed without consideration or for an agreed upon amount. Minn. Stat. § 471.85. Any city, town, county, or school district may transfer its personal property to another public corporation for public use. This transfer may occur without consideration or, in the alternative, for a nominal amount; but the governing body must authorize it first. A.G. Op. 904 (June 27, 1963). A.G. Op. 1011 (Dec. 27, 1968). In a 1963 opinion, the attorney general concluded that this statute did not authorize the transfer of money between a county and a city. However, in a subsequent 1968 opinion, the attorney general modified this position, opining that one public entity could, in fact, donate money to another public entity as long as the transferring entity did so in compliance with other legal limitations and in furtherance of the purposes for which the money originally was obtained. Study Session Meeting of April 9, 2018 (Item No. 4) Title: Funding of Non-Profit Organizations Page 24 RELEVANT LINKS: League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 6/12/2017 Public Purpose Expenditures Page 22 The 1968 opinion also cautioned against broadening the definition of “public purpose”, stressing that the planned use for the donated property must directly relate to the public purposes of the transferring governing body. As with other donations, cities should first seek a legal opinion from their city attorneys or from the attorney general. V.Insurance Minn. Stat. § 466.06. A governing body of any municipality may purchase liability insurance that protects the municipality and its officers, employees, and agents for damages. Municipalities may insure in amounts above the liability limits imposed by statute. Minn. Stat. § 471.61, subd. 1. As discussed in Section II(N)(1)(c) above, municipalities also may insure or protect its officers and employees, and their dependents, or any class or classes of officers, employees, or dependents, under a policy (or policies) or contract (or contracts) of group insurance or benefits covering life, health, and accident for employees and medical and surgical benefits and hospitalization insurance or benefits for both employees and dependents (including dependents of an employee whose death was due to causes arising out of and in the course of employment). W.Legal Minn. Stat. § 412.221, subd. 5.Minn. Stat. § 465.13. Minn. Stat. § 466.08. Minn. Stat. § 466.09. All cities have general authority to spend money on legal costs, including hiring attorneys, defending or prosecuting lawsuits, and paying court judgments or settlements. Minn. Stat. § 466.07. Minn. Stat. § 465.76. Douglas v. City of Minneapolis, 230 N.W.2d 577 (Minn. 1975). All cities must pay to defend and indemnify for damages claimed or levied against their officers and employees, if the damages resulted while the officer or employee acted in performance of the duties of his or her position and the officer or employee did not act with malfeasance, willful neglect, or bad faith. All cities may reimburse their officers and employees for legal costs incurred to defend them against criminal charges that arise out of the reasonable and lawful performance of their duties, including reasonable attorney’s fees. Certain conditions must be met before such costs may be paid. X.Libraries Minn. Stat. § 134.07. Any city or county may establish and maintain a library. The city may pass an ordinance or resolution setting aside public property for a library. All statutory cities and second, third, or fourth class home rule charter cities may levy an annual tax on all taxable property to establish a library fund. Study Session Meeting of April 9, 2018 (Item No. 4) Title: Funding of Non-Profit Organizations Page 25 RELEVANT LINKS: League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 6/12/2017 Public Purpose Expenditures Page 23 Y.Local improvements Minn. Stat. § 429.021. LMC information memo, Special Assessment Toolkit. Municipalities may spend money to make local improvements. Certain procedures must be followed, such as notice and public hearings, if funding the project with special assessments. Z.Nuisance abatement Minn. Stat. § 429.021, subd. 1(8). LMC information memo, Special Assessment Toolkit and LMC Model Nuisance Ordinance. Municipalities may spend money to abate public nuisances or to drain or fill swamps, marshes, and ponds. They also may recover the costs through special assessments to the property in question. AA. Memorials Minn. Stat. §§ 416.01-.06. All city councils may adopt an ordinance to spend money to erect buildings, monuments, and parks in recognition of those who served in the military. If necessary, council may acquire a site within the city for this purpose. Minn. Stat. § 465.50. Section II–G, Memorial Day observances. All cities may spend money in the observance of Memorial Day and in the annual commemoration of the noble deeds of the nation’s dead soldiers. The dollar amount is limited to $300 for each 75,000 in population. BB. Park and recreation Minn. Stat. § 412.491. Statutory cities may spend money to establish, improve, ornament, maintain, and manage parks, parkways, and recreational facilities. Minn. Stat. §§ 471.15-.191. Chapter 29, Section 1, amending Minn. Stat. § 471.15. All cities, towns, counties, and school districts may spend money to operate public recreational facilities and programs of public recreation and playgrounds. The statutes also permit any home rule charter or statutory city to spend funds available to it for awards and trophies as part of these programs. Cities, towns, counties, and school districts may jointly operate public recreational facilities and programs with other government entities, American Legions, incorporated veterans’ organizations, or nonprofit organizations. The city may issue bonds to operate these recreational facilities. A.G. Op. 59-a-3 (July 12, 1948). MN State Auditor, Statement of Position Public Expenditure: Donations and Dues. The attorney general has concluded that the above statutes do not permit a city to make donations to the Boy Scouts to assist with their private recreational programs. A.G. Op. 218-r (Aug. 15, 1951). A.G. Op. 59-a-22 (Aug. 7, 1951). Section II–J, Donations to organizations. The attorney general also has determined that cities cannot sponsor local sports teams, including bowling teams or kittenball teams (like softball). Study Session Meeting of April 9, 2018 (Item No. 4) Title: Funding of Non-Profit Organizations Page 26 RELEVANT LINKS: League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 6/12/2017 Public Purpose Expenditures Page 24 CC.Parking Minn. Stat. § 459.14. All statutory cities and home rule charter cities of the second, third, and fourth class may spend money to acquire or build automobile parking facilities. Such facilities may be located inside or outside the city’s corporate limits. Minneapolis and St. Paul have similar authority, but, for those two cities, the facilities must lie within these cities’ corporate limits. Minn. Stat. § 412.221, subd. 14. Minn. Stat. § 469.176, subd. 4g(b). Minn. Stat. § 459.14. All statutory cities have the power to not only acquire or build automobile parking facilities; but also, to improve and operate those facilities, as well as tourist camps. Publicly owned parking facilities can be financed with tax increment revenues. The city also may acquire, by purchase or lease, parking meters or other parking or traffic-control devices. DD.Public safety Minn. Stat. § 412.221, subd. 32. All statutory cities have the power to provide for the government and good order of the city, the suppression of vice and immorality, the prevention of crime, and the protection of public and private property. Minn. Stat. § 412.153. Statutory cities may expend public funds to acquire or lease residential property for the housing of volunteer firefighters or ambulance personnel or otherwise provide housing assistance in the city for them. The expenditure may only be made to attract and retain the qualified personnel necessary to ensure a city has timely public safety and related services. A city may approve the expenditure only after the need for the expenditure has been established and approved at a public hearing. Minn. Stat. § 412.111. Statutory cities also may create, as the council deems necessary, such offices and employment positions for proper management and operation of the city. Presumably, this authority would permit statutory cities to create positions dealing with public safety. Minn. Stat. § 410.33. Home rule charter cities may have similar authority in their charters. If the charter is silent on this issue, a city may use the same authority as statutory cities. 1.Police Minn. Stat. § 436.05. Minn. Stat. § 436.06. Any city, town, or county may contract for police services with another city, town, or county. Adjacent cities may establish, equip, and operate joint municipal police departments, unless located within a county that contains a first-class city. 2.Fire Minn. Stat. § 412.221, subd. 17. All statutory cities may establish fire departments and provide equipment and apparatus needed to prevent, control, or extinguish fires. Study Session Meeting of April 9, 2018 (Item No. 4) Title: Funding of Non-Profit Organizations Page 27 RELEVANT LINKS: League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 6/12/2017 Public Purpose Expenditures Page 25 Minn. Stat. § 438.11. All cities may appropriate reasonable sums of money to defray the expenses of members of the city’s fire department for attending: •The state convention of the Minnesota State Fire Department Association. •The Minnesota State Fire School. •The meetings of regional firefighters’ associations. 3.Ambulance Minn. Stat. § 471.476. All cities, towns, hospital districts, and counties (except for Hennepin County) have the authority to provide ambulance services, either singly or jointly, by agreement. In providing such service, the city may purchase, rent, or lease ambulances and related equipment and supplies; may contract for such service with any person, firm, corporation, or other political subdivision upon such terms and conditions as may be agreed upon; and may employ and train personnel for such service. The ambulance service authorized by this section may be provided both inside and outside the boundaries of the city and to nonresidents as well as residents. 4.Animal pounds Minn. Stat. § 412.221, subd. 21. All statutory cities have the authority to establish animal pounds. 5.School patrols Minn. Stat. § 465.69. Statutory cities may pay for the cost of training school patrol members, including attendance at any authorized school patrol camp within Minnesota. 6.Capital equipment Minn. Stat. § 410.32. Minn. Stat. § 412.301. Notwithstanding any contrary provision of other law or charter, all statutory cities and charter cities may, by resolution and without public referendum, issue capital notes subject to the city debt limit to purchase capital equipment, identified as public safety equipment, ambulance and other medical equipment, road construction and maintenance equipment and other capital equipment. Cities should work with their city attorney or bond counsel to make sure these capital notes comply with the specific statutory requirements, including the required two-thirds vote of the governing body. Study Session Meeting of April 9, 2018 (Item No. 4) Title: Funding of Non-Profit Organizations Page 28 RELEVANT LINKS: League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 6/12/2017 Public Purpose Expenditures Page 26 7.National Night Out Chapter 26, Section 1 of 2017 Regular Session, to be codified at Minn. Stat. §471.198. Authorizing Solicitation of Contributions, LMC Model Resolution. Any home rule charter or statutory city may spend money for National Night Out events held within the city’s boundaries. Any home rule charter or statutory city also may spend money for any event or purpose that the governing body determines will foster positive relationships between law enforcement and the community. Notwithstanding any law or ordinance to the contrary, any home rule charter city, statutory city, town, county, or school district may, by resolution, authorize officials and staff to solicit contributions for the these events. EE. Real property Minn. Stat. § 412.221, subd. 3. All statutory cities have the power to buy or lease land and buildings. Charter cities usually have similar powers in their city charters. LMC information memo, Purchase and Sale of Real Property. To receive a copy of the LMC research information memo on city real estate transactions, contact the League. Minn. Stat. § 463.152. State statute permits all cities, towns, and counties to spend money to acquire hazardous buildings and real estate using eminent domain. The statute specifically declares this action “a public purpose”. Minn. Stat. § 465.01. Minn. Stat. Ch. 117. Any city may acquire private property using eminent domain, whether located inside or outside the city limits, so long as the city acquires that property for the same purposes that the law otherwise would have allowed the city to either purchase it or receive it as a gift. The city also may use eminent domain to acquire a right-of-way for sewer or drainage, whether inside or outside the city limits. The procedure for condemnation shall follow the process prescribed by chapter 117, or that prescribed by the charter of such city. Minn. Stat. § 463.02. Any city may acquire building line easements by purchase, grant, or condemnation. FF. Rewards Minn. Stat. § 471.631. Any city may offer a reward for information leading to the apprehension, charging, or conviction of an individual who has committed a felony crime within the city’s limits. The statute also allows a city to fund the payment of a reward offered by a nonprofit organization for the same information. The statute does not set a dollar amount, giving the council the discretion to establish an appropriate amount. Study Session Meeting of April 9, 2018 (Item No. 4) Title: Funding of Non-Profit Organizations Page 29 RELEVANT LINKS: League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 6/12/2017 Public Purpose Expenditures Page 27 A.G. Op. 355-a (Aug. 23, 1972). A 1972 attorney general opinion stated a city had the authority to offer a reward for information leading to the arrest and conviction of the person who had shot at animals in the city’s zoo. In this opinion, the attorney general concluded that the general welfare clause in the city’s charter permitted the city to take reasonable measures of self-protection to preserve its property due to threats. Minn. Stat. § 412.221, subd. 32. In this attorney general opinion, the language of the city’s charter provision was similar to the general welfare clause in the statutory city code, making the Attorney General’s opinion arguably applicable to statutory cities. However, cities that wish to offer rewards for information regarding crimes should first contact their city attorneys. GG. Streets and sidewalks Minn. Stat. § 412.221, subd. 6. Statutory cities have broad authority to establish, construct, alter, and maintain city streets, sidewalks, and sewers. Charter cities usually have similar authority in their charters. Minn. Stat. 412.221, Subd. 7. This authority includes providing for lighting on streets, buildings, or grounds by gas, electricity, or other means, and to contract with anyone engaged in the business of furnishing gas or electric service for the supply of such service to the city. Minn. Stat. § 441.26. Statutory cities and fourth class home rule charter cities have the power to appropriate and spend reasonable sums of money to assist in improving or maintaining roads outside city limits that lead into the city. Minn. Stat. § 429.021. LMC information memo, Special Assessment Toolkit. The local improvement code also authorizes municipalities to undertake a variety of local improvements, including street and sidewalk improvements. Although municipalities may choose to pay for the cost of these improvements, they also may assess benefited properties for these costs. However, the assessment may not be more than the increase in market value of the benefited property due to the improvement. HH. Tourism Minn. Stat. § 469.186. Any statutory city council may establish and maintain a bureau of information and publicity to: •Provide information for tourists. •Provide outdoor advertising of tourist and city information. •Prepare, publish, and circulate information and facts concerning recreational facilities and business and industrial conditions of the community. Study Session Meeting of April 9, 2018 (Item No. 4) Title: Funding of Non-Profit Organizations Page 30 RELEVANT LINKS: League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 6/12/2017 Public Purpose Expenditures Page 28 Minn. Stat. § 450.19. Both statutory and charter cities may establish and maintain public tourist campgrounds. The city may acquire land for these campgrounds either by lease, purchase or gift, and the campgrounds may lie inside or outside the city or town’s corporate limits. The amount of money a city may spend per year for maintenance, improvement, or operation may not exceed 0.00806 percent of estimated market value. Minn. Stat. § 469.190. Any city, whether statutory or home charter rule, may impose a lodging tax of up to three percent on the gross receipts from staying at a hotel, motel, rooming house, tourist court or resort to fund a local convention or visitor’s bureau (other than the renting or leasing of it for a continuous period of 30 days or more). The city shall use at least ninety-five percent of the gross proceeds from any such tax imposed to fund a local convention or tourism bureau for the purpose of marketing and promoting the city or town as a tourist or convention center. Any city, by ordinance, may also impose this tax on the camping site receipts of a municipal campground. Minn. Stat. § 412.221, subd. 14. Also, statutory cities may spend money to acquire, improve, and operate parking facilities and tourist camps and, by ordinance, regulate those camps and parking facilities. II.Utilities Minn. Stat. § 412.321. Minn. Stat. § 465.74. Any statutory city may own and operate any utility, including waterworks, district heating system or gas, light, power, or heat plant. Specific statutory authority allows city operation of district heating systems under certain conditions and subject to certain restrictions based upon classification of the city and, in one instance, number of inhabitants. Minn. Stat. § 444.075. All towns and cities may build, construct, reconstruct, repair, enlarge, improve, or obtain the following types of water or sewer systems: Minn. Stat. § 444.075. Minn. Stat. § 412.221, subd. 11. Minn. Stat. § 444.075. •Waterworks. This includes mains, valves, hydrants, service connections, wells, pumps, reservoirs, tanks, treatment plants, and other appurtenances of a waterworks system. In addition, statutory cities may also provide wells, cisterns, reservoirs, waterworks, and other means of water supplies. •Sewer systems. This includes sewage treatment works, disposal systems, and other facilities for disposing of sewage, industrial waste, and other wastes. •Storm sewer systems. This includes mains, holding areas and ponds, and other appurtenances and related facilities for the collection and disposal of storm water. Study Session Meeting of April 9, 2018 (Item No. 4) Title: Funding of Non-Profit Organizations Page 31 RELEVANT LINKS: League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 6/12/2017 Public Purpose Expenditures Page 29 III.Conclusion Cities have broad authority to make a wide variety of expenditures. For these expenditures to qualify as lawful expenditures, they must further or promote a public purpose and have specific or implied statutory or charter authority. A city with questions about the validity of a specific public expenditure should contact the League for further information and seek a legal opinion from its city attorney or from the attorney general. Study Session Meeting of April 9, 2018 (Item No. 4) Title: Funding of Non-Profit Organizations Page 32 League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 6/12/2017 Public Purpose Expenditures Page 30 Appendix A: Public purpose expenditure chart This chart sets forth criteria to help determine the validity of a public expenditure. An expenditure that does not affirmatively meet all the following questions may not represent a proper public expenditure. In those instances, a city should consult its city attorney before authorizing the expenditure. Also see Part I above for a discussion of the criteria for public purpose expenditures. Test Answer Public expenditure NOT authorized Public expenditure authorized 1.Does a statute or charter provision specifically or implicitly authorize the specific expenditure? Yes  No  2.Does the expenditure benefit the community as a whole? Yes  No  3.Is the expenditure directly related to the functions of government? Yes  No  4.Does the expenditure have as its primary objective the benefit of a private interest? Yes  No  Study Session Meeting of April 9, 2018 (Item No. 4) Title: Funding of Non-Profit Organizations Page 33 Meeting: Study Session Meeting Date: April 9, 2018 Written Report: 5 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: 2017 Annual Housing Programs Activity Report RECOMMENDED ACTION: The purpose of this report is to update council on housing programs and activity. This report is informational. No action is required. POLICY CONSIDERATION: None at this time. SUMMARY: The Annual Housing Programs Activity Report has been presented to council since 2005. The Executive Summary provides a brief overview of the detailed report. The report provides historical trends, program descriptions, affordable housing data and additional information on housing programs in St. Louis Park. Maxfield Research is updating the city’s comprehensive housing assessment. This report will be completed in late spring or early summer and will be presented to council upon completion. The Maxfield report will be incorporated in the 2018 Annual Housing Programs Activity Report. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to providing a well-maintained and diverse housing stock. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: 2017 Annual Housing Programs Activity Report Prepared by: Marney Olson, Assistant Housing Supervisor Reviewed by: Michele Schnitker, Housing Supervisor/Deputy CD Director Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager 2017 Annual Housing Programs Activity Report EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this report is to provide city policy makers with an overview of housing program activity during 2017. The report provides historical trends, program descriptions, and data on city and federally funded housing programs and activity. 1.New Initiatives a.Inclusionary Housing Policy – Increased required percentages of affordable units. b. Exploration of NOAH Preservation Strategies c. The Kids in the Park Rental Assistance Program was approved and began serving 9 families in December 2017. 2. Remodeling Activity a.Housing rehab projects (general remodeling) were strong in 2017. Most projects were financed without using city loans. b.The city’s Architect Design Services and Remodeling Advisor Services continue to be great tools for residents and usage is in line with previous years. c.Major remodeling projects and home additions continue to be strong. There were 62 additions and 77 major remodels in 2017 with average valuations at $124,150 and $68,085 respectively. d.The Construction Management Plan program has been in place since November 2014. In 2017 the following neighborhood notification letters were sent for Construction Management (CMP) plan projects: 33 major additions, 10 demo/rebuilds, and 2 new builds. A map is included in the report showing the location of these projects. 3.Affordable Home Ownership and Public Housing Update a.Citizens Independent Bank offers $500 to qualified borrowers eligible for the Live Where You Work. There have been a total of 22 buyers under this program. b. West Hennepin Affordable Housing Land Trust purchased its 16 th home in St. Louis Park. c.CDBG funds were used to fund the Emergency Rehab Program and Deferred Loan Program for low income residents in St. Louis Park. 4. Housing Matrix a.Owner occupied (no rental license) properties comprise 54% of the housing market with rental properties (units with a rental license) at 46%. b. The single family home ownership rate is 93%. c.The Housing Development Project List is included in the report showing residential projects approved since 2007 including projects completed, under construction and approved. 5.Foreclosures a. The foreclosure rate is extremely low with only 36 residential foreclosures in 2017. 6.Federally Funded Housing Programs a.The SLP Housing Authority affordable rental housing and rental assistance programs served approximately 500 households with rental assistance in 2017. b.The SLP Housing Authority has continued administering the new Stable HOME rental assistance program for Suburban Hennepin County which provides housing assistance to homeless or previously homeless individuals and families in Suburban Hennepin County. 38 households were served in 2017. 7.Program Descriptions: This section gives detailed descriptions of the various housing programs. Study Session Meeting of April 9, 2018 (Item No. 5) Title: 2017 Annual Housing Programs Activity Report Page 2 1.NEW INITIATIVES In 2017 the City of St. Louis Park has undertaken new initiatives to address affordable housing needs in the community. Inclusionary Housing In June 2015 the city council adopted an Inclusionary Housing Policy that requires the inclusion of affordable housing units for lower income households in new market rate multi-unit residential developments receiving financial assistance from the city. The goal of the Inclusionary Housing Policy is to increase the supply of affordable housing and promote economic and social integration. In May 2017 the city council approved increasing the percentage of required affordable units per the policy. Table 1: Inclusionary Housing Policy Requirements Initial Policy 2017 Updated Policy Rental Projects •10 % of units at 60% AMI •8% of units at 50% AMI •18% of units at 60% AMI •10% of units at 50% AMI Ownership Projects 10% of units at 80% AMI 15% of units at 80% AMI In 2017 the policy was also amended to add a requirement that developments covered by the policy must not discriminate against tenants who pay their rent with government provided Housing Chocie Vouchers or other local rent subsidies. Table 2: Affordable Units Created Development Total Number of Units Affordability Level O bedroom Affordable Units 1 bedroom Affordable Units 2 bedroom Affordable Units 3 bedroom Affordable Units Total Number of Affordable Units Shoreham 148 50% 4 13 13 30 4800 Excelsior 164 60% 1 10 7 18 Central Park West 199 60% 1 2 2 1 6 *Central Park West voluntarily included affordable units – they will add 5 more affordable units in the 2nd phase. *Shoreham & 4800 do not have 3 bedroom units *Shoreham is a tax credit property resulting in 20% of units be affordable at 50% AMI NOAH Preservation (Naturally Occurring Affordable Housing The city council reviewed a number of strategies and tools to promote the creation and preservation of affordable housing for low and moderate income households at the November 11, 2016 council study session. Staff participated in a workgroup facilitated by the City of Minneapolis and continued to participate in a Regional Housing Workgroup to review and discuss strategies for preservation of NOAH. At the direction of council, staff convened a workgroup with representatives from MN Multi-Housing Association, the St. Louis Park rental community and representatives from agencies advocating for NOAH preservation strategies. The purpose of the workgroup was to review and discuss the NOAH preservation strategies being considered by the council and determine if there is any middle ground for a workable solution. The workgroup met three times and reviewed the following strategies: Study Session Meeting of April 9, 2018 (Item No. 5) Title: 2017 Annual Housing Programs Activity Report Page 3 •Advance Notice of Sale •Non-Renewal of Lease for Cause •Non-discrimination of Housing Subsidy Recipients •Rehab Financing in Exchanges for Rent Restrictions The workgroup did not reach agreement or middle ground on three of the four strategies, but did generate several NOAH preservation strategies in which the workgroup was able to reach general agreement. The workgroup proposed establishing a tenant protection period following the sale of a NOAH property. For three months following the ownership transfer of a NOAH property, the new owner would be required to pay relocation benefits to tenants if the owner increases the rent, rescreens existing residents or implements non-renewals of leases without cause and the tenant chooses to move due to these actions. This proposed ordinance will be reviewed by council in 2018. Additional preservation strategies including the Rehab Financing in Exchange for Rent Restrictions and a Legacy program for preserving NOAH will be explored further in 2018. Kids in the Park Rent Assistance Program Kids in the Park provides rent assistance to households with school-age children for up to four years. Participants receive a flat monthly rental assistance subsidy that decreases annually over the four-year period. Eligible households must have an income at or below 50% of the area median income, a child attending school in St. Louis Park, one parent or guardian that works a minimum of 28 hours per week, live in rental housing in St. Louis Park and comply with their lease. Families with disabled and elderly heads of household do not need to comply with the work requirement. The program was developed in partnership with the St. Louis Park Emergency Program (STEP) and the St. Louis Park School District. The Kids in the Park program began serving 9 families in December 2017. Study Session Meeting of April 9, 2018 (Item No. 5) Title: 2017 Annual Housing Programs Activity Report Page 4 2. REMODELING ACTIVITY Residential permitted activity measures remodeling and maintenance activity. This section shows historical trends of remodeling activity. Residential properties include apartments. Permit Trends •“Alteration Residential” or General Remodeling General remodeling work includes residential projects with permit valuations less than $37,500 (the average value per job in 2017 is $8,265) and includes a wide range of projects including remodeling of existing spaces, window and door replacement, drain tile, insulation, foundation work, etc. Chart 1: Trend of General Remodeling Permits valued under $37,500 •Roofing and Siding Activity Reroofing and residing permits are tracked separately. Almost 60% of the homes in the city had roofs replaced between 2008 and 2011. Chart 2: Reroofing and Residing Permits *Spike in reroofing due to 2008 storms. 785 797 971 869 1129 1011 1091 1084 1074 1203 1170 0 500 1000 1500 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017Number of Permits IssuedYear Maintenance & Minor Remodeling Permits Alteration Residential (Minor) 355 845 201 761 140 161 131 104 80 107 84 573 332 117 117 73 83 70 47 86 620 500 1000 1500 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017Number of Permits IssuedYear Reroofing and Residing Permits Reroof Reside *4828 * Study Session Meeting of April 9, 2018 (Item No. 5) Title: 2017 Annual Housing Programs Activity Report Page 5 •Additions and Major Remodeling The number of major remodeling permits (valued at more than $37,500) and additions continues to be strong. The average permit valuation for additions during 2017 is $124,150 and the average for major remodels is $68,085. Chart 3: Number of Addition and Major Remodeling Permits •Permit Valuation The following chart shows historical remodeling permit valuation for additions, major remodels, remodeling and maintenance, garages/decks, reroofs, and siding. Permits with additional valuations were issued for plumbing, heating, and electrical work (not shown here). Chart 4: Permitted Residential Remodeling 102 89 55 40 48 71 67 73 70 59 62 50 46 50 53 46 44 53 69 70 65 77 0 40 80 120 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017Number of Permits IssuedYear Addition and Major Remodel Permit Activity Addition Residential Major Remodels $22.5 $68.5 $26.6 $17 $26 $16.8 $21 $25 26.2 0 20 40 60 80 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017Permit Valuation -Million $Year Residential Remodeling Permit Valuation $23.1 Study Session Meeting of April 9, 2018 (Item No. 5) Title: 2017 Annual Housing Programs Activity Report Page 6 City Housing Improvement Services, Loans Trends and Program Descriptions Home Improvement Services. The city’s architectural design service, remodeling advisor and Home Energy Squad Visits are great programs for residents who are considering a remodel or energy improvements to take advantage of. Chart 5: Technical, Design and Home Energy Visits Construction Management Plan Major additions (second story additions or additions of 500 square feet or more), demolitions and new construction projects need to comply with the Construction Management Plan (CMP). In 2017 the following neighborhood notifications were sent: 33 major additions, 10 demo/rebuilds, and 2 new builds. The total permit valuation for CMP projects in 2017 was $9,075,965. Chart 6: CMP Activity 62 48 32 30 29 29 37 41 22 31 33 179 130 126 89 82 69 69 95 69 76 76 122 153 173 125 170 109 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017Number of VisitsYear Technical Home Improvement Services Architect Services Remodeling Advisor Home Energy Visits Study Session Meeting of April 9, 2018 (Item No. 5) Title: 2017 Annual Housing Programs Activity Report Page 7 Map 1: Study Session Meeting of April 9, 2018 (Item No. 5) Title: 2017 Annual Housing Programs Activity Report Page 8 •Home Remodeling Fair and Tour Both the Home Remodeling Fair and Tour continue to be popular events with residents. Approximately 300 residents visited each of the six tour homes in May and 1300 visitors attended the Annual Remodeling Fair in 2017. The city continues to serve as the fiscal agent for the West Metro Home Remodeling Fair. •City Loans and Rebates The following chart shows the number of Move Up Loans, Discount Loans and Energy Rebates issued in recent years. There were six Move Up and six Discount Loans in 2017. The number of Discount Loans is low; however, CEE notes that discount home improvement loan use is slow in their service area and there are other loan options that do not have an income limit. The energy rebate program peaked in 2014, but residents continue to use the program and benefit from the recommendations and installation of materials such as door weather stripping, water heater blankets and programmable thermostats. Chart 7: Use of City Financial Incentives Summary of Move-Up Activity Loan and Service Costs The ratio of public to private investment in 2017 was 1:4.5 – for every dollar the city invested in the discount loan and move up in the park deferred loan residents invested roughly $4.5. This estimate does not capture the projects that were completed by homeowners after having a remodeling advisor or architectural design consultation or visiting the home remodeling fair or tour. The city invested approximately $144,000 in 2017 in the discount loan and move-up in the park deferred loan which leveraged $642,644 worth of private investments. Move-Up in the Park loans are deferred until the sale of the home or forgiven after thirty years. Table 3: Move-Up Loans Paid off Year Number of Loans Paid Off Amount of Loans 2012 3 $59,360 2013 3 $52,249 2014 2 $23,957 2015 4 $78,246 2016 4 $97,970 2017 3 $80,909 20 17 17 8 10 6 6 6 7 10 6 50 55 52 64 22 26 22 17 13 11 6 22 42 83 73 113 166 143 108 101 0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017Number Loans -RebatesYear Loans and Rebates Move up loans Discount loans Energy Rebates Study Session Meeting of April 9, 2018 (Item No. 5) Title: 2017 Annual Housing Programs Activity Report Page 9 Table 4: Move-Up Participation and Costs Since 2005 Move-Up Participation and City Costs YEAR Move-Up Loans Discount Loans Architectural Design Services Remodeling Advisor Services Remodeling Tour & Fair Green Rebates Home Energy Squad Enhanced Visits Total City Cost 2005 7 $182,806 76 $45,636 68 $15,300 221 $28,730 $272,472 2006 27 $591,264 88 $186,205 102 $22,950 157 $20,410 1 $5,000 $825,829 2007 27 $620,000 50 $74,000 62 $12,400 179 $23,270 1 $5,000 $734,670 2008 18 $330,937 55 $114,129 49 $11,025 130 $16,900 1 $5,000 $477,991 2009 17 $329,650 52 $106,000 12 $7,200 126 $16,380 1 $5,000 22 $4,092 $468,322 2010 9 $209,769 64 $86,263 30 $6,750 89 $11,510 1 $5,000 42 $7,820 $327,112 2011 10 $226,877 22 $29,213 29 $6,525 82 $10,250 1 $5,000 83 $15,465 $293,330 2012* 6 $106,232 26 $31,276 29 $6,525 69 $8,970 1 $5,505 73 $13,748 122 $7,320 $179,576 2013 6 $145,071 22 $33,063 37 $8,325 69 $8,970 1 $8,271 113 $26,000 153 $10,650 $240,350 2014 6 $138,740 17 $26,079 41 $9,225 95 $12,350 1 $12,350 166 $37,575 173 $11390 $243,573 2015 7 $173,000 13 $17,577 22 $4,950 69 $15,525 1 $10,084 143 $37,610 125 $6,250 $264,996 2016 10 $231,057 11 $27,001 31 $6,975 76 $17,100 1 $7,585 108 $29,304 170 $8,510 $327,532 2017 6 $137,950 6 $5,907 33 $7,425 76 $17,100 1 $7,710 101 $22,951 109 $5,450 $273,883 Detailed descriptions of each Move-Up Program are listed at the end of the report. Study Session Meeting of April 9, 2018 (Item No. 5) Title: 2017 Annual Housing Programs Activity Report Page 10 3.AFFORDABLE HOME OWNERSHIP AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANTS Live Where You Work The Live Where You Work Homebuyer Assistance Program began in spring 2009 to promote home ownership within the city among employees of St. Louis Park businesses. The city provides a deferred loan of $2,500 to an eligible employee and an additional $1,000 is provided to employees purchasing vacant lender-owned foreclosed properties. Employers are invited to contribute a matching or lesser amount to the city’s contribution. The deferred loan is forgiven after 3 years if the employee continues to work for the employer and meets other qualification requirements. The city contracts with CEE for loan administration. Total participation to date is 22.The last Live Where You Work loan was closed in 2016. In 2016 Citizens Independent Bank began offering qualified borrowers $500 off the origination fee. Housing Improvement Area (HIA) The HIA is a finance tool to assist with the preservation of the city’s existing townhome and condominium housing stock. An HIA is a defined area within a city where housing improvements are made and the cost of the improvements are paid in whole or in part from fees imposed on the properties within the area. The Association borrows low interest money from the city, improvements are completed and unit owners repay the loan through fees imposed on their properties and collected with property tax payments. To date, seven HIA’s have been established and over twelve million dollars of improvements has been made to 1100 units. There are no new HIA’s currently in process. Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) The CDBG calendar year runs from July 1 – June 30th. FY2017 CDBG allocations included: •$85,335 for the Low-Income Deferred Loan Program administered by Hennepin County •$45,000 Emergency Repair Grant administered by Community Action Partnership- Hennepin County •$30,000 for West Hennepin Affordable Housing Land Trust •$7,500 for the Meadowbrook Park Program administered by the city West Hennepin Affordable Housing Land Trust, aka Homes Within Reach (HWR). Homes Within Reach is a program of West Hennepin Affordable Housing Land Trust that purchases properties, rehabilitates and then sells the home to qualified low to moderate income households. Buyers pay for the cost of the home only and lease the land for 99 years. City funds are leveraged with CDBG, Hennepin County Affordable Housing Incentive Fund (AHIF), HOME Partnership, Metropolitan Council, Minnesota Housing and other funds. Using the land trust model means that families can more easily purchase a home where they work or live, retain it for generations, and not over burden their incomes in becoming homeowners. As a result, both the families and communities can rely on affordable homeownership option, which expands homeownership, sustains community resources, supports residential stability, preserves affordable housing and supports a stronger local workforce. One home was purchased in 2017. $40,000 per house is allocated for up to two houses per year. Study Session Meeting of April 9, 2018 (Item No. 5) Title: 2017 Annual Housing Programs Activity Report Page 11 Twin Cities Habitat for Humanity The city has partnered with Habitat over the years to acquire nine blighted properties for rehab or tear-down for new construction. The city last assisted Habitat with the purchase of one property in 2011, construction was completed in the fall 2012 and the home was sold to a low income family. 4.HOUSING MATRIX AND DEVELOPMENT The housing matrix shows at a glance the numbers and percentages of housing types, tenure (owner or rental), affordable units, senior designated units and large single family homes. The matrix is a guide to evaluate future housing development proposals. In 2017 the matrix uses the rental license data to report numbers of rental units. •11,089 units (44% of units) in St. Louis Park have a rental license. •The chart shows percentages of rental vs. owner occupied units over time. Prior to 2017 the chart reflects homestead vs. non-homesteaded properties. In 2017 the chart uses rental licenses to count the number of rental properties in St. Louis Park since not all non-homesteaded properties are rental. •93% of single family detached homes were owner occupied (did not have a rental license) and 78% of condos/townhomes were owner occupied (no rental license) in 2017. •The city has hired Maxfield Research to update the city’s comprehensive housing analysis. The report will be completed in late spring/early summer and will be shared with council upon completion. Chart 8: Percentage of Owner Occupied Units Large Single Family Homes One of the city’s housing goals is to increase the number of larger homes available in the city. “Large single family homes” are being defined as exceeding 1,500 square feet of living space, having 3 or more bedrooms, 2 or more baths, and at minimum a 2 car garage. According to the Assessing Department, 2,288 – or 20% – of SLP single family homes meet this threshold. This is an increase of 65 homes since 2016 (due to additions and demo/rebuilds). Although this size home is not considered large when compared to newly constructed housing, in St. Louis Park 75% of 97 96 93 93 93 91 89 89 90 89 93928989 80 75 70 67 66 67 67 78 0 50 100 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017*PercentageYEAR % Owner Occupied Units Single Family Detached Homes Condos & Townhomes Study Session Meeting of April 9, 2018 (Item No. 5) Title: 2017 Annual Housing Programs Activity Report Page 12 single family homes have a foundation size less than 1,200 square feet and 46% of single family homes have less than 1,200 square feet above ground. Affordable Housing 2017 affordability limits for ownership and rental housing is now set at 80% of the area median income for both rental and ownership housing. In 2017, the metro area median income (AMI) for a household of four is $90,400. Under these limits, a family of four can earn up to $68,100 to qualify for affordable housing. Below is a chart showing the number of market rate affordable rental units in St. Louis Park with affordable levels at 60% and 80% AMI based on the St. Louis Park Housing Authority (SLPHA) Rental Survey. Table 5: Market Rate Affordable Rental Units Reported in St. Louis Park (61% Response Rate) # of bedrooms Rent at or below 60% AMI # of reported units affordable at 60% Rent at or below 80% AMI # of reported units affordable at 80% Efficiency $949 119 $1,265 239 1 bedroom $1,017 1,190 $1,356 2,139 2 bedroom $1,220 924 $1,627 1,831 3 bedroom $1,410 129 $1,880 232 4 bedroom $1,573 9 $2,097 38 Total 2,371 at 60% AMI 35% of reported units 4,479 at 80% AMI 66% of reported units *Rental rates based on Met Council data and units reported in the SLPHA Rental Survey The (SLPHA) Rental Survey had 6,741 units respond. The survey does not represent all rentals in the city. •Total units with rental licenses = 11,089 •Rental units responding to the rental survey = 6,741 = 61% of units with rental licenses •Rental Survey reported affordable units at or below 60% AMI = 2,371 units o 2,371 units is 35% of the reported rental units o 2,371 units is 21% of total units with rental licenses •Rental Survey reported affordable units at or below 80% AMI = 4,479 units o 4,479 units is 66% of the reported rental units o 4,479 affordable units is 40% of all units with rental licenses Owner Occupied •The 2017 affordable ownership purchase price is $236,600 or less. The housing matrix shows the number of single family homes, condos and townhomes with an assessed value of $236,600 or less. The matrix also shows the data for single family homes, condos and townhomes valued at $185,000 or less which is the 60% AMI affordable ownership purchase price. •In 2017, 5,498 homes are considered affordable at or below 80% AMI based on valuation data from assessing which is 36% of the single family homes, condos and townhomes in St. Louis Park. This is a decrease of nearly 1200 affordable units compared to 2017 due to the increases in assessed value. Study Session Meeting of April 9, 2018 (Item No. 5) Title: 2017 Annual Housing Programs Activity Report Page 13 Table 6: St. Louis Park Housing Matrix December 31, 2017 Housing Units by Type Large Single Family Homes, Affordable, and Senior Housing Housing Type Housing Units Net Units added in 2017 Owner Occupied (No Rental License) Rental Licenses Large Single Family Homes 2017 Affordable Market Rate SF, Condo and TH Units 60% | 80% 2017 Reported Affordable Market Rate Rental Units* 60% | 80% Public Subsidized Affordable Units, Includes Section 8 Housing Units Senior Designated Single Family Detached 11,613 47% 2 10,774 839 2288 297 2812 79 191 37 Duplex 430 2% 0 262 168 83 121 Condos and townhomes 3561 14% 0 2760 801 1892 2686 118 188 60 Apartments 9167 37% 0 9167 2091 3979 879 958 COOPs 114 <1% 0 114 106 Totals 24,885 2 13,910 56% 10,975 44% 2288 20% 2189 14% 5498 36% 2,347 21% 4,479 41% 916 8% 1124 5% % of SF Homes % of SF, Condo & TH % of Rental % of Rental % of Total Housing Units In 2017, the rental unit numbers are coming directly from the rental licenses through the inspections department. The percentage of owner occupied (no rental license) units to rental (units with a rental license) units is 56% to 44% of units with a rental license. This is due in part to a change in homestead status of approximately 1,200 condominium and townhouse units since the early 2000s and the addition of new multi-family rental units. Met Council revised the affordable housing income standards and now considers both rental and owner occupied housing units affordable at 80% AMI. This chart shows all single family homes, condos and townhomes with an assessed value based on 60% and 80% AMI. The chart also shows rental units affordable at 60% AMI and 80% AMI based on returned rental surveys. More data is on the previous page related to affordable rents based on the number of bedrooms in a unit. *Reported Affordable Market Rate Rental Units based on SLPHA Rental Study. 61% of rental units completed the survey. Data source: SLP Community Development, Development Activity in St. Louis Park, SLP Inspections and Assessing. **Added two SF homes on previously undeveloped lots ***Apartment units completed in 2017 were included in the 2016 counts because they were under construction. See the Housing Development Project table for approved and completion dates. Study Session Meeting of April 9, 2018 (Item No. 5) Title: 2017 Annual Housing Programs Activity Report Page 14 Project Developer Planning Approval Type Total Units Affordable Units Status/ Completion Anna & Joel Thompson(owner) 4515 W 42nd St C.B. Hadley (Builder)2007 Single-Family 1 Completed 2008 Richard & Adrienne Harrison (Owner) 2600 Natchez Creek Hill Custom Homes (Builder)2008 Single-Family 1 Completed 2009 Ellipse 3920 Excelsior Blvd Bader 2008 Condo 132 Complete 2011 TowerLight 3601 Wooddale Ave S Greco 2008 Senior Apartment 115 Completed 2013 The Flats at West End 5310 16th St West The Excelsior Groups 2010 Apartment 119 Completed 2013 Shaun Smith (Owner) 2005 Louisiana Andrew Hewey Const. (Builder) 2010 Single-Family 1 Completed 2011 Hoigaard Village Medley Row & The Adaigo 5650 W 36th St Frank Dunbar 2011 Apartment & Rowhomes 22 Rental Rowhomes / 100 unit Apt Completed 2013 36 Park (Park Summit) 3601 Park Center Blvd EJ Plesko 2011 Apartment 192 Unit Apt Completed 2012 Eldridge 1st Addition Rob Eldridge 2011 Single-Family 4 new SF lot (5 SF lots total) Constructed 2012 Fretham 12th Add Curt Fretham 2011 Single-Family 5 new SF lots (6 SF lots total)Constructed 2013 Gateway Assisted Living 7115 Wayzata Blvd Viren Gori 2012 Assisted Living 22 Complete 2014 Calhoun Apt Homes Cty Rd 25 & Inglewood Ave Andrew Brenner 2012 Apartment 7 Completed 2014 E2 3920 Excelsior Blvd Bader 2012 Apartment 58 Completed 2013 Kaiser Subdivision Rob Eldridge 2012 Single-Family 2 Completed 2013 Eliot 6800 Cedar Lake Rd Dan Hunt 2013 Apartment & Single- Family 138 Apt units / 2 SF Apartments Completed 2015 SF completed 2016 Wooddale Flats 3998 Wooddale Ave S Gatehouse Prop Ltd 2013 Condos 33 Under Construction Fretham 14th Addition Curt Fretham 2013 Single-Family 1 new lot created (2 SF lots total)Completed 2014 Millenium at West End 1621 West End Blvd DLC Residential 2014 Apartment 158 Completed 2015 Eldridge 5th Addition 7701 Edgebrook Rob Eldridge 2014 Single-Family 1 Completed 2015 5609 Wood Ln Gavin May 2014 Single-Family 1 Completed 2015 4101 31st St Apts 4101 31st St Josh Brandsted 2014 Apartment 13 Completed 2015 4106 Forest Lane ALTUS Architect/Sunny & Tiffiny Han 2015 Single-Family 1 Completed 2016 4300 Brookside JP Brooks 2015 Single-Family 1 Completed 2017 Central Park West Phase 1 Apartment Building DLC Residential 2015 Apartment 119 Units in St. Louis Park 6 units @ 60% AMI Completed 2017 The Shoreham mixed-use building Bader Development 2015 Apartment/comm.148 30 units at 50% AMI Completed 2017 4800 Excelsior Weidner 2015 Apartment 164 18 units at 60% AMI Completed 2017 Arlington Row Apartments West Melrose Company 2015 Apartment 34 3 units at 80% AMI Approved Arlington Row Apartments East Melrose Company 2016 Apartment 27 3 units at 80% AMI Approved Parkway 25 Paz Sela 2016 Apartment 111 Under Construction 2915 Maryland Ave Alliance Builders 2016 Single-Family 1 Completed 2017 1404 Louisiana Ave Anton Homchik 2016 Single-Family 1 Completed 2017 2010 Flag Ave JR Hultman Homes 2016 Single-Family 1 Completed 2017 Via PLACE 2017 Mixed Use 299 200 units at 60% AMI Approved 2017 The Elmwood 36th Street LLC 2017 Mixed Use 70 Approved 2017 2847 Zarthan Ave Alliance Builders 2017 Single-Family 1 Completed 2017 2715 Monterey Alliance Builders 2017 Single-Family 1 Under Construction Total Units Approved since 2007 Single Family 26 Condo 165 Townhome Ownership 0 Townhome Rental 22 Apartments 1619 Senior Apartments 115 Senior Assisted Living 22 Senior Condos 0 Total Units Added since 2007 1969 Table 7: Housing Development Project List Study Session Meeting of April 9, 2018 (Item No. 5) Title: 2017 Annual Housing Programs Activity Report Page 15 5.FORECLOSURES Foreclosures are measured by the number of sheriff sales. The number of residential foreclosures in St. Louis Park and throughout Hennepin County has been declining since 2010. Chart 9: St. Louis Park Residential Foreclosures by Year The trend chart below shows foreclosure by housing type over time. Chart 10: Residential Foreclosures by Housing Type *Townhome & DB = Townhome and Double Bungalow/Duplex 87 133 92 191 163 122 59 54 47 31 36 0 40 80 120 160 200 240 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017Number of Sherrif Sales Year Residential Foreclosures by Year 78 93 63 106 109 82 45 39 28 21 25 9 30 27 54 40 30 9 14 15 6 9 0 10 2 31 8 10 5 1 4 4 20 40 80 120 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017Number Sherrif SalesYear Residential Foreclosures by Housing Type Single Family Detached Condos Townhome & DB Study Session Meeting of April 9, 2018 (Item No. 5) Title: 2017 Annual Housing Programs Activity Report Page 16 6.ST. LOUIS PARK HUD FEDERALLY FUNDED HOUSING PROGRAMS: UPDATE The St. Louis Park Housing Authority (HA) administers programs that ensure the availability of safe and desirable affordable housing options in the St. Louis Park community. These programs include the Public Housing program, Housing Choice Voucher rental assistance program, Continuum of Care rental assistance program, and TRAILS family self-sufficiency program. The HA currently serves approximately 500 eligible, low-income households through their housing programs. Public Housing The HA owns Hamilton House, a low-rise apartment building (108 one-bedroom units and 2 two- bedroom caretaker units) built in 1975, and 37 scattered site single-family units (3 to 5 bedrooms) acquired or constructed between 1974 and 1996. Hamilton House is designated for general occupancy; however, priority is given to elderly and disabled applicants. The single-family scattered units house families with children. The HA also holds the HUD Annual Contributions Contract (ACC) and maintains a waiting list for 12 two-bedroom Public Housing apartment units located at Louisiana Court. The 2017 annual budget for Public Housing was $998,820. Table 8: Public Housing Occupancy Public Housing Total Units 1-BR 2-BR 3-BR 4-BR 5-BR December 31, 2017 Hamilton House 108 108 100% Scattered Site Single Family 37 0 0 17 17 3 100% Louisiana Court, Metropolitan Housing Opportunity (MHOP) Units 12 12 100% Total (bedroom size) 108 12 17 17 3 Total 157 100% Continuum of Care (Permanent Rental Assistance) The Continuum of Care Program (CoC) is designed to link rental assistance with supportive services for hard-to-reach homeless persons with disabilities (primarily those who are seriously mentally ill or have chronic problems with alcohol, drugs or both) and their families. Grants are provided to be used for permanent housing which must be matched with supportive services that are equal in value to the amount of rental assistance and appropriate to the needs of population to be served. St. Louis Park is the grant recipient and we partner with two sponsor organizations that administer supportive housing programs. The Housing Authority administered 21 units of Continuum of Care assistance in 2017. Total grant allocation for 2017 for both CoC programs was $259,596. Table 9: Continuum of Care Rental Assistance Continuum of Care Rental Assistance Units Continuum of Care Rental units in SLP Perspectives Inc. 11 *Wayside Supportive Housing 2 Total in St. Louis Park 13 CoC units administered by SLP HA but located outside of St. Louis Park ** Project for Pride In Living (PPL)/Camden 8 TOTAL CoC Units Administered by HA 21 *Perspective grant provides funding for two units of Continuum of Care Rental Assistance at Wayside House. ** Effective November 1, 2017 PPL became the grant administrator for the PPL/Camden apartment units located in Minneapolis. Study Session Meeting of April 9, 2018 (Item No. 5) Title: 2017 Annual Housing Programs Activity Report Page 17 Housing Choice Voucher Program (HCV) The HA is allocated 268 Housing Choice Vouchers from HUD. This rent assistance program provides rent subsidies for low-income individuals and families in privately owned, existing market rate housing units. The rent subsidy is paid directly to the owner of the rental property by the HA with funds provided by HUD. The HA administers both tenant-based and project-based vouchers. 41 vouchers of the HA’s allocation are designated for use in three privately owned developments (Excelsior & Grand, Vail Place, and Wayside) and are referred to as project-based vouchers. The 2017 annual budget for HCV was $2,059,638. Table 10: HCV Lease-Up Report Housing Choice Voucher – Lease Up Report December 31, 2017 Units HUD Allocated Vouchers 268 Vouchers Issued (Executed, Pending, Outstanding and Leased Project Based) 273 Unleased Project-Based (PB) 0 Vouchers Outstanding 9 Executed St. Louis Park Contracts: Housing Choice Vouchers 220 Excelsior & Grand 18 Vail Place 8 Wayside Supportive Housing 15 261 Port-Ins 33 Port-Outs 70 Pending Port-Outs 3 Executed and Pending 273 Total Administered 261 Summary: % of Vouchers Utilized % Utilized, Pending, Outstanding & Unleased PB 97% 102% Stable HOME Rental Assistance Program The Stable HOME program provides rent assistance to low-income singles and families who were homeless or would otherwise be at risk of homelessness. Rent assistance is limited to three years. During the three years, participants must establish good rental histories and relationships. They must also work to improve their earnings enough to where they do not need rental assistance. The program is administered by the HA, but participants are free to choose a rental unit anywhere in Hennepin County except Minneapolis. Participants are referred to the program by Hennepin County. This program is funded with federal HOME funds allocated to the county. Single participants are also participants in the county’s Employment Pays program and families are also in the Stable Families Initiative program. 38 families throughout suburban Hennepin County were served by this program 2017. Study Session Meeting of April 9, 2018 (Item No. 5) Title: 2017 Annual Housing Programs Activity Report Page 18 7. PROGRAM DESCRIPTIONS Technical, Design, and Conservation Services Architectural Design Service This service provides an architectural consultation for residents to assist with brainstorming remodeling possibilities and to raise the awareness of design possibilities for expansions. Residents select an approved architect from a pool developed in conjunction with the MN Chapter of the American Institute of Architects. All homeowners considering renovations are eligible for this service regardless of income; however, to ensure committed participants, residents make a $25 co- pay. Remodeling/Rehab Advisor The intention of this service is to help residents improve their homes (either maintenance or value added improvements) by providing technical help before and during the construction process. All homeowners are eligible for this service regardless of income. Resident surveys indicated that homeowners valued the service and would recommend it to others. The city contracts with the Center for Energy and Environment (CEE) for this free service to homeowners. Home Energy Squad Enhanced Visit Home Energy Squad Enhanced program is a comprehensive residential energy program designed to help residents save money and energy and stay comfortable in their homes. The program which began in March, 2012, is administered by the Center for Energy and Environment (CEE). The city pays $50 per resident visit which is leveraged with funds from Xcel Energy, Center Point Energy and CEE. The cost per resident is $50 per enhanced visit. The home energy squad consultant evaluates energy saving opportunities and installs the energy- efficiency materials the homeowner choses including: door weather stripping, water heater blanket, programmable thermostat, compact fluorescent light bulbs, high efficiency shower heads and faucet aerators. They will also perform diagnostic tests including a blower door test to measure the home for air leaks, complete an insulation inspection, safety check the home’s heating system and water heater and help with next steps such as finding insulation contractors. All single family and duplex homeowners are eligible. Renters qualify for the installed visit ($30) without diagnostic tests. The Home Energy Squad Enhanced visits qualified residents for CEE’s low interest financing and utility rebates and they also notify residents of the city loan and rebate opportunities. Annual Home Remodeling Fair The cities and school district community education departments of St. Louis Park, Hopkins, Minnetonka, and Golden Valley co-sponsor the annual home remodeling fair. The fair provides residents an opportunity to attend seminars, talk with vendors and city staff about permits, zoning, home improvement loans, and environmental issues related to remodeling. The fair is a self- sustaining event and vendor registration fees cover the costs. Home Remodeling Tour The annual tour is designed to meet the housing goal to remodel and expand single family owner occupied homes. The self-guided tour of six homes provides a showcase of a variety of home remodeling projects to provide ideas, information, and inspiration to other residents considering remodeling. Study Session Meeting of April 9, 2018 (Item No. 5) Title: 2017 Annual Housing Programs Activity Report Page 19 Construction Management Plan The city recognizes that many households are looking for larger homes. As a result, significant additions and/or tearing down of existing homes and rebuilding larger homes is becoming more common. Because St. Louis Park is a fully built community, these major additions and construction of new homes impacts the surrounding neighbors. Effective November 15, 2014, major additions (second story additions or additions of 500 square feet or more), demolitions and new construction need to comply with a Construction Management Plan (CMP) per City Code 6-71. Major additions, tear downs and new construction are required to send a written neighborhood notification to neighbors within 200 feet of the property. Demolitions and/or new construction will also require a neighborhood meeting and signage. Financial Programs Discount Loan Program This program encourages residents to improve their homes by “discounting” the interest rate on the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency (MN Housing) home improvement loans. Residents must have a household income of $104,000 or less. Eligible improvements include most home improvement projects with the exception of luxury items such as pools and spas. The city contracts with CEE for loan administration. Implementation of discounting of MHFA loans began in late 1999 as a pilot project. Move – Up Transformation Loan The purpose of this loan is to encourage residents with incomes at or below 120% of median area income ($108,500 for a family of four) to expand their homes. The program provides deferred loans for 25% of the applicant’s home expansion project cost, with a maximum loan of $25,000. The revolving loan pool will continue to fund future expansions. This loan requires significant upfront work by the residents, from deciding on the scope of the project to selecting contractors. Loan guidelines are: •Only residents making significant expansions are eligible. The minimum project cost must exceed $35,000. •The maximum loan amount is $25,000. •The loan has 0% interest with a carrying cost fee of 3% paid by the borrower which covers the lender’s administrative fee. •Loan is forgiven after 30 years if homeowner continues to live in the home. Green Remodeling Program & Energy Rebates The Green Remodeling Program includes the Home Energy Squad Enhanced home visit program, use of energy rebates, and access to CEE’s Home Energy Loan. The city provides a match of 50% of gas and electric utility rebates for energy efficient furnaces, water heaters, air conditioners and qualifying air sealing and insulation. CEE also provided low interest loans to residents making qualifying energy improvements and St. Louis Park residents can take advantage of this loan. This energy improvement loan has no income restrictions and there is no cost to the city. Study Session Meeting of April 9, 2018 (Item No. 5) Title: 2017 Annual Housing Programs Activity Report Page 20 Meeting: Study Session Meeting Date: April 9, 2018 Written Report: 6 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: On-Street Parking Restrictions RECOMMENDED ACTION: None at this time. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the City Council have questions regarding the staff’s review of street widths and associated on-street parking restrictions? SUMMARY: At the February 5, 2018 public hearing for the 2018 Pavement Management Project, the City Council had questions for staff regarding the policy to restrict parking on one side on a street that is narrowed by a transportation project to less than 28 feet wide. To respond to the council’s questions, Engineering, Police, Fire, and Operations and Recreation Departments have reviewed on-street parking standards. Attached is a summary of the discussions that have occurred since the February City Council meeting. Staff does not recommend changing our recommendation to restrict parking on streets less than 28 feet wide. For record keeping purposes, additional resolutions clarifying the parking restrictions for the 2018 Pavement Management Project will be brought to the City Council for approval on the May 7 consent agenda. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion Street Typical Sections Prepared by: Debra Heiser, Engineering Director Reviewed by: Aaron Wiesen, Project Engineer Ben Manibog, Transportation Engineer Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Study Session Meeting of April 9, 2018 (Item No. 6) Page 2 Title: On-Street Parking Restrictions DISCUSSION BACKGROUND: At the February 5, 2018 public hearing for the 2018 Pavement Management Project, the City Council had questions for staff regarding the recommendation to restrict parking on one side on a street that is narrowed by a transportation project to less than 28 feet wide. History This minimum standard was developed in 2014. Engineering saw that our practice of narrowing streets to accommodate sidewalks was a valuable tool to minimize private property impacts and to save trees. During the first Connect the Park public process we were proposing to narrow 39th Street to 26 feet to reduce impacts to trees and private properties. In response to that proposal, we heard concerns from property owners that the narrowed street was “too narrow” for emergency vehicles. To respond to this concern, Engineering completed a review of our street widths and then reached out to Police, Fire, and Public Works staff to better understand their needs regarding street widths for safe travel of emergency response vehicles and for efficient snow removal. The result of those discussions was the establishment of minimum street width standards and associated on- street parking restrictions. When a street is narrowed as a result of a city led construction project, staff recommends the following: • Two side parking: on streets that are 28 feet or wider • One side parking: on streets less than 28 feet • No Parking: on streets less than 24 feet wide Attached is a graphic that illustrates the standards. Staff Evaluation To respond to the council’s questions from the February 5 meeting, Engineering has met with the Police, Fire, and Operations and Recreation Departments. The interdepartmental discussions covered a number of areas, the main points worked through were: •Emergency vehicle response •Temporary winter parking restrictions •Parking adjacent to a back of curb sidewalk •Customer response •Design flexibility •On-street parking demand What follows is an overview of the factors informing the staff recommendations in each of these areas. Emergency Vehicle Response Emergency vehicle response is the primary concern regarding allowing parking on both sides of a street that is less than 28 feet wide. To help understand this concern in regards to emergency vehicles, here is some background: •The majority of vehicles are less than 7 feet wide (mirror to mirror). •Fire has the widest emergency vehicle, so we use it as a baseline for our street width discussions. Our widest fire truck is 8.3 feet wide. •During the winter months, we can lose an average of 4 feet of road width due to snow being piled in the boulevards. Study Session Meeting of April 9, 2018 (Item No. 6) Page 3 Title: On-Street Parking Restrictions If there were two cars parked directly across from each other on a street that is 28 feet wide, there is about 14 feet available for vehicles travelling on the street. This is adequate room for the majority of vehicles to pass each other in the travel way. Because of this narrowing, the vehicles will slow down as they drive through. If a street is less than 28 feet, there is no longer enough travel way for two vehicles to pass each other. As shown on the attached graphic, and detailed in the table below Street width (curb to curb) Parking Travel way Parking 27 ft 7 ft 13 ft 7 ft 26 ft 7 ft 12 ft 7 ft 25 ft 7 ft 11 ft 7 ft 24 ft 7 ft 10 ft 7 ft Factor in winter conditions, these travel ways can be reduced by 4 feet. Making it not wide enough for a fire truck to drive down the street when there are cars parked on both sides. By restricting parking on one side we eliminate this public safety concern. Restricting parking on one side of the street changes the above table to this: Street width (curb to curb) Parking Travel way 27 ft 7 ft 20 ft 26 ft 7 ft 19 ft 25 ft 7 ft 18 ft 24 ft 7 ft 17 ft Temporary Winter Parking Restrictions It should be noted that during the winter, Fire and Operations staff monitor our streets for snow accumulation. If it is determined that the volume of snow has made the street too narrow for an emergency vehicle to travel down with on- street parking, temporary parking restrictions are implemented. We last implemented these in the winter of 2013-2014. Parking Adjacent to a Back of Curb Sidewalk An additional factor was brought up by our snow removal staff for city maintained sidewalks. Having a car parked on the street directly adjacent to a back of curb sidewalk can make it difficult to remove snow. Our equipment is 4.5 feet wide. Driving this equipment down a sidewalk and encountering a vehicle parked on the same side of the road can make it too narrow for our equipment to get through. This problem is compounded when that sidewalk is less than 6 feet wide. This is one of the reasons staff recommends a 6 foot wide sidewalk on new sidewalk installed at the back of curb. Customer Response We receive requests from property owners asking the City to post one side of a street no parking based on the street being “too narrow” for emergency vehicles to navigate when cars are parked on both sides of the street. This concern also comes up during our project design process. Having a standard for parking restriction and street widths allows for us to review these requests and provide a consistent response to property owners. Study Session Meeting of April 9, 2018 (Item No. 6) Page 4 Title: On-Street Parking Restrictions Design Flexibility When we work through the design of a sidewalk on a street we first start with a boulevard style sidewalk (6 foot grass boulevard/ 6 foot wide sidewalk). This allows pedestrians to walk side by side or for pedestrians going in the opposite direction to comfortably pass each other. It also accommodates wheelchairs. We then review the following impacts to properties: •Driveway grades & lengths - we want to provide at least twenty feet from the garage door to the sidewalk so that property owners can park in their driveway and not block the sidewalk. Blocking the sidewalk is a code violation. •Proximity to structures - how close does the sidewalk get to existing homes / garages/ sheds? This is not a code violation; however, we have heard it as a property owner concern. •Available space in right-of-way - is there enough right-of-way to build a boulevard style sidewalk? •Trees - how many trees would need to be removed to build the sidewalk? •Landscaping and vegetation – are there impacts to resident installed landscaping and vegetation? •Fences and retaining walls - are there impacts to resident installed fences and retaining walls? •Utilities - are there power poles or other private utilities in the way? To address / minimize impacts, we will narrow the sidewalk (minimum 5 feet), the grass boulevard, or the street. Sometimes it is a combination of all three. The equipment that the City uses to remove snow from sidewalks is 4.5 ft wide. Having a 6 foot wide sidewalk provides our operators with adequate width to avoid damage to grass and trees in the boulevard. We have built 5 foot wide city maintained sidewalks, however, our staff routinely needs to go out in the spring to repair damage to sod along the sidewalks caused by snow removal. On- street Parking Demand In single family residential areas, not directly adjacent to a commercial node, we find that a majority of on- street parking is not used on a daily basis. One side parking still allows for plenty of on- street parking spaces for what is needed on a day to day basis. We would only recommend narrowing the street to less than 28 feet if there is not a high demand for on- street parking. When additional parking is needed for special events, such as a graduation party or garage sales, we have allowed parking in no parking zones. Provided the street is wider than 20 feet. To request this, the property owner would contact us with a date and time, and the Police Department will not enforce parking restrictions during that time. Emergency vehicles are notified of the special event and can plan their emergency response for that time period. What about parking restrictions on existing streets that are less than 28 feet wide? Staff has completed a review of existing street widths and corresponding parking restrictions throughout the City. The City has 148 miles of streets under our jurisdiction. 14 miles (9.4%) are less than 28 feet wide and have no on- street parking restrictions. Since establishing this standard, we have not retroactively implemented parking restrictions on streets narrower than 28 feet wide. Study Session Meeting of April 9, 2018 (Item No. 6) Page 5 Title: On-Street Parking Restrictions Staff Recommendation Engineering has met with the Police, Fire, and Operations and Recreation Departments to review our street width standards and they are concerned that allowing parking on both sides of streets less than 28 feet wide will have the following impacts: • Reduce emergency response times. • Be impassible for all vehicles when there are two cars parked directly across from each other. When a street is narrowed as a result of a city led construction project, staff recommends the following: • Two side parking: on streets that are 28 feet or wider. • One side parking: on streets less than 28 feet. • No Parking: on streets less than 24 feet wide Staff also recommends that the consideration of parking restrictions on 14 miles of streets that do not have restrictions and are less than 28 feet wide be evaluated on a case by case basis driven by customer requests. Customer requests are handled through the Traffic Committee. When we receive these requests, staff will first look at the street width. If it is at least 28 feet wide, we will respond that it meets our minimum requirements, and we do not recommend on- street parking restrictions. If the street were less than 28 feet wide staff would recommend on- street parking restrictions and work through a public outreach process to obtain property owner feedback regarding the proposed on- street parking restrictions. This consists of a letter sent to all property owners on the street to obtain feedback. Any on-street parking restrictions would be brought to council for approval prior to implementation. BOULEVARDBOULEVARD7’-0” TO 8’-0” 7’-0” TO 8’-0” 7’-0”PARKINGWALK7’-0”PARKINGWALKR.O.W.R.O.W.28’-30’ ROADWAY WIDTH14’-16’ SHARED TRAVEL WIDTHBOULEVARDBOULEVARD8’-6” TO 10’-0” 8’-6” TO 10’-0”WALK7’-0”PARKINGWALKR.O.W.R.O.W.24’-27’ ROADWAY WIDTH17’-20’ SHARED TRAVEL WIDTHBOULEVARDBOULEVARD10’-0” TO 11’-6”10’-0” TO 11’-6”WALKWALKR.O.W.R.O.W.20’-23’ ROADWAY WIDTH228’-30’ WIDTH - PARKING ALLOWED ON BOTH SIDES OF STREET24’-27’ WIDTH - PARKING ALLOWED ON ONE SIDE OF STREET20’-23’ WIDTH - PARKING NOT ALLOWED ON STREETJANUARY 2018CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTATYPICAL NEIGHBORHOOD STREET SECTIONSStudy Session Meeting of April 9, 2018 (Item No. 6) Title: On-Street Parking RestrictionsPage 6