Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2018/07/23 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - Study SessionAGENDA JULY 23, 2018 (Council members Mavity, Brausen and Hallfin out) 6:30 p.m. STUDY SESSION – Community room Discussion items 1. 6:30 p.m. Future study session agenda planning 2. 6:35 p.m. Firearm sales 3. 7:20 p.m. Multi-family housing sidewalk connections 4. 7:50 p.m. Boards and commissions discussion 8:35 p.m. Communications/updates (verbal) 8:40 p.m. Adjourn Written reports 5. June 2018 monthly financial report 6. Second quarter investment report (April – June 2018) 7. Cedar Lake Road improvement project scope update – project no. 4019-1100 Auxiliary aids for individuals with disabilities are available upon request. To make arrangements, please call the administration department at 952/924-2525 (TDD 952/924-2518) at least 96 hours in advance of meeting. Meeting: Study session Meeting date: July 23, 2018 Discussion item: 1 Executive summary Title: Future study session agenda planning Recommended action: The city council and city manager to set the agenda for a special study session on August 6 and for the regularly scheduled study session on August 13, 2018. Policy consideration: Not applicable. Summary: This report summarizes the proposed agenda for a special study session on August 6 and for the regularly scheduled study session on August 13, 2018. Also attached to this report is the study session prioritization and tentative discussion timeline. Financial or budget considerations: Not applicable. Strategic priority consideration: Not applicable. Supporting documents: Tentative agenda – August 6 and 13, 2018 Study session prioritization and projected discussion timeline Prepared by: Debbie Fischer, Administrative Services Office Assistant Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Study session meeting of July 23, 2018 (Item No. 1) Page 2 Title: Future study session agenda planning August 6, 2018 5:45 p.m. – Special study session – Community room Tentative discussion items 1.RCV – tabulating votes, write-in votes, method of resolving ties – Administrative services (60 minutes) This is the third discussion related to the ordinance for the rules of conduct for municipal elections. The topics to be covered include tabulation of votes, write-ins, and method of resolving ties. 2.Immigration and supporting families discussion – Police/Administrative services (30 minutes) City council has requested an opportunity to talk about immigration and supporting families. Staff from the police department and the city attorney will be present for this discussion. August 13, 2018 5:30 p.m. – Study session – Community room Tentative discussion items 1.Future study session agenda planning – Administrative services (5 minutes) 2.2019 Budget discussion – Administrative services (90 minutes) The 2019 budget preparation is underway and staff will provide an update on the budget and any significant changes in revenue and expenditure assumptions. In addition, staff will review the upcoming budget meeting schedule. Department directors will also be present. 3.Body worn camera policy – Police (60 minutes) Police will provide an overview of how the draft body worn camera policy was developed using law enforcement best practices and the League of Minnesota Cities’ model policy. Information will be provided on how the department received community input from the police advisory commission, human rights commission, multi-cultural advisory commission and local schools. Information will also be provided on the draft policy being posted on the city website for public comment and scheduled for a public hearing at the August 20, 2018 city council meeting. 4.Affordable housing trust fund and inclusionary housing policy amendment – Community Development (60 minutes) Staff will provide an update on the impact the inclusionary housing policy has had on affordable housing development in St. Louis Park, and present three proposed amendments to the policy for council’s consideration. Staff will also discuss details related to the establishment of a city housing trust fund and present a draft policy describing what the funds can be used for. Communications/meeting check-in – Administrative services (5 minutes) Time for communications between staff and council will be set aside on every study session agenda for the purposes of information sharing. Written reports 5.Comp plan 2040 survey results and plan by neighborhood Study session meeting of July 23, 2018 (Item No. 1) Page 3 Title: Future study session agenda planning Study session prioritization and projected discussion timeline Priority Discussion topic Comments Date 4 Communication to human rights commission on council expectations Postponed (B&C discussion) 7/23/18 4 Establish a local housing trust fund Discussed 5/14/18. Staff following up. 8/13/18 4 Revitalization of Walker Lake area Part of preserving Walker building reports: 8/28/17, 9/25/17, 1/22/18, design study 2/12/18, update 4/23/18 8/27/18 4 Zoning guidelines for front-facing buildings with windows not papered over Discussed 7/9/18. Referred to PC for review & recommendation. TBD 4 Finalize Council Norms Reviewed on 5/7/18; adoption postponed on 5/21/18 TBD 3 Develop a youth/senior advisory ii Postponed (B&C discussion) 7/23/18 3 Historical society space Part of Walker building discussions on 8/28/17, 11/20/17, 12/11/17, 4/23/18 8/27/18 3 Living streets policy 3rd Qtr. 2018 3 Minimum wage ordinance Discussed on 6/11/18; continued until fall after Citizens League study completed Sept/Oct. 3 Design guidelines - New home construction Discussed 7/9/18. Referred to PC for review & recommendation. TBD 3 Discuss and evaluate our public process TBD 3 Retail/service/liquor stores size Discussed on 6/11/18; referred to PC. TBD 3 Crime free ordinance/affordable housing strategies Discussed 5/14/18. Staff following up. TBD 3 Easy access to nature, across city, starting with low-income neighborhoods TBD 2 SEED’s community greenhouse/resilient cities initiative TBD 2 Bird friendly glass TBD 2 Dark skies ordinance (light pollution) TBD 2 Community center project TBD 2 Revitalization of TH100 former Rock garden TBD ? Firearm sales Discussed 5/21/18. Staff following up. 7/23/18 ? Immigration & supporting families 8/6/18 ? Utility pricing policy TBD 4 Race equity/inclusion courageous conversations Presented 6/4/18 Completed 4 Creating an affirming environment for transgender individuals Presented 6/4/18 Completed 3 The Nest Funding agreement approved 6/4/18 Completed 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: July 23, 2018 Discussion item: 2 Executive summary Title: Firearm sales Recommended action: None at this time. The purpose of the study session is to discuss the topic of firearms sales within the city. Policy consideration: •Does the city council wish to change how firearms are disposed of by the police department? •Does the city council want to further restrict the zoning regulations for firearm sales? •Does the city council wish to address gun shows at city owned facilities? Summary: On May 21, 2018 the city council discussed firearm sales within the City of St. Louis Park. The city council asked for additional information regarding the disposal of firearms by the police department and zoning restrictions on firearm sales. In Minnesota, the state has limited the authority of cities to regulate firearms (Minn. Stat. 471.633). Since 1985, the state legislature has preempted all cities, counties, towns and other governmental subdivisions from regulating “firearms, ammunition or their respective components.” Staff was tasked with getting more information to the council on the disposal of firearms by the police department and zoning requirements for firearm sales. The following will be presented at the study session. •Police department retention policy and procedures: o Firearms seized as evidence o Firearms obtained for safekeeping o Firearms owned by the police department •Zoning regulations o Definition of firearm sales o Current zoning restrictions •Gun shows Financial or budget considerations: Revenue is budgeted for firearms that are sold by the city to a licensed dealer when they have reached the end of their useful like. The amount varies depending on market value. The revenue from the sales is used to offset the cost of purchasing new firearms for the police department. Strategic priority consideration: Not applicable. Supporting documents: Discussion Minnesota Statute 471.633 Prepared by: Maria Carrillo Perez, Management Assistant Reviewed by: Karen Barton, Community Development Director Mike Harcey, Police Chief Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Study session meeting of July 23, 2018 (Item No. 2) Page 2 Title: Firearm sales Discussion Background: The city council discussed firearm sales at the study session on May 21, 2018 (minutes). The state’s authority to regulate firearms is broader than federal authority but is limited by the Second Amendment to the federal constitution. In Minnesota, the state has limited the authority of cities to regular firearms. Since 1985, the state of Minnesota has preempted all cities, counties, towns and other government subdivisions from regulating “firearms, ammunition or their respective components,” with two exceptions. A governmental subdivision such as a city may regulate the discharge of firearms and it may adopt regulations identical to state law. Minnesota cities have no authority to ban assault weapons, high capacity magazines or any other firearm, ammunition or component thereof unless already banned by state law. Home rule charter cities, such as the City of St. Louis Park, can regulate the discharge of firearms and can regulate through zoning the location of firearms sales. Staff has put information together for the city council on the procedures used by the police departments in disposing firearms and the city’s zoning regulations on firearm sales. Police Department Below is an overview of how the police department disposes of firearms seized as evidence or held for safekeeping. It will also address how department owned firearms that have reached the end of their useful life are disposed of. Firearms seized as evidence; •All firearms that are seized as evidence in criminal investigations are held in the police department property room according to the department’s evidence retention policy. The following three situations trigger the end of the time required to hold the property and allow for disposal: o A final disposition of the investigation has been made. o The statute of limitations has expired on the original crime, if no one was charged in the case. o If there was a conviction in the case the firearm would be held until the end of all rights to appeal the conviction have expired. •When a firearm is able to be released according to department’s evidence retention policy we dispose of the firearm by: o Releasing them to the Hennepin County Sheriff’s Office or the Bureau of Criminal Investigations for their Firearms Library to be used in future forensic investigations. o Physically destroying the firearm and recycling the metal. o Returned to the owner when ordered by the court or we have no legal right to hold them any longer. *Note all firearms returned to the owner require proof of ownership, a records check of the owner to ensure they can legally possess a firearm, and an Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms records check to ensure they have not been stolen of used in an open criminal investigation. All releases have to be approved by the Police Chief. Study session meeting of July 23, 2018 (Item No. 2) Page 3 Title: Firearm sales Firearms seized for safekeeping; • All firearms obtained for safekeeping are held in department’s property room according to the evidence retention policy. • Firearms obtained for safekeeping at the request of the owner, relative or officer when it is determined that the person has mental health issues that would put themselves or others at risk if the firearm was left in their control. This usually happens when the owner or relative requests officers take possession of the firearm or when the owner is placed on a health and welfare hold by the officer. • Firearms requested to be held for safekeeping voluntarily may be returned to the owner with proof of ownership, a records check of the owner to ensure they can legally possess a firearm, and an Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms records check to ensure they have not been stolen of used in an open criminal investigation. All releases have to be approved by the Police Chief. • Firearms held for safekeeping due to a health and welfare hold are only released by order of the court after verifying proof of ownership, a records check of the owner to ensure they can legally possess a firearm, and an Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms records check to ensure they have not been stolen of used in an open criminal investigation. All releases have to be approved by the Police Chief. It is rare that firearms held for safekeeping for a health and welfare hold are ever released, due to the court’s reluctance to provide a court order for their release. Firearms owned by the department; • Handguns issued to officers that have reached the end of their useful life or when an officer retires in good standing, have been sold to a licensed firearms dealer. Dealers have given our officers first chance at buying back the handgun before they would be made available for sale to the public. Most of the time these weapons are purchased by a department member and never become available to sell to the public. The frequency of this type of transaction varies by employee turnover and the age of the firearm but we average about 2-3 of these types of situations a year. The average firearm is purchased by the dealer at the current market value of the firearm; it has typically been $300-$400 for the handguns. • After the recent conversion about our new squad based rifle platform, twenty-three 9MM MP5 rifles, that had reached the end of their useful life, became available to sell. This type of transaction is infrequent, only taking place when we have a change in issued firearms. The last platform change took place over 20 years ago and the department doesn’t foresee any changes for at least 10-15 years when the new squad based firearms reach the end of their useful life. The estimated value of selling the 23 MP5 rifles is $25, 000, depending on the current market value. The proceeds of the sale of these firearms is dedicated to the purchase of replacement squad based rifles that are needed to complete the transition to our new rifle platform. The police department has been working with and discussing the sale of the MP5 rifles with a federally licensed dealer. The MP5’s can only be sold/transferred to someone with a Federal Firearms License and Special Occupational Taxpayers (SOT= National Firearms Act Firearms Dealer or Manufacturer), or to another law enforcement agency. There is no legal way to sell/transfer the MP5’s from the police department to a civilian, as they were imported after May of 1986 when a law was enacted to prevent this type of sale. Six of Study session meeting of July 23, 2018 (Item No. 2) Page 4 Title: Firearm sales the MP5 rifles are being prepared to be rendered inoperable, and no longer legally considered guns. The remaining parts retain value and would be sold to collectors. • A survey of local police departments, Minnetonka, Hopkins, Eden Prairie and Edina on how they dispose of department owned firearms that have reached the end of their useful life was conducted. Minnetonka, Hopkins and Eden Prairie all follow the same procedure that we currently do. Edina turns over all of their firearms to the Hennepin County Sheriff’s Office for their weapons library. Zoning regulations A federal firearms license (FFL) is required for any business that buys and sells firearms. Part of the FFL application requires background checks and a letter from the city stating the activity meets city code. The zoning code defines firearm sales as “a retail use that includes the sale, lease, or purchase of firearms or ammunition.” This definition covers a business that sells any amount of firearms or ammunition, be it a store that deals primarily in firearms, or a sporting goods store. The zoning ordinance allows firearm sales in the C-2 General Commercial district with the conditions listed below. These conditions are similar to those required for pawnshops, currency exchange, payday loans, liquor stores and sexually-oriented businesses. 1. The lot must be at least 1,000 feet from a property containing a pawnshop, currency exchange, payday loan agency, liquor store, or sexually-oriented business. 2. The use cannot operate in conjunction with a sexually-oriented business. 3. The lot must be at least 350 feet from a lot zoned residential. 4. There are several other conditions that pertain to the general appearance of the store, such as prohibiting neon, windows must be transparent, no loud speakers, and the use must occur inside a building. Firearm sales have also been allowed as a home occupation under certain conditions. Home occupation means an occupation, profession, or activity which provides gainful employment to a resident of a dwelling unit which is clearly an incidental and subordinate use to the residential use and which does not alter the exterior of the property or affect the residential character of the neighborhood. One of the conditions for home occupations is that the activity cannot involve warehousing, distribution, or retail sales of merchandise produced off the site. In practice, the city has allowed internet and mail order businesses that buy and sell products, provided that customers do not come to the residence to shop or purchase product that was not made at the residence. Options for additional restrictions: 1. Firearm sales could specifically be prohibited from being a home occupation. Currently, auto body/painting, motor vehicle sales, motor vehicle service and repair, retail sales, massage, medical/dental office, animal handling, beauty shop and barbershop, warehouse/storage and manufacturing/processing do not qualify as home occupations. 2. The city may expand the separation requirements or add to the list of uses that firearms sales must not locate near. Under the current ordinance, firearm sales businesses, other Study session meeting of July 23, 2018 (Item No. 2) Page 5 Title: Firearm sales than home occupations, are significantly limited given that they are only allowed in the C-2 General Commercial district and must meet the distance requirements from other uses and residential properties, as stated above. It is not clear that additional or expanded distances of separation would have any benefit. Gun shows Gun shows are events where sellers sell firearms and related items at a venue for a temporary period of time. Federally licensed dealers and unlicensed sellers can sell firearms during these events. During a gun show, a federally licensed dealer uses the same procedures they would at their storefront, including a criminal background check and registration of the sale. Unlicensed sellers may sell to a private party at a gun show without any background checks or registration of the sale, also known as the “gun show loophole.” That means that the private individuals selling there generally do not have to have a license to sell, meaning that the federally mandated background checks for purchasers do not apply. However, sale of a pistol or assault rifle by a private individual does require either that the buyer have a permit (which requires a background check to obtain) or that the police department first verifies that the individual is allowed to possess the firearm. Sale of a firearm other than a pistol or assault rifle at a gun show does not require any type of background check or police review of the buyer. The city has the ability to prohibit these events from city owned property. Note, the City of St. Louis Park has not had a gun show on city owned property in the past. Does the city council wish to address gun shows on city owned facilities? Next steps: Staff will evaluate the next steps based on the discussion and direction from city council. Meeting: Study session Meeting date: July 23, 2018 Discussion item: 3 Executive summary Title: Multi-family housing sidewalk connections Recommended action: None at this time. Staff desires to discuss with council the expansion of the definition of gap sidewalks to include gaps in the sidewalk network along streets with multi- family housing in order to provide pedestrian connections to transit. Policy consideration: Does the city council wish staff to pursue the installation of sidewalk segments connecting multi-family housing units to transit corridors in the interest of providing pedestrian connections to transit? Summary: Since 2013, the city has been working to fill in gaps in the city’s sidewalk network. This effort first began with Connect the Park sidewalk segments, the proposed construction of 8.2 miles of new sidewalks in the city. It was then expanded to include gap sidewalk segments adjacent to Connect the Park sidewalks. Finally, it has moved to living streets sidewalk segments adjacent to all transportation projects. In all, the city has constructed 8.6 miles of new sidewalk since 2013. Councilmembers have shared concerns with staff that the current capital improvement plan (CIP) for sidewalk construction is not addressing gaps in the sidewalk network that would connect multi-family housing properties to transit corridors. Of particular interest were naturally occurring affordable housing (NOAH) properties. Staff from community development and engineering worked together to better understand the extent of the gaps between NOAH properties and transit corridors. This information is included in this report. We have also reviewed this information with the race equity coordinator. Financial or budget considerations: Staff identified 4.42 miles of new sidewalk gaps, with a total estimated construction cost of $1,600,000, 2018 dollars. This cost is not currently included in the capital improvement plan (CIP). Other sidewalk construction projects have used general obligation bonds for funding. In addition to capital cost, there may be staffing and equipment budget implications depending on the maintenance designation of the sidewalks. Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to providing a variety of options for people to make their way around the city comfortably, safely and reliably. Supporting documents: Discussion Multi-family sidewalk gap map 2019 Multi-family sidewalk gap map Prepared by: Debra Heiser, Engineering Director Reviewed by: Karen Barton, Community Development Director Ben Manibog, Transportation Engineer Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Study session meeting of July 23, 2018 (Item No. 3) Page 2 Title: Multi-family housing sidewalk connections Discussion Background: Council policy direction has been to evaluate the sidewalk system as a part of all transportation projects and identify gaps in the network adjacent to street segments being rehabilitated. These gaps are then included in the project scope for possible construction as part of the project. For purposes of discussion, a gap is considered a section of sidewalk that is missing on a continuous street block. In addition, transportation projects will also include any segments of sidewalk identified in the Connect the Park plan that are adjacent to street segments included in the project. On street segments where there is no existing sidewalk, and there is not a Connect the Park sidewalk segment, staff has not proposed sidewalk installation unless specifically requested by the property owners adjacent to the street. Construction of Connect the Park, gap and living streets sidewalk segments are planned for and included in the 10 year CIP. Councilmembers have shared concerns that the current CIP for sidewalk construction does not address gaps in the sidewalk network that would connect multi- family housing properties to transit corridors. Of particular interest were naturally occurring affordable housing (NOAH) properties. To better understand what it would mean to expand our definition of gap sidewalk segments to include last mile connections between multi- family housing properties and transit, staff from engineering and community development worked together to complete a city wide review of the sidewalk network as it relates to NOAH properties. After identifying all of the NOAH properties across the city, staff analyzed the existing sidewalk network and created an inventory of locations where new sidewalks could be constructed to make these connections. In all there were 4.42 miles of new sidewalks identified, with a total estimated construction cost of $1,600,000, 2018 dollars. The estimated cost also includes the installation of new street trees in the boulevards adjacent to the sidewalks. Consistent with policy, if these segments are approved they would be constructed at no cost to the property owners and the city would be responsible for future repairs to defective sidewalk panels. Snow removal for these sidewalk segments would follow the appropriate sidewalk designation of neighborhood or community. Neighborhood sidewalks are the property owner’s responsibility for snow removal; community sidewalks are the city’s responsibility. Building new community sidewalks will have budget and staffing implications that should be considered. Present considerations: We overlaid these sidewalk locations with the street segments identified for rehabilitation in our 10 year CIP. After careful review staff determined that we would be able to incorporate all but one of these sidewalk gaps into scope of transportation projects already included in the CIP. Study session meeting of July 23, 2018 (Item No. 3) Page 3 Title: Multi-family housing sidewalk connections Creating these connections is consistent with the Climate Action Plan, Section 6.4 Enable reduction of vehicle miles traveled (VMT) from single- occupancy vehicles • By filling gaps in the sidewalk network, we will create a safe space for pedestrians of all ages and abilities in the right- of- way. It improves access to commercial nodes, parks and transit. Encouraging people to walk to these locations and not drive. Next steps: Two of the identified sidewalk segments are adjacent to 2019 projects, these are shown on the attached map. We are having our first public meetings for these projects in the coming month and would like council feedback regarding including these segments in the scope of the Pavement Management and Cedar Lake Road public processes. 0 0 Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO, USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance Survey, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), swisstopo, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community Multi-family sidewalk gaps ² 0 0.25 0.5 Miles Legend Apartment class High amenities Medium amenities Low amenities Existing and proposed sidewalks Transit routes Estimated year of construction TBD 2019 2020 2021 2022 2024 2027 2028 St. Louis Park city limits Study session meeting of July 23, 2018 (Item No. 3) Title: Multi-family housing sidewalk connections Page 4 Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO, USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance Survey, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), swisstopo, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community 0 500 1,000250 Feet ´ Multi-family sidewalk gaps - 2019 LegendApartment class High amenities Medium amenities Low amenities Existing and proposed sidewalks Estimated year of construction 2019 Study session meeting of July 23, 2018 (Item No. 3) Title: Multi-family housing sidewalk connections Page 5 Meeting: Study session Meeting date: July 23, 2018 Discussion item: 4 Executive summary Title: Boards and commissions discussion Recommended action: None at this time. This item is intended to provide time for council to discuss a variety of topics related to the city’s boards and commissions. Policy consideration: •Does the city council wish to make changes or adjustments to the current boards and commissions? •Does the city council agree to have staff provide recommendations on guidelines for scope of work, communication and expectations with the city’s boards and commissions? Summary: The council desired time on a study session agenda to talk about boards and commissions. In January 2017 (agenda and minutes), council reviewed a work plan process and discussed a more defined communication and reporting structure for boards and commission to the council. Council has also had past discussions with the Human Rights Commission about setting expectations for their work and connecting with council. No formal changes were made at that time. At this study session, time has been set aside for the council to discuss the city’s boards and commissions: •Board and commission overview: number of boards and commissions, responsibilities, members/representation. o Historical perspective – how and when why these commissions were created? o Representation on commissions including youth and seniors o Are there opportunities for changes/adjustments? •Connecting with boards and commissions: setting direction for commission work and scope of activity; how does council set expectations, and respond to commission recommendations o How is this currently done? o Are there opportunities to more clearly set expectations to ensure both council and commissions understand reporting, work plans and communication? •Discuss youth and seniors as it relates to boards and commissions. Financial or budget considerations: Not applicable Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to creating opportunities to build social capital through community engagement. Supporting documents: Discussion Prepared by: Maria Carrillo Perez, Management Assistant Reviewed by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Study session meeting of July 23, 2018 (Item No. 4) Page 2 Title: Boards and commissions discussion Discussion Background: The city’s charter grants the council authority to form various boards and commissions by ordinance, while other commissions are pursuant to Minnesota State Statute. Boards and commissions serve in an advisory capacity to the city council and are given various degrees of decision making power. Advisory boards and commissions may conduct work on various topics, as directed by the city council, and may be asked to submit reports or recommendations for council consideration. Board and commission members, with the exception of the Charter Commission, are appointed by the city council. Advisory boards or commissions may evaluate the performance of a program, review/monitor/assess a specific program or policy initiative, serve as an advocate for the community, gather input from or serve as a liaison with relevant constituencies, provide feedback to the city council from the community, provide an independent and unbiased sounding board, and assist city staff in identifying important initiatives or activities. Other possible responsibilities of an advisory board or commission may include defining the goals, means, and primary constituents to be served by a particular program or initiative, ensuring effective planning, monitoring and strengthening of programs and services, and enhancing the city’s connection with all members of the St. Louis Park community. It is important for the city council to understand the history and make-up of all of the city’s boards and commissions. •The Board of Zoning Appeals, Environment and Sustainability Commission, Human Rights Commission, Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission, Planning Commission, Police and Advisory Commission and Telecommunications Advisory Commission are outlined in Article IV. Boards, Commissions and Committees of the City Code. •State statute provides guidelines for o Charter Commission Minn. Stat. 410.05, o Fire Civil Service Commission Minn. Stat. 420 o Housing Authority Minn. Stat. 469.001 to 469.047. This report contains an overview of all city boards and commissions. It is important to review the current structure of the boards and commissions in order to address any concerns or issues. Are there opportunities for changes/adjustments to the current city boards and commissions? Board and commission overview: Board of Zoning Appeals (BOZA) Established: 1959 Members: The commission consists of five members: Qualifications: •Regular members- qualified voters and residents of the city Duties: The Board of Zoning Appeals acts in an advisory capacity to the city council. BOZA may hear and make recommendations on matters referred to them or by which it is required under the zoning ordinance. The board shall hear and decide on variances to be granted in regard to the zoning ordinance and other applicable state laws. The board may also hear and decide on appeals from any order, requirement, permit decision, refusal, or determination from the Study session meeting of July 23, 2018 (Item No. 4) Page 3 Title: Boards and commissions discussion zoning administer or interpretation of the zoning ordinance. Recommendations, reports, and records from the board are communicated to the city council. Charter Commission Established: 1954 Membership: The commission consists of 15 members appointed by the Chief Judge of Hennepin County District Court. Qualifications: • Qualified voter for the city and resident of city Duties: The commission’s mission is to evaluate and propose changes which are warranted in the Home Rule Charter as provided by Minn. Stat. 410.05. The commission also monitors legislative activities on an on-going basis. Meetings are held as needed. Environment and Sustainability Commission (ESC) Established: 2013 Members: The commission consists of fourteen members: • Eleven regular members • Two voting youth members Qualifications: • Regular members- qualified voters and residents of the city • Business representatives do not have to be residents of the city • Youth member- high school student of a private or public school in the city and residents of the city Duties: The Environment and Sustainability Commission is a newly created advisory commission dedicated to issues related to the environment and sustainability in St. Louis Park. The commission will advise the city council on sustainability issues and serve as a conduit for information and direction to and from residents and the public. The commission asks for community feedback and direction as well as provides communication and education on items related to environment sustainability. The commission can establish work groups on specific areas of interest, special projects and ongoing concerns. Fire Civil Service Commission Established: 1937 Membership: The commission consists of three members. Qualifications: • Citizens of the state and residents of the city Duties: The commission is vested with the authority to regulate and supervise the employment, promotion, discharge and suspension of all sworn fire positions of full-time status of the St. Louis Park Fire Department. The commission meets as needed throughout the year. Civil service rules are defined in Minn. Stat. 420.01-420.20. Housing Authority Board (HA) Established: 1970 Members: The Housing Authority consists of five members. • Four regular members • One regular member- Housing Authority program participant Study session meeting of July 23, 2018 (Item No. 4) Page 4 Title: Boards and commissions discussion Qualifications: Residents of the city Duties: Pursuant to Minn. Stat. 469.001 to 469.047, the Housing Authority oversees and advises the city council in matters concerning all types and levels of housing in the city such as section 8 Housing Choice Voucher program, Public Housing, and TRAILS (a self-sufficiency program). Human Rights Commission (HRC) Established: 1968 Members: The commission consists of nine members: • Seven regular members, at least one must be an attorney • One regular member appointed by the Board of Independent School District No. 283 of St. Louis Park • One voting youth member • Optional: one non-voting youth member can serve as a member if a regular member is absent) Qualifications: • Regular members- qualified voters and residents of the city • Regular members- appointed by Board of Independent School District No. 283 of St. Louis Park must be a resident of the school district Duties: The Human Rights Commission advises the city council on how to ensure equal opportunity and participation in housing, employment, public service, public accommodations and education. The commission studies and reviews programs to create equal opportunity and eliminate discrimination. The commission makes recommendations to city council on programs, policy making and education in the area of human rights. Park and Recreation Advisory Commission (PRC) Established: 1956 Members: The commission consists of eight members: • Four regular members • Three regular member appointed by the Board of Independent School District No. 283 of St. Louis Park • One voting youth member Qualifications: • Regular members- qualified voters and residents of the city • Regular member appointed by Board of Independent School District No. 283 of St. Louis Park must be a resident of the school district • Youth member- high school student of a private or public school in the city Duties: The Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission considers matters pertaining to long- range park and recreation plans; and may offer recommendations in new development areas in relation to park and recreation space. The city council may request the commission to study and advise on other related items. Planning Commission Established: 1932 Members: The commission consists of eight members: • Six regular members Study session meeting of July 23, 2018 (Item No. 4) Page 5 Title: Boards and commissions discussion • One regular member appointed by the Board of Independent School District No. 283 of St. Louis Park • One non-voting youth member Qualifications: • Regular members- qualified voters and residents of the city • Regular member appointed by the Board of Independent School District No. 283 of St. Louis Park must be a resident of the school district • Youth member- high school student of a private or public school in the city Duties: The Planning Commission advises the city council in matters concerning comprehensive planning, zoning, platting, street changes, and general planning and development. This commission may also hold public hearings on certain issues. Police Advisory Commission (PAC) Established: 2003 Members: The commission consists of twelve members: • Eleven regular members • One voting youth member Qualifications: • Regular members- qualified voters and residents of the city • Youth member- high school student of a private or public school in the city Duties: The commission was formed as a means to enhance awareness of police department capabilities and services; provide an opportunity for citizen involvement and input in police services and encourage exchange between the police department and the community. The work of the commission changes as the needs of the community change. The commission’s goals are to enhance the power of advocacy, create public recognition and visibility of the police department, provide a systematic approach for addressing issues and provide opportunities to improve community policing. Telecommunications Advisory Commission (TAC) Established: 1989 Members: The commission consists of nine members: • Six regular members • One regular member- appointed by the Board of Independent School District No. 283 of St. Louis Park • One voting youth member • One non-voting ex-officio member appointed by the cable company Qualifications: • Regular members- qualified voters and residents of the city • Regular member appointed by Board of Independent School District No. 283 of St. Louis Park must be a resident of the school district • Youth member- high school student of a private or public school in the city • Ex-officio- appointed by the cable company Duties: This commission advises council regarding the existing and future cable TV franchises and related services in St. Louis Park. It receives citizen comments or complaints about cable service, recommends improvements to the system, and studies other technologies as directed by the Council. Study session meeting of July 23, 2018 (Item No. 4) Page 6 Title: Boards and commissions discussion Board/commission Established Required or optional Number of members Member make up and qualifications Board of Zoning Appeals 1959 See Planning Commission 5 5- Regular members Qualified voters and city resident Charter Commission 1954 Required 15 15- Regular members Qualified voters and city resident Environment and Sustainability Commission 2013 Optional 13 11- Regular members* Qualified voters and city resident 2- Voting Youth High school student and residents in the city Fire Civil Service Commission 1937 Required 3 3- Regular members Citizens of the state and residents of the city Housing Authority 1970 Required 5 4- regular members City resident 1- regular member Housing authority program participant Human Rights Commission 1968 Optional 9 7- Regular members Qualified voter and city resident 1- Regular member Appointed by the Board of Independent School District No. 283 of St. Louis Park 1- Voting youth Park and Recreation Advisory Commission 1956 Optional 8 4- Regular members 3- Regular members Appointed by the Board of Independent School District No. 283 of St. Louis Park 1- Youth member High school student of a private or public school in the city Planning Commission 1932 Based on how we operate, functions more as required. 8 6- Regular members 2- Regular member Appointed by the Board of Independent School District No. 283 of St. Louis Park 1- Non-voting youth member High school student of a private or public school in the city Police Advisory Commission (PAC) 2003 Optional 12 11- Regular members Qualified voters and city residents 1- Voting youth High school student of a private or public school in the city Study session meeting of July 23, 2018 (Item No. 4) Page 7 Title: Boards and commissions discussion Telecommunications Advisory Commission (TAC) 1989 Optional 9 6- Regular members 1- Regular member Appointed by the Board of Independent School District No. 283 of St. Louis Park 1- Voting Youth 1- Non-voting ex-officio member appointed by the cable company Other citizen groups Multicultural Advisory Committee The Multicultural Advisory Committee (est. 2016) provides advice, suggestions, and assistant to the St. Louis Park Police Department to aid them in better serving, communicating with and understanding the many cultures that reside in, work in, or visit St. Louis Park. The Multicultural Advisory Committee is part of the Joint Community Police Partnership (JCPP) project between Hennepin County and the St. Louis Park Police Department. Committee members must live or work in St. Louis Park (or have some other significant connection). There are currently 10 members, there is no limit on the number of members. Community Education Advisory Council (CEAC) CEAC makes recommendations on programming, budgeting and funding sources for St. Louis Park community education programs for all ages, children and seniors alike. Its members represent various interests in the community including the school board, city council, service organizations, parks and recreation, health providers and businesses. The council meets on the third Tuesday of every month. St. Louis Park Senior Program Advisory Council The St. Louis Park Senior Program Advisory Council makes recommendations on programming, budgeting and funding sources for St. Louis Park community education programs for seniors in the community. Members must be or become members of the St. Louis Park Senior Program and must be 55+. The council meets on the second Tuesday of every month. Connecting with boards and commissions What is the current process? In February of each year, the boards and commissions have an annual meeting with council to present annual reports. Besides the annual report, there is no other formal universal structure for board and commission communication with city council. What opportunities are there for improving communication with boards and commissions? In January 2017, council reviewed a formal work plan process and discussed a more defined reporting structure for boards and commission and communication with council. There were no changes made at that time. Study session meeting of July 23, 2018 (Item No. 4) Page 8 Title: Boards and commissions discussion Questions for consideration: • Are there opportunities to realign some work of the commissions? o For example, could the work of BOZA be done by planning commission as is done in other communities? o Are there other opportunities? • Are there opportunities to more clearly set expectations to ensure both council and board and commissions understand reporting, work plans and communication? o Would a communication process that states the structure on how reporting to and from council help with overall expectations of council and commissions? o Would a clearly defined process help when council requests a recommendation, research or advice on an item or program be studied by a commission? o Would this more clearly set up expectations and help with understanding of the communication process and also help to ensure voices are being heard? • Council would like to discuss youth and seniors as it relates to commissions? o Both youth and seniors currently participate in various commissions. o Is council aware that seniors have an advisory commission run by the school district? The school district and Children First have a number of committees or groups. o If additional advisory commissions for youth and/or seniors are created, what would be the purpose of each? Would current membership in various commissions be impacted? What would be the connection to council or reporting requirements? Next steps: Staff will evaluate next steps based on the discussion and direction from city council. We will also make some housekeeping recommendations on some updates to be more consistent in the member make-up and qualifications sections across all commissions. Meeting: Study session Meeting date: July 23, 2018 Written report: 5 Executive summary Title: June 2018 monthly financial report Recommended action: No action required at this time. Policy consideration: Monthly financial reports are part of our financial management policies. Summary: The monthly financial report provides a summary of general fund revenues and departmental expenditures and a comparison of budget to actual throughout the year. A budget to actual summary for the four utility funds is also included in this report. Financial or budget considerations: At the end of June, general fund expenditures are at approximately 45% of the adopted annual budget, which is about 5% under budget. Strategic priority consideration: Not applicable. Supporting documents: Discussion Summary of revenues and expenditures – general fund Budget to actual – enterprise funds Prepared by: Darla Monson, Accountant Reviewed by: Tim Simon, Chief Financial Officer Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Study session meeting of July 23, 2018 (Item No. 5) Page 2 Title: June 2018 monthly financial report Discussion Background: This report provides summary information of the overall level of revenues and departmental expenditures in the general fund and a comparison of budget to actual throughout the year. A budget to actual summary for the four utility funds is also included in this report. Present considerations: General Fund Actual expenditures should generally be at about 50% of the annual budget at the end of June. General Fund expenditures are under budget at 45% of the adopted budget in June. Revenues tend to be harder to measure in the same way due to the timing of when they are received, examples of which include property taxes, grants and State aid payments. A few comments on specific variances are explained below. License and permit revenues are at approximately 57% of budget through June because the majority of the 2018 business and liquor license revenue has been received, which is typical of previous years. Permit revenue is running lower than budget through June at 46%. Fines & forfeits revenue is exceeding budget by over 8%. Fine revenue has averaged about $30,000 a month through June, which is higher than what was budgeted. Communications & marketing expenditures are exceeding budget at 53%. There were some large printing and postage costs in June for the spring clean-up event, the fire open house and the opening of the aquatic park, as well as for the calendar and newsletter. Utility Funds Utility revenue typically lags one month behind for commercial accounts and up to a full quarter behind for some residential accounts depending on the billing cycle. Other revenue is exceeding budget in the water fund due to additional antenna lease revenue. In addition, $166,000 in the storm water fund is grant revenue received from Hennepin County for contamination clean-up costs for the Carpenter Park project. Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Actual $2,609 $5,557 $8,439 $11,235 $14,063 $17,092 Budget $3,158 $6,316 $9,475 $12,633 $15,791 $18,949 $22,108 $25,266 $28,424 $31,582 $34,741 $37,899 $0 $5,000 $10,000 $15,000 $20,000 $25,000 $30,000 $35,000 $40,000 $ THOUSANDS Monthly Expenditures -General Fund Summary of Revenues & Expenditures - General Fund As of June 30, 2018 20182018201620162017201720182018BalanceYTD Budget BudgetAuditedBudgetAuditedBudgetJune YTD Remaining to Actual %General Fund Revenues: General Property Taxes23,597,282$ 24,193,360$ 24,748,436$ 24,837,901$ 25,705,886$ -$ 25,705,886$ 0.00% Licenses and Permits3,496,177 4,320,078 3,745,736 3,985,517 3,924,648 2,232,504 1,692,144 56.88% Fines & Forfeits341,200 299,808 254,200 293,236 269,200 157,611 111,589 58.55% Intergovernmental1,419,017 1,656,072 1,631,669 1,899,006 1,864,877 506,761 1,358,116 27.17% Charges for Services1,956,593 2,063,241 2,027,637 2,051,552 2,162,410 803,457 1,358,953 37.16% Miscellaneous Revenue977,546 1,131,632 1,274,415 1,294,452 1,318,037 648,847 669,190 49.23% Transfers In1,872,581 1,881,274 1,899,927 1,951,218 1,929,090 959,545 969,545 49.74% Investment Earnings 140,000 114,957 140,000 125,984 160,000 160,000 0.00% Other Income27,450 20,440 30,450 54,303 40,950 11,812 29,138 28.84% Use of Fund Balance *254,891 - 58,541 - 523,835 - 523,835 0.00%Total General Fund Revenues34,082,737$ 35,680,861$ 35,811,011$ 36,493,169$ 37,898,933$ 5,320,537$ 32,578,396$ 14.04%General Fund Expenditures: General Government: Administration 1,037,235$ 1,118,873$ 1,049,123$ 1,056,796$ 1,341,606$ 543,872$ 797,734$ 40.54% Finance 933,624 869,759 957,275 924,832 978,752 452,032 526,720 46.18% Assessing641,038 607,443 707,139 652,015 759,865 326,144 433,721 42.92% Human Resources748,718 801,958 754,699 730,731 796,666 340,595 456,071 42.75% Community Development1,385,036 1,281,000 1,366,055 1,353,476 1,479,911 728,657 751,254 49.24% Facilities Maintenance1,115,877 1,099,973 1,132,774 1,128,339 1,162,342 570,697 591,645 49.10% Information Resources1,564,128 1,492,734 1,570,712 1,421,685 1,589,432 675,417 914,015 42.49% Communications & Marketing608,228 657,758 646,841 722,199 755,940 403,461 352,479 53.37% Community Outreach25,587 22,718 26,553 24,403 27,637 11,674 15,963 42.24% Engineering549,251 436,228 376,601 339,876 525,834 232,721 293,113 44.26%Total General Government8,608,722$ 8,388,443$ 8,587,772$ 8,354,352$ 9,417,985$ 4,285,270$ 5,132,715$ 45.50% Public Safety: Police8,698,661$ 8,754,092$ 9,217,988$ 9,255,342$ 9,930,681$ 4,579,805$ 5,350,876$ 46.12% Fire Protection4,030,153 3,939,435 4,407,656 4,319,457 4,657,973 2,214,330 2,443,643 47.54% Inspectional Services2,216,075 2,082,694 2,419,073 2,271,301 2,544,762 1,069,964 1,474,798 42.05%Total Public Safety14,944,889$ 14,776,220$ 16,044,717$ 15,846,100$ 17,133,416$ 7,864,099$ 9,269,317$ 45.90% Operations & Recreation: Public Works Administration241,304$ 240,497$ 266,249$ 245,942$ 230,753$ 75,553$ 155,200$ 32.74% Public Works Operations2,907,781 2,699,375 3,019,017 2,809,715 3,091,857 1,354,954 1,736,903 43.82% Organized Recreation1,431,260 1,396,737 1,472,996 1,470,613 1,582,490 781,830 800,660 49.41% Recreation Center1,602,935 1,687,724 1,744,651 1,856,529 1,860,755 820,385 1,040,370 44.09% Park Maintenance1,634,249 1,627,700 1,721,732 1,797,271 1,830,530 843,957 986,573 46.10% Westwood Nature Center576,173 555,887 602,400 572,942 622,346 274,791 347,555 44.15% Natural Resources479,408 362,094 550,235 430,995 559,662 148,602 411,060 26.55% Vehicle Maintenance1,358,946 1,130,622 1,384,038 1,088,375 1,253,367 625,523 627,844 49.91%Total Operations & Recreation10,232,056$ 9,700,637$ 10,761,318$ 10,272,383$ 11,031,760$ 4,925,595$ 6,106,165$ 44.65% Non-Departmental: General 30,351$ 63,648$ 31,909$ 31,859$ 43,422$ 16,746$ 26,676$ 38.57% Transfers Out- 1,873,000 - 885,000 - - - 0.00% Council Programs198,000 198,000 0.00% Contingency266,719 104,224 385,295 188,254 74,350 - 74,350 0.00%Total Non-Departmental297,070$ 2,040,871$ 417,204$ 1,105,113$ 315,772$ 16,746$ 299,026$ 5.30%Total General Fund Expenditures34,082,737$ 34,906,172$ 35,811,011$ 35,577,947$ 37,898,933$ 17,091,710$ 20,807,223$ 45.10%*Primarily related to E911 capital items from restricted fund balance.Study session meeting of July 23, 2018 (Item No. 5) Title: June 2018 monthly financial reportPage 3 Budget to Actual - Enterprise FundsAs of June 30, 2018 Current BudgetJun Year To DateBudget Variance% of BudgetCurrent BudgetJun Year To DateBudget Variance% of BudgetCurrent BudgetJun Year To DateBudget Variance% of BudgetCurrent BudgetJun Year To DateBudget VarianceOperating revenues: User charges6,177,384$ 2,010,544$ 4,166,840$ 32.55% 7,421,016$ 2,756,966$ 4,664,050$ 37.15% 3,590,500$ 1,125,249$ 2,465,251$ 31.34% 3,024,731$ 1,167,268$ 1,857,463$ Other375,750 422,669 (46,919) 112.49% 30,000 12,700 17,300 42.33% 140,000 5,150 134,850 3.68%- 166,000 (166,000) Total operating revenues6,553,134 2,433,213 4,119,921 37.13% 7,451,016 2,769,666 4,681,350 37.17% 3,730,500 1,130,399 2,600,101 30.30% 3,024,731 1,333,268 1,691,463 Operating expenses: Personal services1,377,010 699,942 677,068 50.83% 689,225 385,739 303,486 55.97% 631,295 293,115 338,180 46.43% 796,527 311,856 484,671 Supplies & non-capital430,300 71,834 358,466 16.69% 65,550 20,008 45,542 30.52% 184,750 45,462 139,288 24.61% 31,600 995 30,605 Services & other charges1,704,224 740,201 964,023 43.43% 4,605,626 2,669,562 1,936,064 57.96% 3,014,442 999,586 2,014,856 33.16% 595,187 109,407 485,780 Depreciation * Total operating expenses3,511,534 1,511,977 1,999,557 43.06% 5,360,401 3,075,309 2,285,092 57.37% 3,830,487 1,338,163 2,492,324 34.93% 1,423,314 422,258 1,001,056 Operating income (loss)3,041,600 921,236 2,120,364 30.29% 2,090,615 (305,643) 2,396,258 -14.62% (99,987) (207,764) 107,777 207.79% 1,601,417 911,010 690,407 Nonoperating revenues (expenses): Interest income 15,172 - 15,172 2,391 - 2,391 0.00% 15,000 - 15,000 0.00% 14,800 - 14,800 Debt issuance costs- (92,225) 92,225 - (18,740) 18,740 - - - Interest expense/bank charges(176,342) (146,413) (29,929) 83.03% (26,584) (21,318) (5,266) 80.19% (25,500) (4,197) (21,303) 16.46% (40,897) (13,082) (27,815) Total nonoperating rev (exp)(161,170) (238,638) 77,468 148.07% (24,193) (40,058) 15,865 165.58% (10,500) (4,197) (6,303) 39.97% (26,097) (13,082) (13,015) Income (loss) before transfers2,880,430 682,598 2,197,832 23.70% 2,066,422 (345,701) 2,412,123 -16.73% (110,487) (211,961) 101,474 191.84% 1,575,320 897,928 677,392 Transfers inTransfers out(601,985) (300,993) (300,992) 50.00% (823,637) (411,819) (411,818) 50.00% (234,046) (117,023) (117,023) 50.00% (322,459) (161,229) (161,230) NET INCOME (LOSS)2,278,445 381,605 1,896,840 16.75% 1,242,785 (757,520) 2,000,305 -60.95% (344,533) (328,984) (15,549) 95.49% 1,252,861 736,699 516,162 Items reclassified to bal sht at year end: Capital Outlay(3,316,199) (1,216,139) (2,100,060) 36.67% (1,619,500) (175,167) (1,444,333) 10.82%- - - (2,688,977) (926) (2,688,051) Revenues over/(under) expenditures(1,037,754) (834,534) (203,220) (376,715) (932,687) 555,972 (344,533) (328,984) (15,549) (1,436,116) 735,773 (2,171,889) *Depreciation is recorded at end of year (non-cash item).Water SewerSolid WasteStorm Water% of Budget38.59%44.08%39.15%3.15%18.38%29.67%56.89%0.00%31.99%50.13%57.00%50.00%58.80%0.03%Study session meeting of July 23, 2018 (Item No. 5) Title: June 2018 monthly financial reportPage 4 Meeting: Study session Meeting date: July 23, 2018 Written report: 6 Executive summary Title: Second quarter investment report (April – June 2018) Recommended action: No action required at this time. Policy consideration: Reporting on investments quarterly is part of our financial management policies. Summary: The quarterly investment report provides an overview of the City’s investment portfolio, including the types of investments held, length of maturity, and yield. Financial or budget considerations: The total portfolio value at June 30, 2018 is $59.6 million. Approximately $34 million is invested in longer term securities that include U.S. Treasury notes, Federal agency bonds, municipal debt securities, and certificates of deposit. The remainder is held in money market accounts and commercial paper for future cash flow needs. The overall yield to maturity is at 1.69%, up from 1.57% at the end of the first quarter. Strategic priority consideration: Not applicable. Supporting documents: Discussion Investment Portfolio Summary Prepared by: Darla Monson, Accountant Reviewed by: Tim Simon, Chief Financial Officer Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Study session meeting of July 23, 2018 (Item No. 6) Page 2 Title: Second quarter investment report (April – June 2018) Discussion Background: The City’s investment portfolio is focused on short term cash flow needs and investment in longer term securities. This is done in accordance with Minnesota Statute 118A and the City’s investment policy objectives of: 1) Preservation of capital; 2) Liquidity; and 3) Return on investment. Present considerations: The portfolio value increased in the second quarter to $59.6 million from $46.6 million at March 31, 2018. The increase was primarily in the money market accounts, as the 70% advance payment of the first half property tax settlement was received from Hennepin County on June 21. The remainder of the first half settlement along with the tax increment settlement is received early in July. The 2018A bonds were also issued in June. The overall yield of the portfolio increased to 1.69%, compared to 1.57% at March 31, 2018. This is the combined yield including both cash held in money market accounts and long term investments. As the older long term investments mature in the coming year, it is anticipated that they will be replaced with higher yielding securities, and therefore continue to increase the overall portfolio yield. Cities will typically use a benchmark such as the two year Treasury (2.52% on June 30, 2018) or a similar measure for yield comparison of their overall portfolio. There is about $22 million in money market accounts at the end of the quarter, which includes bond proceeds of approximately $11 million. Since the second half property tax settlement won’t be received until December 1, it is necessary to keep cash available for summer construction contract payments and on-going expenses for payroll and operating expenses in addition to the August 1 debt service payments. Money market rates continued to increase in the second quarter to between 1.6% - 1.75%. At December 31, 2017, money market rates were at around 1%, and just over one year ago they were much lower at only .36%. In addition to the cash held in money market accounts, the portfolio also has $3.2 million of commercial paper. Commercial paper are promissory notes with short maturity periods issued by financial institutions and large corporations, and usually have higher rates than money market accounts for investing cash in the shorter term. Rates on the four commercial paper securities in the portfolio range from 1.62% to 2.63% and will mature over the next 1 to 9 months. Approximately $3.1 million of the portfolio is invested in fixed and step rate certificates of deposit. There are 13 CD’s in the portfolio, each with a face value of $245,000 or less, which guarantees that each CD is insured by the FDIC up to $250,000. The maturity dates range from 12 to 28 months and rates of up to 2.3%. The remaining $31.3 million of the portfolio is invested in other long term securities which include municipal bonds ($5.4 mil), Federal agency bonds ($11.8 mil) and U.S. Treasury notes ($14.1 mil). Municipal bonds are issued by states, local governments, or school districts to finance special projects. Agency bonds are issued by government agencies such as the Federal Home Loan Bank, Freddie Mac or Fannie Mae and may have call dates where they can be called prior to final maturity. A municipal bond and two Fannie Mae securities purchased during the quarter had yields to maturity of 2.55% to 2.8%. Study session meeting of July 23, 2018 (Item No. 6) Page 3 Title: Second quarter investment report (April – June 2018) This table is a summary of the City’s portfolio at June 30, 2018: 3/31/18 6/30/18 <1 Year 37% 52% 1-2 Years 17% 11% 2-3 Years 21% 21% 3-4 Years 20% 16% >4 Years 5% 0% 3/31/18 6/30/18 Money Markets/Cash $9,374,127 $22,050,451 Commercial Paper $3,162,646 $3,167,889 Certificates of Deposit $3,067,326 $3,061,479 Municipal Debt $4,953,650 $5,396,359 Agencies/Treasuries $26,033,931 $25,885,408 City of St. Louis Park Investment Portfolio Summary June 30, 2018 Institution/Broker Investment Type CUSIP Maturity Date Yield Par Value Market Value at 6/30/2018 Estimated Avg Annual Income Citizens Indep Bank Money Market 0.05%1,471 1,471 1 4M Liquid Asset Money Market 1.61%10,776,835 10,776,835 173,507 4MP Liquid Asset Money Market 1.75%154 154 3 4MP 2017A Bonds Money Market 1.75%2,591,000 2,591,000 45,342 4M 2018A Bonds Money Market 1.61%8,272,738 8,272,738 133,191 21,640,726 UBS Institutional Money Market & Cash 1.64% 408,253 408,253 6,695 PFM Comm Paper - ING Funding 4497W1G26 07/02/2018 1.62% 500,000 499,915 8,100 PFM Comm Paper - Bank Tokyo 06538CL90 11/09/2018 2.17% 1,000,000 991,360 21,700 PFM Comm Paper - BNP Paribas 09659CL97 11/09/2018 2.17% 900,000 892,206 19,530 PFM Comm Paper - JP Morgan 46640QQR5 03/25/2019 2.63% 800,000 784,408 21,040 3,167,889 PFM CD - Cit Bank UT 17284CH49 06/04/2019 1.90% 240,000 238,994 4,560 PFM CD - Amer Exp F UT 02587CAC4 07/10/2019 1.95% 240,000 239,004 4,680 PFM CD - Capital One Bank 14042E4S6 07/15/2019 1.95% 240,000 238,718 4,680 PFM CD - First Bk Highland IL 3191408W2 08/13/2019 2.00% 240,000 238,846 4,800 PFM CD - Webster Bk NA CT 94768NJX3 08/20/2019 1.90% 240,000 238,776 4,560 PFM CD - Capital One Bank 140420PS3 10/08/2019 2.10% 240,000 238,762 5,040 PFM CD - State Bk India IL 856283XJ0 10/15/2019 2.10% 240,000 238,747 5,040 PFM CD - Goldman Sachs Bank NY 38148JHB0 01/14/2020 2.20% 240,000 238,498 5,280 PFM CD - Amer Express UT 02587DXE3 01/30/2020 1.95% 240,000 237,209 4,680 PFM CD - Camden Nat'l Bank ME 133033DR8 02/26/2020 1.80% 240,000 237,557 4,320 PFM CD - Private Bank & Tr IL 74267GVA2 02/27/2020 1.75% 240,000 237,744 4,200 PFM CD - World's Foremost 9159919E5 08/06/2020 2.30% 200,000 196,976 4,600 PFM CD - Comenity Cap Bk UT 20033AND4 10/13/2020 2.00% 245,000 241,648 4,900 3,061,479 PFM Muni Debt - Williamston Mich Sch 970294CN2 05/01/2019 1.46% 2,000,000 1,990,540 29,200 PFM Muni Debt - New York City 64971WUX6 08/01/2019 1.33% 2,000,000 1,980,300 26,600 PFM Muni Debt - Connecticut St 20772JKN1 10/15/2020 1.78% 1,000,000 976,590 17,800 PFM Muni Debt - California St 13063DGA0 04/01/2021 2.80% 450,000 448,929 12,600 5,396,359 PFM FHLB Global 3130A9AE1 10/01/2018 0.91%1,300,000 1,296,282 11,830 PFM US Treasury Note 912828WD8 10/31/2018 0.89% 200,000 199,484 1,780 PFM FHLB 3130AAE46 01/16/2019 1.25% 730,000 726,197 9,125 PFM FNMA 3135G0H63 01/28/2019 1.03%1,600,000 1,592,112 16,480 PFM FHLB Global 3130A9EP2 09/26/2019 1.04%1,400,000 1,375,766 14,560 PFM FHLMC 3137EAEF2 04/20/2020 1.49%1,000,000 979,220 14,900 PFM FNMA 3135G0T60 07/30/2020 1.60%1,250,000 1,221,600 20,000 PFM US Treasury Note 912828L32 08/31/2020 0.93% 425,000 414,443 3,953 PFM US Treasury Note 912828L32 08/31/2020 0.89% 1,000,000 975,160 8,900 PFM US Treasury Note 912828L32 08/31/2020 1.09% 700,000 682,612 7,630 PFM FHLB 3130ACE26 09/28/2020 1.48% 575,000 559,044 8,510 PFM FHLMC 3137EAEJ4 09/29/2020 1.69% 530,000 518,467 8,957 PFM FHLMC 3137EAEK1 11/17/2020 1.91% 800,000 785,216 15,280 PFM US Treasury Note 912828N48 12/31/2020 1.02% 150,000 146,960 1,530 PFM US Treasury Note 912828N48 12/31/2020 1.12% 750,000 734,798 8,400 PFM Freddie Mac 3137EAEL9 02/16/2021 2.47% 800,000 793,872 19,760 PFM Fannie Mae 3135G0U27 04/13/2021 2.55% 500,000 497,355 12,750 PFM US Treasury Note 912828Q78 04/30/2021 1.86% 250,000 241,573 4,650 PFM US Treasury Note 912828Q78 04/30/2021 1.87% 675,000 652,246 12,623 PFM US Treasury Note 912828R77 05/31/2021 2.02% 1,600,000 1,544,064 32,320 PFM Fannie Mae 3135G0U35 06/22/2021 2.76% 700,000 698,250 19,320 PFM FHLB Global 3130A8QS5 07/14/2021 1.25% 750,000 717,690 9,375 PFM US Treasury Note 912828D72 08/31/2021 1.86% 600,000 588,306 11,160 PFM US Treasury Note 912828D72 08/31/2021 1.73% 1,200,000 1,176,612 20,760 PFM US Treasury Note 912828D72 08/31/2021 1.93% 1,600,000 1,568,816 30,880 PFM US Treasury Note 912828D72 08/31/2021 1.85% 1,150,000 1,127,587 21,275 PFM US Treasury Note 912828T67 10/31/2021 1.72% 1,100,000 1,050,929 18,920 PFM US Treasury Note 912828T67 10/31/2021 1.64% 575,000 549,349 9,430 PFM US Treasury Note 912828T67 10/31/2021 1.85% 200,000 191,078 3,700 PFM US Treasury Note 912828X47 04/30/2022 1.96% 700,000 679,245 13,720 PFM US Treasury Note 912828X47 04/30/2022 2.12% 850,000 824,798 18,020 PFM US Treasury Note 912828X47 04/30/2022 2.18% 800,000 776,280 17,440 25,885,408 GRAND TOTAL 59,561,586 1,004,586 Current Portfolio Yield To Maturity 1.69% Study session meeting of July 23, 2018 (Item No. 6) Title: Second quarter investment report (April – June 2018)Page 4 Meeting: Study session Meeting date: July 23, 2018 Written report: 7 Executive summary Title: Cedar Lake Road improvement project scope update – project no. 4019-1100 Recommended action: None at this time. Staff has reviewed the scope of the proposed project and is recommending that the gap sidewalk along the south side of Cedar Lake Road be included in the scope of this project study. Please inform staff of any questions or concerns you might have. Policy consideration: Past council policy direction has been to evaluate the sidewalk system in place or planned as part of all transportation projects. Summary: Council policy direction has been to evaluate the sidewalk system as a part of all transportation projects and identify gaps in the sidewalk network adjacent to street segments being rehabilitated. These gaps are then included in the project scope for possible construction as part of the project. For purposes of discussion, a gap is considered a section of sidewalk that is missing on a continuous street block. In addition, per council policy transportation projects will also include any segments of sidewalk identified in the Connect the Park plan that are adjacent to street segments included in the project. In 2019, Cedar Lake Road is proposed to be rehabilitated between Kentucky Avenue and Quentin Avenue. Staff has reviewed the sidewalk system adjacent to this segment of road. While there is continuous sidewalk on the north side of Cedar Lake Road, there is a gap in the sidewalk system on the south side of Cedar Lake Road between Kentucky Avenue and Zarthan Avenue. Staff is recommending that this segment be evaluated as a part of project design. Financial or budget considerations: This project is included in the city’s capital improvement program (CIP) for 2019. The project will be paid for using a combination of Municipal State Aid, Utility funds, and General Obligation Bonds (Connect the Park segments and fiber). At this time, the gap sidewalk is not included in the CIP. It is estimated that this sidewalk will cost $170,000. Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to providing a variety of options for people to make their way around the city comfortably, safely and reliably. Supporting documents: Discussion Proposed sidewalk map Prepared by: Joseph Shamla, Sr. Engineering Project Manager Reviewed by: Debra Heiser, Engineering Director Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Study session meeting of July 23, 2018 (Item No. 7) Page 2 Title: Cedar Lake Road improvement project scope update – project no. 4019-1100 Discussion Background: In 2019, Cedar Lake Road from Kentucky Avenue to Quentin Avenue is proposed to be rehabilitated. The condition of the road is at a point in which the replacement of the pavement is necessary. This road is designated as a Municipal State Aid (MSA) road which makes it eligible for state gas tax funds. In order to qualify for funding, the road needs to be constructed to state aid standards. The volume of traffic on Cedar Lake Road is between 10,000 and 15,000 vehicles per day. The current scope of the project includes the following: • Traffic study of the corridor • Review of the existing intersection traffic control • Pavement replacement • Connect the Park sidewalk segments • Connect the Park bike facility along the corridor • Upgrades to existing sidewalk to make them ADA compliant • Reconstruction of existing trail from Ridge Drive to Quentin Avenue located on the south side of Cedar Lake Road • New signage along the corridor • Watermain replacement • Minor utility repairs to sanitary and storm sewer. • Upgraded railroad crossing to provide a smoother crossing and be more bicycle and pedestrian friendly • Addition of fiber conduit along the corridor Staff has reviewed the sidewalk system adjacent to this segment of road. While there is continuous sidewalk on the north side of Cedar Lake Road, there is a gap in the sidewalk system on the south side of Cedar Lake Road between Kentucky Avenue and Zarthan Avenue. Staff is recommending that this segment be evaluated as a part of project design. The main reason for this recommendation is for safety. Cedar Lake Road carries 10,000 to 15,000 vehicles per day and is a transit corridor with a number of bus stops on both sides of the road. Having sidewalk on both sides of the street will provide more convenient access to transit. Also, a sidewalk will separate the pedestrians from the vehicles and lower the chance that residents or visitors will walk on the road and the need for crossing to the sidewalk on the north side to get around. Filling gaps in the sidewalk network will create a safe space for pedestrians of all ages and abilities in the right of way. It improves access to commercial nodes, parks and transit. Encouraging people to walk to these locations and not drive. The proposed gap sidewalk as well as the Connect the Park sidewalk segments are shown on the attached map. Present considerations: Staff is recommending that the sidewalk gap on the south side of Cedar Lake Road from Kentucky Avenue to Zarthan Avenue be considered as a part of the Cedar Lake Road project design. Study session meeting of July 23, 2018 (Item No. 7) Page 3 Title: Cedar Lake Road improvement project scope update – project no. 4019-1100 Next steps: Staff will be hosting an open house with a presentation on Wednesday, July 25. The purpose of this meeting is to get feedback from the residents and business owners along the corridor. After the open house, the consultant will develop two or three concept plans for the corridor. There will be different options to consider for the preliminary design. Once concepts are developed, there will be one more meeting with the public to show the different options and obtain feedback. Following the second public meeting, staff will bring this project to the city council for a public hearing. This will occur in the fall. At the public hearing, staff will recommend a preferred preliminary design for council approval along with project costs and funding sources. The sidewalk will be one of the components of the preliminary design brought to council at the public hearing. Once a preliminary design is approved, final plans will be developed. This project is proposed for construction in 2019 ¬«100 26TH ST W 16TH ST W PARK PLACE BLVDHAMPSHIREAVESC E D A R L A K E RDWAYZATA BLVD FRANKLIN AVE W GAMBLE DR WAYZATA BLVD QUENTINAVES27TH ST W ZARTHANAVESWEBSTERAVESCEDAR L A K E R DPARK PLACE BLVD14TH ST W GEORGIAAVESPARKDALE D R LOUISIANAAVES16TH ST W 26TH ST WIDAHOAVESLOUISIANAAVESKENTUCKYAVES 3 9 4 HOVLN14TH ST W KENTUCKY LN27TH ST W 16TH ST W UTICAAVES26TH ST W VERNONAVES16TH ST W BARRY ST 18TH ST W 22ND ST W 24TH ST W 25 1/2 ST W XENWOODAVESYOSEMITEAVESEDGEWOODAVES394 HOV LN KENTUCKYAVESJERSEYAVESIDAHOAVESHAMPSHIREAVESFLORIDAAVESELIOT VI E W R D COLORADOAVESDAKOTAAVESWESTSIDE DR18THSTWJERSEYAVES 2 3 R D S T W ALLEYUTICAAVES2 3 R D ST WIDAHOAVES QUENTINAVESTOLEDOAVESSALEMAVESDAKOTAAVESRALEIGHAVES394HOVLNZARTHANAVESALABAMAAVES394 HOV LN BRUNSWICKAVESBLACKSTONEAVESHAMPSHIREAVESDUKE DRPARKWOODSR DEDGEWOODAVES 2 3 R D S T WRIDGE DRRIDGE DR§¨¦394 Cedar Lake Road Sidewalks ¯ 1,000 Feet Legend Proposed gap sidewalk Connect the Park sidewalks Existing sidewalks Existing trails Study session meeting of July 23, 2018 (Item No. 7) Title: Cedar Lake Road improvement project scope update – project no. 4019-1100 Page 4