Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2018/08/13 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - Study SessionAGENDA AUGUST 13, 2018 5:30 p.m. STUDY SESSION – *Council chambers Discussion items 1. 5:30 p.m. Future study session agenda planning 2. 5:35 p.m. 2019 budget 3. 7:05 p.m. Inclusionary housing policy/Affordable housing trust fund policy 4. 8:05 p.m. Body-worn camera (BWC) policy 9:05 p.m. Communications/updates (verbal) 9:10 p.m. Adjourn Written reports 5. 2040 Comprehensive Plan - draft survey results and draft plan by neighborhood 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: August 13, 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 the regularly scheduled study session on August 27, 2018. Policy consideration: Not applicable. Summary: This report summarizes the proposed agenda for the regularly scheduled study session on August 27, 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 27, 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 August 13, 2018 (Item No. 1) Page 2 Title: Future study session agenda planning August 27, 2018 6:00 p.m. – Study session – Community room Tentative discussion items 1.Future study session agenda planning – Administrative services (5 minutes) 2.Reilly consent decree update – Operations and recreation (30 minutes) City staff and attorneys from Lockridge Grindal Nauen will be updating council on the status of renewing our consent decree on the Reilly property. 3.Update on MPCA/EPA legal proceedings for VOC plume – Operations and recreation (30 minutes) City staff and representatives from the MPCA will be providing information on the EPA’s legal proceedings regarding the VOC plume. 4.Revitalization of Walker Lake area – Community development (60 minutes) Update on Walker Lake design study scope and various other initiatives in the area. 5.IDI feedback – Administrative services (60 minutes) The IDI group feedback will identify the council’s primary way of engaging cultural diversity and training efforts that target the intercultural competence development needs of the council. 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 6.Solid waste program communication update 7.Update on 2019 budget & services charges for special service districts 1 – 6 Study session meeting of August 13, 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 Discussed 7/23 with follow-up being done by staff TBD 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. In process 4 Finalize Council Norms Reviewed on 5/7/18; adoption postponed on 5/21/18 TBD 3 Develop a youth/senior advisory ii Discussed 7/23 – staff following-up TBD 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 12/2018 2 Dark skies ordinance (light pollution) 12/2018 2 Community center project TBD 2 Revitalization of TH100 former Rock garden TBD ? Firearm sales Discussed 5/21/18 and 7/23; staff following- up TBD ? Immigration & supporting families Discussed 8/6; referred to HRC TBD ? 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: August 13, 2018 Discussion item: 2 Executive summary Title: 2019 budget Recommended action: No formal action required. This report is to assist with the study session discussion regarding the preparation of the 2019 budget and to receive direction for further conversation at the September 4th special study session regarding the 2019 preliminary levy. Policy consideration: •Is a 5.0 – 5.25% levy increase at this time in the budget process within target levels for a setting the preliminary levy (need for increase relates to staffing costs associated with council strategic priorities, growth in the demand for services, and debt service, among other items) with the understanding that the goal by December is to achieve a final adopted levy increase of approximately 4.42% (10 year average)? •Does the 2019 budget process and timeline and direction meet council expectations? •Is there other information that council would like to review during the upcoming process including any other service delivery change considerations? Summary: Staff has been working on preparing budget recommendations for 2019. The city manager, department directors and staff are currently analyzing submitted budgets. Included in this report are some items of significance that are being considered. Financial or budget considerations: Details regarding budget considerations are provided in this report. Strategic priority consideration: All areas of the adopted strategic priorities are impacted by the city’s budget. •St. Louis Park is committed to being a leader in racial equity and inclusion in order to create a more just and inclusive community for all. •St. Louis Park is committed to continue to lead in environmental stewardship. •St. Louis Park is committed to providing a broad range of housing and neighborhood- oriented development. •St. Louis Park is committed to providing a variety of options for people to make their way around the city comfortably, safely and reliably. •St. Louis Park is committed to creating opportunities to build social capital through community engagement. Supporting documents: Discussion Follow up questions from June 18th budget study session Prepared by: Tim Simon, Chief Financial Officer Reviewed by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Study session meeting of August 13, 2018 (Item No. 2) Page 2 Title: 2019 budget Discussion Background: On June 18th, 2018, staff met with the city council to discuss the 2019 budget process. Staff is planning to continue to use as a policy guide the newly adopted strategic priorities, Vision 3.0, previously adopted council goals, and the key organizational cultural behaviors of collaboration, quality and responsiveness. This study session discussion will assist in setting preliminary property tax levies, fees and utility rates for 2019. 2019 budget preparation: This study session discussion is intended to be at the higher/bigger bowl level to allow council, if possible, to provide levy direction to staff. Below is the outline of the budget presentation and discussion for this study session: •Discussion on overall budget, department requests, and council requested items for staff to explore. Mainly general fund (primary operating fund). •2019 preliminary property tax levy range discussion. •2019 preliminary HRA levy discussion. •Council questions, comments, expectations, and data requests for upcoming meetings, including the budget calendar. Budget webpage and e-mail: As council is aware, to continue providing a more transparent budget process, staff has created a webpage on the city’s website and an e-mail address for any questions that arise. The link is: https://www.stlouispark.org/government/departments- divisions/finance/city-budget and the e-mail address is: budget@stlouispark.org. We are also planning to do a Facebook live budget presentation in the fall for the second year. Legislative directives: •There are no levy limits in place for 2019 at this time. •Local government aid has not been certified yet, but early Minnesota House Research department estimates show St. Louis Park will receive $267,271 in 2019, which is $299,320 less than the $566,591 certified for 2018. As in the past, due to the variability of this program, these dollars go into the capital replacement fund. Staffing costs wages: Being an organization that delivers services, programs and projects etc., funds for staffing are the largest expenditure of the city’s operating budget. In building the 2019 budget recommendations, a wage adjustment of 3% is being used as a recommendation as it is consistent with some of our settlements for 2019 and what we have observed in our market. Contracts for patrol, fire and dispatch are settled through December 31, 2019 (3% basic adjustment for 2018-19) and we continue in active negotiations with sergeants for 2018- 19. Local 49 maintenance is settled through 2018 and will be open for 2019 negotiations. PERA coordinated plan: Employee contribution of 6.50% of salary and employer contribution of 7.50% of salary in 2018 will remain the same at this point in 2019. PERA police and fire: For 2018 the employee contribution is 10.8% and employer contribution is 16.2%. For 2019 we are required to increase this amount to 11.3% employee contribution and 16.95% employer contribution. Study session meeting of August 13, 2018 (Item No. 2) Page 3 Title: 2019 budget Benefits: For 2019, formal bidding for health insurance is in process as required every 5 years. We have very active claims experience and originally estimated a 12% increase in health insurance premiums. Responses to the bidding process have come in and at this stage look much more favorable than we had anticipated. Prior to finalization of the bids, our consultant and staff need to review the quotes in detail to make sure they meet plan design and specifications. If this works out we will be coming back with an adjusted (lower) percentage for 2019 this fall and possibly a three year rate lock. Staff continues to work with the city’s benefits consultant and internal benefits committee on cost containment on claims. The wellness benefit since 2014 has been set at $40 per employee per month and is recommended to remain the same in 2019. These estimates are incorporated into the preliminary 2019 budget. Operational costs: Staff is being asked to look at how operational costs have been changing and take into consideration market conditions, as well as planning ahead for operational needs. The focus areas relate to the strategic priorities and include, but are not limited to: environment, climate action plan work, rank choice voting, race equity and inclusion, trails and sidewalks, housing and business programs, transportation, and ongoing redevelopment. Support and outreach activities continue in public safety, fire prevention, neighborhoods and housing. Energy costs will continue to be monitored closely given the potential for volatility in this sector of the economy and also monitoring use as we continue to incorporate improvements in energy saving in our operations. Summary of significant 2019 budget personnel requests: The most significant requests received from departments in the 2019 budget relate to staffing. All requests are in the process of being reviewed by the city manager with each applicable department director. In order to determine the final recommendations staff will continue to review business needs, strategic priorities, funding and also look at alternatives for service delivery with some requests and moving some requests to future year(s) for consideration. Below is the summary of staffing requests and funding recommendations. Note – we wanted to show all the staffing requests made by department directors. After review and discussion with the city manager, not all requests were included in the 2019 preliminary recommendation at this time. Staffing requests included at this time: •Administrative Services – Additional election judges and two race equity & inclusion staff - $52,000 (Part-time non-benefit earning) – These positions will provide support for ranked choice voting (RCV) and race equity & inclusion programs. The two part time community outreach personnel in race equity & inclusion will help support the strategic priorities and will be working directly out in the community on inclusion as well as sharing and gathering information to help staff in the work and services provided. •Administrative Services – Elections outreach and information specialist – $85,462 (Full- time benefit earning) - Handle education, outreach and updating information for elections. Main focus is community outreach, working with election judges, training and assisting voters, providing educational materials and on-going support with all elections and implementation of RCV. •Administrative Services - Environment and sustainability specialist - $85,462 (Full-time benefit earning) - Staff liaison to commission, providing support to environment and Study session meeting of August 13, 2018 (Item No. 2) Page 4 Title: 2019 budget sustainability coordinator in order to allow time to focus on actions needed for climate action plan (CAP) planning and implementation. New position would also assist with CAP education, outreach and supporting CAP in data systems, records, program development etc. •Police – Dispatcher - $97,893 (Full-time benefit earning) – Overall increase in call loads, phone calls and ancillary functions of the dispatchers. Staff is reviewing to see if there could be offsetting savings by a resulting reduction is temporary staff and overtime costs. •Police – overtime - $41,000 – Increase to match trends of actual amounts incurred and increased police support and presence at special events throughout the city. •Police – Dispatch – overtime and temporary salaries - $68,000 – Increase to match scheduling and coverage trends and amounts incurred due to continued support and dispatching needs. As noted above, with the proposed full-time dispatch position staff is reviewing if these amount could be reduced. •Inspections – Plumbing Inspector - $49,463 (full-time July 1 start date, net neutral if revenue through licensing meets the staffing cost) – Staff is exploring the need for a plumbing inspector to address a variety of needs including but not limited to reduced pressure zone (RPZ) compliance and addressing issues we are experiencing with fats, oils and greases being discharged into our sanitary sewer system primarily by restaurants. The plan is to have the revenue thru the licensing and compliance offset a majority of this position. •Operations and Recreation – Public Service Worker - $74,033 (Full-time benefit earning, cost partially offset with other funds) – Will address increased demand for services related to additional sidewalks, retaining wall maintenance, striping, and sweeping throughout the city. Fifty percent of this position will be offset with operating budget adjustments. •Fire – MIH/CEMT services - $85,000 (Part-time, net neutral if fees offset costs) - To help the city meet community health access and health equity program goals. This program is still in development and more details are needed prior to hiring. If the program moves forward, the 2019 budget does have a goal of 100% offsetting revenue for the part-time staffing request. Staffing requests not included in the proposed 2019 budget: •Police – Patrol Officer - $91,359 – (Full-time benefit earning) – Additional support and assistance to staff working on programs and initiatives that provide a high level of services to the community. Request was made to backfill the sworn officer who was assigned to work on technology programs in PD. Continued analysis is needed on options for handling the technology work. •Police – Crime Analyst - $85,463 – (Full-time benefit earning) – Position would provide additional support on a number of functions including data mining/analyzing of data to provide additional support to the department. More analysis is needed as staff is looking at ways this type of position could be used for various functions in the city, and also with the hiring of the new office manager in the PD, functions are under review. Study session meeting of August 13, 2018 (Item No. 2) Page 5 Title: 2019 budget Summary of significant 2019 budget non-personnel requests that are included: •Administrative Services – Increased expenditures related to bringing in a consultant to conduct a community survey in 2019 as last one was done in 2011 – estimated cost of $25,000; Voting booth replacement and precinct signage $10,000 (3 yr. phased approach). Communications and marketing services for RCV and RE&I $50,000. Additional materials, forms, printing and outreach materials for RCV $13,500. Additional $15,000 for continued Intercultural Development Inventory (IDI) and Multi- Cultural Organizational Development (MCOD) programs related to RE&I. •Administrative Services - CAP funding for communications and outreach services - $25,000, and $100,000 for consultant to provide assistance, direction and advisement on best methods and practices for program development, incentives, outreach and connections with business and residential communities and implementation. Funding for 2019 is to use funds we have already set aside for program development and initiatives. For 2020, staff is exploring a permanent funding source. •Fire – additional revenue and expenditures of $85,000 related to the Mobile Integrated Health (MIH) program development. As with the MIH program staffing, further research, connections with other departments and business plan is needed prior to further development of this program. •Information Resources – Additional funds for technology services with our systems - $30,000. A GIS study estimated at $15,000 to help with analysis and further determine overall city needs for GIS services and uses. Communications and marketing is adjusted to match trends. •Police - $25,200 for rifle replacement. Since this is a one-time expenditure we are considering doing it 2018. Additional funding also will be used for audits of body-worn cameras and license plate readers. •Inspections – Proposed licenses and permit revenue is projected to remain the same given some uncertainty if projects will happen in 2018, 2019, and/or 2020. At this time and with this projection, we are proposing to eliminate the temporary inspector - $100,000, but if building activity spikes up we will have to consider adding this back. In facilities maintenance we are adjusting our electricity and heating gas downward to match recent trends. •Operations and Recreation – Revenues are projected to increase slightly overall in organized recreation and recreation center budgets. In addition our highway user tax revenue is expected to increase by $44,165 for public works operations (state funding for municipal road maintenance). On the expenditure side we are adjusting downward - $30,000 for electrical savings due to LED conversion of street lights. Staff also adjusted various items to match historical trends. An increase of approximately $22,294 to adjust for motor fuels and anticipated state contract pricing for 2019. Study session meeting of August 13, 2018 (Item No. 2) Page 6 Title: 2019 budget •Contingency – General Fund contingency is programmed at $74,350, same as 2018. These dollar are for unplanned items that may come up in the budget year such as unplanned expenditures or emergency type purchase. •One-time items – Staff is preparing a list of one-time expenditures in 2019 budget that can potentially be moved to 2018 if the budget is projected to have sufficient funds to move them to 2018. These would be non-reoccurring/one-time items. Last year we moved up a few police items and are considering the rifle replacement this year. •Council program funds – Since we added a number of program items to the base budget as related to RCV, RE&I, and CAP in 2019, staff is recommending reducing the expenditure line item from $198,000 in 2018 to $0 in 2019. We’ve incorporated these funds into the general operating budget for ongoing support in these areas. Staff recommends this method rather than an additional contingency programmed. Council information requests from June 18th study session: At the study session on June 18th, 2018, Council asked for follow up information on a few items. This information is included in the attached document Follow up questions from June 18th budget study session. Franchise fees: In the past, council has directed staff to consider franchise fee adjustments every odd numbered year. For the 2019 Budget, there will be an adjustment proposed which will be discussed as part of the budget process. Once the new 10 year capital improvement plan projects for pavement management are analyzed we will determine if the proposed $0.75 adjustment for electric and gas is still an appropriate increase or if it needs to be adjusted. The current 2018 monthly amount is $4.00 per utility (gas and electric) this would bring it to $4.75 per utility (gas and electric) for 2019. Fees, charges and other revenues: Staff will continue to review current fee data based on cost analyses and other communities before making recommendations for the 2019 fee schedules. LRFMP (long range financial management plan): This document will be presented at future meetings with council to assist in setting property tax levies, debt management, fees, utility rates and budgets. CIP (capital improvement plan): Staff is currently reviewing the ten year CIP (2019-2028). This information has been programmed into the LRFMP and finance is analyzing the results in an effort to create long-term sustainability in funds and also looking at where changes in funding or expenditures/expenses need to occur for the city council and city manager to consider. The council will see a draft of the plan in September and again in the fall. Trends in valuations and possible property tax implications: For the 2018 assessment, St. Louis Park’s taxable market value increased by 8.6% with all of the dominant property types increasing in value. Composition of the change is summarized as +7.7% for single-family homes, +9.1% for condos, +8.5% for townhomes, +13.6% for apartments, and the commercial-industrial sectors at +8.4%. As can be surmised by the above figures, there will be a slight shift of the property tax burden to commercial, condos, and apartment properties for the payable 2019 tax period. This shift will be mitigated somewhat when considering all taxing jurisdictions that make up the typical property tax bill (in the Study session meeting of August 13, 2018 (Item No. 2) Page 7 Title: 2019 budget aggregate, other county jurisdictions increased at higher rates for single-family homes but at lower rates for apartments and commercial properties). 2018 City Final Levy and 2019 City Preliminary Levy Range A synopsis of prior year levy information and the 2019 Proposed Preliminary Levy Range is shown below: 1.The 2018 Preliminary levy was $31,884,702, which was 5.35% more than 2017. 2.The 2018 Final levy was $31,748,368 which was 4.9% more than 2017. 3.The preliminary 2019 budget requests that came in would require an approximate 12.4% levy adjustment. After review by city manager, and working closely with department directors, the 2019 budget recommendation have been modified from original requests. At this point in time, the budgets which have been submitted and debt service needs would require a 2019 preliminary property tax levy range increase of approximately 5.00% - 5.25% more than the 2018 final levy (preliminary levy once approved in September can be reduced but cannot be increased). The levy will be discussed in further detail at the September 4th budget work session including the tax impacts to various value ranges in SLP. Information will be received from the county shortly. We will continue to work toward the 10 year average levy increase of of 4.42% between now and when we adopt a final budget in December. 2018 2019 $ Change % Change Final Levy Proposed 2018 to 2019 2018 to 2019 TAX CAPACITY BASED TAX LEVY General Fund 25,705,886$ 27,094,004$ 1,388,118$ 5.40% Park Improvement Fund 810,000 810,000 - 0.00% Capital Replacement Fund 1,767,700 1,767,700 - 0.00% Debt Service-current (1)3,164,782 3,420,557 255,775 8.08% Employee Benefit Fund 200,000 200,000 - 0.00% Housing Rehabilitation Fund 100,000 100,000 - 0.00% TAX CAPACITY BASED TAX LEVIES 31,748,368$ 33,392,261$ 1,643,893$ 5.18% 1= Debt service levy changes for 2019 primarily due to the 2018A bonds issued for sidewalks/Trails/Fiber and a portion of the Aquila park project. HRA property tax levy: Based on current and future infrastructure needs, the HRA levy is recommended to be set at the maximum allowed of 0.0185% of estimated market value, which is consistent with previous years. The amount for 2019 is estimated at $1,234,601. The HRA levy is committed to pay back a loan from the development fund that helped cash flow the city’s obligation for Highway 7 and Louisiana Avenue and is expected to be paid off in 2020 or earlier depending on market value changes. Utility funds: All utility funds will be presented during a future budget discussion as we are working with Ehlers on long range planning to sure the appropriate rate structures and funding levels long term. As in previous years, all utility rates are analyzed, adjusted as needed to meet operational and capital needs, while also working to meet appropriate cash position guidelines. During this budget process, staff from various departments and our financial consultants will Study session meeting of August 13, 2018 (Item No. 2) Page 8 Title: 2019 budget gather to review the utility funds, review rate structures in conjunction with short term and longer term program needs including conservation strategies. •Water: For 2019, the city will be in the ninth year of the ten year plan for increasing the fixed rate charges to reduce volatility in the fund due to seasonal usage fluctuations. Usage rates will also be analyzed to meet more aggressive demands for infrastructure replacement within the city’s aging system. Significant expenses for this fund are capital, staffing, the Reilly superfund site and debt service. Staff will further study water conservation, irrigation and rates in 2019 to prepare for future recommendations. •Sewer: Rates are also expected to increase due to the city’s more aggressive infrastructure replacement plan. Sewer costs mainly support the Metropolitan Council Environmental Services (MCES) charge, staffing and capital costs. •Solid Waste: Rates for this fund are expected to continue to support more of a pay as you throw type rate structure. Rates may also vary depending on any enhanced or new initiatives the council would like to pursue/offer. The new hauler contract will be included in our long range analysis. The major expenses for this fund are the contract charges, supplies and staffing. •Storm Water: With the interest council and the community has in surface water, staff will continue to develop, modify, connect and communicate programs to both the city council and the community. Based on council direction to place more emphasis on storm water management, along with increasing regulations, rates will need to continue to be adjusted over the next few years. These increases will help meet the increased capital needs. Significant expenses for this fund currently are capital and staffing. Next steps: The following preliminary timeline has been developed for council: August 13 Review and discussion of 2019 budget by council, city manager and chief financial officer. Department directors or their designees will also be in attendance to listen and answer questions as needed. September 4 (Tues) High level 2019 budget, CIP draft, fees, utility rates discussion. This meeting will be more of a proposed preliminary levy discussion with direction provided to staff to prepare information for the September 17th meeting adopting preliminary levies. September 17 Council establishes 2019 preliminary property tax levy and HRA levy. (Levies can be reduced, but not increased for final property tax levies.) October 8 Review and discussion of 2019 budget, CIP, utility rates and LRFMP. Directors or their designees in attendance as needed. October 15 Public Hearing - 1st reading of fees, and adoption of 2019 utility rates November 5 (If necessary) Budget and CIP discussion prior to truth in taxation public hearing and budget presentation. Second reading of fee on consent. November Live Facebook chat on 2019 budget and CIP. December 3 Truth in taxation public hearing and budget presentation December 10 (If necessary) Continuation of public hearing and any budget discussion. December 17 Council adopts 2018 revised budget, 2019 budgets, final tax levies (City and HRA), and 2019 - 2028 CIP. Study session meeting of August 13, 2018 (Item No. 2) Page 9 Title: 2019 budget Follow-up Questions from June 18th Budget Study Session At the Study Session on June 18th, 2018, Council discussed business needs and operations as it related to preparing the 2019 budget. As part of the discussion, there were requests for information and follow-up on a number of areas. Listed below are the questions from the study sessions and department responses. ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES Question: Could staff research what a policy for non-profit funding might look like? Answer: Below is information pulled together for a draft policy. Council Guidelines Funding for Non-Profit organizations •The organization must be a non-profit as governed by MN. Stat. 317A. •The organization must be located within the City of St. Louis Park •The organization provides services that are not provided by the City and County and benefit the residents of the city •The funding must comply with public purpose expenditures •Budget implications are considered by the city council for all requests ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES Question: For the last 5 years could we chart the percent change in taxable market value and levy change? Answer: Below is a chart with the information requested. 2019 levy % is just for illustration purposes only. 3.50%5.50% 6.00% 5.80%4.90% 5.00% 0.43% 6.69% 7.99% 8.48% 5.64% 8.60% 0.00% 1.00% 2.00% 3.00% 4.00% 5.00% 6.00% 7.00% 8.00% 9.00% 10.00% 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Levy % change TMV % change Study session meeting of August 13, 2018 (Item No. 2) Page 10 Title: 2019 budget ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES Question: What would a base levy change be for 2019? Answer: Since revenues are for the most part flat for 2019, the base levy would be wages and benefits changes including our annual debt service levy. For 2019, a base levy change would be approximately 4.2%. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Question: Exploring the idea of a housing trust fund? Answer: Community development staff is researching this concept and will provide updates in future study sessions. Meeting: Study session Meeting date: August 13, 2018 Discussion item: 3 Executive summary Title: Inclusionary housing policy/Affordable housing trust fund policy Recommended action: None at this time. The purpose of the report is to present four proposed amendments to the Inclusionary Housing Policy for council’s consideration. Staff will also discuss specifics related to the establishment of a city Affordable Housing Trust Fund, discuss proposed funding resources and present a draft policy defining the use of the funds. Policy consideration: Will the proposed amendments to the Inclusionary Housing Policy and the proposed Affordable Housing Trust Fund policy be effective in furthering the city councils goes related to affordable housing? If so, does the council wish to amend the Inclusionary Housing Policy and adopt the Affordable Housing Trust Fund policy? Summary: In June 2015, the council adopted an Inclusionary Housing Policy requiring the inclusion of affordable housing units for lower income households in new market-rate multi- unit residential developments receiving financial assistance from the city. This policy was subsequently amended in 2017 increasing the percentage of affordable units required. Since the policy has been in place, 54 units have been developed and 228 more approved. An additional 27 units are in the planning process. The council has indicated an interest in increasing the percentage of affordable housing units required at 60% AMI from 18% to 20%. Additionally, staff will be presenting proposed policy amendments regarding a payment-in-lieu for homeownership units, an increase to the income eligibility threshold for current residents, and the addition of a 30% affordability option. Staff are also providing a draft Affordable Housing Trust Fund policy for council’s review and discussion. The policy identifies funding resources and eligible uses. Financial or budget considerations: Increasing the required percentage of affordable units per the Inclusionary Housing Policy will have an economic impact on developers which could result in a greater need for public financial assistance. The establishment of a city Affordable Housing Trust Fund requires a designated funding source. Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to providing a broad range of housing and neighborhood oriented development. Supporting documents: Discussion Affordable housing trust fund policy Prepared by: Michele Schnitker, Housing Supervisor Reviewed by: Karen Barton, Community Development Director Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Study session meeting of August 13, 2018 (Item No. 3) Page 2 Title: Inclusionary housing policy/Affordable housing trust fund policy Discussion Background: Inclusionary Policy: The current Inclusionary Housing Policy was adopted by the council on June 1, 2015 and amended May 9, 2017. The goal of the policy is to create affordable units in market-rate developments where it would not otherwise occur. The intent is to do so while not creating a burden so onerous that it becomes a deterrent or unreasonable constraint on residential development in SLP, and to fulfill the city’s affordable housing objectives without eliminating the developer’s economic benefit, especially for developers of market-rate residential housing with little or no experience in the development of affordable housing. Since its inception, the policy has been applied to 6 development projects. Inclusionary Housing Policy Developments Development Total Units Affordable Units Affordability Level Required per policy Shoreham - complete 148 30 50% AMI 4800 Excelsior - complete 164 18 60% AMI Elmwood (PUD approved) 70 17 60% AMI PLACE (PUD approved) 299 200* 60% AMI Voluntary Central Park West- Phase I complete 363 11 (6 complete) 60% AMI Livable Comm. required Arlington Row (PUD approved – on hold) 61 6* 80% AMI Planning process Platia Place 149 27 60% AMI Beltline Station Area TBD TBD TBD Total units 1254 309 *Not final Proposed policy amendments: Affordability requirements Council expressed an interest in increasing the percentage of affordable housing required for the 60% affordability level from 18% to 20% of units. Staff is also recommending the inclusion of an option to provide units affordable at 30% AMI. Current affordability requirements: Rental: 18% of units at 60%, or 10% of units at 50% AMI, Ownership: 15% of units at 80% AMI Development has continued at a robust level in St. Louis Park since the adoption of the Inclusionary Policy; however, it should be acknowledged that raising the required percentage of affordable housing will result in additional economic impacts for developers. We can’t predict if the financial impacts of increasing the affordability requirements will deter new market-rate development, but adopting a modest incremental increase in the affordability requirement provides a greater possibility that developers can absorb the cost associated with the creation of affordable units through adjustments in land prices, reductions in developer profits, moderate additional funding subsidies or some combination of the three. Adding the 30% affordability alternative will provide an additional option for developers to fulfill the Study session meeting of August 13, 2018 (Item No. 3) Page 3 Title: Inclusionary housing policy/Affordable housing trust fund policy affordability requirement under the policy and provide the city with the possibility of creating units affordable for the lowest income households. Staff proposes that the council consider amending the Inclusionary Housing Policy as follows: Affordability Level: Rental: 18% 20% of units at 60%* area median income (AMI), or 10% of units at 50%* AMI, 5% of units affordable at 30% AMI Ownership: 15% of units at 80% AMI *60% and 50% affordability for rental units is consistent with affordability level requirements for the federally funded affordable housing Tax Credit Program. Payment-in-lieu for homeownership units only: The current policy does not allow for a payment-in-lieu of including affordable units in an eligible development. Staff is proposing that the policy be amended to require a payment-in- lieu for homeownership developments. It is likely that any eligible homeownership development will be high-density condominium or townhome developments. Ensuring long term homeownership affordability beyond the initial sale and preventing a wind-fall financial enrichment would be administratively impractical; however, a payment-in-lieu could provide a funding resource that was designated for homeownership assistance programs such as: down- payment assistance, closing cost assistance, or a second mortgage. The funds would assist low- and moderate income households with purchasing single-family homes, townhomes and condominiums. These forms of assistance could be provided in the form of no-interest, no- monthly-payment loans, repayable at sale, allowing for reuse of the funds to assist future households. The payment-in-lieu would be established as a fee per unit, based on the inclusionary policy, that would reflect the difference in cost to create an affordable unit versus a market-rate unit. Current affordable costs for homeownership units are $234,500 at 80% AMI and $181,500 at 60% AMI. Amend income eligibility for existing residents: The current policy allows tenants residing in the affordable units to continue to live in the unit until their income exceeds 120% of AMI. Staff is proposing that this be changed to 140% of the qualifying election for the units, to be consistent with tax credit regulations. Since some of the developments complying with the Inclusionary Housing Policy have chosen to include tax credit units, it would be beneficial to developers to have the Inclusionary Policy requirements mirror the tax credit regulations. Housing trust fund Local housing trust fund: At the May 14, 2018 study session, the council discussed their interest in establishing a St. Louis Park Affordable Housing Trust Fund. Housing trust funds are distinct funds established by city, county or state governments that receive ongoing dedicated sources of public funding to support the preservation and production of affordable housing. Housing trust funds can also be a repository for private donations. The Minnesota Legislature passed a bill in 2017 that allows local communities to establish housing trust funds. The housing trust fund may be established by ordinance and administered by the city. Money in a housing trust fund may only be used to: •pay for administrative expenses not to exceed 10% of the balance of the fund; Study session meeting of August 13, 2018 (Item No. 3) Page 4 Title: Inclusionary housing policy/Affordable housing trust fund policy •make 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. The city may finance the fund with any money available to a local government, unless expressly prohibited by state law. Sources include, but are not limited to: •donations; •bond proceeds; •grants and loans from a state, federal, or private source; •appropriations by a local government to the fund; •investment earnings of the fund; •TIF pooled funds; and •housing and redevelopment authority levies. The proposed primary source of funding for the city’s trust fund is an annual budgeted allocation of HRA Levy funds, which will be available beginning in 2020. Attached is a draft Affordable Housing Trust Fund Policy for council review and comment that identifies fund objectives, funding resources and eligible uses of the funds. The city’s chief financial officer has reviewed the policy. Next steps: Based on council’s direction, staff will: •Amend the Inclusionary Housing Policy and return to a future council meeting for formal approval. •Staff will work with the city’s legal counsel to draft an ordinance establishing an Affordable Housing Trust fund and return to a future council meeting for formal approval. Study session meeting of August 13, 2018 (Item No. 3) Page 5 Title: Inclusionary housing policy/Affordable housing trust fund policy City of St. Louis Park Affordable Housing Trust Fund Policy I.PURPOSE The City of St. Louis Park has established an Affordable Housing Trust Fund to provide a source of funds to facilitate the housing needs of low- and moderate income individuals and families of the City. The Affordable Housing Trust Fund shall be a permanent endowment and continually renewable source of revenue to provide loans and grants to for-profit and non-profit housing developers for the acquisition, capital, and soft costs necessary for the creation of: new affordable rental and owner-occupied housing; the rehabilitation and preservation of existing multi-family residential rental housing, including Naturally Occurring Affordable Housing (NOAH); and rental and homeownership assistance to low- and moderate income individuals and families. This policy is intended to set forth the general requirements and guidelines regarding the use of the Affordable Housing Trust Fund. The city council may modify the terms from time to time. II.FUNDING THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING TRUST FUND ACCOUNT The primary source of funding for the Affordable Housing Trust Fund is an annual budgeted allocation of funds from the city’s HRA Tax Levy as approved by the city council. Other sources of funding for the Affordable Housing Trust Fund may include, but are not limited to the following: 1.Private cash donations from individuals and corporations designated for the Affordable Housing Trust Fund; 2.Payments in lieu of participation in current or future affordable housing programs; 3.Matching funds from a federal or state affordable housing trust fund or a state program designated to fund an affordable housing trust fund; 4.Principal and interest from Affordable Housing Trust Fund loan repayments and all other income from Trust Fund activities; 5.The sale of real and personal property; 6.Federal and state grants; 7.Other funds as designated from time to time by the City Council; 8.Tax Increment Finance (TIF) pooled funds. City staff is directed to take all actions necessary to capitalize and maintain the fund balance in the Affordable Housing Trust Fund to the extent that funds are subject to restrictions as to their use by virtue of the source of such funds. The Affordable Housing Trust Fund will contain sub- accounts to ensure that such restrictions as to the reuse of the funds are met. III.OBJECTIVES The objective of the Affordable Housing Trust Fund is to assist in funding programs and proposals that create new affordable rental and homeownership housing opportunities and to rehabilitate and preserve existing affordable housing units in St. Louis Park. Initiatives will strive to provide balanced and sustainable affordable housing options, responsive to the present and future diversified needs of the community including: persons on fixed incomes, such as seniors and persons with disabilities; young families just starting out; persons of color and indigenous persons; and veterans. Study session meeting of August 13, 2018 (Item No. 3) Page 6 Title: Inclusionary housing policy/Affordable housing trust fund policy The Affordable Housing Trust Fund will promote community revitalization and reinvestment by creating and preserving viable, safe and well-maintained affordable housing developments, and expanding options for affordable homeownership. IV. USE OF THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING TRUST FUND As a matter of policy, the Affordable Housing Trust Fund will only be used to assist proposed projects or programs to develop or preserve affordable housing opportunities for low- and moderate income individuals and families. The following general guidelines will be followed in connection with the use of funds from the Affordable Housing Trust Fund. 1. The types of uses of the Affordable Housing Trust Fund will include, but not be limited to, the following: (i) the making of loans at interest rates below or at market rates in order to strengthen the financial feasibility of proposed projects; (ii) the guaranteeing of loans; (iii) the provision of gap financing for affordable housing developments; (iv) the financing of acquisition, demolition, and disposition; (v) the financing of the construction of public improvements and utilities to aid proposed affordable residential developments; (vi) the financing of rehabilitation, remodeling, or new construction of affordable housing; (vii) tenant and project based rental assistance; (viii) administrative costs associated with affordable housing programs; (ix) the making of loans or grants to individuals and households to assist in creating affordable homeownership opportunities; and (x) any other uses as permitted by applicable law and approved by the council. 2. The Affordable Housing Trust Fund may be used to provide interim financing of costs for affordable housing projects in anticipation of a permanent financing source (i.e. construction financing, bond sale, etc.). 3. To the extent possible the Affordable Housing Trust Fund will be secured by liens, letters of credit, tax increment, or other forms of reasonable security. 4. To the extent possible, loans from the Affordable Housing Trust Fund will be repaid with interest at rates established from time to time by the city or which are established at the time of approval of a specific project or program. V. PROCESS In establishing projects and programs to be financed using the Affordable Housing Trust Fund the city shall to the extent possible: 1. Establish guidelines and criteria for each project or program to be assisted unless the project or program is already existing. 2. Establish a timeframe for completing the project or program and the repayment terms to the Affordable Housing Trust Fund, if applicable. 3. Prepare a financing plan for the project or program for review and approval by the city council and by other entities as may be required by state law. Meeting: Study session Meeting date: August 13, 2018 Discussion item: 4 Executive summary Title: Body-worn camera (BWC) policy Recommended action: None at this time. Staff will present a draft policy on the police department’s use of body-worn cameras and requests feedback from the council. Policy consideration: Will the draft body-worn camera policy help meet the intended goals of assisting in the collection of evidence, writing accurate reports, and provide for greater transparency and accountability? Summary: Staff will present information on how the police department developed the draft policy on body-worn cameras by examining law enforcement best practices, model policies, state statutes and obtaining community input including input from the PAC, HRC and MAC. As a part of this the HRC and PAC co-hosted a community conversation with the public last April regarding the draft policy. Staff will also update Council on the progress made in evaluating the available body-worn camera hardware and software. Financial or budget considerations: Startup cost of the body-worn camera program is estimated to be $200,000 in 2018-2019 with an additional $100,000 per year in software and maintenance fees. These costs have been included in the city’s CIP. Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to creating opportunities to build social capital through community engagement. Supporting documents: Body-worn camera draft policy Police advisory commission report on BWC Human rights commission report on BWC Multi-cultural advisory committee report on BWC Prepared by: Mike Harcey, Police Chief Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Study session meeting of August 13, 2018 (Item No. 4) Page 2 Title: Body-worn camera (BWC) policy Discussion Background: In November 2017, I recommended to the St. Louis Park City Council that our police department implement a body-worn camera program to assist in collecting evidence, writing accurate reports and providing greater transparency and accountability. At the council’s direction, policy development, evaluation and testing of body-worn camera hardware and software equipment began in January 2018. To develop a comprehensive policy on the appropriate use of body cameras that would meet the community’s expectations, an internal work group was formed to evaluate best practices, model policies and state statutes regarding use of body-worn cameras. The resulting draft policy was shared with the city’s police advisory and human rights commissions and multi- cultural advisory committee; with the St. Louis Park School District; and with Benilde St. Margaret’s School and other local private schools. Feedback from each of the groups was evaluated carefully, with a number of recommendations incorporated into the body-worn camera draft policy. On July 30, the draft policy was made available on the city’s website at www.stlouispark.org, and the community was invited to review the draft and provide comments online. Additionally, the community has been invited to attend a public hearing as part of the St. Louis Park City Council meeting Monday, August 20, at 7:30 p.m. At this public hearing attendees may provide comment to the city council regarding the body-worn camera draft policy. Additionally, the comments received online will be provided to the city council and entered into the public record. All comments will be carefully reviewed and evaluated to ensure the body-worn camera policy meets the needs of our community. A second internal work group has been evaluating the available body-worn camera hardware and software to identify the appropriate equipment that will meet the needs of the St. Louis Park Police Department. Field testing of equipment from two vendors will take place this fall. Following evaluation of the testing, equipment will be purchased from the selected vendor. Once the body-worn camera policy has been finalized and equipment has been selected, officers will receive comprehensive training on the equipment and its appropriate use. Our goal is that by March 31, 2019, all St. Louis Park police officers will be using body-worn cameras. Next steps: A public hearing is scheduled for the City Council meeting on August 20th, 2018 to provide an opportunity for public comment before the police department purchases or implements a portable recording system as required by Minnesota State Statute 626.8473. DRAFT 07-17-18 7/17/2018 Body-Worn Cameras Draft Page 1 City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota Use of Body-Worn Camera’s Policy Purpose The primary purpose of using body-worn-cameras (BWCs) is to: A.Capture evidence arising from a police-citizen contact. B.Assist with accurate report writing. C.Allow for transparency and accountability in policing. This policy sets forth guidelines governing the use of BWCs and administering the data that results. Compliance with these guidelines is mandatory, but it is recognized that officers must also attend to other primary duties and the safety of all concerned, sometimes in circumstances that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving. Objectives The St. Louis Park Police Department has adopted the use of portable audio/video recorders to accomplish the following objectives: A.To enhance officer safety. B.To document statements and events during the course of an incident. C.To enhance the officers ability to document and review statements and actions for both internal reporting requirements and for courtroom preparation/presentation. D.To preserve audio and visual information for use in current and future investigations. E.To enhance the public trust by preserving factual representations of officer-citizen interactions in the form of audio-video recording. F.To assist with the defense of civil actions against police officers and the City of St. Louis Park. G.To assist with training and evaluation of officers. Policy It is the policy of this department to authorize and require the use of department-issued BWCs as set forth below, and to administer BWC data as provided by law. Scope This policy governs the use of BWCs in the course of official duties. It does not apply to the use of squad-based (dash-cam) recording systems. The Chief of Police or the chief’s designee may supersede this policy by providing specific instructions for BWC use to individual officers, or providing specific instructions pertaining to particular events or classes of events, including but not limited to political rallies and demonstrations where their use might be perceived as a form of Study session meeting of August 13, 2018 (Item No. 4) Title: Body-worn camera (BWC) policy Page 3 DRAFT 07-17-18 7/17/2018 Body-Worn Cameras Draft Page 2 political or viewpoint-based surveillance. The chief or designee may also provide specific instructions or standard operating procedures for BWC use to officers assigned to specialized details, such as carrying out duties in courts or guarding prisoners or patients in hospitals and mental health facilities. In the event the chief does supersede policy by providing specific instructions for use, a written report will be submitted to the City Manager. Definitions The following phrases have special meanings as used in this policy: A.MGDPA or Data Practices Act refers to the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, Minn. Stat. § 13.01, et seq. B.Records Retention Schedule refers to the General Records Retention Schedule for Minnesota Cities. C.Law enforcement-related information means information captured or available for capture by use of a BWC that has evidentiary value because it documents events with respect to a stop, arrest, search, citation, or charging decision. D.Evidentiary value means that the information may be useful as proof in a prosecution or defense of a criminal action, related civil or administrative proceeding, further investigation of an actual or suspected criminal act, or in considering an allegation against a law enforcement agency or officer. E.General citizen contact means an informal encounter with a citizen that is not and does not become law enforcement-related or adversarial, and a recording of the event would not yield information relevant to an ongoing investigation. Examples include, but are not limited to, assisting a motorist with directions, summoning a wrecker, or receiving generalized concerns from a citizen about crime trends in his or her neighborhood. F.Adversarial means a law enforcement encounter with a person that becomes confrontational, during which at least one person expresses anger, resentment, or hostility toward the other, or at least one person directs toward the other verbal conduct consisting of arguing, threatening, challenging, swearing, yelling, or shouting. Encounters in which a citizen demands to be recorded or initiates recording on his or her own are deemed adversarial. G.Unintentionally recorded footage is a video recording that results from an officer’s inadvertence or neglect in operating the officer’s BWC, provided that no portion of the resulting recording has evidentiary value. Examples of unintentionally recorded footage include, but are not limited to, recordings made in station house locker rooms, restrooms, and recordings made while officers were engaged in conversations of a non-business, personal nature with the expectation that the conversation was not being recorded. Study session meeting of August 13, 2018 (Item No. 4) Title: Body-worn camera (BWC) policy Page 4 DRAFT 07-17-18 7/17/2018 Body-Worn Cameras Draft Page 3 H.Official duties, for purposes of this policy, means that the officer is on duty and performing authorized law enforcement services on behalf of this agency. Training All users of a BWC will be trained on the cameras operation and this policy prior to deploying one. Use and Documentation A.Officers may use only department-issued BWCs in the performance of official duties for this agency or when otherwise performing authorized law enforcement services as an employee of this department. B.All officers working uniform patrol, uniform special details, traffic duties, and uniform school resource officer duties shall use a BWC unless permission has been granted by a supervisor to deviate from this clause. Plain clothes investigators/officers and administrators are allowed to use BWC when interacting with citizens, when appropriate. C.Officers who have deployed a BWC shall operate and use them consistent with this policy. Officers shall conduct a function test of their issued BWCs at the beginning of each shift to make sure the devices are operating properly. Officers noting a malfunction during testing or at any other time shall promptly report the malfunction to the officer’s supervisor and shall document the report in writing. As soon as is practical, the malfunctioning BWC shall be put down for service and the officer should deploy a working BWC. If a BWC malfunctions while recording, is lost, or damaged the circumstances shall be documented in a police report and a supervisor shall be notified. Supervisors shall take prompt action to address malfunctions and document the steps taken in writing. D.Officers should wear their BWC in a conspicuous manner at the location on their body and manner specified in training. E.Officers must document BWC use and non-use as follows: 1. Whenever an officer makes a recording, the existence of the recording shall be documented in the records management system, an incident report, or a citation if completed. 2. Whenever an officer fails to record an activity that is required to be recorded under this policy or captures only a part of the activity, the officer must document the circumstances and reasons for not recording in the records management system or incident report. Supervisors shall review these reports and initiate any corrective action deemed necessary. F.The department will maintain the following records and documents relating to BWC use, which are classified as public data: Study session meeting of August 13, 2018 (Item No. 4) Title: Body-worn camera (BWC) policy Page 5 DRAFT 07-17-18 7/17/2018 Body-Worn Cameras Draft Page 4 1. The total number of BWCs owned or maintained by the agency; 2. A daily record of the total number of BWCs actually deployed and used by officers and, if applicable, the precincts in which they were used; 3. The total amount of recorded BWC data collected and maintained; and 4. This policy, together with the Records Retention Schedule. General Guidelines for Recording A.This policy is not intended to describe every possible situation in which the BWC should be activated, although there are many situations where use of the BWC is appropriate. Officers should activate the BWC any time the user believes it would be appropriate or valuable to record an incident. B.Officers shall activate their BWCs when anticipating that they will be involved in, become involved in, or witness other officers of this agency involved in a pursuit, Terry stop of a motorist or pedestrian, search, seizure, arrest, response to resistance, adversarial contact, and during other activities likely to yield information having evidentiary value. However, officers need not activate their cameras when it would be unsafe, impossible, or impractical to do so, but such instances of not recording when otherwise required must be documented as specified in the Use and Documentation guidelines, part (E)(2) (above). C.Officers have discretion to record or not record general citizen contacts. D.Officers will wear their camera in a conspicuous manner as specified in training. Officers have no affirmative duty to inform people that a BWC is being operated or that the individuals are being recorded. Officers may make an announcement that BWCs are being used. E.Once activated, the BWC should continue recording until the conclusion of the incident or encounter, or until it becomes apparent that additional recording is unlikely to capture information having evidentiary value. The supervisor having charge of a scene shall likewise direct the discontinuance of recording when further recording is unlikely to capture additional information having evidentiary value. If the recording is discontinued while an investigation, response, or incident is ongoing, officers shall state the reasons for ceasing the recording on camera before deactivating their BWC. If circumstances change, officers shall reactivate their cameras as required by this policy to capture information having evidentiary value. Any decision to discontinue recording shall be made with respect to the seven policy objectives. F.Officers shall not intentionally block the BWC’s audio or visual recording functionality to defeat the purposes of this policy. This does not prevent an officer from temporarily Study session meeting of August 13, 2018 (Item No. 4) Title: Body-worn camera (BWC) policy Page 6 DRAFT 07-17-18 7/17/2018 Body-Worn Cameras Draft Page 5 blocking the visual recording while ensuring audio data is collected during an encounter with persons who are nude or when sensitive human areas are exposed. G.Notwithstanding any other provision in this policy, officers shall not use their BWCs or any other device to record other agency personnel during non-enforcement related activities, such as during pre- and post-shift time in locker rooms, during meal breaks, or during other private conversations, unless recording is authorized as part of a criminal investigation. Special Guidelines for Recording Officers may, in the exercise of sound discretion, determine: A.To use their BWCs to record any police-citizen encounter if there is reason to believe the recording would potentially yield information having evidentiary value, unless such recording is otherwise expressly prohibited. B.To use their BWCs to take recorded statements from persons believed to be victims of and witnesses to crimes, and persons suspected of committing crimes, considering the needs of the investigation and the circumstances pertaining to the victim, witness, or suspect. The preferred method of recording a formal statement from a victim, witness or suspect is using currently approved audio recording devices/software compatible with records management dictation software. In addition, C.Officers need not record persons being provided medical care unless there is reason to believe the recording would document information having evidentiary value. When responding to an apparent mental health crisis or event, BWCs shall be activated as necessary to document any response to resistance and the basis for it, and any other information having evidentiary value, but need not be activated when doing so would serve only to record symptoms or behaviors believed to be attributable to the mental health issue. D.Officers should use their BWC and/or squad-based audio/video systems to record their transportation and the physical transfer of persons in their custody to hospitals, detox and mental health care facilities, juvenile detention centers, and jails, but otherwise should not record in these facilities unless the officer anticipates witnessing a criminal event or being involved in or witnessing an adversarial encounter or response to resistance incident. School Resource Officers The St. Louis Park Police Department recognizes that the duties and working environment for School Resource Officers (SRO) are unique within policing. It recognizes the SROs are required Study session meeting of August 13, 2018 (Item No. 4) Title: Body-worn camera (BWC) policy Page 7 DRAFT 07-17-18 7/17/2018 Body-Worn Cameras Draft Page 6 to maintain school safety while keeping the sanctity of the learning environment that the school provides. SROs are expected to continuously build trusting relationships with students and staff. SROs often have impromptu interventions with students to deescalate arguments and/or conflicts. It is with this understanding that the St. Louis Park Police Department provide special guidelines for SROs and their BWC. The BWC should be activated in any of the following situations: (a) When summoned by any individual to respond to an incident where it is likely that law enforcement action will occur when you arrive. (b) Any self-initiated activity where it is previously known that you will make a custodial arrest. (c) Any self-initiated activity where it is previously known that you’re questioning / investigation will be used later in a criminal charge. (d) When feasible an SRO shall activate the BWC when the contact becomes adversarial or the subject exhibits unusual behaviors. Nothing in the policy undermines the fact that in many instances SROs are suddenly forced to take law enforcement action and have no opportunity to activate the BWC. It is also recognized that SROs have private (confidential) conversations with juveniles. It is not always appropriate to record these conversations as it diminishes the trust between the individual and the SRO. Downloading and Labeling Data A.Each officer using a BWC is responsible for transferring or assuring the proper transfer of the data from their camera to the BWC server by the end of that officer’s shift. However, if the officer is involved in a shooting, in-custody death, or other law enforcement activity resulting in death or great bodily harm, a supervisor or investigator shall take custody of the officer’s BWC and consult with their supervisor. B.Officers shall label the BWC data files at the conclusion of each video capture and should consult with a supervisor if in doubt as to the appropriate labeling. 1.Evidence—criminal: The information has evidentiary value with respect to an actual or suspected criminal incident or charging decision. 2.Evidence—response to resistance: Whether or not enforcement action was taken or an arrest resulted, the event involved the application of force by a law enforcement officer of this or another agency. 3.Evidence—property: Whether or not enforcement action was taken or an arrest resulted, an officer seized property from an individual or directed an individual to dispossess property. Study session meeting of August 13, 2018 (Item No. 4) Title: Body-worn camera (BWC) policy Page 8 DRAFT 07-17-18 7/17/2018 Body-Worn Cameras Draft Page 7 4.Evidence—administrative: The incident involved an adversarial encounter or resulted in a complaint against the officer. 5.Evidence—other: The recording has potential evidentiary value for reasons identified by the officer at the time of labeling. 6.Training: The event was such that it may have value for training. 7.Not evidence: The recording does not contain any of the foregoing categories of information and has no apparent evidentiary value. Recordings of general citizen contacts and unintentionally recorded footage are not evidence. C.In addition, officers shall label each file appropriately, in the manner specified in training, with the appropriate label to indicate the information it contains. Some data subjects may have rights under the MGDPA limiting disclosure of information about them. These individuals include: 1. Victims and alleged victims of criminal sexual conduct and sex trafficking. 2. Victims of child abuse or neglect. 3. Vulnerable adults who are victims of maltreatment. 4. Undercover officers. 5. Informants. 6. When the video is clearly offensive to common sensitivities. 7. Victims of and witnesses to crimes, if the victim or witness has requested not to be identified publicly. 8. Individuals who called 911, and services subscribers whose lines were used to place a call to the 911 system. 9. Mandated reporters. 10. Juvenile witnesses, if the nature of the event or activity justifies protecting the identity of the witness. 11. Juveniles who are or may be delinquent or engaged in criminal acts. 12. Individuals who make complaints about violations with respect to the use of real property. Study session meeting of August 13, 2018 (Item No. 4) Title: Body-worn camera (BWC) policy Page 9 DRAFT 07-17-18 7/17/2018 Body-Worn Cameras Draft Page 8 13. Officers and employees who are the subject of a complaint related to the events captured on video. 14. Other individuals whose identities the officer believes may be legally protected from public disclosure. D.Labeling and flagging designations may be corrected or amended based on additional information. Administering Access to BWC Data A.Data subjects. Under Minnesota law, the following are considered data subjects for purposes of administering access to BWC data: 1. Any person or entity whose image or voice is documented in the data. 2. The officer who collected the data. 3. Any other officer whose voice or image is documented in the data, regardless of whether that officer is or can be identified by the recording. B.BWC data is presumptively private. BWC recordings are classified as private data about the data subjects unless there is a specific law that provides differently. As a result: 1. BWC data pertaining to people is presumed private, as is BWC data pertaining to businesses or other entities. 2. Some BWC data is classified as confidential (see C. below). 3. Some BWC data is classified as public (see D. below). C.Confidential data. BWC data that is collected or created as part of an active criminal investigation is confidential. This classification takes precedence over the “private” classification listed above and the “public” classifications listed below. D.Public data. The following BWC data is public: 1. Data documenting the discharge of a firearm by a peace officer in the course of duty, other than for training or the killing of an animal that is sick, injured, or dangerous. 2. Data that documents the use of force by a peace officer that results in substantial bodily harm. 3. Data that a data subject requests to be made accessible to the public, subject to redaction. Data on any data subject (other than a peace officer) who has not consented Study session meeting of August 13, 2018 (Item No. 4) Title: Body-worn camera (BWC) policy Page 10 DRAFT 07-17-18 7/17/2018 Body-Worn Cameras Draft Page 9 to the public release must be redacted [if practicable]. In addition, any data on undercover officers must be redacted. 4. Data that documents the final disposition of a disciplinary action against a public employee. However, if another provision of the Data Practices Act classifies data as private or otherwise not public, the data retains that other classification. For instance, data that reveals protected identities under Minn. Stat. § 13.82, subd. 17 (e.g., certain victims, witnesses, and others) should not be released even if it would otherwise fit into one of the public categories listed above. E.Access to BWC data by non-employees. Officers shall refer members of the media or public seeking access to BWC data to the lieutenant in charge of investigations, who shall process the request in accordance with the St. Louis Park Police Department’s applicable processes and policies and other governing laws. In particular: 1. An individual shall be allowed to review recorded BWC data about themself and other data subjects in the recording, but access shall not be granted: a.If the data was collected or created as part of an active investigation. b. To portions of the data that the agency would otherwise be prohibited by law from disclosing to the person seeking access, such as portions that would reveal identities protected by Minn. Stat. § 13.82, subd. 17. 2. Unless the data is part of an active investigation, an individual data subject shall be provided with a copy of the recording upon request, but subject to the following guidelines on redaction: a.Data on other individuals in the recording who do not consent to the release must be redacted. b. Data that would identify undercover officers must be redacted. c.Data on other officers who are not undercover, and who are on duty and engaged in the performance of official duties, may not be redacted. F.Access by peace officers and law enforcement employees. No employee may have access to the department’s BWC data except for legitimate law enforcement or data administration purposes: 1. Officers may access and view stored BWC video only when there is a business need for doing so, including the need to defend against an allegation of misconduct or substandard performance. Officers may review video footage of an incident in which they were involved prior to preparing a report, giving a statement, or providing Study session meeting of August 13, 2018 (Item No. 4) Title: Body-worn camera (BWC) policy Page 11 DRAFT 07-17-18 7/17/2018 Body-Worn Cameras Draft Page 10 testimony about the incident. Officers shall not use the fact that a recording was made as a reason to write a less detailed report. 2. Supervisors may view recordings at any time they are making inquiry into an alleged complaint, performance issue, or policy violation. 3. Agency personnel are prohibited from accessing BWC data for non-business reasons and from sharing the data for non-law enforcement related purposes, including but not limited to uploading BWC data recorded or maintained by this agency to public and social media websites. All incidents of access to BWC data are digitally logged. Allegations of inappropriate access to BWC data will be investigated and based on the finding, discipline may result. 4. Employees seeking access to BWC data for non-business reasons may make a request for it in the same manner as any member of the public. G.Other authorized disclosures of data. Officers may display portions of BWC footage to witnesses as necessary for purposes of investigation as allowed by Minn. Stat. § 13.82, subd. 15, as may be amended from time to time. These displays will generally be limited in order to protect against the incidental disclosure of individuals whose identities are not public. Any displays will take place at the St. Louis Park Police Department with the approval of a supervisor. Protecting against incidental disclosure could involve, for instance, showing only a portion of the video, showing only screen shots, muting the audio, or playing the audio but not displaying video. In addition, 1. An officer may request a supervisor respond to the scene and request approval for a display to take place outside the St. Louis Park Police Department. 2. BWC data may be shared with other law enforcement agencies only for legitimate law enforcement purposes that are documented in writing at the time of the disclosure. 3. BWC data shall be made available to prosecutors, courts, and other criminal justice entities as provided by law. Data Security Safeguards A.Personally owned devices, including but not limited to computers and mobile devices, shall not be programmed or used to access or view agency BWC data. B.Officers shall not intentionally edit, alter, or erase any BWC recording unless otherwise expressly authorized by the Chief of Police or the Chief’s designee. C.As required by Minn. Stat. § 13.825, subd. 9, as may be amended from time to time, this agency shall obtain an independent biennial audit of its BWC program. Study session meeting of August 13, 2018 (Item No. 4) Title: Body-worn camera (BWC) policy Page 12 DRAFT 07-17-18 7/17/2018 Body-Worn Cameras Draft Page 11 Agency Use of Data A.To ensure compliance with this policy and to identify any performance areas in which additional training or guidance is required supervisors will review each officer’s BWC recordings during each officer’s trimester evaluation or more frequently if there is reason to do so. B.In addition, supervisors and other assigned personnel may access BWC data for the purposes of reviewing or investigating a specific incident that has given rise to a complaint or concern about officer misconduct or performance. C.Nothing in this policy limits or prohibits the use of BWC data as evidence of misconduct or as a basis for discipline. D.Officers should contact their supervisors to discuss retaining and using BWC footage for training purposes. Officer objections to preserving or using certain footage for training will be considered by the chief of Police on a case-by-case basis. Field training officers may utilize BWC data with trainees for the purpose of providing coaching and feedback on the trainees’ performance. Data Retention A.All BWC data shall be retained for a minimum period of 90 days. There are no exceptions for erroneously recorded or non-evidentiary data. B.Data documenting the discharge of a firearm by a peace officer in the course of duty, other than for training or the killing of an animal that is sick, injured, or dangerous, must be maintained for a minimum period of one year. C.Certain kinds of BWC data must be retained for six years: 1. Data that documents the use of deadly force by a peace officer, or force of a sufficient type or degree to require a response to resistance report or supervisory review. 2. Data documenting circumstances that have given rise to a formal complaint against an officer. D.Other data having evidentiary value shall be retained for the period specified in the Records Retention Schedule. When a particular recording is subject to multiple retention periods, it shall be maintained for the longest applicable period. Study session meeting of August 13, 2018 (Item No. 4) Title: Body-worn camera (BWC) policy Page 13 DRAFT 07-17-18 7/17/2018 Body-Worn Cameras Draft Page 12 E.Subject to Part F (below), all other BWC footage that is classified as non-evidentiary, becomes classified as non-evidentiary, or is not maintained for training shall be destroyed after 90 days. F.Upon written request by a BWC data subject, the agency shall retain a recording pertaining to that subject for an additional time period requested by the subject of up to 1 year. The agency will notify the requestor at the time of the request that the data will then be destroyed unless a new written request is received. G.The department shall maintain an inventory of BWC recordings having evidentiary value. H.The department will post this policy, together with a link to its Records Retention Schedule, on its website. I.In the event that a BWC data file is mislabeled by an officer, or additional information is gained that suggests a data file label should be changed, a request to change a label and reasoning for said change shall be forwarded to the lieutenant in charge of investigations or their designee. Compliance Supervisors shall monitor for compliance with this policy. The unauthorized access to or disclosure of BWC data may constitute misconduct and subject individuals to disciplinary action and criminal penalties pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 13.09. Study session meeting of August 13, 2018 (Item No. 4) Title: Body-worn camera (BWC) policy Page 14 St. Louis Park Police Department • 3015 Raleigh Ave. S., St. Louis Park, MN 55416 www.stlouispark.org • Phone: 952.924.2600 • Fax: 952.924.2676 • TTY: 952.924.2671 POLICE ADVISORY COMMISSION City of St. Louis Park Use of Body-Worn Cameras Policy Memo May 17th, 2018 To Chief Harcey and the St. Louis Park City Council, We appreciate the opportunity to review the draft body-worn camera policy. Below are the recommendations, questions, concerns we have as members of the Police Advisory Commission. The Police Advisory Commission is in favor of moving forward with the implementation of body-worn cameras. Recommendations: In reference to section F. 1 on page 9, regarding viewing body-worn camera video to assist in report writing, PAC suggests allowing officers to view body-worn camera video while writing a report, except for in critical indicidents. The League of Minnesota Cities body-worn camera model policy, page 12, Option 2, may be policy to consider. In reference to section on Scope on page 1, if the Chief of Police supersedes the policy, he/she should report this decision to the City Council. In reference to officer compliance on pages 10 and 12 of the policy, the policy should be clearer as to when internal and external audits of compliance will take place, and whether the results of these audits are public (except for data that are otherwise classified under law), as with the statutorily required biennial audit. Questions for your consideration: In reference to section on Scope on page 1, why are political rallies and demonstrations specifically named? If there is a reason to treat these events differently, explain that in the policy. In reference to Data Security Safeguards on page 10, why does the Chief need the ability to authorize editing, altering or erasing body-worn camera video? The circumstances when this should be allowed should be stated in the policy. Study session meeting of August 13, 2018 (Item No. 4) Title: Body-worn camera (BWC) policy Page 15 St. Louis Park Police Department • 3015 Raleigh Ave. S., St. Louis Park, MN 55416 www.stlouispark.org • Phone: 952.924.2600 • Fax: 952.924.2676 • TTY: 952.924.2671 Concerns: There is a concern among some members of the PAC, HRC, MAC and citizens of St. Louis Park that the officers are able to view body-worn camera video to help write a report. Although the PAC is not making this recommendation, it has been discussed to not allow officers to view body- worn camera video prior to writing a report. Study session meeting of August 13, 2018 (Item No. 4) Title: Body-worn camera (BWC) policy Page 16 1 Memorandum To: St. Louis Park City Council; St. Louis Park Police Department (c/o St. Louis Park Police Advisory Commission) From: St. Louis Park Human Rights Commission Date: May 15, 2018 Re: St. Louis Park Police Department Body Camera Program Draft Policy Introduction: In 2017, the St. Louis Park (“SLP”) City Council asked for input from the SLP Human Rights Commission (“HRC”) regarding whether to move ahead with a Police Body-Worn Camera Program. After reviewing draft materials concerning the proposed program, performing research, and many discussions, the HRC identified a number of questions and concerns regarding the proposed program in a memorandum to the SLP City Council and Police Department in March 2017. After the SLP City Council voted to move ahead with the Police Body-Worn Camera Program, it authorized the Police Department to create a draft Body-Worn Camera Policy. The HRC has reviewed the draft Body-Worn Camera Policy, met with Chief Harcey and members of the Police Department’s task force on the Body-Worn Camera Program at the HRC’s March 13, 2018 public meeting to discuss the draft Policy, and co-hosted a Community Conversation with the Police Advisory Commission (“PAC”) on April 10, 2018 to discuss the Program and the draft Policy with members of the public. April 10, 2018 Community Conversation: On April 10, 2018, the HRC and PAC co-hosted a Community Conversation with the public regarding the Police Body-Worn Camera Program. In addition to members of the public attending, members of both the HRC and PAC attended, as well as Chief Harcey and members of the Police Department’s task force. We discussed the City’s plan to introduce body-worn camera technology in the Police Department and discussed, at a high-level, the draft Policy. The HRC and PAC made sure to emphasize that the introduction of body-worn camera technology is a multi-phased initiative and that after the City finalizes a proposed Policy, there will be a formal, statutory opportunity for public comment. The Community Conversation provided an opportunity for the public to raise questions, share thoughts and voice concerns about the Police Body-Worn Camera Program and draft Policy. The questions/thoughts raised by members of the public included, but were not limited to, the following topics: -Concerns about the discretion provided to Officers to turn on and off the body-worn cameras; and questions about how such discretion would be governed by the Policy or and how Officers would be audited to ensure that such discretion is exercised pursuant to the Policy. -An emphasis on the need for the City to solicit input and hear from diverse communities about the implementation of the Program and Policy, and to connect purposefully with communities that may have access or resource impediments in learning about/raising questions or concerns about the Program and Policy. -Concerns about the desire for members of the public to be able to report concerns or crimes anonymously to the Police Department and whether body-worn cameras would discourage members from the public from reporting. Study session meeting of August 13, 2018 (Item No. 4) Title: Body-worn camera (BWC) policy Page 17 2 -Concerns over communities of color and low-income neighborhoods feeling disproportionality affected by the recording of body-worn cameras, which could cause further harm and erosion of public trust in law enforcement in those communities. -A preference to have the body-worn cameras turned on for any traffic stop, even for a suspected minor violation. -A desire for more information about data retention; for example, if there is an incident of police force or allegation of misconduct, how accessible that footage will be to the public. -A desire for more information about the consequences for Officer non-compliance with the Policy. -Concerns that immigrant communities (where some members are undocumented) will feel exposed due to the body-worn cameras and could discourage individuals from those communities from reporting incidents to the police or seeking aid from the police. Draft Policy: After discussions with the Police Department, the public, the PAC and internally with the HRC, the HRC has identified the following questions and concerns that the HRC believe merit further discussion and consideration as the SLP City Council and Police Department work to finalize the draft Body-Worn Camera Policy. 1)What efforts have been taken to evaluate specific population groups that would be harmed or disproportionality affected by the Body Camera Program? a.How is the City and Police Department working to include those groups in the formulation of the Program and Policy? 2)The Policy should even further limit the discretion of Officers to turn on and off the body-worn cameras. a.Minnesota state law is silent on whether officers have discretion to turn on and off body cameras as they please. b.Civil rights groups have recommended that policies should be crafted to limit officers’ discretion to choose which encounters to record. If officers are free to turn body cameras on and off, the camera’s role in providing transparency and accountability will shrink. c.The current Policy’s “General Guidelines for Recording” contains vague instructions to officers about the use of their discretion to turn on and off the body-worn cameras. For example, the Policy states: “Officers should activate the BWC any time the user believes it would be appropriate or valuable to record an incident.” (emphasis added). i.What guides the officer’s discretion in deeming it appropriate or valuable to record an incident? d.Much of the discretion provided for in the draft Policy links the turning on and off of the body-worn cameras to the officer’s belief that the information recorded would likely have “evidentiary value.” i.“Evidentiary value” is a term defined in the Policy. ii.What specifically guides an officer’s discretion in deeming an interaction likely to yield evidentiary value? iii.The definition and/or guidance for assessing evidentiary value should specify that “evidentiary value” includes information that may be useful as proof in the prosecution or defense of a criminal action. Study session meeting of August 13, 2018 (Item No. 4) Title: Body-worn camera (BWC) policy Page 18 3 iv.How much discretion will Police Officers have in using body in private homes, public/private/parochial schools, or hospitals? 3)The general expectation in the current Policy is that body-worn cameras are to be used by uniformed officers. However, the current Policy does permit plainclothes investigators/officers and administrators to use body-worn cameras “when appropriate.” a.What would be the limits on the use of body-worn cameras by investigators/officers and administrators? In what situations would plainclothes investigators/officers and administrators be permitted to use body-worn cameras? In such a situation, would the investigators/officers and administrators be required to notify individuals that they are in fact Police Department investigators/officers and administrators and notify individuals that they are being recorded? 4)The current Policy states that officers have “no affirmative duty” to notify individuals that a body-worn camera is being operated or they are being recorded. a.Minnesota state law is silent on whether officers need to provide notice of recording. Why has SLP made the policy decision not to require officers to provide notice? b.The current Policy provides that officers should wear their body-worn cameras in a “conspicuous manner” – is this in lieu of providing verbal notice? 5)Will individuals (such as crime victims or individuals seeking to anonymously report a crime) be able to request that an officer discontinue the use of a body camera? Will that request be honored? In what circumstances? a.Minnesota state law is silent on whether individuals can request that Officers turn off the cameras in certain situations, such as when entering a private home, responding to victims of domestic or sexual abuse, or receiving an anonymous complaint or tip. 6)Will officers be permitted to wear body cameras to First Amendment protected assemblies and protests? a.Minnesota state law is silent on whether officers are allowed to film First Amendment activities with body-worn cameras. b.The current Policy states that the Chief of Police or his/her designee may supersede the Policy by providing specific instructions for body-worn camera use for certain classes of events, such as political rallies and demonstrations—but does not specify the default policy will be on this issue. c.How will the Police Department ensure that data will not be collected or analyzed in a way that chills First Amendment associational and free speech rights? 7)The current Policy permits officers to review footage of incidents before completing their statement or report. a.Minnesota state law is silent on whether officers are permitted to review footage of incidents before completing their initial incident reports or statements. b.The current Policy highlights that one of the primary purposes of the body-worn cameras is to “assist with accurate report writing.” c.The ability of an officer to review footage of incidents before completing their statement or report is a privilege that other witnesses, including a criminal defendant, would not have. This is a practice could undermine the legitimacy of investigations, especially those alleging police misconduct, by making Officer statements appear more truthful than those of other witnesses. 8)How restricted will access to body-worn camera footage be to the public? a.The current Policy highlights that one of the primary purposes of the body-worn cameras is to “allow for transparency and accountability in policing.” However, Minnesota state law classifies the majority of all body camera footage as “private data” Study session meeting of August 13, 2018 (Item No. 4) Title: Body-worn camera (BWC) policy Page 19 4 that will not be accessible to the public, and places burdens on access for those who are the subject of recordings, including criminal defendants. b.The current Policy articulates this default state law classification of body-worn camera data as “presumptively private.” c.The current Policy states that an individual can review recorded data about himself/herself unless such data is part of an “active investigation” or otherwise prohibited by law. There needs to be a carve out for criminal defendants and exculpatory evidence permitting a criminal defendant access to such data even during an active investigation. 9)When information about how to request body-worn camera data and retention policies are posted online to the Police Department’s website, in which languages will the policies be made available? 10) What protections or program design will prevent internal deletion or tampering with footage? 11) The current Policy states that body-worn camera data may be shared with other law enforcement agencies “only for legitimate law enforcement purposes that are documented in writing at the time of the disclosure.” a.In what situations would the data be shared with other law enforcement agencies? b.Will data be used or matched with other databases for criminal intelligence or federal immigration enforcement? 12) How will the Police Department ensure that its personnel are complying with body camera policies, including the turning on and off of body-worn cameras and the proper labeling of data for triggering retention periods? What will the consequences be for failure to comply? a.The current Policy anticipates that supervisors will review the use and non-use of the body-worn cameras by officers. b.How often will this audit/review take place? The current policy only states that supervisors will “periodically review each officers BWC recordings.” c.What types of corrective action will be available for failure to comply? 13) Length of retention policies: a.There is a Records Retention Schedule referred to in the current Policy. This Schedule should be appended to the written Policy. b.The current Policy states that upon written request from a subject of body-worn camera footage, the Police Department will retain a recording for additional time, up to 180 days, and then notify the requester that the data will be destroyed unless a new written request is received. i.If there is a written request from the subject or their legal representative, the data should be retained for at least one year to ensure that it is available in the same time period during which an individual can file a complaint against a Police Officer through the Minnesota Department of Human Rights. 14) The current policy states that pursuant to statute, there will be an “independent biennial audit” of the Body-Worn Camera Program. a.Who will be performing such an audit? The City or a third party? Conclusion: The HRC wants to emphasize that the success of the Body-Worn Camera Program crucially depends on the types of policies in place. Unless body cameras are deployed within a framework of strong policies to ensure they protect the public without becoming a system for routine surveillance of the public, the accountability benefits of the body cameras will not exceed their privacy risks. Study session meeting of August 13, 2018 (Item No. 4) Title: Body-worn camera (BWC) policy Page 20 Dear Michael, The MAC (Multicultural Advisory Committee) supports the Body-Worn Cameras policy, as the questions and concerns members have had during discussion over the past year have been addressed, and request that an educational brochure be created for the public to understand their rights. Sincerely, Afton Martens (On behalf of the MAC) The mission of the St. Louis Park Multicultural Advisory Committee is to enhance communication and understanding between law enforcement and the community and to create an inclusive environment for all. Study session meeting of August 13, 2018 (Item No. 4) Title: Body-worn camera (BWC) policy Page 21 Meeting: Study session Meeting date: August 13, 2018 Written report: 5 Executive summary Title: 2040 Comprehensive Plan - draft survey results and draft plan by neighborhood Recommended action: No action necessary at this time. Please provide any comments to staff. Policy consideration: None at this time. The survey comments on the proposed land use changes are being discussed by the planning commission and any recommendations will be forwarded to the city council. The Plan by Neighborhood is largely informational and not policy oriented. Summary: The 2040 Comprehensive Plan survey was available on-line from May 14 - June 20, 2018 and was advertised widely through a large variety of methods. Staff also gathered responses to the survey electronically at community events at various locations throughout the city. Over 2,150 people responded and filled out the survey. The survey asked questions surrounding the major proposed changes to the city’s plan and asked for comments on the proposed land use changes. The survey results do not indicate any major course corrections are needed, however there may be slight modifications recommended by the Planning Commission upon review. The draft 2040 Comprehensive Plan Survey Report can be found here: survey report The Plan by Neighborhood report provides information on each neighborhood individually. It also provides a summary of future directions and priorities by the larger seven planning areas as collected during the four community meetings held in November of 2017. Key take-aways from the report indicate the importance of the following (most noted) items by residents: safety at intersections; importance of parks, trees and open space; traffic calming; walking access to local businesses and desire for small locally-owned restaurants and cafes; more pedestrian lighting; desire for a variety of housing affordability; concern with the character and scale of new housing; and desire for additional sidewalk and trails connections. The Draft Plan by Neighborhood Report can be found here: plan by neighborhood report Financial or budget considerations: The funding for the plan has been allocated in the 2017 and 2018 community development budgets. Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to creating opportunities to build social capital through community engagement. Supporting documents: Draft 2040 Comprehensive Plan survey report (link above) Draft plan by neighborhood report (link above) Prepared by: Meg McMonigal, Principal Planner Reviewed by: Karen Barton, Community Development Director Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager