HomeMy WebLinkAbout2018/08/27 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - Study SessionAGENDA
AUGUST 27, 2018
6:25 p.m. SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING – Community room
1.Call to order
1a. Roll call
2.Resolutions, ordinances, motions and discussion items
2a. Second reading interim ordinance establishing moratorium on use and development of
3745 Louisiana Av. S.
Recommended action: Motion to approve second reading and adopt interim Ordinance
temporarily restricting use and development at 3745 Louisiana Avenue South, and
approve the summary ordinance for publication.
6:30 p.m. STUDY SESSION – Community room
Discussion items
1. 6:30 p.m. Future study session agenda planning
2. 6:35 p.m. Intercultural Development Inventory (IDI) Group Feedback
3. 7:35 p.m. Historic Walker Lake Design Study
4. 8:35 p.m. Body-worn camera program
9:20 p.m. Communications/updates (verbal)
9:25 p.m. Adjourn
Written reports
5. 2019 budget and service charges for special service district (SSD) nos. 1 - 6
6. July 2018 monthly financial report
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: Special city council
Meeting date: August 27, 2018
Action agenda item: 2a
Executive summary
Title: Second reading interim ordinance establishing moratorium on use and development of
3745 Louisiana Av. S.
Recommended action: Motion to approve second reading and adopt interim Ordinance
temporarily restricting use and development at 3745 Louisiana Avenue South, and approve the
summary ordinance for publication.
Policy consideration: Should the city temporarily restrict the use and development of the
building and lands located on the Subject Property in order to study the site conditions,
appropriate future land use, and the city’s official controls?
Summary: The property at 3745 Louisiana Avenue South (“Subject Property”) is a 13-acre site and
contains an approximate 150,000-square-foot building located adjacent to a future light rail transit
station. The building has been vacant since Sam’s Club closed on January 26, 2018. It is currently
guided for commercial use and zoned C2 General Commercial. The draft St. Louis Park 2040
comprehensive plan proposes a change to the land use of the property. A study is needed of the
site conditions, land use and the city’s official controls for the Subject Property.
There are substantial concerns that the city’s official comprehensive plan future land use map and
zoning ordinance provisions relating to the Subject Property do not adequately address issues
relating to the present use, future land use, development or redevelopment of this vacant
property. The city’s concerns include, and are not limited to, compatibility with existing uses,
recent public improvements, planned future land uses, and the planned light rail transit station in
the area surrounding the Subject Property.
The proposed temporary restrictions on the use and development of the Subject Property are
needed to prevent use and development that might be inconsistent with potential changes to
the city’s official controls resulting from the proposed study.
Financial or budget considerations: The study will be conducted by city planning division staff
and with the assistance of planning consultants. The study costs will be paid with existing
budgeted resources, and is not expected to require separate city council authorization.
Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to providing a broad range of
housing and neighborhood oriented development.
Supporting documents: Interim ordinance
Ordinance summary for publication
Prepared by: Sean Walther, Planning and Zoning Supervisor
Reviewed by: Karen Barton, Community Development Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Special city council meeting of August 27, 2018 (Item No. 2a) Page 2
Title: Second reading interim ordinance establishing moratorium on use and development of 3745 Louisiana Av. S.
Ordinance No. ____-18
An interim ordinance establishing a moratorium on
the use and development of the building and lands located at
3745 Louisiana Avenue South
The City of St. Louis Park does ordain:
Section 1. Background.
1.01. Authority. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 462.355, Subd. 4., the City of St.
Louis Park is authorized to establish interim ordinances to regulate, restrict or prohibit any use or
development in all or a part of the city while the city or its planning consultant is conducting
studies, or has authorized a study to be conducted, or has scheduled a hearing to consider
adoption or amendment of the comprehensive plan or official zoning controls. The city declares
that this Interim Ordinance is established pursuant to the aforementioned statute.
1.02. Comprehensive Plan Update. The city has drafted an update to its
comprehensive plan that has been circulated to surrounding jurisdictions, and is available to
the public, for review and comments. The city will schedule a public hearing to occur after a six-
month review period. The draft comprehensive plan update includes a proposal to change the
future land use designation for the 13-acre property and vacant 150,637-square-foot building
located at 3745 Louisiana Avenue South, St. Louis Park, Hennepin County, Minnesota (“Subject
Property”) from Commercial to Business Park.
Section 2. Findings and Purpose.
2.01. There are substantial concerns that the city’s official comprehensive plan future
land use map and zoning ordinance provisions relating to the Subject Property do not adequately
address issues relating to the present use, future land use, development or redevelopment of this
vacant property.
2.02. The city’s concerns include, and are not limited to, compatibility with existing uses,
recent public improvements, planned future land uses, and the planned light rail transit station in
the area surrounding the Subject Property.
2.03. As a result of the important land use and zoning issues cited above the city council
finds that it is necessary to conduct a study to address the types of developments and land uses
that are appropriate on the Subject Property. The study may also identify appropriate changes,
if any, that should be made to the city’s official land use controls, including but not limited to
the city’s zoning ordinance and comprehensive plan.
2.04 The city council directs the planning and zoning division staff to conduct a study for
the purpose of consideration of possible amendments to the city’s official controls to address the
issues concerning the subject property.
Special city council meeting of August 27, 2018 (Item No. 2a) Page 3
Title: Second reading interim ordinance establishing moratorium on use and development of 3745 Louisiana Av. S.
2.05 The city finds that this interim ordinance must be adopted to protect the planning
process and the health, safety and welfare of the citizens.
Section 3. Prohibition
3.01. In accordance with the findings set forth in Section 2 and pursuant to the authority
of Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.355, subd. 4, there is hereby established a moratorium on the
Subject Property.
3.02. To prevent a change of use or development of the Subject Property that might
be inconsistent with any potential changes in the city’s updated comprehensive plan and
official controls resulting from the study referenced in Section 2.03 above, the city council finds
that the moratorium established by this ordinance should apply to all land use and zoning
applications for the Subject Property.
3.03 During the effective period of this interim ordinance, applications for a registration
of land use, subdivision, preliminary plat, planned unit development, zoning map amendment,
conditional use permit, variance, or comprehensive plan amendment for the Subject Property shall
not be accepted, considered or approved by the City. This Ordinance prohibits the further
consideration and approval of any pending application for the Subject Property.
SECTION 4. Exceptions to prohibition.
4.01. The city exempts from the prohibitions listed in Section 3 above any permits for basic
maintenance and repair of the existing building and grounds.
4.02. The city exempts from the prohibitions listed in Section 3 above the development of
the Subject Property for office, medical office, dental office, business/trade school/college,
medical and dental laboratories; provided the development of the site for these uses meet all city
code requirements and results in building(s) not less than four stories tall and floor area ratio(s)
not less than 1.0.
SECTION 5. Enforcement. The City may enforce this Ordinance by injunction or any other
appropriate civil remedy in any court of competent jurisdiction.
SECTION 6. Separability. Every section, provision or part of this Ordinance is declared
separable from every section, provision or part of this Ordinance. If any section, provision or part
of this Ordinance is adjudged to be invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, such judgment
shall not invalidate any other section, provision or part of this Ordinance.
SECTION 7. Duration. This Ordinance shall take effect fifteen days after its publication and
shall remain in effect for up to twelve (12) months.
First Reading August 20, 2018
Second Reading August 27, 2018
Date of Publication August 30, 2018
Date Ordinance takes effect September 14, 2018
Special city council meeting of August 27, 2018 (Item No. 2a) Page 4
Title: Second reading interim ordinance establishing moratorium on use and development of 3745 Louisiana Av. S.
Reviewed for administration: Adopted by the City Council August 27, 2018
Thomas K. Harmening, City Manager Jake Spano, Mayor
Attest: Approved as to form and execution:
Melissa Kennedy, City Clerk Soren Mattick, City Attorney
Special city council meeting of August 27, 2018 (Item No. 2a) Page 5
Title: Second reading interim ordinance establishing moratorium on use and development of 3745 Louisiana Av. S.
Summary for publication
Ordinance No. ____-18
An interim ordinance establishing a moratorium on
the use and development of the building and lands located at
3745 Louisiana Avenue South
This ordinance states that a moratorium is established for up to twelve months on the property
at 3745 Louisiana Avenue South (“Subject Property”). The moratorium establishes temporary
restrictions on the use and development of the Subject Property that require approval of most
zoning or land use applications. A few exceptions are allowed. Applications for development of
office, medical office, dental office, medical and dental laboratories and business/trade
schools/colleges would be allowed; provided the development results in buildings(s) at least
four stories tall and a floor area ratio of at least 1.0.
This ordinance shall take effect 15 days after publication.
Adopted by the City Council August 27, 2018
Jake Spano /s/
Mayor
A copy of the full text of this ordinance is available for inspection with the City Clerk.
Published in St. Louis Park Sailor: August 30, 2018
Meeting: Study session
Meeting date: August 27, 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 special study
sessions on September 4 and September 17, and for the regularly scheduled study session on
September 24, 2018.
Policy consideration: Not applicable.
Summary: This report summarizes the proposed agenda for the special study sessions on
September 4 and September 17, and for the regularly scheduled study session on September
24, 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 – September 4, 17 and 24, 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 27, 2018 (Item No. 1) Page 2
Title: Future study session agenda planning
September 4, 2018.
5:45 p.m. – Special study session – Community room
Tentative discussion items
1.RCV – Administrative services (60 minutes)
This is the fourth discussion related to the ordinance providing the rules for the
administration of municipal elections. The main topics to be covered are voting systems,
testing, results, recounts, and post-election review.
2.Budget discussion – Administrative services (30 minutes)
Staff will provide an update on the 2019 budget and preliminary tax levy.
Written reports
3.Progress update on Cedar Lake Road construction project
September 10, 2018. – No meeting (Rosh Hashanah)
September 17, 2018.
5:30 p.m. – Closed executive session – Community room
1.Reilly consent decree update – Operations and Recreation (60 minutes)
6:30 p.m. – Special study session – Community room
Tentative discussion items
2.Westwood Hills Nature Center update – Operations and recreation (30 minutes)
Staff and HGA architect will present final design of the Nature Center.
September 24, 2018.
6:30 p.m. – Study session – Community room
Tentative discussion items
1.Future study session agenda planning – Administrative services (5 minutes)
2.Fats, oils and greases (FOG)/backflow discussion – Inspections (45 minutes)
Staff will discuss development of a licensing/inspection program to help prevent our utility
infrastructure from contamination and preserving public heath by: 1) preventing fats, oils,
and grease (FOG) generated by food service businesses from entering sewer lines; 2) testing
of water backflow prevention devices to verify operation for prevention of hazardous
contaminates from entering the potable water system.
3.Surface water management plan update – Engineering (20 minutes)
Staff will provide an overview of the updated surface water management plan prior to
releasing to other agencies for comments.
4.2019 utility rate analysis update – Administrative services (60 minutes)
Staff has been working with Ehlers and Associates on a rate analysis for our utility funds. At
this meeting we plan to go over the results of the study and any recommendations.
Communications/meeting check-in – Administrative services (5 minutes)
Time for communications between staff and council will be set aside on every study
session agenda for the purposes of information sharing.
Written reports
5.Progress update on Cedar Lake Road construction project
Study session meeting of August 27, 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. Staff following up. TBD
4 Establish a local housing trust fund Discussed 5/14/18 and 8/13. Staff following
up. In process
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 TBD
3 Living streets policy 3rd Qtr.
2018
3 Minimum wage ordinance Discussed on 6/11/18; continued until fall
after Citizens League study completed Oct/Nov
3 Design guidelines - New home construction Discussed 7/9/18. Referred to PC for
review & recommendation. TBD
3 Discuss and evaluate our public process TBD
3 Retail/service/liquor stores size Discussed on 6/11/18; referred to PC. TBD
3 Crime free ordinance/affordable housing
strategies Discussed 5/14/18. Staff following up. TBD
3 Easy access to nature, across city, starting
with low-income neighborhoods TBD
2 SEED’s community greenhouse/resilient
cities initiative TBD
2 Bird friendly glass TBD
2 Dark skies ordinance (light pollution) TBD
2 Community center project TBD
2 Revitalization of TH100 former Rock garden TBD
? Firearm sales Discussed 5/21/18 & 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 27, 2018
Discussion item: 2
Executive summary
Title: Intercultural Development Inventory (IDI) Group Feedback
Recommended action: Provide time for council to understand their group IDI report.
Policy consideration: Does the council need additional information and/or resources to fully
understand their IDI group feedback?
Summary: The city council took the IDI assessment as a part of the city’s overall racial equity
and inclusion work plan.
The IDI is an online, theory-based assessment of intercultural competence that can provide
profile results at an individual or organizational level. The results indicate a position along an
intercultural development continuum indicating a target for the next stage of growth. It
includes questions that allow respondents to describe their experiences in terms of cross-
cultural goals, challenges, and critical incidents they face and the ways they navigate those
cultural differences.
Financial or budget considerations: Not applicable.
Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to being a leader in racial equity
and inclusion in order to create a more just and inclusive community for all.
Supporting documents: None
Prepared by: Alicia Sojourner, Racial Equity Manager
Reviewed by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting: Study session
Meeting date: August 27, 2018
Discussion item: 3
Executive summary
Title: Historic Walker Lake Design Study
Recommended action: None - this agenda item will involve an update, review and discussion of
Historic Walker-Lake initiatives and a recommended infrastructure concept design.
Policy consideration:
• Does the city council support the recommended infrastructure design for the Walker-
Lake area?
• Do the initiatives identified meet with council’s expectations?
• Does the council support staff’s continued work in this business area?
Summary: The following discussion provides a summary of the initiatives and activities that are
currently underway in Historic Walker-Lake and identifies next steps. The summary includes
information on the Walker-Lake street reconstruction, Historic Walker-Lake Design Study, a
new financing program, Walker-Lake grant activities, area events and business updates.
Financial or budget considerations: Funding for the street design will be provided by a
combination of special assessments, franchise fees, utility funds, and general obligation bonds.
This project is proposed to be constructed in 4 phases. Phase 1 and 2 are included in the city’s
capital improvement program (CIP) for 2019 and 2020. Phase 3 is being designed under a
different contract and phase 4 is not in the CIP at this time. Additional information on the
breakdown of the funding can be found in the discussion section of this report.
Funding for the new small business financing program is planned for in the 2019 budget
through the Development Fund.
Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to providing a variety of options for
people to make their way around the city comfortably, safely and reliably.
Supporting documents: Discussion
Phasing exhibit
Preferred concept overview
Preferred concept detail
Walker-lake district design elements
Prepared by: Debra Heiser, Engineering Director
Julie Grove, Economic Development Specialist
Jennifer Monson, Planner
Reviewed by: Karen Barton, Community Development Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study session meeting of August 27, 2018 (Item No. 3) Page 2
Title: Historic Walker Lake Design Study
Discussion
Walker Lake street design
Background: In the 10-year capital improvement plan (CIP), the city has dedicated funding to
rehabilitate streets, reconstruct alleys and install bikeways in the Historic Walker Lake district.
In October 2017, the city entered into an agreement with SRF Consulting to develop a design
study to guide the future of this district. The goal of the design study was to develop a design
concept for the public infrastructure in this district. Determining the preferred layout of the
roadways, alleys, sidewalks, bikeways and parking is the first step in the process.
Historic Walker Lake recommended infrastructure design
The improvements identified as a part of this design study are broken down into four phases as
follows:
Phase 1:
The streets in the middle of the Walker Lake Historic District were constructed in 1980 and are
in need of reconstruction, and the alleys are gravel. This work is programmed for 2019. The
following are the segments proposed to be reconstructed as a part of phase 1 of this project.
• Walker Street (Holiday Station to Brownlow)
• Walker Street (Lake Street to Dakota Avenue)
• Library Lane (Lake Street to Walker Street)
• Dakota Avenue (Walker Street to Frontage Road)
• Frontage Road (Dakota Avenue to alley)
• Alley between Walker Street and the Frontage Road
• Alley between Library Lane and railroad tracks.
The scope of the work includes the following:
• Replace pavement
• Remove and replace curb and gutter
• Remove and replace sidewalk
• Incorporate ADA improvements
• Reconstruct gravel alleys into concrete
• Intersection improvements
• On street parking for businesses
• Boulevard restoration
• Planting of street trees
• Standard streetlights
In addition to the above infrastructure maintenance the following new infrastructure is
proposed to be constructed:
• Electric vehicle charging stations
• Sidewalk gap construction
• Relocation of the intersection of Walker and Lake Streets north to Brownlow Avenue.
This will require the reconfiguration of the Walker Lake municipal parking lot.
Study session meeting of August 27, 2018 (Item No. 3) Page 3
Title: Historic Walker Lake Design Study
Phase 2:
Phase 2 work is proposed for 2020 and includes:
• Connect the Park:
The Connect the Park plan includes a proposed bikeway along Lake Street. In addition to
this bikeway, the design study includes the construction of a new sidewalk along Lake
Street. This sidewalk would fill in the sidewalk gap along the south side of Lake Street
between Brownlow Avenue and Dakota Avenue.
• Lake Street municipal parking lot reconstruction:
There are a number of business on the north side of Lake Street between Library Lane
and Dakota Avenue. The parking lots that surround this row of commercial properties
are located on city right-of-way. The condition of the lot is deteriorated and requires
reconstruction. The total cost of constructing these lots was assessed to the property
owners when they were built in the late 1960s.
Phase 3:
There is a proposed bikeway along Wooddale Avenue from Highway 7 to Cedar Lake Road. This
bikeway is slated for construction in 2019 as a part of the Connect the Park contract. Staff is
working on design of this bikeway and will begin the public process this fall. This phase was
included in the study to raise public awareness of this project. There will be a separate approval
process for this phase. Costs and funding are not discussed in this report.
Phase 4:
The intersection of Dakota Street/ Wooddale Avenue/ Lake Street is a busy one that
experiences backups at peak times of the day. When the street backs up, drivers cut through
the Sorenson neighborhood to avoid the congestion. To address this, the intersection was
evaluated to determine if a roundabout could be constructed to improve the operations at the
intersection by reducing backups. However, this work is not programmed in the CIP at this time.
Public Process
We have had two public meetings for this design study. The first was held on February 21.
Feedback from that meeting was used to refine the concept plans. The second meeting was
held on May 10. Both meetings were well attended and feedback regarding the improvements
was generally positive.
In addition to meeting with the community, staff has also met with the school district to discuss
the plan and how it relates to the stadium, circulation, and Park Immersion School. Their
comments have been incorporated into the recommended design.
Study session meeting of August 27, 2018 (Item No. 3) Page 4
Title: Historic Walker Lake Design Study
Financial or budget consideration: The following tables outline the estimated project costs for
each phase. This project is proposed to be constructed in 4 phases.
Phase 1 Construction estimate Engineering Total
Roadway improvements $1,595,000.00 $319,000.00 $1,914,000.00
Alley reconstruction $67,326 $13,465.20 $80,791.20
Bicycle and pedestrian facilities $347,455.00 $69,491.00 $416,946.00
Parking lot $60,400.00 $12,080.00 $72,480.00
Total $2,070,181.00 $414,036.20 $2,484,217.20
Phase 2 Construction estimate Engineering Total
Bicycle and pedestrian facilities $518,074 $103,614.80 $621,688.80
Parking lot $371,926 $74,385.20 $446,311.20
Total $890,000.00 $178,000.00 $1,068,000.00
Phase 3 is being completed under a different contract. As a result costs are not included in this
report.
Phase 4 Construction estimate Engineering Total
Roadway improvements $662,983 $132,596.60 $795,579.60
Funding can be provided by a combination of special assessments for parking lots, franchise
fees, utility funds, and general obligation bonds. Phase 1 and 2 are included in the city’s capital
improvement program (CIP) for 2019 and 2020, with an estimated budget of $2,785,069.80.
With the expansion of the scope of the project, the estimate for the first two phases of this
project is $3,552,217.20. Phase 4 is not included in the CIP. As a result, additional funding will
need to be identified to complete the phases as proposed.
Streetscape/Special Service District
The project costs for each phase assumes a base level of streetscape maintained by the city
with no direct cost to property owners. A base level of streetscape includes: street trees, grass
boulevards, and standard streetlights. Higher levels of streetscape such as what was installed
on Excelsior Boulevard, 36th St or at West End requires a higher level of annual maintenance to
keep it looking good for the long term (special services). If the adjoining property owners desire
a higher level of amenities/enhanced street scape elements or services than what is normally
provided by the city, the city has a long standing policy of requiring the commercial property
owners to agree to the creation of a special service district whereby the cost to provide the
higher level of service/enhanced streetscape maintenance is paid by the commercial property
owners. In all, the city manages six special service districts, all have different levels of
amenities. The elements and services in each district are determined with the feedback from
the property owners. In return for property owners agreeing to pay for the maintenance of the
enhanced streetscape elements, the construction and installation of the streetscape elements
in our special services districts were paid for by the city. The same would hold true for the
Study session meeting of August 27, 2018 (Item No. 3) Page 5
Title: Historic Walker Lake Design Study
Walker-Lake area. At least 65% of the property owners in a proposed district must support the
creation of the district for it to be established.
Attached to this report is a graphic that represents different streetscape elements that could be
incorporated into the district. There are three levels, low, medium and high. What follows is an
estimated cost for each streetscape level along with estimated annual maintenance cost. This is
an overall project cost.
Level Estimated construction cost Estimated annual maintenance cost
Low $527,000 $26,000
Medium $723,000 $36,000
High $907,000 $45,000
This additional streetscape construction cost would be over and above the construction cost
discussed in the financial section above. Potential funding sources would be general obligation
bonds or the development fund.
Municipal parking lots
The parking lot at the intersection of Walker Street and Lake Street and the parking lot in and
around the businesses fronting on Lake Street between Dakota Street and Library Lane are
owned and operated by the city. They are two of ten municipal lots located throughout the city
and are not adjacent to city buildings. The primary use for these lot is for private property parking.
Seasonal maintenance is performed by public works.
The city’s assessment policy is to assess the total cost of reconstructing municipal parking lots to
the property owners that use them to meet their parking requirements. This policy was updated
on August 8, 2016.
Next steps: If the council supports the recommended infrastructure improvements the next
step in the process is for staff to meet with property owners in the district to discuss their
interest in developing a special service district.
Other Walker Lake initiatives
Small area plan/design guidelines:
The city is working on a Small Area Revitalization Plan for Historic Walker Lake to help preserve
the character and scale of the district and advance other district goals. The goals of the project
include: create design guidelines that will guide land use and reinvestment consistent with the
character of the area; conduct a parking study to determine appropriate parking strategies
(shared parking opportunities amongst compatible uses, taking into consideration existing
constraints and opportunities to encourage multi-modal transportation); and develop an
implementation plan that assists neighborhoods and businesses in making decisions about
future improvements and associated funding mechanisms.
A request for proposals for the small area plan was released in mid-June. Five highly qualified
design teams of planners, architects, economic development specialists and engineers
submitted proposals for the project. City staff will interview three of the teams at the end of
August. Consultant selection is anticipated in early September, with the planning process
beginning shortly thereafter. The process will take approximately six to eight months, and will
Study session meeting of August 27, 2018 (Item No. 3) Page 6
Title: Historic Walker Lake Design Study
include extensive community and stakeholder outreach. Input sessions with city council and the
planning commission are also expected.
Moving the Market grant:
In November 2016, the city was awarded a “Moving the Market” grant from Hennepin County
to help reactivate the Walker/Lake business area. Since then, a new brand, “Historic Walker
Lake” was selected and an Activation Plan was developed recommending placemaking events,
activities and enhancements for the area. The last grant component is to install wayfinding in
the Historic Walker Lake area. This will include the installation of banners on street lights along
Lake Street (the athletic field side) and street sign toppers on the tops of all corner street signs.
These are currently being designed and will be installed this fall.
New small business finance program:
Staff is developing a new finance program designed to provide financial assistance to small
business in the Historic Walker Lake district through low-interest loans. The program aims to
expand financing opportunities for local entrepreneurs while creating jobs and enhancing the
vitality and character of the Walker Lake district. More information on this program will be
brought to the EDA this fall.
Hennepin County Business District Improvement Grant
Staff will be submitting an application to Hennepin County for a BDI grant early next year. The
BDI grant will provide funding to businesses and/or property owners to make façade
improvements. The timing of the grant is planned to coincide with approval of the design
guidelines for the Historic Walker Lake area.
Additional Activities
Staff continues to research, evaluate and pursue, as appropriate, additional programs,
processes, and opportunities to further enhance and revitalize the area and will update council
as plans develop.
Area events:
Excitement continues to build around Historic Walker Lake. Community members and
businesses have held or are planning on holding the following activities and events.
• Pop-up event
June 29-30 Friends of the Arts partnered with United Artist Collaborative to host the
Minne-Juku, a Pop-Up Art Event in Historic Walker-Lake. This event was held in the
former House of Sport storefront. The event included a pop-up art gallery inside the
empty storefront and a flash-mob fashion show out front with art, food and beverages.
• Art network event
Monkey Bridge Arts, located on the corner of West Lake Street and Library Lane, hosted
the first networking event for creative professionals who live, work or study in St. Louis
Park. This event allowed artists, musicians, dancers, writers, architects, and designers to
network and share their creative work and ideas with others. Monkey Bridge Arts hopes
this is the first of many such events in the area.
Study session meeting of August 27, 2018 (Item No. 3) Page 7
Title: Historic Walker Lake Design Study
• Holiday Train
The Canadian Pacific Holiday Train has been requested for 2018. The city has not
received official notices yet that it has been selected, but staff has been informed
there’s an excellent chance of a St. Louis Park stop again this year due to last year’s very
successful event. Last year, the St. Louis Park Emergency Program (STEP) raised $32,245
from the Holiday Train event, including a $7,000 donation from Canadian Pacific.
Additionally, participants donated 5,451 pounds of food.
• Murals:
A Walker Lake Mural Committee was recently formed to raise funds to install a mural
representing the Historic Walker Lake district on the south side of the former
Bikemasters building located at 3540 Dakota Avenue. The committee submitted an art
grant application to the Metropolitan Regional Arts Council to help fund a portion of this
mural. Additional fundraising will occur this year. The intent is to obtain all funding in
2018 and conduct a community process for the design and installation of the mural by
next summer.
Business updates:
• SLP Nest:
The Nest has leased their new space at 3416 Library Lane and renovations have begun.
As of July 2018 the Nest had raised $43,366.59, not including the $25,000 in matching
funds from the city. The students are currently working to paint a mural on the building
exterior. Adam Thurman assisted the students on the planning and design of the mural.
The Nest expects to open in September. To celebrate their opening, organizers hosted a
“Feather the Nest” street party on August 15th. An estimated 400 people attended the
event and approximately $5,000 was raised to support SLP Nest.
• Sota Clothing:
Sota Clothing continues to work on renovations in the Walker Building. They moved
their warehouse facilities into the building early this summer and opened their retail
store last week. A grand opening, including outdoor activities will be held in September.
Next steps:
• Design guidelines: Consultant selection early September with the planning process
beginning shortly thereafter
• Area Murals
− Spring 2018 begin community gathering ideas and themes for the mural
− Fall 2019 install mural
• Wayfinding: Installation Fall 2018
• Sota Clothing: Opening by the end of August 2018
• The Nest: Opening in September 2018
• Hennepin County Business District Improvement grant application – early 2019
Walker - Lake Streetscape Consulting Group, Inc.
July 20, 2018PROJECT PHASING
0 80 160 ft North
SECONDARY GATEWAY FEATURE
SECONDARY GATEWAY FEATURE
PRIMARY GATEWAY FEATURE
PRIMARY GATEWAY FEATURE
Lib
r
a
r
y
L
a
n
e
Dakota AvenueBrunswick AvenueAlabama AvenueHamilton Street
34th Street
West 35th Street
W
o
o
d
d
a
l
e
A
v
e
n
u
e
Walker Street
Lib
r
a
r
y
L
a
n
e
Highway 7
Walker Street
Br
o
w
n
l
o
w
A
v
e
n
u
e
Go
r
h
a
m
A
v
e
n
u
e Lake Street1st StreetORIOLE STADIUM
ST. LOUIS PARK HIGH
SCHOOL
PARKVIEW PARK
PARK SPANISH IMMERSION SCHOOL
GREEN ALLEY
NEW BIKE LANE, TYP.
NEW BIKE LANE, TYP.
PARALLEL PARKING, TYP.
PROPOSED ROUNDABOUTGREEN INFRASTRUCTURE
PARKING LOT ENHANCEMENTS
HEAD-IN PARKING
PARALLEL PARKING
PEDESTRIAN
CROSSWALK, TYP.
GREEN ALLEY
CONCRETE WALK, TYP.
LIGHT, TYP.
HEAD-IN PARKING
FUTURE POTENTIAL ROUNDABOUT
REALIGNED INTERSECTION
EXISTING BIKE LANE
SEPARATE DRIVEWAY
ACCESS TO BUSINESSES
PHASE 1 2019
PHASE 2 2020
PHASE 3
SEPARATE PROJECT
PHASE 4
FUTURE PROJECT
POTENTIAL PEDESTRIAN
CONNECTIONS
Dakota AvenueHEAD-IN PARKING
Study session meeting of August 27, 2018 (Item No. 3)
Title: Historic Walker Lake Design Study Page 8
Walker - Lake Streetscape Consulting Group, Inc.
July 20, 2018PREFERRED CONCEPT
SECONDARY GATEWAY FEATURE
SECONDARY GATEWAY FEATURE
PRIMARY GATEWAY FEATURE
PRIMARY GATEWAY FEATURE
Lib
r
a
r
y
L
a
n
e
Dakota AvenueBrunswick AvenueAlabama AvenueHamilton Street
34th Street
West 35th Street
W
o
o
d
d
a
l
e
A
v
e
n
u
e
Walker Street
Lib
r
a
r
y
L
a
n
e
Highway 7
Walker Street
Br
o
w
n
l
o
w
A
v
e
n
u
e
Go
r
h
a
m
A
v
e
n
u
e Lake Street1st StreetORIOLE STADIUM
ST. LOUIS PARK HIGH
SCHOOL
PARKVIEW PARK
PARK SPANISH IMMERSION SCHOOL
GREEN ALLEY
NEW BIKE LANE, TYP.
NEW BIKE LANE, TYP.
PARALLEL PARKING, TYP.
PROPOSED ROUNDABOUTGREEN INFRASTRUCTURE
PARKING LOT ENHANCEMENTS
HEAD-IN PARKING
PARALLEL PARKING
PEDESTRIAN
CROSSWALK, TYP.
GREEN ALLEY
0 80 160 ft North
CONCRETE WALK, TYP.
LIGHT, TYP.
HEAD-IN PARKING
FUTURE POTENTIAL ROUNDABOUT
REALIGNED INTERSECTION
EXISTING BIKE LANE
SEPARATE DRIVEWAY
ACCESS TO BUSINESSES
POTENTIAL PEDESTRIAN
CONNECTIONS
Dakota AvenueHEAD-IN PARKING
Study session meeting of August 27, 2018 (Item No. 3)
Title: Historic Walker Lake Design Study Page 9
Walker - Lake Streetscape Consulting Group, Inc.
July 20, 2018PREFERRED CONCEPT 23’18’18’26.5’18’
Walker Street
Dakota AvenueWalker Street
Br
o
w
n
l
o
w
A
v
e
n
u
e
ORIOLE STADIUM
GREEN ALLEY
GREEN ALLEYREALIGNED INTERSECTION
PROPOSED BIKE LANE
EXISTING BIKE LANE
POTENTIAL PEDESTRIAN CONNECTIONSLake StreetPARKING TABULATION
Existing Conditions 163 spaces
Preferred Concept: 150 spaces
Net Change: -13 spaces
SEPARATE DRIVEWAY
ACCESS TO BUSINESSES
LIGHT, TYP.
CONCRETE WALK, TYP.
HEAD-IN PARKING SURMOUNTABLE CURB
ON BUMP OUT, TYP.
PARALLEL PARKING
PROPOSED HEAD-IN PARKING
30 feet North
SEE DETAIL PLAN
SEE DETAIL PLAN
RECLAIMED
GREEN SPACE
CONCRETE PARKING STALLS
PEDESTRIAN CROSSWALK, TYP.
PARALLEL PARKING
SEATWALL AND
LANDSCAPE PLANTER
HEAD-IN PARKING
PROPOSED BIKE LANE
SEE DETAIL PLAN
7’23’18’Lib
r
a
r
y
L
a
n
e
Study session meeting of August 27, 2018 (Item No. 3)
Title: Historic Walker Lake Design Study Page 10
Walker - Lake Streetscape Consulting Group, Inc.
July 20, 2018WALKER STREET PARKING CONFIGURATION CONCEPTS
HEAD-IN PARKING - 52 SPACES
HEAD-IN AND PARALLEL PARKING - 38 SPACES
45 DEGREE PARKING - 31 SPACES
30 feet North23’23’23’80’ R.O.W.80’ R.O.W.80’ R.O.W.18’18’19.5’18’7’19.5’3’14’3’3’3’3’7.5’7.5’6’7.5’7.5’6’Walker Street
Walker Street
Walker Street
8
77
9
10 12
119
13 12
7
9
7
4
Study session meeting of August 27, 2018 (Item No. 3)
Title: Historic Walker Lake Design Study Page 11
Walker - Lake Streetscape Consulting Group, Inc.
July 20, 2018WALKER-LAKE DISTRICT DESIGN ELEMENTS
LOW MEDIUM HIGH
PAVEMENT
STANDARD CONCRETE WITH GRASS BOULEVARD COLORED CONCRETE FURNISHING ZONE PAVER FURNISHING ZONE
BENCHES
BENCH BENCH BUILT IN BENCH
BIKE RACKS
GALVANIZED BIKE RACK POWDER COAT BIKE RACK BIKE RACK WITH CUSTOM LOGO OR ARTWORK
Study session meeting of August 27, 2018 (Item No. 3)
Title: Historic Walker Lake Design Study Page 12
Walker - Lake Streetscape Consulting Group, Inc.
July 20, 2018WALKER-LAKE DISTRICT DESIGN ELEMENTS
LOW MEDIUM HIGH
TRASH/RECYCLING
PLANTINGS
TREE TRENCH RAISED PLANTER CURB RAISED PLANTER WITH SEATWALL
LIGHTING
STREET LIGHTS PEDESTRIAN SCALE HISTORIC LIGHT OVERHEAD STRING LIGHTS AND LIGHTED BOLLARDS
Study session meeting of August 27, 2018 (Item No. 3)
Title: Historic Walker Lake Design Study Page 13
Walker - Lake Streetscape Consulting Group, Inc.
July 20, 2018WALKER-LAKE DISTRICT DESIGN ELEMENTS
LOW MEDIUM HIGH
WAY-FINDING
BANNER SIGN KIOSK
GATEWAY
COLUMNS MONUMENT SIGN
DIRECTIONAL SIGNAGE
GATEWAY SIGN
Study session meeting of August 27, 2018 (Item No. 3)
Title: Historic Walker Lake Design Study Page 14
Meeting: Study session
Meeting date: August 27, 2018
Discussion item: 4
Executive summary
Title: Body-worn camera program
Recommended action: Staff desires to review the revised and staff recommended body-worn
camera (BWC) policy with city council.
Policy consideration: Will the revised body-worn camera policy achieve the intended goals of
assisting with gathering evidence, allow for accurate report writing, and most importantly,
allow for transparency and accountability while protecting the privacy of the community we
serve?
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 community input. An updated draft policy is attached which reflects changes
made since the completion of the public hearing. The report and discussion will also update city
council on the progress made in evaluating the available body-worn camera hardware and
software.
To develop the draft policy staff has been committed to providing a voice in the process to the
community and our officers in order to develop a policy that best serves our community. Staff
carefully evaluated all of the input we received and implemented a number of the
recommendations into the draft policy presented to city council. We believe that this policy
balances the need for body-worn cameras to assist with gathering evidence, accurate report
writing and allowing for transparency and accountability while at the same time protecting the
privacy of the community we serve.
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 cost estimates were based on the language of the revised draft policy
related to hardware and storage needs. If the policy were changed to require increased
activation of the cameras, these costs would likely increase.
Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to creating opportunities to build
social capital through community engagement.
Supporting documents: Discussion
Body-worn camera draft policy dated 08-21-19
Police advisory commission report on BWC
Human rights commission report on BWC
Multi-cultural advisory committee report on BWC
Memo to PAC, HRC, and MAC dated 08-22-18
Prepared by: Mike Harcey, Police Chief
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study session meeting of August 27, 2018 (Item No. 4) Page 2
Title: Body-worn camera program
Discussion
Background: In February 2015 Council requested the police department to explore a body-worn
camera program. Since that time the police department has examined law enforcement best
practices, model policies, state statutes, the technology advancements of the hardware and
software systems and received community input. In November 2017, staff recommended to
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 draft body-worn
camera policy
On July 30, the draft policy was made available on the city’s website, and the community was
invited to review the draft and provide comments online. Additionally, the community was
invited to attend a public hearing as part of the St. Louis Park City Council meeting Monday,
August 20,. At this public hearing 4 community members provided comments to the city council
regarding the draft policy. Additionally, all the comments received online have been provided
to the city council and entered into the public record. All comments have been carefully
reviewed and evaluated to ensure the body-worn camera policy meets the needs of our
community. Since the completion of the August 13, 2018 study session and the August 20,
2018 public hearing, updates have been made to the original draft policy presented to council.
For example, staff heard from council that there were concerns on the clarity of the policy
when the officers are required to turn the cameras on and off.
There have been three topics that have been carefully considered as we developed the draft
policy and were discussed as part of the community input process. First, when the cameras are
turned on and off; second if and when officers are allowed to view their videos prior to writing
a report or providing a statement; and third, what data is considered public, private, and
confidential. The following is a discussion of these three points.
When the Cameras are turned on and off?
The revised draft policy states, “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 frisks, a traffic stop of a motorist, an investigative stop of a pedestrian, searches,
seizures, arrests, response to resistance incidents, any encounter that becomes in any way
hostile or confrontational (also known as) 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
Study session meeting of August 27, 2018 (Item No. 4) Page 3
Title: Body-worn camera program
Documentation guidelines, part (E)(2) (above)”. The policy states that officers only have
discretion to activate their camera during general citizen contacts. General citizen contacts are
defined as, “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”.
Careful consideration and review was given by our draft policy workgroup when deciding when
to require officers to record citizen encounters. Staff believes that the requirements of when
recording is mandatory provides the greatest opportunity to have video recordings of
encounters that potentially could involve adversarial contacts, response to resistance or result
in allegations of misconduct. We believe that this policy balances the need for body-worn
cameras to assist with gathering evidence, accurate report writing and allowing for
transparency and accountability with the need to protect the privacy of the community we
serve.
If and when officers are allowed to view their videos
The draft policy states, “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 testimony about the
incident. Officers shall not use the fact that a recording was made as a reason to write a less
detailed report”.
Careful consideration and review was given by our draft policy workgroup when deciding if this
policy would allow officers to view their video prior to preparing a report, giving a statement, or
providing testimony about an incident. Nationally recognized as a best practice think tank for
police executives, the Police Executive Research Forum (PERF) recommends that officers be
allowed to watch their video. PERF notes that officers will be able to report and testify more
accurately when they are provided access to “all possible evidence of the event”. PERF
indicated that, “withholding video evidence from an officer until after he or she testifies can
unfairly undermine the officer’s credibility”. PERF and Department of Justice report on body
worn cameras sites that police executives believe that allowing officers to review body-worn
camera footage prior to making a statement or writing a report about an incident in which they
were involved provides the best evidence of what actually occurred. PERF agreed with the
statement and believes the best practice is to allow officers access to their video. The
International Association of Chiefs of Police suggests the decision should be locally based on
discussion between the agency leaders, union representatives, and other relevant stakeholders
such as prosecutors.
The police department has also consulted with the Hennepin County Sheriff’s Office and the
MN Bureau of Criminal Apprehension, who are the two entities most likely to be asked to
investigate a critical incident involving a SLP officer. Both entities have stated officers watching
the video will not undermine their investigation. Both entities stated the fact that an officer
watched video would be reflected in their investigative report. Union counsel that represent
police officers and legal defense attorneys for police officers have recommended an officer
Study session meeting of August 27, 2018 (Item No. 4) Page 4
Title: Body-worn camera program
involved in a critical incident be provided the opportunity to have their attorney view the video.
The attorney would then consult with the officer before making their decision to watch the
video prior to providing a statement. A possible unintended consequence of creating a policy
which does not allow an officer to view their video prior to providing a statement regarding a
critical incident is the officer electing not to provide a statement. The department has also
consulted with Colich and Associates and Campbell and Knutson law firms who represent the
City as our prosecuting attorneys and as our civil attorneys. Both law firms are in support of
our officers being afforded the opportunity to view their videos prior to writing a report or
providing a statement.
What data is considered public, private, and confidential?
In accordance with the Minnesota Data Practices Act, 13.825 Portable Recording Systems, the
policy states:
A.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 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.
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 and 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: Assuming the draft policy is acceptable to the city council, on September 4, council
will be asked to take action to approve the implementation of a body-worn camera program.
DRAFT
08-21-18
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 27, 2018 (Item No. 4)
Title: Body-worn camera program Page 5
DRAFT
08-21-18
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 27, 2018 (Item No. 4)
Title: Body-worn camera program Page 6
DRAFT
08-21-18
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 27, 2018 (Item No. 4)
Title: Body-worn camera program Page 7
DRAFT
08-21-18
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
frisks, a traffic stop of a motorist, an investigative stop of a pedestrian, searches, seizures,
arrests, response to resistance incidents, any encounter that becomes in any way hostile or
confrontational (also known as) 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.
Study session meeting of August 27, 2018 (Item No. 4)
Title: Body-worn camera program Page 8
DRAFT
08-21-18
7/17/2018
Body-Worn Cameras Draft Page 5
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
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
Study session meeting of August 27, 2018 (Item No. 4)
Title: Body-worn camera program Page 9
DRAFT
08-21-18
7/17/2018
Body-Worn Cameras Draft Page 6
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
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 27, 2018 (Item No. 4)
Title: Body-worn camera program Page 10
DRAFT
08-21-18
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 27, 2018 (Item No. 4)
Title: Body-worn camera program Page 11
DRAFT
08-21-18
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 27, 2018 (Item No. 4)
Title: Body-worn camera program Page 12
DRAFT
08-21-18
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 27, 2018 (Item No. 4)
Title: Body-worn camera program Page 13
DRAFT
08-21-18
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 27, 2018 (Item No. 4)
Title: Body-worn camera program Page 14
DRAFT
08-21-18
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 27, 2018 (Item No. 4)
Title: Body-worn camera program Page 15
DRAFT
08-21-18
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 27, 2018 (Item No. 4)
Title: Body-worn camera program Page 16
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 27, 2018 (Item No. 4)
Title: Body-worn camera program Page 17
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 27, 2018 (Item No. 4)
Title: Body-worn camera program Page 18
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 27, 2018 (Item No. 4)
Title: Body-worn camera program Page 19
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 27, 2018 (Item No. 4)
Title: Body-worn camera program Page 20
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 27, 2018 (Item No. 4)
Title: Body-worn camera program Page 21
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 27, 2018 (Item No. 4)
Title: Body-worn camera program Page 22
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 27, 2018 (Item No. 4)
Title: Body-worn camera program Page 23
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 DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM
TO: Members of the Police Advisory Commission, Multi-Cultural Advisory Committee
and the Human Rights Commission
FROM: Chief Harcey
DATE: August 22, 2018
SUBJECT: Body Worn Camera Update
At the Council Study Session on August 13, 2018 I made a presentation to Council on the
process we used to develop the draft body worn camera policy dated 07-17-18. At this meeting
Council requested that I provide you with a written response to the recommendations that you
submitted. Please note that many of the recommendations that you made were already
incorporated into the draft policy presented to Council. Below you will find the responses to the
comments and recommendations provided by each of your groups.
Police Advisory Commission
The PAC provided written comment that was supportive of implementing BWC’s.
PAC comments and recommendations provided for consideration were:
1.The PAC supports an officer’s review of video prior to writing a report, yet requested
consideration be given to not allowing officers involved in a critical incident to view the
video prior to writing a report.
Careful consideration and review was given by our draft policy workgroup when deciding if this
policy would allow officers to view their video prior to preparing a report, giving a statement, or
providing testimony about an incident. Nationally recognized as a best practice think tank for
police executives, the Police Executive Research Forum (PERF) recommends that officers be
allowed to watch their video. PERF notes that officers will be able to report and testify more
accurately when they are provided access to “all possible evidence of the event”. PERF
indicated that, “withholding video evidence from an officer until after he or she testifies can
unfairly undermine the officer’s credibility”.
The police department has also consulted with the Hennepin County Sheriff’s Office and the
MN Bureau of Criminal Apprehension, who are the two entities most likely to be asked to
investigate a critical incident involving a SLP officer. Both entities have stated officers watching
the video will not undermine their investigation. Both entities stated the fact an officer
watched a video would be reflected in their investigative report. Union counsel that represent
Study session meeting of August 27, 2018 (Item No. 4)
Title: Body-worn camera program Page 24
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 officers and legal defense attorneys for police officers have recommended an officer
involved in a critical incident be provided the opportunity to have their attorney view the video.
The attorney would then consult with the officer before making their decision to watch the
video prior to providing a statement. A possible unattended consequence of creating a policy
which does not allow an officer to view their video prior to providing a statement regarding a
critical incident is the officer electing not to provide a statement. The department has also
consulted with Colich and Associates and Campbell and Knutson law firms who represent the
City as our prosecuting attorneys and as our civil attorneys. Both law firms are in support of
our officers being afforded the opportunity to view their videos prior to writing a report or
providing a statement.
In response to this recommendation we have elected to allow the officers the ability to view
the video prior to writing a report or providing a statement in order to adhere to one of the
three purposes of the policy, assisting with accurate report writing.
2.If the Chief of Police or designee supersedes the policy he / she should report this
decision to the City council.
Careful consideration and review was given by our draft policy workgroup and specific weight
was given to this section based on recommendations from the League of Minnesota Cities
(LMC) model policy work group that expressed the policy should: “(1) allow for the issuance of
special instructions on BWC use to officers deemed to be Giglio-impaired; and (2) ensure that
discretion exists to override normal recording guidelines for events where their use might be
perceived as a form of political or viewpoint-based surveillance. In addition, members identified
a concern that the “general” guidelines for BWC use could be poorly suited to the activities
performed by court bailiffs, and that agencies should therefore have express authority to
depart from them for special assignments and duties.”
The PAC also questioned why political rallies and demonstrations are specifically named in the
section of the policy? We agree with the explanation provided by the LMC policy working group
which states, “ensure that discretion exists to override normal recording guidelines for events
where their use might be perceived as a form of political or viewpoint-based surveillance.
In response to this recommendation the following language was incorporated into the Scope of
the policy, 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 political or viewpoint-
based surveillance. Also added was the requirement of the Chief of Police to report to the City
Manager if a decision was made to supersede the policy, In the event the chief does supersede
policy by providing specific instructions for use, a written report will be submitted to the City
Manager.
Study session meeting of August 27, 2018 (Item No. 4)
Title: Body-worn camera program Page 25
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
3.The PAC requested clarification of when Internal / External audits are conducted and
their availability to the public.
Careful consideration and review was given by our draft policy workgroup and the request for
clarity when internal audits occur has been resolved by aligning audits with the officer’s
trimester evaluation. This recommendation has been added into the policy. External audits are
biennial according to state statute and will be conducted by a third party. When and where
allowed by law, data will be made available to the public.
4.Why does the Chief need the ability to authorize editing, altering or erasing body worn
camera video? Referred to in Data Security Safeguards section B.
This section expressly provides authorization for the Chief of Police or the Chief’s designee to
release redacted video to the public or other requesting entity, which complies with the
law and is otherwise in an edited or altered form. Erasing of video is outlined in State law under
the MN Data Practices Act (MDPA). The police department will follow the MDPA when it comes
to the destruction (erasing) of video, which is covered under the Data Retention section of the
policy.
Multi-cultural Advisory Committee
The MAC provided written comment that was supportive of implementing BWC’s.
The MAC recommended developing an informational brochure which outlines the program and
the public’s rights as it pertains to the program. In response to the recommendation Staff will
work with the MAC to develop the brochure and make them available to the public. The
content of the brochure will also be posted with the policy on the police department website.
Human Rights Commission
The HRC submitted a document that included the following sections: Introduction, Community
Conversation summery, Draft Policy and Conclusion. The HRC submitted 14 comments or
recommendations for consideration regarding the draft policy. Please refer to the HRC memo
date May 15, 2018 to see the specific comments and recommendations provided.
1.The HRC commented on the potential for the policy to harm or disproportionally affect
specific population groups and asks what efforts have been undertaken to evaluate
potential harm to specific population groups. The BWC policy workgroup does not believe
that there will be an adverse impact on any group due to the use of BWC and the work
group has taken steps to receive community input on the policy from the PAC, HRC, MAC,
SLP schools, Cornerstone and our Racial Equity Manager.
2.The HRC recommended limiting officer discretion to turn on and off the camera.
Study session meeting of August 27, 2018 (Item No. 4)
Title: Body-worn camera program Page 26
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
In consideration of items (a) and (b) of the HRC memo the LMC notes that for an agency who
has the goal to gather better evidence, it might make the most sense to have officers treat
body cameras like any other evidence gathering tool, and exercise their professional judgment
in deciding when to record. With respect to items (c) and (d), relating to the question of what
guides the officer’s discretion and ability to discern evidentiary value. We believe that the
policy, extensive training, experience, and proper auditing of the program will produce
appropriate discretion on recording general citizen contacts. A suggestion was made in (d) (iii)
to include “or defense” language to the definition of evidentiary value in the Definitions
section of the policy. The recommended language has been added to the draft policy.
3.The HRC commented on permitting plainclothes officers to wear BWCs when appropriate
with emphasis added to “when appropriate”. Item (a) is a question on limitations to
plainclothes officer’s use, along with the question about notification of recording. The policy
is not intended to describe every possible situation where it would be appropriate for a
plainclothes officer to wear a BWC. A couple of examples are; during the serving of a search
warrant or during a field interview of a suspect or witness when assisting patrol at the scene
of an active in-progress investigation. There are no limits to a plainclothes officer’s use of a
BWC within policy and the General Guidelines for Recording section (D) will guide the
wearing and announcement guidelines for a BWC being used. We believe that requiring an
officer to wear the camera in a conspicuous manner will serve as the notification that there
is a camera present and the person may be being recorded.
4.The HRC recommended requiring notification of recording responsibility. The model policy
working group from the LMC believed that an announcement of recording would distract
officers from their duties and could become an unnecessary point of contention during
tense enforcement encounters. The group also recognize that an announcement may have
a civilizing effect in the field and the SLP draft policy allows for announcement at the
officer’s discretion. With respect to item (b), yes, “conspicuous manner” is in lieu of
providing verbal notice. We believe that requiring an officer to wear the camera in a
conspicuous manner will serve as the notification that there is a camera present and the
person may be being recorded.
5.The HRC questioned whether or not individuals can request an officer to discontinue the
use of a BWC, whether that request will be honored and under what circumstances. The
answer to the first part is yes, an individual can request an officer to discontinue the use of
a BWC and whether the request will be honored depends on the situation. The policy is not
intended to describe every possible situation when an officer may be asked to discontinue
use of a BWC. A couple of examples when the request to discontinue use of a BWC may be
honored is; when an officer feels there is no evidentiary value gained or the situation is of
such a sensitive nature that recording would not be appropriate.
Study session meeting of August 27, 2018 (Item No. 4)
Title: Body-worn camera program Page 27
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
6.The HRC questioned an officer’s permitted use of BWCs at political rallies and
demonstrations and how the police department will properly use collected data. A similar
question was asked by the PAC and as noted earlier in this memo the answer is provided by
the LMC policy working group: “ensure that discretion exists to override normal recording
guidelines for events where their use might be perceived as a form of political or viewpoint-
based surveillance. In addition, members identified a concern that the “general” guidelines
for BWC use could be poorly suited to the activities performed by court bailiffs, and that
agencies should therefore have express authority to depart from them for special
assignments and duties. To ensure potential video is appropriately obtained and properly
used 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 political or
viewpoint-based surveillance. Also added was the requirement of the Chief of Police to
report to the City Manager if a decision was made to supersede the policy, In the event the
chief does supersede policy by providing specific instructions for use, a written report will
be submitted to the City Manager.
7.The HRC also raised the issue of allowing officers the ability to view their videos prior to
writing a police report which was noted earlier in this memo. Consideration was given to
PERF recommendations that officers be allowed to watch video. PERF notes that officers
will be able to report and testify more accurately when they are provided access to “all
possible evidence of the event”. PERF indicated, “withholding video evidence from an
officer until after he or she testifies can unfairly undermine the officer’s credibility”.
The police department has also consulted with the Hennepin County Sheriff’s Office and the
MN Bureau of Criminal Apprehension, who are the two entities most likely to be asked to
investigate a critical incident involving a SLP officer. Both entities have stated officers
watching the video will not undermine an investigation. Both entities stated the fact an
officer watched a video would be reflected in their investigative report. Union counsel
representing police officers and legal defense attorneys for police officers have
recommended an officer involved in a critical incident be provided the opportunity to have
their attorney view the video. The attorney would then consult with the officer before
making their decision to watch the video prior to providing a statement. A possible
unattended consequence of creating a policy which does not allow an officer to view their
video prior to providing a statement regarding a critical incident is the officer electing not to
provide a statement. The department has also consulted with Colich and Associates and
Campbell and Knutson law firms who represent the City as our prosecuting attorneys and as
our civil attorneys. Both law firms are in support of our officers being afforded the
opportunity to view their videos prior to writing a report or providing a statement.
Study session meeting of August 27, 2018 (Item No. 4)
Title: Body-worn camera program Page 28
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
In response to this recommendation we have elected to allow the officers the ability to view
the video prior to writing a report or providing a statement in order to adhere to one of the
three purposes of the policy, assisting with accurate report writing.
8.The HRC questioned how restrictive the data will be to the public and the caveat that active
investigation data needs to be available to a criminal defendant for exculpatory evidence
reasons. The law is very clear that data is not available to the public while there is an
ongoing active investigation. A person does not become a criminal defendant until the
investigation is closed and said person is charged with a crime, therefore becoming the
criminal defendant. Once a person becomes the criminal defendant all of the data is
available under discovery rules and the data may potentially be used as exculpatory
evidence.
9.The HRC recommended posting information on the City’s website about how to request
BWC data and how many different languages will the posting be made available in. The
MAC made a similar request and will be working to develop a brochure to be made
available to the public. The content of the brochure will also be posted with the policy on
the police department website. The police department is supportive of the standard and
established practices by the City’s communications department and will rely on their
guidance in what languages the information will be made available in.
10.The HRC commented on the need to ensure there are protections in place to prevent
tampering with data. The back end software specific to each BWC vender has read/write
permissions that will not allow an officer access to be able to potentially tamper with data.
The software also has audit trail capabilities that records who and when data was accessed.
11.The HRC commented on the sharing of data with other law enforcement agencies and the
matching of data with other databases for criminal investigation or federal immigration
enforcement. The policy is not intended to describe every possible situation when data is
shared with another law enforcement agency. We would only share video with another
agency when the request is helpful to an active criminal investigation being conducted by
that agency. Regarding the HRC question on matching data to outside databases, it is
possibly for legitimate active criminal investigations but would absolutely not be used for
federal immigration enforcement.
12.The HRC questioned how the department will ensure compliance with the policy, what the
frequency of an internal audit is and what consequences there are for non-compliance.
Compliance with the policy is addressed in two areas of the policy. In the Purpose section of
the policy it is stated “Compliance with these guidelines is mandatory” The policy also has a
separate Compliance section which reads “Supervisors shall monitor for compliance with
this policy. The unauthorized access to or disclosure of BWC data may constitute
Study session meeting of August 27, 2018 (Item No. 4)
Title: Body-worn camera program Page 29
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
misconduct and subject individuals to disciplinary action and criminal penalties pursuant to
Minn. Stat. § 13.09. The PAC also requested clarifying language for internal audits and as
noted previously in this memo. This can be resolved with aligning audits with each officer’s
trimester performance evaluations. Deficiencies can be addressed during the evaluation
process and any number of corrective actions (coach/council, training, verbal warning,
written reprimand etc…) can be used to address identified deficiencies. External audits are
biennial by State statute and will be conducted by a third party. When and where allowed
by law, data will be made available to the public.
13.The HRC recommended to amend the retention schedule of the policy to extend from 180
days to 1 year, any written request to save data from a subject of BWC footage. The
reasoning behind the request is to align the retention with the amount of time an individual
has to file a complaint against an officer through the Department of Human Rights. This
request is reasonable and the change to the policy has been made.
14.The HRC questioned who will perform the biennial audit. External audits are biennial by
state statute and will be conducted by a third party. When and where allowed by law, data
will be made available to the public.
The HRC concluded that they wished 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. The police department agrees with the HRC conclusion. We believe that this policy balances the
need for body worn cameras to assist with gathering evidence, accurate report writing and allowing for
transparency and accountability with the need to protect the privacy of the community we serve.
Study session meeting of August 27, 2018 (Item No. 4)
Title: Body-worn camera program Page 30
Meeting: Study session
Meeting date: August 27, 2018
Written report: 5
Executive summary
Title: 2019 budget and service charges for special service district (SSD) nos. 1 - 6
Recommended action: No action needed. This report is meant solely to provide council with an
update on the city’s six special service districts (SSD) in preparation for action by the council in
September.
Policy consideration: The proposed 2019 budgets/property owner service charges for each
service district, and the reauthorization of SSD 2 for an additional 10-year term will be
presented for council action at the September 17 council meeting. Does council need any
additional information regarding the special service districts?
Summary: The 2019 proposed budgets and service charges are similar to that of past years.
Staff has recently sent out budget/service charge information and held meetings with the
property owners from each of the six districts and received their support for approving the
2019 budgets and service charges. Staff sent out reauthorization information to the SSD 2
property owners and has received the required number of petitions for reauthorization to
extend SSD 2 for another 10-years through 2028. The public hearing for SSD 1 - 6
budget/service charge and SSD 2 reauthorization will be held on September 17, 2018.
Financial or budget considerations: The city owns property in several special service districts
and will incur service charge costs for those properties. The service charge costs incurred are as
follows: Special Service District 1: $21,380 from the parks maintenance budget; Special Service
District 2: $42 from the public works / operations budget; Special Service District 4: $557 from
public works / operations budget; and Special Service District 6: $2,235 from the EDA/TIF
administration budget.
Strategic priority consideration: Not applicable.
Supporting documents: Discussion
SSD 1 - 6 location map
Prepared by: Scott Merkley, Public Works Services Manager
Reviewed by: Mark Hanson, Public Works Superintendent
Cynthia S. Walsh, Director of Operations and Recreation Department
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study session meeting of August 27, 2018 (Item No. 5) Page 2
Title: 2019 budget and service charges for special service district (SSD) nos. 1 - 6
Discussion
Background: In 1996, council approved a resolution authorizing Special Service District (SSD) 1.
Since then, five additional service districts have been set up within the city. SSD’s 1 - 4 are along
Excelsior Boulevard from Louisiana Avenue to France Avenue, SSD 5 is along Park Place
Boulevard near West End, and SSD 6 is along West 36th Street near Hoiggard Village. City staff
provides management services for the service districts.
Budget/service charge overview
Each special service district has its own budget with a reserve that is carried over from year to
year. The goal for each fund is to maintain a fund reserve equal to 50% of the budget. If fund
reserves are high in a district, the annual budget will not match the total service charge since
excess fund reserves will be used to offset (lower) the service charges. Property owners are
used to “fluctuations” in service charge amounts as they understand infrastructure services and
repairs cannot be accurately predicted (such as snow removal costs). Below, for each district,
are the change amounts for the budget and service charges from the previous year:
• SSD 1: No changes to the budget; $5,000 increase in service charges to keep the fund
reserve at the desired amount.
• SSD 2: No changes to the budget; no change in service charges.
• SSD 3: No changes to the budget; $5,000 increase in service charges to keep the fund
reserve at the desired amount.
• SSD 4: No change in budget; $4,246 increase in service charges to keep the fund reserve
at the desired amount.
• SSD 5: $1,200 increase in budget (increase based on anticipated upcoming
expenditures); $2,000 increase in service charges to keep the fund reserve at the
desired amount.
• SSD 6: $1,000 increase in budget (increase based on anticipated upcoming
expenditures); $2,000 increase in service charges to keep the fund reserve at the
desired amount.
Districts with expiring 10-year terms (in the next future)
The reauthorization of SSD 2, for a new 10-year term, will be part of the public hearing process
on September 17, 2018. SSD 2 was created with the initial 10-year term through 2008. The
district was reauthorized for a second term expiring the end of 2018. Earlier this year staff sent
reauthorization information and a petition to each property owner to support reauthorizing the
district for a third term through 2028. As required by law, the city received the required
number of signed petitions from property owners to meet the requirement of at least twenty-
five percent (25%) or more of the land area of property and at least twenty-five percent (25%)
of the individuals or business organizations subject to the proposed service charge.
SSD 5 & 6 were created with the initial 10-year terms through 2019. In early 2019 staff will
begin a similar petition process with the property owners in each district for reauthorization.
Study session meeting of August 27, 2018 (Item No. 5) Page 3
Title: 2019 budget and service charges for special service district (SSD) nos. 1 - 6
Maintenance information: The districts have different service levels and different
maintenance needs. More infrastructure maintenance and rehabilitation is starting to occur as
the infrastructure ages. Some of the recent replacement or rehabilitation work consists of
landscape material replacement, irrigation systems, bus shelters, banners, decorative fence,
pavers, bollards, trash containers, and bike racks.
Services that are contracted for include sidewalk snow removal (SSD 1 & 3), landscape and
irrigation (SSD 1 - 6), decorative winter tree lighting (SSD 1 - 5).
Present considerations: The Special Service Districts are a benefit to the city as they promote a
positive image of the business corridor and to attract customers to the area.
Next steps:
1. The public hearing for the 2019 budget/property owner service charges and for SSD 2
reauthorization will occur at the September 17, 2018 council meeting.
2. In November the city certifies the 2019 assessments (service charges) to Hennepin
County.
34TH ST
LAKE S
T
27TH ST
WALKE R ST ALABAMA AVETEXAS AVE44 TH S
TFLORIDA AVEOXFOR
D
S
T GEORGIA AVEYOSEMITE AVE41ST STIDAHO AVERH ODE ISL AND AVEJERSEY AVEWOODDALEAVE37TH ST LOUISIANAAVEBNSF RR
EXCELSI
O
R
B
L
V
D
LI
B
R
A
R
Y
L
N
3 5 T H S T
38TH STKENTUCKYAVE
39TH ST
CEDARLAKE R D
VERNON AVEKIPLINGAVEINGLEWOOD AVE25 1/2 ST
GORHAMAVEPARK G
L
E
N
R
D
BRUNSWICK AVEBELTLINEBLVDMINN ETON KA BLVD
EXCELSIOR BL
V
D
31ST ST
BROWNDALE AVE
16TH ST
HUNTINGTON AVEZARTHAN AVE36TH S T
2 3 R D S T
26TH ST
3 61/2STMARYLAND AVEMOR N INGSIDE RDZINRAN AVETOLEDO AVE32ND ST
UTICAAVENORTH
S
T
42ND ST
DOUGLAS AVE
GLENHURSTAVE24TH ST
HAMILT ON ST
XENWOOD AVEWEBSTER AVENEVADA AVEF R A N K LINAV E
P OWELL RD
VIRGINIA CIR
29 TH ST
40TH STDAKOTA AVESALEM AVELYNN AVE25TH S T
BASSWOO D RD18THSTOTTAWA AVE14TH ST
FRANCE AVECAMBRIDGE STQUEBEC AVERALEIGHAVEUTAH AVESUMTER AVEAQUILAAVECOLORADO AVEPENNSYLVA NIA AVEEDGEWOOD AVERIDGEDR
MONTEREY AVEHAMPSHIRE AVE33RD STOREGON AVES UNS ET BLVDCPRR
PAR K C E N T ERBLVDUTICA AVE35TH ST
18TH ST
AQUI
L
A
A
VE
WEBSTER AVEUTICA AVE32ND ST XENWOOD AVEYOSEMITE AVE31ST STBRUNSWICK AVEIDAHO AVEQUEBEC AVECP RR
C
P
RRCP RRKENTUCKY AVEGEORGIA AVE29TH ST
3 7 T H S T
27TH ST
2 2N D S T
QUENTIN AVEJOPPA AVE37TH ST
36TH ST TEXASAVE34TH STJERSEY AVEALABAMAAVE2 3 R D S TQUENTI
NAVELAKE ST34TH ST
OXFORD ST OTTAWA AVEWO
O
DDA
L
E
A
V
E
33RD ST
28TH ST
16TH ST
36TH ST
HUNTINGTON AVE35TH ST
JOPPA AVE26TH ST
27TH ST
ALABA MA AVEEDGEWOOD AVE28TH ST
CEDAR
L
A
K
E
R
D
31ST ST
25TH ST
3 9 T H S T
26TH ST
1ST ST2ND STPARKPLACEBLVDZARTHANAVEZARTHAN AVETOLEDOAVE
32ND ST
42ND ST
42ND STAQUILALN GLENHURST AVEBROOK AVEXENWOOD AVEEDGEB
R
O
O
K
D
R
FORESTRD
NEVADA AVE40TH L
N
ELIOT
VI
E
W
R
D
43 1/2 ST
MACKEY AVE40TH S
T
DAKOTA AVEDAKOTA AVESALEM AVELYNN AVELYNN AVE18TH ST
M
O
N
T
E
R
E
Y
D
R
V A L L A C H E R A V EWESTWOODHILLSDRWESTWOODHILLS RD30 1/2 ST
34 1/2 ST
14TH ST
BOONEAVEBOONEAVE
BOONEAVEWEST
M
ORELANDLNUTAHDRQUE
B
ECAVEQ UEBECAVERALEIGH AVERALEIGH AVEX YLONAVEXYLON AVEXYLON AVEXYLON AVEGAMBLE DR
B
R
O
W
N
L
O
W
A
V
E
35 TH ST
DART AVEUTAH AVEUTAHAVEUTAHAVESUMTERAVEBURD
PL
CA
V
E
L
L
AVEPARKLANDSRDCOLORADO AVECOLORADO AVECEDAR LAKE AVE
PARK COM M O N S D R
32 1/2 ST
CEDARWOOD RD
C E D ARWO
O
D
R
D
MEADOWBROOK RDBLACKSTONE AVEBLACKSTONE AVEBLACKSTONE AVE13TH LN
13TH LN
TAFT AVEWYOMING AVEWYOMINGAVEEDGEWOODAVEEDGEWOOD AVE13 1/2 ST
M
O
NIT
O
R
S
T
RANDAL
L
A
V
E
PA R KWOODSR D
MONTEREY AVEHAMPSHIRE AVEHAMPSHIRE AVE3 3 R D S T
33RD ST 33RD ST NATCHEZ AVENATCHEZAVENATCHEZ AVEW O L F E PKW Y24TH ST W
OREGON AVEOREGON AVEOREGON AVEREPUBLIC AVEVIRGINIAA
V
E
VIRGINIA AVEVIRGINIAA V E
VIRGINIA AVEPRINCETON AVEPRINCETON AVEWESTSIDE DR
YUKON AVEY U KONAVECAVELL
LN
PARKDALE D
R
G LENHURSTRDCE
D
AR
LAKERDHILLLN
M EADOWBRO
O
K
BL
VDMEADO
WBROOKBL
V
D
GLEN PL
HIG
HWOODRD
EXCELSIORWAYWOODLAND
DRBROOKVIEWDR F
O
R
E
S
T
L
N
LOUISIANA CT
TE X A TONKAAVEWILLOW LNWILLOWLNWESTWOODHI LLSCRV
AQUILACIRBOONECT WESTRIDGE LNTEXAS
CIR
OAK LEAF
CT
OTTAWA AVE28TH STAQUILAA
VE
31ST
ST
YOSEMI TE AVEAQ UILAAVE31ST ST
C E D AR LAKE RD
24TH ST
31ST STCOLORADOAVEBARRYST
ZARTHAN AVE16TH ST
ALABAMA AVE16TH ST
26TH
ST
SALEM AVEQUEBEC AVEPENNSYL VANIA AVEZINR AN AVEGLENHURST AVETOLEDOAVE18TH ST
2 3 R D ST
SALEMAVELYNN AVEPENNSYLVANIAAVECOLORADO AVE23RD ST
24TH ST
HUNTINGTON AVE27TH STDAKOTA AVE25TH ST
VERNON AVE41ST ST
29TH STMARYLAND AVE28TH
ST
25TH ST
26TH ST
ID
A
H
ONEVADA AVERALEIGH
AVE
37TH ST
22ND ST
31ST
ST
18TH
KIPLING AVEPENNSYLVANIA AVESUMTER AVEWEBSTER AVEWEBSTERAVEFLORIDA AVE28TH ST
OTTAWA AVEOTTAWA AVE14TH ST
RHODE ISLAND AVE16TH ST
22ND ST BRUNSWICK AVE16TH ST
DIVISION ST YOSEMITE AVEJOPPA AVEDAKOTAAVE39TH ST INGLEWOOD AVEFRANKLIN AVE
41ST ST
29TH STWEST END BLVDDUKE DR16TH ST
UTICA AVECOOLIDGE AVEBROWNDALE AVELOUISIANA CIRLOUISIANAAVECAMBRIDGE ST
3 5 T H S T
WAYZATA BLVD
WAYZATA BLVD
4 251
6
Special Service District
Site Map ±
Legend
DISTRICT
1
2
3
4
5
6 12/10/2014pcw
Study session meeting of August 27, 2018 (Item No. 5)
Title: 2019 budget and service charges for special service district (SSD) nos. 1 - 6 Page 4
Meeting: Study session
Meeting date: August 27, 2018
Written report: 6
Executive summary
Title: July 2018 monthly financial report
Recommended action: No action required at this time.
Policy consideration: Monthly financial reports are part of our financial management policies.
Summary: The monthly financial report provides a summary of general fund revenues and
departmental expenditures and a comparison of budget to actual throughout the year. A
budget to actual summary for the four utility funds is also included in this report.
Financial or budget considerations: At the end of July, general fund expenditures are at
approximately 55.5% of the adopted annual budget, which is about 3% under budget.
Strategic priority consideration: Not applicable.
Supporting documents: Discussion
Summary of revenues and expenditures – general fund
Budget to actual – enterprise funds
Prepared by: Darla Monson, Accountant
Reviewed by: Tim Simon, Chief Financial Officer
Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study session meeting of August 27, 2018 (Item No. 6) Page 2
Title: July 2018 monthly financial report
Discussion
Background: This report provides summary information of the overall level of revenues and
departmental expenditures in the general fund and a comparison of budget to actual
throughout the year. A budget to actual summary for the four utility funds is also included in
this report.
Present considerations:
General Fund
Actual expenditures should generally be at about 58.5% of the annual budget at the end of
July. General Fund expenditures are under budget by approximately 3% through July. Revenues
tend to be harder to measure in the same way due to the timing of when they are received,
examples of which include property taxes, grants and State aid payments. A few comments
on specific variances are explained below.
License and permit revenues are at approximately 66% of budget through July because the
majority of the 2018 business and liquor license revenue has been received, which is typical of
previous years. Permit revenue is close to budget at 58% through July. The permit for The
Elmwood development project was pulled in July.
Fines & forfeits revenue is exceeding budget by 10%. Fine revenue has been averaging about
$30,000 a month year to date, which is higher than what was budgeted.
Communications & marketing expenditures are exceeding budget by approximately 3% due to
some larger printing and postage costs incurred for the calendar, newsletter and advertising to
promote special events.
Community development has a small expenditure variance that is due to a housing staff
allocation. This will be adjusted at year end.
Engineering has a variance in personal services due to seasonal project activity.
The organized recreation and recreation center divisions have a small expenditure variance of
about 2%, which is normal due to seasonal costs for temporary staffing and pool supplies.
Study session meeting of August 27, 2018 (Item No. 6) Page 3
Title: July 2018 monthly financial report
Utility Funds
Utility revenue typically lags one month behind for commercial accounts and up to a full
quarter behind for some residential accounts depending on the billing cycle.
Other revenue is exceeding budget in the water fund due to additional antenna lease revenue.
In addition, $166,000 in the storm water fund is grant revenue received from Hennepin
County for contamination clean-up costs for the Carpenter Park project.
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Actual $2,609 $5,557 $8,439 $11,235 $14,063 $17,092 $21,083
Budget $3,158 $6,316 $9,475 $12,633 $15,791 $18,949 $22,108 $25,266 $28,424 $31,582 $34,741 $37,899
$0
$5,000
$10,000
$15,000
$20,000
$25,000
$30,000
$35,000
$40,000
$ THOUSANDS Monthly Expenditures -General Fund
Summary of Revenues & Expenditures - General Fund As of July 31, 2018 20182018201620162017201720182018Balance YTD Budget BudgetAuditedBudgetAuditedBudgetJuly YTD Remaining to Actual %General Fund Revenues: General Property Taxes23,597,282$ 24,193,360$ 24,748,436$ 24,837,901$ 25,705,886$ 14,402,240$ 11,303,646$ 56.03% Licenses and Permits3,496,177 4,320,078 3,745,736 3,985,517 3,924,648 2,598,753 1,325,895 66.22% Fines & Forfeits341,200 299,808 254,200 293,236 269,200 182,496 86,704 67.79% Intergovernmental1,419,017 1,656,072 1,631,669 1,899,006 1,864,877 920,992 943,885 49.39% Charges for Services1,956,593 2,063,241 2,027,637 2,051,552 2,162,410 1,127,914 1,034,496 52.16% Miscellaneous Revenue977,546 1,131,632 1,274,415 1,294,452 1,318,037 772,778 545,259 58.63% Transfers In1,872,581 1,881,274 1,899,927 1,951,218 1,929,090 1,119,469 809,621 58.03% Investment Earnings 140,000 114,957 140,000 125,984 160,000 61,178 98,822 38.24% Other Income27,450 20,440 30,450 54,303 40,950 12,167 28,783 29.71% Use of Fund Balance *254,891 - 58,541 - 523,835 - 523,835 0.00%Total General Fund Revenues34,082,737$ 35,680,861$ 35,811,011$ 36,493,169$ 37,898,933$ 21,197,986$ 16,700,947$ 55.93%General Fund Expenditures: General Government: Administration1,037,235$ 1,118,873$ 1,049,123$ 1,056,796$ 1,341,606$ 708,034$ 633,572$ 52.78% Finance933,624 869,759 957,275 924,832 978,752 572,171 406,581 58.46% Assessing641,038 607,443 707,139 652,015 759,865 394,219 365,646 51.88% Human Resources748,718 801,958 754,699 730,731 796,666 424,582 372,084 53.29% Community Development1,385,036 1,281,000 1,366,055 1,353,476 1,479,911 899,967 579,944 60.81% Facilities Maintenance1,115,877 1,099,973 1,132,774 1,128,339 1,162,342 673,182 489,160 57.92% Information Resources1,564,128 1,492,734 1,570,712 1,421,685 1,589,432 811,827 777,605 51.08% Communications & Marketing608,228 657,758 646,841 722,199 755,940 466,951 288,989 61.77% Community Outreach25,587 22,718 26,553 24,403 27,637 15,624 12,013 56.53% Engineering549,251 436,228 376,601 339,876 525,834 330,162 195,672 62.79%Total General Government8,608,722$ 8,388,443$ 8,587,772$ 8,354,352$ 9,417,985$ 5,296,719$ 4,121,266$ 56.24% Public Safety: Police8,698,661$ 8,754,092$ 9,217,988$ 9,255,342$ 9,930,681$ 5,567,060$ 4,363,621$ 56.06% Fire Protection4,030,153 3,939,435 4,407,656 4,319,457 4,657,973 2,716,244 1,941,729 58.31% Inspectional Services2,216,075 2,082,694 2,419,073 2,271,301 2,544,762 1,309,573 1,235,189 51.46%Total Public Safety14,944,889$ 14,776,220$ 16,044,717$ 15,846,100$ 17,133,416$ 9,592,877$ 7,540,539$ 55.99% Operations & Recreation: Public Works Administration241,304$ 240,497$ 266,249$ 245,942$ 230,753$ 113,095$ 117,658$ 49.01% Public Works Operations2,907,781 2,699,375 3,019,017 2,809,715 3,091,857 1,633,020 1,458,837 52.82% Organized Recreation1,431,260 1,396,737 1,472,996 1,470,613 1,582,490 962,768 619,722 60.84% Recreation Center1,602,935 1,687,724 1,744,651 1,856,529 1,860,755 1,126,715 734,040 60.55% Park Maintenance1,634,249 1,627,700 1,721,732 1,797,271 1,830,530 1,050,820 779,710 57.41% Westwood Nature Center576,173 555,887 602,400 572,942 622,346 341,182 281,164 54.82% Natural Resources479,408 362,094 550,235 430,995 559,662 182,896 376,766 32.68% Vehicle Maintenance1,358,946 1,130,622 1,384,038 1,088,375 1,253,367 741,890 511,477 59.19%Total Operations & Recreation10,232,056$ 9,700,637$ 10,761,318$ 10,272,383$ 11,031,760$ 6,152,386$ 4,879,374$ 55.77% Non-Departmental: General 30,351$ 63,648$ 31,909$ 31,859$ 43,422$ 25,425$ 17,997$ 58.55% Transfers Out- 1,873,000 - 885,000 - - - 0.00% Council Programs198,000 15,435 182,565 0.00% Contingency266,719 104,224 385,295 188,254 74,350 - 74,350 0.00%Total Non-Departmental297,070$ 2,040,871$ 417,204$ 1,105,113$ 315,772$ 40,860$ 274,912$ 12.94%Total General Fund Expenditures34,082,737$ 34,906,172$ 35,811,011$ 35,577,947$ 37,898,933$ 21,082,842$ 16,816,091$ 55.63%*Primarily related to E911 capital items from restricted fund balance.Study session meeting of August 27, 2018 (Item No. 6) Title: July 2018 monthly financial reportPage 4
Budget to Actual - Enterprise FundsAs of July 31, 2018 Current BudgetJul Year To DateBudget Variance% of BudgetCurrent BudgetJul Year To DateBudget Variance% of BudgetCurrent BudgetJul Year To DateBudget Variance% of BudgetCurrent BudgetJul Year To DateBudget VarianceOperating revenues: User charges 6,177,384$ 2,528,089$ 3,649,295$ 40.92% 7,421,016$ 3,433,881$ 3,987,135$ 46.27% 3,590,500$ 1,413,139$ 2,177,361$ 39.36% 3,024,731$ 1,421,367$ 1,603,364$ Other 375,750 431,412 (55,662) 114.81% 30,000 21,642 8,358 72.14% 140,000 5,150 134,850 3.68% - 166,000 (166,000) Total operating revenues6,553,134 2,959,501 3,593,633 45.16% 7,451,016 3,455,523 3,995,493 46.38% 3,730,500 1,418,289 2,312,211 38.02% 3,024,731 1,587,367 1,437,364 Operating expenses: Personal services1,377,010 806,287 570,723 58.55% 689,225 456,244 232,981 66.20% 631,295 338,859 292,436 53.68% 796,527 372,236 424,291 Supplies & non-capital430,300 118,063 312,237 27.44% 65,550 21,164 44,386 32.29% 184,750 45,776 138,974 24.78% 31,600 1,347 30,253 Services & other charges1,704,224 916,189 788,035 53.76% 4,605,626 3,069,738 1,535,888 66.65% 3,014,442 1,172,490 1,841,952 38.90% 595,187 135,964 459,223 Depreciation * Total operating expenses3,511,534 1,840,539 1,670,995 52.41% 5,360,401 3,547,145 1,813,256 66.17% 3,830,487 1,557,125 2,273,362 40.65% 1,423,314 509,547 913,767 Operating income (loss)3,041,600 1,118,962 1,922,638 36.79% 2,090,615 (91,623) 2,182,238 -4.38% (99,987) (138,836) 38,849 138.85% 1,601,417 1,077,820 523,597 Nonoperating revenues (expenses): Interest income 15,172 15,765 (593) 103.91% 2,391 8,148 (5,757) 340.80% 15,000 7,819 7,181 52.12% 14,800 9,359 5,441 Debt issuance costs- (92,225) 92,225 - (18,740) 18,740 - - - Interest expense/bank charges(176,342) (278,211) 101,869 157.77% (26,584) (40,068) 13,484 150.72% (25,500) (8,401) (17,099) 32.95% (40,897) (25,154) (15,743) Total nonoperating rev (exp)(161,170) (354,670) 193,500 220.06% (24,193) (50,659) 26,466 209.40% (10,500) (582) (9,918) 5.55% (26,097) (15,795) (10,302) Income (loss) before transfers2,880,430 764,292 2,116,138 26.53% 2,066,422 (142,282) 2,208,704 -6.89% (110,487) (139,418) 28,931 126.18% 1,575,320 1,062,025 513,295 Transfers inTransfers out(601,985) (351,158) (250,827) 58.33%(823,637) (480,455) (343,182) 58.33% (234,046) (136,527) (97,519) 58.33% (322,459) (188,101) (134,358) NET INCOME (LOSS)2,278,445 413,134 1,865,311 18.13% 1,242,785 (622,737) 1,865,522 -50.11% (344,533) (275,945) (68,588) 80.09% 1,252,861 873,924 378,937 Items reclassified to bal sht at year end: Capital Outlay(3,316,199) (2,404,393) (911,806) 72.50% (1,619,500) (288,512) (1,330,988) 17.81%- - - (2,688,977) (1,086) (2,687,891) Revenues over/(under) expenditures(1,037,754) (1,991,259) 953,505 (376,715) (911,249) 534,534 (344,533) (275,945) (68,588) (1,436,116) 872,838 (2,308,954) *Depreciation is recorded at end of year (non-cash item).Water SewerSolid WasteStorm Water% of Budget46.99%52.48%46.73%4.26%22.84%35.80%67.30%63.24%61.51%60.52%67.42%58.33%69.75%0.04%Study session meeting of August 27, 2018 (Item No. 6) Title: July 2018 monthly financial reportPage 5