Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025/04/14 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - Study SessionAGENDA APRIL 14, 2025 6:00 p.m. 2025 St. Louis Park Local Board of Appeal and Equalization – Community Room Action item 1. Convene the St. Louis Park Local Board of Appeal and Equalization Following LBAE meeting – Study session – Community Room Discussion items 1. Police facility assessment presentation 2. Boards and Commissions check-in with city council: Community Technology Advisory Commission Written reports 3. Aquatic park assessment results 4. Results of off-leash dog park location review Members of the public can attend St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority and city council meetings in person. At regular city council meetings, members of the public may comment on any item on the agenda by attending the meeting in-person or by submitting written comments to info@stlouisparkmn.gov by noon the day of the meeting. Official minutes of meetings are available on the city website once approved. Watch St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority or regular city council meetings live at bit.ly/watchslpcouncil or at www.parktv.org, or on local cable (Comcast SD channel 14/HD channel 798). Recordings of the meetings are available to watch on the city's YouTube channel at www.youtube.com/@slpcable, usually within 24 hours of the meeting’s end. City council study sessions are not broadcast. Generally, it is not council practice to receive public comment during study sessions. The council chambers are equipped with Hearing Loop equipment and headsets are available to borrow. If you need special accommodations or have questions about the meeting, please call 952.924.2505. Meeting: Local Board of Appeal and Equalization Meeting date: April 14, 2025 Action agenda item: 1 Executive summary Title: 2025 St. Louis Park Local Board of Appeal and Equalization Recommended action: Mayor to convene the meeting, following agenda is suggested. 1.Convene the St. Louis Park Local Board of Appeal and Equalization 2.Roll Call of Board Members – Declaration of Quorum 3.Motion to Appoint Chair 4.Acknowledgement of Trained Member (Nadia Mohamed & Sue Budd) 5.a. Accept Roster of Appellants b. Call for Any Additional Appellants 6.If necessary – Motion to set Date and Time for Continued Proceedings (Reconvene) Suggested as April 28, 2025, time TBD depending on appeal count at this meeting 7.Instruct Assessor to: a. Inform Appellants of Reconvene Date & Board Process via Telephone and Mail b. Inform Appellants of the County Board Application Date (May 21 Requested) c. Re-Inspect and Re-Appraise Parcels Under Appeal 8.Completion of the Local Board Certification Form 9.Motion to Recess Policy consideration: Local Boards and/or Open Book Meetings are required by law. The Board must complete its business within 20 days (April 14 is day one, May 3 is therefore the deadline). Summary: Minnesota statute requires that all properties are valued at full market value. All property owners, tenants and those having an interest in real property are entitled to appeal their classification and market value. The property classification is determined by the actual use of the property. The market value is an opinion based on records maintained for every property and the market conditions as of the date of assessment (January 2). Financial or budget considerations: Not applicable for budgeting from the perspective of the taxing jurisdictions. Changes made by the Board may affect the property owner’s share of the total property tax budgets levied for the Payable 2026 tax period. Strategic priority consideration: Not applicable. Supporting documents: Summary of duties and responsibilities Sample letter – to be sent to each appellant on April 15 Board of Appeal and Equalization Training (state.mn.us) Prepared by: Cory Bultema, city assessor Reviewed by: Amelia Cruver, finance director Approved by: Cindy Walsh, deputy city manager Local Board of Appeal and Equalization of April 14, 2025 (Item No. 1) Page 2 Title: 2025 St. Louis Park Local Board of Appeal and Equalization SUMMARY OF DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES Local Board of Appeal and Equalization Most of the responsibilities listed under the Local Board of Appeal and Equalization are statutory, primarily found in Minnesota Statutes 274.01. Additional reference is provided by the MN DOR “Board of Appeal and Equalization Handbook” (updated 12-2021-link on page 1). • The valuation notices shall be in writing and sent by ordinary mail at least ten calendar days before the meeting. The valuation notice will include the date, place and time set for the meetings of the Local Board of Appeal & Equalization as well as the County Board of Appeal & Equalization. • The city clerk shall give published notice and posted notice of the meeting. The meetings must be held between April 1 and May 31 including reconvene meetings. The board must complete its work and adjourn within 20 calendar days – convene date is day one. In terms of practical compliance, the Local Board should not run later than early May in order for the County Board to effectively operate within its statutory time window (application in May, Board convenes in June). • The Local Board of Appeal and Equalization is an official public meeting similar to a city council public hearing and cannot convene without a quorum. The city assessor, the county assessor, or one of their assistants are required to attend. • At least one member present at each meeting of the Local Board of Appeal and Equalization must be certified as having completed the Minnesota Department of Revenue (MN DOR) Board of Appeal and Equalization training. Training is good for four board years as listed on the MN DOR record. • The board should run the meeting as a fair and impartial review of the appeals. The property owner is the appellant and the assessing staff are the respondent. The board may ask questions to clarify facts and background. It is suggested all appeals are hea rd before the Board begins deliberations on each. • Local Boards of Appeal and Equalization must see that all taxable property is properly valued and classified for the current assessment year only. The board does not have the authority to reopen prior assessments on which taxes are due and payable (taxes may not be appealed). The board may add a property to the assessment roll if it has been omitted. • Individual board members cannot participate in actions or discussions of appeals involving their own property, property of relatives, or property in which they have a financial interest. • The Local Board may not increase or decrease all assessments in a district of a given class of property. Changes by class may be made by the County Board of Equalization. • The Local Board may not make a market value or classification change that would benefit the property in cases where the owner or other person having control over the property will not permit the assessor to inspect the property and the interior of any buil dings or structures. Local Board of Appeal and Equalization of April 14, 2025 (Item No. 1) Page 3 Title: 2025 St. Louis Park Local Board of Appeal and Equalization • Although the Local Board of Appeal and Equalization has the authority to increase or decrease individual assessments, the total adjustments must not reduce the aggregate assessment by more than one percent. If the total reductions exceed one percent, all adjustments are negated. The assessor shall correct any clerical errors or double assessments discovered by the board without regard to the one percent limitation. • If an assessment was made after the local board meeting or if a taxpayer can establish not having received the notice of market value at least five days before the meeting, they can appeal to the County Board of Appeal and Equalization. • The board may find instances of undervalued properties. The board must notify the owner of the property that the value is going to be raised. The property owner must have the opportunity to appear before the board if they wish. • The local boards do not have the authority to address exemption issues. Only the county assessor (and the tax court) has the authority to exempt property. They also have no jurisdiction over special programs for which an application process is required (Homestead, Disabled Veterans, Blind/Disabled, Low Income Rental Classification, Green Acres, etc.). • A taxpayer may appear in person, by authorized representative, or written communication to present his or her objection to the board. The focus of the appeal should center on the factors influencing the estimated market value or classification placed on the property. • All changes will be entered into the record as required by the MN Department of Revenue. • Before adjourning, the local board should prepare an official list of the changes. The law requires that the changes be listed on a separate form. All assessments that have been sustained, increased or decreased should be shown on the form along with their market values. • Administrative Rules from the Department of Revenue (2013): the assessor may not make administrative changes to the valuation or classification less than 10 days prior to the Board. All contemplated changes should be brought to the Board for review and approval. • Directive from the Department of Revenue (2015): assessing staff from Hennepin County will attend Local Board meetings. The purpose of attendance is to ensure legal compliance. • Directive from the Department of Revenue (2017): the board is required to hear appeals from date of the published meeting through adjournment. A comment: It had been the practice of the St. Louis Park Board to close the roster at the completion of the initial convene meeting date as formally published – the directive effectively eliminates roster closure until adjourned. To comply, it is recommended that the board decide last moment appeals on a case -by-case basis as best possible. Action may include resolving the appeal or simply accepting the appeal with no change to preserve the owner’s right to be eligible to the County Board. • Following each board meeting, a letter is sent to the owner of each property in appeal. The sample letter following the initial convene meeting is attached. • At the convene meeting on April 14, 2025, the board will be given two outlines to assist in conducting an efficient and productive meeting. The first is the Agenda as the board Local Board of Appeal and Equalization of April 14, 2025 (Item No. 1) Page 4 Title: 2025 St. Louis Park Local Board of Appeal and Equalization process is quite specific in format. The other will be the board appellant roster which is updated at 4:30 pm. SAMPLE LETTER TO ALL BOARD ROSTER PROPERTIES Local Board of Appeal and Equalization of April 14, 2025 (Item No. 1) Page 5 Title: 2025 St. Louis Park Local Board of Appeal and Equalization Meeting: Study session Meeting date: April 14, 2025 Discussion item: 1 Executive summary Title: Police facility assessment presentation Policy consideration: Does the city council want to move to the feasibility study phase for the police department facility? If yes, should any of the identified options be removed from consideration? Summary: Since the current police department facility was built in 1993, operational needs have changed including a shift in officers’ gender-specific needs within facilities, training requirements and a 40% increase in staff. Additionally, several large infrastructure items are due for replacement or enhancement, such as air conditioning, roof, shooting range targeting systems and windows/glass. Both the operational and functional needs led to requesting a facility assessment of the police department facility, which was included in the 2024 Capital Improvement Plan. Staff hired BKV Group to perform a facility and space needs assessment of the current police department facility. The resulting assessment showed the facility is not viable for long -term operations and department goals, identifying deficiencies such as sho rtage of operational space, inequitable facilities for officers depending on gender, and lack of space for health/wellness and inclusivity and training. Financial or budget considerations: The 2024 CIP included funds for a facility assessment of the police department facility; depending on options chosen, more money may need to be allocated for the feasibility study. The ten-year CIP includes funding for various building repairs and upgrades. Additional funding would need to be identified for continued design work and, ultimately, any construction that is approved. Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to creating opportunities to build social capital through community engagement. Supporting documents: Discussion Prepared by: Jason Eisold, facilities superintendent Bryan Kruelle, police chief Reviewed by: Stacy M. Voelker, administrative coordinator Jason T. West, parks and recreation director Approved by: Cindy Walsh, deputy city manager Study session meeting of April 14, 2025 (Item No. 1) Page 2 Title: Police facility assessment presentation Discussion Background: The current police department facility, built in 1993, has 31,356 square feet of space. At that time, the police department included 60 staff for a city population of 43,500. During the last 30 years, policing has undergone a significant transformation to community- oriented policing. These changes have fundamentally altered what is required of police departments in order to carry out the community caretaking mission. As a result, the existing police department facility is ill-equipped to support the shift in what is needed from perspectives of community engagement, gender, cultural, equipment, training, hiring and wellness. According to a police facility planning guidelines publication by the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP), “Community policing has grown dramatically to include having other local and state agencies, both non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and law enforcement, imbedded within the facility. Providing NGOs space within the building enhances the collaboration between the police department and the community and social service organizations.” While there are no hard-and-fast rules for square footage per person in a police department facility, the IACP report goes on to say, “Well-designed police facilities enable staff to perform their duties efficiently, effectively and securely. As a facility ages, it may no longer meet the needs of an evolving department, thus, negatively affecting morale, efficiency, safety, security, technology, and overall delivery of police services.” Present considerations: The police department presently includes 84 staff, a 40% increase from when the facility was built in 1993. At that staffing level and based on industry standards, the current facility should be approximately 71,222 square feet. Ongoing changes in policing and continued high community expectations will result in additional staff over the next 20 years, requiring approximately 75,906 – 79,654 square feet of space. Study session meeting of April 14, 2025 (Item No. 1) Page 3 Title: Police facility assessment presentation The following compares the police department facility square footage and staffing at St. Louis Park and at similar-sized cities: City Population Staff Building size (including indoor garage space) Construction year Square feet per person St. Louis Park 50,000 84 31,356 sq. ft. 1993 373 Edina 53,300 84 41,593 sq. ft. 2004 495 Burnsville 64,800 107 51,489 sq. ft. (2025 proposing 102,312 sq. ft. facility) 1988 2018 remodel/expansion 2025 remodel/expansion 481/956 Eden Prairie 61,500 111 72,733 sq. ft. 1994 2025 remodel/expansion 655 Minnetonka 52,000 76 50,733 sq. ft. 1992 2021 remodel/expansion 667 Woodbury 79,500 95 45,671 sq. ft. (new 74,764 sq. ft. building in 2026) 2010 2026 remodel/expansion 480/787 Met Council forecasts the population of St. Louis Park to be approximately 60,000 in 2050. Several areas of concern have been identified in the current police department facility: 1. Inadequate and inequitable locker room space for female staff, which presents a barrier to recruiting, hiring and retaining employees. 2. Inability to support current training requirements, which have grown in complexity and volume. 3. Lack of dedicated interview rooms for investigations to interview suspects, witnesses and victims with physical and acoustic separation from public function. 4. If an agency is determined to increase contact and collaboration with the community within a community policing framework, the building must be designed to make visitors feel welcome. 5. Lack of garage space to park squad cars and police fleet vehicles. The police department currently operates with an average of 45 vehicles, a number that will grow as employees are added. The police department has only three indoor stalls, two for parking police vehicles and one for inmate transfer/vehicle evidence processing. This lack of indoor parking space: • Requires squads to idol outside to avoid battery drain due to the onboard electronics. Parking police cars indoors allows temperature control to sustain all onboard electronics and allows the police department to align with the anti -idling practices of the city. • Adds to the wear and tear on vehicles and their electronics due to outside exposure. • Requires specialized police fleet vehicles such as the SWAT van and mobile command van to be housed at other city facilities with garage space, increasing response times during a crisis. Study session meeting of April 14, 2025 (Item No. 1) Page 4 Title: Police facility assessment presentation The facility and space assessment identified three potential options: Option 1: Maintain existing facility; n o expansion or rebuild This option will require additional money in the ten-year CIP fund to address identified deferred maintenance. While the least expensive of the options, it does not address the need for additional space; it only maintains the existing facility. A Facility Condition Assessment (FCA) reviewed the physical condition of the facility along with the building systems and provided a comprehensive report identifying deferred maintenance and replacement items for the next ten years. Items identified included: • roof replacement • training equipment and technology replacement (range, roll call room technology) • heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) replacements • interior replacement/upgrades (locker rooms, carpet) • exterior enhancements (windows, grading) The current ten-year CIP has just under $1.5 million identified for repair/replacement/upgrading of the above-mentioned areas. Option 2: Remodel and expansion of existing facility This option would require continued deferred maintenance costs for the existing facility, in addition to the costs of remodeling and expanding. Multiple additions can increase construction costs when compared to one large addition, requiring additional demolition and sitework. The assessment identified a deficiency in daily operational space in many areas. Addressing these deficiencies requires expansion of the existing facility. The expansion could impact the park area. The current and future needs of the department could be met through a remodel of roughly 70% of the existing building and the addition of multiple spaces totaling approximately 44,000 square feet. Option 3: New build This option is the most expensive since it requires tearing down the existing structure and building a new facility. This will expand the size of the building to accommodate the needs of the police department into the future. The expansion will likely impact the park area. The capital improvement plan maintenance expenses identified in options 1 and 2 would be removed and replaced with costs to construct a new building A complete rebuild of the entire police department facility would accommodate the daily operation of the police department for the next 20 years. Construction would be phased around the existing facility to keep police operations ongoing during construction, with full demolition of the existing facility at completion. Construction costs would be a significant addition to the city’s five- or ten-year CIP and would likely be financed through bonding. Next steps If the city council wants to move forward with the next step of conducting a feasibility study, funding will be identified in a future CIP. The feasibility study will provide cost estimates on Study session meeting of April 14, 2025 (Item No. 1) Page 5 Title: Police facility assessment presentation each of the identified options. A plan for community education and engagement would also be developed at this stage. *As presented at the March 17, 2025 city council study session, seven phases are involved in the design and construction process of a building: project identification and scoping; master planning/facility assessment; feasibility study; creation of schemati c design; design development; creating construction documents; and bidding/construction administration. Meeting: Study session Meeting date: April 14, 2025 Discussion item: 2 Executive summary Title: Boards and commissions check-in with city council: Community Technology Advisory Commission Recommended action: None at this time. Policy consideration: None at this time. Summary: Based on guidance provided by city council members during the Feb. 3, 2025 study session focused on establishing protocols for boards and commissions, it was decided to schedule regular check-ins between boards and commissions and the city council throughout the year. The April meeting will spotlight the Community Technology Advisory Commission (CTAC), represented by Chair Drew Koegh and Vice Chair Konner Slaats. The discussion will cover an overview of the commission's approved work plan, including completed tasks (if any), ongoing projects, and strategies for addressing unaddressed work plan items. Additionally, the discussion will include opportunities for council feedback, potential modifications or additions to the work plan, and any other relevant topics concerning the commission's activities. In May 2025, the check-in meeting is set to feature the Environment and Sustainability Commission. Financial or budget considerations: None at this time Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to creating opportunities to build social capital through community engagement. Supporting documents: CTAC Approved 2025 Workplan Prepared by: Pat Coleman, community engagement coordinator Reviewed by: Cheyenne Brodeen, administrative services director Approved by: Cindy Walsh, deputy city manager Board and Commission Annual work plan Presented to council: February 18, 2025 Approved by council: February 18, 2025 1 2025 work plan │ Communications and Technology Commission 1 Initiative name: Support citywide Vision 4.0 process Initiative type: ☒Staff support (review project, policy or program and provide feedback) ☐Independent research project ☐Gather community feedback ☐Lead community event Initiative origin: ☐Applicant-initiated ☒Staff-initiated ☐Commission-initiated ☐Council-initiated Legally required (e.g. response to Legislative changes or Judicial decisions)? ☐Yes ☒No Commissioner lead(s) name(s): None, all will be involved. If joint commission initiative, list other board or commission: Is this an established work group? ☐Yes ☒No Initiative description: Support the citywide Vision 4.0 process by participating directly and/or encouraging others to participate, and by sharing information with other community members about the process. Strategic Priority: ☐ 1 ☐ 2 ☐ 3 ☐ 4 ☒ 5 ☐ N/A Deliverable: ☐ Research report ☐ Summary of community input ☒ Other ☐ N/A Target completion date: 3Q 2025 This section to be completed by staff: Council request (if applicable): ☐ Review and comment or reply ☐ Review and decide ☒ Informational only – no response needed Budget required: None Staff support required: Communication from staff liaison about opportunities with Vision 4.0 Liaison comments: Plan to keep the commission informed about opportunities to assist with the citywide Vision 4.0 process. Study session meeting of April 14, 2025 (Item No. 2) Title: Boards and commissions check-in with city council: Community Technology Advisory Commision Page 2 Board and Commission Annual work plan 2 2 Initiative name: Participate in city website redesign review process Initiative type: ☒Staff support (review project, policy or program and provide feedback) ☐Independent research project ☐Gather community feedback ☐Lead community event Initiative origin: ☐Applicant-initiated ☒Staff-initiated ☐Commission-initiated ☐Council-initiated Legally required (e.g. response to Legislative changes or Judicial decisions)? ☐Yes ☒No Commissioner lead(s) name(s): None, all members or a small group will be involved. If joint commission initiative, list other board or commission: Is this an established work group? ☐Yes ☒No Initiative description: While the exact process for the redesign has yet to be determined, we plan to draw on the expertise of the CTAC by involving members, or a small group of members, in potential user group testing or other review of a draft redesign of the city website. Strategic Priority: ☒ 1 ☐ 2 ☐ 3 ☐ 4 ☒ 5 ☐ N/A Deliverable: ☐ Research report ☐ Summary of community input ☒ Other ☐ N/A Target completion date: 3Q 2025 This section to be completed by staff: Council request (if applicable): ☐ Review and comment or reply ☐ Review and decide ☒ Informational only – no response needed Budget required: None Staff support required: Staff liaison Liaison comments: The primary goals of the redesign are to ensure compliance with upcoming ADA requirements, ensure mobile accessibility and improve search function. CTAC will be asked to focus on these items in its review. Study session meeting of April 14, 2025 (Item No. 2) Title: Boards and commissions check-in with city council: Community Technology Advisory Commision Page 3 Board and Commission Annual work plan 3 3 Initiative name: Stay informed about pending legislation affecting cable and technology Initiative type: ☒Staff support (review project, policy or program and provide feedback) ☐Independent research project ☐Gather community feedback ☐Lead community event Initiative origin: ☐Applicant-initiated ☒Staff-initiated ☐Commission-initiated ☐Council-initiated Legally required (e.g. response to Legislative changes or Judicial decisions)? ☐Yes ☒No Commissioner lead(s) name(s): None, all will be involved If joint commission initiative, list other board or commission: Is this an established work group? ☐Yes ☒No Initiative description: CTAC is asked to stay informed about pending legislation that may affect the city’s cable franchise, or other technologies vital to the community such as broadband. Strategic Priority: ☐ 1 ☐ 2 ☐ 3 ☐ 4 ☒ 5 ☐ N/A Deliverable: ☐ Research report ☒ Summary of community input ☐ Other ☒ N/A Target completion date: Ongoing This section to be completed by staff: Council request (if applicable): ☐ Review and comment or reply ☐ Review and decide ☒ Informational only – no response needed Budget required: None Staff support required: Information and updates from staff liaison Liaison comments: Staff liaison will stay informed of pending legislation through contact with state and national advocacy organizations, as well as through the city’s legislative staff and lobbyists. Information affecting cable and technology will be shared with CTAC members. Study session meeting of April 14, 2025 (Item No. 2) Title: Boards and commissions check-in with city council: Community Technology Advisory Commision Page 4 Board and Commission Annual work plan 4 4 Initiative name: Initiative type: ☐Staff support (review project, policy or program and provide feedback) ☐Independent research project ☐Gather community feedback ☐Lead community event Initiative origin: ☐Applicant-initiated ☐Staff-initiated ☐Commission-initiated ☐Council-initiated Legally required (e.g. response to Legislative changes or Judicial decisions)? ☐Yes ☐No Commissioner lead(s) name(s): If joint commission initiative, list other board or commission: Is this an established work group? ☐Yes ☐No Initiative description: Strategic Priority: ☐ 1 ☐ 2 ☐ 3 ☐ 4 ☐ 5 ☐ N/A Deliverable: ☐ Research report ☒ Summary of community input ☐ Other ☒ N/A Target completion date: This section to be completed by staff: Council request (if applicable): ☐ Review and comment or reply ☐ Review and decide ☒ Informational only – no response needed Budget required: Staff support required: Liaison comments: Study session meeting of April 14, 2025 (Item No. 2) Title: Boards and commissions check-in with city council: Community Technology Advisory Commision Page 5 Board and Commission Annual work plan 5 5 Initiative name: Initiative type: ☐Staff support (review project, policy or program and provide feedback) ☐Independent research project ☐Gather community feedback ☐Lead community event Initiative origin: ☐Applicant-initiated ☐Staff-initiated ☐Commission-initiated ☐Council-initiated Legally required (e.g. response to Legislative changes or Judicial decisions)? ☐Yes ☐No Commissioner lead(s) name(s): If joint commission initiative, list other board or commission: Is this an established work group? ☐Yes ☐No Initiative description: Strategic Priority: ☐ 1 ☐ 2 ☐ 3 ☐ 4 ☒ 5 ☐ N/A Deliverable: ☐ Research report ☐ Summary of community input ☐ Other ☒ N/A Target completion date: This section to be completed by staff: Council request (if applicable): ☐ Review and comment or reply ☐ Review and decide ☒ Informational only – no response needed Budget required: Staff support required: Liaison comments: Study session meeting of April 14, 2025 (Item No. 2) Title: Boards and commissions check-in with city council: Community Technology Advisory Commision Page 6 Board and Commission Annual work plan 6 •Applicant-initiated – Project initiated by 3rd party (statutory boards) •Staff-initiated – Project initiated by staff liaison or other city staff •Commission-initiated – Project initiated by the board or commission •Council-initiated – Project tasked to a board or commission by the city council Strategic Priorities 1.St. Louis Park is committed to being a leader in racial equity and inclusion in order to create a more just and inclusive community for all. 2.St. Louis Park is committed to continue to lead in environmental stewardship. 3.St. Louis Park is committed to providing a broad range of housing and neighborhood oriented development. 4.St. Louis Park is committed to providing a variety of options for people to make their way around the city comfortably, safely and reliably. 5.St. Louis Park is committed to creating opportunities to build social capital through community engagement Modifications •Work plans may be modified, to add or delete items, in one of three ways: •Work plans can be modified by mutual agreement during a joint work session. •If immediate approval is important, the board or commission can work with their staff liaison to present a modified work plan for city council approval at a council meeting •The city council can direct a change to the work plan at their discretion. Initiative Origin Definitions Study session meeting of April 14, 2025 (Item No. 2) Title: Boards and commissions check-in with city council: Community Technology Advisory Commision Page 7 Board and Commission Annual work plan 7 Future ideas Initiatives that are being considered by the board or commission but not proposed in the annual work plan. Council approval is needed if the board or commission decides they would like to amend a work plan. Initiative Comments Study session meeting of April 14, 2025 (Item No. 2) Title: Boards and commissions check-in with city council: Community Technology Advisory Commision Page 8 Meeting: Study session Meeting date: April 14, 2025 Written report: 3 Executive summary Title: Aquatic park assessment results Recommended action: None Policy consideration: What financial commitments should be made in the near- and long-term to preserve the city’s outdoor pool facility, the Aquatic Park, as a valued community and regional recreational amenity? Summary: The expected life span is 25-30 years for outdoor aquatic facilities such as the city’s Aquatic Park. The St. Louis Park Aquatic Park is currently 28 years old. It is in good condition due in large part to ongoing, regular maintenance. If the community wants to continue to provide an aquatic park, the city needs to make improvements now as well as plan a complete replacement in the future. Following an assessment of the Aquatic Park, JLG Architects has reported its findings and recommends three options: 1.Repairing and remodeling: $2.6 million 2.Repairing, remodeling and enhancing: $3.8 million 3.Complete replacement and rebuild: $15 – $20 million Staff recommends option 1, repair and remodel to prolong the lifespan of the Aquatic Park, while also planning for a complete replacement and rebuild in 10 years. Financial or budget considerations: The repair and remodel option is estimated at $2.6 million. The CIP includes a combined $375,000 for Aquatic Park maintenance: $275,000 in 2025 for gutter replacement and $100,000 in 2027 for repairs. If the council agrees with the recommendation to repair and remodel, staff will submit an additional $2,225,000 proposal for the 2026 CIP, bringing the total CIP amounts requested to $2.6 million over three years. Since this option only extends the lifespan of the Aquatic Park, discussion should continue to include $20 million in the 2035 CIP for a complete replacement of the Aquatic Park. Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to creating opportunities to build social capital through community engagement. Supporting documents: Discussion Prepared by: Geoff Clarke, Rec Center manager Mikayla Beuch, recreation supervisor Reviewed by: Stacy M. Voelker, administrative coordinator Jason Eisold, facilities superintendent Jason T. West, director of parks and recreation Amelia Cruver, finance director Approved by: Cindy Walsh, deputy city manager Page 2 Study session meeting of April 14, 2025 (Item No. 3) Title: Aquatic park assessment results Discussion Background: Following two major main water supply line breaks at the Aquatic Park over three years (2019-2022), staff sought a professional opinion on the Aquatic Park infrastructure with the goal of assessing its lifespan and determining the timeline for necessary repairs, renovations or replacement. The results would inform decision making on budget allocation, maintenance schedules and long-term infrastructure planning. Following a proposal process, city staff hired JLG Architects to perform the feasibility assessment in 2024. Based on the study findings, the following areas are priorities to address in the next two years, along with costs. Improvement Cost Pool equipment room upgrades $297,000 Waterslide upgrades $120,000 Pool grating and plaster replacement $995,000 Expansion of showers and restrooms $1,000,000 Modify site concrete and trench drains $104,000 Concession upgrades $70,000 Modify site grading $9,000 TOTAL $2,595,000 The expected life span is 25-30 years for outdoor aquatic facilities such as the city’s Aquatic Park. The St. Louis Park Aquatic Park is currently 28 years old but is in good condition due in large part to ongoing, regular maintenance. With the recommended upgrades and improvements, staff can plan to operate past the expected life span while setting aside funds for the future. The future of the Aquatic Park should be discussed again in a few years. Present considerations: Due to ongoing, regular maintenance, the city can continue with current upgrades to the Aquatic Park while allocating funds in the CIP budget for the additional improvements outlined above. Discussions about the eventual full replacement of the Aquatic Park should continue over the next few years to prepare for all outcomes. Next steps: If council is supportive, staff will submit an additional $2,225,000 proposal for incorporation into the 2026 CIP, allowing for the improvements outlined in the repair and remodel option to move forward. Discussion about including $20 million in 2035 to fund a full replacement of the Aquatic Park can continue over the next few years. Meeting: Study session Meeting date: April 14, 2025 Written report: 4 Executive summary Title: Results of off-leash dog park location review Policy consideration: Does the city council want staff to continue reviewing potential sites for additional off-leash dog parks, using the updated criteria approved by the parks and recreation advisory commission? Summary: At its Oct. 21, 2025, study session, the city council directed the parks and recreation advisory commission (PRAC) to review criteria for establishing off-leash dog parks in the city. At its Jan. 15, 2025, meeting, PRAC members reviewed, revised and approved a new set of criteria that loosened some of the requirements. They are as follows: o Minimal size should be at least half an acre o Dog waste and trash disposal on site o Double gate for control o Close parking and street access to gate entrance o Lighting at entrance for safety o Mud control and drainage o Minimum five-foot fence around perimeter o Emergency access o Accessibility o Should not interfere with other park amenities o Restrooms for dog owners o Hours of operation are same as park hours o Consider noise pollution; barking dogs o Consider community engagement PRAC used the updated criteria to evaluate four sites suggested by residents or by council members as potential off-leash dog park sites. The four sites are at Lamplighter, Twin Lakes, Aquila and Louisiana Oaks parks. PRAC does not recommend adding an off-leash dog park at any of these parks, as they either did not meet the updated criteria during evaluation or were cost-prohibitive. More information is provided in the discussion. Financial or budget considerations: The Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) does not currently include funding for an additional off-leash dog park. Any additional upgrades or additions would need to be added to upcoming CIP’s. Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to creating opportunities to build social capital through community engagement. Supporting documents: Discussion Prepared by: Jason T. West, parks and recreation director Reviewed by: Stacy M. Voelker, administrative coordinator Approved by: Cindy Walsh, deputy city manager City council meeting of April 14, 2025 (Item No. 4) Page 2 Title: Results of off-leash dog park location review Discussion Background: The PRAC updated the criteria in an attempt to make more sites available. At its Oct. 21, 2025, study session, the city council directed the parks and recreation advisory commission (PRAC) to review criteria for establishing off-leash dog parks in the city. Criteria had originally been established in 2005 by a task force. At its Jan. 15, 2025, meeting, PRAC members reviewed, revised and approved the following updated criteria. The previous criteria is included by strike-though and edits are indicated by underlined text. Please note the following updates: o Minimal size should be at least 1 half an acre. o Dog waste and trash disposal center on site. o Double gate for control. o Close parking and street access to gate entrance of site. o Lighting at entrance minimum for safety. o Wood chips for Mud control and drainage. o Minimum five-foot fence around perimeter. o Emergency 911 access. o Accessibility. o Should not interfere with other park amenities. o Restrooms for dog owners. o Hours of operation are same as park hours. o Consider noise pollution, barking dogs. o Consider community engagement. o Varied terrain. o Main site versus satellite locations. o Trail access close. o Small dog site versus large dog site. o Safety. o Parking and traffic congestion. o Cleanliness: trash and dog waste clean-up. o Property value. o Aesthetics. Evaluation results for suggested off-leash dog park sites: The PRAC used the updated criteria to evaluate four sites suggested by residents or by council members as potential off-leash dog park sites. The four sites are at Lamplighter, Twin Lakes, Aquila and Louisiana Oaks parks. The evaluation results are listed below. Lamplighter Park • Cannot accommodate minimum ½-acre size • Majority of open area is owned by St. Louis Park Public Schools and Park Harbor Church • School district’s open area is used for physical education classes and by youth athletic associations Twin Lakes Park • Cannot accommodate minimum ½-acre size Aquila Park • Heavily programmed site • Extreme topography with a large hill and low areas that hold water • Off-leash dog park would interfere with existing amenities like fastpitch softball fields and tennis courts Study session meeting of April 14, 2025 (Item No. 4) Page 3 Title: Results of off-leash dog park location review Louisiana Oaks Park • Cost prohibitive due to soil mitigation required to install fence posts, because of location on the former Reilly Tar & Chemical Corp. site o $215,000 for soil mitigation (testing, borings, samples, disposal, clean fill, environmental oversight) o $51,500 for fencing and entrance lighting o $266,500 total cost • This area (in orange) is slated for prairie restoration in 2025 at a minimal cost, to add to already restored prairie areas on the east side slope and the trail (in blue) Present considerations: Based on the updated criteria and the evaluation of the proposed locations, both the PRAC and staff do not recommend installation of an off-leash dog park at Lamplighter, Twin Lakes, Aquila Park or Louisiana Oaks parks. Next steps: While installation of an additional off-leash dog park is not recommended at this time, the PRAC and staff plan to: • Focus on maintenance and enhancements: Direct efforts and resources toward maintaining and enhancing the two existing off-leash dog parks to ensure they continue to meet community needs. • Monitor feedback and continue evaluation: Monitor feedback from residents and stay aware of potential areas for additional off-leash dog parks. As potential sites become available, staff and the PRAC will evaluate the sites using the updated criteria for off- leash dog parks. Any recommendations will be brought to the city council for consideration.