HomeMy WebLinkAbout2018/09/24 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - Study SessionAGENDA
SEPTEMBER 24, 2018
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. National Suicide Prevention Awareness Month
3. 6:40 p.m. Surface water management plan update
4. 7:00 p.m. 2019 utility rate analysis
5. 8.00 p.m. Pavement management program overview
8:45 p.m. Communications/updates (verbal)
8:50 p.m. Adjourn
Written reports
6. Establishing a proposed public sewer and water utilities protection program
7. Sustainability update
8. Firearms discussion update
9. August 2018 monthly financial report
10. Cedar Lake Road Improvement Project No. 4019-1100
11. St. Louis Park comprehensive housing market study update
12. PLACE Via Sol and Via Luna projects update
Auxiliary aids for individuals with disabilities are available upon request. To make arrangements, please call
the administration department at 952/924-2525 (TDD 952/924-2518) at least 96 hours in advance of meeting.
Meeting: Study session
Meeting date: September 24, 2018
Discussion item: 1
Executive summary
Title: Future study session agenda planning
Recommended action: The city council and city manager to set the agenda for the regularly
scheduled study session on October 8, 2018.
Policy consideration: Not applicable.
Summary: This report summarizes the proposed agenda for the regularly scheduled study
session on October 8, 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 – October 8, 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 September 24, 2018 (Item No. 1) Page 2
Title: Future study session agenda planning
October 8, 2018.
6:30 p.m. – Study session – Community room
Tentative discussion items
1.Future study session agenda planning – Administrative services (5 minutes)
2.PLACE/Via Project – Community Development (30 minutes)
Staff will review the status of this project and the request for the issuance of tax-exempt
501(c)(3) bonds and to reissue housing allocation bonds on behalf of PLACE to finance the
Via Sol and Via Luna housing components at Wooddale Station
3.Budget discussion – Administrative services (90 minutes)
Staff will review the 2019-2028 capital improvement plan and the long range financial
management plan.
4.Study session prioritization process – Administrative services (30 minutes)
City staff will review the current list of study session agenda items and discuss
improvements to the identification and prioritization of future agenda topics initiated by a
council member.
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.
End of meeting: 9:10 p.m.
Written reports
5. Platia Place update
6. 2019 fee schedule
Study session meeting of September 24, 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 & 8/13/18. Staff following up 10/1/18
4 Revitalization of Walker Lake area
Part of preserving Walker building reports:
8/28/17, 9/25/17, 1/22/18, design study
2/12/18, update 4/23/18, design study
update 8/27/18
1st Qtr.
2019
4 Zoning guidelines for front-facing
buildings with windows not papered over
Discussed 7/9/18. Referred to PC for
review & recommendation.
1st Qtr.
2019
4 Finalize Council Norms Reviewed on 5/7/18; adoption postponed
on 5/21/18
2019
Workshop
3 Develop a youth/senior advisory
Commission Discussed 7/23. Staff following up. TBD
3 Living streets policy 4th 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.
1st Qtr.
2019
3 Discuss and evaluate our public process TBD
3 Retail/service/liquor stores size Discussed on 6/11/18; referred to PC. Dec. 2018
3 Crime free ordinance/affordable housing
strategies
Discussed 5/14/18. 1st reading housing
trust fund 10/1/18 Ongoing
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. Written report
provided at 9/24 study session 4th quarter
? Immigration & supporting families Discussed 8/6; referred to HRC; HRC
conducting community meeting in October 4th quarter
? Utility pricing policy TBD
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: September 24, 2018
Discussion item: 2
Executive summary
Title: National Suicide Prevention Awareness Month
Recommended action: The mayor proposes to proclaim the month of September as National
Suicide Prevention Awareness Month in the City of St. Louis Park.
Policy consideration: None at this time.
Summary: September is known across the county as National Suicide Prevention Awareness
Month. This time is used to promote awareness around suicide prevention resources that are
available to the community. The goal of National Suicide Prevention Awareness Month is to
learn how to help others and how to talk about suicide without increasing the risk of harm. The
City of St. Louis Park is one of 209 communities across the nation participating in this cause.
Financial or budget considerations: Not applicable
Strategic priority consideration:
St. Louis Park is committed to creating opportunities to build social capital through community
engagement.
Supporting documents: Proclamation
Prepared by: Maria Carrillo Perez, Management Assistant
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Special study session meeting of September 24, 2018 (Item No. 2) Page 2
Title: National Suicide Prevention Awareness Month
Proclamation
City of St. Louis Park
September is National Suicide Prevention Awareness Month
Whereas, September is known around the United States as National Suicide Prevention
Awareness Month and is intended to help promote awareness surrounding each of the Suicide
Prevention resources available to us and our community. The simple goal is to learn how to
help those around us and how to talk about suicide without increasing the risk of harm; and
Whereas, Suicidal thoughts can affect anyone regardless of age, gender, race,
orientation, income level, religion, or background; and
Whereas, According to the CDC, each year more than 41,000 people die by suicide; and
Whereas, Suicide is the 10th leading cause of death among adults in the US, and the 2nd
leading cause of death among people aged 10-24; and
Whereas, St. Louis Park, Minnesota is no different than any other community in the
country, but chooses to publicly state and place our full support behind local educators, mental
health professionals, athletic coaches, pack leaders, police officers, and parents, as partners in
supporting our community in simply being available to one another; and
Whereas, local organizations like Suicide Prevention Services (SPS) and national
organizations like the National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI) are on the front lines of a
battle that many still refuse to discuss in public, as suicide and mental illness remain too taboo
a topic to speak on; and
Whereas, every member of our community should understand that throughout life’s
struggles we all need the occasional reminder that we are all silently fighting our own battles;
and
Whereas, I encourage all residents to take the time to inquire as to the wellbeing of
their family, friends, and neighbors over the next few days and to genuinely convey their
appreciation for their existence by any gesture they deem appropriate. A simple phone call,
message, handshake, or hug can go a long way towards helping someone realize that suicide is
not the answer.
Now therefore be it resolved that I, Mayor Spano, do hereby proclaim the month of
September 2018, as National Suicide Prevention Awareness Month in the City of St. Louis Park,
Minnesota.
Wherefore, I set my hand and cause the
Great Seal of the City of St. Louis Park to be
affixed this 4th Day of September, 2018.
__________________________________
Jake Spano, Mayor
Meeting: Study session
Meeting date: September 24, 2018
Discussion item: 3
Executive summary
Title: Surface water management plan update
Recommended action: None at this time. Staff and our consultant will be present to discuss
the draft Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) update to the city council. The draft plan
will be on the October 15 council consent agenda for authorization to release it to the
Metropolitan Council, Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, Bassett Creek Watershed
Management Commission, and public and private stakeholders for comment.
Policy consideration: Does the city council support the goals and policies incorporated into the
SWMP?
Summary: In accordance with Minnesota Statute 103B.235 and Minnesota Rules 8410, the City
of St. Louis Park is required to update their SWMP in conjunction with the comprehensive plan
update and to comply with changes made to local watershed management organizations plans.
On October 2, 2017, the City of St. Louis Park entered into a contract with RESPEC Engineering
and Young Environmental Consulting Group, LLC to facilitate the development of the city’s
SWMP. The final adopted plan would replace the city’s 2009 plan.
As part of the approval process, council must authorize the release of the draft document for
agency review prior to adopting the plan. This discussion, along with the public posting of the
SWMP document is to allow council to ask questions and clarification of the plan prior to
agency distribution. LINK TO PLAN ON WEBSITE
Financial or budget considerations: The plan includes an implementation program. The
initiatives and projects are comprised of two areas. The first is ongoing programs and activities;
the second is capital improvement projects. Funding for implementation is provided by storm
water utility funds.
Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to continue to lead in
environmental stewardship.
Supporting documents: Discussion
Prepared by: Phillip Elkin, Senior Engineering Project Manager
Reviewed by: Debra Heiser, Engineering Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study session meeting of September 24, 2018 (Item No. 3) Page 2
Title: Surface water management plan update
Discussion
Background: The City of St. Louis Park partnered with RESPEC and Young Environmental
Consulting Group, LLC in August 2017 to facilitate the development of the city’s SWMP. The
draft SWMP has been prepared in accordance with Minnesota Statute 103B.235 and Minnesota
Rules 8410 and replaces the city’s 2009 plan.
The draft SWMP meets the policies and requirements of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed
District and Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission, as well as other local, state,
and federal agencies. This draft SWMP was designed to further the following vision statements
toward surface water management:
•Ensure every person understands the stormwater and natural systems and where
their water goes, and encourage people to change their actions to positively
influence those systems
•Incorporate a city-wide, integrated, and collaborative approach to maximizing
stormwater and natural system opportunities through land use changes
•Collaborate beyond expectations to further define and utilize our resources and
better manage stormwater and our natural systems to revitalize and connect our
community and guarantee our future resilience
•Position natural systems in balance with the built environment to place the
community as a vibrant, resilient regional land use and water resource management
leader
The draft SWMP sets the course for the city’s management of surface water and stormwater
within the city. It sets goals and policies for the city and its resources, provides data and other
background information, assesses both city-wide and specific issues, and lists implementation
tasks to achieve these goals. Additionally, the SWMP provides information regarding how the
city will fund the SWMP implementation program.
Next steps:
•September 24 Start of 60 day public comment period
•October 15 City Council authorizes release of the draft plan
•October 16 Document sent to review authorities
Start of agency 45 day review period
•November 30 End of comment periods
•December Respond to comments
•December/ January Planning commission public hearing
•December/January Council adoption of plan
Public Process
During the SWMP update, the city implemented a robust outreach and engagement plan that
complemented the City of St. Louis Park’s 2040 comprehensive plan, as well as the municipal
separate storm sewer system (MS4) stormwater pollution prevention program (SWPPP)
concurrent updates. The table below summarizes the outreach and engagement efforts
undertaken to ensure that the team working on the SWMP and SWPPP incorporated
information and ideas from a diverse group of stakeholders.
Study session meeting of September 24, 2018 (Item No. 3) Page 3
Title: Surface water management plan update
Shareholder Group Purpose Engagement Approaches/Timeline
Resident/public Inform and educate Website updates (December 2017 and February, April,
May, or June 2018, as appropriate)
Open house (Jan 9, 2018, 6–8 p.m.)
Table with fact sheets (e.g., at the West Metro Home
Remodeling Fair: February 11, 2018, 10:30 a.m.–3 p.m.;
Earth Day: April 22, 2018; Arbor Day: April 27, 2018; and
Spring Cleanup Day: June 9, 2018, 8 a.m.–1 p.m.)
Gather input Neighborhood planning workshops: “Your Voice Matters!”
(November 2017 and April 2018––comprehensive plan
item)
Web survey (January 2018)
Open house (Jan 9, 2018, 6–8 p.m.)
Table with fact sheets (e.g., at the West Metro Home
Remodeling Fair: February 11, 2018, 10:30 a.m.–3 p.m.;
Earth Day: April 22, 2018; Arbor Day: April 27, 2018; and
Spring Cleanup Day: June 9, 2018, 8 a.m.–1 p.m.)
“Water and Coffee” discussion session (June 26, 2018)
Advisory partners Inform and educate Website updates (December 2017 and February, April,
May, or June 2018, as appropriate)
Open house (Jan 9, 2018, 6–8 p.m.)
Web survey (January 2018)
Gather input
Involve Collaborative meetings to evaluate and assess SLP goals,
policies, and strategies (September 2017,
December/January 2018, February/March 2018)
Consult Collaborative meetings on watershed commission and
district’s standards (January 2018)
Implementation activities (June/July 2018)
Interdepartmental
partners
Inform and educate,
gather input,
involve, and consult
Monthly interdepartmental meetings; project team will
provide agenda topics approximately one week before
every meeting to allow departments to prepare for and
participate in them (meetings held on the second
Wednesday of each month).
Regulatory
partners
Inform and educate,
gather input, and
consult
Topic-specific meetings/conference calls with regulatory
agencies to ensure the project team is interpreting its
requirements correctly
Regulatory plans review (August/September 2018)
Leadership
partners
Inform and educate Leadership briefings
Involve Council study session (September 24, 2018, 6:30 p.m.)
Council authorization session (October 15, 2018, 7:30
p.m.)
Meeting: Study session
Meeting date: September 24, 2018
Discussion item: 4
Executive summary
Title: 2019 utility rate analysis
Recommended action: No action. Staff wishes to review and receive feedback from council on
an analysis just completed that will help determine utility rates for 2019.
Policy consideration: Do the utility rates being analyzed meet the conservation goals of the city
council?
Summary: The last year the city did a utility rate review/analysis was in 2010. Out of that study
a number of important strategies emerged around conservation and revenue stability to ensure
we are covering our fixed costs. Recently, staff has been working with our municipal advisor –
Ehlers to ensure our rate structure from 8 years ago is still meeting its objectives for water,
sewer and solid waste. Going forward staff will be updating the analysis every year to ensure
we are on track with council goals and priorities, especially given the significant reinvestment
needs in our capital improvement plan over the next 10 years for water and sewer.
A number of considerations were reviewed by staff in this analysis including but not limited to
conservation of water, pay as you throw refuse, access and affordability through a race equity
lens, and overall sustainability of funds. We also reviewed and continue to find that existing
system capacity for water has increased and are well within our guidelines.
Ehlers and staff will present their recommendations and discuss with council an overview of
each of the enterprise funds. We typically adopt utility rates in mid-October to ensure enough
time with the billing cycles for the upcoming year.
Financial or budget considerations: Water, sewer, and solid waste are enterprise funds and are
anticipated to have rates that cover the fund for all the related costs from debt service,
operations and capital improvement plans. The storm water enterprise fund was not analyzed
given its strong financial condition.
Also attached is a draft Capital Improvement Plan sorted by funding source. Staff is still making
final adjustments prior to the formal presentation on October 8th. This document has been
provided for informational purposes only at this time.
Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to continue to lead in
environmental stewardship.
Supporting documents: 2018 existing utility rates
Draft Capital Improvement Plan (2019-2028) – information only
Prepared by: Tim Simon, Chief Financial Officer
Reviewed by: Nancy Deno, HR Director/Deputy City Manager
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City of St. Louis Park
2018 Utility Rates
Adopted by City Council on October 16, 2017
Residential Units 2017 2018
Tier 1 0 - 40 1.78$ 1.89$
Tier 2 41 - 80 2.21$ 2.34$
Tier 3 81 - above 3.31$ 3.51$
Commercial All 1.78$ 1.89$
Irrigation All 3.31$ 3.51$
Meter
Size 2017 2018 2017 2018
5/8"8.26$ 9.08$ 24.79$ 27.23$
3/4"8.26$ 9.08$ 24.79$ 27.23$
1.0"11.57$ 12.70$ 34.71$ 38.10$
1.5"14.87$ 16.33$ 44.62$ 48.99$
2.0"23.96$ 26.31$ 71.89$ 78.93$
3.0"90.90$ 99.81$ 272.69$ 299.43$
4.0"115.69$ 127.03$ 347.06$ 381.09$
6.0"173.53$ 190.54$ 520.59$ 571.62$
2.0" Compound n/a n/a 71.89$ 78.93$
3.0" Compound n/a n/a 272.69$ 299.43$
State Testing Fee 2017 2018
Commercial 0.53$ 0.53$ Monthly
Residential 1.59$ 1.59$ Quarterly
Residential 2017 2018
Base Charge 16.78$ 17.61$ Quarterly
Usage 3.28$ 3.44$ Per unit - Quarterly
Apartments 2017 2018
Base Charge 16.78$ 17.61$ Quarterly
Usage 3.28$ 3.44$ Per unit - Quarterly
Commercial 2017 2018
Base Charge 16.78$ 17.61$ Quarterly
Usage 3.28$ 3.44$ Per unit - Quarterly
Base Charge 5.60$ 5.87$ Monthly
Usage 3.28$ 3.44$ Per unit - Monthly
Residential 2017 2018
Quarterly 21.83$ 23.14$
Commercial 2017 2018
Monthly 36.38$ 38.56$
Quarterly 109.15$ 115.68$
Bassett Creek Watershed Management District (pass-through)
2017 2018
Monthly 0.64$ 0.64$
Quarterly 1.93$ 1.93$
2017 2018 2017 2018
20-gallon 28.00$ 29.40$ Quarterly 30 gallon service
30-gallon 46.50$ 48.83$ Quarterly Garbage 16.27$ 17.08$ Monthly
60-gallon 69.00$ 72.45$ Quarterly Garbage 48.80$ 51.24$ Quarterly
90-gallon 105.75$ 111.04$ Quarterly 60 gallon service
120-gallon 168.00$ 176.40$ Quarterly Garbage 20.96$ 22.01$ Monthly
150-gallon 210.00$ 220.50$ Quarterly Garbage 62.88$ 66.03$ Quarterly
180-gallon 252.00$ 264.60$ Quarterly 90 gallon service
270-gallon 378.00$ 396.90$ Quarterly Garbage 28.62$ 30.05$ Monthly
360-gallon 504.00$ 529.20$ Quarterly Garbage 85.86$ 90.15$ Quarterly
450-gallon 630.00$ n/a Quarterly Recycling 11.71$ 12.30$ Monthly
540-gallon 756.00$ n/a Quarterly Recycling 35.12$ 36.90$ Quarterly
Organics 15.06$ 15.81$ Monthly
Organics 45.18$ 47.43$ Quarterly
180 gallon service
Garbage 59.12$ 62.08$ Monthly
Garbage 177.35$ 186.24$ Quarterly
Recycling 20.98$ 22.03$ Monthly
Recycling 62.95$ 66.09$ Quarterly
Organics 28.97$ 30.42$ Monthly
Organics 86.92$ 91.26$ Quarterly
270 gallon service
Recycling 28.97$ 30.42$ Monthly
Recycling 86.92$ 91.26$ Quarterly
Residential Commercial
Water Rates
Water Meter Charges
Sewer Rates
Commercial Residential
Storm Drainage Rates
Solid Waste Rates (including tax when applicable)
Study session meeting of September 24, 2018 (Item No. 4)
Title: 2019 utility rate analysis Page 2
Capital Improvement Program
City of St. Louis Park, MN
PROJECTS BY FUNDING SOURCE
2019 2028thru
Total20192020202120222023Source20242025202620272028 #Priority
Basset Creek Watershed Managemen
405,500405,500Westwood Hills Nature Center
Stormwater Plan
36180002 1
Basset Creek Watershed Management Comm. Total 405,500405,500
Cable TV
20,00020,000Closed Captioning 11191010 3
7,5007,500ParkTV Production Van Exterior
Wrap
11191011 3
140,000140,000Van Cameras 11201001 3
Cable TV Total 167,50027,500 140,000
Cable TV - Time Warner Equipment
20,00020,000Van Camera Cases 11151002 3
13,00013,000Van Camera Cables 11151003 3
10,00010,000Tripods for On Location 11151007 3
11,00011,000Server Upgrade for 15/96 11151010 1
40,00040,000Council Chambers HD pan/tilt
cameras
11172007 1
7,5007,500Camcorders111810051
28,00028,000Webstreaming Computer
Replacement
11181008 n/a
500500DVD Recorders 11191001 1
30,00030,000Slow-motion replay 11191002 1
70070012-channel audio mixer 11191003 1
9,0009,000NLE stations for Community TV 11191006 1
900900Microphones111910071
1,5001,500Tripods111910081
35,00035,000Replacement edit systems 11191009 1
Wednesday, September 19, 2018Page 12019-2028 DRAFT Capital Improvement Plan
Study session meeting of September 24, 2018 (Item No. 4)
Title: 2019 utility rate analysis Page 3
Total20192020202120222023Source20242025202620272028 #Priority
20,00020,000Van Camera Cases 11201002 3
13,00013,000Van Camera Cables 11201003 3
15,00015,000LCD monitors 11201004 3
2,5002,500Hard-Drive Video Recorder 11201008 1
12,00012,000Tripods for On Location 11201010 1
4,2004,200SD/HD converter 11201011 1
16,50016,500Video Switcher 11201012 1
1,5001,500DVD recorder 11201013 1
28,20028,200Playback systems 11201014 1
7,0007,000Production switcher 11201015 1
Cable TV - Time Warner Equipment Grant Total 327,000104,100 51,400 1,500 7,000 33,000 130,000
Capital Replacement Fund
50,00025,000 25,000IR: PCI Re-Assessment / Training /
Security
13125001 1
920,00092,000 92,000 92,000 92,000 92,000 92,000 92,000 92,000 92,000 92,000IR: Hosted / Managed Services / DR
/ BC
13135001 3
20,00020,000OR: AVL / GPS 13135004 3
425,00065,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000Admin Serv:Document Mgmt System
Maintenance
13155006 3
18,50018,500IR: MyStLouisPark CRM 13155007 1
150,000150,000IR: City Hall Council Chambers AV
Upgrade
13155008 1
15,00015,000Eng: Survey GPS 13155016 3
100,00010,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000IR: Website Maintenance 13165004 1
48,00016,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000Admin Serv: HR Time Management
System
13165007 3
252,00022,000 54,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000Insp / Comm Dev: Electronic Plans
Review Software
13165009 3
25,00025,000Eng: GPS Base Station 13175001 3
8,0008,000Eng: Trimble R2 GPS Receiver 13175004 3
60,00030,000 30,000IR: Wireless Controller Expansion 13175006 1
150,00015,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000Admin Serv: Agenda Management
System
13175007 3
200,000200,000Admin Serv: Financial / HR/Payroll
App Replacement
13185001 1
50,00050,000Fire: Zuercher / Patient Contact
Mobile Solution
13185002 3
35,00010,000 15,000 10,000Fire: Station Cameras / EOC in 2025 13185003 3
100,000100,000IR: Office 365 Project
Implementation & Training
13185004 3
Wednesday, September 19, 2018Page 22019-2028 DRAFT Capital Improvement Plan
Study session meeting of September 24, 2018 (Item No. 4)
Title: 2019 utility rate analysis Page 4
Total20192020202120222023Source20242025202620272028 #Priority
95,00095,000Insp: PIMS / PDS Upgrades 13185005 1
20,00020,000IR: Network Equipment Battery
(UPS) Backup
13185009 1
50,00050,000Fire: 800 MHz Paging Upgrade 13205001 3
2,800,000280,000 280,000 280,000 280,000 280,000 280,000 280,000 280,000 280,000 280,000IR: On-going Software Licenses,
Mtce, Development
13995001 1
1,250,000125,000 125,000 125,000 125,000 125,000 125,000 125,000 125,000 125,000 125,000IR: On-going Network Adds &
Replacement
13995002 1
1,075,000125,000 100,000 110,000 100,000 100,000 110,000 110,000 110,000 100,000 110,000IR: On-going Hardware Adds &
Replacement
13995003 1
35,00035,000Eng: Engineering Total Station 13995010 1
55,00010,000 15,000 15,000 15,000Police: EOC Computer / Phone
Equipment Replacement
13995013 3
2,432,647215,378 220,763 226,282 231,939 237,737 243,681 249,773 256,017 268,818 282,259IR: Tablet / Smartphone Hardware
and Services
13995015 1
38,00019,000 19,000Facilities: City Hall Cameras 13995016 3
250,00025,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000Admin Serv - Hubble Budgeting
Annual Maintenance
13995017 3
75,00025,000 50,000OR: Nature Center Surveillance
Cameras
13995019 3
160,00016,000 16,000 16,000 16,000 16,000 16,000 16,000 16,000 16,000 16,000IR: Surveillance Camera and S2
Locks Maintenance
13995026 3
68,0006,800 6,800 6,800 6,800 6,800 6,800 6,800 6,800 6,800 6,800IR: Central City Hall Plotter 13995029 3
100,000100,000IR: Telephone Handset / Handless
Upgrades
13995035 3
71,6005,700 5,700 13,000 5,700 13,000 5,700 5,700 5,700 5,700 5,700IR: Remote Building Large Scanner /
Plotter
13995036 3
100,00040,000 60,000Fire: Stations A/V and EOC
Presentation Equipment
13995037 3
50,00010,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000IR: Wireless Hotspot Additions /
Replacements
13995041 3
70,00035,000 35,000IR: UHL Camera Servers
Replacement - City Hall
13995057 3
150,00015,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000IR: Adobe Software Products
Licensing
13995058 1
80,00080,000IR: On-Going Monitor Replacements 13995059 1
485,00040,000 45,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000IR: Fiber Locates 13995065 1
220,00040,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000IR: Fiber Asset Management 13995066 3
1,000,000100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000Police: Body and Squad Dash
Cameras
13995067 3
120,00012,000 12,000 12,000 12,000 12,000 12,000 12,000 12,000 12,000 12,000Admin Serv: Tungsten Elec
Accounts Payable
13995068 3
20,00010,000 10,000SWAT Rifle replacement 20180001 1
16,50016,500SWAT Robot 20180002 3
Wednesday, September 19, 2018Page 32019-2028 DRAFT Capital Improvement Plan
Study session meeting of September 24, 2018 (Item No. 4)
Title: 2019 utility rate analysis Page 5
Total20192020202120222023Source20242025202620272028 #Priority
14,0007,000 7,000SWAT Ballistic Shields 20180003 1
30,00030,000City Hall Garage Overhead Doors 31150001 1
80,00080,000City Hall Floor 3 Roof Top AC Unit 31170003 1
25,00025,000City Hall Electric Vehicle Charger 31190001 1
8,0008,000City Hall W indow Replacement 31190002 5
10,00010,000City Hall CD Cubicle Rearraigment 31190003 3
8,0008,000City Hall Planning/Inspections
Monitors
31190004 5
18,00018,000City Hall/Police Generator Transfer
Switch Service
31190005 1
80,00080,000City Hall Timber Retaining Walls 31200001 1
85,00085,000City Hall Bridge 31200003 3
32,00015,000 17,000City Hall/Police Campus Landscaping 31210001 1
35,00035,000City Hall 2nd Floor Celing Tile
Replacement
31210002 5
25,00025,000City Hall ITE & Gould Elect Panel
Replacement
31230001 3
35,00035,000City Hall Generator Head Gasket 31240001 1
8,0008,000City Hall Stair Carpet Replacement 31240002 5
200,000200,000CH Windows, Ext. Coatings and
Caulking Replacement
31250001 n/a
15,00015,000City Hall Window Blinds 31250002 5
35,00035,000City Hall First Floor Carpet
Replacement
31260001 3
100,000100,000CH Access Control System
Replacement, City Wide
31260002 3
15,00015,000CH Update HVAC Controls 31270002 3
20,00020,000Police Parking and Training
Feasability Study
32180004 3
55,00055,000Police StationShooting Range
Exhaust
32190002 1
10,00010,000Police Lobby Furniture 32190003 1
30,00030,000Police- Replace Ceiling Tiles 32210002 3
50,00050,000Police Station Replace Light Fixtures 32210003 1
140,000140,000PD Indivdual Office & Conf Room
Remodel
32210004 1
200,000200,000Police Dispatch and Kitchen
Remodel
32220001 1
25,00025,000Police Report Writing Room Remodel 32220002 3
75,00075,000Police Station Remodel Restrooms 32220003 1
50,00050,000Police Parking Gate 32230001 3
25,00025,000Police Station Blind Replacement 32240002 3
Wednesday, September 19, 2018Page 42019-2028 DRAFT Capital Improvement Plan
Study session meeting of September 24, 2018 (Item No. 4)
Title: 2019 utility rate analysis Page 6
Total20192020202120222023Source20242025202620272028 #Priority
65,00065,000Police Station Exterior Masonry
Maintenance
32270001 3
18,00018,000Police Station Water Heaters 32270002 1
12,00012,000PD Replace HVAC Controls 32270003 3
90,00090,000Police Locker Replacement 32280001 3
75,00015,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000MSC & Fire Stations CO Nox Sensor
Replacement
33140002 1
15,00015,000MSC Air Compressor Replacement 33190001 1
200,000200,000MSC Car Wash Unit Replace with
Automatic
33190003 1
5,0005,000MSC Office LED Bulb Replacement 33190004 3
120,000120,000MSC Solar Panel Addition 33190005 3
20,00020,000MSC Convert Exterior HID to LED 33200001 3
50,00050,000MSC 2nd Bay-Sealant 33200003 1
85,00085,000MSC Fuel Station Replacement 33200004 n/a
25,00025,000MSC Paint Booth Maintenance 33210002 3
12,00012,000MSC Replace HVAC Controls 33210003 3
40,00040,000MSC Exterior Fence 33210004 3
20,00020,000MSC Traffic Shop Floor Coating 33210005 5
50,00050,000MSC 3rd Bay Sealant and Stripping 33210006 1
400,000400,000MSC Bays 1, 2 & 3 Roofing 33220001 3
21,00010,000 11,000MSC Campus Landscaping 33220002 1
75,00075,000MSC Access Control/Fobs 33220004 5
180,000180,000MSC Solar Panels 33230001 3
250,000250,000MSC Heat Exchanger Ventilation 33230002 3
110,000110,000MSC Hoist Replacement 33230003 3
100,000100,000MSC Boiler Replacement 33240002 3
18,00018,000MSC Carpet Replacement 33250001 3
100,000100,000MSC Interior Light Fixtures
Replacment
33250002 1
250,000250,000MSC Office Remodel 33280001 3
100,000100,000Fire Stations 1 & 2 Apparatus bay
floor coating
34160002 1
50,00050,000Fire Station #1 Training Tower
modifications
34190001 1
275,000275,000Fire Station 1 &2 Alerting System 34190002 1
25,00025,000Fire Station # 1 Entry Canopy 34190003 3
15,00015,000Fire Station 1&2 Mattress
replacement
34190005 1
110,000110,000Fire Station 1 Decontamination
Laundry
34190006 3
Wednesday, September 19, 2018Page 52019-2028 DRAFT Capital Improvement Plan
Study session meeting of September 24, 2018 (Item No. 4)
Title: 2019 utility rate analysis Page 7
Total20192020202120222023Source20242025202620272028 #Priority
35,00035,000Fire Stations Replace Exercise
Equipment
34200001 5
12,00012,000Fire Stations Replace HVAC Controls 34200003 3
15,00015,000Fire Station #1 and #2 Landscaping 34240001 1
18,00018,000Fire 1&2 Water Heaters 34240002 3
35,00035,000FS #1 and #2 Carpet Replacement 3424001 1
60,00060,000Fire Station #1 light fixture
replacements
34260001 1
100,000100,000Fire Station Office Furniture 34270001 3
80,00080,000Fire 1&2 Boilers 34280001 3
45,00045,000Fire Station #2 Replace light fixtures 35250001 1
32,0008,000 8,000 8,000 8,000Thermal Imagers 65990001 1
84,00021,000 21,000 21,000 21,000Outside Warning Sirens 65990002 1
373,283373,283SCBA659900031
30,00030,000Hydraulic Rescue Tool 65990004 5
105,00050,000 55,000Auto-CPR Device 65990005 1
150,000150,000Turnouts659900061
35,00035,000Helmets/Boots 65990007 3
18,0005,500 6,000 6,500Air Monitors 65990008 3
19,073,3991,672,865 2,102,036 1,818,407 2,262,828 1,615,735 1,431,992 942,733 2,256,431 3,121,990 1,848,382Annual Equipment Replacement
Program
E - XX01 1
75,50011,500 11,500 11,500 11,500 29,500Laser/Radar and Message Board PD - 1 3
Capital Replacement Fund Total 38,408,4293,867,743 4,057,799 3,742,989 4,430,767 4,313,055 3,006,173 2,912,506 3,887,948 4,618,308 3,571,141
E-911 Funds
165,00080,000 85,000Fire / Police: Dispatch Voice
Recorders
13995007 1
160,00016,000 16,000 16,000 16,000 16,000 16,000 16,000 16,000 16,000 16,000IR / Communications: Reverse 911 -
ParkAlert
13995009 3
326,02925,921 27,217 28,578 30,007 31,507 33,082 34,736 36,473 38,297 40,211Police: Zuercher CAD Module
Annual Fees
13995042 1
150,000150,000911 Server Replacement PD - 2 1
E-911 Funds Total 801,02941,921 43,217 44,578 46,007 277,507 49,082 50,736 52,473 54,297 141,211
EDA Development Fund
250,000250,000IR: Fiber - Sidewalks / Streets /
Citywide
13155002 3
400,000200,000 200,000SWLRT: Stations Technology 13995051 3
1,333,333666,667 666,666SWLRT- Base Design 40199000 1
Wednesday, September 19, 2018Page 62019-2028 DRAFT Capital Improvement Plan
Study session meeting of September 24, 2018 (Item No. 4)
Title: 2019 utility rate analysis Page 8
Total20192020202120222023Source20242025202620272028 #Priority
593,683148,422 445,261SWLRT- LRCI 32 - CSAH 25 @
Beltline Blvd.
40199003 1
74,75074,750Street - MSA Street Rehab
(Monterey)
40201101 1
EDA Development Fund Total 2,651,7661,265,089 1,386,677
G.O. Bonds
2,650,000750,000 300,000 400,000 500,000 100,000 200,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000IR: Fiber - Sidewalks / Streets /
Citywide
13155002 3
12,500,00012,500,000Westwood Naturce Center new
building
36190002 1
416,946416,946Street - Commercial Street Rehab 40181050 1
1,764,1001,764,100Bridge - Louisiana Ave @
Minnehaha Creek
40181700 1
730,250730,250Street - Local Street Rehab (Area 7)40191000 1
1,265,0001,265,000Street - MSA Street Rehab (CLR E
of Lou)
40191100 1
4,181,6004,181,600CTP Sidewalk - Trail - Bikeway 40192000 1
1,000,0001,000,000SWLRT- Base Design 40199000 1
623,23864,556 558,682SWLRT- Regional Trail Bridge
Upgrades
40199004 1
100,000100,000SWLRT- Whistle Quiet @ Wooddale
and Beltline
40199005 1
721,625721,625Street - Local Street Rehab (Area 8)40201000 1
1,124,1251,124,125Street - MSA Street Rehab
(Monterey)
40201101 1
2,652,5002,652,500CTP Sidewalk - Trail - Bikeway 40202000 1
787,750787,750Street - Local Street Rehab (Area 8)40211000 1
2,364,0002,364,000CTP Sidewalk - Trail - Bikeway 40212000 1
796,375796,375Street - Local Street Rehab (Area 7)40221000 1
1,587,5001,587,500CTP Sidewalk - Trail - Bikeway 40222000 1
483,000483,000Street - Local Street Rehab (Area 1)40231000 1
6,240,0006,240,000CTP Sidewalk - Trail - Bikeway 40232000 1
3,490,000250,000 510,000 930,000 1,800,000County - Mtka Blvd (Hwy 100 to
France)
40237000 1
710,125710,125Street - Local Street Rehab (Area 2)40241000 1
287,500287,500Street - MSA Street Rehab
(Oxford/Edgwd/Cambridge)
40241100 1
845,250845,250Street - Local Street Rehab (Area 3)40251000 1
350,750350,750Street - Local Street Rehab (Area 4)40261000 1
968,875968,875Street - Local Street Rehab (Area 5)40271000 1
Wednesday, September 19, 2018Page 72019-2028 DRAFT Capital Improvement Plan
Study session meeting of September 24, 2018 (Item No. 4)
Title: 2019 utility rate analysis Page 9
Total20192020202120222023Source20242025202620272028 #Priority
710,125710,125Street - Local Street Rehab (Area 6)40281000 1
G.O. Bonds Total 49,350,63420,908,352 7,221,032 3,801,750 3,393,875 7,753,000 2,997,625 945,250 450,750 1,068,875 810,125
G.O. Tax Increment Bonds
2,338,2672,338,267SWLRT- Park and Ride Ramp at
Beltline Station
40199006 1
G.O. Tax Increment Bonds Total 2,338,2672,338,267
Hennepin County
45,00045,000Bridge - Louisiana Ave @
Minnehaha Creek
40181700 1
Hennepin County Total 45,00045,000
Hockey Association
800,000100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000Outdoor Refrigerated Ice Rink 24145019 5
Hockey Association Total 800,000100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000
Met Council Grant
2,700,0002,700,000SWLRT- Park and Ride Ramp at
Beltline Station
40199006 1
Met Council Grant Total 2,700,0002,700,000
Municipal State Aid
2,962,5002,962,500Street - MSA Street Rehab
(Louisiana Ave)
40171100 1
3,875,1503,875,150Bridge - Louisiana Ave @
Minnehaha Creek
40181700 1
4,925,0004,925,000Street - MSA Street Rehab (CLR E
of Lou)
40191100 1
2,262,5002,262,500Street - MSA Street Rehab (Texas
@ Mtka)
40201100 3
2,650,1752,650,175Street - MSA Street Rehab
(Monterey)
40201101 1
1,575,0001,575,000Street - MSA Street Rehab (CLR
Texas to Kentucky)
40211100 1
2,312,5002,312,500Street - MSA Street Rehab (CLR
TH169 to Texas)
40221100 1
100,000100,000Railroad - Whistle Quiet Zones 40221300 5
2,537,5002,537,500Street - MSA Street Rehab (Shelard
Pkwy)
40231100 1
Wednesday, September 19, 2018Page 82019-2028 DRAFT Capital Improvement Plan
Study session meeting of September 24, 2018 (Item No. 4)
Title: 2019 utility rate analysis Page 10
Total20192020202120222023Source20242025202620272028 #Priority
4,087,5004,087,500Street - MSA Street Rehab
(Oxford/Edgwd/Cambridge)
40241100 1
1,162,5001,162,500Street - MSA Street Rehab (W28th
St)
40251100 1
1,380,0001,380,000Street - MSA Street Rehab (TBD)40261100 1
1,380,0001,380,000Street - MSA street Rehab (TBD)40271100 1
1,380,0001,380,000Street - MSA Street Rehab (TBD)40281100 1
Municipal State Aid Total 32,590,3254,925,000 8,787,825 4,537,500 2,412,500 2,537,500 4,087,500 1,162,500 1,380,000 1,380,000 1,380,000
Park Improvement Fund
37,20037,200OR: Activities Registration/Facilities
Mgmt System
13185008 3
80,0008,000 8,000 8,000 8,000 8,000 8,000 8,000 8,000 8,000 8,000OR: Asset Mgmt Software 13995011 3
210,00043,000 62,000 43,000 62,000OR: Rec Center / ROC / Lot Camera
Replacements
13995025 1
60,0005,000 25,000 5,000 25,000OR: Oak Hill Camera/Security/Wi-Fi
Replacements
13995052 3
34,00011,000 12,000 11,000OR: Park Shelter (Smaller) Camera
Replacements
13995053 3
5,0005,000OR: Wolfe Park / Amphitheatre /
Pool Wi-Fi Replace
13995054 3
30,00030,000OR: Birchwood Cameras / S2
Security
13995060 3
15,00015,000OR: Wolfe Park Pavilion S2 /
Amphitheatre Cameras
13995061 3
40,00040,000OR: Rec Center East Arena Area
Sound System / PA
13995063 1
65,00065,000OR: Rec Banquet Room & Gallery
A/V System Replace.
13995064 1
20,00020,000Parking Lot Seal Coat - Aquila Park 21190304 3
10,00010,000Trail Reconstruction - Birchwood
Park
21190613 1
20,00020,000Parking Lot Seal Coat - Dakota Park 21191805 3
86,25086,250Dakota Bridge 21191806 1
75,00075,000Trail Reconstruction - Dakota Park 21191815 1
45,00045,000Trail Reconstruction - Fern Hill Park 21192116 1
50,00050,00040th & France Fencing & Parking Lot 21193202 3
10,00010,000Floor Upgrade - Wolfe Park Building 21196403 1
20,00020,000ADA Connections to Picnic
Shelter/Playgrounds
21199901 1
15,00015,000Adult Fitness in Parks 21199902 5
30,00030,000Trail Sealcoat - Various Trails 21199917 1
Wednesday, September 19, 2018Page 92019-2028 DRAFT Capital Improvement Plan
Study session meeting of September 24, 2018 (Item No. 4)
Title: 2019 utility rate analysis Page 11
Total20192020202120222023Source20242025202620272028 #Priority
15,00015,000Trail Reconstruction - Bronx Park 21200912 1
275,000275,000Dakota Park LED Baseball Field
Light Replacement
21201801 3
60,00060,000ADA Trail Compliance 21202401 1
20,00020,000Trail Reconstruction - Keystone Park 21203013 1
10,00010,000Louisiana Oaks Park & Hwy 7
Interchange Landscape
21203603 1
20,00020,000Trail Reconstruction - Northside Park 21204314 1
15,00015,000ADA Compliant - Picnic Tables 21209901 1
113,500113,500Trail Reconstruction - Bass Lake
Park
21210411 3
165,000165,000Carpenter Park LED Ballfield
Replacement
21211101 3
145,000145,000Tennis Court Renovation, Carpenter
Park
21211119 3
20,00020,000Batting Cages - Cedar Knoll Park /
Carlson Field
21211303 1
65,00065,000Trail Reconstruction - Louisiana
Oaks Park
21213614 3
75,00075,000Trail Reconstruction - Oak Hill Park 21214415 3
85,00085,000Trail Reconstruction - Wolfe Park 21216416 3
45,00045,000Trail Reconstruction - Franklin 21219912 3
45,00045,000Trail Reconstruction - Jordan 21219913 3
50,00050,000Trail Reconstruction - Minnehaha
Creek
21224109 3
30,00030,000Trail Reconstruction - Otten Pond 21234611 3
10,00010,000Trail Reconstruction - Roxbury Park 21235112 3
10,00010,000Trail Reconstruction - Twin Lakes
Park
21235813 3
2,0002,000Repaint Park Building - Cedar Knoll
Park
21240130 1
7,0007,000Repaint Park Building - Aquila Park 21240306 1
75,00075,000Trail Reconstruction - Aquila Park 21240317 3
7,0007,000Repaint Park Building - Birchwood
Park
21240607 1
7,0007,000Repaint Park Building - Browndale
Park
21241008 1
6,0006,000Repaint Park Building - Carpenter
Park
21241109 1
50,00050,000Trail Reconstruction - Carpenter Park 21241118 3
4,0004,000Repaint Park Building - Dakota Park 21241811 1
5,0005,000Repaint Park Building - Fern Hill Park 21242112 1
Wednesday, September 19, 2018Page 102019-2028 DRAFT Capital Improvement Plan
Study session meeting of September 24, 2018 (Item No. 4)
Title: 2019 utility rate analysis Page 12
Total20192020202120222023Source20242025202620272028 #Priority
30,00030,000Trail Reconstruction - Jersey Park 21242719 1
7,0007,000Repaint Park Building - Louisiana
Oaks Park
21243613 1
7,0007,000Repaint Park Building - Nelson Park 21244214 1
6,0006,000Repaint Park Building - Northside
Park
21244315 1
9,0009,000Repaint Park Building - Oak Hill Park 21244416 1
40,00040,000Trail Reconstruction - Lamplighter
Park
21253401 3
30,00030,000Trail Reconstruction - Westwood
Hills NC
21256202 3
100,000100,000Wolfe Park Amphitheater Pavers 21256403 3
100,000100,000Trail Reconstruction 21259903 3
150,000150,000Park Shelter Replacement 21259905 3
100,000100,000Trail Lighting 21259906 3
130,000130,000Trail from Hampshire Park to Otten
Pond
21269903 n/a
100,000100,000Court Resurface - Wolfe Park (Pklbll
& Bsktbll)
21276403 3
200,000200,000Park Building Upgrades 21279903 n/a
65,00065,000Playground Eqpt Repl - Ainsworth
Park
21990101 1
100,000100,000Playground Eqpt Repl - Aquila Park 21990301 1
65,00065,000Playground Eqpt Repl - Bronx Park 21990902 1
100,000100,000Playground Eqpt Repl - Browndale
Park
21991002 1
65,00065,000Playground Eqpt Repl - Carpenter
Park
21991102 1
65,00065,000Playground Eqpt Repl - Cedar
Manor Park
21991403 1
65,00065,000Playground Eqpt Repl - Cedarhurst
Park
21991503 1
65,00065,000Playground Eqpt Repl - Center Park 21991604 1
65,00065,000Playground Eqpt Repl - Parkview
Park
21991712 1
67,00067,000Playground Eqpt Repl - Dakota Park 21991801 1
65,00065,000Playground Eqpt Repl - Edgebrook
Park
21991918 1
85,00085,000Playground Eqpt Repl - Fern Hill Park 21992110 1
67,00067,000Playground Eqpt Repl - Hampshire
Park
21992401 1
65,00065,000Playground Eqpt Repl - Jackley Park 21992611 1
65,00065,000Playground Eqpt Repl - Jorvig Park 21992801 1
Wednesday, September 19, 2018Page 112019-2028 DRAFT Capital Improvement Plan
Study session meeting of September 24, 2018 (Item No. 4)
Title: 2019 utility rate analysis Page 13
Total20192020202120222023Source20242025202620272028 #Priority
65,00065,000Playground Eqpt Repl - Knollwood
Green
21993217 1
100,000100,000Playground Eqpt Repl - Louisiana
Oaks Park
21993601 1
65,00065,000Playground Eqpt Repl -
Meadowbrook Manor Park
21993801 1
65,00065,000Playground Eqpt Repl - Minikahda
Vista Park
21994002 1
67,00067,000Playground Eqpt Repl - Oak Hill
Park (Tot)
21994402 1
100,000100,000Playground Eqpt Repl - Oak Hill
Park (Big)
21994403 1
65,00065,000Playground Eqpt Repl - Oregon Park 21994502 1
65,00065,000Playground Eqpt Repl -
Pennsylvania Park
21994803 1
65,00065,000Playground Eqpt Repl - Sunset Park 21995403 1
65,00065,000Playground Eqpt Repl - Sunshine
Park
21995406 1
65,00065,000Playground Eqpt Repl - Texa-Tonka
Park
21995607 1
65,00065,000Playground Eqpt Repl - Webster Park 21996112 1
100,000100,000Playground Eqpt Repl - Westwood
Hills NC
21996204 1
65,00065,000Playground Eqpt Repl - Willow Park 21996308 1
95,50095,500Playground Eqpt Repl - Wolfe Park
EVOS
21996402 1
67,00067,000Playground Eqpt Repl - Wolfe Park
(tot)
21996403 1
140,00020,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000Playground Woodchips 21999902 1
60,00060,000Trail Repayment - Minnehaha Creek 21999903 1
200,000200,000Playground Equipment Replacement 21999904 1
60,00010,000 25,000 25,000Climate Action Plan 21999906 3
205,00080,000 125,000Trail Restoration 21999907 3
475,000175,000 300,000Pickleball Court Addition 21999908 n/a
15,00015,000Community Garden - Site TBD 22191035 1
10,00010,000Trail Access Rebuild for Louisiana
Canoe Landing
22193603 1
15,00015,000Minnehaha Creek Restoration 22204110 1
550,00075,000 75,000 100,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000Tree Replacement 22999901 3
100,00020,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000Buckthorn Management 22999903 3
30,00030,000Westwood Hills NC Boardwalk Deck
Repl, Phase 2
23196218 1
Wednesday, September 19, 2018Page 122019-2028 DRAFT Capital Improvement Plan
Study session meeting of September 24, 2018 (Item No. 4)
Title: 2019 utility rate analysis Page 14
Total20192020202120222023Source20242025202620272028 #Priority
80,00080,000Westwood Hills NC Brick House
ADA Compliance
23196219 1
40,00040,000Westwood Hills NC Rotary Deck
Rebuild
23206201 1
25,00025,000Westwood Hills NC Trail Bench
Replacement
23206214 1
40,00040,000Westwood Hills NC Staircase Rebuild 23216216 1
75,00075,000Westwood Hills NC Water Garden,
Phase 2
23226210 5
50,00050,000Westwood Hills NC Boardwalk Deck
Repl, Phase 3
23246220 1
100,000100,000Westwood Hills NC Boardwalk Deck
Repl, Phase 1
23256203 3
50,00050,000Westwood Hills NC Waterfall 23256204 5
30,00030,000Westwood Hills NC Trail Sign
Replacement
23266202 1
10,00010,000Westwood Hills NC Waterfall Deck
Redecking
23286203 1
55,00020,000 20,000 15,000Westwood Hillls NC Master
Revegetation Plan
23996227 3
15,00015,000Rec Center Banquet Room & Gallery
Chair Repl.
24195010 3
50,00050,000Rec Center East Arena Locker
Room Remodel
24195011 1
75,00075,000Rec Center Front Office AC
Replacement
24195012 1
30,00030,000Rec Center East Arena Score Boards 24195013 1
110,000110,000Rec Center Banquet Room AC
Replacement
24205003 1
200,000200,000Rec Center Signage 24205008 3
75,00075,000Rec Center Aquatic Park Sun
Shelter Repl
24205010 1
10,00010,000Rec Center Rental Skate
Replacement (Ph 1)
24205011 1
32,50032,500Rec Center Scoreboard 24205012 3
20,00020,000Rec Center Electric Vehicle Station
Addition
24215003 1
50,00050,000Rec Center Parking Lot Light
Replacement
24215004 1
530,000530,000Rec Center Parking Lot Replacement 24215005 1
250,000250,000Rec Center Arena Rubber Floor 24215007 1
10,00010,000Rec Center Rental Skate
Replacement (Ph 2)
242150110 1
50,00050,000Rec Center Lighting Upgrade 24215018 1
Wednesday, September 19, 2018Page 132019-2028 DRAFT Capital Improvement Plan
Study session meeting of September 24, 2018 (Item No. 4)
Title: 2019 utility rate analysis Page 15
Total20192020202120222023Source20242025202620272028 #Priority
60,00060,000Rec Center East Arena Painting 24225006 1
25,00025,000Rec Center Skate Sharpener 24225010 1
75,00075,000Rec Center Arena Water Treatment
Repl
24235008 1
75,00075,000Rec Center West Arena Painting 24235009 1
400,000400,000Rec Center East Arena
Dehumidification
24245003 1
500,000500,000Rec Center Generator Replacement 24245004 1
25,00025,000Rec Center Banquet Room Carpet
Replacement
24255003 3
800,000800,000Rec Center West Arena Roof
Replacement
24255010 1
100,000100,000Rec Center West Arena Locker
Room Remodel
24265003 3
1,000,0001,000,000Rec Center Boiler Replacement 24265004 1
150,000150,000Rec Center Cooling Tower
Replacement
24275003 1
450,000150,000 150,000 150,000Rec Center Dasher Board
Replacement
24995003 1
30,00015,000 15,000Rec Center Arena Compressor
Rebuild
24995006 1
150,00025,000 50,000 75,000Rec Center Dasher Board Repair 24995008 3
170,00015,000 20,000 15,000 20,000 15,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 25,000Rec Center Landscaping (woodchips)24995017 3
25,00025,000Rec Center Aquatic Park Main Drain
Replacement
25200217 1
200,000200,000Rec Center Aquatic Park Amenity
Replacement
25205005 3
10,00010,000Rec Center Aquatic Park Feasibility
Study
25210203 3
100,000100,000Rec Center Aquatic Park Locker
Room Remodel
25220205 3
100,000100,000Rec Center Aquatic Park
Rehabilitation
25235003 1
100,000100,000Rec Center Aquatic Park Slide
Recoating
25240203 1
75,00075,000Rec Center Aquatic Park Umbrella &
Sun Shltr Rplcm
25270203 3
100,000100,000Rec Center Aquatic Park Feature(s)25270204 3
60,00010,000 10,000 10,000 15,000 15,000Rec Center Aquatic Park Deck
Furniture
25990212 1
15,0005,000 5,000 5,000Rec Center Aquatic Park
Concession Eqpt. Rplcmt
25990215 3
75,00075,000ROC Sport Court Addition 27236603 3
30,00010,000 10,000 10,000ROC Roof Assessment 27996603 1
Wednesday, September 19, 2018Page 142019-2028 DRAFT Capital Improvement Plan
Study session meeting of September 24, 2018 (Item No. 4)
Title: 2019 utility rate analysis Page 16
Total20192020202120222023Source20242025202620272028 #Priority
175,00080,000 95,000ROC Turf Replacement 27996604 1
Park Improvement Fund Total 14,648,9501,733,950 1,436,000 2,227,500 1,205,500 1,060,000 1,250,000 1,996,000 1,587,000 1,202,000 951,000
Pavement Management Fund
2,627,6962,147,696 480,000Street - Commercial Street Rehab 40181050 1
92,00092,000Bridge - Louisiana Ave @
Minnehaha Creek
40181700 1
82,50082,500Concrete Replacement- SW-C&G-40190003 1
2,921,0002,921,000Street - Local Street Rehab (Area 7)40191000 1
427,790427,790Street Mt Proj - Sealcoat Streets
(Area 4)
40191200 1
460,200460,200Alley Construction 40191500 3
82,50082,500Concrete Replacement- SW-C&G-40200003 1
2,886,5002,886,500Street - Local Street Rehab (Area 8)40201000 1
1,541,0001,541,000Street - Commercial Street Rehab 40201050 1
275,920275,920Street Mt Proj - Sealcoat Streets
(Area 6)
40201200 1
552,500552,500Alley Construction 40201500 3
82,50082,500Concrete Replacement- SW-C&G-40210003 1
3,151,0003,151,000Street - Local Street Rehab (Area 8)40211000 1
471,250471,250Alley Construction 40211500 3
38,58838,588Parking Lot - City Hall Lower 40211600 1
82,50082,500Concrete Replacement- SW-C&G-40220003 1
3,185,5003,185,500Street - Local Street Rehab (Area 7)40221000 1
408,965408,965Street Mt Proj - Sealcoat Streets
(Area 8)
40221200 1
573,950573,950Alley Construction 40221500 3
82,50082,500Concrete Replacement- SW-C&G-40230003 1
1,932,0001,932,000Street - Local Street Rehab (Area 1)40231000 1
736,000736,000Street - Commercial Street Rehab 40231050 1
342,790342,790Street Mt Proj - Sealcoat Streets
(Area 7)
40231200 1
420,550420,550Alley Construction 40231500 3
461,500461,500Bridge - 34th Street @ Minnehaha
Creek
40231700 1
82,50082,500Concrete Replacement- SW-C&G-40240003 1
2,840,5002,840,500Street - Local Street Rehab (Area 2)40241000 1
966,000966,000Street - Commercial Street Rehab 40241050 1
381,100381,100Street Mt Proj - Sealcoat Streets
(Area 1)
40241200 1
Wednesday, September 19, 2018Page 152019-2028 DRAFT Capital Improvement Plan
Study session meeting of September 24, 2018 (Item No. 4)
Title: 2019 utility rate analysis Page 17
Total20192020202120222023Source20242025202620272028 #Priority
286,000286,000Alley Construction 40241500 3
70,62070,620Parking Lot - MSC 40241600 1
82,50082,500Concrete Replacement- SW-C&G-40250003 1
3,381,0003,381,000Street - Local Street Rehab (Area 3)40251000 1
416,928416,928Street Mt Proj - Sealcoat Streets
(Area 2)
40251200 1
288,600288,600Alley Construction 40251500 3
17,85017,850Parking Lot - Fire Stn #1 40251601 1
12,60012,600Parking Lot - Fire Stn #2 40251602 1
82,50082,500Concrete Replacement- SW-C&G-40260003 1
1,403,0001,403,000Street - Local Street Rehab (Area 4)40261000 1
632,500632,500Street - Commercial Street Rehab 40261050 1
299,596299,596Street Mt Proj - Sealcoat Streets
(Area 3)
40261200 1
206,050206,050Alley Construction 40261500 3
105,919105,919Parking Lot - Louisiana Park & Ride
(N&S)
40261600 1
873,750873,750Bridge - Meadowbrook @
Minnehaha Creek
40261700 1
82,50082,500Concrete Replacement- SW-C&G-40270003 1
3,875,5003,875,500Street - Local Street Rehab (Area 5)40271000 1
489,590489,590Street Mt Proj - Sealcoat Streets
(Area 4)
40271200 1
82,50082,500Concrete Replacement- SW-C&G-40280003 1
2,840,5002,840,500Street - Local Street Rehab (Area 6)40281000 1
380,335380,335Street Mt Proj - Sealcoat Streets
(Area 5)
40281200 1
Pavement Management Fund Total 44,099,6376,039,186 5,910,420 3,755,938 4,250,915 3,975,340 4,732,639 4,186,878 3,497,396 4,447,590 3,303,335
Police & Fire Pension
400,000400,000Police: New CAD/RMS/Mobile Suite 13145010 3
160,00016,000 16,000 16,000 16,000 16,000 16,000 16,000 16,000 16,000 16,000Police: ZuercherTech Crime
Analysis Add-On Module
13155020 3
50,00050,000Fire: Patient Contact / Records
Solution
13175009 3
100,000100,000Police: 800 MHz Mobile Police
Radios
13995004 1
490,00025,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 145,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 145,000Police: Squad Computers / Cellular
Service
13995006 1
50,00025,000 25,000Police: Jail Cameras (17)13995021 1
40,00020,000 20,000Police: Non-Jail Cameras 13995022 1
Wednesday, September 19, 2018Page 162019-2028 DRAFT Capital Improvement Plan
Study session meeting of September 24, 2018 (Item No. 4)
Title: 2019 utility rate analysis Page 18
Total20192020202120222023Source20242025202620272028 #Priority
110,00055,000 55,000Police: Dispatch Camera Viewing
Workstations
13995024 1
13,0006,500 6,500Police: Interview Room Cameras 13995040 1
260,000140,000 120,000Police: Comm Van Upgrades / EOC
Presentation Equip
13995043 3
78,00078,000Fire: 800 MHz Mobile Fire Radios 13995050 1
86,50010,000 8,500 8,500 8,500 8,500 8,500 8,500 8,500 8,500 8,500Police: Specialized Dictation System 13995056 1
Police & Fire Pension Total 1,837,500285,500 209,500 49,500 49,500 249,500 456,000 189,500 49,500 49,500 249,500
Police Budget
18,00018,000SWAT Robot 20180002 3
120,00060,000 60,000Police-ALPR replacement 61990001 3
Police Budget Total 138,00060,000 18,000 60,000
PW Operations Budget
46,50046,500Traffic Signal - Repl Control Cabinets 40161300 1
95,00095,000Concrete Replacement- SW-C&G-40190003 1
4,8104,810Street Mt Proj - Sealcoat Streets
(Area 4)
40191200 1
95,00095,000Concrete Replacement- SW-C&G-40200003 1
12,48012,480Street Mt Proj - Sealcoat Streets
(Area 6)
40201200 1
95,00095,000Concrete Replacement- SW-C&G-40210003 1
95,00095,000Concrete Replacement- SW-C&G-40220003 1
3,0353,035Street Mt Proj - Sealcoat Streets
(Area 8)
40221200 1
95,00095,000Concrete Replacement- SW-C&G-40230003 1
28,01028,010Street Mt Proj - Sealcoat Streets
(Area 7)
40231200 1
95,00095,000Concrete Replacement- SW-C&G-40240003 1
95,00095,000Concrete Replacement- SW-C&G-40250003 1
5,3725,372Street Mt Proj - Sealcoat Streets
(Area 2)
40251200 1
95,00095,000Concrete Replacement- SW-C&G-40260003 1
30,00430,004Street Mt Proj - Sealcoat Streets
(Area 3)
40261200 1
95,00095,000Concrete Replacement- SW-C&G-40270003 1
4,8104,810Street Mt Proj - Sealcoat Streets
(Area 4)
40271200 1
95,00095,000Concrete Replacement- SW-C&G-40280003 1
Wednesday, September 19, 2018Page 172019-2028 DRAFT Capital Improvement Plan
Study session meeting of September 24, 2018 (Item No. 4)
Title: 2019 utility rate analysis Page 19
Total20192020202120222023Source20242025202620272028 #Priority
11,06511,065Street Mt Proj - Sealcoat Streets
(Area 5)
40281200 1
170,000170,000Street Light Annual Replacement
(2019)
50194101 1
16,00016,000Traffic Signal Annual Painting (2019)50194301 3
175,000175,000Street Light Annual Replacement
(2020)
50204101 1
16,50016,500Traffic Signal Annual Painting (2020)50204301 3
180,000180,000Street Light Annual Replacement
(2021)
50214101 1
17,00017,000Traffic Signal Annual Painting (2021)50214301 3
14,00014,000Replace Salt Brine Maker 50214401 3
185,000185,000Street Light Annual Replacement
(2022)
50224101 1
17,50017,500Traffic Signal Annual Painting (2022)50224301 3
190,000190,000Street Light Annual Replacement
(2023)
50234101 1
18,00018,000Traffic Signal Annual Painting (2023)50234301 3
195,000195,000Street Light Annual Replacement
(2024)
50244101 1
18,50018,500Traffic Signal Annual Painting (2024)50244301 3
200,000200,000Street Light Annual Replacement
(2025)
50254101 1
19,00019,000Traffic Signal Annual Painting (2025)50254301 3
205,000205,000Street Light Annual Replacement
(2026)
50264101 3
19,50019,500Traffic Signal Annual Painting (2026)50264301 3
210,000210,000Street Light Annual Replacement
(2027)
50274101 3
20,00020,000Traffic Signal Annual Painting (2027)50274301 3
215,000215,000Street Light Annual Replacement
(2028)
50284101 3
20,50020,500Traffic Signal Annual Painting (2028)50284301 3
PW Operations Budget Total 3,217,586332,310 298,980 306,000 300,535 331,010 308,500 319,372 349,504 329,810 341,565
Sanitary Sewer Utility
6,670667667667667667667667667667667Admin Serv / Utilities: Infinity BI
Service
13155014 3
51,00051,000Admin Serv: Utility Billing App
Replacement
13195001 1
160,00016,000 16,000 16,000 16,000 16,000 16,000 16,000 16,000 16,000 16,000OR: Asset Mgmt Software 13995011 3
15,00010,000 5,000OR: MSC Cameras 13995031 3
Wednesday, September 19, 2018Page 182019-2028 DRAFT Capital Improvement Plan
Study session meeting of September 24, 2018 (Item No. 4)
Title: 2019 utility rate analysis Page 20
Total20192020202120222023Source20242025202620272028 #Priority
49,50049,500Street - MSA Street Rehab
(Louisiana Ave)
40171100 1
55,00055,000Street - Commercial Street Rehab 40181050 1
275,000275,000Street - Local Street Rehab (Area 7)40191000 1
49,50049,500Street - MSA Street Rehab (CLR E
of Lou)
40191100 1
480,000480,000Sanitary Sewer- Mainline Rehab 40193000 1
275,000275,000Street - Local Street Rehab (Area 8)40201000 1
55,00055,000Street - Commercial Street Rehab 40201050 1
49,50049,500Street - MSA Street Rehab (Texas
@ Mtka)
40201100 3
264,000264,000Street - MSA Street Rehab
(Monterey)
40201101 1
500,000500,000Sanitary Sewer- Mainline Rehab 40203000 1
275,000275,000Street - Local Street Rehab (Area 8)40211000 1
74,05274,052Street - MSA Street Rehab (CLR
Texas to Kentucky)
40211100 1
520,000520,000Sanitary Sewer- Mainline Rehab 40213000 1
275,000275,000Street - Local Street Rehab (Area 7)40221000 1
49,50049,500Street - MSA Street Rehab (CLR
TH169 to Texas)
40221100 1
540,000540,000Sanitary Sewer- Mainline Rehab 40223000 1
275,000275,000Street - Local Street Rehab (Area 1)40231000 1
55,00055,000Street - Commercial Street Rehab 40231050 1
49,50049,500Street - MSA Street Rehab (Shelard
Pkwy)
40231100 1
560,000560,000Sanitary Sewer- Mainline Rehab 40233000 1
275,000275,000Street - Local Street Rehab (Area 2)40241000 1
55,00055,000Street - Commercial Street Rehab 40241050 1
49,50049,500Street - MSA Street Rehab
(Oxford/Edgwd/Cambridge)
40241100 1
580,000580,000Sanitary Sewer- Mainline Rehab 40243000 1
275,000275,000Street - Local Street Rehab (Area 3)40251000 1
49,50049,500Street - MSA Street Rehab (W28th
St)
40251100 1
600,000600,000Sanitary Sewer- Mainline Rehab 40253000 1
275,000275,000Street - Local Street Rehab (Area 4)40261000 1
55,00055,000Street - Commercial Street Rehab 40261050 1
49,50049,500Bridge - Meadowbrook @
Minnehaha Creek
40261700 1
620,000620,000Sanitary Sewer- Mainline Rehab 40263000 1
Wednesday, September 19, 2018Page 192019-2028 DRAFT Capital Improvement Plan
Study session meeting of September 24, 2018 (Item No. 4)
Title: 2019 utility rate analysis Page 21
Total20192020202120222023Source20242025202620272028 #Priority
275,000275,000Street - Local Street Rehab (Area 5)40271000 1
630,000630,000Sanitary Sewer- Mainline Rehab 40273000 1
275,000275,000Street - Local Street Rehab (Area 6)40281000 1
630,000630,000Sanitary Sewer- Mainline Rehab 40283000 1
600,000600,000Upgrade SCADA Control System
(2018,2019)
53185006 3
38,00038,000Sanitary Sewer LS Maint (LS #7)53195101 3
58,00058,000Sanitary Sewer LS Maint (LS #19)53205101 3
41,00041,000Sanitary Sewer LS Maint (LS #5)53215101 3
35,00035,000Sanitary Sewer LS Maint (LS #15)53225101 3
77,50077,500Sanitary Sewer LS Maint (LS #23)53225102 3
65,00065,000Sanitary Sewer LS Maint (LS #21)53235101 3
65,00065,000Sanitary Sewer LS Maint (LS #22)53235102 3
67,50067,500Sanitary Sewer LS Maint (LS #13)53245101 3
70,00070,000Sanitary Lift Station: Replace MCC
(LS-19)
53255104 3
80,00080,000Sanitary Sewer LS Maint (LS #14)53265101 3
50,00050,000Sanitary Sewer LS Maint (LS #15)53275101 3
Sanitary Sewer Utility Total 10,898,7221,524,167 1,269,167 976,219 993,667 1,086,167 1,048,667 1,011,167 1,096,167 971,667 921,667
Solid Waste Utility
50,00050,000Admin Serv: Utility Billing App
Replacement
13195001 1
80,0008,000 8,000 8,000 8,000 8,000 8,000 8,000 8,000 8,000 8,000OR: Asset Mgmt Software 13995011 3
10,0005,000 5,000OR: MSC Cameras 13995031 3
Solid Waste Utility Total 140,00013,000 58,000 8,000 8,000 8,000 13,000 8,000 8,000 8,000 8,000
Special Assessments
312,487312,487Parking Lot - Gorham 40171600 1
108,749108,749Parking Lot - Lake St & Walker 40191600 1
397,058397,058Parking Lot - Lake and Wooddale
(NW corner)
40201600 1
71,02671,026Parking Lot - 27th St & Louisiana 40221600 1
129,953129,953Parking Lot - Alabama & Excelsior
Blvd
40231600 1
Special Assessments Total 1,019,273421,236 397,058 71,026 129,953
Wednesday, September 19, 2018Page 202019-2028 DRAFT Capital Improvement Plan
Study session meeting of September 24, 2018 (Item No. 4)
Title: 2019 utility rate analysis Page 22
Total20192020202120222023Source20242025202620272028 #Priority
State of Minnesota
1,050,0001,050,000Bridge - Louisiana Ave @
Minnehaha Creek
40181700 1
180,000180,000Bridge - 34th Street @ Minnehaha
Creek
40231700 1
1,652,7501,652,750Bridge - Meadowbrook @
Minnehaha Creek
40261700 1
State of Minnesota Total 2,882,7501,050,000 180,000 1,652,750
Stormwater Utility
6,670667667667667667667667667667667Admin Serv / Utilities: Infinity BI
Service
13155014 3
51,00051,000Admin Serv: Utility Billing App
Replacement
13195001 1
15,0005,000 10,000OR: MSC Cameras 13995031 3
86,25086,250Dakota Bridge 21191806 1
110,000110,000Street - MSA Street Rehab
(Louisiana Ave)
40171100 1
550,000550,000Street - Commercial Street Rehab 40181050 1
287,500287,500Bridge - Louisiana Ave @
Minnehaha Creek
40181700 1
110,000110,000Concrete Replacement- SW-C&G-40190003 1
385,000385,000Street - Local Street Rehab (Area 7)40191000 1
220,000220,000Street - MSA Street Rehab (CLR E
of Lou)
40191100 1
247,800247,800Alley Construction 40191500 3
312,500312,500Storm Water- Sumter Pond Rehab 40194000 1
190,000190,000Storm Water- Wetland Inventory
Update
40194100 3
35,00035,000Storm Water- Rainwater Rewards 40194500 3
110,000110,000Concrete Replacement- SW-C&G-40200003 1
385,000385,000Street - Local Street Rehab (Area 8)40201000 1
275,000275,000Street - Commercial Street Rehab 40201050 1
110,000110,000Street - MSA Street Rehab (Texas
@ Mtka)
40201100 3
275,000275,000Street - MSA Street Rehab
(Monterey)
40201101 1
297,500297,500Alley Construction 40201500 3
187,500187,500Storm Water- Klodt Pond WQ
Improvements
40204000 1
Wednesday, September 19, 2018Page 212019-2028 DRAFT Capital Improvement Plan
Study session meeting of September 24, 2018 (Item No. 4)
Title: 2019 utility rate analysis Page 23
Total20192020202120222023Source20242025202620272028 #Priority
1,650,0001,650,000Storm Water- Aquila Park WQ
Improvements
40204001 3
35,00035,000Storm Water- Rainwater Rewards 40204500 3
110,000110,000Concrete Replacement- SW-C&G-40210003 1
385,000385,000Street - Local Street Rehab (Area 8)40211000 1
110,000110,000Street - MSA Street Rehab (CLR
Texas to Kentucky)
40211100 1
253,750253,750Alley Construction 40211500 3
93,75093,750Storm Water- Minnehaha Creek
Equalizer Pipe
40214000 3
437,500437,500Storm Water- Louisiana Oaks &
South Oak Pond Rehab
40214001 1
312,500312,500Storm Water- Westdale Sed Basin
Rehab
40214002 1
35,00035,000Storm Water- Rainwater Rewards 40214500 3
110,000110,000Concrete Replacement- SW-C&G-40220003 1
385,000385,000Street - Local Street Rehab (Area 7)40221000 1
110,000110,000Street - MSA Street Rehab (CLR
TH169 to Texas)
40221100 1
309,050309,050Alley Construction 40221500 3
312,500312,500Storm Water- Otten Pond Rehab 40224000 1
35,00035,000Storm Water- Rainwater Rewards 40224500 3
110,000110,000Concrete Replacement- SW-C&G-40230003 1
385,000385,000Street - Local Street Rehab (Area 1)40231000 1
165,000165,000Street - Commercial Street Rehab 40231050 1
110,000110,000Street - MSA Street Rehab (Shelard
Pkwy)
40231100 1
226,450226,450Alley Construction 40231500 3
250,000250,000Bridge - 34th Street @ Minnehaha
Creek
40231700 1
93,75093,750Storm Water- Shelard Sediment
Basin Rehab
40234000 1
1,650,0001,650,000Storm Water- Ainsworth Park WQ
Improvements
40234001 3
35,00035,000Storm Water- Rainwater Rewards 40234500 3
110,000110,000Concrete Replacement- SW-C&G-40240003 1
385,000385,000Street - Local Street Rehab (Area 2)40241000 1
165,000165,000Street - Commercial Street Rehab 40241050 1
154,000154,000Street - MSA Street Rehab
(Oxford/Edgwd/Cambridge)
40241100 1
154,000154,000Alley Construction 40241500 3
Wednesday, September 19, 2018Page 222019-2028 DRAFT Capital Improvement Plan
Study session meeting of September 24, 2018 (Item No. 4)
Title: 2019 utility rate analysis Page 24
Total20192020202120222023Source20242025202620272028 #Priority
250,000250,000Storm Water- Lamplighter Pond
Rehab
40244000 1
1,650,0001,650,000Storm Water- Keystone Park WQ
Improvements
40244001 3
35,00035,000Storm Water- Rainwater Rewards 40244500 3
110,000110,000Concrete Replacement- SW-C&G-40250003 1
385,000385,000Street - Local Street Rehab (Area 3)40251000 1
110,000110,000Street - MSA Street Rehab (W28th
St)
40251100 1
155,400155,400Alley Construction 40251500 3
35,00035,000Storm Water- Rainwater Rewards 40254500 3
110,000110,000Concrete Replacement- SW-C&G-40260003 1
385,000385,000Street - Local Street Rehab (Area 4)40261000 1
165,000165,000Street - Commercial Street Rehab 40261050 1
110,950110,950Alley Construction 40261500 3
550,000550,000Bridge - Meadowbrook @
Minnehaha Creek
40261700 1
1,650,0001,650,000Storm Water- Lake Street Basin WQ
Improvements
40264000 3
35,00035,000Storm Water- Rainwater Rewards 40264500 3
110,000110,000Concrete Replacement- SW-C&G-40270003 1
385,000385,000Street - Local Street Rehab (Area 5)40271000 1
187,500187,500Storm Water- Hampshire Pond
Rehab
40274000 1
35,00035,000Storm Water- Rainwater Rewards 40274500 3
110,000110,000Concrete Replacement- SW-C&G-40280003 1
385,000385,000Street - Local Street Rehab (Area 6)40281000 1
1,650,0001,650,000Storm Water- Webster Park WQ
Improvements
40284000 3
35,00035,000Storm Water- Rainwater Rewards 40284500 3
600,000600,000Upgrade SCADA Control System
(2018,2019)
53185006 3
41,00041,000Storm Sewer LS Maint (LS #5)53195301 3
48,00048,000Annual Catch Basin Repairs (2019)53195302 3
50,00050,000Annual Catch Basin Repairs (2020)53205301 3
43,00043,000Storm Sewer LS Maint (LS #1)53205302 3
52,00052,000Annual Catch Basin Repairs (2021)53215301 3
54,00054,000Annual Catch Basin Repairs (2022)53225301 3
56,00056,000Annual Catch Basin Repairs (2023)53235301 3
58,00058,000Annual Catch Basin Repairs (2024)53245301 3
29,00029,000Storm Sewer LS Maint (LS #4)53245302 3
Wednesday, September 19, 2018Page 232019-2028 DRAFT Capital Improvement Plan
Study session meeting of September 24, 2018 (Item No. 4)
Title: 2019 utility rate analysis Page 25
Total20192020202120222023Source20242025202620272028 #Priority
60,00060,000Annual Catch Basin Repairs (2025)53255301 3
40,00040,000Storm Lift Station: Replace MCC
(SLS-5)
53255305 3
62,00062,000Annual Catch Basin Repairs (2026)53265301 3
60,00060,000Storm Lift Station: Replace MCC
(SLS-7)
53265302 3
64,00064,000Annual Catch Basin Repairs (2027)53275301 3
66,00066,000Annual Catch Basin Repairs (2028)53285301 3
Stormwater Utility Total 22,940,8202,831,217 3,757,167 1,900,167 1,316,217 3,081,867 3,000,667 896,067 3,128,617 782,167 2,246,667
Tax Increment - Elmwood
2,039,0512,039,051Street- W 36th Street Reconstruction 40206000 3
2,000,0002,000,000Street- Wooddale Ave
Reconstruction
40206001 3
Tax Increment - Elmwood Total 4,039,0514,039,051
U.S. Government
2,918,4002,918,400CTP Sidewalk - Trail - Bikeway 40192000 1
6,453,0546,453,054SWLRT- Park and Ride Ramp at
Beltline Station
40199006 1
560,000560,000CTP Sidewalk - Trail - Bikeway 40202000 1
U.S. Government Total 9,931,4549,371,454 560,000
Unfunded
260,000260,000Street Light Replacement, SSD1A
(2019)
50194110 1
285,000285,000Street Light Replacement, SSD1B
(2020)
50204110 1
270,000270,000Street Light Replacement, SSD1C
(2021)
50214110 1
240,000240,000Street Light Replacement, SSD1D
(2022)
50224110 1
310,000310,000Street Light Replacement, SSD2A
(2023)
50234110 1
300,000300,000Street Light Replacement, SSD2B
(2024)
50244110 1
295,000295,000Street Light Replacement, SSD3A
(2025)
50254110 1
290,000290,000Street Light Replacement, SSD3B
(2026)
50264102 1
Wednesday, September 19, 2018Page 242019-2028 DRAFT Capital Improvement Plan
Study session meeting of September 24, 2018 (Item No. 4)
Title: 2019 utility rate analysis Page 26
Total20192020202120222023Source20242025202620272028 #Priority
270,000270,000Street Light Replacement, E&G Area
A (2027)
50274102 1
270,000270,000Street Light Replacement, E&G Area
B (2028)
50284102 1
8,000,0008,000,000Water Project - WTP #6 Treatment
Upgrade
53245003 5
Unfunded Total 10,790,000260,000 285,000 270,000 240,000 310,000 8,300,000 295,000 290,000 270,000 270,000
Water Utility
6,660666666666666666666666666666666Admin Serv / Utilities: Infinity BI
Service
13155014 3
51,00051,000Admin Serv: Utility Billing App
Replacement
13195001 1
160,00016,000 16,000 16,000 16,000 16,000 16,000 16,000 16,000 16,000 16,000OR: Asset Mgmt Software 13995011 3
10,0005,000 5,000OR: MSC Cameras 13995031 3
97,24097,240Street - MSA Street Rehab
(Louisiana Ave)
40171100 1
34,57534,575Street - Commercial Street Rehab 40181050 1
368,000368,000Bridge - Louisiana Ave @
Minnehaha Creek
40181700 1
1,411,9831,411,983Street - Local Street Rehab (Area 7)40191000 1
1,506,4571,506,457Street - MSA Street Rehab (CLR E
of Lou)
40191100 1
1,320,0001,320,000Water - Recoat Reservoir 2 @ WTP
#6
40195000 1
2,126,5932,126,593Street - Local Street Rehab (Area 8)40201000 1
174,732174,732Street - Commercial Street Rehab 40201050 1
330,000330,000Street - MSA Street Rehab (Texas
@ Mtka)
40201100 3
1,852,0701,852,070Street - Local Street Rehab (Area 8)40211000 1
61,71061,710Street - MSA Street Rehab (CLR
Texas to Kentucky)
40211100 1
1,540,0001,540,000Water- Recoat Elevated Water
Tower #2
40215000 1
2,310,0002,310,000Street - Local Street Rehab (Area 7)40221000 1
96,66096,660Street - MSA Street Rehab (CLR
TH169 to Texas)
40221100 1
2,310,0002,310,000Street - Local Street Rehab (Area 1)40231000 1
84,48684,486Street - Commercial Street Rehab 40231050 1
119,212119,212Street - MSA Street Rehab (Shelard
Pkwy)
40231100 1
2,310,0002,310,000Street - Local Street Rehab (Area 2)40241000 1
Wednesday, September 19, 2018Page 252019-2028 DRAFT Capital Improvement Plan
Study session meeting of September 24, 2018 (Item No. 4)
Title: 2019 utility rate analysis Page 27
Total20192020202120222023Source20242025202620272028 #Priority
97,63397,633Street - Commercial Street Rehab 40241050 1
104,500104,500Street - MSA Street Rehab
(Oxford/Edgwd/Cambridge)
40241100 1
2,310,0002,310,000Street - Local Street Rehab (Area 3)40251000 1
49,46249,462Street - MSA Street Rehab (W28th
St)
40251100 1
2,310,0002,310,000Street - Local Street Rehab (Area 4)40261000 1
80,65380,653Street - Commercial Street Rehab 40261050 1
99,00099,000Bridge - Meadowbrook @
Minnehaha Creek
40261700 1
2,310,0002,310,000Street - Local Street Rehab (Area 5)40271000 1
2,310,0002,310,000Street - Local Street Rehab (Area 6)40281000 1
600,000600,000Upgrade SCADA Control System
(2018,2019)
53185006 3
72,00072,000Water Treatment Plant GAC
Replacement (WTP1)
53195001 1
55,00055,000Water Well Rehab (SLP14)53195003 3
210,000210,000WTP8 - Construct Generator Building 53195004 3
76,00076,000Water Treatment Plant GAC
Replacement (WTP1)
53215002 1
80,00080,000Water Well Rehab (SLP11)53215003 3
40,00040,000Water Well Rehab (SLP15)53225001 3
55,00055,000Water Well Rehab (SLP8)53235002 3
80,00080,000Water Treatment Plant GAC
Replacement (WTP1)
53235003 1
55,00055,000Water Well Rehab (SLP16)53245001 3
600,000600,000Water Treatment Plant Rehab, WTP1 53245002 1
85,00085,000Water Well Rehab (SLP12)53255001 3
84,00084,000Water Treatment Plant GAC
Replacement (WTP1)
53255003 1
384,000384,000Water Treatment Plant Rehab, WTP6 53255004 1
55,00055,000Water Well Rehab (SLP10)53265001 3
55,00055,000Water Well Rehab (SLP4)53265002 3
126,000126,000Water Treatment Plant Rehab, WTP4 53265003 1
396,000396,000Water Treatment Plant Rehab, WTP8 53265004 1
85,00085,000Water Well Rehab (SLP13)53275001 3
88,00088,000Water Treatment Plant GAC
Replacement (WTP1)
53275002 1
384,000384,000Water Treatment Plant Rehab,
WTP10
53275003 1
60,00060,000Water Well Rehab (SLP14)53285001 3
Wednesday, September 19, 2018Page 262019-2028 DRAFT Capital Improvement Plan
Study session meeting of September 24, 2018 (Item No. 4)
Title: 2019 utility rate analysis Page 28
Total20192020202120222023Source20242025202620272028 #Priority
432,000432,000Water Treatment Plant Rehab,
WTP16
53285002 1
Water Utility Total 32,109,6265,231,681 3,066,991 3,723,686 2,463,326 2,665,364 3,188,799 2,929,128 3,954,319 2,499,666 2,386,666
62,027,173 46,730,284 25,445,327 21,288,835 28,151,263 289,278,819GRAND TOTAL 32,826,652 17,002,104 21,484,424 17,681,880 16,640,877
Report criteria:
All Address data
All Categories
All Contacts
All From Street data
All Departments
All Priority Levels
All Projects
All Source Types
All Street Name data
All To Street data
Wednesday, September 19, 2018Page 272019-2028 DRAFT Capital Improvement Plan
Study session meeting of September 24, 2018 (Item No. 4)
Title: 2019 utility rate analysis Page 29
Meeting: Study session
Meeting date: September 24, 2018
Discussion item: 5
Executive summary
Title: Pavement management program overview
Recommended action: None at this time. Per the city council’s request, staff will be providing
an overview of the program and related goals that are in place and answer questions.
Policy consideration: Does the city council have questions about the city’s pavement
management program and policies?
Summary: On February 17, 2004, the city council adopted the Residential Street Maintenance
and Rehabilitation Program. Over the years this program has evolved to be called the
Pavement Management Program (PMP).
Pavement maintenance can be equated to home maintenance. Certain repairs need to be
completed at certain times, i.e. painting windows or siding to protect them from the elements.
At other times, more extensive repairs are needed where superficial maintenance is just not
enough, i.e. replacing rotted window sills or siding instead of just painting over them. If the
rotting can be stopped, or at least curtailed, before the sills or siding need to be replaced,
money will be saved in the long term. In a similar manner, the city’s pavement management
program was developed to address street rehabilitation in a proactive way.
Financial or budget considerations: The pavement management program is funded using
franchise fees from Xcel and Centerpoint Energy. In 2018, we will receive $3,218,478 in
revenue from franchise fees.
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
Pavement management area map
Prepared by: Debra Heiser, Engineering Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study session meeting of September 24, 2018 (Item No. 5) Page 2
Title: Pavement management program overview
Discussion
Background: The majority of streets in St. Louis Park were reconstructed between the mid-60’s
to early-80’s. There are many variables, i.e. weather, traffic, soils, utility cuts, etc. that
contribute to a pavement’s deterioration. In general, pavement lifecycle can range from 20 to
30 years. Applying this standard to St. Louis Park, most of the streets in the city have exceeded
their useful life.
Fortunately, the city’s streets are still in relatively good condition. This is due to the fact that
the streets were built well, are situated on good soils, utilize curb and gutter for drainage and
have been well maintained. However, as pavements age, more aggressive maintenance
strategies are needed to prolong their life. Also, more extensive maintenance is needed to
“catch” certain streets and extend their life before total reconstruction is necessary.
In 2004, to ensure that our streets continue to serve the community, the city council approved
the pavement management program for local residential streets. The program’s basic elements
consist of:
• Evaluating & rating the street segments in a consistent and objective manner
• Identifying segments in need of extensive maintenance or reconstruction
• Applying the appropriate maintenance strategies at the appropriate times
• Establishing a dedicated source of funding for the program
• Implementing the identified projects on an 8-year/area cycle
In order to evaluate the condition of street segments, the industry uses something called an
Overall Condition Index. The Overall Condition Index (OCI) is a methodology used to evaluate
and rate pavements on a range of 100 (newly surfaced pavement) to 0 (failed pavement). When
the pavement management program was developed and then implemented in 2004, the
council established a goal of maintaining a street network with an overall condition index (OCI)
of no less than 70. This goal then drives the capital planning and revenue needs identified in
our capital improvement plan (CIP).
The pavement management program breaks out the city into 8 pavement management areas.
Each area has about 15 miles of local streets. These areas are used to structure our 10 year CIP.
Annually, the CIP includes the following projects on local residential streets:
• Pavement Rehabilitation: Each year we are in one pavement management area. Not all
of the streets are rehabilitated. An average of 5 miles of the approximate 15 miles of
street segments in that area are selected to be rehabilitated. Rehabilitation includes
removing and replacing all or a portion of the pavement on the street. Curb and gutter
is inspected and may be replaced as a part of this project. In addition, sidewalk,
underground utilities along these street segments are also reviewed and replaced if the
condition warrants.
In general, pavements with an OCI of 60 or less are selected for rehabilitation. If there
are more than 5 miles of streets with a rating under 60, there will not be enough
available funding. Street segments with ratings closer to 60 are held over for the next
time we are in that pavement management area in 8 years. Depending on street
condition, operations may pave a 1 inch asphalt overlay to hold these streets together
until we are back in the area in 8 years.
Study session meeting of September 24, 2018 (Item No. 5) Page 3
Title: Pavement management program overview
• Curb and gutter repair: this happens in each area the year after the pavement
rehabilitation project, in preparation for the sealcoat work. The curb and gutter on
streets slated for sealcoat are inspected and may be replaced.
When we inspect curb and gutter, we will replace it if: the curb does not drain and can
be repaired without removing pavement or there is a crack that is greater than ½ inch
wide. All other curb remains in place.
• Sidewalk repair: this happens in each area the year after the pavement rehabilitation
project, in preparation for the sealcoat work. An inventory of sidewalks in the area is
completed to identify trip hazards, cracks, and ADA compliance repairs.
The amount of work completed is limited to available funding.
• Sealcoat: This happens in each area two years after the pavement rehabilitation
project, and then every 8 years until the street is scheduled for rehabilitation. This is
the application of oil and rock to the pavement surfaces. This layer seals the pavement,
preventing cracks from developing and eventually creating potholes. This management
strategy extends the life of our streets by 15 years.
Not all of the streets are sealcoated in an area. Streets that are slated for pavement
rehabilitation are not included.
In 2016, the city council approved an updated assessment policy that extended the pavement
management program funding to include unimproved streets, local commercial industrial
streets, and alleys. These are incorporated into the CIP as follows:
• Unimproved streets will be reconstructed the next time that a pavement management
area is scheduled for pavement rehabilitation work.
• Local commercial industrial streets are being rehabilitated in one of two ways
depending on location and proximity to other work. Some streets are being included in
the annual pavement management project (i.e. Florida Avenue and 23rd Street are
included in the 2019 PMP). Other streets, such as those in the Walker- Lake Historic
district are being addressed as standalone projects.
• The city council approved a 10 year plan to reconstruct the 5 miles of unimproved alleys
throughout the city. 2018 is our second year of this plan. In addition, staff is reviewing
the condition of the existing alleys throughout the city and will be performing repairs as
needed as a part of the annual alley reconstruction project.
Present considerations: Annually we evaluate the pavement condition of 25% of the city’s
street network. This inspection provides us with an overall condition index (OCI). Staff will
provide photos of typical street segments and their associated ratings at the study session.
The city is responsible for almost 150 miles of street (148.62 miles). Of those about 120 miles
are local streets, the rest are municipal state aid. Local street rehabilitation is paid for using
pavement management funds derived from franchise fees. We use gas tax dollars to fund
municipal state aid road rehabilitation. The pavement management program addresses local
street maintenance.
Study session meeting of September 24, 2018 (Item No. 5) Page 4
Title: Pavement management program overview
Since 2005 we have reconstructed 47.4 miles of local streets (40%). We have programmed a
little over 50 (42%) miles of local streets for rehabilitation in our 10 year CIP. There are about
20 miles (18%) of our local streets that are not programmed in the 10 year CIP.
In 2000, the overall average OCI of the city’s street network was 69.6. In 2018, this average is
65.It is projected that upon completion of the street segments in the 10 year CIP, our overall
local street network OCI will be 70.
Based on the OCI target previously established an increase to the franchise fees is needed to
fully fund the 10 year CIP. If the council continues to fund and support the recommended
pavement management CIP, each local street will be rehabilitated approximately once every 30
years.
Area 2
Area 8
Area 3
Area 6
Area 5
Area 1
Area 4
Area 7
Ü
Pavement Management Areas
SLP Public Works Department 6/22/2017
Study session meeting of September 24, 2018 (Item No. 5)
Title: Pavement management program overview Page 5
Meeting: Study session
Meeting date: September 24, 2018
Written report: 6
Executive summary
Title: Establishing a proposed public sewer and water utilities protection program
Recommended action: None at this time. Please inform staff if the council desires further
discussion on the matter before staff begins the public process and development of ordinance
language for establishing a public sewer and water utilities protection program.
Policy consideration: Should the city create a public sewer and water utilities protection
program?
Summary: This report discusses protecting two aspects of utility infrastructure by: 1) reducing
potential for sewer backups by limiting fats, oils, and grease (FOG) generated by food service
businesses from entering sanitary sewer lines; and 2) testing of water backflow devices to verify
they are operational in preventing water supply contamination from building processes.
FOG generation is primarily from commercial food preparation and dish washing. A functioning
grease interceptor should collect much of the grease. However if clogged or not functioning,
FOG bypasses the interceptor and flows from the building drain into city sewer mains. Once
FOG cools, it will solidify in the pipe and cause blockage. When a blockage occurs, a sewage
back-up affecting many properties may occur. Developing a proactive licensing and inspection
program to insure grease traps are properly sized, installed, and operating is proposed.
Protection of potable water from contaminates originating within buildings is regulated by the
MN state plumbing code. Industrial processes, boilers, and irrigation systems often utilize
chemicals that are dangerous if consumed. Specific types of backflow valves must be installed
when these sources could allow transfer of chemicals into the municipal water supply. Backflow
valves are required to be tested annually for proper operation by the plumbing code. A water
backflow valve registration and formalized testing program is proposed to satisfy the city’s
responsibility and protect the municipal water supply.
Financial or budget considerations: A fee-for-service program with a neutral effect on the
general fund is proposed. Similar to other inspection programs, license and registrations fees
would be established to generate the approximate cost of added staffing resources needed to
facilitate the program.
Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to continue to lead in
environmental stewardship.
Supporting documents: Discussion
Prepared by: Dave Skallet, Chief Building Official
Jay Hall, Utilities Superintendent
Reviewed by: Brian Hoffman, Director of Inspections
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study session meeting of September 24, 2018 (Item No. 6) Page 2
Title: Establishing a proposed public sewer and water utilities protection program
Discussion
Background:
Fats, oils and grease (FOG)
FOG generation and disposal primarily occurs through commercial food preparation and dish
washing. A functioning grease interceptor, located either within or outside the building, should
collect much of the grease. However, If FOG is discharged from a building drain and flows into
city sewer mains, the FOG will solidify in the pipe and cause blockages. City sewer mains
connected to businesses discharging FOG have a history of more frequent cleaning.
Utility division staff maintain sanitary sewer mains by cleaning on a regular basis of every 4-5
years. Several main lines and lift stations experiencing FOG problems need to be cleaned about
every 6-months. Total annual cost of staff hours for cleaning all the city sewers is about
$150,000. Approximately $25,000 of this staff time cost is due to the more frequent cleaning of
areas with FOG accumulation.
When FOG solidifies in a service line, the sewage from that building will back-up through floor
drains or other plumbing fixtures on the lowest level. This triggers the owner to call a
contractor for cleaning. Main line clogs have the potential to have significant and unpleasant
effects on the greater public. When a sewer main gets plugged, the flow will back-up into other
connected buildings or onto the street. This has happened in St. Louis Park. The following link is
to a short video providing a visual of how FOG can accumulate inside a sewer main, eventually
resulting in a blockage: https://youtu.be/zm6QVqTUfjo
City staff are called out at all times to find the blockage and clean mains to get the system
working, which can take hours. Once on city streets, sewage may drain into the storm sewer
system and into our lakes and creeks, resulting in the MN Pollution Control Agency (MPCA)
becoming involved to ensure cleanup. Sewage backup in both commercial and residential
buildings often causes significant property damage. Businesses may also need to temporarily
close. A FOG blockage is not always traceable to the source, especially with multiple restaurants
in an area.
To prevent FOG from entering sewers, grease interceptors are designed to help cool the hot
FOG laden water leaving a kitchen and trap the solidifying FOG. Grease interceptors may be
located on or beneath the kitchen floor to collect only discharge from the three compartment
sink (where pots and pans are typically cleaned). Interceptors are also used for treating the
entire kitchen area plumbing drains. These larger interceptors are often located underground
outside the building and similar to a septic tank. State plumbing code has required installation
of a grease interceptor where grease is likely to be generated since 2009. Interceptors were
also required during earlier years for most buildings were food service was proposed.
Hennepin County Environmental Health is delegated by the Minnesota Department of Health to
administer the state food code in St. Louis Park for food service. This includes the licensing and
inspection of approximately 144 food service establishments in the city. Three types of license
classes are issued; low, medium, or high risk as determined by type of business, menus, and
seating. These establishments pay an annual license fee according to risk and range from $178
to $837.
Study session meeting of September 24, 2018 (Item No. 6) Page 3
Title: Establishing a proposed public sewer and water utilities protection program
Minnesota Department of Agriculture (MDA) inspects the remaining establishments involved
with food manufacturing and retail food sales (retail of packaged food does not create FOG
discharge). The state health code does not require grease trap installation or that they be kept
clean and operational. As a result neither the county and state inspectors include grease trap
installation, operation, or maintenance as part of regular inspections.
There is currently not a regulation or program in place that allows city staff to inspect grease
traps and interceptors, or to respond when resulting issues are discovered. The current state
plumbing code requires only installation during new buildings with grease production potential.
Many communities across the country have been utilizing inspection programs for managing
FOG for years. Communities with local waste water treatment are concerned with main line
accumulation and end point treatment. Locally Golden Valley has begun a FOG management
program that includes excellent educational materials.
Water backflow protection valves
Minnesota state statutes place responsibility for compliance with the Safe Drinking Water Act
on the water purveyor through the Department of Health and the Department of Labor and
Industry. The Safe Drinking Water Act and its regulations cover all potable water systems and
states that “minimum" protection should include programs that result in the prevention of
health hazards, such as cross connections.”
Protection of potable water from contaminates originating within all buildings is regulated by
the MN state plumbing code. A requirement present in the code for many years has been that
backflow valves must be installed when any equipment or connection could allow transfer of
chemicals into the water supply. A water main break for example can temporarily cause a
negative pressure suction, drawing contaminates into the water pipes.
Most of the 1100 backflow devices currently in service are located in commercial buildings,
protecting the city water supply from soaps, fertilizers, chemicals, and acids. Some residential
buildings utilize these devices when potable water is connected directly to boilers or irrigation
systems. The degree of hazards determines the type of backflow device required to protect the
water supply. Although there are several types, the current state plumbing code requires only
following specific types of backflow valves be tested due to their complexity and lack of signal if
they fail:
• Double check valve backflow prevention assembly (DC)
• Pressure vacuum breaker backflow prevention assembly (PVB)
• Spill resistant pressure vacuum breaker (SVB),
• Reduced pressure principle backflow prevention assembly (RP),
• Double check detector fire protection backflow prevention assembly,
• Reduced pressure detector fire protection backflow prevention assembly
State code previously required only RP type valves to be tested. The city has maintained an
inventory of these and mails annual courtesy reminder letters to property owners. However
without ordinance language specifying requirements or consequences, there is not an active
verification and many valves go untested.
Study session meeting of September 24, 2018 (Item No. 6) Page 4
Title: Establishing a proposed public sewer and water utilities protection program
The latest MN plumbing code adoption during 2016 created changes in types of backflow
devices and required testing. Many cities have begun evaluation on program possibilities and
some have already fully implemented them. Staff has reviewed the Minneapolis, Owatonna,
and Rochester programs during the process of developing an effective and efficient proposal.
Proposed programs:
Fog
Utilities and Inspections have discussed the severity of this problem in sanitary sewers for
several years, affecting operations and the public. Collaborating together on possible options
has developed into a program concept designed to encourage and verify proper grease
collection practices occurs. Grease collectors need to be maintained operational through
regular cleaning. Proper disposal of collected FOG is also part of ensuring it does not enter the
sanitary system.
Amending city code chapter 6 for business licensing provides a sound regulatory frame for
adding a program to help reduce FOG and would utilize the current licensing system. Permit
technicians, inspectors, and administrative staff within Inspections currently administer the
other general business license types. Commercial and industrial businesses producing FOG with
discharge to the sanitary sewer system would be added as a license type.
Program steps would include:
1. City sends an annual license application to each FOG generating business during
November after the fee schedule is established.
2. Business owner/manager completes application and submits with license fee by
December 31.
3. City issues annual license with educational material.
4. Inspections contact businesses during the year to schedule inspection. Frequency would
depend on size and type of grease interceptor, amount of use, and type of cooking.
5. Inspection verifies compliance or develops plan for improvement.
Inspections would occur at least annually and up to quarterly if needed. The program would
also expect businesses to establish a cleaning log with verification. While some interceptors
may require weekly or monthly cleaning, inspection at this frequency is not needed or possible.
About 100 or more of the county licensed food establishments classified as medium or high
food are expected to be city licensed. Probably another 10 establishments under MDA licensing
would also be included. Similar to other city property maintenance programs, the focus would
be on education to encourage the owner to maintain proper grease interceptor operation.
There may be a few businesses, due to age or changed use, which do not have a grease trap or
interceptor installed. A compliance period of one or two years is anticipated as being
reasonable for allowing businesses to plan for installation. Some type of loan program may be
evaluated as adding a grease interceptor in an existing space could range from $5,000 -$15,000.
Staff will also explore possible grant availability.
While intended to be a proactive program to help licensed food establishments follow best
practices for cleaning and maintenance of grease traps and interceptors, a city sewer cleaning
recovery charge is also proposed. With a FOG maintenance program in place, it may become
Study session meeting of September 24, 2018 (Item No. 6) Page 5
Title: Establishing a proposed public sewer and water utilities protection program
easier to determine a responsible party should a main back-up occur, allowing recovery of city
incurred costs.
Backflow valves
The city is responsible for administering the plumbing code and ensuring that potable water
backflow prevention has been tested yearly by a certified tester.
Developing a program to verify testing must take into account several factors. These include
that many irrigation system valves are re-installed each spring, the code begins the 12-month
testing period at the time of each valve installation or replacement, valves are used in both
residential and commercial buildings, and some buildings may have several valves.
The simplest and lowest cost method for meeting the requirements is a backflow valve
registration program for each valve. Program steps would include:
1. City sends owner a letter and educational material 60-days before valve test due date as
established by anniversary of installation or last test and test form.
2. Owner contacts a certified tester to complete testing of the valve.
3. Contractor completes form and either the contractor or owner mails form with
registration fee to city.
4. If the valve fails, a licensed plumber would get a permit for plumbing inspection from
the city and either repair or install a new valve. City would inspect work.
5. City records test data and follows up with owners on valves not being tested within 12-
months.
6. New valves installed during construction projects are added to the inventory with date
of operation. Education materials will be distributed to the owner with certificate of
occupancy.
A testing certification can be obtained by a licensed plumber, or other person completing
training and passing an examination. The number of certified individuals is increasing, however
does require the person to make an investment in equipment. Only a MN licensed plumber is
authorized to perform repairs or replacement of the valves. Property owners would be
responsible to hire a contractor of choice. The cost will vary and is set by the individual tester.
We have been told it may amount to a couple of hundred dollars for a single valve on a site, and
less for multiple valves when done simultaneously.
Financial considerations: Duties for creating educational materials, mailings, license processing,
customer interaction, inspections, and follow-up would be achieved collectively by various
inspection staff. This would be the same team approach as for all other licensing and inspection
programs. The combined duties amount to adding a full-time position to maintain responsive
service delivery.
Recommendation for establishing annual license and registration fees by ordinance will be
based on cost recovery of added expenditures. A fee-for-service approach has been utilized for
years and works successfully for most all licensing, permitting and inspection activities.
Initial analysis indicates an annual FOG license fee range of $300-350, including inspections.
Similar to fee for other types of business licenses. Registration fee for backflow valves could be
Study session meeting of September 24, 2018 (Item No. 6) Page 6
Title: Establishing a proposed public sewer and water utilities protection program
expected in the $30-$40 per valve range. As a comparison, Minneapolis is currently at $40 for
essentially the same program.
Next steps: Unless other direction is provided by council, staff will move forward with
development of a draft ordinance for establishing these programs. Public process of notifying
all businesses and property owners which would be involved would begin during October.
Informational materials and meetings to discuss program goals and operation would occur this
year. Staff will return to council for discussion before first reading of an ordinance occurs. The
programs could be operational at the earliest by summer of 2019, if adopted.
Meeting: Study session
Meeting date: September 24, 2018
Written report: 7
Executive summary
Title: Sustainability update
Recommended action: No action required at this time. This report is meant solely to provide
the city council with an update on sustainability actions and progress supporting the Climate
Action Plan.
Policy consideration: Does the city council need any additional information regarding the
sustainability actions and progress of the Climate Action Plan?
Summary: This is an update to summarize sustainability actions and progress supporting the
Climate Action Plan (CAP). Updates will occur periodically (every 3-6 months) as needed or
requested.
The CAP was adopted in February 2018 and includes an overarching goal of carbon neutrality
(zero greenhouse gas emissions) by the year 2040, along with 3 kick-start projects started in
2018 as well as mid-term goals set for the year 2030 to keep us on track. Actions are being
taken across the organization in all departments and at all levels which shows a continued
commitment to environmental stewardship overall and more direct support of actions that
reduce emissions in support of the CAP. A consulting firm experienced with implementing
actions and strategies at the community level will be hired this fall to assist staff with
community engagement and adoption of actions from a variety of stakeholders to help reduce
emissions. City operations alone are less than 3% of the total city emissions; therefore change is
needed well beyond our own internal actions.
Financial or budget considerations: Not applicable.
Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to continue to lead in
environmental stewardship.
Supporting documents: Discussion
Climate Action Plan (Link)
Prepared by: Shannon Pinc, Environment & Sustainability Coordinator
Reviewed by: Nancy Deno, HR Director/Deputy City Manager
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study session meeting of September 24, 2018 (Item No. 7) Page 2
Title: Sustainability update
Discussion
With the acceptance of the Climate Action Plan (CAP) in February 2018, it is important that we
provide ongoing information and updates on activities related to the plan. The CAP has both kick
start projects and long term goals/targets through 2040. Many partners will be helping with
implementation and program development including, but not limited to, the Environment &
Sustainability Commission, students of the St. Louis Park High School Roots & Shoots
environmental club, staff, business community, residents, consultants and utilities. Below is a
summary of activities and updates related to work with the CAP. If you have questions on any of
the following information, please contact Shannon Pinc, Environment & Sustainability Coordinator.
2018 Kick Start Projects for the Climate Action Plan:
•Partnering with youth: The city continues to partner with St. Louis Park High School
students, who planned an Earth Day Climate Action Plan launch event in April and have
been visiting businesses to talk about energy efficiency and renewable actions. A business
brochure was created by students to use during visits as well as to give out at events.
•Resource Hub: Environment & Sustainability Commission members along with city staff
and youth are working to choose the resources, technology and assistance that will
eventually become a community resource hub for the Climate Action Plan. One resource
example is the creation of a solar suitability online map, which will provide an estimate
of the potential for solar photovoltaic energy systems at individual properties in St.
Louis Park based on shading, roof pitch and size.
•Accelerating adoption of electric vehicles by installing chargers in public parking lots.
The city drafted an EV ordinance that requires EV infrastructure through the zoning
process and is assessing EV charging opportunities for upcoming projects in public and
private parking lots and ramps, including Westwood Hills Nature Center.
Additional:
•Participation in the Cities Charging Ahead EV cohort through Minnesota GreenStep
Cities has helped staff learn from others and find resources. Through this cohort, the
city is participating in a one-year fleet analysis of city vehicles, funded by Xcel Energy.
The analysis will provide recommendations for which city vehicles would be suited for
replacement with electric vehicles or hybrids.
•Both Xcel Energy and the city are replacing their respective streetlights with LEDs, which
are long-lasting and energy efficient compared to traditional high-pressure sodium
streetlights.
•New pool filters at The Rec Center’s Aquatic Park not only reduced water use by 645,000
gallons in June and July over the same period in 2017, but also saved energy and were
less costly to operate.
•With grant funding from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA), the parks
division is taking steps to replace most of its gas-powered equipment, such as weed
trimmers, with electric tools in order to reduce emissions.
•City staff is pursuing SolSmart designation, which recognizes cities for fostering
development of mature, local solar markets.
•In August, Administrative Services hired Lauren Michaels as the new Environment &
Sustainability Intern to help support sustainability efforts. Lauren has been updating our
current city-owned building benchmarking data set (B3 state program), assisting with
Study session meeting of September 24, 2018 (Item No. 7) Page 3
Title: Sustainability update
planning meetings/events, and helping provide additional support for the Environment
& Sustainability Commission.
• Staff is working with Hennepin County and the cities of Edina and Eden Prairie to pilot
energy benchmarking for certain building types, sizes and functions. The CAP strongly
suggests that a benchmarking ordinance is critical to ensure that actions can be taken by
the largest users of energy. By measuring energy use, building owners may be more able
to manage their resources and reduce their carbon emissions. As part of the pilot, city
building data from our state benchmarking program (B3) will be entered into Portfolio
Manager, the national EPA benchmarking program that is used to compare buildings
across the country. The Hennepin County benchmarking program and pilot is following
the model of Minneapolis and other cities that have passed benchmarking ordinances.
• Facilities staff are testing out unbleached paper hand towels in a few city building
dispensers. Assuming they continue to perform as well as the previous brand, these
brown towels can save money and are less harmful to the environment.
• Shannon Pinc recently presented to the SLP business council and provided a high level
overview of climate action in cities, our plan and its respective goals, our next steps with
implementation, and what we are asking of the business community going forward.
• Shannon Pinc was an invited panelist to present our CAP and city partnerships related to
those efforts at the US Dept of Energy’s annual Better Buildings Summit this August in
Cleveland, OH.
• Students from the Roots and Shoots environmental club along with members of the
Environment & Sustainability Commission and staff assistance, put together a climate
action plan kickoff event on Earth Day of 2018 and successfully brought almost 200
residents to celebrate, learn, and gain access to resources.
• Staff and members of the Environment & Sustainability Commission managed a table at
ParkTacular, as part of the EcoTacular tent, giving away LED lightbulbs and educating the
public on energy efficiency, renewables, and the city’s climate action plan.
• The Midwest Renewable Energy Association (MREA) and Center for Energy and
Environment (CEE) have created FREE one-hour educational events all around the Twin
Cities. These events educate homeowners and small business owners on energy
efficiency, the basics of solar energy, relevant incentives, financing options, and are the
first step to participate in solar installations through the power of volume purchasing.
The city and the Environment & Sustainability Commission is hosting one of these Solar
Power Hour events on October 18th at City Hall.
• A consultant has been selected and a contract is being created to hire this firm to assist
with implementation actions and strategies in the CAP, especially related to outreach
efforts to different stakeholder groups in the community.
o The firm will help lead, develop, and present programming to incentivize energy
reduction and renewable actions for businesses, residents, multifamily housing,
and non-taxed entities.
o Their expertise will help determine effective methods to engage and incentivize
various distinct audiences, such as the business community, to focus on actions
that reduce emissions
o The scope of work will be refined with staff this fall. Program development will
start later this fall and implementation will start in 2019. The firm’s work is
intended to be up to 1 year in duration, with the ability to extend if desired.
Meeting: Study session
Meeting date: September 24, 2018
Written report: 8
Executive summary
Title: Firearms discussion update
Recommended action: No action required at this time. This report is meant solely to provide
the city council with an update on the firearms discussion.
Policy consideration: Does the city council need any additional information regarding firearm
initiatives at this time?
Summary: On May 21, 2018 and July 23, 2018 the city council discussed firearm sales within the
City of St. Louis Park. In Minnesota, the state has limited the authority of cities to regulate
firearms (Minn. Stat. 471.633). Since 1985, the state legislature has preempted all cities,
counties, towns and other governmental subdivisions from regulating “firearms, ammunition or
their respective components.”
On July 23 the city council directed staff to review the police department’s procedure on
disposing of department-issued duty weapons, review the zoning of home occupations and C-2
general commercial district as relates to firearm sales, and create a policy banning gun shows
from city facilities.
Financial or budget considerations: Not applicable.
Strategic priority consideration: Not applicable.
Supporting documents: Discussion
City Council Study Session Minutes May 21, 2018 (link)
City Council Study Session Minutes July 23, 2018 (attachment)
Planning Commission agenda September 5, 2018 (link)
Planning Commission draft unofficial minutes September 5, 2018
(attachment)
Prepared by: Maria Carrillo Perez, Management Assistant
Reviewed by: Sean Walther, Planning and Zoning Supervisor
Soren Mattick, City Attorney
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study session meeting of September 24, 2018 (Item No. 8) Page 2
Title: Firearms discussion update
Discussion
Background: The city council discussed firearm sales on May 21, 2018 (minutes) and July 23,
2018 (minutes attached). In Minnesota, the state has limited the authority of cities to regular
firearms.
On July 23, 2018, city council directed staff to review the police department’s procedure on
disposing of department-issued duty weapons, review the zoning of home occupations and C-2
general commercial district as relates to firearm sales, and create a policy banning gun shows
from city facilities. This report is intended to give the council an update on the initiatives above.
Police department retention policy and procedures
Handguns issued to officers that have reached the end of their useful life or when an officer
retires in good standing, have been sold to a licensed firearms dealer in the past. Previously,
dealers have given officers first chance at buying back the handgun before they would be made
available for sale to the public.
On August 9, 2018, the police department implemented a new policy regarding the purchasing
of an officers department-issued duty weapon upon separation from service in good standing.
The new policy/procedure states that:
1.Officer requests to exercise the privilege of purchasing their Department-issued duty weapon
must be made in writing or by email to the Chief of Police or his/her designee, within 30 days of
their separation from service in good standing.
2. Police Department sells the duty weapon to a Federal Firearms Licensee (FFL) at fair market
value (determined on the day of the Officer’s separation from employment in good standing).
3. Officer is promptly notified when/where to purchase the duty weapon from the FFL for fair
market value, as determined above.
If the officer does not request to exercise the privilege of purchasing their Department-issued
duty weapon within 30 days of their separation from service in good standing, the firearm may
be destroyed or returned to inventory for Department use or reassignment to personnel, as
directed by the Chief of Police.
This policy helps ensure that department-issued duty weapons will not be available to the
public.
Zoning code review of firearm sales
Home occupations: Firearm sales have been allowed as a home occupation under certain
conditions. The city council directed staff to specifically prohibit firearm sales as a home
occupation. Staff proposes to do so by adding firearm sales to the list of uses that do not qualify
as home occupations. This item was brought the Planning Commission on September 5, 2018
(agenda).
A public hearing was held regarding the proposed amendment to the home occupation
regulations to explicitly prohibit firearm sales as a home occupation. A representative of the
Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus spoke briefly at the public hearing in opposition to the
Study session meeting of September 24, 2018 (Item No. 8) Page 3
Title: Firearms discussion update
proposed amendment. The city also received approximately 12 emails opposing the ordinance.
The emails appeared to be from members of the Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus.
The planning commission tabled the item seeking more information. The planning commission
also expanded the scope of the ordinance review, seeking to further define and review city
limitations on retail sales as home occupations.
The planning commission will review the ordinance at a study session in October before it is
brought back for a recommendation. The item will likely be presented to the city council in
November.
C-2 general commercial district: The zoning code defines firearm sales as “a retail use that
includes the sale, lease, or purchase of firearms or ammunition.” This definition covers a
business that sells any amount of firearms or ammunition, be it a store that deals primarily in
firearms, or a sporting goods store. The zoning ordinance allows firearm sales in the C-2
General Commercial district with certain conditions.
The city may expand the separation requirements or add to the list of uses that firearms sales
must not locate near. Under the current code, firearm sales businesses, other than home
occupations, are only allowed in the C-2 General Commercial district and must meet the
distance requirements from other uses and residential properties.
Per the request of the city council, a review of the conditions related to firearm sales in the C-2
zoning district is also underway. A draft of possible amendments will be brought to the planning
commission for preliminary review at an upcoming study session in October. This item would
likely go to city council for consideration in late November or early December following a public
hearing at the planning commission.
Gun shows
The city council provided direction to prohibit gun shows from city owned property in an effort
to prevent the “gun show loophole.” The following policy will come before the city council for
approval on Monday, October 15, 2018.
The City of St. Louis Park zoning ordinance governs the location of the sale of firearms. Based
on the conditions imposed by the zoning ordinance, there are not any city facilities that would
be allowed to host the sale of firearms. Accordingly, the City of St. Louis Park bans all gun
shows, swap meets and other like events that the main reasoning for the event is the
sale/exchange of firearms. The ban of the aforementioned events is in place for the Rec Center
Campus and at all other City of St. Louis Park facilities.
Study session meeting of September 24, 2018 (Item No. 8) Page 4
Title: Firearms discussion update
Official minutes
City council study session
St. Louis Park, Minnesota
July 23, 2018
The meeting convened at 6:30 p.m.
Councilmembers present: Mayor Jake Spano, Rachel Harris, Anne Mavity, Thom Miller, and
Margaret Rog.
Councilmembers absent: Tim Brausen and Steve Hallfin.
Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), Engineering Director (Ms. Heiser), Human
Resources Director/Deputy City Manager (Ms. Deno), Senior Project Manager (Mr. Walther),
Community Development Director (Ms. Barton), City Attorney (Mr. Mattick), Management
Assistant (Ms. Carrillo Perez), Deputy Police Chief Kraayenbrink, Racial Equity Manager (Ms.
Sojourner), and Recording Secretary (Ms. Pappas).
Guest: None.
***
2. Firearm sales
Ms. Carrillo Perez stated the policy considerations for council to address this evening are as
follows:
•Changing how firearms are disposed of by the police department
•Further restrict zoning regulations for firearm sales
•Addressing gun shows at city owned facilities
Deputy Chief Kraayenbrink discussed the ways firearms are brought into the police department
noting they are either:
1.Evidence – through search or incident
2.Public has asked police to keep firearm for safekeeping
3.With the death of a loved one, a firearm has become an estate item and is brought to
police and ownership released,
4.It is an officer’s handgun, and is police property
Deputy Chief Kraayenbrink added with firearms disposal, guns can be given to the BCA or the
Sheriff for the gun library or can be destroyed by the city police department. He added when an
officer retires, their handgun can be purchased by the officer, after it first goes to the licensed
dealer. After that time, the officer is able to purchase the gun from the dealer and proceeds go
back to the city.
Mayor Spano stated that he and Cory Krause, owner of Frontiersman Sport, along with Gabe
Kaplan and Maddie Lind, students at St. Louis Park High School, recently met to discuss gun
sales and ideas around this topic, and he thanked them for doing so.
Study session meeting of September 24, 2018 (Item No. 8) Page 5
Title: Firearms discussion update
Mayor Spano also noted that Mr. Krause committed to not buying or selling automatic rifles in
his store any longer, and Mayor Spano thanked him for that. Mayor Spano stated that the
process laid out for firearms in the city, involves practices which are prescribed by statute,
adding he sees no reason to make adjustments. He added he has no problem with the officers
purchasing their firearm after retiring from the force but is more inclined to have firearms
transferred to the Sheriff’s firearms library vs. being sold and possibly put back out on the
street.
Councilmember Harris asked if the practices with firearms were changed, would there be any
revenue loss to the police department. Deputy Chief Kraayenbrink stated there is no revenue
loss to the police department.
Councilmember Miller asked what happens to firearms that are sent to the BCA and if they are
returned to the market. Deputy Chief Kraayenbrink stated he was not certain, but if they did
not go to the BCA or Sheriff, the police department could destroy them also.
Councilmember Miller stated he would advocate that the city police department destroy them
at the end of life.
Councilmember Rog stated in looking over the meeting minutes from May 21, the students
came to the study session asking the council for several items related to protection of students
in schools. She stated this is an opportunity for the council to respond to what the students are
asking for, and the council needs to partner with the schools in providing a resource officer,
more protection, and more counseling in order to help them feel safer.
Councilmember Mavity stated that all firearms that go through the city are destroyed so they
don’t get to the BCA or Sheriff’s office. She added that she does not want to see city weapons
associated with things that do not align with city values.
Councilmember Mavity asked if retiring city police officers are required to go to Frontiersman
to purchase their same gun for personal use. City Attorney Mattick stated the general rules of
selling city-owned property to city employees is that it must go through a dealer.
Councilmember Mavity commented that while she understands this process, she is not sure it
outweighs the broader policy, and has concerns that if the officer says they will purchase the
firearm, and then does not, it may end up going back out into the public.
After discussion, it was the consensus of the council that the policy be written stating if the
officer does not purchase his own firearm through Frontiersman, the firearm will go back to the
city for destruction.
Mr. Walther showed the council areas of C2 where buffers exist as it related to firearm sales.
Councilmember Miller stated he advocates for further discussion making it difficult for
additional gun shops to open.
Study session meeting of September 24, 2018 (Item No. 8) Page 6
Title: Firearms discussion update
Mayor Spano stated he would be in favor of restricting gun shops into only one area of the city,
as small as possible in scope, and grandfathering in Frontiersman to leave it at its current
location.
Mr. Mattick noted gun sales are allowed as home occupations, through the internet, adding this
could be banned by the city.
Councilmember Rog asked for data on how frequently guns are purchased immediately prior to
a mass shooting. Deputy Chief Kraayenbrink stated he did not know, but felt many of these
mass shootings are planned out well in advance.
Councilmember Rog stated she would like more information on this, adding she is still
frustrated the council is not discussing how they can protect students more. She also asked
how closely the city monitors illegal sales of firearms.
Councilmember Harris noted in San Antonio in June 2018, they discussed policies which are
virtually the same as what St. Louis Park is looking at. She stated she is appreciative of what
staff has presented, it makes sense for zoning, and she will support it.
Councilmember Mavity asked about zoning and if sporting goods stores would have the ability
to sell firearms in the city, should they choose to.
Mr. Harmening stated the city fire arms sales ordinance would apply to anyone looking at
selling firearms in the city.
Councilmember Mavity also noted congress does not allow the study of gun violence and has
banned the CDC to study and understand those questions, adding there may be no data
available to review. Mayor Spano, however, noted others have done studies on this, and asked
staff to look into this.
In light of zoning questions, Mayor Spano added he would prefer not to allow gun shows on city
property.
Mr. Harmening added the city has not hosted a gun show, and thought a policy should be
adopted now, prior to the city receiving a request.
Councilmember Mavity asked if the city must provide a permit for a gun show, perhaps if a
hotel wanted to host the event, can the city not allow it. Mr. Mattick stated an outright ban by
the city on gun shows might be protected. He stated he will check further into this and how it
aligns with the zoning.
Councilmember Miller stated he would like to protect the 1000-foot space around schools
perhaps with signage, which might help students feel safer.
Councilmember Mavity stated she appreciates this; however, would like to look deeper into this
and if it’s appropriate to work with Children First and community policing on this as well, to
build trust and confidence within the schools and with students. She added she wants to be
Study session meeting of September 24, 2018 (Item No. 8) Page 7
Title: Firearms discussion update
cautious about more law enforcement mentality, which might make students feel safe, when
they are really not safe – then creating more fear.
Councilmember Rog added she would want to work with students on this and with the school
district and do what students are asking for.
Councilmember Harris stated this should be a broader conversation with the school district and
the council on a joint partnership related to gun safety. She added it might be worth a
conversation with Discover St. Louis Park about how they book hotel conventions, and creating
a resolution that states they would not promote or accept a gun in a city hotel.
Mr. Harmening added, however, the city would need to discuss this with the hotels as well.
Mayor Spano stated this will be an ongoing conversation with students, police, the school
district, residents, Mr. Kramer, and others to talk about gun safety in our community. He added
the city might also have discussions on the ways guns are locked in homes, and gun storage
guidelines.
It was the consensus of the council to change how firearms are disposed of, to restrict zoning
regulations for firearm sales, particularly with home businesses, and also to address gun shows
at city owned facilities – noting that the council does not want gun shows within the city as a
matter of policy. Staff will contact city hotels for more discussion on this and bring information
back to the council at a future study session.
Study session meeting of September 24, 2018 (Item No. 8) Page 8
Title: Firearms discussion update
D R A F T
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
SEPTEMBER 5, 2018 – 6:00 p.m.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MEMBERS PRESENT: Claudia Johnston-Madison, Jessica Kraft, Lisa Peilen,
Carl Robertson, Joe Tatalovich, Alanna Franklin (youth member)
MEMBERS ABSENT: Lynne Carper (unexcused), Matt Eckholm (unexcused)
STAFF PRESENT: Sean Walther, Gary Morrison, Jennifer Monson
***
B.Zoning ordinance regarding home occupations
Applicant: City of St. Louis Park
Case No.: 18-43-ZA
Sean Walther, Planning and Zoning Supervisor, presented the staff report. He stated
that the city council directed staff to explicitly prohibit firearm sales as a home
occupation. He discussed the home occupation land use description currently in the
zoning code. He explained the purpose of the proposed amendment is to clarify that the
rules apply to both for-profit and not-for-profit home occupations and to also explicitly
prohibit certain additional home occupational uses. He stated those uses include
firearm sales, currency exchange, payday loan agency, sexually-oriented business and
high impact sexually oriented businesses. All of these uses are currently required to be
separated from residential uses when located in a commercial district.
Chair Robertson and Mr. Walther discussed the difference between a firearm sale and a
retail sale.
Commissioner Peilen asked about a ban on retail sales. She said there are any number of
women’s clothing lines that are sold in the home. She described these sales as occurring
approximately four times a year. Samples are shipped back to the retailer and items
purchased are shipped directly to the customer.
Mr. Walther said the type of activity as described by Commissioner Peilen is not
prohibited.
Commissioner Johnston-Madison said many multi-level marketing businesses are run
out of homes. Product is being stored in homes. She said she didn’t think those
businesses could be construed as retail sales.
Commissioner Johnston-Madison asked city council’s intent in prohibiting firearm sales
as a home occupation.
Study session meeting of September 24, 2018 (Item No. 8) Page 9
Title: Firearms discussion update
Mr. Walther responded it came up when council asked how the city currently regulates
firearm sales and where they are permitted.
Commissioner Johnston-Madison asked if any Federal Firearms Licensees (FFLs) are
selling firearms from their homes today in St. Louis Park.
Mr. Walther stated he believed there are approximately six current FFLs operating as
home occupations at this time.
Commissioner Johnston-Madison noted for the record that she didn’t appreciate some
of the wording in the emails received from the public on the proposed amendment.
She asked about the procedure of licensing.
Mr. Walther said he doesn’t know all the details of how the licenses are issued. He said
the zoning division is asked whether or not that use is allowed in the zoning ordinance.
That is asked initially when a license is being obtained and again when it is renewed.
The zoning division is asked if the FFL meets the local regulations.
The Chair said he would like more definition about firearm sales as a primary home
occupation or as a related home occupation like gunsmith. He said sometimes
gunsmiths will make a sale of a custom item that was manufactured on site.
Mr. Walther said the city will have to look at every case individually. He said he doesn’t
believe gunsmith would meet current regulations for home occupations. He added that
conditions for home occupations as an accessory use in each district are noted in the
zoning code.
Chair Robertson said with gunsmith there seems to be a gray area that a firearm might
be produced off site but modified on site. He went on to say this is a complex item and
he doesn’t have enough information such as wording and definitions to feel comfortable
voting on the item. He suggested holding the public hearing and tabling the vote.
Commissioner Johnston-Madison said she agreed. She said she doesn’t have enough
information and also wants background information on why this is being proposed.
Mr. Walther asked the commission to provide him with specific questions.
Commissioner Peilen said she would not vote to table. She said she doesn’t think guns
have any business being sold in private residences.
The Chair said he would like to sit down with the six FFLs and see how they do business.
He said he doesn’t see the purpose of the extra proposed step.
Mr. Walther said there are approximately six FFL holders that operate as a home
occupation. He’s spoken with one FFL holder who primarily does internet sales of
Study session meeting of September 24, 2018 (Item No. 8) Page 10
Title: Firearms discussion update
collector antique firearms. He explained how the proposed amendment would limit
new future home occupations.
Chair Robertson said he sees zero issue with this and doesn’t see why it should be
prohibited.
Commissioner Kraft asked what surrounding cities are doing about this.
Mr. Walther responded it varies from city to city. Conditions are similar but there are
differences in each city. He added that the city attorney attended the city council study
session where the issue was discussed and the attorney’s opinion is that cities can place
reasonable limits upon firearm sales, including the proposed zoning code amendment.
Chair Robertson opened the public hearing.
Rob Doar, political director and vice president of MN Gun Owners Caucus, 716 County
Hwy. 10, Minneapolis, distributed his letter opposing the proposed ordinance to the
commission. He said commissioners’ questions were good. He said the question of why
is important as state statute specifically protects firearms dealers, and requires that any
ordinances to be enacted be reasonable, non-arbitrary and non-discriminatory. He
stated there has to be a very significant justification of why the ordinance would be
enacted.
Mr. Doar said the major function of FFLs is firearm transfers. He said FFLs have to renew
their license every three years which includes a federal inspection. He said many
gunsmiths are often FFL dealers. He stated the vast majority of FFL dealers sell at gun
shops and gun shows and are not handling customer traffic at their front doors. Mr.
Doar said there are important distinctions of the functions of what FFL dealers do that
go beyond the scope of the intent of retail sales. He said prohibiting those functions
would be discriminatory and arbitrary.
Mr. Walther noted that email correspondence opposing the proposed amendment and
comments on 2nd amendment rights had been received and distributed to the
commission at the beginning of the meeting. Email correspondence opposing the
ordinance was received from David H. Anderson, Robert J. De brey, Ryan Daniels, James
Guertin, Taylor Jones, Kevin S., Thomas Knute, Marc Olivier, Matthew Race, Rocky
Vandal and James Allison, 5639 Nicollet Ave., Mpls. Emails were received by city staff
after 3:30 p.m. on September 5, 2018.
The Chair closed the public hearing as no one else was present wishing to speak.
Chair Robertson stated he understands the logic of separating gun sales from
neighborhoods, but a retail gun sale with transfer is different. This kind of firearm sale
is already separated from the neighborhood. He said he wouldn’t vote to approve the
amendment as it seems discriminatory and he doesn’t see that there is an issue. He said
his understanding is that the federal regulations are pretty strict and guns aren’t being
Study session meeting of September 24, 2018 (Item No. 8) Page 11
Title: Firearms discussion update
sold out the door. He added that to force someone to rent an office space to do their
business is burdensome and he isn’t comfortable with it.
Commissioner Peilen said she isn’t comfortable with storage and distribution of guns
from homes.
Commissioner Johnston-Madison remarked that she wants to receive more information.
She wants a good reason for the amendment that is definable and explainable. She
stated she wants facts. She referenced a gun study in one of the emails. Commissioner
Johnston-Madison said she’d like to see the item tabled.
The Chair asked Commissioner Franklin, youth member, for her thoughts about gun
issues.
Commissioner Franklin responded that students are scared. She said students aren’t
fully educated about this issue. She said the ones who are fully educated about the issue
are speaking up about their fears. She said she would like to know more about the
proposed amendment.
Commissioner Tatalovich stated that none of the emails received appeared to come
from St. Louis Park residents.
Commissioner Tatalovich made a motion recommending tabling the request. He added
that his opinion on this subject is much closer to Commissioner Peilen’s. Commissioner
Johnston-Madison seconded the motion, and the motion to table passed on a vote of 4-
1 (Peilen opposed).
In summary, the Chair requested information on what the city is trying to fix and if there
is an issue to be addressed. Commissioner Johnston-Madison asked to know why the
council is recommending this and if there are any studies that we should be aware of.
Commissioner Peilen added that details regarding home based sales need to be
developed.
Mr. Walther asked commissioners in clarifying the ordinance broader restrictions on
retail sales if they wanted it to be more restrictive or less restrictive than the current
rules.
The Chair responded it needs to be more defined.
Commissioner Tatalovich spoke about finding a certain threshold the city should be
looking at in terms of home occupations and retail sales.
Commissioner Peilen said a lot of people could be put out of business so a greater
definition of what is allowed and what isn’t allowed needs to be determined.
Meeting: Study session
Meeting date: September 24, 2018
Written report: 9
Executive summary
Title: August 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 August, general fund expenditures are at
approximately 64% 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 September 24, 2018 (Item No. 9) Page 2
Title: August 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 67% of the annual budget at the end of August.
General Fund expenditures are currently under budget by approximately 3%. 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 74% of budget through August. This is
primarily because the majority, or over 95% of the 2018 business and liquor license revenue has
been received, which is typical of previous years. Permit revenue is at 68% through August.
Community development is running a small expenditure variance that is due in part to the
extension of a part-time staff position beyond what was originally budgeted to continue
planning work for SWLRT. The variance is also partially due to a housing staff allocation that will
be adjusted at year end.
Communications & marketing expenditures are exceeding budget due to some larger printing
and postage costs incurred for the calendar, newsletter and advertising to promote special
events.
Engineering has a variance in personal services due to seasonal project overtime and additional
interns. Some of this time will be reimbursed from the related project funds.
The organized recreation and recreation center divisions have seasonal expenditure variances
which is normal after the summer months for temporary staffing and pool supplies.
Study session meeting of September 24, 2018 (Item No. 9) Page 3
Title: August 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. At end of year, an
adjustment is made to accrue revenue for the full year.
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 $24,171
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 August 31, 2018 20182018201620162017201720182018Balance YTD Budget BudgetAuditedBudgetAuditedBudgetAug 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 2,915,437 1,009,211 74.29% Fines & Forfeits341,200 299,808 254,200 293,236 269,200 198,775 70,425 73.84% Intergovernmental1,419,017 1,656,072 1,631,669 1,899,006 1,864,877 981,011 883,866 52.60% Charges for Services1,956,593 2,063,241 2,027,637 2,051,552 2,162,410 1,513,225 649,185 69.98% Miscellaneous Revenue977,546 1,131,632 1,274,415 1,294,452 1,318,037 899,311 418,726 68.23% Transfers In1,872,581 1,881,274 1,899,927 1,951,218 1,929,090 1,279,393 649,697 66.32% 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 13,278 27,672 32.42% 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$ 22,263,848$ 15,635,085$ 58.75%General Fund Expenditures: General Government: Administration1,037,235$ 1,118,873$ 1,049,123$ 1,056,796$ 1,341,606$ 846,713$ 494,893$ 63.11% Finance933,624 869,759 957,275 924,832 978,752 639,842 338,910 65.37% Assessing641,038 607,443 707,139 652,015 759,865 451,580 308,285 59.43% Human Resources748,718 801,958 754,699 730,731 796,666 483,654 313,012 60.71% Community Development1,385,036 1,281,000 1,366,055 1,353,476 1,479,911 1,023,529 456,382 69.16% Facilities Maintenance1,115,877 1,099,973 1,132,774 1,128,339 1,162,342 770,349 391,993 66.28% Information Resources1,564,128 1,492,734 1,570,712 1,421,685 1,589,432 931,620 657,812 58.61% Communications & Marketing608,228 657,758 646,841 722,199 755,940 538,642 217,298 71.25% Community Outreach25,587 22,718 26,553 24,403 27,637 16,915 10,722 61.20% Engineering549,251 436,228 376,601 339,876 525,834 378,903 146,931 72.06%Total General Government8,608,722$ 8,388,443$ 8,587,772$ 8,354,352$ 9,417,985$ 6,081,747$ 3,336,238$ 64.58% Public Safety: Police8,698,661$ 8,754,092$ 9,217,988$ 9,255,342$ 9,930,681$ 6,340,798$ 3,589,883$ 63.85% Fire Protection4,030,153 3,939,435 4,407,656 4,319,457 4,657,973 3,098,053 1,559,920 66.51% Inspectional Services2,216,075 2,082,694 2,419,073 2,271,301 2,544,762 1,493,014 1,051,748 58.67%Total Public Safety14,944,889$ 14,776,220$ 16,044,717$ 15,846,100$ 17,133,416$ 10,931,865$ 6,201,551$ 63.80% Operations & Recreation: Public Works Administration241,304$ 240,497$ 266,249$ 245,942$ 230,753$ 131,567$ 99,186$ 57.02% Public Works Operations2,907,781 2,699,375 3,019,017 2,809,715 3,091,857 1,839,806 1,252,051 59.50% Organized Recreation1,431,260 1,396,737 1,472,996 1,470,613 1,582,490 1,088,398 494,092 68.78% Recreation Center1,602,935 1,687,724 1,744,651 1,856,529 1,860,755 1,383,760 476,995 74.37% Park Maintenance1,634,249 1,627,700 1,721,732 1,797,271 1,830,530 1,233,371 597,159 67.38% Westwood Nature Center576,173 555,887 602,400 572,942 622,346 389,290 233,056 62.55% Natural Resources479,408 362,094 550,235 430,995 559,662 216,607 343,055 38.70% Vehicle Maintenance1,358,946 1,130,622 1,384,038 1,088,375 1,253,367 830,479 422,888 66.26%Total Operations & Recreation10,232,056$ 9,700,637$ 10,761,318$ 10,272,383$ 11,031,760$ 7,113,278$ 3,918,482$ 64.48% Non-Departmental: General 30,351$ 63,648$ 31,909$ 31,859$ 43,422$ 28,216$ 15,206$ 64.98% 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$ 43,651$ 272,121$ 13.82%Total General Fund Expenditures34,082,737$ 34,906,172$ 35,811,011$ 35,577,947$ 37,898,933$ 24,170,541$ 13,728,392$ 63.78%*Primarily related to E911 capital items from restricted fund balance.Study session meeting of September 24, 2018 (Item No. 9) Title: August 2018 monthly financial report Page 4
Budget to Actual - Enterprise FundsAs of August 31, 2018 Current BudgetAug Year To DateBudget Variance% of BudgetCurrent BudgetAug Year To DateBudget Variance% of BudgetCurrent BudgetAug Year To DateBudget Variance% of BudgetCurrent BudgetAug Year To DateBudget Variance% of BudgetOperating revenues: User charges6,177,384$ 3,297,303$ 2,880,081$ 53.38% 7,421,016$ 4,328,908$ 3,092,108$ 58.33% 3,590,500$ 1,849,020$ 1,741,480$ 51.50% 3,024,731$ 1,738,191$ 1,286,540$ 57.47% Other375,750 434,175 (58,425) 115.55% 30,000 21,730 8,270 72.43% 140,000 5,150 134,850 3.68%- 166,000 (166,000) Total operating revenues6,553,134 3,731,478 2,821,656 56.94% 7,451,016 4,350,638 3,100,378 58.39% 3,730,500 1,854,170 1,876,330 49.70% 3,024,731 1,904,191 1,120,540 62.95%Operating expenses: Personal services1,377,010 952,634 424,376 69.18% 689,225 545,047 144,178 79.08% 631,295 394,323 236,972 62.46% 796,527 445,379 351,148 55.92% Supplies & non-capital430,300 143,435 286,865 33.33% 65,550 21,441 44,109 32.71% 184,750 46,439 138,311 25.14% 31,600 1,727 29,873 5.47% Services & other charges1,704,224 1,066,181 638,043 62.56% 4,605,626 3,463,726 1,141,900 75.21% 3,014,442 1,372,659 1,641,783 45.54% 595,187 176,479 418,708 29.65% Depreciation * Total operating expenses3,511,534 2,162,250 1,349,284 61.58% 5,360,401 4,030,214 1,330,187 75.18% 3,830,487 1,813,421 2,017,066 47.34% 1,423,314 623,585 799,729 43.81%Operating income (loss)3,041,600 1,569,228 1,472,372 51.59% 2,090,615 320,424 1,770,191 15.33% (99,987) 40,749 (140,736) -40.75% 1,601,417 1,280,606 320,811 79.97%Nonoperating revenues (expenses): Interest income 15,172 15,765 (593) 103.91% 2,391 8,148 (5,757) 340.78% 15,000 7,819 7,181 52.13% 14,800 9,359 5,441 63.24% 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) 61.51% Total nonoperating rev (exp)(161,170) (354,671) 193,501 220.06% (24,193) (50,660) 26,467 209.40% (10,500) (582) (9,918) 5.54% (26,097) (15,795) (10,302) 60.52%Income (loss) before transfers2,880,430 1,214,557 1,665,873 42.17% 2,066,422 269,764 1,796,658 13.05% (110,487) 40,167 (150,654) -36.35% 1,575,320 1,264,811 310,509 80.29%Transfers inTransfers out(601,985) (401,323) (200,662) 66.67% (823,637) (549,091) (274,546) 66.67% (234,046) (156,031) (78,015) 66.67% (322,459) (214,973) (107,486) 66.67%NET INCOME (LOSS)2,278,445 813,234 1,465,211 35.69% 1,242,785 (279,327) 1,522,112 -22.48% (344,533) (115,864) (228,669) 33.63% 1,252,861 1,049,838 203,023 83.80%Items reclassified to bal sht at year end: Capital Outlay(3,316,199) (2,734,291) (581,908) 82.45% (1,619,500) (346,623) (1,272,877) 21.40%---(2,688,977) (11,448) (2,677,529) 0.43%Revenues over/(under) expenditures(1,037,754) (1,921,057) 883,303 (376,715) (625,950) 249,235 (344,533) (115,864) (228,669) (1,436,116) 1,038,390 (2,474,506) *Depreciation is recorded at end of year (non-cash item).Water SewerSolid WasteStorm WaterStudy session meeting of September 24, 2018 (Item No. 9) Title: August 2018 monthly financial report Page 5
Meeting: Study session
Meeting date: September 24, 2018
Written report: 10
Executive summary
Title: Cedar Lake Road Improvement Project No. 4019-1100
Recommended action: None at this time. This report is intended to provide an of where things
stood with the preliminary design process
Policy consideration: Does the city council wish to continue to pursue the proposed street
rehabilitation project scope identified in this report? Do councilmembers have concerns or
questions on the status of this project?
Summary: In 2019, road improvements are proposed on Cedar Lake Road between Kentucky
Avenue and Quentin Avenue. This road is classified as an Urban Minor Arterial and is
designated as a Municipal State Aid (MSA) road which makes it eligible for state funding (gas
tax dollars).
In order to qualify for funding, the road needs to be constructed to state aid standards. Given
work load demands, the city engaged the consulting firm, Bolton & Menk, Inc., to complete the
traffic study and preliminary design of Cedar Lake Road.
The scope of the city’s project includes:
•Replacement of all pavement between Kentucky Avenue and Quentin Avenue
•Bike facility
•Sidewalk construction (gap)
•Streetlight replacement
•Signal rehabilitation (Park Place Boulevard)
•Removal of the existing signal at Zarthan and construction of a new roundabout.
•Watermain replacement
•Miscellaneous utility rehabilitation
Financial or budget considerations: Staff is working through the details of the cost and funding
for this project. This information will be included in the report for the October 1, 2018 public
hearing.
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
Location map
Preliminary layouts available at: www.stlouispark.org/cedar-lake-road
Prepared by: Joseph Shamla, Sr. Engineering Project Manager
Reviewed by: Debra Heiser, Engineering Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study session meeting of September 24, 2018 (Item No. 10) Page 2
Title: Cedar Lake Road Improvement Project No. 4019-1100
Discussion
Background: In 2019, Cedar Lake Road between Kentucky Avenue and Quentin Avenue is
proposed to be rehabilitated. This road is an Urban Minor Arterial, carrying approximately
12,500 vehicles a day. It is designated as a Municipal State Aid (MSA) road which makes it
eligible for state gas tax funds. In order to qualify for funding, the road needs to be constructed
to state aid standards. Cedar Lake Road was last reconstructed in the 1950’s. In order to ensure
that the improved Cedar Lake Road will meet the needs of the City for another 50 years, staff is
taking a look at existing and future transportation needs in the corridor. What follows is a
summary for this project.
Private utility replacement: Staff will be meeting with private utility companies in September
to review the project and discuss private utility needs in the corridor.
Street rehabilitation: Operations and Engineering collaborated to determine the pavement
technique recommended for Cedar Lake Road. After reviewing the condition of the road, staff
recommends that the City remove and replace all pavement. Retaining walls in poor condition
will also be replaced.
The curb on the north side of the road is in good condition and is proposed to be saved. The
curb on the south side of the road is constructed on top of the watermain and will need to be
replaced if the watermain is reconstructed.
In addition to the street improvements, the curb ramps will be upgraded to meet the
requirements of the American with Disabilities Act (ADA).
City owned infrastructure: As a part of all of our street rehabilitation projects, the city
evaluates the condition of the existing sanitary sewer, storm sewer, and water main. Due to
age and condition, most of the water main is proposed to be replaced. The sanitary and storm
sewer has been inspected and minor replacement of the sanitary sewer and storm sewer is
proposed.
Stormwater management: The current design options are at a 30% level. At this time staff
hasn’t identified the treatment strategy for the corridor because each option lends itself to
different storm water management opportunities. When a preliminary layout is chosen to
move forward with final design, staff will meet with the consultant to match the best treatment
technique to the corridor.
Cedar Lake Road design: A corridor study was completed to help guide the design of Cedar
Lake Road. Using existing and forecasted traffic data and input from residents, the consultant
developed 2 layouts for the city council’s consideration. The 2030 Comprehensive Plan
designates Cedar Lake Road as a 3-lane road section in the location that the 2-lane exists today.
The corridor study indicates that the 3-lane section is not necessary for safety or traffic flow. In
addition, adding a third lane would require a significant amount of right of way acquisition. The
2030 Comprehensive Plan and Connect the Park plan designates a bikeway on Cedar Lake Road.
A bike facility is also proposed on Edgewood Drive, which intersects with Cedar Lake Road. The
Edgewood Drive bike facility would be constructed as part of the 2019 Connect the Park project
which includes the construction of a bridge over the railroad tracks by Peter Hobart School.
Study session meeting of September 24, 2018 (Item No. 10) Page 3
Title: Cedar Lake Road Improvement Project No. 4019-1100
A parking study was completed to help better understand the extent and frequency of on-
street parking in the corridor. The consultant visited the site a total of 27 times to determine
how many parking stalls were being utilized on Cedar Lake Road. They also visited at different
times of the day, nights, and on weekends to get an accurate parking analysis. The parking
counts show 4 or less cars parked along the entire corridor during 27 site visits. A copy of the
parking analysis is available on the project website at: www.stlouispark.org/cedar-lake-road
Based on this information, staff recommends that the typical section of Cedar Lake Road include
the following components:
•Two vehicle travel lanes from Kentucky Avenue to Ridge Drive and from the Lifetime
Fitness east driveway to Quentin Avenue.
•Four vehicle travel lanes from Ridge Drive to Park Place Drive and Park Place Drive to the
Lifetime Fitness east driveway.
The overall corridor design also includes:
•Additional lanes, as needed, at the intersections for turning movements
•Pedestrian safety improvements
•Bump outs at intersections for speed management and shorter crossing lengths
•ADA improvements
•Storm water management
The consultant has completed two layouts for consideration. At the October 1, 2018 public
hearing, staff will present the layouts for discussion. The main difference between the two
layouts is that option 1 has 15 parking stalls on Cedar Lake Road and option 2 has no parking on
Cedar Lake Road. Removing parking on Cedar Lake Road provides more green space which also
decreases the amount of impervious surface.
Staff is recommending layout 1 for approval by the city council which includes 15 parking stalls
on Cedar Lake Road. All residents who currently have on street parking in front of their property
will be within 200 feet of a parking stall. This option provides on-street parking within 200 linear
feet of each residential property whether the location is on Cedar Lake Road or a side street.
Sidewalks: Existing sidewalks throughout the corridor will be repaired as needed. In addition, all
pedestrian ramps will be upgraded to meet the requirements of ADA.
Two Connect the Park sidewalk segments near Cedar Lake Road will be constructed with this
project. The first segment is on the west side of Zarthan Avenue between W. 16th Street and
Cedar Lake Road. The other 2019 Connect the Park segment is located on the south side of
Cedar Lake Road between Zarthan Avenue and the east entrance into Sunset Ridge.
Staff is recommending that the following new gap sidewalks be installed as a part of this project:
•Cedar Lake Road (south side): a new sidewalk between Kentucky Avenue and Zarthan
Avenue along the south side of Cedar Lake Road. This section of sidewalk is a gap in the
community sidewalk network. Adding this section of sidewalk will make it safer and
more comfortable for residents to walk along Cedar Lake Road to access destinations,
including bus stops, parks, schools, and commercial centers. In addition there are
Study session meeting of September 24, 2018 (Item No. 10) Page 4
Title: Cedar Lake Road Improvement Project No. 4019-1100
crosswalk enhancements being installed at intersections, discussed in the next section.
Providing a sidewalk on both sides of the street will guide walkers to these improved
crossings.
• Ridge Drive: a new sidewalk is proposed to be installed along Ridge Drive to connect the
multi-family housing to the Cedar Lake Road community sidewalk. Adding this section
of sidewalk will make it more comfortable for residents to walk to Cedar Lake Road,
accessing destinations, including bus stops, parks, schools, and commercial centers.
Intersection traffic control: A traffic study was completed along the corridor. Based on the results
of the study, staff is recommending the following intersection modifications.
A. Removal of the signal at Zarthan Avenue – Installation of a roundabout.
Advantages of the roundabout at this intersection:
1. Pedestrians will only cross one lane of traffic at a time.
2. Vehicle delay will be reduced at the intersection which will result in a reduction of
carbon emissions.
3. Vehicles will need to slow down through the roundabout making it safer for
pedestrians.
4. Data on other similar roundabouts predict a reduction in the number and severity of
accidents as compared to a traffic signal.
B. Rehabilitation of the signal system at Park Place Boulevard.
1. This signal is not recommended for conversion to a roundabout. The current signal
operates well with little delay. In order to construct a roundabout in this location, it
would need two lanes in each direction. This type of roundabout may increase the
number of crashes at the intersection.
2. The entire intersection will be upgraded to meet the requirements of ADA.
3. A sidewalk connection is proposed for the northeast corner of the intersection, where
there currently is not one.
4. The bituminous in the islands will be removed and replaced with concrete to be
consistent with the West End streetscape.
C. Pedestrian crossing improvements:
1. Dakota Avenue: A rapid flashing beacon is proposed at the intersection of Dakota
Avenue and Cedar Lake Road. This traffic control device flashes to let drivers know
that a pedestrian is ready to cross. This location was chosen due to the 2019 bike /
pedestrian bridge proposed on Edgewood Drive to cross the railroad tracks by Peter
Hobart School.
2. Hampshire Avenue: A rapid flashing beacon is proposed at the intersection of
Hampshire Avenue and Cedar Lake Road. This traffic control device flashes to let
drivers know that a pedestrian is ready to cross. This location is an existing
crosswalk.
Study session meeting of September 24, 2018 (Item No. 10) Page 5
Title: Cedar Lake Road Improvement Project No. 4019-1100
Public Process: Engineering hosted a public meeting on July 25, 2018 to gather public input
prior to starting the preliminary design. Another open house was held on September 12, 2018
to inform the public about the two layouts which were developed based on feedback from the
public and the corridor study. Staff will provide a copy of all resident comments to date prior to
the October 1, 2018 public hearing.
Proposed schedule: In order to ensure there is enough time to construct the improvements in
2019, staff needs direction on which of the two layouts should proceed to final design. To
achieve this, we are asking the city council to hold a public hearing on October 1, 2018 to
receive any additional comments. On October 15, 2018, the city council will be asked to
approve a layout to allow staff and consultant to develop final plans.
The following is the proposed schedule:
Public Hearing
Approve preliminary layout
October 1, 2018
October 15, 2018
60 percent plans November 2018
City Council - Approve Final Plans January 2019
Construction April – Nov 2019
?úA@
%&e(
14th Street West
26th Street Wes t
Par k woodsRoadCedarLakeR oadLouisianaAvenueSouthPark Place BoulevardP a r k d a le
D
r iv e
Franklin AvenueWest
Ga m b le Drive
25th
Street Wes t
Wayzata
B
oulevard
Douglas Avenue
WebsterAvenueSouthF orest RoadZarthanAvenue SouthHampshireAvenueSouth28th Street West ParklandsRoad
GeorgiaAvenueSouthC eda r wood
R
oadKentucky Avenue South27th Street West
Kentucky
L
a
n
e18th Street West
25 1/2 Street West
22nd Street West
24th Street W
e
st
IdahoAvenueSouthFloridaAvenueSouthUticaAvenueSouthDakotaAvenueSouthEliot View RoadAvondaleRoad
Fairlawn WayMontereyAvenueSouthQuentinAvenueSouthRaleighAvenueSouthSalemAvenueSouthToledoAvenueSouthMarylandAvenueSouthNevadaAvenueSouthLouisiana C
ourtYosemiteAvenueSouthStateHighway100FrontageRoadNatchezAvenueSouthSunsetRid g e
23 rd S tre e tWestBarry Street
VernonAvenueSouthXenwoodAvenueSouth16th Street West
EdgewoodAvenueSouthAlabama Avenue SouthColoradoAvenueSouthKiplingAvenueSouthJerseyAvenueSouthLynn Avenue SouthRidge DriveMap Document: \\arcserver1\GIS\STLP\C18116699\ESRI\Maps\STLP_8X11L_CedarLakeProject.mxd | Date Saved: 8/24/2018 1:46:46 PMCedar Lake Road
Project Area
0 0.25MilesSource: Hennepin County, MnGeo
Cedar Lake Road
City of St. Louis Park
Project Area Map
August 2018
Legend !I
Study session meeting of September 24, 2018 (Item No. 10)
Title: Cedar Lake Road Improvement Project No. 4019-1100 Page 6
Meeting: Study session
Meeting date: September 24, 2018
Written report: 11
Executive summary
Title: St. Louis Park comprehensive housing market study update
Recommended action: None at this time. Staff is providing the results of the study in advance
of a presentation and discussion at the October 22 study session.
Policy consideration: None at this time. Please inform staff of any questions you might have.
Summary: Attached is the executive summary of the Comprehensive housing market study
update for St. Louis Park completed by Maxfield research & consulting. The study updates the
Comprehensive housing market study completed by Maxfield research & consulting in 2013.
The update examines demographic and economic factors, current housing market conditions
and determines the market potential for developing additional housing products in St. Louis
Park. The study provides detailed recommendations for the housing types identified as being
needed in the short- and long-term.
The study identifies a potential demand for approximately 3,700 new housing units through
2030. Due to the aging of the baby boomers over the next couple of decades, about 29% of the
total demand will be for age-restricted housing types (995 units). There is also a strong
demand for 2,700 general-occupancy, rental and for-sale units through 2030.
Detailed information regarding recommended housing concepts can be found in the
recommendations & conclusions section at the end of the report.
An executive summary is attached to this report and the complete study can be accessed on the
City’s website at: study
Next steps: Matt Mullins, Maxfield research & consulting, will review the results of the study
and answer questions at the October 22, 2018 council study session meeting.
Financial or budget considerations: None at this time.
Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to providing a broad range of
housing and neighborhood oriented development.
Supporting documents: Housing study executive summary
Prepared by: Michele Schnitker, Community Dev. deputy director and housing supervisor
Reviewed by: Karen Barton, Community development director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study session meeting of September 24, 2018 (Item No. 11) Page 2
Title: St. Louis Park comprehensive housing market study update
Comprehensive Housing Market Study Update
for the City of St. Louis Park
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Purpose and scope of study
Maxfield Research and Consulting LLC (i.e. “Maxfield Research”) was engaged by the City of St.
Louis Park to update the Comprehensive Rental Housing Market Study completed in June 2013.
The Housing Market Study provides recommendations on the amount and types of housing that
should be developed in order to meet the needs of current and future households who choose
to reside in St. Louis Park.
The scope of this study includes: an analysis of the demographic and economic characteristics of
the City; a review of the characteristics of the existing housing stock, building permit trends; an
analysis of the market condition for a variety of rental, senior, and for-sale housing products; and
an assessment of the need for housing by product type in the City. Recommendations on the
number and types of housing products that should be considered in the City are also supplied.
The housing needs market assessment lays out the demographic, economic, and housing
market performance in St. Louis Park for expanding housing opportunities. The analysis is the
first step in addressing local housing issues and is intended to lay the groundwork for amending
or establishing housing goals, priorities, and strategies for meeting the demand. Furthermore,
the analysis will assist local builders/developers and financial institutions through streamlining
their respective due diligence process.
1.Population and household growth has been strong this decade, in part due to the apartment
boom in St. Louis Park. Population growth is projected to be about 13% this decade, compared
to 2.5% last decade. However, growth is expected to slow next decade as the apartment market
reaches the peak of the current development cycle. New growth will result from infill and
redevelopment opportunities in mostly higher-density housing types. Single-family infill will
continue to be in high demand, but will be contingent on redevelopment/tear downs.
2.The largest age cohort in St. Louis Park is adults between 25 and 34 years old (“Millennials”),
accounting for 21% of the city’s population. Together with young adults ages 18 to 24, 30% of
the population is between 18 and 34. This demographic consists primarily of renters and first-
time home buyers.
3.Baby boomers (born 1946 to 1964) and other older adults are aging and posting substantial
growth over the next five years (+16% 65 to 74 and +23% 75 to 84 year olds). This cohort also
has high homeownership rates and will seek alternative maintenance-free housing products.
4.St. Louis Park has smaller household sizes and is composed of a higher percentage of one-
and two-person households. Near three-quarters of all households in the city are one- or two-
person households, of which 41% are one-person households.
5.As a first-ring suburb, St. Louis Park’s housing stock is older and features smaller building
footprints. Approximately 70% of St. Louis Park’s single-family housing stock was constructed
Study session meeting of September 24, 2018 (Item No. 11) Page 3
Title: St. Louis Park comprehensive housing market study update
prior to 1960. As a result, the homes are located on smaller lots and have smaller square
footages compared to buyers needs today. Continued promotion of the City’s housing
programs should be a priority to encourage reinvestment into the housing stock.
6.Since the recession, St. Louis Park has experienced significant new luxury apartment
development this decade. Over 1,500 units within multifamily developments have been
delivered since 2010, another 784 units are under construction, and over 600 units are in the
planning phases. St. Louis Park has been one of the “hottest” apartment submarkets in the Twin
Cities as developers and investors have sought out sites in the community. The City will continue
to be pursued by developers, however the apartment boom is at the peak and is expected to
stabilize given the over 6,000 units in the Metro Area expected to be delivered in 2018.
7.Due to the age and condition of St. Louis Park’s rental housing stock, half of the units have
monthly rents that are affordable to households earning 50% to 60% of Hennepin County AMI.
Among the 8,600 market rate units inventoried, 8% of the units are affordable to householders
at 50% AMI. When combined with 41% of the units affordable at 60% AMI, 49% of the market
rate rental housing inventory is affordable at 50% to 60% AMI. This is down from 71% that was
calculated in the 2013 housing study. Only 0.5% of the units are affordable to householders at
30% AMI as of March 2018.
8.Housing prices in St. Louis Park are at the peak; posting a median resale value of $265,000.
The median sales price has increased annually since 2011 and the local real estate market is
favoring sellers as there are few homes as the supply is at an all-time low. The percentage of
lender-mediated properties peaked in 2011 (40%) but is about 2% today. Even with the peak
housing values, housing costs are relatively affordable compared to last decade given the
continued low mortgage interest environment. The recent change to the condominium
construction defect law should help spur interest in the condominium market again after being
dormant since the recession.
9.Strong housing demand is projected through 2030. Over this time, demand is projected for
nearly 2,500 general-occupancy units and 1,000 senior housing units. However, not all demand
may be realized as new housing will result from replacement need, infill, and redevelopment.
Demographic Analysis
• As of the 2010 Census, the City of St. Louis had 45,250 people and 21,743 households. The
City of St. Louis is forecast to grow by 5,935 people and 2,757 households between 2010 and
2020 and by another 2,315 people and 1,000 households between 2020 and 2030.
• From 2017 to 2022, growth is expected in all age cohorts except in the 45 to 54 age cohort.
The 35 to 44 age cohorts are projected to have the greatest numeric growth increasing by 669
people, while the 75 to 84 age cohort is projected to have the greatest percentage growth in St.
Louis Park increasing by 22% between 2017 and 2022.
• As of 2016 American Community Survey estimates, “Whites” comprised the largest
proportion (82.8% in 2016) of the population in the City of St. Louis Park. However, the City is
becoming more diverse and this category has been steadily decreasing since 2000.
Study session meeting of September 24, 2018 (Item No. 11) Page 4
Title: St. Louis Park comprehensive housing market study update
• The City of St. Louis Park had an estimated median household income of $69,125 in 2017.
Non-senior household median incomes peak in the 45 to 54 age group at $88,992. The median
income for seniors age 65 to 74 is $61,978 and for 75+ is $39,334.
• Between 2010 and 2016, homeownership rates decreased from 60.7% to 56.2% in the City of
St. Louis Park. The decline can be primarily attributed to the vast number of new multifamily
rental buildings recently completed or under construction in St. Louis Park.
• In 2016, the average St. Louis Park renter household consisted of 1.87 persons compared to
the average owner household of 2.24 persons. An estimated 78.8% of renter households in the
City of St. Louis Park in 2016 have either only one or two people. Combined with owner
households, about 74% of all households in St. Louis Park are one or two-person households.
• Persons living alone accounted for the highest household type percentage in 2016 at 40.8%.
This household type is significantly larger in St. Louis Park compared to Hennepin County
(33.0%) and the Metro Area (28.8%).
Employment Analysis
• According to the Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages, there were 40,298 jobs in St. Louis
Park. Between 2010 and 2017, the City gained 1,728 jobs (+4.6%). During that time, the number of
jobs increased +15.3% in Hennepin County and +11.0% in the Metro Area.
• St. Louis Park and Hennepin County had an unemployment rate of 2.4% and 2.9% respectively in
February 2018, which is lower than the State of Minnesota (3.9%).
•Based on Employer-Household Dynamics data 8.1% of workers in St. Louis Park live in the City.
Most other workers are commuting from Minneapolis (12.9%), St. Paul (4.1%), and Plymouth
(3.9%). St. Louis Park is considered a major importer of works as over 90% of the employees
working in St. Louis Park are from other communities.
• According to data provided by the City of St. Louis Park, the ten largest employers in the City
account for over 11,300, or 28.9% of the total covered jobs.
Housing Characteristics
• Per the City of St. Louis Park Building Department there were 2,398 units permitted from
2000 to 2017. Beginning in 2007, building permits declined rapidly, and from 2007 through
2011 the City has averaged only 9 units per year. A building boom of multifamily apartments
began in 2012 and has continued all decade. Since then, an average of 222 multifamily units
have been added annually.
• Over the past 18 years, the number of demolitions has averaged seven housing units
annually. However, since 2012, an average of 12 demolition permits have been issued per year,
with a high of 19 demolition permits issued in 2015.
Study session meeting of September 24, 2018 (Item No. 11) Page 5
Title: St. Louis Park comprehensive housing market study update
• The greatest percentage of homes in St. Louis Park were built in the 1950s, which comprised
24.0% of the entire housing stock in the City. As a comparison, the greatest percentage of
homes in Hennepin County were built before 1940 (19.0%). Over 60% of the rental housing
stock was constructed prior to 1980.
• The median owner-occupied home in St. Louis Park was $236,900 or $1,100 higher than
Hennepin County’s median home value ($235,266) and $9,290 higher than the Metro Area
($227,610).
• The median contract rent in St. Louis Park was $966. Based on a 30% allocation of income to
housing, a household in St. Louis Park would need an income of about $38,640 to afford the
median monthly rent of $966. The median contract rent is higher than Hennepin County ($904)
and the Metro Area ($771).
Rental Housing Market Analysis
• In total, Maxfield Research inventoried 8,373 general occupancy units in St. Louis Park,
including 7,823 market rate units, 258 subsidized units, and 292 affordable units. These units
were spread across 102 properties.
• At the time of the survey, there were 363 vacant market rate units resulting in an overall
vacancy rate of 4.3%. However, when considering only stabilized properties, the vacancy rate
was 2.6%. Typically, a healthy rental market maintains a vacancy rate of roughly 5%, which
promotes competitive rates, ensures adequate consumer choice, and allows for unit turnover.
• Affordable/subsidized projects had only three combined vacancies, a vacancy rate of 0.6%.
Senior Housing Market Analysis
• There are eight senior housing developments located in St. Louis Park with 14 different senior
service levels and a total of 957 units. An additional housing project, The Elmwood, is set for
construction in Spring 2018 and will add 53 market rate and 17 affordable active adult
apartments. There were 18 vacancies identified within the housing developments posting an
overall vacancy rate 1.9%. Generally, healthy senior housing vacancy rates range from 5% to 7%
depending on service level. Together with the aging of the baby boomer population; demand
will be strong for senior housing for the next decade and beyond.
For-Sale Housing Market Analysis
• Mirroring the Metro Area, St. Louis Park median home values peaked in 2017 at $265,000,
posting an 8% appreciation year-over-year increase. Home prices have increased annually since
the low of $185,000 in 2011.
• The number of resales in St. Louis Park has averaged just over 800 sales annually between
2000 and 2017. Resales were lowest during the recession in 2010 when 511 homes sold.
Resales peaked in 2016 when over 1,000 homes were sold; before falling in 2017 due to the
lack of supply in the marketplace.
Study session meeting of September 24, 2018 (Item No. 11) Page 6
Title: St. Louis Park comprehensive housing market study update
• Lender-mediated properties have historically been lower in St. Louis Park than other Metro
Area communities. The percentage of lender-mediated properties peaked at 40% in 2011 and
has declined annually since. Today, about 98% of all transactions are traditional sales as the
market has posted very few foreclosures and short sales.
• Single-family housing stock has accounted for about three-quarters of the resale volume in St.
Louis Park since 2000. Multifamily for-sale housing products are more affordable and are priced
about 34% lower than the single-family housing stock.
• On average, the price of an existing home in St. Louis Park is about 16% less than the cost of
new construction ($168 PSF vs. $195). This gap has shrunk as historically new construction was
priced significantly higher than the existing stock. St. Louis Park per square foot housing costs
are about 29% higher than the Metro Area and 16% higher than Hennepin County.
• As a fully developed first-ring suburban community, there are few available lots for new for-
sale construction in St. Louis Park. At the time of this study there were no actively marketing
single-family lots in St. Louis Park; hence any new single-family housing stock would result from a
tear down. The average price for a new single-family home in St. Louis Park is about $600,000 or
more.
Housing Demand Analysis
• Based on our calculations, demand exists in the City of St. Louis Park for the following general
occupancy product types between 2017 and 2030:
o Market rate rental 645 units
o Affordable rental 409 units
o Subsidized rental 318 units
• In addition, we find demand for multiple senior housing product types. By 2030, demand in
St. Louis Park for senior housing is forecast for the following:
o Active adult ownership 164 units
o Active adult rental 273 units
o Active adult affordable 254 units
o Active adult subsidized 22 units
o Assisted Living 203 units
o Memory care 79 units
Recommendations and Conclusions
• Based on the finding of our analysis and demand calculations, the following chart provides a
summary of the recommended development concepts by product type for the City of St. Louis
Park through 2030. Detailed findings are described in the Recommendations section of the
report.
Study session meeting of September 24, 2018 (Item No. 11) Page 7
Title: St. Louis Park comprehensive housing market study update
Meeting: Study session
Meeting date: September 24, 2018
Written report: 12
Executive summary
Title: PLACE Via Sol and Via Luna projects update
Recommended action: None at this time. Staff will be proposing that a full and in-depth update
be provided to council at its October 8 study session.
Policy consideration: Is the city council willing to consider issuing tax-exempt 501(c)(3) bonds
and to reissue housing allocation bonds on behalf of PLACE to finance the Via Sol and Via Luna
housing components at Wooddale Station?
Summary: After pursuing conventional financing for the Via Sol project (to be constructed on
the north side of Wooddale Station) PLACE has determined that such financing is not feasible.
PLACE has therefore decided to pursue 501(c)(3) bonds to finance Via Sol. PLACE also recently
learned that the housing allocation bonds it was awarded last year may be extended past the
previous deadline of November 22, 2018 through the refunding and reissuance of those bonds.
This would enable PLACE to utilize its housing allocation bonds and tax credits to finance the
Via Luna housing component to be constructed on the south side of Wooddale Station.
June 15, 2018, the required closing date for conveyance of the North Parcels established in the
Third Amendment to the Purchase and Redevelopment Contract, has passed. With the city’s
assistance, PLACE believes it can obtain the bond financing described above for Via Sol and the
housing component of Via Luna by November 21st, the required closing date for the conveyance
of the South Parcels. However, PLACE has indicated it would not be able to obtain financing for
the remaining Via Luna components until June 2019, and has requested an extension of the
required closing date for the South Parcels to enable PLACE to obtain such financing.
To sell and close on the bonds by November 21, on October 1 the city council must call for a
public hearing to be held on November 5 on issuance of the 501(c)(3) bonds and reissuance of
the housing allocation bonds. Calling for the public hearing does not obligate the city to issue
any bonds; it simply allows the legally required process to move forward. The council always
has the option of holding the public hearing and take no action or canceling the public hearing.
If the city council wishes to proceed towards considering the issuance of the bonds as outlined
above, the EDA will need to approve extending the closing dates for the North Parcels and the
South Parcels until November 21, 2018 and June 30, 2019, respectively. This would require the
consideration of a fourth amendment to the Contract at an upcoming study session.
Financial or budget considerations: Issuance and reissuance of the bonds would not impact the
city’s debt capacity, would not constitute a general or moral obligation of the city, and would
not be secured by the taxing powers of the city or any assets or property of the city.
Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to providing a broad range of
housing and neighborhood oriented development.
Supporting documents: None
Prepared by: Greg Hunt, Economic Development Coordinator
Reviewed by: Karen Barton, Community Development Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, EDA Executive Director, City Manager