HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015/06/15 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - RegularAGENDA
JUNE 15, 2015
(Mayor Jacobs Out)
6:20 p.m. SPECIAL STUDY SESSION – Community Room
Discussion Item
1. 60 min. 2014 Financial Statements – Auditors Discussion & Review
7:20 p.m. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY -- Council Chambers
1. Call to Order
2. Roll Call
3. Approval of Minutes
3a. Economic Development Authority Meeting Minutes June 1, 2015
4. Approval of Agenda
5. Reports
6. Old Business – None
7. New Business
7a. Call for Public Hearing to Consider Establishment of The Shoreham TIF District
Recommended Action: Motion to Adopt EDA Resolution requesting the City Council
to call for a public hearing relative to the establishment of The Shoreham Tax Increment
Financing District within Redevelopment Project No. 1 (a redevelopment district).
7b. Resolution of Support for Submission of a DEED Job Creation Fund Grant Application
Recommended Action: Motion to Adopt EDA Resolution of Support for submission of
a Job Creation Fund application to the Department of Employment and Economic
Development (DEED).
8. Communications -- None
9. Adjournment
7:30 p.m. CITY COUNCIL MEETING – Council Chambers
1. Call to Order
1a. Pledge of Allegiance
1b. Roll Call
2. Presentations
2a. Acceptance of CenterPoint Energy Grant
2b. Recognition of Bridget Gothberg’s Years of Service
2c. 2014 Financial Statements – Auditors Discussion & Review
Meeting of June 15, 2015
City Council Agenda
3. Approval of Minutes
3a. City Council Meeting Minutes May 18, 2015
3b. Study Session Meeting Minutes May 26, 2015
3c. Special Study Session Meeting Minutes June 1, 2015
3d. City Council Meeting Minutes June 1, 2015
4. Approval of Agenda and Items on Consent Calendar
NOTE: The Consent Calendar lists those items of business which are considered to be routine and/or which
need no discussion. Consent items are acted upon by one motion. If discussion is desired by either a
Councilmember or a member of the audience, that item may be moved to an appropriate section of the regular
agenda for discussion. The items for the Consent Calendar are listed on the last page of the Agenda.
Recommended Action: Motion to approve the Agenda as presented and items listed on the Consent Calendar; and to waive
reading of all resolutions and ordinances. (Alternatively: Motion to add or remove items from the agenda,
or move items from Consent Calendar to regular agenda for discussion.)
5. Boards and Commissions – None
6. Public Hearings
6a. Team DHW, LLC, dba Blaze Pizza - On-Sale Wine and 3.2% Malt Liquor License
Recommended Action: Mayor to close public hearing. Motion to approve application
from Team DHW, LLC, dba Blaze Pizza, for an On-Sale Wine and 3.2% Malt Liquor
License to be located at 8126 Highway 7, with the license term through March 1, 2016.
6b. Appeal of BOZA Decision – St. Louis Park Properties, Mr. Todd Jones Chief Manager,
5305 Parkdale Drive
Recommended Action: The Mayor is asked to open the public hearing, accept
testimony, and then close the public hearing. Motion to Adopt Resolution upholding the
Board of Zoning Appeals (BOZA) decision to deny the appeal of St. Louis Park
Properties.
6c. 2014 Annual MS4 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) Meeting
Recommended Action: None at this time. Each year the City is required to hold a
public meeting to provide an opportunity for residents to review and comment on its
Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan and its storm water management program. This
agenda item serves to meet this requirement. After a staff presentation the Mayor is
asked to open up the meeting for public comment.
7. Requests, Petitions, and Communications from the Public -- None
8. Resolutions, Ordinances, Motions and Discussion Items
8a. CUP Allowing Off-site Parking, Reducing Required Parking Amount, and Excavation
at 7400 Excelsior Blvd
Recommended Action: Motion to Adopt Resolution approving a Conditional Use
Permit (CUP) to allow off-site parking, a reduction in the amount of required parking,
and excavation at 7400 Excelsior Boulevard of more than 400 cubic yards of material,
subject to conditions recommended by staff.
9. Communications -- None
Meeting of June 15, 2015
City Council Agenda
CONSENT CALENDAR
4a. Adopt Resolution authorizing the special assessment for the repair of the water and
sewer service lines at 1810 Flag Avenue South, St. Louis Park, Minnesota, P.I.D. 06-
117-21-33-0044.
4b. Adopt Resolution authorizing the special assessment for the repair of the sewer service
line at 3912 Joppa Avenue South, St. Louis Park, Minnesota,
P.I.D. 07-028-24-12-0149.
4c. Adopt Resolution to recognize Public Service Worker Dallas Bahe for his nearly 34
years of service to the City of St. Louis Park.
4d. Adopt Resolution calling for a public hearing relative to the proposed establishment of
The Shoreham Tax Increment Financing (TIF) District within Redevelopment Project
No. 1 (a redevelopment district).
4e. Approve a Temporary On-Sale Intoxicating Liquor License for the Minnesota Grape
Growers Association for an event on West End Boulevard at the Shops at West End
for July 11, 2015.
4f. Approve a temporary extension of the licensed premises located at 5605 36th St. W. to
include the west parking lot for the American Legion’s Celebrate the Park event to be
held June 20, 2015 in conjunction with Parktacular.
4g. Adopt Resolution to approve Boy Scout Troop 3282’s request for placing temporary
signs in the public right-of-way.
4h. Approve the amendment to the Equipment Replacement Capital Plan.
4i. Approve for filing Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes July 24, 2014
4j. Approve for filing Planning Commission Minutes May 20, 2015
4k. Approve for filing Environment & Sustainability Commission Minutes May 6, 2015
St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority and regular City Council meetings are carried live on Civic TV cable channel
17 and replays are frequent; check www.parktv.org for the schedule. The meetings are also streamed live on the internet at
www.parktv.org, and saved for Video on Demand replays. The agenda is posted on Fridays on the official city bulletin board in
the lobby of City Hall and on the text display on Civic TV cable channel 17. The agenda and full packet are available by noon
on Friday on the city’s website.
Meeting of June 15, 2015
City Council Agenda
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.
Immediately Following City Council Meeting
SPECIAL STUDY SESSION Continued – Community Room
Discussion Item
2. 30 min. Update on Highway 100 Traffic Issues (Verbal)
Meeting: Special Study Session
Meeting Date: June 15, 2015
Discussion Item: 1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: 2014 Financial Statements – Auditors Discussion and Review
RECOMMENDED ACTION: No action required. City Council is asked to provide any
comments or questions it might have regarding Comprehensive Annual Financial Report
(CAFR), Communication with Those Charged with Governance, Report on Compliance and
Internal Controls for the year ended December 31, 2014.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
• Does the City Council feel the information contained in the Comprehensive Annual
Financial Report (CAFR), Communication with Those Charged with Governance, Report
on Compliance and Internal Controls for the year ended December 31, 2014 allows for
effective decision making?
• Would the City Council desire to have any follow-up discussion on the Audit?
SUMMARY: For the presentation, David J. Mol – Partner from Redpath and Company, will
discuss the information and key financial points with the City Council. The City of St. Louis
Park is required to have an independent audit performed annually. The auditors work for the
City Council, not the City management team.
The City received a clean audit opinion, or “unmodified opinion”, which means that Redpath and
Company believe the financial statements, as presented by city staff, fairly represents the City’s
financial condition as of December 31, 2014.
Staff has submitted the CAFR to the Office of the State Auditor as required and also submitted it
to the Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) to be considered for the Achievement
for Excellence in Financial Reporting certificate program for which the City of St. Louis Park
has been recognized for 31 consecutive years.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: This report shows the City of St. Louis Park
remains in strong financial condition.
VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: 1) 2014 – Final Issued CAFR – 5-29-15
2) 2014 – Final Issued Governance Letter – 5-29-15
3) 2014 – Final Issued Single Audit – 5-29-15
Prepared by: Brian A. Swanson, Controller
Reviewed by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
COMPREHENSIVE ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT
FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED
DECEMBER 31, 2014
Thomas Harmening – City Manager
Prepared by: Accounting Division
Member of the Government Finance Officers’ Association
Of the United States and Canada
Special Study Session Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 1)
Title: 2014 Financial Statements – Auditors Discussion and Review
Page 2
- This page intentionally left blank -
Special Study Session Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 1)
Title: 2014 Financial Statements – Auditors Discussion and Review
Page 3
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Reference No.
I. INTRODUCTORY SECTION
Letter of Transmittal 3
Certificate of Achievement 9
Services Chart 11
Officials of the City of St. Louis Park 12
II. FINANCIAL SECTION
Independent Auditor's Report 15
Management's Discussion and Analysis 19
Basic Financial Statements:
Government-Wide Financial Statements:
Statement of Net Position Statement 1 35
Statement of Activities Statement 2 36
Fund Financial Statements:
Balance Sheet - Governmental Funds Statement 3 38
Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance -
Governmental Funds Statement 4 40
Reconciliation of the Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in
Fund Balances of Governmental Funds to the Statement of Activities Statement 5 43
Statement of Net Position - Proprietary Funds Statement 6 44
Statement of Revenues, Expenses and Changes in Fund Net Position -
Proprietary Funds Statement 7 46
Statement of Cash Flows - Proprietary Funds Statement 8 48
Notes to Financial Statements 53
Required Supplementary Information:
Budgetary Comparison Schedule - General Fund Statement 9 92
Schedule of Funding Progress - Post Employment Benefit Plan Statement 10 96
Note to RSI 97
Special Study Session Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 1)
Title: 2014 Financial Statements – Auditors Discussion and Review
Page 4
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Reference No.
Combining and Individual Fund Statements and Schedules:
Combining Balance Sheet - Nonmajor Governmental Funds Statement 11 102
Combining Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance -
Nonmajor Governmental Funds Statement 12 103
Special Revenue Funds:
Combining Balance Sheet - Nonmajor Special Revenue Funds Statement 13 106
Combining Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance -
Nonmajor Special Revenue Funds Statement 14 107
Capital Projects Funds:
Combining Balance Sheet - Nonmajor Capital Projects Funds Statement 15 110
Combining Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance -
Nonmajor Capital Projects Funds Statement 16 111
Debt Service Funds:
Combining Balance Sheet - Major Debt Service Funds Statement 17 114
Combining Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance -
Major Debt Service Funds Statement 18 117
Redevelopment District Funds:
Combining Balance Sheet - Major Redevelopment District Funds Statement 19 123
Combining Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance -
Major Redevelopment District Funds Statement 20 127
Internal Service Funds:
Combining Statement of Net Position Statement 21 132
Combining Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Net Position Statement 22 134
Combining Statement of Cash Flows Statement 23 136
General Fund:
Balance Sheet Statement 24 140
Summary Financial Report:
Schedule of Revenues and Expenditures for General Operations -
Governmental Funds Statement 25 141
Special Study Session Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 1)
Title: 2014 Financial Statements – Auditors Discussion and Review
Page 5
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Reference No.
III. STATISTICAL SECTION (UNAUDITED)
Financial Trends:
Net Position by Component Table 1 144
Changes in Net Position Table 2 146
Governmental Activities Tax Revenues by Source Table 3 151
Fund Balances of Governmental Funds Table 4 152
Changes in Fund Balances - Governmental Funds Table 5 154
Revenue Capacity:
Assessed Value/Tax Capacity Value and Estimated Market Values
of all Taxable Property Table 6 156
Property Tax Rates - Direct and Overlapping Governments Table 7 158
Principal Property Taxpayers Table 8 159
Property Tax Levies and Collections Table 9 160
Debt Capacity:
Ratios of Outstanding Debt By Type Table 10 161
Ratios of General Bonded Debt Outstanding Table 11 162
Direct and Overlapping Governmental Activities Debt Table 12 163
Legal Debt Margin Information Table 13 164
Pledged Revenue Bond Coverage Table 14 166
Demographic and Economic Information:
Demographic Statistics Table 15 167
Principal Employers Table 16 168
Operating Information:
Full-Time Equivalent Employees by Function Table 17 169
Operating Indicators by Function Table 18 170
Capital Asset Statistics by Function Table 19 171
Special Study Session Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 1)
Title: 2014 Financial Statements – Auditors Discussion and Review Page 6
- This page intentionally left blank -
Special Study Session Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 1)
Title: 2014 Financial Statements – Auditors Discussion and Review
Page 7
I. INTRODUCTORY SECTION
1
Special Study Session Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 1)
Title: 2014 Financial Statements – Auditors Discussion and Review
Page 8
- This page intentionally left blank -
2
Special Study Session Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 1)
Title: 2014 Financial Statements – Auditors Discussion and Review
Page 9
5005 Minnetonka Blvd., St. Louis Park, MN 55416
(952) 924-2500
www.stlouispark.org
May 26, 2015
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota
Minnesota statutes require all cities to issue an annual report on its financial position and
activity prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP),
and audited in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards by a firm of
licensed certified public accountants, or the Office of the State Auditor. Pursuant to that
requirement, we hereby issue the comprehensive annual financial report of the City of St.
Louis Park for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014.
This report consists of management’s representations concerning the finances of the City
of St. Louis Park. Consequently, management assumes full responsibility for the
completeness and reliability of all of the information presented in this report. To provide
a reasonable basis for making these representations, management of the City of St. Louis
Park established a comprehensive internal control framework that is designed both to
protect the government’s assets from loss, theft, or misuse and to compile sufficient
reliable information for the preparation for the City of St. Louis Park’s financial
statements in conformity with GAAP. Because the cost of internal controls should not
outweigh their benefits, the City of St. Louis Park’s comprehensive framework of internal
controls has been designed to provide reasonable rather than absolute assurance that the
financial statements will be free from material misstatement. As management, we assert
that, to the best of our knowledge and belief, this financial report is complete and reliable
in all material respects.
The City of St. Louis Park’s financial statements have been audited by Redpath and
Company, a firm of licensed certified public accountants. The goal of the independent
audit was to provide reasonable assurance that the financial statements of the City of St.
Louis Park for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, are free of any material
misstatement. The independent audit involved examining, on a test basis, evidence
supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements; assessing the
accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management; and
evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. The independent auditor
concluded, based upon the audit, that there was a reasonable basis for rendering an
unqualified opinion that the City of St. Louis Park’s financial statements for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2014, are fairly presented in conformity with GAAP. The
independent auditor’s report is presented as the first component of the financial section of
this report.
3
Special Study Session Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 1)
Title: 2014 Financial Statements – Auditors Discussion and Review
Page 10
Management’s Discussion and Analysis (MD&A) immediately follows the independent
auditor’s report and provides a narrative introduction, overview, and analysis of the basic
financial statements. This letter of transmittal is designed to complement the MD&A and
should be read in conjunction with it.
Profile of the Government
The City of St. Louis Park, established in 1886, is a first ring suburb located immediately
west of Minneapolis. Thanks to its convenient location, St. Louis Park combines all the
cultural amenities of a large metropolitan area with small town friendliness. The City of
St. Louis Park currently occupies a land area of 10.8 square miles and serves a population
of 47,411. The City of St. Louis Park is empowered to levy a property tax on both real
and personal properties located within its boundaries. While it also is empowered by
state statutes to extend its corporate limits by annexation, St. Louis Park is a completely
developed community and is bordered on all sides by other incorporated communities.
St. Louis Park operates under the council/manager form of government. Policy-making
and legislative authority are vested in a City Council consisting of a mayor, two at-large
council members, and four ward council members. The City Council is responsible,
among other things, for passing ordinances, adopting the budget, appointing committees,
and hiring the City Manager. The City Manager is responsible for carrying out the
policies and ordinances of the council, for overseeing the day-to-day operations of the
City government, and for appointing the heads of the various departments. The council is
elected on a non-partisan basis. Council members serve four-year staggered terms.
The City of St. Louis Park provides a full range of services, including police and fire
protection; redevelopment, the construction and maintenance of highways, streets, and
other infrastructure; water, sewer, storm water, and refuse services, as well as recreational
activities and cultural events.
The annual budget serves as the foundation for the City of St. Louis Park’s financial
planning and control. All departments and agencies of the City of St. Louis Park submit
requests for appropriation to the City Manager in July of each year. The City Manager
uses these requests as the starting point for developing a proposed budget. The City
Manager then presents this proposed budget to the council for review prior to adoption of
a preliminary tax levy by September 30. The council is required to hold a public hearing
on the proposed budget and to adopt a final budget no later than December 28.
The appropriated budget is prepared by fund, (e.g. General), function (e.g., public safety),
and department (e.g., police). Department directors may make transfers of appropriation
within a department, but not between personnel and non-personnel categories. Transfers
of appropriations between funds, however, require the approval of the City Council.
Budget to actual comparisons are provided in this report for the general fund for which an
appropriated annual budget has been adopted. These comparisons are presented starting
on page 92 as part of the basic financial statements for the governmental funds.
4
Special Study Session Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 1)
Title: 2014 Financial Statements – Auditors Discussion and Review
Page 11
Factors Affecting Financial Condition
The information presented in the financial statements is perhaps best understood when it
is considered from the broader perspective of the specific environment within which the
City of St. Louis Park operates.
Local economy
The City of St. Louis Park currently enjoys a durable economic environment and local
indicators point to continued stability versus other communities in the Twin City Metro
Area. The City of St. Louis Park has a well-diversified tax base, with a sizeable full
valuation that includes retail, manufacturing, and health care components, as well as
diverse housing stock. Redevelopment efforts and relatively stable values on existing
properties have resulted in nominal value changes of less than 10% over the past five
years. This equates to superior performance versus the majority of communities in the
metro area.
The City, due to its location and strong commitment to housing maintenance, has
experienced smaller declines in housing prices and lower rates of foreclosure than many
other communities in the Twin Cities metropolitan area. The City of St. Louis Park
continues to have lower unemployment than the state and national averages.
Redevelopment
The City of St. Louis Park is committed to evaluating, preserving, and improving the
housing stock available within the community. It is important that a wide variety of
housing alternatives be available within the community. Redevelopment projects over
the past ten years have provided a mix of apartment, co-op, condominium, town-home,
and single family units. Many of these housing developments contain a commercial
component including both retail and services to support the new housing and create more
livable neighborhoods. The City has used its tax increment financing authority in many
of these projects in order to meet specific community and economic development
objectives.
Some of the larger projects include:
The West End – Consists of 40 acres strategically located at the southwest corner of I-
394 & Highway 100. The first phase of the $400 million project includes a 350,000
square foot lifestyle retail center and approximately 30,000 square feet of office space.
The Shops at West End includes fashion boutiques, a wide variety of restaurants, a 14
screen movie theater, and a grocery store. Individual tenants continue to build out their
individual storefronts and finish the store interiors. Currently the retail portion it is 93%
leased. The office space is 100% leased.
Recently opened is a 119-unit upscale apartment building called The Flats at West End.
Another stylish apartment building will soon be coming to The West End called
Millennium at West End Apartments. The new 158 unit, market rate apartment building
will be six stories with two levels of underground structured parking. Amenities include
an outdoor park with landscaping, sidewalks, seating areas, dog walk area and raised
vegetable garden beds. Additional amenities include terraces with a water feature, gas
grill, fire pit, and seating. Construction is currently underway and expected to be
completed by summer 2015.
5
Special Study Session Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 1)
Title: 2014 Financial Statements – Auditors Discussion and Review Page 12
Five more buildings are also proposed for construction at The West End. Plans include
two 6-story multiple-family residential buildings, a 6-story limited service hotel, two 11-
story office buildings, a 2,534-stall parking ramp, and a central gathering space. At full
build-out, the multi-phase development proposes 363 residential units with eleven
affordable units, 150- hotel rooms, and 706,706 square feet of office space. This project
is currently going through final stages with the City Council for approval.
Westside Center – A developer purchased the former manufacturing plant and is
renovating the 256,000 square foot facility into flexible, multi-tenant industrial spaces.
The building is nearly fully leased and tenants are currently building out their spaces and
will be completed in spring of 2015.
Knollwood Mall – This is a major renovation of the existing Knollwood Mall. The
renovation includes removing the interior mall and replacing it with approximately five
junior box retailers which would be accessed from the outside. A three-tenant building is
also being built in a former parking lot. In addition, a portion of the parking lot will be
redesigned to improve traffic and pedestrian flow along with storm water, lighting, and
landscaping improvements. Construction began in the spring of 2014 and is expected be
completed in the spring of 2015.
Wooddale Flats - This development proposal was approved for a former church site. It
features six townhome-style buildings with 34 units and surface parking. Five of the
buildings are proposed to be 3 stories and one building 2 stories. The first building is
nearing occupancy and three others are in various stages of construction.
Eliot Park – This new market-rate apartment complex is under construction consisting of
two new apartment buildings with a total of 138 units, plus two new single family lots.
The development provides underground parking for residents and 20 stalls of surface
parking for guests along a private driveway between the two buildings.
Japs-Olson - This major commercial printer and direct mail company has significant
expansion plans for its facility and plans to add 192,000 square feet of production and
warehouse space to its roughly 513,000 square foot building which is expected to result
in approximately 150 new jobs. This project is currently going through City Council
approvals and is expected to be approved in the spring or early summer of 2015.
Redevelopment interest continues to remain strong in St. Louis Park and other proposals
and inquiries are being considered for multi-family and mixed use projects.
The City also sponsors a comprehensive rehabilitation loan program available to single
family and multi-family homeowners. The first programs were started in the mid 1970’s
and have evolved into a comprehensive set of programs to ensure the preservation and
enhancement of the City’s housing stock.
Finally, the City has a Convention and Visitors Bureau, which markets the desirability of
St. Louis Park for both business and recreational opportunities. This continues to be a
very strong partner with the City of St. Louis Park which has brought increased business
and activities to the City.
6
Special Study Session Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 1)
Title: 2014 Financial Statements – Auditors Discussion and Review
Page 13
Long-term Financial Planning
The City maintains a 10 year Long Range Financial Management Plan that incorporates
anticipated revenues, expenditures, capital outlay, and tax impacts for all relevant funds.
The plan anticipates opportunities or challenges, allows for changes to then be made,
with the goal of achieving long-term sustainability. The plan is used in conjunction with
the annual budget process and Capital Improvement Plan, which then allows the City
Council to evaluate various budget decisions prior to adoption. This plan has proven its
value by playing a significant role in maintaining the City’s AAA bond rating from
Standard & Poor’s, which assists in keeping the costs of borrowing for the City of St.
Louis Park at an extremely low rate.
Awards
The Government Finance Officers Association of the United States and Canada (GFOA)
awarded a certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting to the City of
St. Louis Park for its comprehensive annual financial report for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2013. This is the thirty-first consecutive year that the government received
this prestigious award. In order to be awarded a certificate of Achievement, a
government must publish an easily readable and efficiently organized comprehensive
annual financial report. The report must satisfy both generally accepted accounting
principles and applicable legal requirements.
A Certificate of Achievement is valid for a period of one year only. We believe that our
current comprehensive annual financial report continues to meet the Certificate of
Achievement Program’s requirements. Once again, we are submitting the
Comprehensive Annual Financial Report to GFOA to determine its eligibility for another
certificate.
Acknowledgements
The preparation of this report would not have been possible without the efficient and
dedicated services of the entire staff of the Accounting Department and other key City of
St. Louis Park personnel. We would like to express our appreciation to all members of
the organization who assisted and contributed to the preparation of the report. Credit also
must be given to the Mayor and the City Council for their unfailing support for
maintaining the highest standards of professionalism in the management of the City of St.
Louis Park’s finances.
Respectfully submitted,
Thomas Harmening Brian A. Swanson
City Manager Controller
7
Special Study Session Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 1)
Title: 2014 Financial Statements – Auditors Discussion and Review
Page 14
- This page intentionally left blank -
8
Special Study Session Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 1)
Title: 2014 Financial Statements – Auditors Discussion and Review
Page 15
9Special Study Session Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 1) Title: 2014 Financial Statements – Auditors Discussion and ReviewPage 16
- This page intentionally left blank -
10
Special Study Session Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 1)
Title: 2014 Financial Statements – Auditors Discussion and Review
Page 17
SERVICES CHART
Citizens
City Council
City Manager
Boards & Commissions
Board of Zoning Appeals
Human Rights
Planning
Police Advisory
Fire Civil Service
Parks & Recreation
Telecommunications Advisory
Environment & Sustainability
ADMINISTRATIVE
SERVICES
Records
General Admin
Human Resources
Payroll
Org Development
Elections
City Clerk
Accounting
Assessing
COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT
Planning/Zoning
Economic
Development
Housing
INFORMATION
RESOURCES
Cable Television
Technology
Services
Support Services
WEB
Communications
& Marketing
INSPECTIONS
Code Enforcement
Building
Housing
Environmental
Health
Facility
Maintenance
Service Districts
Licensing
OPERATIONS &
RECREATION
Rec Ctr & Programs
Nature Center
Environmental
Parks
Fleet
Utility Operations
Streets/Traffic
Refuse/Recycling
Public Art
POLICE
Patrol
Support Services
Crime Prevention
911 Dispatch
Animal Control
Community
Outreach &
Neighborhoods
ENGINEERING
Engineering
Projects
Water Resources
FIRE
Fire Prevention
Fire Suppression
EMS/Rescue
Emergency
Preparedness
Auditors
Legal
Charter Commission
Economic Development
Authority
Housing Authority
11
Special Study Session Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 1)
Title: 2014 Financial Statements – Auditors Discussion and Review Page 18
OFFICIALS OF THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
Council
Jeff Jacobs
Mayor
EDA Commissioner
Term Expires 1/2016
Steve Hallfin
At-Large A Councilmember
EDA Vice President
Term Expires 1/2016
Jake Spano
At-Large B Councilmember
EDA Treasurer
Term Expires 1/2016
Susan Sanger
Ward 1 Councilmember
EDA Commissioner
Term Expires 1/2018
Anne Mavity
Ward 2 Councilmember
EDA President
Term Expires 1/2018
Gregg Lindberg
Ward 3 Councilmember
EDA Commissioner
Term Expires 1/2018
Tim Brausen
Ward 4 Councilmember
EDA Commissioner
Term Expires 1/2018
Executive Staff
Thomas Harmening, City Manager
Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/Human Resources Director
John Luse, Police Chief
Steve Koering, Fire Chief
Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Brian Hoffman, Inspections Director
Brian Swanson, Controller
Debra Heiser, Engineering Director
Clint Pires, Chief Information Officer
Cindy Walsh, Operations & Recreation Director
12
Special Study Session Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 1)
Title: 2014 Financial Statements – Auditors Discussion and Review
Page 19
II. FINANCIAL SECTION
13
Special Study Session Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 1)
Title: 2014 Financial Statements – Auditors Discussion and Review
Page 20
- This page intentionally left blank -
14
Special Study Session Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 1)
Title: 2014 Financial Statements – Auditors Discussion and Review
Page 21
4810 White Bear Parkway, St. Paul, MN, 55110 651.426.7000 www.redpathcpas.com
INDEPENDENT AUDITOR'S REPORT
To the Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota
Report on the Financial Statements
We have audited the accompanying financial statements of the governmental activities, the
business-type activities, each major fund, and the aggregate remaining fund information of the
City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, as of and for the year ended December 31, 2014, and the related
notes to the financial statements, which collectively comprise the City of St. Louis Park,
Minnesota’s basic financial statements as listed in the table of contents.
Management’s Responsibility for the Financial Statements
Management is responsible for the preparation and fair presentation of these financial statements
in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America; this
includes the design, implementation, and maintenance of internal control relevant to the
preparation and fair presentation of financial statements that are free from material misstatement,
whether due to fraud or error.
Auditor’s Responsibility
Our responsibility is to express opinions on these financial statements based on our audit. We
conducted our audit in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States
of America and the standards applicable to financial audits contained in Government Auditing
Standards, issued by the Comptroller General of the United States. Those standards require that
we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial
statements are free of material misstatement.
An audit involves performing procedures to obtain audit evidence about the amounts and
disclosures in the financial statements. The procedures selected depend on the auditor’s judgment,
including the assessment of the risks of material misstatement of the financial statements, whether
due to fraud or error. In making those risk assessments, the auditor considers internal control
relevant to the entity’s preparation and fair presentation of the financial statements in order to
design audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances, but not for the purpose of
expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the entity’s internal control. Accordingly, we
express no such opinion. An audit also includes evaluating the appropriateness of accounting
policies used and the reasonableness of significant accounting estimates made by management, as
well as evaluating the overall presentation of the financial statements.
15
Special Study Session Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 1)
Title: 2014 Financial Statements – Auditors Discussion and Review
Page 22
We believe that the audit evidence we have obtained is sufficient and appropriate to provide a
basis for our audit opinions.
Opinions
In our opinion, the financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the
respective financial position of the governmental activities, the business-type activities, each major
fund, and the aggregate remaining fund information of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, as of
December 31, 2014, and the respective changes in financial position, and, where applicable, cash
flows thereof for the year then ended in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted
in the United States of America.
Report on Summarized Comparative Information
We have previously audited the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota’s 2013 financial statements, and we
expressed an unmodified audit opinion on the respective financial statements of the governmental
activities and each major fund in our report dated May 22, 2014. In our opinion, the summarized
comparative information presented herein as of and for the year ended December 31, 2013 is
consistent, in all material respects, with the audited financial statements from which it has been
derived.
Other Matters
Required Supplementary Information
Accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America require that the
management’s discussion and analysis, the budgetary comparison information and the OPEB
Schedule of Funding Progress, as listed in the table of contents, be presented to supplement the
basic financial statements. Such information, although not a part of the basic financial statements,
is required by the Governmental Accounting Standards Board, who considers it to be an essential
part of financial reporting for placing the basic financial statements in an appropriate operational,
economic, or historical context. We have applied certain limited procedures to the required
supplementary information in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United
States of America, which consisted of inquiries of management about the methods of preparing the
information and comparing the information for consistency with management’s responses to our
inquiries, the basic financial statements, and other knowledge we obtained during our audit of the
basic financial statements. We do not express an opinion or provide any assurance on the
information because the limited procedures do not provide us with sufficient evidence to express
an opinion or provide any assurance.
16
Special Study Session Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 1)
Title: 2014 Financial Statements – Auditors Discussion and Review
Page 23
Other Information
Our audit was conducted for the purpose of forming opinions on the financial statements that
collectively comprise the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota’s basic financial statements. The
introductory section, combining and individual fund financial statements and schedules,
supplementary financial information, and statistical section, are presented for purposes of
additional analysis and are not a required part of the basic financial statements.
The combining and individual fund financial statements are the responsibility of management and
were derived from and relate directly to the underlying accounting and other records used to
prepare the basic financial statements. Such information has been subjected to the auditing
procedures applied in the audit of the basic financial statements and certain additional procedures,
including comparing and reconciling such information directly to the underlying accounting and
other records used to prepare the basic financial statements or to the basic financial statements
themselves, and other additional procedures in accordance with auditing standards generally
accepted in the United States of America. In our opinion, the combining and individual nonmajor
fund financial statements and schedules and supplementary financial information, are fairly stated
in all material respects in relation to the basic financial statements as a whole.
The introductory and statistical sections have not been subjected to the auditing procedures applied
in the audit of the basic financial statements and, accordingly, we do not express an opinion or
provide any assurance on them.
Other Reporting Required by Government Auditing Standards
In accordance with Government Auditing Standards, we have also issued our report dated May 26,
2015, on our consideration of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota’s internal control over
financial reporting and on our tests of its compliance with certain provisions of laws, regulations,
contracts, and grant agreements and other matters. The purpose of that report is to describe the
scope of our testing of internal control over financial reporting and compliance and the results of
that testing, and not to provide an opinion on internal control over financial reporting or on
compliance. That report is an integral part of an audit performed in accordance with Government
Auditing Standards in considering the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota’s internal control over
financial reporting and compliance.
REDPATH AND COMPANY, LTD.
St. Paul, Minnesota
May 26, 2015
17
Special Study Session Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 1)
Title: 2014 Financial Statements – Auditors Discussion and Review
Page 24
- This page intentionally left blank -
18
Special Study Session Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 1)
Title: 2014 Financial Statements – Auditors Discussion and Review
Page 25
City of St. Louis Park
Management’s Discussion and Analysis
As management of the City of St. Louis Park, we offer readers of the City of St. Louis Park’s financial
statements this narrative overview and analysis of the financial activities of the City of St. Louis Park for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014. We encourage readers to consider the information presented
here in conjunction with additional information that we have furnished in our letter of transmittal, which
starts on page 3 of this report.
Financial Highlights
The assets of the City of St. Louis Park exceeded its liabilities at the close of the most recent fiscal
year by $183,437,476 (net position). Of this amount, $54,755,474 (unrestricted net position) may be
used to meet the government’s ongoing obligations to citizens and creditors.
The government’s total net position decreased by $2,960,194.
As of the close of the current fiscal year, the City of St. Louis Park’s governmental funds reported
combined ending fund balances of $59,192,035. Approximately 87 percent of this amount,
$51,672,040 is available for use within the City’s constraints and policies.
At the end of the current fiscal year, unassigned fund balance for the General fund was $14,576,348
(45 percent) of the total subsequent year budgeted General fund expenditures.
The City of St. Louis Park’s total bonded debt increased by $7,015,000 (18.5 percent) during the
current fiscal year. Principal paid during the year was $2,985,000.
Overview of the Financial Statements
The discussion and analysis are intended to serve as an introduction to the City of St. Louis Park’s basic
financial statements. The City of St. Louis Park’s basic financial statements are comprised of three
components: 1) government-wide financial statements, 2) fund financial statements, and 3) notes to the
financial statements. This report also contains other supplementary information in addition to the basic
financial statements.
19
Special Study Session Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 1)
Title: 2014 Financial Statements – Auditors Discussion and Review
Page 26
City of St. Louis Park
Management’s Discussion and Analysis
Figure A-1 shows how the various parts of this annual report are arranged and related to one another.
Figure A-1
Annual Report Format
Government-wide financial statements – The government-wide financial statements are designed to
provide readers with a broad overview of the City of St. Louis Park’s finances in a manner similar to a
private-sector business.
The statement of net position presents information on all of the City of St. Louis Park’s assets and
liabilities, with the difference between the two reported as net position. Over time, increases or decreases
in net position may serve as a useful indicator of whether the financial position of the City of St. Louis
Park is improving or deteriorating.
The statement of activities presents information showing how the government’s net position changed
during the most recent fiscal year. All changes in net position are reported as soon as the underlying event
giving rise to the change occurs, regardless of the timing of related cash flows. Thus, revenues and
expenses are reported in the statement for some items that will only result in cash flows in future fiscal
periods (e.g., uncollected taxes and earned but unused vacation leave).
Both of the government-wide financial statements distinguish functions of the City of St. Louis Park that
are principally supported by taxes and intergovernmental revenues (governmental activities) from other
functions that are intended to recover all or a significant portion of their costs through user fees and
charges (business-type activities). The governmental activities of the City of St. Louis Park include general
government, public safety, public works, public information, culture and recreation, housing and
rehabilitation, housing maintenance, social and economic development, general services, and interest on
long-term debt. The business-type activities of the City of St. Louis Park include sanitary sewer, solid
waste, storm water, and water operations.
20
Special Study Session Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 1)
Title: 2014 Financial Statements – Auditors Discussion and Review
Page 27
City of St. Louis Park
Management’s Discussion and Analysis
The government-wide financial statements start on page 35 of this report.
Fund financial statements – A fund is a grouping of related accounts that is used to maintain control over
resources that have been segregated for specific activities or objectives. The City of St. Louis Park, like
other state and local governments, uses fund accounting to ensure and demonstrate compliance with
finance-related legal requirements. All of the funds of the City of St. Louis Park can be divided into two
categories: governmental funds and proprietary funds.
Governmental funds – Governmental funds are used to account for essentially the same functions reported
as governmental activities in the government-wide financial statements. However, unlike the government-
wide financial statements, governmental fund financial statements focus on near-term inflows and
outflows of spendable resources, as well as on balances of spendable resources available at the end of the
fiscal year. Such information may be useful in evaluating a government’s near-term financing
requirements.
Because the focus of governmental funds is narrower than that of the government-wide financial
statements, it is useful to compare the information presented for governmental funds with similar
information presented for governmental activities in the government-wide financial statements. By doing
so, readers may better understand the long-term impact of the government’s near-term financing decisions.
Both the governmental fund balance sheet and the governmental fund statement of revenues, expenditures,
and changes in fund balances provide a reconciliation to facilitate this comparison between governmental
funds and governmental activities.
The City of St. Louis Park maintains ten individual major governmental funds. Information is presented
separately in the governmental fund balance sheet and the governmental fund statement of revenues,
expenditures, and changes in fund balances for the General fund, two special revenue fund, debt service,
and six capital project funds, all of which are considered to be major funds. Data from the other six
governmental funds are combined into a single, aggregated presentation. Individual fund data for each of
these non-major governmental funds is provided in the form of combining statements elsewhere in this
report.
The City of St. Louis Park adopts annual appropriated budgets for the General Fund. Budgetary
comparison statements are provided for the General Fund to demonstrate compliance with this budget.
The basic governmental fund financial statements start on page 38 of this report.
Proprietary funds – The City of St. Louis Park maintains two different types of proprietary funds.
Enterprise funds are used to report the same functions presented as business-type activities in the
government-wide financial statements. The City of St. Louis Park uses enterprise funds to account for its
sanitary sewer, solid waste, storm water, and water operations. Proprietary funds provide the same type of
information as the government-wide financial statements, only in more detail. The proprietary fund
financial statements provide separate information for the sanitary sewer, solid waste, storm water, and
water operations, all of which are considered to be major funds of the City of St. Louis Park.
21
Special Study Session Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 1)
Title: 2014 Financial Statements – Auditors Discussion and Review
Page 28
City of St. Louis Park
Management’s Discussion and Analysis
Internal service funds – These funds are an accounting device used to accumulate and allocate costs
internally among the City of St. Louis Park’s various functions. The City of St. Louis Park uses internal
service funds to account for maintaining its fleet of vehicles, management information systems,
replacement of City equipment, employee administration, compensated absences, and uninsured losses.
Because all of these services predominately benefit governmental rather than business-type functions, they
have been included within governmental activities in the governmental-wide financial statements. All
internal service funds are combined into a single, aggregated presentation in the proprietary fund financial
statements. Individual fund data for the internal service funds is provided in the form of combining
statements elsewhere in this report.
The basic proprietary fund financial statements starts on page 44 of this report.
Notes to the financial statements – The notes provide additional information that is essential to a full
understanding of the data provided in the government-wide and fund financial statements. The notes to the
financial statements start on page 53 of this report.
Other information – The combining statements referred to earlier, in connection with non-major
governmental funds and internal service funds, are presented immediately following the required
supplementary information. Combining and individual fund statements and schedules start on page 102 of
this report.
Other reports – Additional information related to the General Fund starts on page 140 of this report.
Government-wide Financial Analysis
As noted earlier, net position may serve over time as a useful indicator of a government’s financial
position. In the case of the City of St. Louis Park, assets exceeded liabilities by $183,437,476 at the close
of the most recent fiscal year.
A portion of the City of St. Louis Park’s net position (64 percent) reflects its investment in capital assets
(e.g., land, buildings, machinery, and equipment); less any related debt used to acquire those assets that is
still outstanding. The City of St. Louis Park uses these capital assets to provide services to citizens;
consequently, these assets are not available for future spending. Although the City of St. Louis Park’s
investment in its capital assets is reported net of related debt, it should be noted that the resources needed
to repay this debt must be provided from other sources, since the capital assets themselves cannot be used
to liquidate these liabilities.
22
Special Study Session Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 1)
Title: 2014 Financial Statements – Auditors Discussion and Review
Page 29
City of St. Louis Park
Management’s Discussion and Analysis
City of St. Louis Park’s Net Position
Increase Increase
2014 2013 (Decrease)2014 2013 (Decrease)
Assets
Current and other assets $82,556,240 $76,067,314 $6,488,926 $15,286,463 $13,068,134 $2,218,329
Capital assets 115,524,209 116,537,109 (1,012,900) 30,544,885 31,947,331 (1,402,446)
Total assets 198,080,449 192,604,423 5,476,026 45,831,348 45,015,465 815,883
Liabilities
Other liabilities 12,370,111 11,017,246 1,352,865 4,417,951 2,387,378 2,030,573
Noncurrent liabilities 29,874,940 25,857,119 4,017,821 13,811,319 11,960,475 1,850,844
Total liabilities 42,245,051 36,874,365 5,370,686 18,229,270 14,347,853 3,881,417
Net position
Net investment in
capital assets 94,891,625 96,480,493 (1,588,868) 22,818,382 23,297,309 (478,927)
Restricted 10,971,995 13,560,965 (2,588,970) - - -
Unrestricted 49,971,778 45,688,600 4,283,178 4,783,696 7,370,303 (2,586,607)
Total net position $155,835,398 $155,730,058 $105,340 $27,602,078 $30,667,612 ($3,065,534)
Governmental Activities Business-type Activities
The balance of unrestricted net position ($54,755,474) may be used to meet the government’s ongoing
obligations to citizens and creditors.
Governmental activities – Governmental activities increased the City of St. Louis Park’s net position by
$105,340. This increase is due to a significant receivable from the Minnesota Department of
Transportation.
Business-Type activities – Business-type activities decreased the City of St. Louis Parks’ net position by
($3,065,534). This decrease is primarily due to a planned spend down of resources for projects within the
City.
23
Special Study Session Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 1)
Title: 2014 Financial Statements – Auditors Discussion and Review
Page 30
City of St. Louis Park
Management’s Discussion and Analysis
The following table indicates the changes in net position for the City’s governmental and business-type
activities:
City of St. Louis Park’s Changes in Net Position
Increase Increase
2014 2013 (Decrease) 2014 2013 (Decrease)
Revenues
Program revenues
Charges for services $7,259,493 $6,429,434 $830,059 $16,455,375 $15,826,482 $628,893
Operating grants
and contributions 2,024,171 2,709,644 (685,473) 127,742 135,642 (7,900)
Capital grants and
contributions 12,066,132 11,881,109 185,023 - - -
General revenues
Property taxes and TIF 34,779,152 33,610,905 1,168,247 - - -
Franchise fees 2,268,213 2,211,569 56,644 - - -
State grants and contributions
not restricted to
specific programs 504,035 45,266 458,769 - - -
Unrestricted investment earnings 407,753 138,899 268,854 78,003 (3,348) 81,351
Gain on disposal
of capital assets 464,629 69,237 395,392 - - -
Miscellaneous 2,609,539 2,199,629 409,910 - - -
Total revenues 62,383,117 59,295,692 3,087,425 16,661,120 15,958,776 702,344
Expenses
General government 9,161,922 10,085,905 (923,983) - - -
Public safety 13,954,604 13,365,297 589,307 - - -
Public information 507,928 466,043 41,885 - - -
Operations and recreation 13,318,552 13,487,238 (168,686) - - -
Engineering 21,045,392 16,046,665 4,998,727 - - -
Housing and rehabilitation 909,051 1,774,657 (865,606) - - -
Housing maintenance 130,534 141,250 (10,716) - - -
Social and economic development 8,058,914 9,040,280 (981,366) - - -
Interest on long-term debt 1,185,975 1,295,298 (109,323) - - -
Water utility - - - 4,609,579 5,747,116 (1,137,537)
Sewer utility - - - 4,885,748 5,272,646 (386,898)
Solid waste utility - - - 2,813,587 3,614,118 (800,531)
Storm water utility - - - 1,422,645 1,390,235 32,410
Total expenses 68,272,872 65,702,633 2,570,239 13,731,559 16,024,115 (2,292,556)
Increase (decrease) in net
position before transfers (5,889,755) (6,406,941) 517,186 2,929,561 (65,339) 2,994,900
Transfers 5,995,095 1,761,927 4,233,168 (5,995,095)(1,761,927)(4,233,168)
Change in net position 105,340 (4,645,014)4,750,354 (3,065,534)(1,827,266)(1,238,268)
Net position, January 1 155,730,058 160,375,072 (4,645,014) 30,667,612 32,494,878 (1,827,266)
Net position, December 31 $155,835,398 $155,730,058 $105,340 $27,602,078 $30,667,612 ($3,065,534)
Governmental Activities Business-type Activities
24
Special Study Session Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 1)
Title: 2014 Financial Statements – Auditors Discussion and Review
Page 31
City of St. Louis Park
Management’s Discussion and Analysis
Governmental Activities
Revenues - The following chart illustrates the City’s revenue by source for its governmental activities:
Revenues by Source - Governmental Activities
Expenses - The following chart illustrates the City’s expenses and program revenues for its governmental
activities:
Expenses and Program Revenues - Governmental Activities
$0
$5,000,000
$10,000,000
$15,000,000
$20,000,000
$25,000,000
Expenses
Program revenues
25
Special Study Session Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 1)
Title: 2014 Financial Statements – Auditors Discussion and Review
Page 32
City of St. Louis Park
Management’s Discussion and Analysis
Business-type activities - Business-type activities net position decreased in 2014. Below are the graphs
showing the business-type activities revenue and expense comparisons.
Revenue Sources - Business-type Activities
Expense and Program Revenues - Business-type Activities
$0
$1,000,000
$2,000,000
$3,000,000
$4,000,000
$5,000,000
$6,000,000
$7,000,000
Water Sewer Solid waste Storm water
Expenses
Program revenues
26
Special Study Session Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 1)
Title: 2014 Financial Statements – Auditors Discussion and Review
Page 33
City of St. Louis Park
Management’s Discussion and Analysis
Financial Analysis of the Government’s Funds
As noted earlier, the City of St. Louis Park uses fund accounting to ensure and demonstrate
compliance with finance-related legal requirements.
Governmental funds – The focus of the City of St. Louis Park’s governmental funds is to provide
information on near-term inflows, outflows, and balances of spendable resources. Such
information is useful in assessing the City of St. Louis Park’s financing requirements. In
particular, unassigned fund balance may serve as a useful measure of a government’s net
resources available for spending at the end of the fiscal year.
As of the end of the current fiscal year, the City of St. Louis Park’s governmental funds reported
combined ending fund balances of $59,192,035, an increase of $1,372,605 in comparison with the
prior year. Committed, assigned, and unassigned fund balance, which is available for spending at
the government’s discretion, has a balance of $41,969,456 at year end. The remainder of fund
balance is nonspendable or restricted to indicate that it is not available for new spending because
it has already been obligated 1) to pay debt service ($1,882,726), 2) to pay for capital
improvements and future expenditures ($3,799,248), 3) for loans outstanding ($4,865,306), 4) for
inventory and prepaid ($397,873), 5 ) for land held for resale ($2,256,816) 6) for tax increment
purposes ($3,528,387) and 7) for E-911 funds ($492,223) and other restrictions.
General Fund – the General fund is the chief operating fund of the City of St. Louis Park. At the
end of the current fiscal year, unassigned fund balance of the General fund was $14,576,348
while total fund balance reached $16,162,737. As a measure of the General fund’s liquidity, it
may be useful to compare both unassigned fund balance and total fund balance to total fund
expenditures. Unassigned fund balance represents 45 percent of the total subsequent year General
fund expenditures, while total fund balance represents 50 percent of that same amount.
The City’s General Fund balance increased $373,971 during the current fiscal year. A portion of
this increase pertains to higher than anticipated license and permit revenue of $722,165. This is
primarily related to increased license and permit revenues from more robust construction within
the City. Also, intergovernmental revenue was $116,695 over budget which pertains to higher
than anticipated highway user tax, and police and fire revenues. Miscellaneous revenue was also
over budget by $133,594, which is related to increased revenues for health initiatives in the City.
Operating expenditures were approximately $361,467 under budget for fiscal year 2014 also.
Finally, a transfer out to the Capital Replacement Fund for $1,050,000 was completed in 2014.
Housing Rehabilitation – the increase of $663,015 in fund balance is due to transfers in of
$337,039, proceeds from the sale of excess land of $242,566, and increased special assessment
payments.
Debt Service Funds – Fund balance in the debt service funds decreased ($526,917) primarily due
to the retirement of debt.
Permanent Improvement Revolving Fund – The decrease in fund balance of ($682,363) is due to
transfers out to other funds for capital project funding.
27
Special Study Session Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 1)
Title: 2014 Financial Statements – Auditors Discussion and Review
Page 34
City of St. Louis Park
Management’s Discussion and Analysis
Street Capital Projects Fund – Fund balance increased by $5,259,916 which is attributed to a
significant receivable from the Minnesota Department of Transportation.
Development Fund – Fund balance decreased by ($342,535). This decrease is attributable
primarily to interfund loans and increased expenditures for potential projects.
Sidewalks and Trails Fund – Fund balance increased by $3,064,878, which is attributable to bond
proceeds for debt issued at year end.
Redevelopment District Funds – The Redevelopment District funds are comprised of all tax
increment districts in the City. The decrease in fund balance of ($5,646,838) is due to transfers
out to other funds during the year.
Proprietary funds – The City of St. Louis Park’s proprietary funds provide the same type of
information found in the government-wide financial statements, but in more detail. At the end of
the year, unrestricted net position of the Water Utility, Sewer Utility, Storm Water Utility and
Solid Waste funds amounted to $6,179,066. Total net position decreased by ($2,749,154). This
decrease was primarily a result of a decrease in revenues due to seasonality in charges for
services fees and more aggressive infrastructure replacement.
Capital Asset and Debt Administration
Capital assets
The City of St. Louis Park’s investment in capital assets for its governmental and business type
activities as of December 31, 2014 was $146,069,094 (net of accumulated depreciation). This
investment in capital assets includes land, buildings and system improvements, machinery and
equipment, park facilities, roads, highways, and bridges. The total decrease in the City of St.
Louis Park’s investment in capital assets for the current fiscal year was 1.63 percent.
Major capital asset events during the current fiscal year included the following:
Improvements to roadways and street lighting including a major interchange project in
progress.
Improvements to water system.
Improvements to sewer system.
Improvements to park infrastructure and aesthetic aspects of the parks.
For the year ending December 31, 2014, the City has elected to use the modified approach as
defined in GASB Statement No. 34 for infrastructure reporting for its Pavement Management
Program, which includes streets. Under GASB Statement No. 34, eligible infrastructure capital
assets are not required to be depreciated under the following requirements:
1) The City manages the eligible infrastructure capital assets using an asset management
system with characteristics of (a) an up to-date inventory; (b) perform condition
28
Special Study Session Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 1)
Title: 2014 Financial Statements – Auditors Discussion and Review
Page 35
City of St. Louis Park
Management’s Discussion and Analysis
assessments and summarize the results using a measurement scale; and (c) estimate
annual amount to maintain and preserve at the established condition assessment level.
2) The City documents that the eligible infrastructure capital assets are being preserved
approximately at or above the established and disclosed condition assessment level.
The City’s policy is to achieve an average rating of good (70) for all streets. In the fall of 2014,
the City conducted a physical condition assessment of five of the eight areas of the City. In 2015,
the remaining areas will be assessed, providing a new overall condition rating. Going forward,
four areas will be assessed every other year. The City increased the number of areas assessed
each year in an effort to get more comparative data and more thoroughly analyze the street
infrastructure system. As of the last complete assessment 2012, the City’s street system was rated
at an Overall Condition Index (OCI) of 70, which matches the City’s policy level. The City’s
streets are constantly deteriorating resulting from the following factors: (1) traffic using the
system; (2) the sun’s ultra-violet rays drying out and breaking down the top layer of pavement;
(3) utility company/private development trenching operations; (4) water damage from natural
precipitation; and (5) frost heave. The City is continuously taking actions to prolong the life of
the system through short-term maintenance activities such as pothole patching, crack sealing, seal
coating and overlaying. The City expended $1,973,160 on street maintenance for the year ending
December 31, 2014. The physical condition assessment completed in 2012 was the first
assessment that reported on the entire system. The City has estimated that the amount of annual
expenditures required maintaining the City’s street system at the average OCI rating of good is
approximately $2,300,000. The annual expenditures will vary from year to year, depending on
the area of the City being targeted that year. The estimate for the year ending December 31, 2014
was $2,250,000, which is only slightly higher than the actual expenditures for the year.
City of St. Louis Park’s Capital Assets
(net of accumulated depreciation)
Increase Increase
2014 2013 (Decrease) 2014 2013 (Decrease)
Land $15,882,665 $15,018,866 $863,799 $174,844 $174,844 $ -
Permanent easments 1,429,976 2,293,776 (863,800) - - -
Buildings and structures 35,643,131 36,722,517 (1,079,386)1,061,524 1,189,303 (127,779)
Improvements other
than buildings 10,313,213 11,154,090 (840,877) 4,420,018 4,709,298 (289,280)
Machinery and
equipment 4,043,164 4,036,774 6,390 2,978,996 3,314,702 (335,706)
Fleet 4,118,131 3,240,163 877,968 - - -
Infrastructure - Streets 26,011,544 26,011,544 - - - -
Infrastructure - Other 15,921,567 17,068,105 (1,146,538) 21,907,625 22,557,306 (649,681)
Construction
in progress 2,160,818 991,274 1,169,544 1,878 1,878 -
Total $115,524,209 $116,537,109 ($1,012,900)$30,544,885 $31,947,331 ($1,402,446)
Governmental Activities Business-type Activities
Additional information on the City of St. Louis Park’s capital assets can be found in Note 5 on
pages 70-71 of this report.
29
Special Study Session Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 1)
Title: 2014 Financial Statements – Auditors Discussion and Review
Page 36
City of St. Louis Park
Management’s Discussion and Analysis
Debt administration
At the end of the current fiscal year, the City of St. Louis Park had total bonded debt outstanding
of $44,855,000. Of this amount, $23,625,000 comprises debt issued for improvement and capital
projects and will be repaid by ad valorem tax levies. In addition, $4,530,000 is general obligation
tax increment debt which financed redevelopment projects and will be repaid from the tax
increments resulting from increased tax capacity of the redevelopment properties. The remaining
$16,700,000 of the City of St. Louis Park’s bonded debt represents general obligation revenue
bonds to be repaid by the Water fund, Sewer fund, and Storm Water Utility fund user charges.
Furthermore, the City has long-term debt of $33,075 for a capital lease payable, $3,852,051 for
compensated absences and $2,274,367 for other post-employment benefits payable.
City of St. Louis Park’s Outstanding Debt
General Obligation Bonds, Revenue Bonds, and other Debt
Increase Increase
2014 2013 (Decrease) 2014 2013 (Decrease)
G.O. Revenue Bonds $ - $ - $ - $16,700,000 $12,785,000 $3,915,000
G.O. Tax Increment 4,530,000 4,870,000 (340,000) - - -
G.O. Improvement 23,625,000 20,185,000 3,440,000 - - -
Capital leases 33,075 - 33,075 - - -
Compensated absences 3,702,453 3,556,949 145,504 149,606 146,549 3,057
Other postemployment benefits 2,144,438 1,833,419 311,019 129,929 111,488 18,441
Total $34,034,966 $30,445,368 $3,589,598 $16,979,535 $13,043,037 $3,936,498
Governmental Activities Business-type Activities
Principal payments during 2014 totaled $2,985,000. The City of St. Louis Park maintains an
“AAA” rating from Standard & Poor’s for general obligation debt.
State statutes limit the amount of general obligation debt a governmental entity may issue to 3
percent of its total assessed valuation. The current debt limitation for the City of St. Louis Park is
$136,619,132 which is significantly more than the City of St. Louis Park’s outstanding general
obligation debt. Additional information on the City of St. Louis Park’s long-term debt can be
found in Note 6 on pages 72 - 74 of this report.
Economic Factors, Subsequent Year Budgets, Rates and Changes in Structure
User charges have been increased to account for various utility improvements scheduled for
2015 and beyond.
The overall tax levy for 2014 was increased 5.5 percent.
All of these factors were considered in preparing the City of St. Louis Park’s budget for the 2015
fiscal year.
30
Special Study Session Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 1)
Title: 2014 Financial Statements – Auditors Discussion and Review
Page 37
City of St. Louis Park
Management’s Discussion and Analysis
Requests for Information
This financial report is designed to provide our citizens, customers, and creditors with a general
overview of the City of St. Louis Park’s finances and to show the City’s accountability for the
resources it is entrusted. Questions concerning any of the information provided in the report, or
requests for additional financial information, contact the City of St. Louis Park Accounting
Department at 5005 Minnetonka Boulevard, St. Louis Park, Minnesota, 55416, 952-924-2500, or
Brian Swanson – Controller at bswanson@stlouispark.org.
31
Special Study Session Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 1)
Title: 2014 Financial Statements – Auditors Discussion and Review
Page 38
- This page intentionally left blank -
32
Special Study Session Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 1)
Title: 2014 Financial Statements – Auditors Discussion and Review
Page 39
BASIC FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
33
Special Study Session Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 1)
Title: 2014 Financial Statements – Auditors Discussion and Review
Page 40
- This page intentionally left blank -
34
Special Study Session Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 1)
Title: 2014 Financial Statements – Auditors Discussion and Review
Page 41
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
STATEMENT OF NET POSITION Statement 1
December 31, 2014
With Comparative Totals For December 31, 2013
Governmental Business-Type
Activities Activities 2014 2013
Assets:
Cash and investments $54,923,598 $8,369,260 $63,292,858 $58,670,758
Cash held in escrow - 4,047,239 4,047,239 4,082,882
Accrued interest receivable 104,314 14,694 119,008 190,377
Due from other governments 5,512,434 17,456 5,529,890 650,494
Accounts receivable 1,010,121 2,880,951 3,891,072 3,669,945
Taxes receivable 707,070 - 707,070 1,361,177
Prepaid items 211,946 326,838 538,784 468,368
Inventory 349,351 21,016 370,367 239,437
Deposits receivable 31,000 700 31,700 81,700
Internal balances 1,395,370 (1,395,370) - -
Special assessments receivable 8,403,253 1,003,679 9,406,932 9,669,327
Loans receivable 7,651,567 - 7,651,567 7,794,167
Land held for resale 2,256,216 - 2,256,216 2,256,816
Capital assets (net of accumulated depreciation):
Nondepreciable 45,485,003 176,722 45,661,725 44,492,182
Depreciable 70,039,206 30,368,163 100,407,369 103,992,258
Total assets 198,080,449 45,831,348 243,911,797 237,619,888
Liabilities:
Accounts payable 1,800,347 495,184 2,295,531 2,166,371
Salaries payable 1,351,945 69,331 1,421,276 1,208,365
Due to other governments 112,301 68,491 180,792 186,763
Contracts payable 2,117,587 33,534 2,151,121 1,619,089
Accrued interest payable 419,986 134,746 554,732 581,653
Deposits payable 1,503,092 47,122 1,550,214 1,133,645
Unearned revenue 930,036 274,824 1,204,860 931,289
Capital lease payable:
Due within one year 8,100 - 8,100 -
Due in more than one year 24,975 - 24,975 -
Compensated absences payable:
Due within one year 2,591,717 104,719 2,696,436 2,592,449
Due in more than one year 1,110,736 44,887 1,155,623 1,111,049
Bonds payable (net of premiums and discounts):
Due within one year 1,535,000 3,190,000 4,725,000 2,985,000
Due in more than one year 26,594,791 13,636,503 40,231,294 34,761,638
Other postemployment benefits:
Due in more than one year 2,144,438 129,929 2,274,367 1,944,907
Total liabilities 42,245,051 18,229,270 60,474,321 51,222,218
Net position:
Net investment in capital assets 94,891,625 22,818,382 117,710,007 119,777,802
Restricted for:
Tax increment 3,528,387 - 3,528,387 3,048,433
E-911 purposes 492,223 - 492,223 498,922
Debt service 3,152,137 - 3,152,137 3,703,071
Cable TV equipment 618,334 - 618,334 630,933
Police and fire purposes 3,180,914 - 3,180,914 3,545,540
Housing redevelopment - - - 2,134,066
Unrestricted 49,971,778 4,783,696 54,755,474 53,058,903
Total net position $155,835,398 $27,602,078 $183,437,476 $186,397,670
Primary Government
Totals
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements.
35
Special Study Session Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 1)
Title: 2014 Financial Statements – Auditors Discussion and Review Page 42
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
STATEMENT OF ACTIVITIES
For The Year Ended December 31, 2014
With Comparative Totals For The Year Ended December 31, 2013
Program
Revenues
Charges For
Functions/Programs Expenses Services
Primary government:
Governmental activities:
General government $9,161,922 $1,142,294
Public safety 13,954,604 3,477,244
Public information 507,928 -
Operations and recreation 13,318,552 2,089,052
Engineering 21,045,392 318,873
Housing and rehabilitation 909,051 7,537
Housing maintenance 130,534 241
Social and economic development 8,058,914 224,252
Interest on long-term debt 1,185,975 -
Total governmental activities 68,272,872 7,259,493
Business-type activities:
Water 4,609,579 5,188,065
Sewer 4,885,748 5,841,377
Solid waste 2,813,587 3,179,732
Storm water 1,422,645 2,246,201
Total business-type activities 13,731,559 16,455,375
Total primary government $82,004,431 $23,714,868
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements.
36
Special Study Session Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 1)
Title: 2014 Financial Statements – Auditors Discussion and Review Page 43
Statement 2
Operating Capital
Grants and Grants and Governmental Business-Type
Contributions Contributions Activities Activities 2014 2013
$30,318 $ - ($7,989,310) $ - ($7,989,310) ($8,366,625)
733,640 322,109 (9,421,611) - (9,421,611) (9,430,988)
- - (507,928) - (507,928)(466,043)
110,726 - (11,118,774) - (11,118,774) (11,052,910)
769,252 11,121,017 (8,836,250) - (8,836,250) (4,946,680)
- 380,397 (521,117) - (521,117) (1,351,129)
78,359 44,828 (7,106) - (7,106)(21,173)
128,767 197,781 (7,508,114) - (7,508,114) (7,927,259)
173,109 - (1,012,866) - (1,012,866) (1,119,639)
2,024,171 12,066,132 (46,923,076)0 (46,923,076) (44,682,446)
25,758 - - 604,244 604,244 (676,023)
- - - 955,629 955,629 549,439
101,984 - - 468,129 468,129 (600,087)
- - - 823,556 823,556 664,680
127,742 0 0 2,851,558 2,851,558 (61,991)
$2,151,913 $12,066,132 (46,923,076) 2,851,558 (44,071,518) (44,744,437)
General revenues:
Taxes:
Property taxes 27,398,157 - 27,398,157 26,963,176
Tax increment 7,380,995 - 7,380,995 6,647,729
Franchise taxes 2,268,213 - 2,268,213 2,211,569
Grants and contributions not
restricted to specific programs 504,035 - 504,035 45,266
Unrestricted investment earnings 407,753 78,003 485,756 135,551
Gain on disposal of capital assets 464,629 - 464,629 69,237
Miscellaneous 2,609,539 - 2,609,539 2,199,629
Transfers 5,995,095 (5,995,095) - -
Total general revenues and transfers 47,028,416 (5,917,092) 41,111,324 38,272,157
Change in net position 105,340 (3,065,534) (2,960,194) (6,472,280)
Net position - January 1 155,730,058 30,667,612 186,397,670 192,869,950
Net position - December 31 $155,835,398 $27,602,078 $183,437,476 $186,397,670
Totals
Net (Expense) Revenue and
Changes in Net Position
Primary Government
Program Revenues
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements.
37
Special Study Session Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 1)
Title: 2014 Financial Statements – Auditors Discussion and Review Page 44
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
BALANCE SHEET
GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS
December 31, 2014
With Comparative Totals For December 31, 2013
Special
Revenue Funds
General Fund
Housing
Rehabilitation Debt Service Funds
Assets
Cash and investments $19,235,324 $187,819 $1,976,573
Accrued interest receivable 31,318 - 2,973
Due from other governments 308,195 - 86,384
Accounts receivable 211,229 229,244 -
Taxes receivable - unremitted 15,620 - -
Taxes receivable - delinquent 291,372 - -
Prepaid items 48,552 - -
Inventory 349,351 - -
Deposits receivable - - -
Due from other funds - - -
Special assessments receivable - delinquent - 29,560 -
Special assessments receivable - deferred - 7,192,695 -
Interfund loan receivable - - -
Loans receivable - current - 204,000 35,000
Loans receivable - noncurrent - 3,027,431 1,640,000
Land held for resale - - -
Total assets $20,490,961 $10,870,749 $3,740,930
Liabilities, Deferred Inflows of Resources, and Fund Balances
Liabilities:
Accounts payable $572,847 $14,452 $ -
Salaries payable 1,288,119 5,537 -
Due to other governments 74,952 17 171
Contracts payable - 14,368 -
Due to other funds - - -
Interfund loan payable - 2,524,339 -
Deposits payable 1,334,456 - 168,636
Unearned revenue 715,639 - 14,397
Total liabilities 3,986,013 2,558,713 183,204
Deferred inflows of resources:
Unavailable revenue 342,211 7,216,435 1,675,000
Total deferred inflows of resources 342,211 7,216,435 1,675,000
Fund balance:
Nonspendable 397,873 3,027,431 -
Restricted 492,223 - 1,882,726
Committed - - -
Assigned 696,293 - -
Unassigned 14,576,348 (1,931,830) -
Total fund balance 16,162,737 1,095,601 1,882,726
Total liabilities, deferred inflows of
resources, and fund balance $20,490,961 $10,870,749 $3,740,930
Fund balance reported above
Amounts reported for governmental activities in the statement of net assets are different because:
Capital assets used in governmental activities are not financial resources, and therefore, are not reported in the funds
Other long-term assets are not available to pay for current-period expenditures and, therefore, are reported as unavailable revenue in the funds:
Receivables not available soon enough to pay for the current period's expenditures
Long-term liabilities, including bonds payable, are not due and payable in the current period and therefore are not reported in the funds:
Bonds payable and unamortized bond premium
Accrued interest payable
Internal service funds are used by management to charge the cost of certain services to individual funds.
The assets and liabilities are included in the governmental statement of net assets
Net position of governmental activities
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements.
38
Special Study Session Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 1)
Title: 2014 Financial Statements – Auditors Discussion and Review Page 45
Statement 3
Permanent
Improvement
Revolving
Streets Capital
Projects
Development
EDA
Sidewalks and
Trails
Redevelopment
District
Other
Governmental
Funds
2014 2013
$2,564,875 $1,005,458 $9,605,339 $3,368,214 $4,001,485 $9,529,865 $51,474,952 $51,219,849
6,118 - 25,154 2,315 9,825 21,848 99,551 164,498
- 4,837,569 219,737 - - 59,970 5,511,855 648,313
- - 3,430 - - 566,218 1,010,121 845,602
- - - - 36,872 - 52,492 1,194,836
- - - - 10,821 - 302,193 166,341
- - - - - - 48,552 52,248
- - - - - - 349,351 204,003
- - - - - - - 50,000
44,004 - - - - - 44,004 1,484,082
7,874 - 1,810 - - 2,507 41,751 64,572
970,599 - - - - 198,208 8,361,502 8,716,105
- - 10,533,799 - - - 10,533,799 6,699,495
- - 213,167 - - - 452,167 505,289
- - 1,412,310 - 693,494 426,165 7,199,400 7,288,878
- - 2,256,216 - - - 2,256,216 2,256,816
$3,593,470 $5,843,027 $24,270,962 $3,370,529 $4,752,497 $10,804,781 $87,737,906 $81,560,927
$4,628 $116,271 $342,019 $403,245 $9,886 $42,903 $1,506,251 $1,475,732
- - - - - 19,132 1,312,788 1,112,344
- - 7,677 77 24,568 1,041 108,503 87,667
- 2,020,445 - - - 78,969 2,113,782 1,330,986
- - - - - 44,004 44,004 540,093
- - - - 8,009,460 - 10,533,799 6,699,495
- - - - - - 1,503,092 1,127,745
- - - - - 200,000 930,036 675,092
4,628 2,136,716 349,696 403,322 8,043,914 386,049 18,052,255 13,049,154
976,720 - 328 - 61,309 221,613 10,493,616 10,692,343
976,720 0 328 0 61,309 221,613 10,493,616 10,692,343
- - 3,668,526 - - 426,165 7,519,995 14,145,568
- - - - 3,528,387 3,799,248 9,702,584 12,267,998
- - - - - 483,590 483,590 467,682
2,612,122 3,706,311 20,252,412 2,967,207 - 5,494,550 35,728,895 23,616,243
- - - - (6,881,113) (6,434) 5,756,971 7,321,939
2,612,122 3,706,311 23,920,938 2,967,207 (3,352,726) 10,197,119 59,192,035 57,819,430
$3,593,470 $5,843,027 $24,270,962 $3,370,529 $4,752,497 $10,804,781 $87,737,906 $81,560,927
$59,192,035 $57,819,430
98,255,608 99,233,237
10,493,616 10,692,343
(28,129,791) (24,926,616)
(419,986) (431,679)
16,443,916 13,343,343
$155,835,398 $155,730,058
Total Governmental Funds
Capital Projects Funds
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements.
39
Special Study Session Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 1)
Title: 2014 Financial Statements – Auditors Discussion and Review Page 46
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND
CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE
GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS
For The Year Ended December 31, 2014
With Comparative Totals For The Year Ended December 31, 2013
Special
Revenue Funds
General Fund
Housing
Rehabilitation Debt Service Funds
Revenues:
Property taxes $21,176,543 $ - $1,422,477
Tax increments - - -
Franchise taxes - - -
License and permits 3,413,683 - -
Intergovernmental 1,399,472 - 173,109
Charges for services 2,989,968 7,537 -
Fines and forfeits 369,546 - -
Special assessments - 843,221 -
Interest on investments 119,831 - 11,920
Miscellaneous 200,944 545,423 116,513
Total revenues 29,669,987 1,396,181 1,724,019
Expenditures:
Current:
General government 7,376,380 - -
Public safety 13,095,766 - -
Operations and recreation 9,370,516 - -
Engineering 223,493 - -
Public information - - -
Housing and rehabilitation - 875,225 -
Housing maintenance - - -
Social economic development - - 453,591
Capital outlay:
Public safety - - -
Operations and recreation - - -
Engineering - - -
Public information - - -
Social and economic development - - -
Debt service:
Principal - - 1,970,000
Interest and other - 99,185 1,038,915
Fiscal agent fees - - 2,040
Bond issuance costs - - -
Total expenditures 30,066,155 974,410 3,464,546
Revenues over (under) expenditures (396,168)421,771 (1,740,527)
Other financing sources (uses):
Transfers in 1,827,564 337,039 1,327,137
Transfers out (1,057,425)(338,361)(227,039)
Bonds issued - - 113,512
Premium on bonds - - -
Proceeds from sale of capital assets - 242,566 -
Total other financing sources (uses)770,139 241,244 1,213,610
Net change in fund balance 373,971 663,015 (526,917)
Fund balance - January 1 15,788,766 432,586 2,409,643
Fund balance - December 31 $16,162,737 $1,095,601 $1,882,726
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements.
40
Special Study Session Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 1)
Title: 2014 Financial Statements – Auditors Discussion and Review Page 47
Statement 4
Permanent
Improvement
Revolving
Streets Capital
Projects
Development
EDA
Sidewalks and
Trails
Redevelopment
District
Other
Governmental
Funds
2014 2013
$ - $ - $25,410 $ - $927,094 $810,000 $24,361,524 $25,658,762
- - - - 7,380,995 - 7,380,995 6,647,729
- - - - - 2,268,213 2,268,213 2,211,569
- - - - - - 3,413,683 3,069,090
- 11,119,582 348,504 - - 175,388 13,216,055 13,887,247
- 199,500 224,252 45,000 - 10,007 3,476,264 3,052,789
- - - - - - 369,546 311,882
219,321 - 1,621 - - 204,376 1,268,539 1,505,568
21,851 - 104,869 4,739 31,126 91,927 386,263 123,306
2,035 24,049 1,100,232 - - 588,104 2,577,300 2,216,820
243,207 11,343,131 1,804,888 49,739 8,339,215 4,148,015 58,718,382 58,684,762
- - - - - - 7,376,380 7,162,588
62,424 - - - - 81,539 13,239,729 12,435,341
- - - - - 1,130,273 10,500,789 10,083,541
- 20,416,165 - 120,973 - 202,752 20,963,383 15,998,842
- - - - - 462,341 462,341 408,683
- - - - - - 875,225 1,715,540
- - - - - 130,534 130,534 141,250
- - 1,846,426 - 5,422,969 205,919 7,928,905 8,910,821
- - - - - 16,901 16,901 163,766
- - - - - 337,505 337,505 930,249
- 1,441,937 - 403,245 - - 1,845,182 798,517
- - - - - - - 18,163
- - 72,400 - - - 72,400 179,103
- - - - - - 1,970,000 3,275,000
- - - - - - 1,138,100 1,298,016
- - - - - - 2,040 3,895
- - - 52,393 - - 52,393 -
62,424 21,858,102 1,918,826 576,611 5,422,969 2,567,764 66,911,807 63,523,315
180,783 (10,514,971) (113,938) (526,872) 2,916,246 1,580,251 (8,193,425) (4,838,553)
- 15,695,587 - - 47,356 82,446 19,317,129 10,472,534
(863,146) - (228,597) (1,462,778) (8,610,440) (2,453,219) (15,241,005) (9,531,189)
- - - 4,956,488 - - 5,070,000 -
- - - 98,040 - - 98,040 -
- 79,300 - - - - 321,866 8,590
(863,146) 15,774,887 (228,597) 3,591,750 (8,563,084) (2,370,773) 9,566,030 949,935
(682,363) 5,259,916 (342,535) 3,064,878 (5,646,838) (790,522) 1,372,605 (3,888,618)
3,294,485 (1,553,605) 24,263,473 (97,671) 2,294,112 10,987,641 57,819,430 61,708,048
$2,612,122 $3,706,311 $23,920,938 $2,967,207 ($3,352,726) $10,197,119 $59,192,035 $57,819,430
Total Governmental Funds
Capital Projects Funds
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements.
41
Special Study Session Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 1)
Title: 2014 Financial Statements – Auditors Discussion and Review Page 48
- This page intentionally left blank -
42
Special Study Session Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 1)
Title: 2014 Financial Statements – Auditors Discussion and Review Page 49
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
RECONCILIATION OF THE STATEMENT OF REVENUES,Statement 5
EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCES OF
GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS TO THE STATEMENT OF ACTIVITIES
For The Year Ended December 31, 2014
With Comparative Amounts For The Year Ended December 31, 2013
2014 2013
Amounts reported for governmental activities in the
statement of activities (Statement 2) are different because:
Net changes in fund balances - total governmental funds (Statement 4)$1,372,605 ($3,888,618)
Governmental funds report capital outlays as expenditures. However, in the
statement of activities the cost of those assets is allocated over their estimated
useful lives and reported as depreciation expense. This is the amount by which
capital outlays exceeded depreciation in the current period.
Depreciation expense (3,249,617) (3,217,389)
Capital outlays 2,271,988 2,042,894
Disposal of capital assets - (28,067)
The issuance of long-term debt provides current financial resources to
governmental funds, while the repayment of principal of long-term debt consumes
the current financial resources of governmental funds. Neither transaction,
however, has any effect on net position. Also, governmental funds report the effect
of issuance costs, premiums, discounts and similar items when debt is first issued,
whereas these amounts are deferred and amortized in the statement of activities.
Bonds issued (5,070,000) -
Principal repayments on bonds 1,970,000 3,275,000
Interest on long-term debt in the statement of activities differs from the amount
reported in the governmental fund because interest is recognized as an
expenditure in the funds when it is due, and thus requires the use of current
financial resources. In the statement of activities, however, interest expense is
recognized as the interest accrues, regardless of when it is due.11,693 42,988
Governmental funds report debt issuance premiums and discounts as an other
financing source or use at the time of issuance. Premiums and discounts are
reported as an unamortized asset or liability in the City-wide financial statements.(103,175) (35,825)
Certain revenues are recognized as soon as they are earned. Under the modified
accrual basis of accounting certain revenues cannot be recognized until they are
available to liquidate liabilities of the current period.
Special assessments (366,817) (796,760)
Property taxes 135,851 (3,718)
Loans 32,239 (16,785)
Internal service funds are used by management to charge the costs for equipment,
information system, equipment replacement, employee benefits and major losses
incurred by individual funds. The net revenue of certain activities of internal
service funds is reported with governmental activities.3,100,573 (2,018,734)
Change in net position of governmental activities (Statement 2)$105,340 ($4,645,014)
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements.
43
Special Study Session Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 1)
Title: 2014 Financial Statements – Auditors Discussion and Review Page 50
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
STATEMENT OF NET POSITION
PROPRIETARY FUNDS
December 31, 2014
With Comparative Amounts For December 31, 2013
2014 2013 2014 2013
Assets:
Current assets:
Cash and investments $2,598,501 $2,011 $1,415,372 $1,764,699
Cash and investments held in escrow 3,359,208 3,388,792 - -
Accrued interest receivable 919 - 4,378 6,594
Due from other governments - - 17,456 2,181
Accounts receivable 943,032 936,294 914,104 943,279
Taxes receivable - unremitted - - - -
Prepaid items - - 307,654 299,954
Deposits receivable 700 700 - -
Inventories 21,016 35,434 - -
Due from other funds - - - 343,494
Special assessments receivable - delinquent 100,089 90,598 - 232
Special assessments receivable - deferred 763,904 663,453 139,673 134,367
Total current assets 7,787,369 5,117,282 2,798,637 3,494,800
Noncurrent assets:
Capital assets, at cost:
Land 114,844 114,844 60,000 60,000
Buildings and structures 4,761,612 4,761,612 6,111 6,111
Improvements other than buildings 889,152 889,152 22,278 22,278
Infrastructure 14,663,244 14,663,244 19,678,304 19,653,646
Machinery, furniture and equipment 4,953,257 4,953,257 262,039 262,039
Fleet - - - -
Construction in progress 1,878 1,878 - -
Total capital assets, at cost 25,383,987 25,383,987 20,028,732 20,004,074
Less: accumulated depreciation (13,070,612) (12,342,107) (15,835,630) (15,708,520)
Net capital assets 12,313,375 13,041,880 4,193,102 4,295,554
Total noncurrent assets 12,313,375 13,041,880 4,193,102 4,295,554
Total assets 20,100,744 18,159,162 6,991,739 7,790,354
Liabilities:
Current liabilities:
Accounts payable 131,667 105,445 11,249 25,871
Salaries payable 46,855 50,328 14,141 8,461
Accrued flex spending - - - -
Due to other governments 8,235 29,553 3,002 605
Contracts payable 33,160 64,853 - 47,189
Due to other funds - 343,494 - -
Deposits payable 47,122 5,900 - -
Accrued interest payable 105,199 116,224 2,466 2,600
Interfund loan payable - - - -
Compensated absences payable 101,661 95,325 456 698
Capital lease payable - - - -
Bonds payable 2,083,800 633,800 16,000 16,000
Unearned revenue 274,824 256,197 - -
Total current liabilities 2,832,523 1,701,119 47,314 101,424
Noncurrent liabilities:
Compensated absences payable 15,379 14,764 29,508 29,201
Other postemployment benefits payable 94,229 80,706 20,084 17,625
Capital lease payable - - - -
Bonds payable 12,045,557 9,107,076 189,258 205,284
Total noncurrent liabilities 12,155,165 9,202,546 238,850 252,110
Total liabilities 14,987,688 10,903,665 286,164 353,534
Net position:
Net investment in capital assets 6,575,118 3,301,004 3,987,844 4,074,270
Unrestricted (1,462,062) 3,954,493 2,717,731 3,362,550
Total net position $5,113,056 $7,255,497 $6,705,575 $7,436,820
Business-Type Activities Enterprise Funds
5000 Water Utility 5100 Sewer Utility
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements.
44
Special Study Session Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 1)
Title: 2014 Financial Statements – Auditors Discussion and Review Page 51
Statement 6
Business-Type Activities Enterprise Funds Governmental
Activities
2014 2013 2014 2013 Internal
2014 2013 Service Funds
$2,105,838 $1,959,656 $2,249,549 $2,267,106 $8,369,260 $5,993,472 $3,448,646
- - 688,031 694,090 4,047,239 4,082,882 -
4,066 5,825 5,331 7,089 14,694 19,508 4,763
- - - - 17,456 2,181 579
690,500 645,352 333,315 299,418 2,880,951 2,824,343 -
- - - - - - 352,385
- - 19,184 - 326,838 299,954 163,394
- - - - 700 700 31,000
- - - - 21,016 35,434 -
- - - - - 343,494 -
13 - - - 100,102 90,830 -
- - - - 903,577 797,820 -
2,800,417 2,610,833 3,295,410 3,267,703 16,681,833 14,490,618 4,000,767
- - - - 174,844 174,844 818,094
- - - - 4,767,723 4,767,723 5,990
- - 6,182,215 6,182,215 7,093,645 7,093,645 -
- - 3,998,601 15,588,972 38,340,149 49,905,862 9,965,062
- - 11,679,470 89,099 16,894,766 5,304,395 7,051,745
- - - - - - 8,029,132
- - - - 1,878 1,878 27,995
0 0 21,860,286 21,860,286 67,273,005 67,248,347 25,898,018
- - (7,821,878) (7,250,389) (36,728,120) (35,301,016) (8,629,417)
0 0 14,038,408 14,609,897 30,544,885 31,947,331 17,268,601
0 0 14,038,408 14,609,897 30,544,885 31,947,331 17,268,601
2,800,417 2,610,833 17,333,818 17,877,600 47,226,718 46,437,949 21,269,368
348,950 431,799 3,318 17,772 495,184 580,887 294,096
- - 8,335 6,517 69,331 65,306 5,080
- - - - - - 34,077
49,836 53,127 7,418 140 68,491 83,425 3,798
- - 374 16,063 33,534 128,105 3,805
- - - - - 343,494 -
- - - - 47,122 5,900 -
- - 27,081 31,150 134,746 149,974 -
- - - - - - -
- - 2,602 6,561 104,719 102,584 2,591,717
- - - - - - 8,100
- - 1,090,200 365,200 3,190,000 1,015,000 -
- - - - 274,824 256,197 -
398,786 484,926 1,139,328 443,403 4,417,951 2,730,872 2,940,673
- - - - 44,887 43,965 1,110,736
- - 15,616 13,157 129,929 111,488 2,144,438
- - - - - - 24,975
- - 1,401,688 2,492,662 13,636,503 11,805,022 -
0 0 1,417,304 2,505,819 13,811,319 11,960,475 3,280,149
398,786 484,926 2,556,632 2,949,222 18,229,270 14,691,347 6,220,822
- - 12,255,420 11,752,035 22,818,382 19,127,309 17,268,601
2,401,631 2,125,907 2,521,766 3,176,343 6,179,066 12,619,293 (2,220,055)
$2,401,631 $2,125,907 $14,777,186 $14,928,378 28,997,448 31,746,602 $15,048,546
Adjustment to reflect consolidation of Internal Service fund activities (1,395,370) (1,078,990)
Net position of business-type activities $27,602,078 $30,667,612
Totals
5200 Solid Waste 5300 Storm Water Utility
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements.
45
Special Study Session Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 1)
Title: 2014 Financial Statements – Auditors Discussion and Review Page 52
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENSES AND
CHANGES IN FUND NET POSITION
PROPRIETARY FUNDS
For The Year Ended December 31, 2014
With Comparative Totals For The Year Ended December 31, 2013
2014 2013 2014 2013
Operating revenues:
Charges for services $4,672,950 $4,552,959 $5,793,686 $5,793,663
Other 231,634 199,354 47,665 28,396
Rent 280,365 286,925 - -
Total operating revenues 5,184,949 5,039,238 5,841,351 5,822,059
Operating expenses:
Personal services 1,224,279 1,165,477 475,449 422,152
Supplies 239,850 457,857 34,599 37,709
Professional services 299,940 294,345 29,945 125,296
Insurance 23,917 35,542 67,694 56,442
Utilities 440,769 423,182 40,361 47,102
Repairs and maintenance 534,989 1,281,993 151,891 88,604
Depreciation 728,504 814,120 127,112 127,188
Disposal charges 63,143 76,475 3,600,010 3,800,400
Other 632,077 646,996 144,224 194,453
Total operating expenses 4,187,468 5,195,987 4,671,285 4,899,346
Operating income (loss)997,481 (156,749) 1,170,066 922,713
Nonoperating revenues (expenses):
Investment income 19,302 (17,951)18,398 4,417
Property taxes - - - -
Intergovernmental revenue 25,758 34,026 - -
Miscellaneous expense (14,393) (67,092)(9,294) (16,189)
Amortization of bond premiums 3,116 2,592 26 26
Net loss on disposal of assets - - - -
Interest expense (265,565) (260,682)(5,946) (6,265)
Issuance of debt (51,320) (60,630) - -
Total nonoperating revenues (expenses)(283,102) (369,737)3,184 (18,011)
Income (loss) before transfers 714,379 (526,486) 1,173,250 904,702
Transfers in - - - -
Transfers out (2,856,820) (536,641) (1,904,495) (722,052)
Total transfers (2,856,820) (536,641) (1,904,495) (722,052)
Change in net position (2,142,441) (1,063,127) (731,245) 182,650
Net position - January 1 7,255,497 8,318,624 7,436,820 7,254,170
Net position - December 31 $5,113,056 $7,255,497 $6,705,575 $7,436,820
Business-Type Activities Enterprise Funds
5000 Water Utility 5100 Sewer Utility
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements.
46
Special Study Session Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 1)
Title: 2014 Financial Statements – Auditors Discussion and Review Page 53
Statement 7
Governmental
Business-Type Activities Enterprise Funds Activities
Internal
2014 2013 2014 2013 2014 2013 Service Funds
$3,134,013 $2,825,840 $2,245,983 $2,054,915 $15,846,632 $15,227,377 $807,209
45,719 86,575 - - 325,018 314,325 539,788
- - - - 280,365 286,925 -
3,179,732 2,912,415 2,245,983 2,054,915 16,452,015 15,828,627 1,346,997
307,168 282,485 466,748 391,302 2,473,644 2,261,416 772,699
120,136 932,568 2,309 18,166 396,894 1,446,300 378,011
17,920 27,492 38,302 73,161 386,107 520,294 528,333
4,532 8,882 9,601 6,256 105,744 107,122 164,649
- - 22,901 28,970 504,031 499,254 -
- - 91,609 31,991 778,489 1,402,588 -
- - 571,489 575,443 1,427,105 1,516,751 1,737,281
2,290,598 2,237,737 - - 5,953,751 6,114,612 -
73,233 124,954 123,935 118,386 973,469 1,084,789 442,398
2,813,587 3,614,118 1,326,894 1,243,675 12,999,234 14,953,126 4,023,371
366,145 (701,703) 919,089 811,240 3,452,781 875,501 (2,676,374)
15,542 10,526 24,761 (340) 78,003 (3,348) 21,490
- - - - - - 2,900,782
101,984 101,616 - - 127,742 135,642 476,561
- - (2,388) (15,610) (26,075) (98,891) -
- - 774 - 3,916 2,618 -
- - - - - - 142,763
- - (67,518) (70,602) (339,029) (337,549) -
- - (77) (12,418) (51,397) (73,048) -
117,526 112,142 (44,448) (98,970) (206,840) (374,576) 3,541,596
483,671 (589,561) 874,641 712,270 3,245,941 500,925 865,222
- - - - - - 1,918,971
(207,947) (213,466) (1,025,833) (289,768) (5,995,095) (1,761,927) -
(207,947) (213,466) (1,025,833) (289,768) (5,995,095) (1,761,927) 1,918,971
275,724 (803,027) (151,192) 422,502 (2,749,154) (1,261,002) 2,784,193
2,125,907 2,928,934 14,928,378 14,505,876 31,746,602 33,007,604 12,264,353
$2,401,631 $2,125,907 $14,777,186 $14,928,378 $28,997,448 $31,746,602 $15,048,546
Adjustment to reflect consolidation of Internal Service fund activities (316,380) (566,264)
Change in net position of business-type activities ($3,065,534) ($1,827,266)
Totals5200 Solid Waste 5300 Storm Water Utility
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements.
47
Special Study Session Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 1)
Title: 2014 Financial Statements – Auditors Discussion and Review Page 54
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
STATEMENT OF CASH FLOWS
PROPRIETARY FUNDS
For The Year Ended December 31, 2014
With Comparative Totals For The Year Ended December 31, 2013
2014 2013 2014 2013
Cash flows from operating activities:
Receipts from customers and users $4,896,484 $4,941,363 $5,802,512 $5,859,686
Receipts from interfund services provided - - - -
Other receipts 231,634 199,354 47,665 28,396
Payments to suppliers (2,247,056) (3,137,829) (4,135,838) (4,287,786)
Payments to employees (1,207,278) (1,165,404) (467,245) (418,793)
Miscellaneous expense (14,393) (67,092) (9,294) (16,189)
Net cash flows provided by (used in)
operating activities 1,659,391 770,392 1,237,800 1,165,314
Cash flows from noncapital financing activities:
Transfers in - - - -
Transfers out (2,856,820) (536,641) (1,904,495) (722,052)
Borrowing on interfund balances - 343,494 343,494 -
Payments on interfund balances (343,494) - - (343,494)
Property taxes - - - -
Intergovernmental receipts 25,758 34,026 - -
Net cash flows provided by (used in)
noncapital financing activities (3,174,556) (159,121) (1,561,001) (1,065,546)
Cash flows from capital and related financing activities:
Transfers in - - - -
Acquisition and construction of capital assets - (32,841) (24,660) (704,565)
Proceeds from sale of assets - - - -
Payments on capital leases - - - -
Debt proceeds, net 5,025,398 3,473,891 - -
Unspent bond proceeds 29,584 (3,388,792) - -
Principal paid on bonds (633,800) (605,400) (16,000) (15,500)
Interest paid on debt (327,910) (308,717) (6,080) (6,394)
Net cash flows provided by (used in)
capital and related financing activities 4,093,272 (861,859) (46,740) (726,459)
Cash flows from investing activities:
Investment income 18,383 (17,583) 20,614 10,041
Net increase (decrease) in cash and cash equivalents 2,596,490 (268,171) (349,327) (616,650)
Cash and cash equivalents - January 1 2,011 270,182 1,764,699 2,381,349
Cash and cash equivalents - December 31 $2,598,501 $2,011 $1,415,372 $1,764,699
Business-Type Activities Enterprise Funds
5000 Water Utility 5100 Sewer Utility
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements.
48
Special Study Session Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 1)
Title: 2014 Financial Statements – Auditors Discussion and Review Page 55
Statement 8
Page 1 of 2
Governmental
Activities
Internal
2014 2013 2014 2013 2014 2013
Service
Funds
$3,088,852 $2,824,908 $2,212,086 $2,070,703 $15,999,934 $15,696,660 $ -
- - - - - - 806,630
45,719 86,575 - - 325,018 314,325 539,788
(2,592,559) (3,049,750) (330,706) (253,124) (9,306,159) (10,728,489) (1,544,341)
(307,168) (282,485) (466,430) (389,800) (2,448,121) (2,256,482) (307,734)
- - (2,388) (15,610) (26,075) (98,891) -
234,844 (420,752) 1,412,562 1,412,169 4,544,597 2,927,123 (505,657)
- - - - - - 1,500,000
(207,947) (213,466) (1,025,833) (289,768) (5,995,095) (1,761,927) -
- - - - 343,494 - -
- - - - (343,494) - (943,989)
- - - - - - 2,548,397
101,984 101,616 - - 127,742 135,642 476,561
(105,963) (111,850) (1,025,833) (289,768) (5,867,353) (1,626,285) 3,580,969
- - - - - - 418,971
- - - (193,122) (24,660) (930,528) (1,705,934)
- - - - - - 187,187
- - - - - - (7,425)
- - - 706,281 5,025,398 4,180,172 -
- - 6,059 (694,090) 35,643 (4,082,882) -
- - (365,200) (364,100) (1,015,000) (985,000) -
- - (71,664) (82,405) (405,654) (397,516) -
0 0 (430,805) (627,436) 3,615,727 (2,215,754) (1,107,201)
17,301 13,902 26,519 795 82,817 7,155 23,098
146,182 (518,700) (17,557) 495,760 2,375,788 (907,761) 1,991,209
1,959,656 2,478,356 2,267,106 1,771,346 5,993,472 6,901,233 1,457,437
$2,105,838 $1,959,656 $2,249,549 $2,267,106 $8,369,260 $5,993,472 $3,448,646
Business-Type Activities Enterprise Funds
5300 Storm Water Utility Totals5200 Solid Waste
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements.
49
Special Study Session Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 1)
Title: 2014 Financial Statements – Auditors Discussion and Review Page 56
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
STATEMENT OF CASH FLOWS
PROPRIETARY FUNDS
For The Year Ended December 31, 2014
With Comparative Totals For The Year Ended December 31, 2013
2014 2013 2014 2013
Reconciliation of operating income (loss) to
net cash provided (used) by operating
activities:
Operating income (loss)$997,481 ($156,749) $1,170,066 $922,713
Adjustments to reconcile operating income
(loss) to net cash flows from operating
activities:
Miscellaneous expense (14,393) (67,092) (9,294) (16,189)
Depreciation 728,504 814,120 127,112 127,188
Changes in assets and liabilities:
Decrease (increase) in:
Accounts receivable (6,738) 56,960 13,900 65,314
Special assessments (109,942) 22,654 (5,074) 709
Prepaid items - 1,734 (7,700) 17,131
Inventory 14,418 31,408 - -
Increase (decrease) in:
Accounts payable 4,904 9,524 (12,225) (2,002)
Contracts payable (31,693) 35,895 (47,189) 47,091
Deposits payable 41,222 (12,100) - -
Accrued salaries payable (3,473) 13,516 5,680 (343)
Unearned revenue 18,627 33,965 - -
Accrued flex spending - - - -
Compensated absences payable 6,951 (28,004)65 1,055
Other postemployment benefits 13,523 14,561 2,459 2,647
Total adjustments 661,910 927,141 67,734 242,601
Net cash provided by (used) operating activities $1,659,391 $770,392 $1,237,800 $1,165,314
Supplemental schedule of noncash capital and related
financing activities
Amortization of bond premiums $3,116 $2,592 $26 $26
Disposal of capital assets $ - $87,324 $ - $ -
Asset accquired through financing $ - $ - $ - $ -
5000 Water Utility 5100 Sewer Utility
Business-Type Activities Enterprise Funds
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements.
50
Special Study Session Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 1)
Title: 2014 Financial Statements – Auditors Discussion and Review Page 57
Statement 8
Page 2 of 2
Governmental
Activities
Internal
2014 2013 2014 2013 2014 2013
Service
Funds
$366,145 ($701,703) $919,089 $811,240 $3,452,781 $875,501 ($2,676,374)
- - (2,388) (15,610) (26,075) (98,891) -
- - 571,489 575,443 1,427,105 1,516,751 1,737,281
(45,148) (932) (33,897) 15,788 (71,883) 137,130 (579)
(13) - - - (115,029) 23,363 -
- - (19,184) 433 (26,884) 19,298 (47,228)
- - - - 14,418 31,408 -
(86,140) 281,883 (7,176) 13,688 (100,637) 303,093 172,471
- - (15,689) 9,685 (94,571) 92,671 (156,193)
- - - - 41,222 (12,100) -
- - 1,818 (411) 4,025 12,762 (145)
- - - - 18,627 33,965 -
- - - - - - 8,587
- - (3,959) (734) 3,057 (27,683) 145,504
- - 2,459 2,647 18,441 19,855 311,019
(131,301) 280,951 493,473 600,929 1,091,816 2,051,622 2,170,717
$234,844 ($420,752) $1,412,562 $1,412,169 $4,544,597 $2,927,123 ($505,657)
$ - $ - $774 $666 $3,916 $3,284 $ -
$ - $ - $ - $197,696 $ - $285,020 $803,975
$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $40,500
5200 Solid Waste 5300 Storm Water Utility Totals
Business-Type Activities Enterprise Funds
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements.
51
Special Study Session Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 1)
Title: 2014 Financial Statements – Auditors Discussion and Review Page 58
- This page intentionally left blank -
52
Special Study Session Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 1)
Title: 2014 Financial Statements – Auditors Discussion and Review Page 59
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
December 31, 2014
Note 1 SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES
The City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota (the City) was incorporated in 1886 and operates a council-manager
form of government under the “Home Rule Charter” concept according to applicable Minnesota laws and
statutes. The governing body consists of a seven member City Council elected by the voters of the City.
The financial statements of the City have been prepared in conformity with accounting principles generally
accepted in the United States of America as applied to governmental units by the Governmental
Accounting Standards Board (GASB). The following is a summary of the significant accounting policies.
A. FINANCIAL REPORTING ENTITY
As required by generally accepted accounting principles, the financial statements of the reporting
entity include those of the City (the primary government) and its component units, entities for
which the City is considered to be financially accountable. Blended component units, although
legally separate entities, are in substance, part of the City’s operations and so data from these units
are combined with data of the City.
BLENDED COMPONENT UNITS
The Economic Development Authority (EDA) is an entity legally separate from the City.
However, for financial reporting purposes, the EDA is reported as if it were part of the City’s
operations because the members of the City Council serve as EDA Board Members and its
sole purpose is to promote development within the City’s tax increment districts. Separate
financial statements are not prepared for the EDA.
The following funds are maintained by the EDA: Debt Service Funds – 2004 General
Obligation Tax Increment Refunding, 2008B General Obligation Tax Increment Bonds, and
Hoigaard’s 2010A & B TIF Notes; Capital Project Funds – Development EDA and
Redevelopment District.
RELATED ORGANIZATION
The Housing Authority (HA) is an entity legally separate from the City. The HA is governed
by a Board of Commissioners appointed by the City Council. However, the City’s
accountability for the HA does not extend beyond making the appointments.
B. GOVERNMENT-WIDE AND FUND FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
The government-wide financial statements (i.e., the statement of net position and the statement of
activities) report information on all of the activities of the primary government and its component
units. For the most part, the effect of interfund activity has been removed from these statements.
Governmental activities, which normally are supported by taxes and intergovernmental revenues,
are reported separately from business-type activities, which rely to a significant extent on fees and
charges for support.
53
Special Study Session Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 1)
Title: 2014 Financial Statements – Auditors Discussion and Review Page 60
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
December 31, 2014
The statement of activities demonstrates the degree to which the direct expenses of a given
function or business-type activity is offset by program revenues. Direct expenses are those that
are clearly identifiable with a specific function or business-type activity. Program revenues
include: 1) charges to customers or applicants who purchase, use, or directly benefit from goods,
services, or privileges provided by a given function or business-type activity and 2) grants and
contributions that are restricted to meeting the operational or capital requirements of a particular
function or business-type activity. Taxes and other items not included among program revenues
are reported instead as general revenues.
Separate financial statements are provided for governmental funds and proprietary funds. Major
individual governmental funds and major individual enterprise funds are reported as separate
columns in the fund financial statements.
C. MEASUREMENT FOCUS, BASIS OF ACCOUNTING, AND FINANCIAL STATEMENT
PRESENTATION
The government-wide financial statements are reported using the economic resources
measurement focus and the accrual basis of accounting, as are the proprietary fund financial
statements. Revenues are recorded when earned and expenses are recorded when a liability is
incurred, regardless of the timing of related cash flows. Property taxes are recognized as revenues
in the year for which they are levied. Grants and similar items are recognized as revenue as soon
as all eligibility requirements imposed by the provider have been met.
Governmental fund financial statements are reported using the current financial resources
measurement focus and the modified accrual basis of accounting. Revenues are recognized as
soon as they are both measurable and available. Revenues are considered to be available when
they are collectible within the current period or soon enough thereafter to pay liabilities of the
current period. For this purpose, the City considers all revenues, except reimbursement grants, to
be available if they are collected within 60 days of the end of the current fiscal period.
Reimbursement grants are considered available if they are collected within one year of the end of
the current fiscal period. Expenditures generally are recorded when a liability is incurred, as
under accrual accounting. However, debt service expenditures, as well as expenditures related to
compensated absences and claims and judgments, are recorded only when payment is due.
Property taxes, special assessments, intergovernmental revenue, franchise taxes, licenses, and
interest associated with the current fiscal period are all considered to be susceptible to accrual and
so have been recognized as revenues of the current fiscal period. Only the portion of special
assessments receivable due within the current fiscal period is considered to be susceptible to
accrual as revenue of the current period. All other revenue items are considered to be measurable
and available only when cash is received by the City.
The City reports the following major governmental funds:
The General Fund is the City’s primary operating fund. It accounts for all financial resources
of the general government, except those required to be accounted for in another fund.
54
Special Study Session Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 1)
Title: 2014 Financial Statements – Auditors Discussion and Review Page 61
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
December 31, 2014
The Housing Rehabilitation Fund is used to account for revenues from revenue bond fees and
expenditures related to preventing deterioration of multi-unit housing.
The Debt Service Fund accounts for the resources accumulated and payments made for
principal and interest on long-term general obligation debt of the government.
The Permanent Improvement Revolving Fund accounts for the resources and expenditures
required for the acquisition and construction of capital improvements which will provide a
direct or significant indirect benefit to individual property owners. Financing of these
projects is provided by shared costs with other organizations, land sales, State allotment from
highway user tax collections and assessment proceeds.
The Streets Capital Projects Fund accounts for street construction projects. Revenues are
provided by the General Fund or by the issuance of General Obligation bonds.
The Development EDA Fund accounts for transactions related to redevelopment efforts in the
City; financing is provided by investment income, grants, and developer reimbursements.
The Sidewalks and Trails Fund accounts for the City’s 10 year plan to add additional
sidewalks, trails, bike lane and bikeway throughout the community. Financing for this plan
will occur by issuing General Obligation bonds over several stages throughout the life of the
plan.
The Redevelopment District Fund accounts for transactions relative to acquisition and
development in the City’s tax increment redevelopment districts; financing is provided by the
sale of general obligation tax increment bonds along with tax increment property tax
payments.
The City reports the following major enterprise funds:
The Water Utility Fund accounts for the provisions of water services to residents of the City.
All activities necessary to provide such services are accounted for in this fund, including
administration, operations, maintenance, billing and collection.
The Sewer Utility Fund accounts for the provisions of sewer services to residents of the City.
All activities necessary to provide such services are accounted for in this fund, including
administration, operations, maintenance, billing and collection.
The Solid Waste Fund accounts for the revenue and expense related to collection, disposal,
and recycling of residential solid waste. Financing is provided by charging each property
owner a predetermined service fee.
The Storm Water Utility Fund accounts for the revenue and expenses related to providing
storm water to the residents of the City. All activities necessary to provide such services are
accounted for in this fund, including administration, operations, construction, maintenance,
billing and collection.
55
Special Study Session Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 1)
Title: 2014 Financial Statements – Auditors Discussion and Review Page 62
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
December 31, 2014
Additionally, the government reports the following fund types:
Internal Service Funds account for the financing of goods or services provided by one
department or agency to other departments or agencies of the City, or to other governments
on a cost reimbursement basis. The City’s internal service funds account for employee flex
spending, uninsured loss and capital replacement.
As a general rule the effect of interfund activity has been eliminated from the government-wide
financial statements. Exceptions to this general rule are transactions that would be treated as
revenues, expenditures or expenses if they involved external organizations, such as buying goods
and services or payments in lieu of taxes, are similarly treated when they involve other funds of
the City. Elimination of these charges would distort the direct costs and program revenues
reported for the various functions concerned.
Amounts reported as program revenues include 1) charges to customers or applicants for goods,
services, or privileges provided, 2) operating grants and contributions, and 3) capital grants and
contributions, including special assessments. Internally dedicated resources are reported as
general revenues rather than as program revenues. Likewise, general revenues include all taxes.
Proprietary funds distinguish operating revenues and expenses from nonoperating items.
Operating revenues and expenses generally result from providing services and producing and
delivering goods in connection with a proprietary fund’s principal ongoing operations. The
principal operating revenues of the water, wastewater, storm sewer and municipal liquor
enterprise funds are charges to customers for sales and services. Operating expenses for
enterprise funds include the cost of sales and services, administrative expenses, and depreciation
on capital assets. All revenues and expenses not meeting this definition are reported as
nonoperating revenues and expenses.
D. BUDGETARY INFORMATION
Budgets are legally adopted on a basis consistent with generally accepted accounting principles.
Annual appropriated budgets are legally adopted for the General Fund and the Parks and
Recreation special revenue fund. A budget is not presented for the Housing Rehabilitation Fund
since the City does not legally require to adopt a budget for the fund.
Budgeted amounts are reported as originally adopted, or as amended by the City Council.
Budgeted expenditure appropriations lapse at year end.
Encumbrance accounting, under which purchase orders, contracts, and other commitments for the
expenditure of monies are recorded in order to reserve that portion of the appropriation, is not
employed by the City because it is as present not considered necessary to assure effective
budgetary control or to facilitate effective cash management.
56
Special Study Session Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 1)
Title: 2014 Financial Statements – Auditors Discussion and Review Page 63
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
December 31, 2014
E. LEGAL COMPLIANCE - BUDGETS
The City follows these procedures in establishing the budgetary data reflected in the financial
statements:
1. The City Manager submits to the City Council a proposed operating budget for the fiscal
year commencing the following January 1. The operating budget includes proposed
expenditures and the means of financing them.
2. The City Council reviews the proposed budget and makes appropriate changes.
3. Public hearings are conducted to obtain taxpayer comments.
4. The budget is legally enacted through passage of a resolution on a
departmental/divisional basis and can be expended by each department based upon
detailed budget estimates for individual expenditure accounts in accordance with the
provisions of section 6.05 of the City Charter.
5. After the budget resolution is approved, the City Council can increase the budget only by
resolution if actual receipts exceed the estimated, or from accumulated fund balance in
the amount of unexpended appropriations from the previous fiscal year. During the year
2014, the budget was not amended.
6. Formal budgetary integration is employed as a management control device during the
year for the General Fund and Parks and Recreation special revenue fund.
7. Legal debt obligation indentures determine the appropriation level and debt service tax
levies for the Debt Service Funds. Supplementary budgets are adopted for the
Proprietary Funds to determine and calculate user charges. These debt service and
budget amounts represent general obligation bond indenture provisions and net income
for operation and capital maintenance and are not reflected in the financial statements.
8. A capital improvement program is reviewed annually by the City Council for the Capital
Project Funds. However, appropriations for major projects are not adopted until the
actual bid award of the improvement. The appropriations are not reflected in the
financial statements.
9. The legal level of budgetary control is at the fund level. Expenditures may not legally
exceed budgeted appropriations at the total fund level. The City Council must approve
all expenditures at fund level either by resolution or through the disbursement process.
10. Monitoring of budgets is maintained at the expenditure category level (i.e., personal
services, supplies, and other services and charges, and capital outlay) within each
program. Management can exceed appropriations at the department level without City
Council approval. Approval must be received for exceeding budgeted appropriations at
the fund level.
11. The City Council may authorize transfer of budgeted amounts between City funds.
57
Special Study Session Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 1)
Title: 2014 Financial Statements – Auditors Discussion and Review Page 64
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
December 31, 2014
F. CASH AND INVESTMENTS
Cash and investment balances from all funds are pooled and invested to the extent available in
authorized investments. Investment income is allocated to individual funds on the basis of
average monthly cash balances. The City’s investment policy dictates that the General fund is to
receive the first three percent of all interest earnings as an administrative fee. The administrative
fee does not apply to the Economic Development Authority.
Investments are stated at fair value, based upon quoted market prices, except for investments in
2a7-like external investment pools, which are stated at amortized cost. Investment income is
accrued at the balance sheet date.
For purposes of the statement of cash flows, the Proprietary Funds consider all highly liquid
investments with a maturity of three months or less when purchased to be cash equivalents. All of
the cash and investments allocated to the Proprietary Fund types have original maturities of 90
days or less. Therefore the entire balance in such fund types is considered cash equivalents.
It is the City’s policy to invest in a manner that seeks to ensure preservation of capital in the
overall portfolio. Safety of principal is the foremost objective, but liquidity and yield are also
important considerations. The objective will be to mitigate credit risk by purchasing only highly
rated securities with adequate collateral and interest rate risk by matching maturities to cash flow
needs and holding securities to maturity.
G. ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE
Property taxes and special assessment receivables have been reported net of estimated
uncollectible accounts (See Note 1 I and J). The City annually certifies delinquent water and
sewer accounts to the County for collection in the following year. Because utility bills are
considered liens on property, no estimated uncollectible amounts are established. Uncollectible
amounts are not material for other receivables and have not been reported.
H. INTERFUND RECEIVABLES AND PAYABLES
Activity between funds that are representative of lending/borrowing arrangements outstanding at
the end of the fiscal year are referred to as either “due to/from other funds” (i.e., the current
portion of interfund loans) or “interfund loan receivable/payable” (i.e., the noncurrent portion of
interfund loans). Any residual balances outstanding between the governmental activities and
business-type activities are reported in the government-wide financial statements as “internal
balances.”
Interfund loan receivables, as reported in the fund financial statements, are offset by nonspendable
fund balance in applicable governmental funds to indicate that they are not available for
appropriation and are not expendable available financial resources.
58
Special Study Session Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 1)
Title: 2014 Financial Statements – Auditors Discussion and Review Page 65
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
December 31, 2014
I. PROPERTY TAX REVENUE RECOGNITION
The City Council annually adopts a tax levy and certifies it to the County in December
(levy/assessment date) of each year for collection in the following year. The County is
responsible for billing and collecting all property taxes for itself, the City, the local School District
and other taxing authorities. Such taxes become a lien on January 1 and are recorded as
receivables by the City at that date. Real property taxes are payable (by property owners) on May
15 and October 15 of each calendar year. Personal property taxes are payable by taxpayers on
February 28 and June 30 of each year. These taxes are collected by the County and remitted to
the City on or before July 7 and December 2 of the same year. Delinquent collections for
November and December are received the following January. The City has no ability to enforce
payment of property taxes by property owners. The County possesses this authority.
The City recognizes property tax revenue when it becomes both measurable and available to
finance expenditures of the current period. In practice, current and delinquent taxes and State
credits received by the City in July, December and January are recognized as revenue for the
current year. Taxes collected by the County by December 31 (remitted to the City the following
January) and taxes and credits not received at year end are classified as delinquent and due from
County taxes receivable. The portion of delinquent taxes not collected by the City in January is
fully offset by deferred inflow of resources because they are not available to finance current
expenditures.
GOVERNMENT-WIDE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
The City recognizes property tax revenue in the period for which the taxes were levied.
Uncollectible property taxes are not material and have not been reported.
GOVERNMENTAL FUND FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
The City’s property tax revenue includes payment from the Metropolitan Revenue Distribution
(Fiscal Disparities Formula) per Minnesota Statute 473F. This statute provides a means of
spreading a portion of the taxable valuation of commercial/industrial real property to various
taxing authorities within the defined metropolitan area. The valuation “shared” is a portion of
commercial/industrial property valuation growth since 1971. Property taxes paid to the City
through this formula for 2014 and 2013 totaled $1,997,553 and $2,262,464, respectively. Receipt
of property taxes from this “fiscal disparities pool” does not increase or decrease total tax revenue.
J. SPECIAL ASSESSMENT REVENUE RECOGNITION
Special assessments are levied against benefited properties for the cost or a portion of the cost of
special assessment improvement projects in accordance with State Statutes. These assessments
are collectible by the City over a term of years usually consistent with the term of the related bond
issue. Collection of annual installments (including interest) is handled by the County Auditor in
the same manner as property taxes. Property owners are allowed to (and often do) prepay future
installments without interest or prepayment penalties.
59
Special Study Session Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 1)
Title: 2014 Financial Statements – Auditors Discussion and Review Page 66
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
December 31, 2014
Once a special assessment roll is adopted, the amount attributed to each parcel is a lien upon that
property until full payment is made or the amount is determined to be excessive by the City
Council or court action. If special assessments are allowed to go delinquent, the property is
subject to tax forfeit sale and the first proceeds of that sale (after costs, penalties and expenses of
sale) are remitted to the City in payment of delinquent special assessments. Pursuant to State
Statutes, a property shall be subject to a tax forfeit sale after three years unless it is homesteaded,
agricultural or seasonal recreational land in which event the property is subject to such sale after
five years.
GOVERNMENT-WIDE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
The City recognizes special assessment revenue in the period that the assessment roll was adopted
by the City Council. Uncollectible special assessments are not material and have not been
reported.
GOVERNMENTAL FUND FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
Revenue from special assessments is recognized by the City when it becomes measurable and
available to finance expenditures of the current fiscal period. In practice, current and delinquent
special assessments received by the City are recognized as revenue for the current year. Special
assessments that are collected by the County by December 31 (remitted to the City the following
January) and are also recognized as revenue for the current year. All remaining delinquent,
deferred and special deferred assessments receivable in governmental funding are completely
offset by deferred inflow of resources.
K. INVENTORIES
Inventory is valued at cost using the first-in, first out (FIFO) method. Inventory consists mainly
of expendable supplies held for consumption. Inventories of the governmental funds are recorded
as expenditures when consumed rather than when purchased.
L. PREPAID ITEMS
Certain payments to vendors reflect costs applicable to future accounting periods and are recorded
as prepaid items in both government-wide and fund financial statements. Prepaid items are
reported using the consumption method and recorded as expenditures/expenses at the time of
consumption.
60
Special Study Session Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 1)
Title: 2014 Financial Statements – Auditors Discussion and Review Page 67
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
December 31, 2014
M. CAPITAL ASSETS
Capital assets, which include property, plant, equipment, infrastructure assets (e.g., roads, bridges,
sidewalks, and similar items), and intangible assets such as easements and computer software, are
reported in the applicable governmental or business-type activities columns in the government-
wide financial statements. Capital assets are defined by the City as assets with an estimated useful
life in excess of three years and an initial individual cost of more than the following:
Land $1
Land improvements 5,000
Buildings and building improvements 5,000
Machinery and equipment 10,000
Office equipment 25,000
Vehicle or fleet 10,000
Infrastructure 250,000
Capitalization Threshold
Such assets are recorded at historical cost or estimated historical cost if purchased or constructed.
Donated capital assets are recorded at estimated fair market value at the date of donation. The
City uses the modified approach for reporting street and trail system capital assets.
The costs of normal maintenance and repairs that do not add to the value of the asset or materially
extend assets lives are not capitalized.
Major outlays for capital assets and improvements are capitalized as projects are constructed.
Interest incurred during the construction phase of capital assets of business-type activities is
included as part of the capitalized value of the assets constructed. For the year ended December
31, 2014, no interest was capitalized in connection with construction in progress.
Property, plant and equipment of the primary government, as well as the component units, is
depreciated using the straight line method over the following estimated useful lives:
Buildings and structures 5 – 30 years
Improvements other than buildings 5 – 30 years
Infrastructure 5 – 100 years
Machinery, furniture and equipment (including software) 3 – 30 years
Fleet 3 – 25 years
Temporary easements 3 – 5 years
Capital assets of the water utility and sewer utility operations include the water distribution system
and sewer collection system. These systems have been wholly (or substantially) financed by non-
operating funds (special assessments, general taxes, federal and state grants, and other sources)
and contribution to the Water and Sewer operating funds. City policy is to finance these assets by
the sources indicated rather than by user charges. Accordingly, the water and sewer user rates are
not established at levels sufficient to cover depreciation on these assets.
61
Special Study Session Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 1)
Title: 2014 Financial Statements – Auditors Discussion and Review Page 68
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
December 31, 2014
The City implemented GASB 51, Accounting and Financial Reporting for Intangible Assets
effective January 1, 2010, which required the City to capitalize and amortize intangible assets.
Pursuant to GASB Statement No. 51, the retroactive reporting of permanent easements is not
required and therefore, the City has elected not to report permanent easements acquired in years
prior to 2010. The City had already accounted for computer software at historical cost and
therefore retroactive reporting was not necessary.
The City elects to use the modified approach as defined by GASB Statement No. 34 for
infrastructure reporting of its streets. The City conducted a physical assessment in the Fall of
2012 of the condition of the streets. This condition assessment will be performed every 2 years.
Each segment of City owned street was assigned a physical condition based on potential defects.
A Overall Condition Index (OCI) was assigned to each segment. The index is expressed in a
continuous scale from 0 to 100, where 0 is assigned to the least acceptable physical condition and
100 is assigned to those segments that have the characteristic of a new street. The following
conditions were defined:
Range Description
86 - 100 Excellent
71 - 85 Very good
56 - 70 Good
41 - 55 Fair
26 - 40 Poor
11 - 25 Very poor
0 - 10 Failed
The City’s policy relative to maintaining the street and trail assets is to achieve an average rating
of “Good” for all segments. This acceptable rating allows minor cracking and patching of the
pavement along with minor roughness that could be noticeable to the users of the system.
N. COMPENSATED ABSENCES
It is the City's policy to permit employees to accumulate earned but unused vacation, sick pay and
flex leave benefits. No liability is recorded for unpaid accumulated sick leave, except for that
portion that is payable as severance. All liabilities for vacation leave, flex leave and severance,
both current and long-term, are recorded in the Employee Benefits Fund, an Internal Service Fund
for governmental funds, and in the individual enterprise funds when incurred. The personnel
ordinance limits the annual accumulation of benefits that can be accumulated from year-to-year.
A liability for these amounts is reported in governmental funds only if they have matured, for
example, as a result of employee resignations and retirements.
62
Special Study Session Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 1)
Title: 2014 Financial Statements – Auditors Discussion and Review Page 69
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
December 31, 2014
O. LONG-TERM OBLIGATIONS
In the government-wide financial statements and proprietary fund types in the fund financial
statements, long-term debt and other long-term obligations are reported as liabilities in the
applicable governmental activities, business-type activities, or proprietary fund type statement of
net position. Bond premiums and discounts are deferred and amortized over the life of the bonds
using the effective interest method.
In the fund financial statements, governmental fund types recognize bond premiums and discounts
during the current period. The face amount of debt issued is reported as other financing sources.
Premiums received on debt issuances are reported as other financing sources while discounts on
debt issuances are reported as other financing uses.
P. FUND BALANCE CLASSIFICATIONS
In the fund financial statements, governmental funds report fund balance in classifications that
disclose constraints for which amounts in those funds can be spent. These classifications are as
follows:
Nonspendable - consists of amounts that are not in spendable form, such as prepaid items.
Restricted - consists of amounts related to externally imposed constraints established by
creditors, grantors or contributors; or constraints imposed by state statutory provisions.
Committed - consists of internally imposed constraints. These constraints are established by
Resolution of the City Council.
Assigned - consists of internally imposed constraints. These constraints reflect the specific
purpose for which it is the City’s intended use. These constraints are established by the City
Council and/or management. Pursuant to City Council Resolution, the City’s Controller
and/or City Manager is authorized to establish assignments of fund balance.
Unassigned - is the residual classification for the general fund and also reflects negative
residual amounts in other funds.
When both restricted and unrestricted resources are available for use, it is the City’s policy to first
use restricted resources, then use unrestricted resources as they are needed.
When committed, assigned or unassigned resources are available for use, it is the City’s policy to
use resources in the following order; 1) committed 2) assigned and 3) unassigned.
63
Special Study Session Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 1)
Title: 2014 Financial Statements – Auditors Discussion and Review Page 70
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
December 31, 2014
Q. INTERFUND TRANSACTIONS
Interfund services provided and used are accounted for as revenues, expenditures or expenses.
Transactions that constitute reimbursements to a fund for expenditures/expenses initially made
from it that are properly applicable to another fund, are recorded as expenditures/expenses in the
reimbursing fund and as reductions of expenditures/expenses in the fund that is reimbursed.
Interfund loans are reported as an interfund loan receivable or payable which offsets the
movement of cash between funds. All other interfund transactions are reported as transfers.
R. COMPARATIVE TOTALS AND RECLASSIFICATIONS
The basic financial statements and schedules, required supplementary information, and combining
and individual fund financial statements include certain prior-year summarized comparative
information in total but not at the level of detail required for a presentation in conformity with
generally accepted accounting principles. Accordingly, such information should be read in
conjunction with the government’s financial statements for the year ended December 31, 2013,
from which the summarized information was derived. In addition, certain amounts in the prior
year have been reclassified to conform to the current year presentation.
S. NET POSITION
Net position represents the difference between assets and liabilities. Net position is displayed in
three components.
a) Net investment in capital assets – consists of capital assets, net of accumulated
depreciation reduced by any outstanding debt attributable to acquire capital assets.
b) Restricted net position – consist of net position restricted when there are limitations
imposed on their use through external restrictions imposed by creditors, grantors, laws or
regulations of other governments.
c) Unrestricted net position – all other net position that do not meet the definition of
“restricted” or “net investment in capital assets”.
T. USE OF ESTIMATES
The preparation of financial statements in accordance with generally accepted accounting
principles (GAAP) requires management to make estimates that affect amounts reported in the
financial statements during the reporting period. Actual results could differ from such estimates.
64
Special Study Session Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 1)
Title: 2014 Financial Statements – Auditors Discussion and Review Page 71
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
December 31, 2014
U. DEFERRED OUTFLOWS/INFLOWS OF RESOURCES
In addition to assets, the statement of financial position will sometimes report a separate section
for deferred outflows of resources. This separate financial statement element, deferred outflows of
resources, represents a consumption of net position that applies to a future period(s) and so will
not be recognized as an outflow of resources (expense/expenditure) until then. The government
has no items that qualify for reporting in this category.
In addition to liabilities, the statement of financial position will sometimes report a separate
section for deferred inflows of resources. This separate financial statement element, deferred
inflows of resources, represents an acquisition of net position that applies to a future period(s) and
so will not be recognized as an inflow of resources (revenue) until that time. The government has
one type of item, which arises only under a modified accrual basis of accounting, that qualifies for
reporting in this category. Accordingly, the item, unavailable revenue, is reported only in the
governmental fund balance sheet. The governmental funds report unavailable revenues from the
following sources: property taxes, special assessments, bond reimbursement payments not yet due
and other miscellaneaous unavailable revenue.
Note 2 DEPOSITS AND INVESTMENTS
A. DEPOSITS
In accordance with Minnesota Statutes, the City maintains deposits at those depository banks
authorized by the City Council, all of which are members of the Federal Reserve System.
Minnesota Statutes require that securities pledged as collateral be held in safekeeping by the City
Treasurer or in a financial institution other than that furnishing the collateral. Authorized
collateral includes the following:
1. United States government treasury bills, treasury notes, treasury bonds;
2. Issues of United States government agencies and instrumentalities as quoted by a recognized
industry quotation service available to the government entity;
3. General obligation securities of any state or local government with taxing powers which is
rated “A” or better by a national bond rating service, or revenue obligation securities of any
state or local government with taxing powers which is rated “AA” or better by a national
bond rating service;
4. General obligation securities of a local government with taxing powers may be pledged as
collateral against funds deposited by that same local government entity;
5. Irrevocable standby letters of credit issued by Federal Home Loan Banks to a municipality
accompanied by written evidence that the bank’s public debt is rated “AA” or better by
Moody’s Investors Service, Inc. or Standard & Poor’s Corporation; and
6. Time deposits that are fully insured by any federal agency.
65
Special Study Session Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 1)
Title: 2014 Financial Statements – Auditors Discussion and Review Page 72
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
December 31, 2014
Custodial Credit Risk - deposits – Custodial credit risk is the risk that in the event of a bank
failure, the City’s deposits may not be returned to it. Minnesota Statutes require that insurance,
surety bonds or collateral protect all City deposits. The market value of collateral pledged must
equal 110% of deposits not covered by insurance or bonds. The City has no additional deposit
policies addressing custodial credit risk. As of December 31, 2014, the bank balance of the City’s
deposits was $2,277,351, all of which was covered by federal depository insurance or by
collateral pledged and held in the City’s name.
B. INVESTMENTS
Minnesota Statutes authorize the City to invest in the following:
1. Direct obligations or obligations guaranteed by the United States or its agencies, its
instrumentalities, or organizations created by an act of congress, excluding mortgage-backed
securities defined as high risk.
2. Shares of investment companies registered under the Federal Investment Company Act of
1940 and whose only investments are in securities described in (a) above, general obligation
tax-exempt securities, or repurchase or reverse repurchase agreements.
3. State and local securities as follows:
a) any security which is a general obligation of any state or local government with taxing
powers which is rated “A” or better by a national bond rating service;
b) any security which is a revenue obligation of any state or local government with taxing
powers which is rated “AA” or better by a national bond rating service; and
c) a general obligation of the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency which is a moral
obligation of the State of Minnesota and is rated “A” or better by a national bond rating
agency.
4. Bankers acceptance of United States banks.
5. Commercial paper issued by United States corporations or their Canadian subsidiaries, of the
highest quality, and maturing in 270 days or less.
6. Repurchase or reverse repurchase agreements with banks that are members of the Federal
Reserve System with capitalization exceeding $10,000,000; a primary reporting dealer in U.S.
government securities to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York; certain Minnesota securities
broker-dealers; or, a bank qualified as a depositor.
7. General obligation temporary bonds of the same governmental entity issued under section
429.091, subdivision 7; 469.178, subdivision 5; or 475.61, subdivision 6.
66
Special Study Session Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 1)
Title: 2014 Financial Statements – Auditors Discussion and Review Page 73
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
December 31, 2014
At December 31, 2014, the City had the following investments and maturities:
Fair Less
Investment Type Rating Value Than 1 1-5 6-10 11-15
4M fund NR $3,707,882 $3,707,882 $ - $ - $ -
Money market mutual funds NR 32,429,585 32,429,585 - - -
Certificates of deposit NR 5,471,211 1,201,207 4,270,004 - -
Municipal bonds A - AAA 10,353,493 4,444,287 5,909,206 - -
Federal National Mortgage Assn. AAA 4,958,910 - 4,958,910 - -
Federal Home Loan Bank notes AAA 4,106,049 - 4,106,049 - -
Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp. notes AAA 998,960 - 998,960 - -
Total $62,026,090 $41,782,961 $20,243,129 $0 $0
Total investments $62,026,090
Deposits 1,262,183
Bond escrow 4,047,239
Petty cash 4,585
Total cash and investments $67,340,097
Investment Maturities (in Years)
C. INVESTMENT RISKS
Custodial credit risk – investments – For investments in securities, custodial credit risk is the risk
that in the event of failure of the counterparty to a transaction, the City will not be able to recover
the value of its investment securities that are in the possession of an outside party. Investments in
investment pools and money markets are not evidenced by securities that exist in physical or book
entry form, and therefore are not subject to custodial credit risk disclosures. The City’s
investment policy requires the City’s security broker/dealers to provide its audited financial
statements, proof of NASD certification, proof of state registration, and certification of having
read, understood and agreed to comply with the City’s investment policy. Investments in
securities are held by the City’s broker-dealer of which $500,000 is insured through SIPC. Each
broker-dealer has provided additional protection by providing additional insurance. This
insurance is subject to aggregate limits applied to all of the broker-dealers accounts.
Interest rate risk – Interest rate risk is the risk that changes in interest rates of debt investments
could adversely affect the fair value of an investment. The City’s investment policy states the
investment portfolio will remain sufficiently liquid to enable the City to meet all operating and
capital requirements that might be reasonably anticipated. The maximum maturity of investments
shall not extend beyond five years, unless related to specific cash flow needs.
Credit Risk – Credit risk is the risk that an issuer or other counterparty to an investment will be
unable to fulfill its obligation to the holder of the investment. State law limits investments to
commercial paper to those rated in the highest quality category by at least two nationally
recognized rating agencies; in any security of the State of Minnesota or any of its municipalities
which is rated “A” or better by a national bond rating service for general obligation and rated
“AA” or better for a revenue obligation; a general obligation of the Minnesota Housing Finance
Agency to those rated “A” or better by a national bond rating agency; mutual funds or money
market funds whose investments are restricted to securities described in MS 118A.04. The City’s
67
Special Study Session Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 1)
Title: 2014 Financial Statements – Auditors Discussion and Review Page 74
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
December 31, 2014
investment policy does not place further restrictions on investment options. The City’s external
investment pool investment is with the 4M fund which is regulated by Minnesota Statutes and the
Board of Directors of the League of Minnesota Cities. The 4M fund is an unrated 2a7-like pool
and the fair value of the position in the pool is the same as the value of pool shares.
Concentration of credit risk – Concentration of credit risk is the risk of loss that may be attributed
to the magnitude of a government’s investment in a single issuer. The City’s investment policy
states no more than 50% of its investment portfolio can be invested in municipal bonds or MHFA
securities. Investments in a single issuer exceeding 5% of the City’s overall cash and investment
portfolio are in various holdings as follows:
Federal National Mortgage Assn.7.36%
Federal Home Loan Bank 6.10%
Note 3 RECEIVABLES
A. LOANS RECEIVABLE
The City has made loans to local businesses and individuals that qualify for various loan
programs. The businesses and individuals pay varying installments on the loans. Depending on
the loan program, some of the loans are secured by an interest in the property.
Also, some of the loans are forgivable after 30 years if certain criteria are met. As of December
31, 2014, any forgiveness of loans would not occur for another 20 – 30 years. At this time,
information is not available to develop an estimate for any loans which may be forgiven.
Therefore, no allowance has been recorded. As loan maturity dates approach, the City will
evaluate whether an allowance for forgivable loans should be recorded in the financial statements.
As of December 31, 2014, the loans receivable balance was $7,651,567.
68
Special Study Session Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 1)
Title: 2014 Financial Statements – Auditors Discussion and Review Page 75
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
December 31, 2014
Significant receivable balances not expected to be collected within one year of December 31,
2014 are as follows:
Special Interfund
Loans Assessments Property Loans
Receivable Receivable Taxes Receivable Total
Major Funds:
General Fund $ - $ - $291,372 $ - $291,372
Housing Rehabilitation Fund 3,027,431 28,277 - - 3,055,708
Debt Service Fund 1,640,000 - - - 1,640,000
Permanent Improvement Revolving Fund - 8,733 - - 8,733
Development EDA Fund 1,412,310 157 - 10,533,799 11,946,266
Redevelopment District Fund 693,494 - 10,821 - 704,315
Water Utility Fund - 56,310 - - 56,310
Sewer Utility Fund - 632 - - 632
Solid Waste Fund - - - - -
Nonmajor Governmental Funds 426,165 5,958 - - 432,123
Total $7,199,400 $100,067 $302,193 $10,533,799 $18,135,459
Note 4 UNAVAILABLE REVENUE
Governmental funds report deferred inflows of resources in connection with receivables for revenues that
are not considered to be available to liquidate liabilities of the current period. At the end of the current
fiscal year, the various components of unavailable revenue reported in the governmental funds were as
follows:
Unavailable
Delinquent property taxes receivable (General Fund) $291,372
Delinquent property taxes receivable (Redevelopment District)10,821
Special assessments not yet due (Permanent Improvement Revolving)976,720
Special assessments not yet due (Housing Rehabilitation)7,216,435
Special assessments not yet due (Development EDA)328
Special assessments not yet due (Nonmajor Funds)200,101
Bond reimbursement payments not yet due (Debt Service Fund)1,675,000
Other miscellaneous (Redevelopment Districts)50,488
Other miscellaneous (General Fund)50,839
Other miscellaneous (Nonmajor Funds)21,512
Total unavailable revenue for governmental funds $10,493,616
69
Special Study Session Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 1)
Title: 2014 Financial Statements – Auditors Discussion and Review Page 76
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
December 31, 2014
Note 5 CAPITAL ASSETS
In accordance with GASB Statement No. 34, the City has reported all capital assets including infrastructure
in the government-wide statement of net assets. The City has elected to use the modified approach as
defined by GASB Statement No. 34 for reporting of street infrastructure. As a result, no accumulated
depreciation or depreciation expense has been recorded for street infrastructure. Additional information of
the modified approach is presented in the Required Supplementary Information section of this report. All
other capital assets including other infrastructure systems were reported using the basic approach whereby
accumulated depreciation and depreciation expense have been recorded. Modified approach adjustments
represent the changes due to implementation of the modified approach for infrastructure reporting. Capital
asset activity for the year ended December 31, 2014 is as follows:
Beginning Ending
Primary Government Balance Increases Decreases Balance
Governmental activities:
Capital assets, not being depreciated:
Land $15,018,865 $863,800 $ - $15,882,665
Infrastructure - streets 26,011,544 - - 26,011,544
Permanent easements 2,293,776 - 863,800 1,429,976
Construction in progress 991,275 1,994,305 824,762 2,160,818
Total capital assets, not being depreciated 44,315,460 2,858,105 1,688,562 45,485,003
Capital assets, being depreciated:
Buildings and structures 47,439,970 32,411 - 47,472,381
Improvements other than buildings 21,460,253 253,903 160,704 21,553,452
Infrastructure - other 31,129,983 - - 31,129,983
Machinery, furniture and equipment 7,840,974 866,597 55,214 8,652,357
Fleet 7,342,739 1,695,998 811,488 8,227,249
Total capital assets, being depreciated 115,213,919 2,848,909 1,027,406 117,035,422
Less accumulated depreciation for:
Buildings and structures 10,717,453 1,111,797 - 11,829,250
Improvements other than buildings 10,306,163 1,094,780 160,704 11,240,239
Infrastructure 14,061,878 1,146,538 - 15,208,416
Machinery, furniture and equipment 3,804,200 833,880 28,887 4,609,193
Fleet 4,102,576 799,903 793,361 4,109,118
Total accumulated depreciation 42,992,270 4,986,898 982,952 46,996,216
Total capital assets being depreciated - net 72,221,649 (2,137,989) 44,454 70,039,206
Governmental activities capital assets - net $116,537,109 $720,116 $1,733,016 $115,524,209
70
Special Study Session Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 1)
Title: 2014 Financial Statements – Auditors Discussion and Review Page 77
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
December 31, 2014
Beginning Ending
Primary Government Balance Increases Decreases Balance
Business-type activities:
Capital assets, not being depreciated:
Land $174,844 $ - $ - $174,844
Construction in progress 1,878 - - 1,878
Total capital assets, not being depreciated 176,722 0 0 176,722
Capital assets, being depreciated:
Buildings and structures 4,767,723 - - 4,767,723
Improvements other than buildings 7,093,645 - - 7,093,645
Infrastructure 49,905,861 24,659 - 49,930,520
Machinery, furniture and equipment 5,304,396 - - 5,304,396
Total capital assets, being depreciated 67,071,625 24,659 0 67,096,284
Less accumulated depreciation for:
Buildings and structures 3,578,420 127,779 - 3,706,199
Improvements other than buildings 2,384,347 289,280 - 2,673,627
Infrastructure 27,348,555 674,340 - 28,022,895
Machinery, furniture and equipment 1,989,694 335,706 - 2,325,400
Total accumulated depreciation 35,301,016 1,427,105 0 36,728,121
Total capital assets being depreciated - net 31,770,609 (1,402,446)0 30,368,163
Business-type activities capital assets - net $31,947,331 ($1,402,446)$0 $30,544,885
Depreciation expense was charged to functions/programs of the primary government as follows:
Governmental activities:
General government $181,422
Public safety 498,235
Engineering 9,210
Operations and recreation 2,391,928
Public information 38,813
Economic development 130,009
Internal service 1,737,281
Total depreciation expense - governmental activities $4,986,898
Business-type activities:
Water $728,504
Sewer 127,112
Storm water 571,489
Total depreciation expense - business-type activities $1,427,105
71
Special Study Session Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 1)
Title: 2014 Financial Statements – Auditors Discussion and Review Page 78
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
December 31, 2014
Note 6 CITY INDEBTEDNESS
The City issues general obligation bonds, to provide funds for the acquisition and construction of major
capital facilities. The reporting entity’s long-term debt is segregated between the amounts to be repaid
from governmental activities and amounts to be repaid from business-type activities. General obligation
bonds are direct obligations and pledge the full faith and credit of the City.
As of December 31, 2014, long-term debt of the City consisted of the following:
Final Authorized
Issue Maturity Interest And Outstanding
Date Date Rates Issued 12/31/14
Governmental Activities:
General Long-Term Debt:
General Improvement Bonds:
G.O. Improvement Bonds Series 2005A 5/25/2005 2/1/2016 3.50-3.75% $3,705,000 $895,000
G.O. Improvement Bonds Series 2010A 5/7/2010 2/1/2031 1.25-5.7% 3,105,000 2,770,000
G.O. Improvement Refunding Bonds Series 2010C 12/29/2010 2/1/2040 3.0-5.65% 1,770,000 1,675,000
G.O. Improvement Bonds Series 2010D (BABS) 12/29/2010 2/1/2032 1.25-5.15% 13,025,000 11,970,000
G.O. Improvement Bonds Series 2012A HIA 10/17/2012 2/1/2033 0.75 - 3.90% 1,290,000 1,245,000
G.O. Improvement Bonds Series 2014A 12/18/2014 2/1/2040 2.00% 5,070,000 5,070,000
Total General Improvement Bonds 27,965,000 23,625,000
Tax Increment Bonds:
Tax Increment Refunding Bonds Series 2008B 12/11/2008 2/1/2024 3.25-4.63% 5,490,000 4,530,000
Total Tax Increment Bonds 5,490,000 4,530,000
Capital lease payable 2/14/2014 1/14/2019 N/A 40,500 33,075
Compensated absences payable N/A N/A N/A N/A 3,702,453
Total governmental activities 33,495,500 31,890,528
Business-Type Activities:
General Obligation Revenue Bonds:
Utility Revenue Bonds Series 2007A 6/5/2007 8/1/2023 4.00% 3,665,000 2,365,000
Utility Revenue Bonds Series 2008A 12/11/2008 8/1/2020 3.25-4.25% 4,075,000 2,645,000
Utility Refunding Revenue Bonds Series 2010B 5/7/2010 2/1/2025 2.0-3.5% 4,090,000 2,590,000
Utility Crossover Refunding Bonds Series 2013A 7/1/2013 8/1/2023 1.0-1.9% 4,170,000 4,170,000
Utility Revenue Bonds Series 2014A 12/18/2014 2/1/2016 2.00% 4,930,000 4,930,000
Total General Obligation Revenue Bonds 20,930,000 16,700,000
Compensated absences payable N/A N/A N/A N/A 149,606
Total business-type activities 20,930,000 16,849,606
Total City $54,425,500 $48,740,134
72
Special Study Session Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 1)
Title: 2014 Financial Statements – Auditors Discussion and Review Page 79
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
December 31, 2014
GOVERNMENTAL ACTIVITIES
Annual debt service requirements to maturity for the governmental activities long-term debt are as follows:
Year Ending
December 31 Principal Interest Principal Interest
2015 $1,180,000 $862,127 $355,000 $185,800
2016 1,215,000 865,585 370,000 172,650
2017 1,230,000 831,099 395,000 157,813
2018 1,260,000 797,428 415,000 141,613
2019 1,280,000 760,590 435,000 124,613
2020 1,315,000 720,313 460,000 105,563
2021 1,355,000 676,981 485,000 84,300
2022 1,385,000 631,295 510,000 61,913
2023 1,420,000 583,127 535,000 38,400
2024 1,465,000 530,192 570,000 13,181
2025 1,510,000 472,626 - -
2026 1,555,000 412,875 - -
2027 1,045,000 356,131 - -
2028 1,075,000 302,564 - -
2029 1,120,000 246,608 - -
2030 1,165,000 187,819 - -
2031 1,210,000 126,481 - -
2032 1,015,000 69,578 - -
2033 160,000 40,290 - -
2034 80,000 34,505 - -
2035 85,000 30,070 - -
2036 90,000 25,323 - -
2037 95,000 20,258 - -
2038 100,000 14,870 - -
2039 105,000 9,155 - -
2040 110,000 3,108 - -
Total $23,625,000 $9,610,998 $4,530,000 $1,085,846
G.O. Tax Increment Bonds
Governmental ActivitiesGovernmental Activities
G.O. Improvement Bonds
It is not practicable to determine the specific year for payment of long-term accrued compensated absences.
73
Special Study Session Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 1)
Title: 2014 Financial Statements – Auditors Discussion and Review Page 80
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
December 31, 2014
BUSINESS-TYPE ACTIVITIES
Annual debt service requirements to maturity for the business-type long-term debt are as follows:
Year Ending
December 31 Principal Interest
2015 $3,190,000 $380,170
2016 2,995,000 385,874
2017 1,360,000 346,480
2018 1,385,000 298,868
2019 1,410,000 249,405
2020 1,440,000 195,368
2021 945,000 137,030
2022 970,000 105,691
2023 995,000 72,351
2024 725,000 37,540
2025 745,000 19,863
2026 540,000 5,400
Total $16,700,000 $2,234,040
G.O. Revenue Bonds
Governmental Activities
It is not practicable to determine the specific year for payment of long-term accrued compensated absences.
74
Special Study Session Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 1)
Title: 2014 Financial Statements – Auditors Discussion and Review Page 81
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
December 31, 2014
CHANGE IN LONG-TERM LIABILITIES
Long-term liability activity for the year ended December 31, 2014 was as follows:
Beginning Ending Due Within
Balance Additions Reductions Balance One Year
Governmental activities:
Bonds payable:
G.O. improvement bonds $20,185,000 $5,070,000 $1,630,000 $23,625,000 $1,180,000
G.O. tax increment bonds 4,870,000 - 340,000 4,530,000 355,000
Add:
Premiums on bonds 5,679 98,040 2,405 101,314 -
Discounts on bonds (134,063) - (7,540) (126,523) -
Total bonds payable 24,926,616 5,168,040 1,964,865 28,129,791 1,535,000
Capital lease payable - 40,500 7,425 33,075 8,100
Compensated absences 3,556,949 2,150,016 2,004,512 3,702,453 2,591,717
Total government activity
long-term debt $28,483,565 $7,358,556 $3,976,802 $31,865,319 $4,134,817
Business-type activities:
Bonds payable:
G.O. revenue bonds $12,785,000 $4,930,000 $1,015,000 $16,700,000 $3,190,000
Add:
Premiums on bonds 35,022 95,397 3,916 126,503 -
Total bonds payable 12,820,022 5,025,397 1,018,916 16,826,503 3,190,000
Compensated absences 146,549 109,854 106,797 149,606 104,719
Total business-type activity
long-term debt $12,966,571 $5,135,251 $1,125,713 $16,976,109 $3,294,719
For governmental activities, compensated absences are paid out of the Employee Administrative internal
service fund.
ADVANCE CROSSOVER REFUNDING
On July 10, 2013, the City issued $4,170,000 in General Obligation Refunding Bonds, Series 2013A with
an average interest rate of 1.373% to advance refund $2,145,000 of outstanding Series 2007A Bonds with
an average interest rate of 4.00% and $1,840,000 of outstanding Series 2008A Bonds with an average
interest rate of 4.12%. The net proceeds of $4,106,498 were used to purchase U.S. Government Securities.
Those securities were deposited in an irrevocable trust with an escrow agent to provide for the interest on
the refunding bonds before the crossover date and called principal on the refunded bonds on August 1,
2015 for Series 2007A Bonds and August 1, 2016 for the Series 2008A Bonds.
The City advance refunded the 2007A General Obligation Utility Revenue Bonds and 2008A General
Obligation Utility Revenue Bonds to reduce its total debt service payments from 2014 to 2023 by $234,091
and to obtain an economic gain (difference between the present value of the debt service payments on the
old and new debt) of $215,954.
The City is responsible for the debt service of the refunded bonds before the crossover date and the debt
service of the refunding bonds after the crossover date. The debt service of the refunding bonds before the
crossover date is payable from the escrow account. Assets held with the escrow agent total $4,047,239 at
December 31, 2014.
75
Special Study Session Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 1)
Title: 2014 Financial Statements – Auditors Discussion and Review Page 82
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
December 31, 2014
Refunded Bonds Refunded Bonds Refunding Bonds
Payment Date 2007A 2008A 2013A Escrow Account City
2015 $2,459,600 $499,613 $53,513 $2,198,513 $814,213
2016 - 2,340,788 363,513 1,893,513 810,788
2017 - - 790,412 - 790,412
2018 - - 793,012 - 793,012
2019 - - 795,513 - 795,513
2020 - - 801,012 - 801,012
2021 - - 284,775 - 284,775
2022 - - 290,455 - 290,455
2023 - - 290,415 - 290,415
$2,459,600 $2,840,401 $4,462,620 $4,092,026 $5,670,595
Debt Service Commitment
CAPITAL LEASE PAYABLE
In 2014, the City entered into a lease purchase agreement for a copier. The agreement calls for monthly
payments of $675 maturing on January 14, 2019.
Depreciation in the amount of $6,790 has been recorded as depreciation expense during 2014.
The net book value of assets under the capital lease at December 31, 2014 is as follows:
December 31, 2014
Equipment $40,500
Accumulated depreciation (6,790)
Net $33,710
The following is a schedule of future minimum lease payments under the capital lease:
Year Payment
2015 $8,100
2016 8,100
2017 8,100
2018 8,100
2019 675
Total $33,075
76
Special Study Session Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 1)
Title: 2014 Financial Statements – Auditors Discussion and Review Page 83
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
December 31, 2014
REVENUE PLEDGED
Future revenue pledged for the payment of long-term debt is as follows:
Percent of Debt service Remaining Principal Pledged
Use of total as a % of Term of Principal and Interest Revenue
Bond Issue Proceeds Type debt service net revenues Pledge and Interest paid received
2012A Taxable GO Housing Imp. Area Housing Improvement Area Fee 100% 47% 2012-2033 $1,663,735 $79,569 $167,656
2008B GO Tax Increment Street Improvements TIF 100% 100% 2009-2024 5,615,844 537,963 537,963
2007A GO Utility Revenue Utility Infrastructure Projects Utility charges 100% 100% 2008-2023 2,863,800 318,200 318,200
2008A GO Utility Revenue Utility Infrastructure Projects Utility charges 100% 100% 2009-2020 3,035,063 497,913 497,913
2010A Taxable GO Housing Imp. Area Housing Improvement Area Fee 100% 99% 2011-2031 4,158,123 249,608 251,854
2010B GO Utility Infrastructure Projects Utility charges/Special Assessments 100% 100% 2011-2025 2,973,779 979,668 979,668
2010C GO Refunding - Louisiana Crt Louisiana Court Project Operating revenues of La Court 100% 101% 2011-2040 3,035,073 117,680 116,513
2013A GO Crossover Refunding Utility Infrastructure Projects Utility charges 100% 100% 2013-2023 4,462,620 56,634 56,634
2014A GO Utility Revenue Utility Infrastructure Projects Utility charges 100% 0% 2015-2026 5,598,749 - -
Revenue Pledged Current Year
Note 7 DEFINED BENEFIT PENSION PLANS - STATEWIDE
A. PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT ASSOCIATION (PERA)
PLAN DESCRIPTION
All full-time and certain part-time employees of the City are covered by defined benefit plans
administered by the Public Employees Retirement Association of Minnesota (PERA). PERA
administers the General Employees Retirement Fund (GERF) and the Public Employees Police and Fire
Fund (PEPFF) which are cost-sharing, multiple-employer retirement plans. These plans are established
and administered in accordance with Minnesota Statute, Chapters 353 and 356.
GERF members belong to either the Coordinated Plan or the Basic Plan. Coordinated Plan members are
covered by Social Security and Basic Plan members are not. All new members must participate in the
Coordinated Plan. All police officers, firefighters and peace officers who qualify for membership by
statute are covered by the PEPFF.
PERA provides retirement benefits as well as disability benefits to members, and benefits to survivors
upon death of eligible members. Benefits are established by State Statute, and vest after five years of
credited service. The defined retirement benefits are based on a member’s highest average salary for any
five successive years of allowable service, age, and years of credit at termination of service.
77
Special Study Session Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 1)
Title: 2014 Financial Statements – Auditors Discussion and Review Page 84
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
December 31, 2014
PERA issues a publicly available financial report that includes financial statements and required
supplementary information for GERF and PEPFF. That report may be obtained on the internet at
www.mnpera.org, by writing to PERA, 60 Empire Drive #200, St. Paul, Minnesota, 55103-2088 or by
calling (651)296-7460 or 1-800-652-9026.
FUNDING POLICY
Minnesota Statutes Chapter 353 sets the rates for employer and employee contributions. These
statutes are established and amended by the state legislature. The City makes annual contributions
to the pension plans equal to the amount required by state statutes. GERF Basic Plan members
and Coordinated Plan members were required to contribute 9.10% and 6.25%, respectively, of
their annual covered salary in 2014. PEPFF members were required to contribute 10.2% of their
annual covered salary in 2014. The City was required to contribute the following percentages of
annual covered payroll in 2014: 11.78% for Basic Plan GERF members, 7.25% for Coordinated
Plan GERF members, and 15.3% for PEPFF members. The City’s contributions to the Public
Employees Retirement Fund for the years ending December 31, 2014, 2013 and 2012 were
$956,323, $908,820, and $885,317, respectively. The City’s contributions to the Public
Employees Police and Fire Fund for the years ending December 31, 2014, 2013 and 2012 were
$990,260, $893,398, and $888,599, respectively. The City’s contributions were equal to the
contractually required contributions for each year as set by state statute. Contribution rates will
increase on January 1, 2015 in the Coordinated Plan (6.5% for members and 7.5% for employers)
and in the Police and Fire Fund (10.8% for members and 16.2% for employers).
Note 8 OTHER POST-EMPLOYMENT BENEFITS
In 2008, the City prospectively implemented the requirement of a new accounting pronouncement, GASB
Statement No. 45, Accounting and Financial Reporting by Employers for Postemployment Benefits Other
than Pensions.
A. PLAN DESCRIPTION
In addition to providing the pension benefits described in Note 6, the City provides post-
employment health care benefits (as defined in paragraph B) for retired employees through a
single-employer defined benefit plan. The City’s OPEB plan is administered by the City. The
authority to provide these benefits is established in Minnesota Statutes Sections 471.61 Subd. 2a,
and 299A.465. The benefits, benefit levels, employee contributions and employer contributions
are governed by the City and can be amended by the City through its personnel manual and
collective bargaining agreements with employee groups. The Plan is not accounted for as a trust
fund, as an irrevocable trust has not been established to account for the Plan. The Plan does not
issue a separate report.
78
Special Study Session Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 1)
Title: 2014 Financial Statements – Auditors Discussion and Review Page 85
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
December 31, 2014
B. BENEFITS PROVIDED
Retirees
The City is required by State Statute to allow retirees to continue participation in the City’s group
health insurance plan if the individual terminates service with the City through service retirement
or disability retirement. Police officers, firefighters, sergeants, and dispatchers age 50 and over
with 3 years of service, or age 65 with 1 year of service may continue medical and dental
coverage at their own expense. Non-union and 49ers union employees age 55 with 3 years of
service, age 65 with 1 year of service, any age with 30 years of service, or those whose age plus
service is at least 90 may continue medical and dental coverage at their own expense. Employees
may obtain dependent coverage at retirement only if the employee was receiving dependent
coverage immediately prior to retirement. The surviving spouse of an active employee may
continue coverage in the group health insurance plan after the employee’s death.
All health care coverage is provided through the City’s group health insurance plans. The retiree
is required to pay 100% of their premium cost for the City-sponsored group health insurance plan
in which they participate. The premium is a blended rate determined on the entire active and
retiree population. Since the projected claims costs for retirees exceed the blended premium paid
by retirees, the retirees are receiving an implicit rate subsidy (benefit). The coverage levels are
the same as those afforded to active employees. Upon a retiree reaching age 65, Medicare
becomes the primary insurer and the City’s plan becomes secondary.
C. PARTICIPANTS
As of the actuarial valuation dated January 1, 2013, participants consisted of:
Retirees and beneficiaries currently
purchasing health insurance through the City 24
Active employees 236
Total 260
Participating employers 1
D. FUNDING POLICY
The additional cost of using a blended rate for actives and retirees is currently funded on a pay-as-
you-go basis. Contribution requirements are negotiated between the City and union
representatives and established by Council for nonunion groups.
79
Special Study Session Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 1)
Title: 2014 Financial Statements – Auditors Discussion and Review Page 86
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
December 31, 2014
E. ANNUAL OPEB COSTS AND NET OPEB OBLIGATION
The City’s annual other post employment benefit (OPEB) cost is calculated based on the annual
required contribution (ARC) of the employer, an amount actuarially determined in accordance
with the parameters of GASB Statement No. 45. The ARC represents a level of funding that, if
paid on an ongoing basis, is projected to cover normal cost each year and amortize any unfunded
actuarial liabilities (or funding excess) over a period not to exceed 30 years. The net OPEB
obligation as of December 31, 2014, was calculated as follows:
Annual required contribution (ARC)$617,946
Interest on net OPEB obligation 77,796
Adjustment to ARC (112,474)
Annual OPEB cost 583,268
Contributions made during the year (253,808)
Increase (decrease) in net OPEB obligation 329,460
Net OPEB obligation - beginning of year 1,944,907
Net OPEB obligation - end of year $2,274,367
For governmental activities, the net OPEB obligation has been and is anticipated to be liquidated
by the Employee Administrative internal service fund.
The City’s annual OPEB cost, the percentage of annual OPEB cost contributed to the plan and the
net OPEB obligation for the previous three years was as follows:
Percentage of
Fiscal Year Annual OPEB Employer Annual OPEB Cost Net OPEB
Ended Cost Contributions Contributed Obligation
December 31, 2012 $377,765 $105,185 27.8% $1,604,719
December 31, 2013 573,578 233,390 40.7% 1,944,907
December 31, 2014 583,268 253,808 43.5%2,274,367
80
Special Study Session Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 1)
Title: 2014 Financial Statements – Auditors Discussion and Review Page 87
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
December 31, 2014
F. FUNDED STATUS AND FUNDING PROGRESS
The City currently has no assets that have been irrevocably deposited in a trust for future health
benefits, therefore, the actuarial value of assets is zero. The funded status of the plan was as
follows:
Unfunded
Actuarial Actuarial UAAL as a
Actuarial Actuarial Accrued Accrued Funded Covered Percentage of
Valuation Value of Assets Liability (AAL)*Liability (UAAL) Ratio Payroll Covered Payroll
Date (a) (b) (b-a) (a/b) (c) ( (b-a) / c)
January 1, 2013 $0 $5,140,716 $5,140,716 0.0% $17,338,372 29.6%
*Using the Projected Unit Credit cost method.
G. ACTUARIAL METHODS AND ASSUMPTIONS
Actuarial valuations of an ongoing plan involve estimates of the value of reported amounts and
assumptions about the probability of occurrence of events far into the future. Examples include
assumptions about future employment, mortality and the health care cost trend. Amounts
determined regarding the funded status of the plan and the annual required contributions (ARC) of
the employer are subject to continual revision as actual results are compared with past
expectations and new estimates are made about the future. The schedule of funding progress,
presented as required supplementary information following the notes to financial statements,
presents multi-year trend information that shows whether the actuarial value of plan assets is
increasing or decreasing over time relative to the actuarial accrued liabilities for benefits.
Projections of benefits for financial reporting purposes are based on the substantive plan (the plan
as understood by the employer and plan members) and include the types of benefits provided at
the time of each valuation and the historical pattern of sharing of benefit costs between the
employer and plan members to that point. The actuarial methods and assumptions used include
techniques that are designed to reduce the effect of short-term volatility in actuarial accrued
liabilities and the actuarial value of assets, consistent with the long-term perspective of the
calculations.
In the January 1, 2013 actuarial valuation, the Projected Unit Credit cost method was used. The
actuarial assumptions included a 4.0% investment rate of return (net of administrative expenses)
and an initial annual health care cost trend rate of 8% reduced by .5% each year to arrive at an
ultimate health care cost trend rate of 5.0%, which includes a 3% inflation assumption.
The actuarial value of assets was $0. The plan’s unfunded actuarial accrued liability is being
amortized using the level dollar over 30 years on an open basis. The remaining amortization
period at December 31, 2014 was 30 years.
81
Special Study Session Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 1)
Title: 2014 Financial Statements – Auditors Discussion and Review Page 88
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
December 31, 2014
Note 9 INTERFUND RECEIVABLES, PAYABLES AND TRANSFERS
The City has established interfund loans to finance infrastructure improvements, project reimbursements,
housing rehabilitation loans and to provide initial financing for TIF districts. A summary at December 31,
2014 is as follows:
Interfund Interfund
Loan Loan
Receivable Payable
Major Funds:
Housing Rehabilitation $ - $2,524,339
Development EDA 10,533,799 -
Redevelopment District - 8,009,460
Total $10,533,799 $10,533,799
The City provides temporary advances to funds that have insufficient cash balances by means of an
advance from another fund shown as due from other funds in the advancing fund, and a due to other fund
in the fund with the deficit, until adequate resources are received. Amounts reported as due to/from other
funds at December 31, 2014 are as follows:
Due From Due To
Other Funds Other Funds
Major Funds:
PIR $44,004 $ -
Other:
Community development - 44,004
Total $44,004 $44,004
82
Special Study Session Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 1)
Title: 2014 Financial Statements – Auditors Discussion and Review Page 89
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
December 31, 2014
Interfund transfers at December 31, 2014 are as follows:
Transfers Transfers
Notes #'s In Out Notes #'s
General Fund (3) (5) $1,827,564 $1,057,425 (1) (7)
Housing Rehabilitation Fund (1) (8) 337,039 338,361 (3) (4)
Debt Service Fund (4) (6) (8) 1,327,137 227,039 (4) (6)
PIR Fund (4) - 863,146 (1) (2) (5)
Sidewalk and Trails - 1,462,778
Streets Capital Projects Fund (2) (5) 15,695,587 -
EDA Fund - 228,597 (2) (4) (10)
Redevelopment Districts Fund (9) (10) 47,356 8,610,440 (1) (2) (4) (9)
Nonmajor Governmental Fund (2) 82,446 2,453,219 (2) (3) (7)
Water Fund - 2,856,820 (2) (3) (7)
Sewer Fund - 1,904,495 (2) (3) (7)
Solid Waste Fund - 207,947 (3) (7)
Storm Water Fund - 1,025,833 (2) (3) (7)
Internal Service Fund (1) (7) 1,918,971 -
$21,236,100 $21,236,100
(1) To achieve fund balance policy and long term sustainability.
(2) Funding for capital improvements projects
(3) For administrative and overhead costs of the General Fund.
(4) Funding for debt service payments.
(5) Transfer for special assessments.
(6) Louisiana Court interest on reserve to debt service.
(7) Funding for technology replacement.
(8) Close out general obligation debt service funds.
(9) Reallocate portion of construction assist program (CAP) loan
(10) Transfer admin costs
Interfund transfers allow the City to allocate financial resources to the funds that receive benefit from
services provided by another fund or to establish or close funds. All of the City’s interfund transfers fall
under these categories and are considered routine and consistent with previous practices.
83
Special Study Session Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 1)
Title: 2014 Financial Statements – Auditors Discussion and Review Page 90
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
December 31, 2014
Note 10 FUND BALANCE/NET POSITION
A. CLASSIFICATIONS
At December 31, 2014, a summary of the governmental fund balance classifications are as
follows:
Major Funds:
General Fund:
Nonspendable - prepaid items $48,522
Nonspendable - inventory 349,351
Restricted for E-911 purposes 492,223
Assigned for Inspections 550,000
Assigned for DWI enforcement 146,293
Housing Rehabilitation:
Nonspendable - long-term loans receivable 3,027,431
Debt Service Funds:
Restricted for debt service 1,882,726
Permanent Improvement Revolving:
Assigned for capital improvements 2,612,122
Development EDA:
Nonspendable - long-term loans receivable 1,412,310
Nonspendable - land held for resale 2,256,216
Assigned for redevelopment efforts 20,252,412
Sidewalks and trails:
Assigned for sidewalks, trails and bikeway 2,967,207
Streets Capital Projects
Assigned for street construction projects 3,706,311
Redevelopment District:
Restricted for tax increment purposes 3,528,387
Other Governmental Funds:
Nonspendable - long-term loans receivable 426,165
Restricted for cable tv equipment purchases 618,334
Restricted for police and fire purchases 3,180,914
Committed for cable tv programming 483,590
Assigned for cable tv programming 506,076
Assigned for special service districts 317,566
Assigned for development of parks 3,584,546
Assigned for street rehabilitation 1,086,362
All Governmental Funds:
Unassigned 5,756,971
Total fund balance $59,192,035
84
Special Study Session Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 1)
Title: 2014 Financial Statements – Auditors Discussion and Review Page 91
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
December 31, 2014
At December 31, 2014, the City reported $10,971,995 of restricted net position on the Statement of Net
Position as follows:
Restricted for:
Tax increment $3,528,387
E-911 purposes 492,223
Debt service 3,152,137
Cable TV equipment 618,334
Police and fire purposes 3,180,914
Total $10,971,995
B. MINIMUM FUND BALANCE POLICY
The City Council has formally adopted a fund balance policy for the General Fund.
The policy establishes a year-end target of unassigned fund balance amount for cash flow timing
needs in the range of 35-50% of the subsequent years budget expenditures. At December 31,
2014, the unassigned fund balance for the General Fund was 45% of the subsequent year’s
budgeted expenditures.
Note 11 DEFICIT FUND BALANCE/NET POSITION
At December 31, 2014, individual funds with deficit fund balance/net position are as follows:
Amount Future Financing Source
Redevelopment District:
Eliot Park TIF District $12,743 Future tax increment
Ellipse TIF District 55,987 Future tax increment
HRA Levy 4,449,644 General property tax levy
Edgewood TIF District 579 Future tax increment
Elmwood Village 2,225,970 Future tax increment
Hard Coat TIF District 136,190 Future tax increment
Internal Service Funds:
Employee Administrative 4,905,713 Future transfers
Total $11,786,826
85
Special Study Session Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 1)
Title: 2014 Financial Statements – Auditors Discussion and Review Page 92
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
December 31, 2014
Note 12 COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES
A. RISK MANAGEMENT
The City is exposed to various risks of loss related to torts; theft of, damage to, and destruction of
assets; errors and omissions; injuries to employees; and natural disasters. The City continues to
carry commercial insurance for risks of loss, including workers compensation, property and
general liability and employee health and accident insurance. There were no significant
reductions in insurance from the previous year or settlements in excess of insurance coverage for
any of the past three fiscal years.
PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE
Property and casualty insurance coverage is provided through the League of Minnesota Cities
Insurance Trust (LMCIT), a public entity risk pool currently operating as a common risk
management and insurance program for Minnesota cities: general liability, excess liability
property, automobile, marine, crime, employee dishonesty, boiler and open meeting law.
The City pays an annual premium to the LMCIT for its insurance coverage. The LMCIT is self-
sustaining through member premiums and reinsures through commercial companies for claims in
excess of various amounts. The City retains risk for the deductible portions of the insurance
policies. The deductible amounts are $50,000 for each occurrence and a $150,000 annual
aggregate.
Current State Statute (Minnesota Statute subd. 466.04) provides limits of liability for the City.
These limits are that the combination of defense expense and indemnification expense shall not
exceed $500,000 in the case of one claimant or $1,500,000 for any number of claims arising out
of a single occurrence.
WORKERS COMPENSATION INSURANCE
Up until December 1, 2003, the City was self-insured on workers compensation coverage up to
maximum claim losses of $280,000. Individual claim amounts in excess of $280,000 are covered
by the State of Minnesota’s Workers Compensation Reinsurance Association (WCRA) as required
by law. The City carried an excess employer’s liability indemnity policy as well as an employer’s
liability policy which limited the City’s exposure. The maximum retention for each accident was
$626,861 under the excess liability policy and $750,000 under the employer’s liability policy.
After December 1, 2003, the City is insured through the LMCIT for workers compensation.
The City established the Uninsured Loss Fund to account for and finance its uninsured risk of loss
related to injuries to employees. Under this program, the Uninsured Loss Fund provides coverage
for maximum individual claims losses of $280,000 or $626,861 per accident. Premiums are paid
into the Internal Service Fund by all other funds and are available to pay claims, claim reserves
and administrative costs of the program. At December 31, 2014, the estimated liability for unpaid
claims was immaterial and therefore, has not been recorded in the financial statements.
86
Special Study Session Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 1)
Title: 2014 Financial Statements – Auditors Discussion and Review Page 93
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
December 31, 2014
B. LITIGATION
The City attorney has indicated that existing and pending lawsuits, claims and other actions in
which the City is a defendant are either covered by insurance; of an immaterial amount; or, in the
judgment of the City attorney, remotely recoverable by plaintiffs.
C. FEDERAL AND STATE FUNDS
The City receives financial assistance from federal and state governmental agencies in the form of
grants. The disbursement of funds received under these programs generally requires compliance
with the terms and conditions specified in the grant agreements and is subject to audit by the
grantor agencies. Any disallowed claims resulting from such audits could become a liability of
the applicable fund. However, in the opinion of management, any such disallowed claims will not
have a material effect on any of the financial statements of the individual fund types included
herein or on the overall financial position of the City at December 31, 2014.
D. TAX INCREMENT DISTRICTS
The City’s tax increment districts are subject to review by the State of Minnesota Office of the
State Auditor (OSA). Any disallowed claims or misuse of tax increments could become a liability
of the applicable fund. Management has indicated that they are not aware of any instances of
noncompliance which would have a material effect on the financial statements.
The City has issued several tax increment pay-as-you-go revenue notes. These notes are not a
general obligation of the City and are payable solely from tax increments. Accordingly, these
notes are not reflected in the financial statements of the City. Details of the pay-as-you-go
revenue notes are as follows:
Hoigaard Village - Tax Exempt Tax Increment Financing Revenue Bonds, Series 2010A – issued
in 2010, with a principal sum of $3,495,000, and an interest rate ranging from 1.50% - 5.00% per
annum. Semi-annual principal and interest payments shall be paid commencing February 1, 2011
and continuing through February 1, 2023. Payments are payable solely from available tax
increment, and the City shall have no obligation to pay any unpaid balance that may remain after
the final payment on February 1, 2023. At December 31, 2014 the principal amount outstanding
on the bonds was $2,610,000.
Hoigaard Village - Tax Increment Financing Revenue Note, Series 2010B – issued in 2010, with a
principal sum of $935,000, and an interest rate ranging from 1.50 – 5.00% per annum. Semi-
annual principal and interest payments shall be paid commencing February 1, 2011 and
continuing through February 1, 2023. Payments are payable solely from available tax increment,
and the City shall have no obligation to pay any unpaid balance that may remain after the final
payment on February 1, 2023. At December 31, 2014 the principal amount outstanding on the
note was $691,572.
87
Special Study Session Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 1)
Title: 2014 Financial Statements – Auditors Discussion and Review Page 94
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
December 31, 2014
E. LOUISIANA COURT PROJECT
The City of St. Louis Park has entered into an agreement with Project for Pride in Living
Louisiana Court Limited Partnership to issue $4,505,000 in General Obligation Bonds – Series
2000A for the purpose of acquiring and renovating certain rental housing facilities within the City
of St. Louis Park intended primarily for low and moderate income persons and their families.
During 2010, the 2000A bonds were refunded by the $1,770,000 General Obligation Refunding
Bonds, Series 2010C. The City of St. Louis Park will receive monthly principal and interest
payments from Project for Pride in Living Louisiana Court Limited Partnership to cover all debt
service obligations of the City of St. Louis Park on a semi-annual basis. In the event that the City
of St. Louis Park does not receive payment from Project for Pride in Living, the City of St. Louis
Park is still under obligation to make all debt service payments. At such time, the City of St.
Louis Park would pursue collection of above referenced principal and interest payments per the
agreement dated May 1, 2000. As of December 31, 2014, the outstanding amount on the bonds is
$1,675,000.
F. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
The Economic Development Authority (EDA) entered into a development agreement in 1993 with
Park Nicollet for the redevelopment of a former landfill site on Excelsior Boulevard and within
the Excelsior Boulevard tax increment district. A Hazardous Substance Tax Increment financing
subdistrict (HSTI) was also established at this time to pay the costs associated with the
environmental remediation. The development agreement between the EDA and Park Nicollet
established a payment schedule for the EDA to reimburse Park Nicollet from the HSTI tax
increment for the costs of the remediation.
Based upon an initial estimate of $11,050,000 in remediation costs over 30 years, the development
agreement established a cap to the EDA’s share of these costs at $9,000,000. Park Nicollet is
responsible for $2,050,000 and any costs exceeding the total estimate of $11,050,000.
Reimbursements to Park Nicollet are limited to the increment revenue from the HSTI.
The costs associated with remediation are approximately $6,225,000. With Park Nicollet
responsible for the first $1,250,000, the EDA’s liability is estimated to be $4,975,000. The
development agreement stipulates EDA reimbursements to begin in 1998 and continue through
2022. The obligation was paid off in 2012 and the District was decertified in 2013.
88
Special Study Session Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 1)
Title: 2014 Financial Statements – Auditors Discussion and Review Page 95
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
December 31, 2014
G. CONSTRUCTION COMMITMENTS
The City has active construction projects as of December 31, 2014. The projects include street
construction in areas with newly developed housing, widening and construction of existing streets
and bridges, and the construction of additional storm sewer and utility improvements. At year end
the City’s commitments with contractors are as follows:
Remaining
Project Commitment
2010 LED Countdown Pedestrian Indicators $16,287
2013 Local Street Rehab (contract 35-13)139,035
2014 Local Street Rehab - Area #2 376,807
2014 Random Concrete repairs 132,092
37th St Bridge (contract 87-13)53,235
Assessment of storm water basins 11,536
Assist City with CD-RAP 73,440
Commercial Meter Replacement 95,198
Fern Hill Park Paving 10,400
Fire Station #1 11,600
Fire Station Construction 101,587
Fire Station Construction 101,587
Flood Area #25 (27th & Jersey)47,814
France Avenue Sidewalk Improvements 14,505
Glenhurst Lift Station 14,211
Hwy 7 & Louisiana Interchange (final design)16,481
Hwy 7 & Louisiana Interchange (Phase I/II)10,127
Hwy 7 at Louisiana (contract 65-13)115,510
Hwy 7 at Louisiana construction support (contract 55-13) 81,802
Hwy 7/Wooddale Interchange 10,596
Hydrant flow testing 27,044
Lift Station No. 1 18,993
Louisiana Ave Bridge (contract 87-13)55,657
MSA Street Improvement 87,063
Northside Park 11,570
Rehab EWT #3 (contract 48-13)24,989
Street Improvement for Excelsior Blvd 12,134
SW Regional Trail at Beltline Blvd 12,537
Well Redevelopment (City Cont #121-11)25,403
Total commitments $1,709,240
89
Special Study Session Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 1)
Title: 2014 Financial Statements – Auditors Discussion and Review Page 96
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
December 31, 2014
Note 13 CONDUIT DEBT OBLIGATIONS
From time to time, the City has issued industrial, hospital or housing revenue bonds to provide financial
assistance to private-sector entities for the acquisition and construction of industrial, commercial or
housing facilities deemed to be in the public interest. The bonds are secured by the property financed and
are payable solely from payments received on the underlying mortgage loans. Upon repayment of the
bonds, ownership of the acquired facilities transfers to the private-sector entity served by the bond
issuance. Neither the City, the State, nor any political subdivision thereof is obligated in any manner for
repayment of the bonds. Accordingly, the bonds are not reported as liabilities in the accompanying
financial statements. As of December 31, 2014, there were 13 revenue bonds issued. The aggregate
principal amount payable as of December 31, 2014 is $433,855,299.
Note 14 RECENTLY ISSUED ACCOUNTING STANDARDS
The Governmental Accounting Standards Boards (GASB) recently approved the following statements
which were not implemented for these financial statements:
Statement No. 68 Accounting and Financial Reporting for Pensions – an amendment of GASB
Statement 27. The provisions of this Statement are effective for financial statements for periods
beginning after June 15, 2014. Statement No. 68 requires governments providing defined benefit
pensions to recognize their long-term obligation for pension benefits as a liability for the first time.
Statement No. 71 Pension Transition for Contributions Made Subsequent to the Measurement Date –
an amendment of GASB Statement No. 68. The provisions of this Statement should be applied
simultaneously with the provisions of Statement 68.
Statement No. 72 Fair Value Measurement and Application. The provisions of this Statement are
effective for financial statements for periods beginning after June 15, 2015.
The effect these standards may have on future financial statements is not determinable at this time, but it is
expected that Statements No. 68 and No. 71 will have a material impact.
90
Special Study Session Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 1)
Title: 2014 Financial Statements – Auditors Discussion and Review Page 97
REQUIRED SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
91
Special Study Session Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 1)
Title: 2014 Financial Statements – Auditors Discussion and Review Page 98
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
REQUIRED SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION Statement 9
BUDGETARY COMPARISON SCHEDULE - GENERAL FUND Page 1 of 4
For The Year Ended December 31, 2014
With Comparative Actual Amounts For The Year Ended December 31, 2013
Budgeted Amounts
Original Final
Revenues:
Property taxes $21,157,724 $21,157,724 $21,176,543 $18,819 $21,987,968
Licenses and permits:
Business regulatory licenses 523,618 523,618 617,861 94,243 530,422
Non-business licenses and permits 2,167,900 2,167,900 2,795,822 627,922 2,538,668
Total licenses and permits 2,691,518 2,691,518 3,413,683 722,165 3,069,090
Intergovernmental:
Federal 11,500 11,500 50,575 39,075 466,643
State shared taxes:
Highway user tax 500,000 500,000 549,515 49,515 475,217
Market value homestead credit - - - - 59
Insurance premium tax 545,000 545,000 604,526 59,526 580,168
State of Minnesota:
Other 69,170 69,170 75,527 6,357 349,929
PERA 45,205 45,205 45,205 - 45,205
Police training reimbursement 20,000 20,000 15,125 (4,875) 16,746
School district 56,702 56,702 57,375 673 62,050
Other local governments 35,200 35,200 1,624 (33,576) 32,581
Total intergovernmental 1,282,777 1,282,777 1,399,472 116,695 2,028,598
Charges for services:
General government 696,268 696,268 721,268 25,000 673,588
Public safety 100,050 100,050 128,477 28,427 88,664
Public works - signals/lighting - - - - 50
Culture and red 1,066,900 1,066,900 1,027,284 (39,616) 1,021,682
Rent of City property 1,057,469 1,057,469 1,112,939 55,470 997,696
Total charges for services 2,920,687 2,920,687 2,989,968 69,281 2,781,680
Fines and forfeits:
Municipal court 300,000 300,000 333,849 33,849 302,095
Liquor violations 12,000 12,000 20,000 8,000 1,500
Property forfeits 8,000 8,000 14,877 6,877 7,357
Miscellaneous violations 150 150 820 670 930
Total fines and forfeits 320,150 320,150 369,546 49,396 311,882
Investment income 150,000 150,000 119,831 (30,169) 14,180
Miscellaneous 67,350 67,350 200,944 133,594 78,303
Total revenues 28,590,206 28,590,206 29,669,987 1,079,781 30,271,701
2014
Actual
Amounts
Variance
with Final
Budget -
Positive
(Negative)
2013 Actual
Amounts
92
Special Study Session Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 1)
Title: 2014 Financial Statements – Auditors Discussion and Review Page 99
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
REQUIRED SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION Statement 9
BUDGETARY COMPARISON SCHEDULE - GENERAL FUND Page 2 of 4
For The Year Ended December 31, 2014
With Comparative Actual Amounts For The Year Ended December 31, 2013
Budgeted Amounts
Expenditures:Original Final
General government:
Administration:
Current:
Personal services $470,804 $470,804 $475,610 ($4,806) $394,189
Supplies 3,000 3,000 3,003 (3) 1,233
Other services and charges 379,261 379,261 415,146 (35,885) 404,950
Total administration 853,065 853,065 893,759 (40,694) 800,372
General services:
Supplies 15,000 15,000 66,779 (51,779) 20,428
Other services and charges 334,284 202,360 31,785 170,575 311,340
Capital outlay 60,000 60,000 - 60,000 -
Total general services 409,284 277,360 98,564 178,796 331,768
Human resources:
Current:
Personal services 582,518 582,518 624,984 (42,466) 576,565
Supplies 2,000 2,000 11,968 (9,968) 2,117
Other services and charges 117,600 117,600 160,766 (43,166) 161,287
Total human resources 702,118 702,118 797,718 (95,600) 739,969
Communications, marketing and
community outreach
Current:
Personal services 360,907 360,907 361,665 (758) 141,491
Materials and supplies 27,600 27,600 24,824 2,776 -
Other services and charges 264,285 264,285 260,060 4,225 88,251
Total communications, etc.652,792 652,792 646,549 6,243 229,742
Technology and support services:
Current:
Personal services 731,479 731,479 726,670 4,809 820,231
Materials and supplies 7,500 7,500 3,440 4,060 25,024
Other services and charges 718,000 718,000 668,314 49,686 752,554
Total technology and support services 1,456,979 1,456,979 1,398,424 58,555 1,597,809
Accounting:
Current:
Personal services 490,734 490,734 491,721 (987) 462,903
Materials and supplies 3,000 3,000 2,361 639 2,021
Other services and charges 238,656 331,123 328,547 2,576 306,773
Total accounting 732,390 824,857 822,629 2,228 771,697
Assessing:
Current:
Personal services 547,494 547,494 548,300 (806) 532,226
Materials and supplies 1,250 1,250 1,069 181 891
Other services and charges 11,005 11,005 11,224 (219) 9,771
Total assessing 559,749 559,749 560,593 (844) 542,888
2014
Actual
Amounts
Variance
with Final
Budget -
Positive
(Negative)
2013 Actual
Amounts
93
Special Study Session Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 1)
Title: 2014 Financial Statements – Auditors Discussion and Review Page 100
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
REQUIRED SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION Statement 9
BUDGETARY COMPARISON SCHEDULE - GENERAL FUND Page 3 of 4
For The Year Ended December 31, 2014
With Comparative Actual Amounts For The Year Ended December 31, 2013
Budgeted Amounts
Expenditures: (continued)Original Final
General government: (continued)
Facilities maintenance:
Current:
Personal services $385,074 $385,074 $393,929 ($8,855) $375,353
Materials and supplies 89,000 89,000 78,096 10,904 92,576
Other services and charges 579,641 579,641 567,674 11,967 590,200
Total facilities maintenance 1,053,715 1,053,715 1,039,699 14,016 1,058,129
Community development:
Current:
Personal services 1,137,167 1,137,167 1,108,181 28,986 1,082,306
Materials and supplies 1,300 1,300 775 525 716
Other services and charges 13,000 13,000 9,489 3,511 7,192
Total community development 1,151,467 1,151,467 1,118,445 33,022 1,090,214
Total general government 7,571,559 7,532,102 7,376,380 155,722 7,162,588
Public safety:
Police:
Current:
Personal services 6,936,522 6,936,522 7,148,110 (211,588) 6,678,543
Materials and supplies 124,850 124,850 137,665 (12,815) 127,200
Other services and charges 432,443 432,443 406,654 25,789 398,043
Total police 7,493,815 7,493,815 7,692,429 (198,614) 7,203,786
Fire protection:
Current:
Personal services 3,067,770 3,067,770 3,095,564 (27,794) 2,891,395
Materials and supplies 79,700 79,700 116,049 (36,349) 99,116
Other services and charges 310,691 310,691 324,938 (14,247) 255,650
Capital outlay - - - - -
Total fire protection 3,458,161 3,458,161 3,536,551 (78,390) 3,246,161
Inspection services:
Current:
Personal services 1,907,419 1,907,419 1,765,255 142,164 1,790,043
Materials and supplies 14,000 14,000 6,822 7,178 7,655
Other services and charges 84,781 84,781 94,709 (9,928) 134,323
Total inspection services 2,006,200 2,006,200 1,866,786 139,414 1,932,021
Total public safety 12,958,176 12,958,176 13,095,766 (137,590) 12,381,968
2014
Actual
Amounts
Variance
with Final
Budget -
Positive
(Negative)
2013 Actual
Amounts
94
Special Study Session Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 1)
Title: 2014 Financial Statements – Auditors Discussion and Review Page 101
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
REQUIRED SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION Statement 9
BUDGETARY COMPARISON SCHEDULE - GENERAL FUND Page 4 of 4
For The Year Ended December 31, 2014
With Comparative Actual Amounts For The Year Ended December 31, 2013
Budgeted Amounts
Expenditures: (continued)Original Final
Operations and recreation:
Public works administration:
Current:
Personal services $198,994 $198,994 $227,126 ($28,132) $273,220
Materials and supplies 6,000 6,000 2,289 3,711 4,585
Other services and charges 18,000 18,000 6,889 11,111 10,391
Total public works administration 222,994 222,994 236,304 (13,310) 288,196
Public works operations:
Current:
Personal services 1,291,688 1,291,688 1,355,662 (63,974) 1,381,618
Materials and supplies 474,700 474,700 526,351 (51,651) 565,765
Other services and charges 858,783 858,783 739,462 119,321 773,257
Total public works operations 2,625,171 2,625,171 2,621,475 3,696 2,720,640
Culture and recreation:
Current:
Personal services 3,870,186 3,870,186 3,850,145 20,041 3,697,433
Materials and supplies 975,365 975,365 942,986 32,379 952,464
Other services and charges 1,697,175 1,736,632 1,719,606 17,026 1,786,885
Total culture and recreation 6,542,726 6,582,183 6,512,737 69,446 6,436,782
Total operations and recreation 9,390,891 9,430,348 9,370,516 59,832 9,445,618
Engineering:
Current:
Personal services 385,029 385,029 120,586 264,443 193,296
Materials and supplies 8,900 8,900 14,049 (5,149) 5,886
Other services and charges 113,067 113,067 88,858 24,209 97,214
Total engineering 506,996 506,996 223,493 283,503 296,396
Total expenditures 30,427,622 30,427,622 30,066,155 361,467 29,286,570
Revenues over (under) expenditures (1,837,416) (1,837,416) (396,168) 1,441,248 985,131
Other financing sources (uses):
Transfers in 1,837,416 1,837,416 1,827,564 (9,852) 2,886,719
Transfers out - - (1,057,425) (1,057,425) (60,000)
Total other financing sources (uses) 1,837,416 1,837,416 770,139 (1,067,277) 2,826,719
Net change in fund balance $0 $0 373,971 $373,971 3,811,850
Fund balance - January 1 15,788,766 11,976,916
Fund balance - December 31 $16,162,737 $15,788,766
Actual
Amounts
Variance
with Final
Budget -
Positive
(Negative)
2013 Actual
Amounts
2014
95
Special Study Session Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 1)
Title: 2014 Financial Statements – Auditors Discussion and Review Page 102
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
REQUIRED SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION Statement 10
SCHEDULE OF FUNDING PROGRESS - POST EMPLOYMENT BENEFIT PLAN
For The Year Ended December 31, 2014
Unfunded
Actuarial Actuarial Actuarial UAAL as a
Actuarial Value of Accrued Accrued Funded Covered Percentage of
Valuation Assets Liability (AAL)* Liability (UAAL) Ratio Payroll Covered Payroll
Date (a)(b)(b-a)(a/b)(c) ( (b-a) / c)
January 1, 2009 $ - $3,260,061 $3,260,061 0.0% $16,906,064 19.3%
January 1, 2011 $ - $3,081,141 $3,081,141 0.0% $16,962,171 18.2%
January 1, 2013 $ - $5,140,716 $5,140,716 0.0% $17,338,372 29.6%
*Using the projected unit credit actuarial pay cost method.
96
Special Study Session Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 1)
Title: 2014 Financial Statements – Auditors Discussion and Review Page 103
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
REQUIRED SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
BUDGETARY COMPARISON SCHEDULE
NOTE TO RSI
December 31, 2014
Note A LEGAL COMPLIANCE – BUDGETS
The General Fund budget is legally adopted on a basis consistent with accounting principles generally accepted
in the United States of America. The legal level of budgetary control is at the department level for the major
funds.
Note B MODIFIED APPROACH FOR CITY STREETS AND TRAILS INFRASTRUCTURE
CAPITAL ASSETS
In accordance with GASB Statement No. 34, the City is required to account for and report infrastructure capital
assets. The City defines infrastructure as the basic physical assets including the street and trail system; water
treatment and distribution system; wastewater collection system; park and recreation lands and improvement
system; storm water conveyance system; and building combined with site amenities such as parking and
landscape areas used by the City in the conduct of its business. Each major infrastructure can be divided into
subsystems. For example, the street and trail system can be divided into pavement widths, curb type and
sidewalk. City owned streets could further be classified as collector or local. Subsystem detail is not presented
in these basic financial statements; however, the City maintains detailed information on these subsystems.
The City elects to use the modified approach as defined in GASB Statement No. 34 for infrastructure reporting
for its Pavement Management Program. Under GASB Statement No. 34, eligible infrastructure capital assets
are not required to be depreciated under the following requirements:
1) The City manages the eligible infrastructure capital assets using an asset management system with
characteristics of (1) an up to-date inventory; (2) perform condition assessments and summarize the
results using a measurement scale; and (3) estimate annual amount to maintain and preserve at the
established condition assessment level.
2) The City documents that the eligible infrastructure capital assets are being preserved approximately
at or above the established and disclosed condition assessment level.
The City’s policy relative to maintaining the street and trail assets is to achieve an average rating of “Good” for
all segments. This acceptable rating allows minor cracking and patching of the pavement along with minor
roughness that could be noticeable to the users of the system.
97
Special Study Session Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 1)
Title: 2014 Financial Statements – Auditors Discussion and Review Page 104
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
REQUIRED SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
BUDGETARY COMPARISON SCHEDULE
NOTE TO RSI
December 31, 2014
In the Fall of 2014, the City conducted a physical condition assessment of five of eight areas of the City. This
assessment will be performed every two years. Each street segment was assigned a physical condition based on
potential defects. An Overall Condition Index (OCI) was assigned to each street and expressed in a continuous
scale from 0 to 100, where 0 is assigned to the least acceptable physical condition and 100 is assigned the
physical characteristics of a new street. The following conditions were defined:
Range Description
86 - 100 Excellent
71 - 85 Very good
56 - 70 Good
41 - 55 Fair
26 - 40 Poor
11 - 25 Very poor
0 - 10 Failed
As of December 31, 2014, the City’s street and trail system was rated at an OCI index of 70 on the average with
detail condition as follows:
Condition
% of Streets and
Trails
Excellent to Good 48.2%
Fair 22.6%
Poor to Substandard 29.2%
The City’s streets are constantly deteriorating resulting from the following factors: (1) traffic using the system;
(2) the sun’s ultra-violet rays drying out and breaking down the top layer of pavement; (3) utility
company/private development trenching operations; (4) water damage from natural precipitation; and (5) frost
heave. The City is continuously taking actions to prolong the life of the system through short-term maintenance
activities such as pothole patching, crack sealing, seal coating and overlaying. The City expended $1,973,160
on street maintenance for the year ending December 31, 2014. These expenditures delayed deterioration;
however, the overall condition of the system was not improved through these maintenance expenditures. The
City has estimated that the amount of annual expenditures through 2022 required to maintain the City’s street
system at the average OCI rating of “good” is approximately $2,300,000.
Year
Maintenance
Estimate
Actual
Expenditures OCI Rating
2012 $2,101,698 $2,157,727 70%
2013 $1,758,697 $1,874,596 70%
2014 $2,300,000 $1,937,160 70%
98
Special Study Session Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 1)
Title: 2014 Financial Statements – Auditors Discussion and Review Page 105
COMBINING AND INDIVIDUAL FUND STATEMENTS AND
SCHEDULES
99
Special Study Session Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 1)
Title: 2014 Financial Statements – Auditors Discussion and Review Page 106
NONMAJOR GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS
100
Special Study Session Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 1)
Title: 2014 Financial Statements – Auditors Discussion and Review Page 107
SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS
The Special Revenue Funds are used to account for the proceeds of
specific revenue sources that are legally restricted to expenditures for
specified purposes.
CAPITAL PROJECT FUNDS
The Capital Project Funds account for financial resources to be used for
the acquisition or construction of major capital facilities (other than those
financed by Proprietary Funds).
101
Special Study Session Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 1)
Title: 2014 Financial Statements – Auditors Discussion and Review Page 108
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
COMBINING BALANCE SHEET Statement 11
NONMAJOR GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS
December 31, 2014
With Comparative Totals For December 31, 2013
Special Capital
Revenue Project 2014 2013
Assets
Cash and investments $1,787,117 $7,742,748 $9,529,865 $10,476,740
Accrued interest receivable 3,523 18,325 21,848 33,047
Due from other governments 59,970 - 59,970 22,483
Accounts receivable 165,030 401,188 566,218 568,845
Special assessments receivable:
Delinquent 2,341 166 2,507 11,772
Deferred 198,208 - 198,208 196,235
Loans receivable - noncurrent 426,165 - 426,165 420,787
Total assets $2,642,354 $8,162,427 $10,804,781 $11,729,909
Liabilities, Deferred Inflows of Resources, and Fund Balance
Liabilities:
Accounts payable $11,370 $31,533 $42,903 $227,577
Salaries payable 19,132 - 19,132 16,969
Due to other governments 938 103 1,041 2,979
Contracts payable - 78,969 78,969 66,203
Due to other funds 44,004 - 44,004 7,607
Unearned revenue - 200,000 200,000 200,000
Total liabilities 75,444 310,605 386,049 521,335
Deferred inflows of resources:
Unavailable revenue 221,613 - 221,613 221,394
Total deferred inflows of resources 221,613 0 221,613 221,394
Fund balance:
Nonspendable 426,165 - 426,165 420,787
Restricted 618,334 3,180,914 3,799,248 4,176,473
Committed 483,590 - 483,590 467,682
Assigned 823,642 4,670,908 5,494,550 5,923,496
Unassigned (6,434) - (6,434)(1,258)
Total fund balance 2,345,297 7,851,822 10,197,119 10,987,180
Total liabilities, deferred inflows
of resources, and fund balance $2,642,354 $8,162,427 $10,804,781 $11,729,909
Nonmajor
Totals
Governmental Funds
102
Special Study Session Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 1)
Title: 2014 Financial Statements – Auditors Discussion and Review Page 109
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
COMBINING STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND Statement 12
CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE
NONMAJOR GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS
For The Year Ended December 31, 2014
With Comparative Totals For The Year Ended December 31, 2013
Special Capital
Revenue Project 2014 2013
Revenues:
Taxes:
Property $ - $810,000 $810,000 $810,000
Franchise 650,355 1,617,858 2,268,213 2,211,569
Intergovernmental:
Other 130,686 44,702 175,388 422,279
Charges for services 241 9,766 10,007 38,822
Special assessments 202,941 1,435 204,376 176,502
Interest on investments 14,445 77,482 91,927 35,628
Miscellaneous 3,453 584,651 588,104 326,007
Total revenues 1,002,121 3,145,894 4,148,015 4,020,807
Expenditures:
Current:
Public safety - 81,539 81,539 18,808
Operations and recreation - 1,130,273 1,130,273 637,923
Engineering - 202,752 202,752 1,874,600
Public information 462,341 - 462,341 408,683
Housing and maintenance 130,534 - 130,534 141,250
Social economic development 205,919 - 205,919 217,023
Capital outlay:
Public safety - 16,901 16,901 -
Operations and recreation - 337,505 337,505 930,249
Public information - - - 18,163
Total expenditures 798,794 1,768,970 2,567,764 4,246,699
Revenues over (under) expenditures 203,327 1,376,924 1,580,251 (225,892)
Other financing sources (uses):
Transfers in - 82,446 82,446 60,000
Transfers out (159,506) (2,293,713) (2,453,219) (1,082,081)
Total other financing sources (uses)(159,506) (2,211,267) (2,370,773) (1,022,081)
Net change in fund balance 43,821 (834,343) (790,522) (1,247,973)
Fund balance - January 1 2,301,476 8,686,165 10,987,641 12,235,153
Fund balance - December 31 $2,345,297 $7,851,822 $10,197,119 $10,987,180
Totals
Nonmajor Governmental Funds
103
Special Study Session Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 1)
Title: 2014 Financial Statements – Auditors Discussion and Review Page 110
- This page intentionally left blank -
104
Special Study Session Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 1)
Title: 2014 Financial Statements – Auditors Discussion and Review Page 111
NONMAJOR SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS
Cable Television Fund – used to account for revenues received from
franchise fees and expenditures related to regulation of the privately
owned cable television company.
Community Development Fund – used to account for funds received under
Title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974.
Special Service District Funds – used to account for the operations of
Special Service Districts. Revenues are received from each district’s
property owners and are used to provide additional services, primarily
snow removal, within each District.
105
Special Study Session Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 1)
Title: 2014 Financial Statements – Auditors Discussion and Review Page 112
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
COMBINING BALANCE SHEET Statement 13
NONMAJOR SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS
December 31, 2014
With Comparative Totals For December 31, 2013
2014 2013
Assets
Cash and investments $1,465,894 $49 $321,174 $1,787,117 $1,749,234
Accrued interest receivable 2,961 - 562 3,523 5,312
Due from other governments - 59,970 - 59,970 22,483
Accounts receivable 165,030 - - 165,030 162,669
Special assessments receivable:
Delinquent - - 2,341 2,341 11,772
Deferred - - 198,208 198,208 194,879
Loans receivable - noncurrent - 426,165 - 426,165 420,787
Total assets $1,633,885 $486,184 $522,285 $2,642,354 $2,567,136
Liabilities, Deferred Inflows of Resources, and Fund Balance
Liabilities:
Accounts payable $6,752 $ - $4,618 $11,370 $20,894
Salaries payable 19,132 - - 19,132 16,969
Due to other governments 1 937 - 938 152
Due to other funds - 44,004 - 44,004 7,607
Total liabilities 25,885 44,941 4,618 75,444 45,622
Deferred inflows of resources:
Unavailable revenue - 21,512 200,101 221,613 220,038
Total deferred inflows of resources 0 21,512 200,101 221,613 220,038
Fund balance:
Nonspendable - 426,165 - 426,165 420,787
Restricted 618,334 - - 618,334 630,933
Committed 483,590 - - 483,590 467,682
Assigned 506,076 - 317,566 823,642 783,332
Unassigned - (6,434) - (6,434) (1,258)
Total fund balance 1,608,000 419,731 317,566 2,345,297 2,301,476
Total liabilities, deferred inflows
of resources, and fund balance $1,633,885 $486,184 $522,285 $2,642,354 $2,567,136
Totals Nonmajor Special
Revenue Funds2600 Cable
Television
2650
Community
Development
Special Service
Districts
106
Special Study Session Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 1)
Title: 2014 Financial Statements – Auditors Discussion and Review Page 113
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
COMBINING STATEMENT OF REVENUES,Statement 14
EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE
NONMAJOR SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS
For The Year Ended December 31, 2014
With Comparative Totals For The Year Ended December 31, 2013
2014 2013
Revenues:
Franchise taxes $650,355 $ - $ - $650,355 $642,142
Intergovernmental - other - 130,686 - 130,686 127,577
Charges for services - - 241 241 26,117
Special assessments - - 202,941 202,941 175,067
Interest on investments 12,118 50 2,277 14,445 4,218
Miscellaneous 1,221 - 2,232 3,453 2,529
Total revenues 663,694 130,736 207,691 1,002,121 977,650
Expenditures:
Current:
Public information:
Personal services 404,546 - - 404,546 390,152
Supplies 13,825 - - 13,825 10,580
Other services and charges 43,970 - - 43,970 7,951
Housing maintenance:
Personal services - 6,410 - 6,410 21,173
Other services and charges - 124,124 - 124,124 120,077
Social and economic development:
Supplies - - 2,318 2,318 3,410
Other services and charges - - 203,601 203,601 213,613
Capital outlay:
Public information - - - - 18,163
Total expenditures 462,341 130,534 205,919 798,794 785,119
Revenues over (under) expenditures 201,353 202 1,772 203,327 192,531
Other financing sources (uses):
Transfers in - - - - 60,000
Transfers out (159,506) - - (159,506) (184,506)
Net change in fund balance 41,847 202 1,772 43,821 68,025
Fund balance - January 1 1,566,153 419,529 315,794 2,301,476 2,233,451
Fund balance - December 31 $1,608,000 $419,731 $317,566 $2,345,297 $2,301,476
Totals Nonmajor Special
Revenue Funds2600 Cable
Television
2650
Community
Development
Special Service
Districts
107
Special Study Session Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 1)
Title: 2014 Financial Statements – Auditors Discussion and Review Page 114
- This page intentionally left blank -
108
Special Study Session Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 1)
Title: 2014 Financial Statements – Auditors Discussion and Review Page 115
NONMAJOR CAPITAL PROJECT FUNDS
Fire Station Bonds Fund – used to account for the financing of land
acquisition and construction of two new fire stations. Revenues will be
provided from other City funds and property tax levies.
Park Improvement Fund – used to account for the financing of land
acquisition and development for park purposes. Revenues are provided by
St. Louis Park School District contribution, interest earnings, rent, sale of
property and a property tax levy.
Pavement Management Fund – used to account for the financing of street
rehabilitation. Revenues are provided by a franchise fee and transfers
from the Sanitary Sewer Utility and Water Utility Funds.
Police and Fire Pensions Fund – used to account for the funds received by
the Police and Fire department for pension refunds. These funds must be
used for specific police and fire purposes.
109
Special Study Session Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 1)
Title: 2014 Financial Statements – Auditors Discussion and Review Page 116
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
COMBINING BALANCE SHEET Statement 15
NONMAJOR CAPITAL PROJECT FUNDS
December 31, 2014
With Comparative Totals For December 31, 2013
4040 Fire
Station Bonds
4065 Park
Improvement
4500 Pavement
Management
2900 Police
and Fire
Pensions
2014 2013
Assets
Cash and investments $15,869 $3,803,627 $745,325 $3,177,927 $7,742,748 $8,727,506
Accrued interest receivable - 7,290 3,875 7,160 18,325 27,735
Accounts receivable - - 401,188 - 401,188 406,176
Special assessments - delinquent - 38 128 - 166 -
Special assessments - deferred - - - - - 1,356
Total assets $15,869 $3,810,955 $1,150,516 $3,185,087 $8,162,427 $9,162,773
Liabilities, Deferred Inflows of Resources, and Fund Balance
Liabilities:
Accounts payable $4,350 $23,010 $ - $4,173 $31,533 $206,683
Due to other governments - 103 - - 103 2,827
Contracts payable 11,519 3,296 64,154 - 78,969 66,203
Unearned revenue - 200,000 - - 200,000 200,000
Total liabilities 15,869 226,409 64,154 4,173 310,605 475,713
Deferred inflows of resources:
Unavailable revenue - - - - - 1,356
Total deferred inflows of resources 0 0 0 0 0 1,356
Fund balance:
Restricted - - - 3,180,914 3,180,914 3,545,540
Assigned - 3,584,546 1,086,362 - 4,670,908 5,140,164
Total fund balance 0 3,584,546 1,086,362 3,180,914 7,851,822 8,685,704
Total liabilities, deferred inflows
of resources, and fund balance $15,869 $3,810,955 $1,150,516 $3,185,087 $8,162,427 $9,162,773
Totals Nonmajor Capital Project
Funds
110
Special Study Session Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 1)
Title: 2014 Financial Statements – Auditors Discussion and Review Page 117
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
COMBINING STATEMENT OF REVENUES,Statement 16
EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE
NONMAJOR CAPITAL PROJECT FUNDS
For The Year Ended December 31, 2014
With Comparative Totals For The Year Ended December 31, 2013
4040 Fire
Station Bonds
4065 Park
Improvement
4500 Pavement
Management
2900 Police
and Fire
Pensions
Revenues:2014 2013
Taxes:
Property taxes $ - $810,000 $ - $ - $810,000 $810,000
Franchise - - 1,617,858 - 1,617,858 1,569,427
Intergovernmental:
Other - 44,702 - - 44,702 294,702
Charges for services - 9,638 128 - 9,766 12,705
Special assessments - - 1,435 - 1,435 1,435
Investment income - 31,878 18,114 27,490 77,482 31,410
Miscellaneous 1,000 583,649 2 - 584,651 323,478
Total revenues 1,000 1,479,867 1,637,537 27,490 3,145,894 3,043,157
Expenditures:
Current:
Public safety 67,006 - - 14,533 81,539 18,808
Engineering - - 202,752 - 202,752 1,874,600
Operations and recreation - 1,130,273 - - 1,130,273 637,923
Capital outlay:
Public safety 16,901 - - - 16,901 -
Operations and recreation - 337,505 - - 337,505 930,249
Total expenditures 83,907 1,467,778 202,752 14,533 1,768,970 3,461,580
Revenues over (under) expenditures (82,907) 12,089 1,434,785 12,957 1,376,924 (418,423)
Other financing sources (uses):
Transfers in 82,446 - - - 82,446 -
Transfers out - - (1,916,130) (377,583) (2,293,713) (897,575)
Total other financing sources (uses)82,446 0 (1,916,130) (377,583) (2,211,267) (897,575)
Net change in fund balance (461) 12,089 (481,345) (364,626) (834,343) (1,315,998)
Fund balance - January 1 461 3,572,457 1,567,707 3,545,540 8,686,165 10,001,702
Fund balance - December 31 $0 $3,584,546 $1,086,362 $3,180,914 $7,851,822 $8,685,704
Totals Nonmajor Capital Project
Funds
111
Special Study Session Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 1)
Title: 2014 Financial Statements – Auditors Discussion and Review Page 118
- This page intentionally left blank -
112
Special Study Session Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 1)
Title: 2014 Financial Statements – Auditors Discussion and Review Page 119
MAJOR DEBT SERVICE FUNDS
3400 - 1999 General Obligation Bond
3450 - 2003 General Obligation Bond
3460 – 2010A General Obligation Bond
3465 – 2012A General Obligation HIA Bonds
3470 – 2010B General Obligation Bond
3480 – 2010D General Obligation Fire Station Bond
3490 – 2014A General Obligation Bonds
3600 - 2000 General Obligaiton Bond Reserve
3615 – 2010C General Obligation Bond
3620 – 2010C General Obligation Bond Reserve Fund
3850 - 2004 General Obligation Tax Increment Refunding
3870 - 2005A General Obligation Bond
3875 – Hoigaard’s 2010 A & B TIF Notes
3890 - 2008B General Obligation Tax Increment Bond
113
Special Study Session Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 1)
Title: 2014 Financial Statements – Auditors Discussion and Review Page 120
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
COMBINING BALANCE SHEET
MAJOR DEBT SERVICE FUNDS
December 31, 2014
With Comparative Totals For December 31, 2013
3470 2010B
General
Obligation Bond
3480 2010D
General
Obligation Fire
Station Bond
3490 2014A
General
Obligation Bonds
Assets
Cash and investments $5,375 $820,265 $113,512
Accrued interest receivable 870 1,048 -
Due from other governments - 86,384 -
Loans receivable - current - - -
Loans receivable - noncurrent - - -
Total assets $6,245 $907,697 $113,512
Liabilities, Deferred Inflows of Resources, and Fund Balance
Liabilities:
Accounts payable $ - $ - $ -
Due to other governments - 111 -
Deposits payable - - -
Unearned revenue - 14,397 -
Total liabilities 0 14,508 0
Deferred inflows of resources:
Unavailable revenue - - -
Total deferred inflows of resources 0 0 0
Fund balance:
Restricted 6,245 893,189 113,512
Total fund balance 6,245 893,189 113,512
Total liabilities, deferred inflows
of resources, and fund balance $6,245 $907,697 $113,512
114
Special Study Session Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 1)
Title: 2014 Financial Statements – Auditors Discussion and Review Page 121
Statement 17
3600 2000
General
Obligation Bond
Reserve
3615 2010C
General
Obligation Bond
3620 2010C
General
Obligation Bond
Reserve
3870 2005A
General
Obligation Bond
2014 2013
$121,105 $66,283 $168,821 $681,212 $1,976,573 $2,458,006
- - - 1,055 2,973 5,007
- - - - 86,384 87,876
- 35,000 - - 35,000 35,000
- 1,640,000 - - 1,640,000 1,675,000
$121,105 $1,741,283 $168,821 $682,267 $3,740,930 $4,260,889
$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $1,956
- - - 60 171 -
- - 168,636 - 168,636 124,644
- - - - 14,397 14,646
0 0 168,636 60 183,204 141,246
- 1,675,000 - - 1,675,000 1,710,000
0 1,675,000 0 0 1,675,000 1,710,000
121,105 66,283 185 682,207 1,882,726 2,409,643
121,105 66,283 185 682,207 1,882,726 2,409,643
$121,105 $1,741,283 $168,821 $682,267 $3,740,930 $4,260,889
Totals Debt Service Funds
115
Special Study Session Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 1)
Title: 2014 Financial Statements – Auditors Discussion and Review Page 122
- This page intentionally left blank -
116
Special Study Session Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 1)
Title: 2014 Financial Statements – Auditors Discussion and Review Page 123
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
COMBINING STATEMENT OF REVENUES,Statement 18
EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE Page 1 of 2
MAJOR DEBT SERVICE FUNDS
For The Year Ended December 31, 2014
With Comparative Totals For The Year Ended December 31, 2013
3400 1999
General
Obligation Bond
3450 2003
General
Obligation Bond
3460 2010A
General
Obligation Bond
3465 2012A
General
Obligation HIA
Bonds
Revenues:
Property taxes $ - $ - $ - $ -
Intergovernmental - - - -
Interest on investments - - - -
Miscellaneous - other - - - -
Total revenues 0 0 0 0
Expenditures:
Social economic development:
Developer assistance - - - -
Debt service:
Principal - - 115,000 45,000
Interest and other 185 1,805 134,608 34,569
Fiscal agent fees - - 450 550
Total expenditures 185 1,805 250,058 80,119
Revenues over (under) expenditures (185)(1,805)(250,058)(80,119)
Other financing sources (uses):
Transfers in - - 250,058 80,119
Transfers out (58,785)(574,877) - -
Bonds issued - - - -
Total other financing sources (uses)(58,785)(574,877)250,058 80,119
Net change in fund balance (58,970)(576,682)0 0
Fund balance - January 1 58,970 576,682 - -
Fund balance (deficit) - December 31 $0 $0 $0 $0
117
Special Study Session Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 1)
Title: 2014 Financial Statements – Auditors Discussion and Review Page 124
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
COMBINING STATEMENT OF REVENUES,
EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE
MAJOR DEBT SERVICE FUNDS
For The Year Ended December 31, 2014
With Comparative Totals For The Year Ended December 31, 2013
3470 2010B
General
Obligation Bond
3480 2010D
General
Obligation Fire
Station Bond
3490 2014A
General
Obligation Bonds
3600 2000
General
Obligation Bond
Reserve
3615 2010C
General
Obligation Bond
Revenues:
Property taxes $ - $925,177 $ - $ - $ -
Intergovernmental - 173,109 - - -
Interest on investments 6,438 2,514 - 28 10
Miscellaneous - other - - - - 116,513
Total revenues 6,438 1,100,800 0 28 116,523
Expenditures:
Social economic development:
Developer assistance - - - - -
Debt service:
Principal 480,000 530,000 - - 35,000
Interest and other 4,993 537,475 - - 82,680
Fiscal agent fees 140 450 - - 450
Total expenditures 485,133 1,067,925 0 0 118,130
Revenues over (under) expenditures (478,695)32,875 0 28 (1,607)
Other financing sources (uses):
Transfers in 406,623 - - - 28
Transfers out - - - (28) -
Bonds issued - - 113,512 - -
Total other financing sources (uses)406,623 0 113,512 (28)28
Net change in fund balance (72,072)32,875 113,512 0 (1,579)
Fund balance - January 1 78,317 860,314 - 121,105 67,862
Fund balance (deficit) - December 31 $6,245 $893,189 $113,512 $121,105 $66,283
118
Special Study Session Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 1)
Title: 2014 Financial Statements – Auditors Discussion and Review Page 125
Statement 18
Page 2 of 2
3620 2010C
General
Obligation Bond
Reserve
3850 2004
General
Obligation Tax
Increment
Refunding
3870 2005A
General
Obligation Bond
3875 Hoigaard's
2010 A & B TIF
Notes
3890 2008B
General
Obligation Tax
Increment Bond
Interfund
Eliminations
2014 2013
$ - $ - $497,300 $ - $ - $ - $1,422,477 $1,937,085
- - - - - - 173,109 175,659
35 - 2,895 - - - 11,920 1,685
- - - - - - 116,513 102,030
35 0 500,195 0 0 0 1,724,019 2,216,459
- - - 453,591 - - 453,591 419,830
- - 425,000 - 340,000 - 1,970,000 3,275,000
- - 41,187 - 201,413 - 1,038,915 1,127,185
- - - - - - 2,040 3,895
0 0 466,187 453,591 541,413 0 3,464,546 4,825,910
35 0 34,008 (453,591) (541,413) 0 (1,740,527) (2,609,451)
- 1,956 - 453,591 541,413 (406,651) 1,327,137 2,643,827
- - - - - 406,651 (227,039) (4,081)
- - - - - - 113,512 -
0 1,956 0 453,591 541,413 0 1,213,610 2,639,746
35 1,956 34,008 0 0 0 (526,917) 30,295
150 (1,956) 648,199 - - - 2,409,643 2,379,348
$185 $0 $682,207 $0 $0 $0 $1,882,726 $2,409,643
Totals Debt Service Funds
119
Special Study Session Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 1)
Title: 2014 Financial Statements – Auditors Discussion and Review Page 126
- This page intentionally left blank -
120
Special Study Session Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 1)
Title: 2014 Financial Statements – Auditors Discussion and Review Page 127
MAJOR REDEVELOPMENT DISTRICT FUNDS
4775 – Eliot Park TIF
4780 – Duke West End TIF
4785 – Ellipse TIF DIstrict
4798 – HRA Levy
4865 – HSTI
4870 – Victoria Ponds
4875 – Park Center Housing
4880 – CSM TIF District
4900 – Mill City TIF District
4920 – Park Commons TIF District
4930 – Edgewood TIF District
4940 – Elmwood Village
4950 – Wolfe Lake TIF District
4965 – Aquila Commons
4980 – Highway 7 Business Center
4985 – Hard Coat TIF District
121
Special Study Session Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 1)
Title: 2014 Financial Statements – Auditors Discussion and Review Page 128
- This page intentionally left blank -
122
Special Study Session Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 1)
Title: 2014 Financial Statements – Auditors Discussion and Review Page 129
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
COMBINING BALANCE SHEET Statement 19
MAJOR REDEVELOPMENT DISTRICT FUNDS Page 1 of 2
December 31, 2014
With Comparative Totals For December 31, 2013
4780 Duke West
End TIF
4775 Eliot Park
TIF
4785 Ellipse TIF
District 4798 HRA Levy 4865 HSTI
Assets
Cash and investments $578,709 $479 $139,073 $19,741 $205,291
Accrued interest receivable 1,342 - 106 3,554 -
Interfund loan receivable - - - - -
Taxes receivable - unremitted - - - - -
Taxes receivable - delinquent - - - 10,821 -
Loans receivable - noncurrent - - - - -
Total assets $580,051 $479 $139,179 $34,116 $205,291
Liabilities, Deferred Inflows of Resources, and Fund Balance
Liabilities:
Accounts payable $8,553 $ - $ - $ - $ -
Due to other governments 1,888 509 907 394 2,535
Interfund loan payable 477,026 12,713 194,259 4,472,545 -
Total liabilities 487,467 13,222 195,166 4,472,939 2,535
Deferred inflows of resources:
Unavailable revenue - - - 10,821 -
Total deferred inflows of resources 0 0 0 10,821 0
Fund balance (deficit):
Restricted 92,584 - - - 202,756
Unassigned - (12,743) (55,987) (4,449,644) -
Total fund balance (deficit)92,584 (12,743) (55,987) (4,449,644) 202,756
Total liabilities, deferred inflows
of resources, and fund balance $580,051 $479 $139,179 $34,116 $205,291
123
Special Study Session Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 1)
Title: 2014 Financial Statements – Auditors Discussion and Review Page 130
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
COMBINING BALANCE SHEET
MAJOR REDEVELOPMENT DISTRICT FUNDS
December 31, 2014
With Comparative Totals For December 31, 2013
4870 Victoria
Ponds
4875 Park
Center
Housing
4880 CSM
TIF District
4900 Mill
City TIF
District
4920 Park
Commons TIF
District
4930
Edgewood
TIF District
Assets
Cash and investments $501,442 $204,422 $534,790 $271,257 $707,900 $ -
Accrued interest receivable 1,023 488 820 291 248 -
Interfund loan receivable 115,000 - - - - -
Taxes receivable - unremitted 5,672 - 2,158 - 22,369 -
Taxes receivable - delinquent - - - - - -
Loans receivable - noncurrent - 693,494 - - - -
Total assets $623,137 $898,404 $537,768 $271,548 $730,517 $0
Liabilities, Deferred Inflows of Resources, and Fund Balance
Liabilities:
Accounts payable $ - $ - $ - $ - $458 $ -
Due to other governments 1,512 683 1,438 1,127 5,695 579
Interfund loan payable - - - - - -
Total liabilities 1,512 683 1,438 1,127 6,153 579
Deferred inflows of resources:
Unavailable revenue - 50,488 - - - -
Total deferred inflows of resources 0 50,488 0 0 0 0
Fund balance (deficit):
Restricted 621,625 847,233 536,330 270,421 724,364 -
Unassigned - - - - - (579)
Total fund balance (deficit)621,625 847,233 536,330 270,421 724,364 (579)
Total liabilities, deferred inflows
of resources, and fund balance $623,137 $898,404 $537,768 $271,548 $730,517 $0
124
Special Study Session Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 1)
Title: 2014 Financial Statements – Auditors Discussion and Review Page 131
Statement 19
Page 2 of 2
4940 Elmwood
Village
4950 Wolfe
Lake TIF
District
4965 Aquila
Commons
4980 Highway
7 Business
Center
4985 Hard Coat
TIF District
Interfund
Eliminations
2014 2013
$597,578 $86,544 $92,404 $56,448 $5,407 $ - $4,001,485 $5,481,088
1,756 93 88 - 16 - 9,825 26,347
- - - - - (115,000) - -
6,673 - - - - - 36,872 46,486
- - - - - - 10,821 5,358
- - - - - - 693,494 680,872
$606,007 $86,637 $92,492 $56,448 $5,423 ($115,000) $4,752,497 $6,240,151
$875 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $9,886 $5,200
4,259 695 1,075 733 539 - 24,568 23,276
2,826,843 - - - 141,074 (115,000) 8,009,460 3,874,339
2,831,977 695 1,075 733 141,613 (115,000) 8,043,914 3,902,815
- - - - - - 61,309 43,224
0 0 0 0 0 0 61,309 43,224
- 85,942 91,417 55,715 - - 3,528,387 5,182,499
(2,225,970) - - - (136,190) - (6,881,113) (2,888,387)
(2,225,970) 85,942 91,417 55,715 (136,190)0 (3,352,726) 2,294,112
$606,007 $86,637 $92,492 $56,448 $5,423 ($115,000) $4,752,497 $6,240,151
Totals Redevelopment District
Funds
125
Special Study Session Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 1)
Title: 2014 Financial Statements – Auditors Discussion and Review Page 132
- This page intentionally left blank -
126
Special Study Session Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 1)
Title: 2014 Financial Statements – Auditors Discussion and Review Page 133
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
COMBINING STATEMENT OF REVENUES,Statement 20
EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE Page 1 of 2
MAJOR REDEVELOPMENT DISTRICT FUNDS
For The Year Ended December 31, 2014
With Comparative Totals For The Year Ended December 31, 2013
4780 Duke West
End TIF
4775 Eliot Park
TIF
4785 Ellipse TIF
District 4798 HRA Levy 4865 HSTI
Revenues:
Property taxes $ - $ - $ - $927,094 $ -
Tax increments 874,766 - 265,892 - 1,348,776
Intergovernmental - - - - -
Interest on investments 5,020 - 208 10,464 -
Total revenues 879,786 0 266,100 937,558 1,348,776
Expenditures:
Current:
Social and economic development 270,398 11,997 242,204 15,832 1,352,194
Revenues over (under) expenditures 609,388 (11,997)23,896 921,726 (3,418)
Other financing sources (uses):
Transfers in - - - - -
Transfers out (541,413) - - (7,505,436) -
Total other financing sources (uses)(541,413)0 0 (7,505,436)0
Net change in fund balance 67,975 (11,997)23,896 (6,583,710)(3,418)
Fund balance (deficit) - January 1 24,609 (746) (79,883) 2,134,066 206,174
Fund balance (deficit) - December 31 $92,584 ($12,743) ($55,987) ($4,449,644) $202,756
127
Special Study Session Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 1)
Title: 2014 Financial Statements – Auditors Discussion and Review Page 134
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
COMBINING STATEMENT OF REVENUES,
EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE
MAJOR REDEVELOPMENT DISTRICT FUNDS
For The Year Ended December 31, 2014
With Comparative Totals For The Year Ended December 31, 2013
4870 Victoria
Ponds
4875 Park
Center
Housing
4880 CSM
TIF District
4900 Mill
City TIF
District
4920 Park
Commons TIF
District
4930
Edgewood
TIF District
Revenues:
Property taxes $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Tax increments 460,668 118,264 409,397 395,339 1,863,396 48,838
Intergovernmental - - - - - -
Interest on investments 4,094 987 3,001 861 628 -
Total revenues 464,762 119,251 412,398 396,200 1,864,024 48,838
Expenditures:
Current:
Social and economic development 459,456 2,264 358,706 344,190 1,725,269 48,645
Revenues over (under) expenditures 5,306 116,987 53,692 52,010 138,755 193
Other financing sources (uses):
Transfers in 115,000 - - - - -
Transfers out - (110,000) - - - -
Total other financing sources (uses)115,000 (110,000)0000
Net change in fund balance 120,306 6,987 53,692 52,010 138,755 193
Fund balance (deficit) - January 1 501,319 840,246 482,638 218,411 585,609 (772)
Fund balance (deficit) - December 31 $621,625 $847,233 $536,330 $270,421 $724,364 ($579)
128
Special Study Session Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 1)
Title: 2014 Financial Statements – Auditors Discussion and Review Page 135
Statement 20
Page 2 of 2
4940 Elmwood
Village
4950 Wolfe
Lake TIF
District
4965 Aquila
Commons
4980 Highway 7
Business Center
4985 Hard Coat
TIF District
Interfund
Eliminations
2014 2013
$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $927,094 $899,391
1,150,713 124,074 151,772 149,394 19,706 - 7,380,995 6,647,729
- - - - - - - 2
5,346 267 217 - 33 - 31,126 27,527
1,156,059 124,341 151,989 149,394 19,739 0 8,339,215 7,574,649
155,193 120,242 151,354 157,837 7,188 - 5,422,969 6,037,129
1,000,866 4,099 635 (8,443) 12,551 0 2,916,246 1,537,520
- - - 47,356 - (115,000) 47,356 -
(453,591) - - - (115,000) 115,000 (8,610,440) (5,699,753)
(453,591)0 0 47,356 (115,000)0 (8,563,084) (5,699,753)
547,275 4,099 635 38,913 (102,449)0 (5,646,838) (4,162,233)
(2,773,245) 81,843 90,782 16,802 (33,741) - 2,294,112 6,456,345
($2,225,970) $85,942 $91,417 $55,715 ($136,190)$0 ($3,352,726) $2,294,112
Totals Redevelopment District
Funds
129
Special Study Session Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 1)
Title: 2014 Financial Statements – Auditors Discussion and Review Page 136
- This page intentionally left blank -
130
Special Study Session Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 1)
Title: 2014 Financial Statements – Auditors Discussion and Review Page 137
INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS
The City has three Internal Service Funds to account for the financing of
goods or services provided by one department or agency to other
departments or agencies of the City, or to other governments on a cost
reimbursement basis. The City’s internal service funds account for
employee flex spending, uninsured loss, equipment replacement and
capital replacement.
131
Special Study Session Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 1)
Title: 2014 Financial Statements – Auditors Discussion and Review Page 138
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
COMBINING STATEMENT OF NET POSITION
INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS
December 31, 2014
With Comparative Amounts For December 31, 2013
2014 2013
Assets:
Current assets:
Cash and investments $895,369 $738,967
Accrued interest receivable 3,240 4,318
Due from other governments - -
Taxes receivable - unremitted - -
Prepaid items 75,422 8,707
Deposits receivable 31,000 31,000
Total current assets 1,005,031 782,992
Noncurrent assets:
Capital assets, at cost:
Land - -
Building and structures - -
Infrastructure - -
Machinery, furniture and equipment - -
Fleet - -
Construction in progress - -
Total capital assets, at cost 0 0
Less: accumulated depreciation - -
Net capital assets 00
Total assets 1,005,031 782,992
Liabilities:
Current liabilities:
Accounts payable 21,069 19,027
Salaries payable 5,080 5,225
Accrued flex spending 34,077 25,490
Due to other governments 3,627 13,347
Contracts payable - -
Due to other funds - -
Compensated absences payable 2,591,717 2,489,865
Capial lease payable - -
Total current liabilities 2,655,570 2,552,954
Noncurrent liabilities:
Compensated absences payable 1,110,736 1,067,084
Other postemployment benefits payable 2,144,438 1,833,419
Capial lease payable - -
Total noncurrent liabilities 3,255,174 2,900,503
Total liabilities 5,910,744 5,453,457
Net position:
Net investment in capital assets - -
Unrestricted (4,905,713)(4,670,465)
Total net position ($4,905,713)($4,670,465)
6100 Employee Administrative
132
Special Study Session Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 1)
Title: 2014 Financial Statements – Auditors Discussion and Review Page 139
Statement 21
2014 2013 2014 2013 2014 2013
$740,613 $718,470 $1,812,664 $ - $3,448,646 $1,457,437
1,514 2,053 9 - 4,763 6,371
- - 579 - 579 -
- - 352,385 - 352,385 -
75,051 77,789 12,921 29,670 163,394 116,166
- - - - 31,000 31,000
817,178 798,312 2,178,558 29,670 4,000,767 1,610,974
- - 818,094 818,094 818,094 818,094
- - 5,990 134,520 5,990 134,520
- - 9,965,062 9,461,214 9,965,062 9,461,214
- - 7,051,745 6,607,079 7,051,745 6,607,079
- - 8,029,132 7,126,319 8,029,132 7,126,319
- - 27,995 852,757 27,995 852,757
0 0 25,898,018 24,999,983 25,898,018 24,999,983
- - (8,629,417) (7,696,111) (8,629,417) (7,696,111)
0 0 17,268,601 17,303,872 17,268,601 17,303,872
817,178 798,312 19,447,159 17,333,542 21,269,368 18,914,846
44,016 638 229,011 90,087 294,096 109,752
- - - - 5,080 5,225
- - - - 34,077 25,490
- - 171 2,324 3,798 15,671
- - 3,805 159,998 3,805 159,998
- - - 943,989 - 943,989
- - - - 2,591,717 2,489,865
- - 8,100 - 8,100 -
44,016 638 241,087 1,196,398 2,940,673 3,749,990
- - - - 1,110,736 1,067,084
- - - - 2,144,438 1,833,419
- - 24,975 - 24,975 -
0 0 24,975 0 3,280,149 2,900,503
44,016 638 266,062 1,196,398 6,220,822 6,650,493
- - 17,268,601 17,303,872 17,268,601 17,303,872
773,162 797,674 1,912,496 (1,166,728) (2,220,055) (5,039,519)
$773,162 $797,674 $19,181,097 $16,137,144 $15,048,546 $12,264,353
Totals6200 Uninsured Loss 6400 Capital Replacement
133
Special Study Session Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 1)
Title: 2014 Financial Statements – Auditors Discussion and Review Page 140
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
COMBINING STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENSES AND
CHANGES IN FUND NET POSITION
INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS
For The Year Ended December 31, 2014
With Comparative Amounts For The Year Ended December 31, 2013
2014 2013
Operating revenues:
Charges for services $ - $ -
Other 382,054 295,372
Total operating revenues 382,054 295,372
Operating expenses:
Personal services 750,982 1,166,093
Supplies - -
Professional services 21,539 21,375
Insurance - -
Depreciation - -
Other 77,930 124,157
Total operating expenses 850,451 1,311,625
Operating income (loss)(468,397)(1,016,253)
Nonoperating revenues (expenses):
Investment income 15,418 6,620
Property taxes 200,000 200,000
Intergovernmental revenue 17,731 19,653
Net gain on disposal of assets - -
Total nonoperating
revenues (expenses)233,149 226,273
Income (loss) before transfers (235,248)(789,980)
Transfers in - -
Transfers out - -
Total transfers 00
Change in net position (235,248)(789,980)
Net position - January 1 (4,670,465)(3,880,485)
Net position - December 31 ($4,905,713) ($4,670,465)
6100 Employee Administrative
134
Special Study Session Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 1)
Title: 2014 Financial Statements – Auditors Discussion and Review Page 141
Statement 22
2014 2013 2014 2013 2014 2013
$ - $ - $807,209 $781,078 $807,209 $781,078
157,514 234,994 220 73,234 539,788 603,600
157,514 234,994 807,429 854,312 1,346,997 1,384,678
21,717 21,348 - - 772,699 1,187,441
- - 378,011 449,594 378,011 449,594
- - 506,794 2,217,474 528,333 2,238,849
164,649 208,568 - - 164,649 208,568
- - 1,737,281 1,347,225 1,737,281 1,347,225
1,714 1,152 362,754 663,387 442,398 788,696
188,080 231,068 2,984,840 4,677,680 4,023,371 6,220,373
(30,566)3,926 (2,177,411) (3,823,368) (2,676,374) (4,835,695)
6,054 2,692 18 6,281 21,490 15,593
- - 2,700,782 1,108,132 2,900,782 1,308,132
- - 458,830 17,500 476,561 37,153
- - 142,763 69,237 142,763 69,237
6,054 2,692 3,302,393 1,201,150 3,541,596 1,430,115
(24,512)6,618 1,124,982 (2,622,218)865,222 (3,405,580)
- - 1,918,971 926,753 1,918,971 926,753
- (106,171) - - - (106,171)
0 (106,171)1,918,971 926,753 1,918,971 820,582
(24,512)(99,553)3,043,953 (1,695,465)2,784,193 (2,584,998)
797,674 897,227 16,137,144 17,832,609 12,264,353 14,849,351
$773,162 $797,674 $19,181,097 $16,137,144 $15,048,546 $12,264,353
Totals6200 Uninsured Loss 6400 Capital Replacement
135
Special Study Session Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 1)
Title: 2014 Financial Statements – Auditors Discussion and Review Page 142
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
COMBINING STATEMENT OF CASH FLOWS
INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS
For The Year Ended December 31, 2014
With Comparative Amounts For The Year Ended December 31, 2013
2014 2013
Cash flows from operating activities:
Receipts from interfund services provided $ - $ -
Other receipts 382,054 295,372
Payments to suppliers (173,862) (210,241)
Payments to employees (286,017) (869,868)
Net cash flows provided by (used in)
operating activities (77,825) (784,737)
Cash flows from noncapital financing activities:
Transfers in - -
Transfers out - -
Borrowing on interfund balances - -
Payments on interfund balances - -
Property taxes 200,000 200,000
Intergovernmental receipts 17,731 19,653
Net cash flows provided by (used in)
noncapital financing activities 217,731 219,653
Cash flows from capital and related
financing activities:
Transfers in - -
Acquisition and construction of capital assets - -
Proceeds from sale of assets - -
Prncipal paid on capital lease - -
Net cash flows provided by (used in) capital
and related financing activities 0 0
Cash flows from investing activities:
Investment income 16,496 10,559
Net increase (decrease) in cash and cash equivalents 156,402 (554,525)
Cash and cash equivalents - January 1 738,967 1,293,492
Cash and cash equivalents - December 31 $895,369 $738,967
6100 Employee Administrative
136
Special Study Session Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 1)
Title: 2014 Financial Statements – Auditors Discussion and Review Page 143
Statement 23
Page 1 of 2
2014 2013 2014 2013 2014 2013
$ - $200 $806,630 $781,078 $806,630 $781,278
157,514 234,994 220 73,234 539,788 603,600
(120,247) (220,429)(1,250,232) (3,136,029)(1,544,341) (3,566,699)
(21,717) (21,348) - - (307,734) (891,216)
15,550 (6,583)(443,382) (2,281,717)(505,657) (3,073,037)
- - 1,500,000 450,000 1,500,000 450,000
- (106,171) - - - (106,171)
- - - 943,989 - 943,989
- - (943,989) - (943,989) -
- - 2,348,397 1,108,132 2,548,397 1,308,132
- - 458,830 17,500 476,561 37,153
0 (106,171)3,363,238 2,519,621 3,580,969 2,633,103
- - 418,971 476,753 418,971 476,753
- - (1,705,934) (2,582,481)(1,705,934) (2,582,481)
- - 187,187 151,313 187,187 151,313
- - (7,425) - (7,425) -
0 0 (1,107,201) (1,954,415)(1,107,201) (1,954,415)
6,593 3,292 9 12,787 23,098 26,638
22,143 (109,462)1,812,664 (1,703,724)1,991,209 (2,367,711)
718,470 827,932 - 1,703,724 1,457,437 3,825,148
$740,613 $718,470 $1,812,664 $0 $3,448,646 $1,457,437
6400 Capital Replacement Totals6200 Uninsured Loss
137
Special Study Session Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 1)
Title: 2014 Financial Statements – Auditors Discussion and Review Page 144
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
COMBINING STATEMENT OF CASH FLOWS
INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS
For The Year Ended December 31, 2014
With Comparative Amounts For The Year Ended December 31, 2013
2014 2013
Reconciliation of operating income (loss) to net
cash provided (used) by operating activities:
Operating income (loss)($468,397) ($1,016,253)
Adjustments to reconcile operating income
(loss) to net cash flows from operating activities:
Depreciation - -
Changes in assets and liabilities:
Decrease (increase) in:
Accounts receivable - -
Prepaid items (66,715)(8,707)
Increase (decrease) in:
Accounts payable (7,678)(56,002)
Contracts payable - -
Accrued salaries payable (145)3,281
Accrued flex spending 8,587 (629)
Compensated absences payable 145,504 (26,760)
Other postemployment benefits 311,019 320,333
Total adjustments 390,572 231,516
Net cash provided by (used in)
operating activities ($77,825) ($784,737)
Supplemental schedule of noncash capital and related
financing activities
Capital assets acquired through financing $ - $ -
Disposal of capital assets $ - $ -
6100 Employee Administrative
138
Special Study Session Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 1)
Title: 2014 Financial Statements – Auditors Discussion and Review Page 145
Statement 23
Page 2 of 2
2014 2013 2014 2013 2014 2013
($30,566)$3,926 ($2,177,411) ($3,823,368)($2,676,374) ($4,835,695)
- - 1,737,281 1,347,225 1,737,281 1,347,225
- 200 (579) - (579)200
2,738 27,688 16,749 - (47,228)18,981
43,378 (13,988)136,771 57,611 172,471 (12,379)
- (24,409)(156,193) 136,815 (156,193) 112,406
- - - - (145)3,281
- - - - 8,587 (629)
- - - - 145,504 (26,760)
- - - - 311,019 320,333
46,116 (10,509)1,734,029 1,541,651 2,170,717 1,762,658
$15,550 ($6,583)($443,382) ($2,281,717)($505,657) ($3,073,037)
$ - $ - $40,500 $ - $40,500 $ -
$ - $ - $803,975 $ - $803,975 $ -
6200 Uninsured Loss 6400 Capital Replacement Totals
139
Special Study Session Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 1)
Title: 2014 Financial Statements – Auditors Discussion and Review Page 146
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
BALANCE SHEET Statement 24
GENERAL FUND
December 31, 2014
With Comparative Totals For December 31, 2013
2014 2013
Assets
Cash and investments $19,235,324 $17,261,132
Accrued interest receivable 31,318 39,656
Due from other governments 308,195 537,954
Accounts receivable 211,229 204,824
Taxes receivable - unremitted 15,620 1,148,350
Taxes receivable - delinquent 291,372 160,983
Prepaid items 48,552 52,248
Inventory 349,351 204,003
Total assets $20,490,961 $19,609,150
Liabilities, Deferred Inflows of Resources, and Fund Balance
Liabilities:
Accounts payable $572,847 $1,024,758
Salaries payable 1,288,119 1,091,445
Due to other governments 74,952 53,311
Contracts payable - 24,740
Deposits payable 1,334,456 1,003,101
Unearned revenue 715,639 460,446
Total liabilities 3,986,013 3,657,801
Deferred inflows of resources:
Unavailable revenue 342,211 162,583
Total deferred inflows of resources 342,211 162,583
Fund balance:
Nonspendable 397,873 256,251
Restricted 492,223 498,922
Assigned 696,293 691,171
Unassigned 14,576,348 14,342,422
Total fund balance 16,162,737 15,788,766
Total liabilities, deferred inflows
of resources, and fund balance $20,490,961 $19,609,150
140
Special Study Session Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 1)
Title: 2014 Financial Statements – Auditors Discussion and Review Page 147
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
SUMMARY FINANCIAL REPORT Statement 25
SCHEDULE OF REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES FOR GENERAL OPERATIONS
GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS
For The Year Ended December 31, 2014
With Comparative Amounts For The Year Ended December 31, 2013
2014 2013
Percent Increase
(Decrease)
Revenues:
Property taxes $24,361,524 $25,658,762 (5.1%)
Tax increments 7,380,995 6,647,729 11.0%
Franchise taxes 2,268,213 2,211,569 2.6%
License and permits 3,413,683 3,069,090 11.2%
Intergovernmental 13,216,055 13,887,247 (4.8%)
Charges for services 3,476,264 3,052,789 13.9%
Fines and forfeits 369,546 311,882 18.5%
Special assessments 1,268,539 1,505,568 (15.7%)
Interest on investments 386,263 123,306 213.3%
Miscellaneous 2,577,300 2,216,820 16.3%
Total revenues 58,718,382 58,684,762 0.1%
Per capita 1,238 1,266
Expenditures:
Current:
General government 7,376,380 7,162,588 3.0%
Public safety 13,239,729 12,435,341 6.5%
Operations and recreation 10,500,789 10,083,541 4.1%
Engineering 20,963,383 15,998,842
Public information 462,341 408,683 13.1%
Housing and rehabilitation 875,225 1,715,540 (49.0%)
Housing maintenance 130,534 141,250 (7.6%)
Social economic development 7,928,905 8,910,821 (11.0%)
Capital outlay:
Public safety 16,901 163,766 (89.7%)
Operations and recreation 337,505 930,249 (63.7%)
Engineering 1,845,182 798,517
Public information - 18,163 0.0%
Social and economic development 72,400 179,103 (59.6%)
Debt service:
Principal 1,970,000 3,275,000 (39.8%)
Interest 1,138,100 1,298,016 (12.3%)
Bond issuance costs 52,393 - 0.0%
Fiscal agent fees 2,040 3,895 0.0%
Total expenditures $66,911,807 $63,523,315 5.3%
Per capita 1,411 1,370
Total bonds payable 28,155,000 25,055,000 12.4%
Per capita 594 469
General Fund balance 16,162,737 15,788,766 2.4%
Per capita 341 341
The purpose of this report is to provide a summary of financial information concerning the City of St. Louis Park to interested
citizens. The complete financial statements may be examined at City Hall, 5005 Minnetonka Blvd, St. Louis Park, Minnesota
55416-2216. Questions about this report should be directed to Brian Swanson, Controller at (952) 924-2500.
Total Governmental Funds
141
Special Study Session Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 1)
Title: 2014 Financial Statements – Auditors Discussion and Review Page 148
- This page intentionally left blank -
142
Special Study Session Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 1)
Title: 2014 Financial Statements – Auditors Discussion and Review Page 149
III. STATISTICAL SECTION (UNAUDITED)
143
Special Study Session Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 1)
Title: 2014 Financial Statements – Auditors Discussion and Review Page 150
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
STATISTICAL SECTION (UNAUDITED)
NET POSITION BY COMPONENT
LAST TEN FISCAL YEARS
2005 2006 2007 2008
Governmental activities
Net investment in capital assets $47,555,983 $56,843,474 $74,883,912 $76,600,774
Restricted 10,841,736 9,340,767 13,098,282 -
Unrestricted 59,482,664 60,462,334 46,155,656 65,908,328
Total governmental activities net position $117,880,383 $126,646,575 $134,137,850 $142,509,102
Business-type activities
Net investment in capital assets $25,769,652 $25,629,760 $25,644,428 $27,559,942
Unrestricted 9,119,032 7,514,603 7,499,935 6,414,768
Total business-type activities net position $34,888,684 $33,144,363 $33,144,363 $33,974,710
Total primary government
Net investment in capital assets $73,325,635 $82,473,234 $100,528,340 $104,160,716
Restricted 10,841,736 9,340,767 13,098,282 -
Unrestricted 68,601,696 67,976,937 53,655,591 72,323,096
Total primary government $142,870,139 $152,769,067 $159,790,938 $ -
Note:
GASB 65 was implemented in 2013. Net position was restated for 2012 to reflect the expenses of bond issuance costs in the
year of issuance. Net position for years prior to 2012 was not restated.
Fiscal Year
144
Special Study Session Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 1)
Title: 2014 Financial Statements – Auditors Discussion and Review Page 151
Table 1
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
$89,252,994 $94,326,512 $99,835,484 $95,020,700 $96,480,493 $94,891,625
20,075,976 21,692,426 17,695,996 18,941,172 13,560,965 10,971,995
40,508,755 40,581,189 43,929,086 46,413,200 45,688,600 49,971,778
$149,837,725 $156,600,127 $161,460,566 $160,375,072 $155,730,058 $155,835,398
$23,977,469 $21,717,923 $22,347,266 $22,906,086 $19,127,309 $22,818,382
6,903,776 8,433,915 8,524,086 9,829,024 11,540,303 4,783,696
$30,881,245 $30,151,838 $30,871,352 $32,735,110 $30,667,612 $27,602,078
$113,230,463 $116,044,435 $122,182,750 $117,926,786 $115,607,802 $117,710,007
20,075,976 21,692,426 17,695,996 18,941,172 13,560,965 10,971,995
47,412,531 49,015,104 52,453,172 56,001,992 57,228,903 54,755,474
$180,718,970 $186,751,965 $192,331,918 $192,869,950 $186,397,670 $183,437,476
Fiscal Year
145
Special Study Session Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 1)
Title: 2014 Financial Statements – Auditors Discussion and Review Page 152
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
STATISTICAL SECTION (UNAUDITED)
CHANGES IN NET POSITION
LAST TEN FISCAL YEARS
(accrual basis of accounting)
2005 2006 2007 2008
Expenses
Governmental activities
General government $6,802,845 $7,155,916 $8,251,341 $8,216,816
Public safety 10,262,906 11,695,841 10,721,803 11,867,403
Public works 5,520,192 6,895,260 5,979,789 6,904,217
Public information 262,962 231,124 404,074 425,829
Culture and recreation 6,262,800 6,399,633 6,916,001 7,352,406
Operations and recreation - - - -
Engineering - - - -
Housing and rehabilitation 397,834 728,433 1,079,211 1,615,010
Housing maintenance 161,558 373,393 121,118 199,757
Social and economic development 3,888,897 9,784,543 5,910,149 5,494,634
General services 7,626 22,484 6,830 2,653
Interest on long-term debt 1,478,427 1,345,023 1,301,266 1,329,767
Total governmental activities expenses 35,046,047 44,631,650 40,691,582 43,408,492
Business-type activities
Water 2,607,123 2,845,614 3,285,107 3,391,992
Sewer 3,904,543 4,268,952 4,199,659 4,485,386
Solid waste - - - -
Refuse 2,019,204 2,029,302 2,019,595 2,135,677
Storm water 793,977 1,032,410 1,088,170 1,172,199
Wireless - 402,683 1,151,751 315,664
Total business-type activities expenses 9,324,847 10,578,961 11,744,282 11,500,918
Total expenses $44,370,894 $55,210,611 $52,435,864 $54,909,410
Program revenues
Governmental activities
Charges for services
General government $639,679 $936,199 $978,058 $955,811
Public safety 3,488,259 3,049,369 2,977,475 4,282,699
Public works - 432,932 1,483,824 380,452
Public information - - - -
Culture and recreation 2,317,222 1,886,153 2,409,625 2,121,505
Operations and recreation - - - -
Engineering - - - -
Housing and rehabilitation - 456,088 527,536 507,163
Housing maintenance 1,378,015 - - -
Social and economic development - 32,456 202,110 173,960
Interest on long-term debt - - - -
Operating grants and contributions 1,283,407 7,703,241 3,908,485 3,581,092
Capital grants and contributions 2,412,375 6,290,881 2,113,560 2,822,683
Total governmental activities program revenue 11,518,957 20,787,319 14,600,673 14,825,365
Business-type activities
Charges for services
Water 2,363,709 2,968,926 3,461,301 3,584,384
Sewer 4,367,868 4,584,802 4,820,732 4,506,339
Solid waste - - - -
Refuse 1,857,808 2,124,203 2,395,469 2,348,133
Storm water 914,701 1,169,915 1,473,746 1,529,180
Wireless - 41,057 68,959 51,322
Operating grants and contributions 119,165 263,181 208,814 966,053
Capital grants and contributions 1,236,740 209,277 - 1,040,384
Total business-type activities program revenue 10,859,991 11,361,361 12,429,021 14,025,795
Total program revenues $22,378,948 $32,148,680 $27,029,694 $28,851,160
Fiscal Year
146
Special Study Session Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 1)
Title: 2014 Financial Statements – Auditors Discussion and Review Page 153
Table 2
Page 1 of 2
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
$8,167,355 $7,192,652 $7,247,716 $7,387,354 $10,085,905 $9,161,922
12,138,185 12,256,272 12,535,793 13,264,220 13,365,297 13,954,604
6,915,541 19,446,758 7,513,833 - - -
457,872 435,050 803,885 524,012 466,043 507,928
7,456,215 7,792,614 7,882,789 - - -
- - - 15,209,548 13,487,238 13,318,552
- - - 5,253,969 16,046,665 21,045,392
1,544,175 4,150,595 794,935 3,914,261 1,774,657 909,051
128,099 241,345 79,786 116,949 141,250 130,534
6,321,623 4,861,518 6,171,527 7,810,635 9,040,280 8,058,914
7,662 - - - - -
1,543,879 1,453,555 1,695,758 1,245,294 1,295,298 1,185,975
44,680,606 57,830,359 44,726,022 54,726,242 65,702,633 68,272,872
4,089,837 3,904,801 3,839,592 3,890,860 5,747,116 4,609,579
4,228,680 4,193,191 4,572,869 4,593,166 5,272,646 4,885,748
- 2,116,949 2,319,099 2,562,985 3,614,118 2,813,587
2,125,540 - - - - -
1,287,202 1,325,803 1,373,546 1,485,390 1,390,235 1,422,645
151,708 - - - - -
11,882,967 11,540,744 12,105,106 12,532,401 16,024,115 13,731,559
$56,563,573 $69,371,103 $56,831,128 $67,258,643 $81,726,748 $82,004,431
$888,246 $1,065,209 $1,059,527 $1,060,679 $1,024,253 $1,142,294
2,958,383 2,898,634 2,917,525 3,344,449 3,109,813 3,477,244
2,292,287 601,890 315,163 - - -
- - 200,000 - - -
2,083,015 1,959,556 2,111,348 2,438,841 - -
- - - - 2,035,715 2,089,052
- - - - 1,032 318,873
562,930 8,833 62,191 8,162 8,606 7,537
- - - - - 241
184,236 588,757 316,935 281,002 250,015 224,252
318,134 - - - - -
2,664,563 1,735,926 2,065,312 2,360,465 2,709,644 2,024,171
2,131,755 14,908,522 1,878,697 6,290,076 11,881,109 12,066,132
14,083,549 23,767,327 10,926,698 15,783,674 21,020,187 21,349,796
4,294,962 4,148,394 4,475,068 5,109,446 5,037,067 5,188,065
5,153,171 5,277,473 5,768,266 5,959,931 5,822,085 5,841,377
- 2,719,376 2,894,726 2,858,930 2,912,415 3,179,732
2,458,555 - - - - -
1,699,557 1,829,792 1,904,587 1,977,663 2,054,915 2,246,201
16,140 - - - - -
167,604 103,342 103,166 105,976 135,642 127,742
- 2,890 - - - -
13,789,989 14,081,267 15,145,813 16,011,946 15,962,124 16,583,117
$27,873,538 $37,848,594 $26,072,511 $31,795,620 $36,982,311 $37,932,913
Fiscal Year
147
Special Study Session Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 1)
Title: 2014 Financial Statements – Auditors Discussion and Review Page 154
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
STATISTICAL SECTION (UNAUDITED)
CHANGES IN NET POSITION
LAST TEN FISCAL YEARS
(accrual basis of accounting)
2005 2006 2007 2008
Net (expenses) revenues
Governmental activities ($23,527,090) ($23,844,331) ($26,090,909) ($28,583,127)
Business-type activities 1,535,144 755,400 684,739 2,524,877
Total primary government ($21,991,946) ($23,088,931) ($25,406,170) ($26,058,250)
General Revenues and Other Changes in Net Position
Governmental activities:
Taxes:
Property taxes $21,965,197 $23,538,989 $26,163,519 $28,523,119
Tax increment - - - -
Franchise taxes 1,431,779 1,358,902 1,440,034 1,507,994
State grants and contributions not
restricted to specific programs 1,520,187 932,634 825,327 519,850
Unrestricted investment earnings 1,484,873 2,881,818 4,139,689 2,133,858
Gain on sale of capital assets 182,373 128,344 378,075 1,842,601
Miscellaneous 672,032 474,054 341,335 470,230
Transfers 2,095,521 1,923,760 1,996,291 1,956,727
Total governmental activities expenses 29,351,962 31,238,501 35,284,270 36,954,379
Business-type activities:
Unrestricted investment earnings 184,950 254,966 466,923 243,724
Miscellaneous 3,949 13,702 - 18,473
Gain on sale of capital assets 2,139 - - -
Transfers (2,095,521) (1,923,760) (1,996,291) (1,956,727)
Total business-type activities expenses (1,904,483) (1,655,092) (1,529,368) (1,694,530)
Total primary government $27,447,479 $29,583,409 $33,754,902 $35,259,849
Change in net position:
Governmental activities $5,824,872 $7,394,170 $9,193,361 $8,371,252
Business-type activities (369,339) (899,692) (844,629) 830,347
Prior period adjustment - (474,033) 143,969 -
Total primary government $5,455,533 $6,020,445 $8,492,701 $9,201,599
Note:
GASB 65 was implemented in 2013. Governmental and business-type activities expenses were restated for 2012 to reflect
the expensing of bond issuance costs in the year of issuance. Expenses for years prior to 2012 were not restated.
Fiscal Year
148
Special Study Session Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 1)
Title: 2014 Financial Statements – Auditors Discussion and Review Page 155
Table 2
Page 2 of 2
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
($30,597,057) ($34,063,032) ($33,799,324) ($38,942,568) ($44,682,446) ($46,923,076)
1,907,022 2,540,523 3,040,707 3,479,545 (61,991) 2,851,558
($28,690,035) ($31,522,509) ($30,758,617) ($35,463,023) ($44,744,437) ($44,071,518)
$29,512,631 $29,642,090 $23,527,322 $24,625,789 $26,963,176 $27,398,157
- - 7,222,976 6,446,389 6,647,729 7,380,995
1,503,075 1,497,178 1,894,714 1,954,557 2,211,569 2,268,213
153,108 151,624 156,325 46,422 45,266 504,035
1,452,176 629,094 1,048,395 663,978 138,899 407,753
91,149 34,453 51,686 60,416 69,237 464,629
11,229 950,231 2,300,478 2,183,685 2,199,629 2,609,539
5,202,312 3,358,921 2,457,867 1,660,035 1,761,927 5,995,095
37,925,680 36,263,591 38,659,763 37,641,271 40,037,432 47,028,416
201,825 88,991 136,674 113,260 (3,348) 78,003
- - - - - -
- - - - - -
(5,202,312) (3,358,921) (2,457,867) (1,660,035) (1,761,927) (5,995,095)
(5,000,487) (3,269,930) (2,321,193) (1,546,775) (1,765,275) (5,917,092)
$32,925,193 $32,993,661 $36,338,570 $36,094,496 $38,272,157 $41,111,324
$7,328,623 $2,200,559 $4,860,439 ($1,301,297) ($4,645,014) $105,340
(3,093,465) (729,407) 719,514 1,932,770 (1,827,266) (3,065,534)
- - - - - -
$4,235,158 $1,471,152 $5,579,953 $631,473 ($6,472,280) ($2,960,194)
Fiscal Year
149
Special Study Session Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 1)
Title: 2014 Financial Statements – Auditors Discussion and Review Page 156
- This page intentionally left blank -
150
Special Study Session Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 1)
Title: 2014 Financial Statements – Auditors Discussion and Review Page 157
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
STATISTICAL SECTION (UNAUDITED)Table 3
GOVERNMENTAL ACTIVITIES TAX REVENUES BY SOURCE
LAST TEN FISCAL YEARS
Fiscal Property Franchise
Year Tax Tax Total
2005 $21,965,197 $1,431,779 $23,396,976
2006 23,538,989 1,358,902 24,897,891
2007 26,163,519 1,440,034 27,603,553
2008 28,523,119 1,507,993 30,031,112
2009 28,523,119 1,503,075 30,026,194
2010 29,316,753 1,497,178 30,813,931
2011 30,853,927 1,894,714 32,748,641
2012 31,220,365 1,954,557 33,174,922
2013 33,610,905 2,211,569 35,822,474
2014 34,779,152 2,268,213 37,047,365
151
Special Study Session Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 1)
Title: 2014 Financial Statements – Auditors Discussion and Review Page 158
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
STATISTICAL SECTION (UNAUDITED)
FUND BALANCES OF GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS
LAST TEN FISCAL YEARS
(modified accrual basis of accounting)
2005 2006 2007 2008
General fund
Reserved $118,002 $104,774 $13,719 $29,368
Unreserved 8,622,091 9,847,341 10,100,187 11,697,232
Nonspendable - - - -
Restricted - - - -
Assigned - - - -
Unassigned - - - -
Total General fund $8,740,093 $9,952,115 $10,113,906 $11,726,600
All other governmental funds
Reserved $19,338,220 $9,276,305 $10,229,125 $10,610,175
Unreserved, reported in:
Special revenue funds 7,707,696 10,012,784 9,450,210 7,134,284
Capital projects funds 30,396,836 38,126,004 38,889,030 43,134,211
Other funds 2,257,068 - - -
Nonspendable - - - -
Restricted - - - -
Committed - - - -
Assigned - - - -
Unassigned - - - -
Total all other governmental funds $59,699,820 $57,415,093 $58,568,365 $60,878,670
Note:
The City implemented GASB Statement No. 54 for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010, resulting in significant
reclassification of the components of fund balance.
Fiscal Year
152
Special Study Session Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 1)
Title: 2014 Financial Statements – Auditors Discussion and Review Page 159
Table 4
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
$572,206 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
7,326,638 - - - - -
- 80,664 71,192 70,450 256,251 397,873
- 425,967 427,718 458,448 498,922 492,223
- 124,503 139,483 690,242 691,171 696,293
- 10,399,401 10,799,829 10,757,776 14,342,422 14,576,348
$7,898,844 $11,030,535 $11,438,222 $11,976,916 $15,788,766 $16,162,737
$7,540,696 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
7,568,944 - - - - -
40,680,331 - - - - -
- - - - - -
- 11,570,382 11,391,114 14,059,579 13,889,317 7,122,122
- 32,296,848 18,298,167 17,196,417 11,769,076 9,210,361
- 466,792 511,610 459,160 467,682 483,590
- 25,151,409 26,518,495 25,583,093 22,925,072 35,032,602
- (7,872,234) (5,042,828) (7,567,117) (7,020,483) (8,819,377)
$55,789,971 $61,613,197 $51,676,558 $49,731,132 $42,030,664 $43,029,298
Fiscal Year
153
Special Study Session Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 1)
Title: 2014 Financial Statements – Auditors Discussion and Review Page 160
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
STATISTICAL SECTION (UNAUDITED)
CHANGES IN FUND BALANCES OF GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS
LAST TEN FISCAL YEARS
(modified accrual basis of accounting)
2005 2006 2007 2008
Revenues
Taxes $21,909,256 $19,416,738 $20,951,991 $21,563,302
Tax increments - 5,390,257 6,597,092 8,371,424
Franchise taxes - - - -
Licenses and permits 2,932,988 2,934,270 2,946,749 4,072,753
Intergovernmental 5,410,252 12,943,457 3,737,619 2,424,119
Charges for services 4,197,987 2,394,509 276,693 324,512
Fines and forfeits 286,003 322,558 4,482,834 3,894,839
Special assessments 827,361 843,030 840,965 703,484
Investment earnings 1,323,843 2,717,490 3,851,542 1,990,854
Miscellaneous 2,397,275 2,648,354 3,038,836 3,591,212
Total revenues 39,284,965 49,610,663 46,724,321 46,936,499
Expenditures
General government 5,662,931 5,985,314 6,642,231 6,642,295
Public safety 11,221,408 11,060,618 10,851,256 11,744,656
Public works 3,772,650 4,934,433 4,089,223 4,671,631
Public information 259,461 227,106 393,863 415,609
Culture and recreation 5,271,726 6,095,959 7,274,375 6,213,945
Operations and recreation - - - -
Engineering - - - -
Housing and rehabilitation 397,834 739,391 688,062 1,621,099
Housing maintenance 161,558 373,393 121,118 199,757
Social and economic development 1,405,434 9,124,251 5,822,842 5,162,698
General services 7,626 22,484 6,830 2,653
Debt service:
Principal 3,680,000 6,360,000 4,065,000 4,485,000
Interest 1,626,517 1,450,460 1,304,565 1,365,484
Other charges 59,589 - - -
Capital outlay 11,206,131 4,567,251 5,804,342 9,998,748
Total expenditures 44,732,865 50,940,660 47,063,707 52,523,575
Excess (deficiency) of revenues
over (under) expenditures (5,447,900) (1,329,997) (339,386) (5,587,076)
Other financing sources (uses)
Transfers in 9,650,253 6,432,713 8,383,989 11,129,934
Transfers out (8,716,751) (5,480,804) (7,008,202) (9,233,136)
Principal paid on refunded bonds - - - -
Refunding bonds issued 2,370,000 - - -
Bonds issued 3,705,000 - - 5,490,000
Premium on bonds issued 151,602 - - -
Discount on bonds issued (5,746) - - -
Redemption of refunded bonds - - - -
Payments to refunded bond escrow agent - - - -
Costs paid to refunded bond escrow agent - - - -
Gain (loss) on sale of capital assets 1,566,691 (220,584) 278,662 2,123,277
Total other financing
sources (uses)8,721,049 731,325 1,654,449 9,510,075
Net change in fund balances $3,273,149 ($598,672) $1,315,063 $3,922,999
Debt service as a percentage of
noncapital expenditures 15.83%16.84%13.01%13.76%
Fiscal Year
154
Special Study Session Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 1)
Title: 2014 Financial Statements – Auditors Discussion and Review Page 161
Table 5
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
$21,700,329 $22,667,190 $23,336,537 $24,259,861 $25,658,762 $24,361,524
7,846,204 6,649,563 7,222,976 6,446,389 6,647,729 7,380,995
1,503,075 1,497,178 1,894,714 1,954,557 2,211,569 2,268,213
2,786,032 2,359,716 2,797,700 3,241,813 3,069,090 3,413,683
3,867,795 11,879,601 3,105,500 2,983,191 13,887,247 13,216,055
4,228,179 4,051,971 3,897,710 3,547,900 3,052,789 3,476,264
332,694 401,610 281,047 341,356 311,882 369,546
800,054 1,550,110 985,912 2,233,715 1,505,568 1,268,539
1,358,170 612,098 949,510 622,450 123,306 386,263
2,615,062 3,050,231 2,285,608 2,188,262 2,216,820 2,577,300
47,037,594 54,719,268 46,757,214 47,819,494 58,684,762 58,718,382
6,472,022 6,219,751 6,415,318 6,503,965 7,162,588 7,376,380
11,949,612 11,771,246 11,885,577 12,571,356 12,435,341 13,239,729
4,637,289 15,624,494 4,437,939 - - -
445,146 387,459 383,586 470,280 408,683 462,341
6,027,059 6,234,938 6,546,054 - - -
- - - 13,955,142 10,083,541 10,450,789
- - - 939,416 15,998,842 21,013,383
1,550,264 4,144,378 790,918 3,881,500 1,715,540 875,225
128,099 241,170 79,786 116,949 141,250 130,534
6,241,123 4,720,638 6,426,013 7,681,176 8,910,821 7,928,905
7,662 - - - - -
4,709,000 2,170,000 5,420,000 1,285,000 3,275,000 1,970,000
1,322,477 1,170,286 1,170,549 1,235,118 1,298,016 1,138,100
- 453,288 1,040 46,435 3,895 54,433
10,314,002 6,306,083 14,295,009 3,930,528 2,089,798 2,271,988
53,803,755 59,443,731 57,851,789 52,616,865 63,523,315 66,911,807
(6,766,161) (4,724,463) (11,094,575) (4,797,371) (4,838,553) (8,193,425)
9,939,299 11,809,353 7,086,529 6,395,355 10,472,534 19,317,129
(10,579,081) (14,974,391) (5,520,906) (5,580,044) (9,531,189) (15,241,005)
- - - - - -
- 3,615,000 - 1,290,000 - -
2,000,000 16,130,000 - - - 5,070,000
10,202 2,792 - - - 98,040
- - - - - -
- (1,825,000) - - - -
(6,045,000)4,430,000 - - - -
(199,425)(4,164,000) - - - -
- 27,412 - 885,328 8,590 321,866
(4,874,005)15,051,166 1,565,623 2,990,639 949,935 9,566,030
($11,640,166)$10,326,703 ($9,528,952)($1,806,732)($3,888,618)$1,372,605
13.87%6.29%12.86%5.27%7.44%4.89%
Fiscal Year
155
Special Study Session Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 1)
Title: 2014 Financial Statements – Auditors Discussion and Review Page 162
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
STATISTICAL SECTION (UNAUDITED)
ASSESSED VALUE/TAX CAPACITY VALUE AND ESTIMATED MARKET VALUE
OF ALL TAXABLE PROPERTY
LAST TEN FISCAL YEARS
2005 2006 2007 2008
Population 44,511 44,422 43,145 47,198
Real Property
Total assessed/tax capacity value $56,737,869 $62,912,413 $68,025,921 $68,006,453
Less tax increment districts -(5,211,867) (6,335,246) (7,644,566)(7,639,464)
Area-wide allocation (net)(1,153,662) (1,186,353) (1,498,263)(1,498,263)
Net assessed/tax capacity value $50,372,340 $55,390,814 $58,883,092 $58,868,726
Estimated market value $4,841,195,800 $5,232,595,500 $5,553,715,600 $5,552,520,000
Personal Property
Assessed/tax capacity value $464,571 $489,063 $458,627 $458,627
Estimated market value $23,527,400 $24,807,500 $23,263,700 $23,263,700
Total Real and Personal Property
Assessed/tax capacity value $50,836,911 $55,879,877 $59,341,719 $59,327,353
Estimated market value $4,864,723,200 $5,257,403,000 $5,576,979,300 $5,575,783,700
Tax Capacity Rate 35.2%34.3%34.1%35.6%
Fiscal Year
156
Special Study Session Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 1)
Title: 2014 Financial Statements – Auditors Discussion and Review
Page 163
Table 6
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
47,221 45,250 44,665 45,505 46,362 47,411
$69,704,858 $68,386,268 $65,611,006 $62,602,680 $61,348,576 $62,068,742
(8,276,993) (6,976,791) (6,379,980) (5,426,995) (5,587,609) (6,130,653)
(1,635,724) (1,231,482) (2,775,483) (3,220,881) (2,940,678) (3,670,487)
$59,792,141 $60,177,995 $56,455,543 $53,954,804 $52,820,289 $52,267,602
$5,633,028,200 $5,550,563,700 $5,302,557,500 $5,226,900,300 $5,103,186,900 $5,123,316,900
$434,825 $428,760 $478,864 $490,122 $559,718 $576,427
$22,006,100 $21,712,100 $24,363,800 $24,962,100 $28,487,900 $29,320,000
$60,226,966 $60,606,755 $56,934,407 $54,444,926 $53,380,007 $52,844,029
$5,655,034,300 $5,572,275,800 $5,326,921,300 $5,251,862,400 $5,131,674,800 $5,152,636,900
36.9% 37.7% 41.7% 43.9% 46.6% 50.2%
Fiscal Year
157
Special Study Session Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 1)
Title: 2014 Financial Statements – Auditors Discussion and Review Page 164
STATISTICAL SECTION (UNAUDITED)Table 7
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Operating Rate 32.344 32.504 34.402 34.869 39.689 40.303 42.902 45.868
Debt Service Rate 2.394 2.255 2.265 2.247 1.77 3.563 3.65 2.702
Total City of St. Louis Park 34.738 34.759 36.667 37.116 41.459 43.866 46.552 48.570
County
Operating Rate 39.11 38.571 40.413 42.640 45.840 48.231 49.461 49.959
School District
Operating Rate 11.704 8.691 9.08 9.295 12.917 13.324 13.976 16.741
Debt Service Rate 11.781 10.889 11.257 11.803 13.539 15.946 15.754 15.617
Other Taxing Districts
St. Louis Park HRA Levy 1.336 1.344 1.759 1.718 1.817 1.806 1.676 1.808
Metro Mosquito Control 0.499 0.486 0.489 0.461 0.525 0.537 0.556 0.563
Metro Council 0.877 0.812 0.817 0.793 0.885 0.94 0.997 1.069
Metro Transit Debt 1.295 1.264 1.273 1.366 1.539 1.607 1.689 1.703
Hennepin County HRA - - - 0.241 0.397 0.403 0.478 0.514
Hennepin Parks 3.068 3.137 3.334 3.499 3.765 3.943 4.054 4.169
Park Museum 0.700 0.719 0.771 0.778 0.815 0.799 0.754 0.766
HC Regional Railroad Authority 0.871 0.979 0.470 1.000 1.246 1.294 1.561 1.777
Referendum Market Value Based Rate - - - 0.152 0.148 0.000 - -
Watershed 1.121 1.404 1.489 1.511 1.606 1.705 1.769 1.806
Total 107.100 103.055 107.819 112.373 126.498 134.401 139.277 145.062
Note: Fiscal Year 2005 was the first year of implementing GASB Statement No. 44.
City of St. Louis Park
Overlapping Rates
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
PROPERTY TAX RATES - DIRECT AND OVERLAPING GOVERNMENTS
LAST EIGHT FISCAL YEARS
Year
158
Special Study Session Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 1)
Title: 2014 Financial Statements – Auditors Discussion and Review
Page 165
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
STATISTICAL SECTION (UNAUDITED)Table 8
PRINCIPAL PROPERTY TAXPAYERS
CURRENT YEAR AND NINE YEARS AGO
Percentage Percentage
of Total of Total
Taxable Taxable Taxable Taxable
Assessed Assessed Assessed Assessed
Value Rank Value Value Rank Value
Interchange Investors 87,000,000$ 1 1.69 % 53,000,000 3 1.09 %
ARC WEMPSMN001, LLC 78,706,000 2 1.53 68,176,600 1 1.40
G & I VII 1600 & Moneygram LLC 69,052,700 3 1.34 - - -
Excelsior & Grand LLC 63,698,000 4 1.24 35,419,400 6 0.73
PNMC Holdings 56,152,200 5 1.09 - - -
West End Office MN, LLC 43,000,000 6 0.83 - - -
VIF II/ Park Place East/West LLC 38,372,000 7 0.74 - - -
Camerata LLC 36,300,000 8 0.70 - - -
Ellipse On Excelsior LLC 35,133,800 9 0.68 - - -
36 Park LLC 32,640,000 10 0.63 - - -
WTC No 459 Corp - - - 25,235,000 7 0.52
Healthpartners - - - 58,460,200 2 1.20
Parkdale Property LLC - - - 44,235,000 4 0.91
Park Place OPCO LLC - - - 39,710,000 5 0.82
General Growth/Knollwood Co.- - - 24,025,000 8 0.49
Park Blvd. Housing Partnership - - - 22,800,000 9 0.47
Meadowbrook Manor, Inc.- - - 20,010,300 10 0.41
Total 540,054,700$ 10.47 % 391,071,500$ 8.04 %
Total taxable assessed value $5,152,636,900 $4,864,723,200
Note: Overlapping governments are those that coincide, at least in part, with the geographic boundaries of the
City of St. Louis Park. This schedule estimates the portion of the outstanding debt of those overlapping governments
that is borne by the residents and businesses of the City of St. Louis Park. This process recognizes that, when
considering the City's ability to issue and repay long-term debt, the entire burden borne by the residents and
businesses should be taken into account. However, this does not imply that every taxpayer is a resident, and therefore
responsible for repaying the debt of each overlapping government.
Taxpayer
2014 2005
159
Special Study Session Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 1)
Title: 2014 Financial Statements – Auditors Discussion and Review
Page 166
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
STATISTICAL SECTION (UNAUDITED)Table 9
PROPERTY TAX LEVIES AND COLLECTIONS
LAST TEN FISCAL YEARS
Fiscal Year Total Tax
Ended Levy for Percentage Percentage
December 31 Fiscal Year Amount of Levy Amount of Levy
2005 $17,901,681 $17,644,699 98.56% $17,901,681 100.00%
2006 19,156,317 18,838,892 98.34% 19,156,317 100.00%
2007 20,221,086 19,965,208 98.73% 20,221,086 100.00%
2008 21,100,651 20,693,403 98.07% 21,100,651 100.00%
2009 22,204,522 21,796,296 98.16% 22,204,522 100.00%
2010 22,841,195 22,465,478 98.36% 22,841,195 100.00%
2011 23,724,816 23,368,028 98.50% 23,699,178 99.89%
2012 24,746,325 24,435,571 98.74% 24,656,290 99.64%
2013 25,613,874 25,379,070 99.08% 25,525,498 99.65%
2014 26,527,267 26,129,048 98.50% 26,129,048 98.50%
Collected Within the
Fiscal Year of the Levy Total Collections to Date
160
Special Study Session Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 1)
Title: 2014 Financial Statements – Auditors Discussion and Review
Page 167
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
STATISTICAL SECTION (UNAUDITED)Table 10
RATIOS OF OUTSTANDING DEBT BY TYPE
LAST NINE FISCAL YEARS
General Total Percentage
Fiscal Obligation Tax Increment Capital Revenue Notes Primary of Personal Per
Year Bonds Bonds Leases Bonds Payable Government Income (1) Capita (1)
2006 $12,645,000 $17,125,000 $7,500 $2,365,000 $1,791 $32,144,291 2.10% 710.91
2007 11,805,000 13,900,000 - 5,835,000 - 31,540,000 1.96% 668.25
2008 10,715,000 15,995,000 - 9,570,000 - 36,280,000 2.25% 768.68
2009 9,590,000 8,405,000 - 9,185,000 - 27,180,000 1.54% 575.59
2010 26,335,000 7,410,000 - 11,334,924 - 45,079,924 2.71% 996.24
2011 21,420,000 6,905,000 26,220 10,555,000 - 38,906,220 2.32% 854.99
2012 21,730,000 6,600,000 - 9,600,000 - 37,930,000 2.17% 833.53
2013 20,185,000 4,870,000 - 12,785,000 - 37,840,000 2.07% 816.19
2014 23,609,091 4,520,700 24,975 16,826,503 - 44,981,269 2.38% 946.62
Note: Details regarding the City's outstanding debt can be found in the notes to the financial statements.
Fiscal Year 2005 was the first year of implementing GASB Statement No. 44.
(1) See the Schedule of Demographic Statistics on page 167 for personal income and population data.
Governmental Activities Business Type Activities
161
Special Study Session Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 1)
Title: 2014 Financial Statements – Auditors Discussion and Review Page 168
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
STATISTICAL SECTION (UNAUDITED)Table 11
RATIOS OF GENERAL BONDED DEBT OUTSTANDING
LAST NINE FISCAL YEARS
Percentage of
Less: Amounts Estimated
General Available Actual Taxable
Fiscal Obligation in Debt Value of Per
Year Bonds Service Funds Total Property (1) Capita (2)
2006 $12,645,000 $1,383,783 $11,261,217 0.21% 245.43
2007 11,805,000 1,715,646 10,089,354 0.18% 223.14
2008 10,715,000 1,798,636 8,916,364 0.16% 188.91
2009 9,590,000 1,378,737 8,211,263 0.15% 173.89
2010 26,335,000 2,765,611 23,569,389 0.42% 520.87
2011 21,420,000 2,792,922 18,627,078 0.35% 417.04
2012 21,730,000 3,862,613 17,867,387 0.34% 392.65
2013 20,185,000 2,409,643 17,775,357 0.35% 383.40
2014 23,609,091 3,050,073 20,559,018 0.40% 433.97
Note: Fiscal Year 2005 was the first year of implementing GASB Statement No. 44.
(1) See the Schedule of Assessed Value/Tax Capacity Value and Estimated Market Value on
page 156 for property value data.
(2) Population data can be found in the Schedule of Demographic Statistics on page 167.
162
Special Study Session Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 1)
Title: 2014 Financial Statements – Auditors Discussion and Review Page 169
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
STATISTICAL SECTION (UNAUDITED)Table 12
DIRECT AND OVERLAPPING GOVERNMENTAL ACTIVITIES DEBT
AS OF DECEMBER 31, 2014
Share of
Debt Percentage Overlapping
Outstanding (1) Applicable (2)Debt
Overlapping Debt:
Hennepin County 753,266,880$ 3.83%28,850,122$
St. Louis Park Independent School District 48,184,573 99.55%47,967,742
Hopkins Independent School District 160,989,283 3.04%4,894,074
Edina Independent School District 59,987,919 0.07%41,992
Hennepin County Suburban Park District 52,209,049 5.22%2,725,312
Hennepin Regional RR Authority 35,200,157 5.22%1,837,448
Metropolitan Council 93,953,739 1.97%1,850,889
Subtotal of Overlapping Debt:1,203,791,600 88,167,579
Direct Debt:
City of St. Louis Park 28,162,866 100.00%28,162,866
Total of Direct and Overlapping Debt:1,231,954,466$ 116,330,445$
Source: Hennepin County, Minnesota
Note: Overlapping governments are those that coincide, at least in part, with the geographic boundaries of the City of St. Louis
Park. This schedule estimates the portion of the outstanding debt of those overlapping governments that is borne by the
residents and businesses of the City of St. Louis Park. This process recognizes that, when considering the City's ability to
issue and repay long-term debt, the entire burden borne by the residents and businesses should be taken into account.
However, this does not imply that every taxpayer is a resident, and therefore responsible for repaying the debt of each
overlapping government.
(1) Net debt which excludes revenue and special assessment bonds
(2) The percentage applicable to the City of St. Louis Park was determined by dividing the portion of tax capacity within the
City by the total tax capacity of the of the taxing jurisdiction.
Governmental Unit
163
Special Study Session Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 1)
Title: 2014 Financial Statements – Auditors Discussion and Review Page 170
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
STATISTICAL SECTION (UNAUDITED)
LEGAL DEBT MARGIN INFORMATION
LAST EIGHT FISCAL YEARS
2007 2008 2009
Debt Limit $111,539,586 $167,273,511 $159,807,639
Total Net Debt Applicable to Limit 3,127,988 2,747,414 (16,300,000)
Legal Debt Margin $108,411,598 $164,526,097 $176,107,639
Total Net Debt Applicable to the Limit as
a percentage of Debt Limit 2.80% 1.64%-10.20%
Legal Debt Margin Calculation for Fiscal Year
Estimated Taxable Market Value $5,576,979,300 $5,575,783,700 $5,326,921,300
Debt Limit (3% of taxable market value)$111,539,586 $167,273,511 $159,807,639
Debt applicable to limit:
Total Bonded Debt 31,540,000 36,280,000 -
Less:
Amount Set Aside for Repayment of G.O. Bonds (452,012)(487,586) -
G.O. Revenue Bonds (5,835,000) (9,570,000) -
G.O. Improvement Bonds (8,225,000) (7,480,000) (6,710,000)
G.O. Tax Increment Bonds (13,900,000) (15,995,000) (9,590,000)
Total Net Debt Applicable to Limit:3,127,988 2,747,414 (16,300,000)
Legal Debt Margin:$108,411,598 $164,526,097 $176,107,639
Note A: Under State of Minnesota law, the City of St. Louis Park's outstanding general obligation debt should not exceed
3 percent of the market value of the taxable property. By law, the general obligation debt subject to the limitation may be
offset by amounts set aside for the extinguishment of those obligations.
Note B: Fiscal Year 2005 was the first year of implementing GASB Statement No. 44.
Fiscal Year
164
Special Study Session Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 1)
Title: 2014 Financial Statements – Auditors Discussion and Review Page 171
Table 13
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
$167,168,274 $159,807,639 $157,555,872 153,950,244$ 154,579,107$
15,535,000 15,150,000 14,755,000 13,820,000$ 17,959,975$
$151,633,274 $144,657,639 $142,800,872 $140,130,244 $136,619,132
9.29% 9.48% 9.36% 8.98% 11.62%
$5,572,275,800 $5,326,921,300 $5,251,862,400 $5,131,674,800 $5,152,636,900
$167,168,274 $159,807,639 $157,555,872 $153,950,244 $154,579,107
45,079,924 38,880,000 37,930,000 37,840,000 44,879,975
- - - - -
(11,334,924) (10,555,000) (9,600,000) (12,785,000) (16,700,000)
(10,800,000) (6,270,000) (6,975,000) (6,365,000) (5,690,000)
(7,410,000) (6,905,000) (6,600,000) (4,870,000) (4,530,000)
15,535,000 15,150,000 14,755,000 13,820,000 17,959,975
$151,633,274 $144,657,639 $142,800,872 $140,130,244 $136,619,132
Fiscal Year
165
Special Study Session Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 1)
Title: 2014 Financial Statements – Auditors Discussion and Review Page 172
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
STATISTICAL SECTION (UNAUDITED)Table 14
PLEDGED REVENUE BOND COVERAGE
LAST EIGHT FISCAL YEARS
Utility Less:Net
Fiscal Charges Operating Available
Year and Other Expenses Revenue Principal Interest Coverage
2007 $5,025,203 ($4,115,066) $910,137 $195,000 $103,898 3.04%
2008 5,200,332 (4,300,290) 900,042 340,000 264,902 1.49%
2009 5,985,714 (4,982,093) 1,003,621 385,000 374,208 1.32%
2010 5,981,074 (3,851,018) 2,130,056 400,000 327,325 2.93%
2011 12,186,180 (8,269,813) 3,916,367 525,000 363,435 4.41%
2012 13,079,123 (8,387,329) 4,691,794 1,405,000 375,218 2.64%
2013 12,659,936 (10,417,099) 2,242,838 985,000 324,393 1.71%
2014 13,277,524 (10,514,981) 2,762,543 1,015,000 352,614 2.02%
Note: Details regarding the government's outstanding debt can be found in the notes to the financial statements.
Fiscal Year 2005 was the first year of implementing GASB Statement No. 44.
Water, Sewer, and Storm Water charges and other includes investment earnings. Operating expenses do not
include interest, depreciation or transfers out.
Debt Service
166
Special Study Session Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 1)
Title: 2014 Financial Statements – Auditors Discussion and Review Page 173
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
STATISTICAL SECTION (UNAUDITED)Table 15
DEMOGRAPHIC STATISTICS
LAST TEN FISCAL YEARS
Personal Income
(amounts
expressed Per Capita Median School Unemployment
Year Population (1) in thousands) Income (1) Age (1) Enrollment (2) Rate (3)
2005 44,511 $1,451,311 $32,606 37.5 4,251 3.4%
2006 44,422 1,491,876 33,584 37.7 4,098 3.1%
2007 45,216 1,527,170 33,775 38.3 4,175 3.7%
2008 47,198 1,613,039 34,176 35.8 4,258 5.6%
2009 47,221 1,761,674 37,307 35.7 4,447 5.9%
2010 45,250 1,660,539 36,697 35.5 4,347 3.9%
2011 44,665 1,680,297 37,620 35.4 4,365 4.4%
2012 45,505 1,744,525 38,337 35.4 4,472 4.6%
2013 46,362 1,828,193 39,433 35.4 4,545 4.4%
2014 47,411 1,884,398 39,746 35.4 4,590 2.6%
Source: (1) Federal Census Bureau data
(2) St. Louis Park School District
(3) Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development
167
Special Study Session Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 1)
Title: 2014 Financial Statements – Auditors Discussion and Review Page 174
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
STATISTICAL SECTION (UNAUDITED)Table 16
PRINCIPAL EMPLOYERS
CURRENT YEAR AND NINE YEARS AGO
Employees Rank Employees Rank
Park Nicollet Health Services and Methodist Hospital 5,763 1 21.1 % 4,500 1 16.3 %
St. Louis Park Public Schools (I.S.D. No. 283)702 2 2.6 762 3 2.8
Sholom Home West 650 3 2.4 - - -
Japs-Olson Company 650 4 2.4 800 2 2.9
Target 405 5 1.5 - - -
St. Louis Park, City of 336 6 1.2 252 6 0.9
Lifetime Fitness 300 7 1.1 - - -
MoneyGram International (formerly Travelers Express) 251 8 0.9 450 5 1.6
Epicor Software Corporation 250 9 0.9 - - -
Golden Living Center 230 10 0.8 - - -
Nestle Nutrition (formerly Novartis Nutrition)- - - 510 4 1.8
Midwest Plastic Components - - - 200 7 0.7
Onvoy - - - 200 7 0.7
Benilde-St. Margret's High School - - - 140 8 0.5
Northland Aluminum Products - - - 135 9 0.5
Walser Automotive Group - - - 95 10 0.3
Total 9,537 34.85 % 8,044 29.00 %
Total City employment 27,369 27,604
2014 2005
Employer Employment
Percentage
of Total City
Percentage
of Total City
Employment
168
Special Study Session Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 1)
Title: 2014 Financial Statements – Auditors Discussion and Review
Page 175
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
STATISTICAL SECTION (UNAUDITED)Table 17
FULL-TIME EQUIVALENT EMPLOYEES BY FUNCTION
LAST NINE FISCAL YEARS
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Function
General government 119.1 123.0 122.5 114.5 105.5 95.4 90.3 88.8 88.4
Public safety
Police
Officers 51.0 51.0 51.0 51.0 51.0 51.0 52.0 52.0 53.0
Civilians 19.5 19.5 18.5 17.0 20.0 23.0 30.0 34.0 35.0
Fire
Firefighters and officers 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 24.0 24.0 24.0 24.0
Public Works 32.7 32.0 32.0 32.0 32.0 32.0 33.0 35.0 34.0
Water 7.8 10.3 11.4 11.4 9.9 11.2 11.2 10.9 11.2
Sewer 5.7 3.7 2.7 2.7 3.6 4.9 4.9 4.9 5.5
Refuse 0.7 0.7 1.8 1.8 1.8 3.3 3.3 3.3 4.7
Storm Water 2.0 2.6 2.6 2.6 3.3 4.9 4.8 4.8 6.2
Total Employees 263.5 267.8 267.5 258.0 252.0 249.7 253.5 257.7 262.0
Note: Fiscal Year 2005 was the first year implementing GASB Statement No. 44.
Fiscal Year
169
Special Study Session Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 1)
Title: 2014 Financial Statements – Auditors Discussion and Review Page 176
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
STATISTICAL SECTION (UNAUDITED)Table 18
OPERATING INDICATORS BY FUNCTION
LAST NINE FISCAL YEARS
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Police
Medical calls 2,876 2,881 3,153 3,110 3,188 3,101 3,152 3,296 2,391
Traffic stops 2,510 1,981 2,724 2,462 4,236 5,362 7,146 6,674 6,907
Other 25,394 24,996 24,412 22,562 21,355 21,742 24,354 25,014 27,752
Fire
Inspections/medical/all other
calls 4,109 4,141 4,357 4,429 3,893 3,078 3,117 3,360 4,747
Fire calls - residential 67 45 52 82 50 69 66 53 53
Fire calls - structural 16 16 9 14 57 84 76 13 63
Fire calls - other 58 71 46 68 37 53 64 48 91
Cable TV
Hours of new programming 124 94 294 250 456 535 - 549.5 311
Inspections
Permits 8,527 8,616 13,687 8,895 8,397 9,220 9,091 10,254 11,111
Inspections 18,916 17,797 24,022 27,332 20,204 22,818 23,667 26,902 32,543
Culture and recreation
Aquatic park attendance 75,380 80,347 76,218 67,617 69,825 67,422 70,270 52,557 51,894
Hours of ice time 6,508 6,574 6,787 6,354 6,493 4,687 5,444 4,701 4,773
Water
Gallons of water production
(billions)2.2 2.3 2.4 2.4 2.1 2.1 2.4 2.2 2.09
Average watermain breaks per
year 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 27 40
Public Works
Snowplowing hours 1,165 1,556 1,672 2,454 3,216 2,543 1,173 6,449 3,752
Note: Fiscal Year 2005 was the first year implementing GASB Statement No. 44.
Fiscal Year
170
Special Study Session Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 1)
Title: 2014 Financial Statements – Auditors Discussion and Review Page 177
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
STATISTICAL SECTION (UNAUDITED)Table 19
CAPITAL ASSET STATISTICS BY FUNCTION
LAST NINE FISCAL YEARS
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Function
Public safety
Police
Stations 1111111 11
Patrol units 25 26 26 26 26 26 28 26 25
Fire
Stations 2222222 22
Vehicles 13 13 13 13 13 13 14 13 13
Fire hydrants 1,699 1,699 1,699 1,699 1,699 1,699 1,699 1699 1699
Culture and recreation
Parks 51 51 53 53 53 57 57 57 57
Trails 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
Streets
Lane miles of streets 290 290 290 310 311 311 311 311 311
Miles of streets 117 117 117 155 156 155 155 155 155
Water
Wells 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11
Water treatment plants 6666666 66
Miles of watermain 148 148 148 148 149 160 160 160 160
Sanitary Sewer
Lift stations 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23
Miles of sewermain 138 138 138 138 139 147 147 147 147
Storm Sewer
Lift stations 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
Ponds and lakes 26 26 26 26 52 52 52 52 52
Catch basins 2,943 2,943 2,943 3,154 3,731 3,731 3731 3731 3731
Note: Fiscal Year 2005 was the first year implementing GASB Statement No. 44.
Fiscal Year
171
Special Study Session Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 1)
Title: 2014 Financial Statements – Auditors Discussion and Review Page 178
- This page intentionally left blank -
172
Special Study Session Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 1)
Title: 2014 Financial Statements – Auditors Discussion and Review Page 179
4810 White Bear Parkway, St. Paul, MN, 55110 651.426.7000 www.redpathcpas.com
COMMUNICATION WITH THOSE CHARGED WITH GOVERNANCE
To the Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota
We have audited the financial statements of the governmental activities; the business-
type activities, each major fund and the aggregate remaining fund information of the City of
St. Louis Park, Minnesota for the year ended December 31, 2014. Professional standards
require that we provide you with information about our responsibilities under generally
accepted auditing standards and the standards applicable to financial audits contained in
Government Auditing Standards, as well as certain information related to the planning scope
and timing of our audit. We have communicated such information in our letter to you dated
December 29, 2014. Professional standards also require that we communicate to you the
following information related to our audit.
Significant Audit Results
Qualitative Aspects of Accounting Practices
Management is responsible for the selection and use of appropriate accounting policies.
The significant accounting policies used by the City are described in Note 1 to the financial
statements. No new accounting policies were adopted and the application of existing policies
was not changed during 2014. We noted no transactions entered into by the City during the
year for which there is a lack of authoritative guidance or consensus. All significant
transactions have been recognized in the financial statements in the proper period.
Accounting estimates are an integral part of the financial statements prepared by
management and are based on management’s knowledge and experience about past and
current events and assumptions about future events. Certain accounting estimates are
particularly sensitive because of their significance to the financial statements and because of
the possibility that future events affecting them may differ significantly from those expected.
The most sensitive estimates affecting the financial statements are management’s estimate of
the net OPEB obligation which is based on the OPEB actuarial study, management’s estimate
of the value of land held for resale which is based on the estimated recoverable costs, and
management’s estimate of workers compensation liability which is based on information
received from the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust. We evaluated the key factors
and assumptions used to develop the estimate for the net OPEB obligation and the value for
the land held for resale in determining that they are reasonable in relation to the financial
statements taken as a whole.
Special Study Session Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 1)
Title: 2014 Financial Statements – Auditors Discussion and Review Page 180
City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota
Communication With Those Charged With Governance
Page 2
The financial statement disclosures are neutral, consistent, and clear.
Difficulties Encountered in Performing the Audit
We encountered no significant difficulties in dealing with management in performing and
completing our audit.
Corrected and Uncorrected Misstatements
Professional standards require us to accumulate all known and likely misstatements
identified during the audit, other than those that are clearly trivial, and communicate them to
appropriate level of management. There were no uncorrected misstatements that have an
effect on our opinion on the financial statements.
The following areas contained material misstatements detected as a result of audit
procedures and were corrected by management: prepaid expenses, accounts payable,
transfers, and due from other governments.
Disagreements with Management
For purposes of this letter, a disagreement with management is a financial accounting,
reporting, or auditing matter, whether or not resolved to our satisfaction that could be
significant to the financial statements or the auditor’s report. We are pleased to report that no
such disagreements arose during the course of our audit.
Management Representations
We have requested certain representations from management that are included in the
management representation letter dated May 26, 2015.
Management Consultations with Other Independent Accountants
In some cases, management may decide to consult with other accountants about auditing
and accounting matters, similar to obtaining a “second opinion” on certain situations. If a
consultation involves application of an accounting principle to the City’s financial statements
or a determination of the type of auditor’s opinion that may be expressed on those statements,
our professional standards require the consulting accountant to check with us to determine
that the consultant has all the relevant facts. To our knowledge, there were no such
consultations with other accountants.
Other Audit Findings or Issues
We generally discuss a variety of matters, including the application of accounting
principles and auditing standards, with management each year prior to retention as the City’s
auditors. However, these discussions occurred in the normal course of our professional
relationship and our responses were not a condition to our retention.
Special Study Session Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 1)
Title: 2014 Financial Statements – Auditors Discussion and Review Page 181
City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota
Communication With Those Charged With Governance
Page 3
Other Matters
We applied certain limited procedures to the management discussion and analysis,
budgetary comparison information, OPEB Schedule of Funding Progress, and the Notes to
Required Supplementary Information, which are required supplementary information (RSI)
that supplements the basic financial statements. Our procedures consisted of inquiries of
management regarding the methods of preparing the information and comparing the
information for consistency with management’s responses to our inquiries, the basic financial
statements, and other knowledge we obtained during our audit of the basic financial
statements. We did not audit the RSI and do not express an opinion or provide any assurance
on the RSI.
We were engaged to report on the combining major and nonmajor fund financial
statements and schedules, which accompany the financial statements but are not RSI. With
respect to this supplementary information, we made certain inquiries of management and
evaluated the form, content, and methods of preparing the information to determine that the
information complies with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of
America, the method of preparing it has not changed from the prior period, and the
information is appropriate and complete in relation to our audit of the financial statements.
We compared and reconciled the supplementary information to the underlying accounting
records used to prepare the financial statements or to the financial statements themselves.
We are not engaged to report on the introductory, other financial information and
statistical sections, which accompany the financial statements but are not RSI. We did not
audit or perform other procedures on this other information and we do not express an opinion
or provide any assurance on it.
Restriction on Use
This information is intended solely for the information and use of the City of St. Louis
Park, Minnesota’s City Council and management, and is not intended to be, and should not
be, used by anyone other than these specified parties.
REDPATH AND COMPANY, LTD.
St. Paul, Minnesota
May 26, 2015
Special Study Session Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 1)
Title: 2014 Financial Statements – Auditors Discussion and Review Page 182
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
SCHEDULE OF EXPENDITURES OF FEDERAL
AWARDS AND INDEPENDENT
AUDITOR’S REPORTS
For The Year Ended December 31, 2014
Special Study Session Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 1)
Title: 2014 Financial Statements – Auditors Discussion and Review Page 183
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page No.
Independent Auditor’s Report on Internal Control over Financial Reporting
and on Compliance and Other Matters Based on an Audit of Financial
Statements Performed in Accordance with Government Auditing Standards 1
Independent Auditor’s Report on Compliance for Each Major Program and on
Internal Control over Compliance Required by OMB Circular A-133 3
Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards 7
Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs 8
Minnesota Legal Compliance Report 10
Special Study Session Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 1)
Title: 2014 Financial Statements – Auditors Discussion and Review Page 184
4810 White Bear Parkway, St. Paul, MN, 55110 651.426.7000 www.redpathcpas.com
INDEPENDENT AUDITOR’S REPORT ON INTERNAL CONTROL OVER FINANCIAL
REPORTING AND ON COMPLIANCE AND OTHER MATTERS BASED ON AN
AUDIT OF FINANCIAL STATEMENTS PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH
GOVERNMENT AUDITING STANDARDS
To the Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota
We have audited, in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United
States of America and the standards applicable to financial audits contained in Government
Auditing Standards, issued by the Comptroller General of the United States, the financial
statements of the governmental activities, the business-type activities, each major fund and
the aggregate remaining fund information of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, as of and
for the year ended December 31, 2014, and the related notes to the financial statements,
which collectively comprise the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota’s basic financial
statements and have issued our report thereon dated May 26, 2015.
Internal Control Over Financial Reporting
In planning and performing our audit of the financial statements, we considered the City of
St. Louis Park, Minnesota’s internal control over financial reporting (internal control) to
determine the audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances for the purpose of
expressing our opinions on the financial statements, but not for the purpose of expressing an
opinion on the effectiveness of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota’s internal control.
Accordingly, we do not express an opinion on the effectiveness of the City of St. Louis Park,
Minnesota’s internal control.
Our consideration of internal control was for the limited purpose described in the preceding
paragraph and was not designed to identify all deficiencies in internal control that might be
material weaknesses or significant deficiencies and therefore, material weaknesses or
significant deficiencies may exist that were not identified. However, as described in the
accompanying schedule of findings and questioned costs, we identified a deficiency in
internal control that we consider to be a material weakness.
A deficiency in internal control exists when the design or operation of a control does not
allow management or employees, in the normal course of performing their assigned
functions, to prevent, or detect and correct misstatements on a timely basis. A material
weakness is a deficiency, or a combination of deficiencies, in internal control such that there
is a reasonable possibility that a material misstatement of the entity’s financial statements
1
Special Study Session Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 1)
Title: 2014 Financial Statements – Auditors Discussion and Review Page 185
Report on Internal Control over Financial Reporting
and on Compliance and Other Matters
Page 2
will not be prevented, or detected and corrected, on a timely basis. We consider the
deficiency described in the accompanying schedule of findings and questioned costs as
finding 2014-001 to be a material weakness.
Compliance and Other Matters
As part of obtaining reasonable assurance about whether the City of St. Louis Park,
Minnesota’s financial statements are free from material misstatement, we performed tests of
its compliance with certain provisions of laws, regulations, contracts and grant agreements,
noncompliance with which could have a direct and material effect on the determination of
financial statement amounts. However, providing an opinion on compliance with those
provisions was not an objective of our audit, and accordingly, we do not express such an
opinion. The results of our tests disclosed no instances of noncompliance or other matters
that are required to be reported under Government Auditing Standards.
City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota’s Response to Finding
City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota’s response to the finding identified in our audit is
described in the accompanying schedule of findings and questioned costs. City of St. Louis
Park, Minnesota’s response was not subjected to the auditing procedures applied in the audit
of financial statements and, accordingly, we express no opinion on it.
Purpose of This Report
The purpose of this report is solely to describe the scope of our testing of internal control and
compliance and the results of that testing, and not to provide an opinion on the effectiveness
of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota’s internal control or on compliance. This report is
an integral part of an audit performed in accordance with Government Auditing Standards in
considering the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota’s internal control over compliance.
Accordingly, this communication is not suitable for any other purpose.
REDPATH AND COMPANY, LTD.
St. Paul, Minnesota
May 26, 2015
2
Special Study Session Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 1)
Title: 2014 Financial Statements – Auditors Discussion and Review Page 186
4810 White Bear Parkway, St. Paul, MN, 55110 651.426.7000 www.redpathcpas.com
INDEPENDENT AUDITOR’S REPORT ON COMPLIANCE FOR EACH MAJOR
PROGRAM AND ON INTERNAL CONTROL OVER COMPLIANCE REQUIRED BY
OMB CIRCULAR A-133
To the Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota
Report on Compliance for Each Major Federal Program
We have audited the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota’s compliance with the types of
compliance requirements described in the OMB Circular A-133 Compliance Supplement that
could have a direct and material effect on each of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota’s
major federal programs for the year ended December 31, 2014. The City of St. Louis Park,
Minnesota’s major federal programs are identified in the summary of auditor’s results section
of the accompanying schedule of findings and questioned costs.
Management’s Responsibility
Management is responsible for compliance with the requirements of laws, regulations,
contracts, and grants applicable to its federal programs.
Auditor’s Responsibility
Our responsibility is to express an opinion on compliance for each of the City of St. Louis
Park, Minnesota’s major federal programs based on our audit of the types of compliance
requirements referred to above. We conducted our audit of compliance in accordance with
auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America; the standards
applicable to financial audits contained in Government Auditing Standards, issued by the
Comptroller General of the United States; and OMB Circular A-133, Audits of States, Local
Governments, and Non-Profit Organizations. Those standards and OMB Circular A-133
require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether
noncompliance with the types of compliance requirements referred to above that could have
a direct and material effect on a major federal program occurred. An audit includes
examining, on a test basis, evidence about the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota’s
compliance with those requirements and performing such other procedures as we considered
necessary in the circumstances.
3
Special Study Session Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 1)
Title: 2014 Financial Statements – Auditors Discussion and Review Page 187
Report on Compliance for Each Major Program
and on Internal Control over Compliance
Required by OMB Circular A-133
Page 2
We believe that our audit provides a reasonable basis for our opinion on compliance for each
major federal program. However, our audit does not provide a legal determination on the
City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota’s compliance.
Opinion on Each Major Federal Program
In our opinion, the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, complied, in all material respects, with
the types of compliance requirements referred to above that could have a direct and material
effect on each of its major federal programs for the year ended December 31, 2014.
Report on Internal Control over Compliance
Management of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota is responsible for establishing and
maintaining effective internal control over compliance with the types of compliance
requirements referred to above. In planning and performing our audit of compliance, we
considered the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota’s internal control over compliance with the
types of requirements that could have a direct and material effect on each major federal
program to determine the auditing procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances for
the purpose of expressing an opinion on compliance for each major federal program and to
test and report on internal control over compliance in accordance with OMB Circular A-133,
but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of internal control over
compliance. Accordingly, we do not express an opinion on the effectiveness of the City of
St. Louis Park, Minnesota’s internal control over compliance.
A deficiency in internal control over compliance exists when the design or operation of a
control over compliance does not allow management or employees, in the normal course of
performing their assigned functions, to prevent, or detect and correct, noncompliance with a
type of compliance requirement of a federal program on a timely basis. A material weakness
in internal control over compliance is a deficiency, or combination of deficiencies, in
internal control over compliance, such that there is a reasonable possibility that material
noncompliance with a type of compliance requirement of a federal program will not be
prevented, or detected and corrected, on a timely basis. A significant deficiency in internal
control over compliance is a deficiency, or combination of deficiencies, in internal control
over compliance with a type of compliance requirement of a federal program that is less
severe than a material weakness in internal control over compliance, yet important enough to
merit attention by those charged with governance.
4
Special Study Session Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 1)
Title: 2014 Financial Statements – Auditors Discussion and Review Page 188
Report on Compliance for Each Major Program
and on Internal Control over Compliance
Required by OMB Circular A-133
Page 3
Our consideration of internal control over compliance was for the limited purpose described
in the first paragraph of this section and was not designed to identify all deficiencies in
internal control over compliance that might be material weaknesses or significant
deficiencies. We did not identify any deficiencies in internal control over compliance that
we consider to be material weaknesses. However, material weaknesses may exist that have
not been identified.
Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards Required by OMB Circular A-133
We have audited the financial statements of the governmental activities, the business-type
activities, each major fund, and the aggregate remaining fund information of the City of St.
Louis Park, Minnesota as of and for the year ended December 31, 2014, and the related notes
to the financial statements, which collectively comprise the City of St. Louis Park,
Minnesota’s basic financial statements. We issued our report thereon dated May 26, 2015,
which contained unmodified opinions on those financial statements. Our audit was
conducted for the purpose of forming opinions on those financial statements that collectively
comprise the basic financial statements. The accompanying schedule of expenditures of
federal awards is presented for purposes of additional analysis as required by OMB Circular
A-133, and is not a required part of the financial statements. Such information is the
responsibility of management and was derived from and relates directly to the underlying
accounting and other records used to prepare the financial statements. The information has
been subjected to the auditing procedures applied in the audit of the financial statements and
certain additional procedures, including comparing and reconciling such information directly
to the underlying accounting and other records used to prepare the basic financial statements
or to the basic financial statements themselves, and other additional procedures in
accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America. In
our opinion, the schedule of expenditures and federal awards is fairly stated in all material
respects in relation to the basic financial statements taken as a whole.
5
Special Study Session Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 1)
Title: 2014 Financial Statements – Auditors Discussion and Review Page 189
Report on Compliance for Each Major Program
and on Internal Control over Compliance
Required by OMB Circular A-133
Page 4
The purpose of this report on internal control over compliance is solely to describe the scope
of our testing of internal control over compliance and the results of that testing based on the
requirements of OMB Circular A-133. Accordingly, this report is not suitable for any other
purpose.
REDPATH AND COMPANY, LTD.
St. Paul, Minnesota
May 26, 2015
6
Special Study Session Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 1)
Title: 2014 Financial Statements – Auditors Discussion and Review Page 190
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
SCHEDULE OF EXPENDITURES OF FEDERAL AWARDS
For The Year Ended December 31, 2014
Federal Grantor/Federal Pass-Through
Pass-Through Grantor/ CFDA Entity ID Federal
Program Title Number Number Expenditures
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development:
Passed through Hennepin County, Minnesota:
Community Development Block Grant 14.218 A120538 $130,686
U.S. Department of Justice:
Bulletproof Vest Partnership Program 16.607 n/a - Direct 3,375
Passed through Hennepin County, Minnesota:
Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) 16.804 A110954 6,244
Total U.S. Department of Justice 9,619
U.S. Department of Transportation:
Passed through State of Minnesota:
Highway Planning and Construction 20.205 163-010-038 5,616,114
Total U.S. Department of Transportation 5,616,114
U.S. Department of Homeland Security:
Passed through State of Minnesota:
Disaster Grants - Public Assistance (FEMA) 97.036 None Noted 44,582
Total Expenditures of Federal Awards $5,801,001
Notes to the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
Note 1. Basis of Presentation
The Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (the Schedule) presents the activity of federal award programs expended by
the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota under programs of the federal government for the year ended December 31, 2014. The
Schedule is presented in accordance with the requirements of OMB Circular A-133, Audit of States, Local Governments and
Non-Profit Organizations. Because the Schedule presents only a selected portion of the operations of the City of St. Louis
Park, Minnesota, it is not intended to and does not present the financial positions, or change in financial position of the City
of St. Louis Park, Minnesota.
Note 2. Summary of Significant Accounting Policies
a.) Expenditures reported on the Schedule are reported on the modified accrual basics of accounting.
b.) Pass-Through entity identifying numbers are presented where available.
Note 3. Subrecipients
Of the federal expenditures presented in the schedule, the City of St. Louis Park provided federal awards to subrecipients as
follows: Federal Amount
CFDA Provided to
Program Title Number Subrecipients
Community Development Block Grant 14.218 $130,686
7
Special Study Session Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 1)
Title: 2014 Financial Statements – Auditors Discussion and Review Page 191
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS
For The Year Ended December 31, 2014
SECTION I - SUMMARY OF AUDITOR’S RESULTS
Financial Statements
A. Type of auditors’ report issued: Unmodified
B. Internal control over financial reporting:
Material weakness(es) identified? X Yes No
Significant deficiencies identified that are not
considered to be material weaknesses?
Yes X None
reported
C. Noncompliance material to financial statements
noted?
Yes X No
Federal Awards
D. Internal control over major programs:
Material weakness(es) identified? Yes X No
Significant deficiencies identified that are not
considered to be material weaknesses?
Yes X None
reported
E. Type of auditors’ report issued on compliance for
major programs:
Unmodified
F. Any audit findings disclosed that are required to be
reported in accordance with section 510(a) of
Circular A-133?
Yes X None
reported
G. Identification of major programs:
Name of Federal Program CFDA Number
Highway Planning and Construction 20.205
H. Dollar threshold used to distinguish between Type A
and Type B programs:
$300,000
I. Auditee qualified as a low-risk auditee Yes X No
8
Special Study Session Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 1)
Title: 2014 Financial Statements – Auditors Discussion and Review Page 192
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS
For The Year Ended December 31, 2014
SECTION II – FINANCIAL STATEMENT FINDINGS
2014-001 Audit Adjustments / Year-end Closing Process
Criteria: Audit adjustments are considered to be a deficiency in internal control as defined by
auditing standards.
Condition: During the course of our audit, we identified adjustments to the financial statements
as follows:
Prepaid expenses were overstated by $300,000.
Accounts payable were understated by $122,000.
An interfund transfer was recorded twice ($1,462,000).
Due from other governments and intergovernmental revenue related to the Hwy 7 project
were understated by ($4,837,000).
Cause: The City’s year-end closing process did not identify the misstatements prior to the audit.
Effect: By not having effective closing and review controls, there is an increased risk that
financial statement misstatements could occur and not be detected in a timely basis.
Recommendation: We recommend the City continue efforts to assure that all adjustments are
identified during the year-end closing process.
Views of Responsible Officials and Corrective Action Plan: Staff met with the City Manager
and Deputy City Manager to discuss these items and identify corrective actions. For prepaid
expenses, staff will review and reverse all appropriate prepaid expenses before audit work
papers are prepared. Regarding accounts payable, more education and review will occur within
the organization in identifying year-end payables and properly recording them in the appropriate
fiscal year. In regard to the interfund loan, all journal entries related to interfund transfers will
be compared to the interfund schedule to ensure proper recording occurred. For due from other
governments, a spreadsheet of all grants will be maintained beginning in fiscal year 2015
outlining the grant amount, expenditures, reimbursements and any year end receivables if
applicable.
SECTION III – FEDERAL AWARD FINDINGS
There are no federal award findings for 2014.
SECTION IV – PRIOR YEAR FINDINGS
There were no federal award findings for 2013.
9
Special Study Session Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 1)
Title: 2014 Financial Statements – Auditors Discussion and Review Page 193
4810 White Bear Parkway, St. Paul, MN, 55110 651.426.7000 www.redpathcpas.com
MINNESOTA LEGAL COMPLIANCE REPORT
To the Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota
We have audited, in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United
States of America, and the standards applicable to financial audits contained in Government
Auditing Standards, issued by the Comptroller General of the United States the financial
statements of the governmental activities, the business-type activities, each major fund, and
the aggregate remaining fund information of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, as of and
for the year ended December 31, 2014 and the related notes to the financial statements, and
have issued our report thereon dated May 26, 2015.
The Minnesota Legal Compliance Audit Guide for Political Subdivisions, promulgated by the
State Auditor pursuant to Minn. Stat. Section 6.65, contains seven categories of compliance
to be tested: contracting and bidding, deposits and investments, conflicts of interest, public
indebtedness, claims and disbursements, miscellaneous provisions, and tax increment
financings. Our audit considered all of the listed categories.
In connection with our audit, nothing came to our attention that caused us to believe that the
City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota failed to comply with the provisions of the Minnesota
Legal Compliance Audit Guide for Political Subdivisions. However, our audit was not
directed primarily toward obtaining knowledge of such noncompliance. Accordingly, had
we preformed additional procedures, other matters may have come to our attention regarding
the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota’s noncompliance with the above referenced provisions.
The purpose of this report is solely to describe the scope of our testing of compliance and the
results of that testing, and not to provide an opinion on compliance. Accordingly, this
communication is not suitable for any other purpose.
REDPATH AND COMPANY, LTD.
St. Paul, Minnesota
May 26, 2015
10
Special Study Session Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 1)
Title: 2014 Financial Statements – Auditors Discussion and Review Page 194
Meeting: Economic Development Authority
Meeting Date: June 15, 2015
Minutes: 3a
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
JUNE 1, 2015
1. Call to Order
President Mavity called the meeting to order at 7:28 p.m.
Commissioners present: President Anne Mavity, Tim Brausen, Steve Hallfin, Jeff Jacobs, Gregg
Lindberg, Susan Sanger, and Jake Spano.
Commissioners absent: None.
Staff present: Executive Director (Mr. Harmening), Economic Development Coordinator (Mr.
Hunt), and Recording Secretary (Ms. Hughes).
2. Roll Call
3. Approval of Minutes
3a. Economic Development Authority Meeting Minutes May 18, 2015
The minutes were approved as presented.
4. Approval of Agenda
The agenda was approved as presented.
5. Reports - None
6. Old Business - None
7. New Business
7a. Issuance of TIF Revenue Note to Ellipse II LLC – e2 Project. Resolution No.
15-11.
Mr. Hunt presented the staff report and explained that the Purchase and Redevelopment
Contract between the EDA and Ellipse II LLC required that a TIF Note be issued when
the Redeveloper had certified the public redevelopment costs incurred in connection with
the e2 project. He advised that staff reviewed those costs and verified that the
Redeveloper had incurred more than sufficient redevelopment costs to warrant the
issuance of a $700,000 TIF Note. He stated the Redevelopment Contract also included a
look-back provision upon reaching 95% occupancy, which was achieved last year. He
stated that staff reviewed cash flow information and determined that the Internal Rate of
Return exceeded the percentage projected in the Contract by .95%, therefore, the
principal amount of the proposed TIF Note was reduced by $13,805 to $686,195. He
Economic Development Authority Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 3a) Page 2
Title: Economic Development Authority Meeting Minutes of June 1, 2015
advised that due to higher than anticipated property valuations for the project, the TIF
Note should be paid off in 7.5 years rather than the projected term of 19 years. He stated
that the TIF Note would be pay-as-you-go and would bear interest at a rate of 5.6% with
a term of approximately eight years. The Redeveloper previously signed a Minimum
Assessment Agreement to secure the TIF Note indicating that the minimum market value
of the project was $6.4 million on January 2, 2014, and the property’s current assessed
value is approximately $10.5 million. He concluded that the Redeveloper had met the
required conditions under the Contract for the issuance of the Note, and the Note had
been properly sized, therefore staff recommended adoption of the proposed resolution
authorizing the issuance of the TIF Note to Ellipse II LLC as presented.
It was moved by Commissioner Brausen, seconded by Commissioner Hallfin, to adopt
Resolution No. 15-11 Awarding the Sale of, and Providing the Form, Terms, Covenants
and Directions for the Issuance of its Tax Increment Revenue Note to Ellipse II LLC.
The motion passed 7-0.
Communications - None
8. Adjournment
President Mavity adjourned the meeting at 7:33 p.m.
______________________________________ ______________________________________
Secretary President
Meeting: Economic Development Authority
Meeting Date: June 15, 2015
Action Agenda Item: 7a
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Call for Public Hearing to Consider Establishment of The Shoreham TIF District
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to Adopt EDA Resolution requesting the City Council
to call for a public hearing relative to the establishment of The Shoreham Tax Increment
Financing District within Redevelopment Project No. 1 (a redevelopment district).
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the EDA wish to request that the City Council hold a
public hearing on August 3, 2015 to consider the establishment of a Redevelopment Tax
Increment Financing District to facilitate Bader Development’s proposed Shoreham project?
SUMMARY: Bader Development is proposing to construct a major mixed-use redevelopment at
the SW corner of CSAH 25 and France Ave. During its due diligence, Bader discovered that
there are significant extraordinary costs associated with redeveloping the proposed site such as
contaminated fill material, underground storage tanks and structurally unstable soils which make
the project financially infeasible. Consequently Bader applied to the EDA for Tax Increment
Financing (TIF) assistance to offset a portion of these costs so as to enable its proposed
Shoreham project to proceed. The Developer’s application was reviewed at the June 1st Special
Study Session where it was favorably received.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: The cost to construct the proposed
Shoreham project is projected at $44.5 million. It is estimated to have a total taxable market
value of $32.6 million upon completion. The proposed mixed-use project is not financially
feasible due to more than $7.8 million of extraordinary costs associated with redeveloping the
site. In order for the project to proceed, it is proposed that the EDA consider reimbursing the
Developer for qualified costs up to $3,050,000 in pay-as-you-go tax increment generated by the
project for a term of 9 years. The TIF amount could be further reduced based upon any grant
awards. Once the TIF Note is retired the additional property taxes generated by the project would
accrue to the local taxing jurisdictions.
Setting a hearing date for the proposed Shoreham TIF District does not, in itself, authorize or
commit the EDA/City to any level of TIF assistance for the proposed project. Procedurally it
simply enables the City to hold a public hearing to consider the creation of the new TIF district.
The EDA will have the opportunity to consider the precise amount of financial assistance along
with other business terms in the near future. Those terms will be incorporated into a
redevelopment contract with Bader Development which will be brought to the EDA for formal
consideration the same evening as the proposed TIF district public hearing.
VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to providing a well-maintained and
diverse housing stock.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion
Resolution
TIF Schedule
Prepared by: Greg Hunt, Economic Development Coordinator
Reviewed by: Michele Schnitker, Housing Supervisor
Approved by: Tom Harmening, EDA Executive Director and City Manager
Economic Development Authority Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 7a) Page 2
Title: Call for Public Hearing to Consider Establishment of The Shoreham TIF District
DISCUSSION
BACKGROUND: Bader Development (“Developer”) has option agreements to acquire five
properties at the SW corner of CSAH 25 and France Ave. These include two commercial
properties located at 3907 & 3915 Highway 7, (the ASAP building and Battlefield Store
respectively), two single-family homes located at 3031 Glenhurst Ave. and 3914 31st St. and a
townhome duplex located at 3918 31st St. The land assemblage creates a 2.23-acre
redevelopment site.
The Developer proposes to raze the current commercial buildings and residences, remove the
contaminated fill material and soils impacting the site, and construct a mixed-use development
called The Shoreham. The proposed building would consist of 150 residential units (of which
20% would be designated for households earning 50% of area median income) and 20,000
square feet of office space (split between Bader Development/Steven Scott Management and a
medical office tenant). Also included would be structured underground and surface parking.
Bader Development’s preliminary sources and uses statements, cash flow projections, and
investor rate of return (ROR) related to Shoreham were reviewed by Staff and Ehlers. The
estimates were found to be reasonable and within industry standards for this type of
redevelopment. It was also concluded that constructing Shoreham was not financially feasible
without some financial assistance from the EDA. Bader Development is seeking financial
assistance specifically to offset the extraordinary costs of redeveloping the five properties.
Level and Type of Financial Assistance
Upon analysis by Ehlers and Staff, and discussion with Bader Development, it was determined
that up to $3,050,000 in tax increment assistance would allow the project to move forward and
achieve a standard return. Providing assistance makes it possible to construct a high quality
project consistent with the Livable Communities design principles and many other objectives
listed in the City’s Comprehensive Plan. This proposed amount of assistance is in-line with other
similar mixed-use developments the EDA has aided in the past. Upon project completion, tax
increment generated from the increased value of the property would be provided to Bader
Development on a "pay-as-you-go" basis, which is the preferred financing method under the
City's TIF Policy. The Shoreham meets the requirements of a Redevelopment TIF District (25
year TIF District). If this type of district were created, the proposed project would generate the
above amount of tax increment in approximately 9 years .
Request for TIF Assistance
At the June 1st Special Study Session the EDA reviewed the TIF Application from Bader
Development. Following discussion there was consensus support for favorably considering the
Developer’s request for up to $3,050,000 in tax increment assistance. As a result, Staff was
directed to call for a public hearing on the proposed Redevelopment TIF District and to begin
drafting a formal redevelopment contract with Bader Development.
Call for Public Hearing
The TIF program is administered by the EDA. However in order to create a TIF district, city
councils are statutorily required to hold a public hearing. To start the TIF district process, the
EDA must formally request the City Council to set a date and hold a public hearing. Calling for
the public hearing is the first step in the formal creation of The Shoreham Tax Increment
Financing District. The public hearing is scheduled to be held on August 3, 2015.
Economic Development Authority Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 7a) Page 3
Title: Call for Public Hearing to Consider Establishment of The Shoreham TIF District
NEXT STEPS:
Staff will coordinate with Ehlers to prepare the documents necessary for the formal creation of
the proposed Shoreham TIF District. At the same time Staff will work with legal counsel to draft
the business terms and redevelopment contract with Bader Development for the provision of the
proposed assistance for EDA consideration.
Economic Development Authority Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 7a) Page 4
Title: Call for Public Hearing to Consider Establishment of The Shoreham TIF District
ST. LOUIS PARK ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
HENNEPIN COUNTY, STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 15-____
RESOLUTION REQUESTING THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ST.
LOUIS PARK CALL FOR A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE MODIFICATION OF
REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 1 AND THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE
SHOREHAM REDEVELOPMENT TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT
BE IT RESOLVED, by the Board of Commissioners (the “Board”) of the St. Louis Park
Economic Development Authority (the “EDA”) as follows:
WHEREAS, the City Council (the “Council”) of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota (the
“City”) established Redevelopment Project No. 1 (the “Project”) pursuant to Minnesota Statutes,
Sections 469.090 to 469.1082, inclusive, as amended (the “EDA Act”), in an effort to encourage
the development and redevelopment of certain designated areas within the City, and transferred
the administration of the Project to the EDA; and
WHEREAS, the EDA is proposing the modification of the Project and the establishment of
the Shoreham Redevelopment Tax Increment Financing District, pursuant to and in accordance
with the EDA Act and Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.174 to 469.1794, as amended.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Board as follows:
1. The EDA hereby requests that the Council call for a public hearing on August 3, 2015 to
consider the proposed adoption of the Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for the
Project and the proposed adoption of the Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Shoreham
Redevelopment Tax Increment Financing District (collectively, the “Plans”) and cause
notice of said public hearing to be given as required by law.
2. The EDA directs the Executive Director to transmit copies of the Plans to the Planning
Commission of the City and requests the Planning Commission's written opinion indicating
whether the proposed Plans are in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan of the City,
prior to the date of the public hearing.
3. The Executive Director of the EDA is hereby directed to submit a copy of the Plans to the
Council for its approval.
4. The EDA directs the Executive Director to transmit the Plans to the county and the school
district in which the Shoreham Redevelopment Tax Increment Financing District is located
not later than July 2, 2015.
5. Staff and consultants are authorized and directed to take all steps necessary to prepare the
Plan and related documents and to undertake other actions necessary to bring the Plan before
the Council.
Economic Development Authority Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 7a) Page 5
Title: Call for Public Hearing to Consider Establishment of The Shoreham TIF District
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the Economic Development
Authority on June 15, 2015
Executive Director President
Attest:
Secretary
Economic Development Authority Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 7a) Page 6
Title: Call for Public Hearing to Consider Establishment of The Shoreham TIF District
SCHEDULE OF EVENTS
ST. LOUIS PARK ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
AND THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
FOR THE MODIFICATION TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN
FOR REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 1
AND THE ESTABLISHMENT OF
THE SHOREHAM TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT
(a redevelopment district)
June 8, 2015Ehlers confirms with the City whether building permits have been issued on the
property to be included in the TIF District.
June 8, 2015Project information (property identification numbers and legal descriptions,
detailed project description, maps, but/for statement, and list of sources
and uses of funds) for drafting necessary documentation sent to Ehlers.
June 15, 2015EDA requests that the City Council call for a public hearing.
June 15, 2015City Council calls for a public hearing.
June 19, 2015County receives TIF Plan for review for County Road impacts (at least 45 days
prior to public hearing). *The County Board, by law, has 45 days to
review the TIF Plan to determine if any county roads will be impacted by
the development. Because the City staff believes that the proposed tax
increment financing district may require county road improvements, the
TIF Plan will be forwarded to the County Board 45 days prior to the
public hearing. June 23, 2015 Letter received by County Commissioner giving notice of a potential redevelopment tax increment financing district (at least 30 days prior to publication of public hearing notice). [Ehlers will fax and mail on or before June 23, 2015]
July 2, 2015 Fiscal/economic implications received by School Board Clerk and County
Auditor (at least 30 days prior to public hearing). [Ehlers will fax and
mail on or before July 2, 2015.]
July 13, 2015 Ehlers conducts internal review of the Plans.
July 15, 2015 Planning Commission reviews Plans to determine if they are in
compliance with City's comprehensive plan and adopts a resolution
approving the Plans.
Economic Development Authority Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 7a) Page 7
Title: Call for Public Hearing to Consider Establishment of The Shoreham TIF District
SCHEDULE OF EVENTS – PAGE 2
ST. LOUIS PARK ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
AND THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
FOR THE MODIFICATION TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN
FOR REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 1
AND THE ESTABLISHMENT OF
THE SHOREHAM TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT
(a redevelopment district)
July 23, 2015 Date of publication of hearing notice and map (at least 10 days but not
more than 30 days prior to hearing). [Ehlers will submit notice & map to
the St. Louis Park Sun Sailor on or before July 16, 2015 at
sunlegals@ecm-inc.com]
August 3, 2015 EDA adopts a resolution approving the Plans.
August 3, 2015 City Council holds public hearing at 7:30 p.m. on a Modification to the
Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project No. 1, the establishment
of the Shoreham Tax Increment Financing District and passes resolution
approving the Plans. [Ehlers will email Council packet information to the
City on or before July 27, 2015]
August 4, 2015 City can issue building permits.
___________ Ehlers requests certification of the TIF District from the state and county.
An action under subdivision 1, paragraph (a), contesting the validity of a determination by an
authority under section 469.175, subdivision 3, must be commenced within the later of:
(1) 180 days after the municipality’s approval under section 469.175, subdivision 3; or
(2) 90 days after the request for certification of the district is filed with the county auditor under
section 469.177, subdivision1.
Meeting: Economic Development Authority
Meeting Date: June 15, 2015
Action Agenda Item: 7b
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Resolution of Support for Submission of a DEED Job Creation Fund Grant Application
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to Adopt EDA Resolution of Support for submission of
a Job Creation Fund application to the Department of Employment and Economic Development
(DEED).
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the EDA support the submittal of an application to the
Department of Employment and Economic Development’s (DEED) Job Creation Fund to
facilitate the expansion of a St. Louis Park company enabling it to create new jobs and make
capital investments in the city?
SUMMARY: Earlier this spring, a major St. Louis Park company made significant
improvements to its local office operations that included upgrades to its equipment. At the
present time, the company (which has requested that its name remain confidential for
competitive reasons) is prepared to invest an additional $7.6 million to further upgrade its
equipment and improve its offices. The company has increased its office operations in another
state and has capacity to make the above improvements there. However, the company’s
preference is to make the proposed upgrades at their St. Louis Park office. The expansion could
result in the creation of 231 new jobs in St. Louis Park over the next three years. The company’s
proposed expansion is eligible for the Minnesota Job Creation Fund (JCF) program administered
by DEED. The JCF was created to encourage job growth and capital investments by companies
choosing to expand their operations in Minnesota.
To become designated a JCF business and receive benefits, the business must work in
conjunction with the local government where the JCF business will be located. An application
must be completed and submitted to DEED by the local government. A local resolution in
support of the project must also be included. If approved, DEED drafts a business subsidy
agreement with the company specifying the required job creation and capital investment goals.
St. Louis Park would assist the company with the submittal of required annual progress reports.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: None, there is no local matching fund
requirement for the Jobs Creation Fund application. The company is applying for a Job Creation
grant award of up to $500,000 and a $500,000 capital investment rebate.
VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion
Resolution
Prepared by: Julie Grove, Economic Development Specialist
Reviewed by: Greg Hunt, Economic Development Coordinator
Michele Schnitker, Housing Supervisor
Approved by: Tom Harmening, Executive Director
Economic Development Authority Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 7b) Page 2
Title: Resolution of Support for Submission of a DEED Job Creation Fund Grant Application
DISCUSSION
BACKGROUND: Launched in January 2014, the Minnesota Job Creation Fund is a pay-for-
performance program that provides as much as $1 million to businesses for creating or retaining
high-paying jobs and for constructing or renovating facilities or making other property
improvements. Businesses must create at least 10 full-time jobs and invest at least $500,000 to
receive any state money.
Administered by DEED, this program is anticipated to create an estimated 5,000 new jobs
statewide and attract another $450 million of private investment into Minnesota’s growing
economy. To date, DEED has awarded $14 million to 28 companies in Minnesota since the Job
Creation Fund was launched in January 2014. Those companies plan to invest more than $374
million to expand their facilities and have committed to creating more than 1,414 new full-time
jobs. Some of the metro area cities to have companies awarded JCF funds include Minneapolis,
Chaska, Brooklyn Park, Lakeville, Shakopee, and New Brighton.
The program is available to businesses engaged in manufacturing, warehousing, distribution,
technology and other eligible activities. Companies must work with the local government (city,
county or township) where a project is located to apply to DEED to receive designation as a Job
Creation Fund business. Companies that meet eligibility requirements must sign a business
subsidy agreement with DEED to meet job retention, creation, wage, and capital investment
requirements. The following benefits may be available once a business meets the conditions of
its agreement and provides proof of performance:
• $1000 per year per job created for jobs paying at least $26,335 in cash wages
• $2000 per year per job created for jobs paying at least $35,450 in cash wages
• $3000 per year per job created for jobs paying at least $45,579 in cash wages
• Up to a 5 percent rebate for real property improvements for businesses located in the
Twin Cities Metro
PROPOSED APPLICATION: The subject company is one of St. Louis Park’s major
employers with offices nationwide and in Europe. In early 2015, the company’s board approved
capital expenditures of over $4 million dollars at their St. Louis Park location. They are now
prepared to spend additional funds to make additional office improvements and equipment
upgrades. While they have locations nationwide, the company’s preference and intent is to make
the upgrades at their St. Louis Park location by the end of the year. Upon completion the
company will expend over $7.6 million in equipment upgrades and office improvements. The
expansion could result in the creation of 231 higher wage professional jobs in St. Louis Park
over the next three years.
For the past several weeks, the company has been in consultation with DEED and it has been
determined that their expansion plans meet the minimum JCF program requirements. They
provided city staff with a complete JCF application. Per JCF program requirements the local
government needs to submit the application to DEED. A resolution in support from the local
government must also be submitted.
If the application is approved, DEED will formally designate the business as a JCF business and
determine a job creation award and/or capital investment rebate amount. DEED also enters into
a business subsidy agreement with the JCF business. St. Louis Park staff would be asked to
assist the company with the submission of required annual progress reports to DEED.
Economic Development Authority Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 7b) Page 3
Title: Resolution of Support for Submission of a DEED Job Creation Fund Grant Application
RESOLUTION NO. 15-____
RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF A BUSINESS APPLYING TO
THE MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT AND ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT’S JOB CREATION FUND PROGRAM
WHEREAS, the St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority, Minnesota, desires to
assist <<Business Name>> which is proposing to expand its facilities in the city of St. Louis
Park; and,
WHEREAS, the St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority understands that
<<Business Name>> , through and with the support of the City of St. Louis Park, intends to
submit to the Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development (DEED) an
application for an award and/or rebate from the Job Creation Fund (JCF) program; and,
WHEREAS, the JCF funds will be used for equipment and office upgrades resulting in
the creation of additional jobs in the city of St. Louis Park; and,
WHEREAS, DEED’s JCF Program Guidelines require support by the governing body of
the St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority for submission of the JCF application; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that, EDA President and Executive Director
Minnesota, hereby express their approval of the project proposed by <<Business Name>> and its
application for an award and/or rebate from the Job Creation Fund Program.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the Economic Development
Authority, June 15, 2015
Executive Director President
Attest:
Secretary
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: June 15, 2015
Presentation: 2a
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Acceptance of CenterPoint Energy Grant
RECOMMENDED ACTION: CenterPoint Energy desires to present to the City Council a
grant of $2,500 to the City of St. Louis Park and its Fire Department for the purchase of
MultiRAE Lite Detection Monitors.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: None
SUMMARY: These monitors are the latest technology and can detect up to 4000 Volatile
Organic Compounds (VOC), and 30 other Toxic Industrial Compounds (TIC). The addition of
these monitors to our current cache of monitoring equipment expedites the identification of
hazards more quickly and provides more accurate information to manage community safety.
CenterPoint Energy, through its Community Partnership Grant program is graciously awarding a
grant to the Fire Department in the amount of $2,500.00 to apply toward the purchase of this
extremely valuable technology.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: This grant will be used to offset the cost of
two devices which total $5,700.00. The balance will be covered by the operating budget of the
Fire Department.
VISION CONSIDERATION: None
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: None
Prepared by: Steve Koering, Fire Chief
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: June 15, 2015
Presentation: 2b
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Recognition of Bridget Gothberg’s Years of Service
RECOMMENDED ACTION: The Mayor is asked to read the certificate and recognize
Organizational Development Coordinator Bridget Gothberg for her more than 14 years of service
to the City of St. Louis Park.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: None at this time.
SUMMARY: City p olicy states that employees who retire or resign in good standing with over
10 years of service will be presented with a framed certificate from the Mayor, City Manager and
City Council.
Bridget Gothberg has resigned after more than 14 years of service to the City’s administrative
services department to focus on her consulting work. She will be in attendance at this meeting.
The Mayor is asked to read the certificate and present it to her in recognition of her years of
service.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Not applicable.
Prepared by: Ali Timpone, HR Coordinator
Reviewed by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: June 15, 2015
Action Agenda Item: 2c
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: 2014 Financial Statements – Auditors Discussion and Review
RECOMMENDED ACTION: No action required. City Council is asked to provide any
comments or questions it might have regarding the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report
(CAFR), Communication with Those Charged with Governance, Report on Compliance and
Internal Controls for the year ended December 31, 2014.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
• Does the City Council feel the information contained in the Comprehensive Annual
Financial Report (CAFR), Communication with Those Charged with Governance, Report
on Compliance and Internal Controls for the year ended December 31, 2014 allows for
effective decision making?
• Would the Council desire to have any follow-up discussion on the Audit?
SUMMARY: For the presentation, David J. Mol – Partner from Redpath and Company, will
discuss the information and key financial points with the City Council. The City of St. Louis
Park is required to have an independent audit performed annually. The auditors work for the
City Council, not the City management team.
The City received a clean audit opinion, or “unmodified opinion”, which means that Redpath and
Company believe the financial statements, as presented by city staff, fairly represents the City’s
financial condition as of December 31, 2014.
Staff has submitted the CAFR to the Office of the State Auditor as required and also submitted it
to the Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) to be considered for the Achievement
for Excellence in Financial Reporting certificate program for which the City of St. Louis Park
has been recognized for 31 consecutive years.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: This report shows the City of St. Louis
Park remains in strong financial condition.
VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: 1) 2014 – Final Issued CAFR – 5-29-15*
2) 2014 – Final Issued Governance Letter – 5-29-15*
3) 2014 – Final Issued Single Audit – 5-29-15*
(* See Special Study Session Report for Attachments.)
Prepared by: Brian A. Swanson, Controller
Reviewed by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: June 15, 2015
Minutes: 3a
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
MAY 18, 2015
1. Call to Order
Mayor Jacobs called the meeting to order at 7:33 p.m.
Councilmembers present: Mayor Jeff Jacobs, Tim Brausen, Steve Hallfin, Gregg Lindberg,
Anne Mavity, Susan Sanger, and Jake Spano.
Councilmembers absent: None.
Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), City Attorney (Mr. Scott), Director of
Engineering (Ms. Heiser), Director of Operations and Recreation (Ms. Walsh), City Clerk (Ms.
Kennedy), Senior Planner (Mr. Walther), Controller (Mr. Swanson), Economic Development
Coordinator (Mr. Hunt), Associate Planner (Mr. Kelley), Utilities Superintendent (Mr. Hall),
Assistant Zoning Administrator (Mr. Morrison), Community Development Intern (Mr. Boyce),
and Recording Secretary (Ms. Hughes).
1a. Pledge of Allegiance
1b. Roll Call
2. Presentations
2a. Retirement Recognition for City Attorney Tom Scott
Mayor Jacobs presented Mr. Scott with a plaque in recognition of his 19 years of service
as the City Attorney and extended the City Council’s thanks and best wishes in his
retirement.
3. Approval of Minutes
3a. Special Study Session Meeting May 4, 2015
The minutes were approved as presented.
3b. City Council Meeting May 4, 2015
Councilmember Brausen requested the addition of a paragraph at the bottom of page 5
that states “Councilmember Brausen felt that the funds expended on neighborhood
associations provided a wonderful return on dollars spent and would like to see the City
properly funding the neighborhood associations even if grant monies are not available.”
The minutes were approved as amended.
3c. Study Session Meeting May 11, 2015
The minutes were approved as presented.
City Council Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 3a) Page 2
Title: City Council Meeting Minutes of May 18, 2015
4. Approval of Agenda and Items on Consent Calendar
NOTE: The Consent Calendar lists those items of business which are considered to be routine
and/or which need no discussion. Consent items are acted upon by one motion. If discussion is
desired by either a Councilmember or a member of the audience, that item may be moved to an
appropriate section of the regular agenda for discussion.
4a. Moved to 8f
4b. Approve the second reading and Adopt Ordinance No. 2466-15 Amending Chapter 36
of the Zoning Ordinance Relating to Yards, Parking, and Screening Requirements; and
authorize summary publication.
4c. Approve the acquisition of the “13th Lane” and “Texas Avenue” properties currently
owned by the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) and to sell the
properties to Melrose Development, LLC and enter into a purchase agreement with the
same.
4d. Adopt Resolution No. 15-066 establishing certain Municipal State Aid Street
segments and Resolution No. 15-067 revoking certain Municipal State Aid Street
segments.
4e. Adopt Resolution No. 15-068 to recognize Public Service Worker David Vann for his
33 years of service to the City of St. Louis Park.
4f. Approve for filing Environment and Sustainability – Sustainable SLP Meeting
Minutes April 7, 2015.
4g. Approve for filing Planning Commission Minutes April 15, 2015.
Councilmember Sanger requested that Consent Calendar item 4a be removed and placed
on the Regular Agenda.
It was moved by Councilmember Lindberg, seconded by Councilmember Brausen, to
approve the Agenda and items listed on the Consent Calendar as amended to move
Consent Calendar item 4a to the Regular Agenda as item 8f; and to waive reading of all
resolutions and ordinances.
The motion passed 7-0.
5. Boards and Commissions - None
6. Public Hearings
6a. Refunding of Park Nicollet Private Activity Revenue Bonds and Host Approval.
Resolution No. 15-069.
Mr. Swanson presented the staff report and explained that Park Nicollet Health Services
requested that the HRA of the City of St. Paul issue revenue refunding bonds, Series
2015A and 2015B, as taxable or tax-exempt obligations in the amount of $493.6 million.
The proceeds will be used to refund several outstanding bond issues and pay for issuance
of the bonds. He stated the City would continue to receive its fee of 1/8th of 1% of the
outstanding principal balance, payable in semi-annual installments. He then introduced
City Council Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 3a) Page 3
Title: City Council Meeting Minutes of May 18, 2015
Ms. Catherine Lenagh, CFO of Park Nicollet Health Services, and Ms. Julie Eddington,
bond counsel with Kennedy Graven.
Ms. Eddington explained the City issued bonds for Park Nicollet in the past and because
of Park Nicollet’s recent merger with HealthPartners, Park Nicollet needed to place their
trust indenture documents under one master trust indenture and refinance all of its debt
under the HealthPartners umbrella. She stated Park Nicollet will pay the City’s
administrative fee for the amount of the bonds, both taxable and tax exempt, related to
facilities in St. Louis Park and added this issuance will not affect the City’s credit rating
nor will it impact the City’s ability to issue bonds this year. She advised that the
administrative fee paid to the City would continue until the current bonds mature on the
same amortization schedule as the Series 2008 and 2009 bonds. She noted that because
bonds are being issued without debt service reserve funds, the principal amount is slightly
decreased so the City’s administrative fee will be decreased slightly.
Mayor Jacobs opened the public hearing. No speakers were present. Mayor Jacobs
closed the public hearing.
It was moved by Councilmember Mavity, seconded by Councilmember Brausen, to adopt
Resolution No. 15-069 Consenting to the Issuance of Health Care Revenue Refunding
Bonds to Refinance Health Care Facilities located in the City.
The motion passed 7-0.
6b. The Shoreham – Public Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance Vacating
Right-of-Way
Mr. Kelley presented the staff report and explained the applicant requested that the City
vacate alley right-of-way as part of the redevelopment proposal for the Shoreham
development. He stated that the appropriate utilities were notified of the request and staff
received no opposition to the request.
Mayor Jacobs opened the public hearing. No speakers were present. Mayor Jacobs
closed the public hearing.
It was moved by Councilmember Sanger, seconded by Councilmember Hallfin, to
approve First Reading of Ordinance Vacating an Alley lying between CSAH 25 Frontage
Road and 31st Street West which connects France Avenue and Glenhurst Avenue and to
set Second Reading for June 1, 2015.
The motion passed 7-0.
6c. Westside Center – Public Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance Vacating
Public Easements
Mr. Boyce presented the staff report and explained that the property owner, COB, LLC,
started multi tenant renovations of the former Nestle/Novartis site and requested the
vacation of utility easements for expansion of the site and other site improvements. He
presented an aerial map and site layout depicting the addition of a ring road for increased
traffic, reconfiguration of parking, and outside storage for Lyman Lumber. He also
presented a map of the easements to be vacated and stated the City would retain a 10’
City Council Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 3a) Page 4
Title: City Council Meeting Minutes of May 18, 2015
utility and drainage easement on the site. He added that Comcast, Xcel Energy, and
CenterPoint have indicated a willingness to relocate their utilities at the property owner’s
expense.
Councilmember Sanger asked if there would be any negative impact on the adjacent
wetlands.
Mr. Walther replied there had been wetland delineation on the site with one small area
qualifying as a wetland per the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. The balance of the
site was fill and not designated as a wetland. He advised there was a floodplain within
the area and, as part of this project, there would be fill within the floodplain and
compensatory storage required.
Councilmember Hallfin noted that when Nestle/Novartis occupied the site there was a
significant drain on the City’s water capacity and asked if the City had taken that into
consideration. He also asked about the proposed outdoor storage.
Mr. Walther replied that the water usage with the new tenants was significantly less than
when Nestle/Novartis occupied the site. He stated the outdoor storage was an accessory
use to an existing use in the building and was allowed in this district with some
limitations.
Mayor Jacobs opened the public hearing. No speakers were present. Mayor Jacobs
closed the public hearing.
It was moved by Councilmember Sanger, seconded by Councilmember Spano, to approve
First Reading of Ordinance Vacating Easements – 5320 West 23rd Street and to set
Second Reading for June 1, 2015.
The motion passed 7-0.
7. Requests, Petitions, and Communications from the Public – None
8. Resolutions, Ordinances, Motions and Discussion Items
8a. First Reading of Liquor Ordinance Amendment and Zoning Text
Amendment Related to Breweries
Ms. Kennedy presented the staff report and explained that Steel Toe Brewery requested
an amendment to the Zoning Code to increase the maximum number of barrels of malt
liquor that can be produced on an annual basis from 3,500 to 20,000 barrels. She stated
the text amendment needed to be accompanied by a corresponding amendment to the
City’s liquor licensing provisions and the amendment was in response to changes to the
Statute enacted in 2014 which increased the limit to 20,000 barrels.
Councilmember Spano asked if the increased capacity to 20,000 barrels annually and
resulting increase in operations for Steel Toe Brewery would have any negative impact
on the roads in the area from increased semi-truck traffic.
City Council Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 3a) Page 5
Title: City Council Meeting Minutes of May 18, 2015
Mr. Harmening stated that the infrastructure in the zoning district was built to
accommodate heavy use and staff did not believe there would be any negative impact.
It was moved by Councilmember Spano, seconded by Councilmember Mavity, to approve
First Reading of Ordinance Amending Chapter 3, Section 57, of the St. Louis Park City
Code Increasing Production Capacity for Brewer Off-Sale Malt Liquor Licenses and
Brewer Taproom Licenses and to set Second Reading for June 1, 2015.
The motion passed 7-0.
It was moved by Councilmember Spano, seconded by Councilmember Mavity, to approve
First Reading of Ordinance Amending Chapter 36 of the St. Louis Park City Code
Increasing Production Capacity for Breweries Located in the Industrial Park and
Business Park Zoning Districts and to set Second Reading for June 1, 2015.
The motion passed 7-0.
8b. Preliminary/Final Plat of Minnota Addition – 4903 Cedar Lake Road.
Resolution No. 15-070.
Mr. Morrison presented the staff report along with an aerial photo and several pictures of
the site. He stated the property owner intended to plat approximately 44,977 square feet
of unplatted property with 3,600 square feet of land from the neighboring townhome
development. As part of the plat, the City required construction of a sidewalk on the
public right-of-way. He advised the property owner intended to construct one building
with 16 townhome units and each unit would have access to two private underground
parking spaces. He stated a neighborhood meeting was conducted and the proposed
development was well received.
It was moved by Councilmember Brausen, seconded by Councilmember Spano, to adopt
Resolution No. 15-070 Giving Approval for Preliminary & Final Plat of Minnota
Addition.
The motion passed 7-0.
8c. The Shoreham Development – Preliminary & Final Plat and Preliminary &
Final Planned Unit Development (PUD). Resolution No. 15-071.
Mr. Kelley presented the staff report and explained the Preliminary and Final Plat
combined six parcels into one 2.23 acre lot and included provision of the required
drainage and utility easements. He stated the developer requested a subdivision variance
along the southeast portion from 10’ to 3’ for the underground parking. He presented
several renderings of the project and described the site plans for the proposed
development. He also presented floor plans and stated that one level of underground
parking for residential use was provided. He stated the proposal provided 97 trees, 648
shrubs, and over 1,000 perennials and grasses. The proposal exceeded the City’s DORA
requirement by providing 14.2% DORA, and the proposal included two landscaped areas
including a historical marker of the ASAP Building. He stated that 90 additional parking
stalls were required for non-residential uses before the 10% reduction, resulting in 279
parking spaces and the proposal provides 290 spaces. He advised that a traffic study was
City Council Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 3a) Page 6
Title: City Council Meeting Minutes of May 18, 2015
done as part of the Comprehensive Plan amendment and was updated to include the
proposed medical office use. A minimal change in trip generation from the previous
traffic study was found, however there was no change in the intersection level of service.
He stated that a public hearing was held on May 6, 2015, and a suggestion was made to
have the units be “for sale” units and all other comments related to the reconstruction of
France Avenue, which would be privately maintained by the developer but built to City
standards and would provide for two-way traffic.
It was moved by Councilmember Sanger, seconded by Councilmember Mavity, to adopt
Resolution No. 15-071 Approving the Preliminary and Final Plat of The Shoreham
Addition with Variance from Subdivision Ordinance for 3907 and 3915 Highway 7, 3031
Glenhurst Avenue, and 3914 and 3918 31st Street West.
Councilmember Spano stated he was pleased to see some recognition of the historic
ASAP Building and requested that the developer try to integrate something more robust
into the project that more fully recognized the historic nature of the ASAP Building.
The motion passed 7-0.
It was moved by Councilmember Sanger, seconded by Councilmember Mavity, to
approve First Reading of Ordinance Amending the St. Louis Park City Code Relating to
Zoning by Creating Section 36-268-PUD 1 as a Planned Unit Development Zoning
District for the Property Located at 3907 and 3915 Highway 7, 3031 Glenhurst Avenue,
and 3914 and 3918 31st Street West and to set Second Reading for June 1, 2015.
The motion passed 7-0.
8d. 4900 Excelsior – Preliminary Plat and Preliminary Planned Unit
Development (PUD). Resolution No. 15-072
Mr. Walther presented the staff report and stated the proposed Preliminary Plat would
combine two parcels into one and dedicate right-of-way and easements. He advised that
the proposal had been modified since the Planning Commission public hearing by
reducing the building to five stories with 177 residential units. He presented several
renderings of the project and several precedent images depicting screening used in other
projects. He also presented the results of the shadow study and noted critical dates
showing shadows on two neighboring buildings at Excelsior & Grand, and the condo
building across the street. He pointed out that one of the conditions of preliminary
approval was to confirm that the project met the City’s shadow requirements. He
presented the first floor plan and advised that the parking count included on-street
parking for a total of 33 on-street parking spaces. He reviewed density as well as floor
area ratio, ground floor area ratio, and DORA and advised that the landscaping plan
provided 22 trees and 61 shrubs along with alternative landscaping. He explained that
224 parking spaces were required for the residential use and the underground parking
contained 240 spaces, while 113 parking spaces were required for the commercial use
and the plan included 99 spaces. However, the commercial use was eligible for a 10%
transit reduction, so the total parking required for the overall development was 326
spaces and the plan provided for 339 spaces. He stated the shared parking study
determined that the peak time for the grocery store was projected to have a demand for
106 parking spaces and there would be 99 spaces available at the ground level. Staff
City Council Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 3a) Page 7
Title: City Council Meeting Minutes of May 18, 2015
recommended that 20 spaces in the underground ramp be required to be provided as
shared parking with commercial tenant employees to free up spaces for customers and
guests on the ground level. He advised that the traffic study considered current and
projected traffic with or without the development and concluded that the proposed
development would have little impact and that the intersections studied would operate
acceptably. The only impact found was to westbound Excelsior Boulevard turning left
onto Quentin due to the limited green light time and short queuing available. He stated
the Planning Commission recommended approval of the Preliminary Plat, denial of the
subdivision variances, and denial of the PUD.
Councilmember Mavity stated the City was seeing a lot of development along Excelsior
Boulevard and would see more development in the future, which was appropriate for this
commercial corridor. She referenced the resident-driven planning process recently
completed for the south side of Excelsior Boulevard and stated that another development
across from Trader Joe’s would be coming before Council and she wanted to be careful
about considering these projects separately. She opined that the Council should be
considering the total impact of these projects on the entire corridor. She felt the
developer missed the mark by their proposed height reduction off the front of the building
because she felt Excelsior Boulevard could handle additional height better than the back
side. She also felt the proposed footprint of the building was being stretched to the
boundaries and the largest impact appeared to be on the condo owners at Park Commons
and she was not sure the City had fully considered that impact. She stated there were
details she hoped could be further worked on, such as snow being hauled off the site and
restricting hours of deliveries, and she wanted to make sure the City was attentive to
those details that impacted the livability of nearby residents.
Councilmember Sanger agreed with approving the Preliminary Plat but would not
support the PUD. She was concerned about the lack of green space around the building
and from an aesthetic point of view did not think it was a good idea to have so much
impervious surface. She was also concerned about parking and felt it was important to
recognize that the on-street parking spaces were already being used and did not think the
developer should be allowed to count those spaces. She was concerned about the number
of small one-bedroom units being built in the community and questioned what was going
to happen when there was no longer a big demand for one-bedroom units. She was
concerned about the bland architecture of the building and felt that too much was being
crammed onto the site. She requested the City take a step back to look at all the
development being proposed on Excelsior Boulevard.
Councilmember Hallfin agreed with the Planning Commission’s recommendation and
agreed that it appeared the developer was trying to cram a lot into the space and was not
giving the building the aesthetic that was normally seen in St. Louis Park. He noted the
building looked like what the City’s Ordinance indicated it could look like. He
referenced the City’s housing policy and stated this proposal did not meet that policy.
Councilmember Spano stated that while there was not a large park on this site, Wolfe
Park was located one block away and was one of the biggest parks in the City. He stated
a significant portion of the housing stock in the City was built from 1946-1951 and most
of those houses were modest in size, yet St. Louis Park remained in high demand and
challenged the mindset that no one would want to live on this property in the future. He
stated he would support this project but was troubled by the way the City conducted its
City Council Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 3a) Page 8
Title: City Council Meeting Minutes of May 18, 2015
traffic analyses, because every time a project was brought forward, the traffic study was
wholly contained in the project and never addressed impacts to adjacent property. He
stated Excelsior Boulevard was a major thoroughfare with residential neighborhoods half
a block away and requested that Council discuss how the City could differentiate those
residential neighborhoods from the commercial district to reinforce that you are leaving a
commercial district and entering a residential neighborhood.
Councilmember Brausen stated he was generally in favor of the project and felt the
developer was being responsive by repeatedly making modifications to their plans. He
felt the City was within the guidelines on Excelsior Boulevard related to height and the
overall project met the City’s parking and DORA requirements.
Councilmember Lindberg agreed with Councilmember Brausen but felt Council needed
to take some additional time to make sure it felt good about all aspects of the proposal.
It was moved by Councilmember Mavity, seconded by Councilmember Hallfin, to adopt
Resolution No. 15-072 Granting Approval of Preliminary Plat with Subdivision
Variances for Perimeter Drainage and Utility Easements – Park Commons West.
The motion passed 7-0.
It was moved by Councilmember Mavity, seconded by Councilmember Brausen, to
continue action on Resolution Approving a Preliminary Planned Unit Development
(PUD) located at 4760 and 4900 Excelsior Boulevard – 4900 Excelsior.
The motion passed 7-0.
8e. First Reading of Zoning Ordinance Amendment Pertaining to
Discontinuance of Water Service
Mr. Hall presented the staff report and stated that due to the upcoming water meter
replacement project, the current Ordinance allowed only for testing and repairing of
water meters and did not include allowing access for replacement of water meters. He
stated the proposed amendment allowed discontinuance of water service for not allowing
access to the water meter and allowed a reasonable time for the property owner to hire a
licensed plumber to replace the water meter and/or related equipment.
It was moved by Councilmember Sanger, seconded by Councilmember Brausen, to
approve First Reading of Ordinance Relating to Discontinuance of Water Service,
Amending Chapter 32 of the St. Louis Park City Code and to set Second Reading for June
1, 2015.
Councilmember Spano requested that Section 1(6) be revised to define what a reasonable
length of time was for the work to be done to provide clarity when shutoff could occur.
Councilmember Brausen was opposed to the amendment proposed by Councilmember
Spano and felt the term “reasonable” was sufficient and gives some discretion to staff.
City Council Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 3a) Page 9
Title: City Council Meeting Minutes of May 18, 2015
Councilmember Sanger agreed and pointed out that if the City reached the point of
shutting off the water, the property owner had already received several notices so the
discontinuance of service should not come as a surprise.
Councilmember Lindberg stated he was confident that staff was working hard to
communicate with residents and the discontinuance of water service would be a last
resort.
Mayor Jacobs stated he was uncomfortable with shutting off someone’s water service
because they have not allowed access, especially if someone had paid their water bill and
the City had cashed their check. He stated he would be comfortable if language was
included that gave City staff the option of informing residents that if they do not provide
access, the City would charge them to read their water meter manually.
The motion passed 5-2 (Mayor Jacobs and Councilmember Spano opposed).
8f. Preliminary Development Agreement between the EDA, the City, and
PLACE. Resolution No. 15-073.
Councilmember Sanger stated she liked many of the environmental aspects of the project
and that it included larger apartments, but did not agree with the amount of affordable
housing. She stated the City’s housing policy required 20% affordable units and this
project had three times the number of affordable units. She added that she was well aware
of the strong need for more affordable housing in the metro but questioned how much
affordable housing should be included in any one project and in any one community. She
referenced Met Council’s policy of seeking to disperse affordable housing throughout the
metro and noted that St. Louis Park was already in the top 10% in terms of affordable
housing. She opined she would be more comfortable having more affordable housing
when the rest of the metro area had their share of affordable housing. She expressed
concern that the project was not consistent with what residents wanted or expected and
felt the Council should hold a citywide meeting to get input on what kinds of
developments residents wanted in the community.
Councilmember Brausen stated he felt the balance on this project was wonderful and that
there had been a mischaracterization of affordable housing as low-income housing. A
family had to make $55,000/year to qualify for one of these units. He pointed out that
this project would provide workforce housing, and the fact that 60% was concentrated in
one four-building complex didn’t bother him. He also stated that there would be a wide
spectrum of people with diverse incomes living in this development.
Councilmember Spano added that that the project was mixed use, mixed income
workforce housing. It was transit friendly, bicycle friendly and had an urban forest. He
stated that no one project that had come before the Council had everything, and if the
worst thing this project created was more affordable housing, he could live with that.
Councilmember Mavity stated that when she spoke to residents in Ward 2, she heard
from retirees living in small homes valued at $185,000-$225,000. The target income to
qualify for a unit in this development was $42,000, providing a way for retired people to
stay in St. Louis Park when they move from their homes. She pointed out that St. Louis
Park had almost no options for affordable, low-maintenance housing for retirees. She
asserted that one of city’s greatest challenges was to provide affordable housing for
City Council Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 3a) Page 10
Title: City Council Meeting Minutes of May 18, 2015
people who would love to live in St. Louis Park and raise their children in the school
system but who cannot find affordable housing. She concluded by stating that this
development was exactly what was needed because it would provide a range of choice
that the community did not currently have.
Mayor Jacobs added that this development met a lot of the goals that the city had and
would be a great addition to St. Louis Park.
It was moved by Councilmember Brausen, seconded by Councilmember Mavity, to adopt
Resolution No. 15-073 Approving Preliminary Development Agreement between the St.
Louis Park Economic Development Authority, the City of St. Louis Park, and PLACE.
The motion passed 6-1 (Councilmember Sanger opposed).
9. Communications
Mayor Jacobs thanked everyone who participated in the Ice Cream Social on Sunday and
thanked Sebastian Joe’s for donating the ice cream.
Councilmember Spano congratulated Mr. Harmening on his 20 year anniversary with the
City and thanked him for his years of service.
10. Adjournment
Mayor Jacobs adjourned the meeting at 9:47 p.m.
______________________________________ ______________________________________
Melissa Kennedy, City Clerk Jeff Jacobs, Mayor
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: June 15, 2015
Minutes: 3b
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
MAY 26, 2015
The meeting convened at 6:30 p.m.
Councilmembers present: Mayor Jeff Jacobs, Tim Brausen, Steve Hallfin, Gregg Lindberg,
Anne Mavity, Susan Sanger, and Jake Spano.
Councilmembers absent: None.
Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), Director of Operations & Recreation (Ms.
Walsh), Director of Engineering (Ms. Heiser), Director of Community Development (Mr.
Locke), Planning/Zoning Supervisor (Ms. McMonigal), Rec Center Manager (Mr. Eisold),
Recreation Superintendent (Mr. West), Environmental Coordinator (Mr. Vaughan), Housing
Programs Coordinator (Ms. Olson), Communications & Marketing Coordinator (Ms. Larson),
Environment & Sustainability Coordinator (Ms. Pinc), and Recording Secretary (Ms. Hughes).
Guest: Mr. Steve Maurelli (RSP Architects).
1. Future Study Session Agenda Planning – June 1 & June 8, 2015
Mr. Harmening presented the proposed special study session agenda for June 1st and the
proposed study session agenda for June 8th.
Councilmember Brausen requested that staff provide Council with information about the City’s
cost to provide TIF as well as a schedule of current TIF projects and anticipated TIF projects.
Councilmember Sanger requested this information include all projects and not just TIF projects.
2. Presentation of Design Development Phase for Outdoor Rink/Multi-Use Facility
Ms. Walsh presented the staff report and introduced Mr. Steve Maurelli. She stated the City
received a grant from Met Council to study the soils and the report would be available in the next
couple of weeks. She added that the studies encountered typical items, including asbestos and
vapor, and it was possible that some venting of the site would need to be done.
Mr. Eisold discussed the changes in the cost estimates. He advised that the design of the roof
structure was changed to add cabling which resulted in the biggest adjustment to the cost at this
stage of the design. He stated it was also necessary to add underground storage for storm water.
Mr. Maurelli presented several drawings of the proposed facility and a 3D version of the facility.
Councilmember Brausen stated he liked the plans and noted it would be important to carefully
manage storm water capacity vis-à-vis Wolfe Park and to make sure the system had sufficient
capacity to adjust for climate change. He asked if the driveway could use pervious pavers.
Mr. Maurelli replied there were a lot of ways that pervious surfaces could be used in the project.
City Council Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 3b) Page 2
Title: Study Session Minutes of May 26, 2015
Councilmember Brausen stated he would like Council to consider adding pervious pavers to the
design of the project.
Councilmember Sanger asked what other uses the facility could accommodate.
Mr. Maurelli stated that the baseball association had indicated an interest in using the facility as
well as lacrosse and soccer.
Mr. Eisold stated the dry floor surface could be used for things such as weddings, car shows,
expos, farmers markets, and craft shows.
Councilmember Sanger stated she continued to have mixed feelings about this project, adding
that there were a lot of community members who were not members of youth associations. She
asked what percentage of the year the facility would be used for hockey and skating and what
percentage would be available for other community purposes.
Ms. Walsh replied the facility would be used for hockey approximately five months out of the
year.
Councilmember Mavity suggested that Council consider other locations to install pervious
surfaces because of the issues with contamination if pervious pavement is used in the parking lot.
It was the consensus of the majority of the City Council to continue to support this project and to
direct staff to move forward with the construction document phase of design for the project.
3. Southwest LRT Update
Ms. McMonigal advised that the largest cost cutting measure for St. Louis Park was the CP swap
and this item had been placed in a category as “infeasible” or net neutral to the budget. She
stated in order to switch it back to how it is today, it would save some money but would cost
nearly as much because of the one-year delay as a result of the environmental work that would
be required.
Mr. Locke stated the base project included the trail bridge east of Beltline that went over the
freight and light rail tracks and related to the LRCI whereby Three Rivers would be extending
that bridge over Beltline. He stated the cost savings identified by the SPO would eliminate the
trail bridge over the tracks and leave it at grade unless someone else paid for the trail bridge.
Councilmember Sanger questioned the safety of the SPO’s proposal to have an at-grade trail
crossing over the freight rail and light rail tracks.
Councilmember Spano stated that he raised safety concerns at the CMC meeting, and Met
Council staff indicated they would use the Green Line as a model where everything on the Green
Line was at-grade with striped pedestrian crossings, extra lights and signage and no additional
safety items.
Councilmember Mavity stated that Council had been telling the community for many years that
the City would fix that crossing when light rail came and she felt it was imperative that the City
fulfill its promise to construct a grade separation of the trail whether or not light rail ever comes
to the area.
City Council Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 3b) Page 3
Title: Study Session Minutes of May 26, 2015
Councilmember Sanger agreed that Council made a commitment regarding the Beltline crossing
and that the previous changes were intended to be temporary, adding if that meant the City had to
contribute a portion of the overall cost, she was comfortable with doing that in order to get it
done right. She stated she was okay with the proposal to shrink the park and rides if there was
some assurance they could be built in such a way that another level could be added in the future
or they could be expanded in some fashion to address an increase in demand.
Ms. McMonigal stated the FTA indicated it would accept a reduction in the park and rides if
proof of parking was demonstrated or the ability to add another level was shown.
Council continued its discussion regarding the trail crossing at Beltline and other potential
reductions to the project budget.
Ms. McMonigal advised that the SPO would be putting together information on the cost saving
measures in the coming weeks and the CMC would be meeting on June 3rd, June 24th, and July
1st, and the Met Council was expected to make a decision on July 8th.
4. Draft Strategies/Two Year Action Plan for a 2015-2025 City Council Goals and
Priorities
Mr. Harmening presented the staff report and draft strategies for Council consideration. He
recited the five goals developed by Council at its annual workshop in January and stated that
staff developed specific strategies to deliver on the goals over the next ten years as well as action
steps over the next two years.
Redevelopment around the three SWLRT stations is maximized to the fullest extent possible.
Mr. Locke presented seven strategies and the two-year action plan to accomplish redevelopment
around the three light rail stations.
Councilmember Brausen stated he fully supported the strategies and two-year action plan. He
requested that staff provide cost summaries on a regular basis that outlined the City’s financial
commitments in order to understand both current and anticipated costs in the context of the
City’s overall commitments.
Councilmember Mavity noted it would be important to also include information on anticipated
revenue from the redevelopment. She stated that Ms. McMonigal and Mr. Hunt recently gave an
informative presentation at the Southwest LRT Community Works Committee meeting regarding
all the development going on in St. Louis Park, particularly around the light rail stations, and
suggested that the presentation be provided to Council. She stated she noticed that a lot of the
new projects being built had a lot of windows at the street level that made it look like a
department store type of business and was hopeful that the form based code would address the
idea of having more doors on these developments.
Councilmember Sanger stated she was generally okay with the proposed strategies and action
plan. She stated the strategies did not include a contingency if the park and ride was moved to
the County site. She also questioned if additional zoning ordinance changes were required
beyond the form based code and whether to consider limiting the amount of square footage for
retail in general to avoid big box projects in the City.
City Council Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 3b) Page 4
Title: Study Session Minutes of May 26, 2015
It was the consensus of the City Council that the draft strategies and action plan related to Goal
#1 is in keeping with Council’s expectations.
St. Louis Park is a leader in environmental stewardship, sustainability and resiliency
Mr. Vaughan presented the strategies and two-year action plan related to Goal #2.
Councilmember Spano felt that the goal to increase participation in the curbside organics
program was too low and would like to see this goal at 30%. He stated he did not see anything in
the report about challenges to reaching any of these goals.
Councilmember Mavity noted the City of Paris recently passed a law that all new buildings must
have a green roof and suggested the City consider that as it looked at green building codes and
what other incentives or directives might be implemented.
Councilmember Sanger agreed with finding ways to encourage recycling and to make it easier to
recycle, but questioned whether there was a need to start another recycling center when there are
already private recycling companies in existence. She agreed with the strategy to decrease
impervious surfaces but was concerned that Council had approved projects with little green
space and zero setbacks and this was contributing to the problem. She was hopeful that staff
would work with Community Development staff to increase the amount of pervious surfaces and
find ways to protect green space.
Councilmember Hallfin stated he would like to see further information about a possible
recycling/reuse center.
Councilmember Lindberg stated as the City encouraged more single family remodeling, there
was a lot of waste generated that could possibly be used by other St. Louis Park residents. He
stated he would like to see more emphasis on providing all neighborhoods with access to
community gardens and to have the City actively facilitate this rather than the neighborhoods.
He felt there was also an opportunity for the City to engage in more strategic planning around
these goals and to put some metrics around the goals as a way of measuring results.
Councilmember Brausen spoke in favor of the proposed strategies and action plan. He stated the
plastic bag and polystyrene issue had taken on a high level of public interest and suggested the
City consider promoting environmentally conscious proposals for public discussion.
It was the consensus of the City Council that the draft strategies and action plan related to Goal
#2 is in keeping with Council’s expectations.
St. Louis Park is a technology-connected community
Mr. Harmening advised that this item would be presented to Council in June.
St. Louis Park has top ranked schools, a well maintained and diverse housing stock, and strong,
vibrant neighborhoods
Ms. Olson presented the strategies and two-year action plan related to Goal #4.
Councilmember Mavity stated that public art had been an important part of the City’s
development approach and suggested the City have an inclusionary art policy.
City Council Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 3b) Page 5
Title: Study Session Minutes of May 26, 2015
Councilmember Sanger stated there were a number of neighborhoods that were not currently
organized and suggested the City focus on actively organizing those neighborhoods. She felt the
City needed to put more emphasis on improving architectural design guidelines. She requested
that Council have a discussion about how to promote single family homes and move-up housing.
Councilmember Hallfin stated he would also like to have a discussion about increasing the
amount of single family housing in the City. He urged the City to utilize its various boards and
commissions in any way possible as it related to these goals.
Councilmember Lindberg stated he would like to have a more robust conversation about move-
up housing and what the City might do to increase or provide further resources for move-up
expansions.
Councilmember Sanger stated that any move-up housing needed to be in scale with the
neighborhood around it and that should be part of the architectural design guidelines.
Councilmember Lindberg encouraged staff to continue to reach out and engage the rental
community. He discussed an initiative at Meadowbrook about the importance of partnerships
among all the players and suggested having Ms. Trummer talk with Council about that initiative.
It was the consensus of the City Council that the draft strategies and action plan related to Goal
#4 is in keeping with Council’s expectations.
St. Louis Park has high quality community amenities and facilities
Ms. Walsh presented the strategies and two-year action plan related to Goal #5.
Councilmember Mavity questioned whether there was community support for an archery range.
She encouraged the City to remain mindful of gender equity in sports.
Councilmember Sanger felt that a possible community center should be added to the list and
urged staff to give more thought to the growing senior population and whether to have more
focus on one or more facilities for this demographic.
It was the consensus of the City Council that the draft strategies and action plan related to Goal
#5 is in keeping with Council’s expectations.
Mr. Harmening advised that staff would continue to revise this document following the
technology presentation in June and bring it back to Council for review and formal approval this
summer.
5. Update on Organizational Culture Initiatives
Mr. Harmening presented the staff report and discussed his ongoing conversation with all City
employees about the culture of the organization. He stated that employees were asked why they
work at the City, what motivates them, and were asked to provide descriptors of the culture. He
stated that employees answered the “why” statement with “we believe our public service makes a
difference” and came up with three descriptors: being highly responsive to the needs of the
community and each other, being collaborative with each other as a team and the community as a
partner, and being committed to providing programs and services of the highest quality that
consistently fulfill the needs of our customers in an innovative, effective and respectful way. He
stated that each department will now engage in an exercise on what it looks like to be responsive,
City Council Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 3b) Page 6
Title: Study Session Minutes of May 26, 2015
to be collaborative, and to provide the highest quality programs and services. He stated the City
will also be doing an employee survey to assess the pulse of the organization and will be
instituting a customer service training program. He stated this initiative will be integrated into
the City’s recognition program as well as all job descriptions and performance evaluations, and
will be incorporated into the City’s employee orientation program. He presented examples of
posters that will be installed in each department depicting images of being responsive, being
collaborative, and providing high quality programs and services. He also presented a video of a
number of employees being interviewed about their jobs and how they make a difference.
Councilmember Brausen suggested putting the employee video on Ch. 17.
Communications/Meeting Check-In (Verbal)
Mr. Harmening discussed his email to Council regarding the potential ban on plastic bags and
polystyrene and distributed a proposed process for Council’s consideration and ultimate decision
on this issue. He suggested that the June 22nd study session include an expert stakeholders’ panel
that would give each of the groups 20 minutes to articulate their views on a potential ban. He
stated that the City of Minneapolis had a citizen committee working on a proposed policy, and
they were invited to the June 22nd meeting to talk about their work.
Councilmember Mavity asked if the City had discussed a possible ban with Hennepin County
Commissioner Greene.
Mr. Harmening replied that County staff had indicated that the County Board was not interested
in moving on a countywide limitation on plastic bags at this time. He stated the proposed
process also included a listening session in August for the entire community, adding that staff
would like Council to provide policy direction prior to the listening session.
Mayor Jacobs adjourned the meeting at 9:52 p.m.
Written reports provided and documented for recording purposes only:
6. April 2015 Monthly Financial Report
7. Update on SWLRT Station Area Form-Based Code
8. Inclusionary Housing Policy Review
______________________________________ ______________________________________
Melissa Kennedy, City Clerk Jeff Jacobs, Mayor
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: June 15, 2015
Minutes: 3c
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL STUDY SESSION
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
JUNE 1, 2015
The meeting convened at 7:00 p.m.
Councilmembers present: Mayor Jeff Jacobs, Tim Brausen, Steve Hallfin, Gregg Lindberg,
Anne Mavity, Susan Sanger, and Jake Spano.
Councilmembers absent: None.
Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), Economic Development Coordinator (Mr. Hunt),
and Recording Secretary (Ms. Hughes).
1. Bader Development’s Application for Tax Increment Financing (TIF) – The
Shoreham Project
Mr. Hunt presented the staff report and stated that Bader Development’s cost to construct this
project is estimated at over $44 million and staff had determined that the proposed project was
not financially feasible due to more than $7.8 million of extraordinary costs associated with
redeveloping the site, including contamination cleanup, demolition, removal of underground
storage tanks, and poor soils. He stated the developer applied for $4 million in TIF assistance
and staff recommended that the EDA consider providing up to $3,050,000 in pay-as- you-go TIF
assistance, noting that this amount could be further reduced by grants the developer had applied
for through DEED, Met Council, and Hennepin County. He stated the project included an
affordability component resulting in a loss of approximately $280,000 per year and those costs
were primarily covered through interest rate savings achieved through private activity revenue
bonds and tax credits.
Councilmember Sanger stated she liked this project but was uncomfortable with the amount of
TIF financing requested. She stated the developer indicated it was foregoing $280,000 per year
because of the affordable units, which equaled about $2.5 million worth of foregone cash flow
over nine years and if the developer had not incurred that loss, the TIF request would be much
less. She stated she wanted to see a comparison of what it would cost the City in TIF to meet the
developer’s 10% goal if a project had no affordable housing versus the TIF cost if a project
included affordable housing. She noted that the City’s housing policy did not include a
discussion about that cost. She stated she wanted to know the cost of affordable housing in every
project and felt the public needed access to that information. She added she would make the
same request for any project that came forward with an affordable housing component.
Councilmember Mavity stated that the extraordinary cost estimates Council was being asked to
consider for the project total approximately $7.8 million and those were costs that Council would
normally see whether or not a project included an affordable housing component.
Mr. Hunt advised that with a Redevelopment TIF District, the qualified expenses allowed to be
reimbursed to the developer were related to cleanup, demolition, site work, etc., and the City
could not statutorily reimburse a developer for any costs related to affordable housing.
City Council Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 3c) Page 2
Title: Special Study Session Minutes of June 1, 2015
Councilmember Brausen stated he was supportive of the TIF request. He noted this property was
currently worth $2.5 million and the developer was turning it into a $36 million property and
after nine years the City received all that tax revenue and this project turned into a profitable
enterprise for the developer. He stated the City did not receive compensation for additional
services provided whenever a new development is built, e.g., police and fire, and questioned
whether the cost to provide those essential services should be evaluated along with the number of
additional jobs that are created as part of a project, adding he would like to capture all those costs
on every project and not just direct project costs.
Councilmembers Spano, Hallfin, and Lindberg spoke in favor of the TIF request.
It was the consensus of the majority of the EDA/City Council to support Bader Development’s
Shoreham project proposed for the SW corner of CSAH 25 and France Avenue and to consider
entering into a redevelopment contract to reimburse the Developer for qualified costs up to
$3,050,000 in tax increment generated by The Shoreham project to make it financially feasible.
Mr. Hunt distributed a map depicting existing TIF districts in the City, three proposed TIF
districts and four potential TIF districts in the future. He also distributed a summary of specifics
related to each of the existing TIF districts and noted that two of the TIF districts had been
decertified and another TIF district would be decertified in the next few years. He advised that
there was no limitation on the maximum number of TIF districts allowed and stated that the
summary also included information about how much of the City’s tax capacity was included in
TIF districts and how St. Louis Park compared to other communities.
Mayor Jacobs adjourned the meeting at 7:20 p.m.
______________________________________ ______________________________________
Melissa Kennedy, City Clerk Jeff Jacobs, Mayor
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: June 15, 2015
Minutes: 3d
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
JUNE 1, 2015
1. Call to Order
Mayor Jacobs called the meeting to order at 7:33 p.m.
Councilmembers present: Mayor Jeff Jacobs, Tim Brausen, Steve Hallfin, Gregg Lindberg,
Anne Mavity, Susan Sanger, and Jake Spano.
Councilmembers absent: None.
Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), City Attorney (Mr. Mattick), Director of
Engineering (Ms. Heiser), Senior Planner (Mr. Walther), Economic Development Coordinator
(Mr. Hunt), Associate Planner (Mr. Kelley), Housing Supervisor (Ms. Schnitker), Community
Development Intern (Mr. Boyce), and Recording Secretary (Ms. Hughes).
1a. Pledge of Allegiance
1b. Roll Call
2. Presentations
2a. Recognition of Donations
Mayor Jacobs thanked Mr. Paul Reshke for his $1,000 donation for a purple martin house
to be installed at Westwood Hills Nature Center and thanked Ms. Chelsey Bahe for her
$30 donation for a nature play sign to be posted at the nature play area at Westwood Hills
Nature Center.
2b. Citizens Independent Bank 65 Year Anniversary Recognition
Mayor Jacobs congratulated Citizens Independent Bank on its 65 year anniversary and
stated that in 2014, Citizens Independent Bank Community Foundation donated $80,000
to several organizations and at the branch level, the bank donated $10,000 to local
schools and youth sports associations and many bank employees donated a number of
hours to several faith-based and business organizations. He stated that Citizens
Independent Bank was awarded the Minnesota Bankers Association’s “Community
Champion Award.” He introduced Mr. Brad Bakken, President/CEO of Citizens
Independent Bank, and thanked Mr. Bakken and his mother, Ms. Connie Bakken, and all
of their employees and presented a plaque commemorating their 65 year anniversary.
Mr. Bakken stated they were thankful to be a part of this community and thanked all of
the bank employees and the representatives attending this evening from Children First
and the Rotary and introduced Mr. Jim Rhodes, Citizens Independent Bank Board
Member. He thanked the City Council for its recognition of their 65 year anniversary.
City Council Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 3d) Page 2
Title: City Council Meeting Minutes of June 1, 2015
3. Approval of Minutes
3a. Closed Executive Session May 18, 2015
The minutes were approved as presented.
4. Approval of Agenda and Items on Consent Calendar
NOTE: The Consent Calendar lists those items of business which are considered to be routine
and/or which need no discussion. Consent items are acted upon by one motion. If discussion is
desired by either a Councilmember or a member of the audience, that item may be moved to an
appropriate section of the regular agenda for discussion.
4a. Approve a Temporary On-Sale Intoxicating Liquor License for STEP at 6812 West
Lake Street for June 18, 2015.
4b. Approve the second reading and Adopt Ordinance No. 2467-15 Vacating Easements -
5320 West 23rd Street, and authorize summary publication.
4c. Approve the second reading and Adopt Ordinance No. 2468-15 Amending Chapter 3,
Section 57 of the St. Louis Park City Code Increasing Production Capacity for Brewer
Off-Sale Malt Liquor Licenses and Brewer Taproom Licenses, and Adopt Ordinance
No. 2469-15 Amending Chapter 36 of the St. Louis Park City Code Increasing
Production Capacity for Breweries Located in the Industrial Park and Business Park
Zoning Districts, and to approve the summary ordinances for publication.
4d. Approve second reading and Adopt Ordinance No. 2470-15 Relating to
Discontinuance of Water Service, Amending Chapter 32 of the St. Louis Park City
Code, approve summary ordinance, and authorize publication.
4e. Approve second reading and Adopt Ordinance No. 2471-15 Amending the St. Louis
Park City Code Relating to Zoning by Creating Section 36-268-PUD 1 as a Planned
Unit Development Zoning District for the Property Located at 3907 and 3915
Highway 7, 3031 Glenhurst Avenue, and 3914 and 3918 31st Street West, and approve
the summary ordinance for publication.
4f. Approve second reading and Adopt Ordinance No. 2472-15 Vacating an Alley Lying
Between CSAH 25 Frontage Road and 31st Street West which connects France
Avenue and Glenhurst Avenue, and approve the summary ordinance for publication.
4g. Adopt Resolution No. 15-074 approving acceptance of a Purple Martin House (value
$1000) from Paul Reshke to be installed and monitored at Westwood Hills Nature
Center and approving acceptance of a Nature Play Sign (value $30) from Chelsey
Bahe to be posted at the Nature Play area at Westwood Hills Nature Center.
4h. Adopt Resolution No. 15-075 authorizing calling for a Public Hearing on July 6, 2015
on the issuance of health care facilities revenue refunding bonds and authorizing the
publication of a notice of the hearing for the Jones Harrison Project.
4i. Approve Motorola MCC7500 Contract relating to the replacement of the radio
consoles for 911 Dispatch
4j. Adopt Resolution No. 15-076 authorizing final payment in the amount of $44,333.04
for Project 2016-1100 MSA Street Rehabilitation – Pennsylvania Avenue with Valley
Paving, Inc., City Contract No. 47-14.
4k. Adopt Resolution No. 15-077 revoking W. Lake Street between Brookview Drive and
Minnesota 7 Service Road from the City’s Municipal State Aid System.
City Council Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 3d) Page 3
Title: City Council Meeting Minutes of June 1, 2015
4l. Approve for filing Planning Commission Minutes May 6, 2015
It was moved by Councilmember Lindberg, seconded by Councilmember Spano, to
approve the Agenda and items listed on the Consent Calendar; and to waive reading of
all resolutions and ordinances.
The motion passed 7-0.
5. Boards and Commissions - None
6. Public Hearings - None
7. Requests, Petitions, and Communications from the Public – None
8. Resolutions, Ordinances, Motions and Discussion Items
8a. Comprehensive Plan Amendment – “Bridgewater Development.” Resolution
No. 15-078.
Mr. Kelley presented the staff report and request for a Comprehensive Plan Land Use
Map amendment. He presented a map of the site depicting existing land use and
surrounding properties and explained that the current guidance and underlying zoning
district allow up to a six story building and a density of 50 residential units per acre. A
Mixed Use designation requires a mix of uses and provides higher design requirements.
He presented an image of the proposed building and stated the first level consists of
10,000 square feet for Bridgewater Bank and 7,000 square feet of commercial space with
parking located in a surface lot and two levels of underground parking. He also presented
several elevation images and stated that the proposed change to Mixed Use met the vision
and goals outlined in the Comprehensive Plan, including encouraging developments that
contribute to a more walkable environment and promoting high density residential
development near commercial centers. He advised that residents have raised concerns
about development intensification, traffic issues, and the height of the building, as well as
concerns about the loss of small businesses. He stated that SRF Consulting prepared a
traffic study that analyzed average daily trips, peak hour intersection turning movements,
and intersection capacity and explained in detail the results of the traffic study. He
advised that SRF Consulting was engaged to provide a more detailed analysis of the
general circulation around the properties, to perform an intersection control evaluation for
options related to Park Commons Drive, and to model the impacts of each of those
options. He reviewed the public process to date as well as next steps and indicated if the
Comprehensive Plan amendment was approved, the developer would then apply for a
preliminary and final plat and preliminary and final PUD specifically related to the
project. He introduced Mr. Ron Mehl from Dominium Development and Mr. Mike
Krych from BKV Architecture.
Councilmember Mavity requested further information about the PUD process.
Mr. Kelley explained that the PUD process would require a neighborhood meeting as
well as a Planning Commission public hearing followed by City Council approval. He
stated that a PUD district represented a rezoning and the City used the underlying zoning
to dictate what kind of project can be built. He stated the site currently consisted of three
City Council Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 3d) Page 4
Title: City Council Meeting Minutes of June 1, 2015
parcels, one owned by the EDA that was zoned C-2 Commercial and the other two
parcels were owned by Bridgewater Bank. He explained that the C-2 district would
allow uses such as a hotel, retail, office, medical office, or restaurants, and a mixed use
development up to 50 units per acre and a building up to six stories in height.
Councilmember Sanger stated there was no discussion in the traffic study about the
impact of this proposed project on the congestion on Park Commons Drive and the
congestion in Trader Joe’s for people trying to get in and out of that parking lot and asked
if those areas were studied.
Ms. Heiser replied that the traffic study reviewed level of service and amount of delay
and SRF Consulting was not asked to look at what happens at the driveway to Trader
Joe’s but looked at queuing and how long vehicles are waiting. She stated the worst level
of service is the left turn going from Park Commons onto Monterey and the City will be
performing some additional modeling of that area.
Councilmember Sanger requested that the additional analysis look at the backup that
occurs in the Trader Joe’s parking lot for people trying to get out toward Monterey or
making a left turn in or out of that parking lot.
Ms. Meghan Phimister, 3451 Zarthan, presented a written petition for the public record
containing approximately 325 signatures asking that the City Council not take action
tonight until development guidelines are created from Methodist Hospital to the Ellipse.
Mr. Steve Frank, 3940 Joppa Avenue, stated that the concerned citizens group raised
concerns about cut-through traffic in the neighborhood, building height and aesthetics,
and the loss of small businesses. The citizen group requested a review of the entire
Excelsior Boulevard corridor as opposed to projects on a case-by-case basis.
Mr. Dennis Morin, 4509 West 36-1/2 Street, stated the delay on Park Commons Drive
was shown to increase from 32 to 48 seconds, a 50% increase, and on Excelsior
Boulevard and Kipling, the delay goes up 55% from 29 seconds to 45 seconds. He stated
that if you use the alternate scenario for traffic, the delay on Park Commons Drive goes
up to 89 seconds, a 178% increase. Mr. Morin asked if this assessment was correct, and
Mr. Kelley replied that the figures were correct. Mr. Morin then presented Council with
a “Critique of the Base Access Plan” and stated that 36-1/2 Street had no four-way stop
signs, no sidewalks, and had significant on street parking, which caused sightline issues.
He stated they were concerned about safety and the base plan failed to solve the traffic
congestion at Monterey and Park Commons and residents believed the proposed access
points were not able to manage any increase in a high density development and believed
more study was needed of the whole area. He stated Park Commons was the only street
that did not show a projected daily trip count and suggested that should be looked at. He
asked the City Council to work with residents to develop redevelopment guidelines and
conduct a comprehensive traffic study.
Ms. Patti Carlson, 3801 Inglewood Avenue S., expressed concern about the height and
density. She stated that nothing was mentioned about what would happen on Monterey
going toward the Rec Center and stated there was often a significant backup to go into
Trader Joe’s that backed up to Excelsior Boulevard. She opined that adding more cars
City Council Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 3d) Page 5
Title: City Council Meeting Minutes of June 1, 2015
seemed foolish. She urged the City Council to be an advocate and protect their
neighborhood and not make it more difficult to live there.
Mr. Mike Edlavitch, 3720 Glenhurst, expressed concern about pedestrian safety and
stated pedestrians were having a hard time crossing over Park Commons to go to the Rec
Center and Wolfe Park, which was a major focus for kids in this area.
Mr. Steve May, 3901 Joppa Avenue, requested that the City Council table action on
amending the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map until a comprehensive plan was in
place for the north side of Excelsior Boulevard.
Mr. Dan Becker, 3785 Kipling, questioned why the proposed project was six stories and
why the City Council was not looking at other options such as three stories. He did not
believe the traffic study addressed cars without mufflers or people that run through stop
signs and asked the City Council to consider those issues.
Mr. Bill Weber, 3824 Huntington Avenue, urged the City Council to postpone action on
the amendment until the traffic problems on Monterey were resolved. He urged the City
Council to consider the following changes: (1) acquire the bank building and car wash
and do a bigger project and bring residential traffic off of Kipling; (2) combine Access B
and C and line up with Park Commons Drive; (3) restripe Monterey to include a
combined left turn lane and right northbound turn lane into a new combined driveway;
and (4) improve the site distance coming out of Trader Joe’s or install pedestrian striping
at Park Commons Drive.
Mr. Russ Redman, 3833 Kipling, stated the traffic study did not address parking and
asked how many parking spaces would be provided.
Mr. Kelley stated the development proposal was currently in the concept stage with
parking shown to exceed the City’s requirements for residential and commercial uses.
Ms. Noelle Racette, 4900 Vallacher Avenue, asked the City Council to consider its role
and whom they serve and why they serve. She was concerned about the amount of
concrete, steel, glass, and brick in all the developments along Excelsior Boulevard and
felt it all looked the same. She was also concerned about eliminating small houses and
replacing them with one-bedroom apartments and whether this was the destination
location that St. Louis Park wanted to become.
Ms. Courtney Nichols, representing Park Health and Rehabilitation Center, 4415 West
36-1/2 Street, expressed concern about the shared parking spaces and stated they had 81
patients in their skilled nursing facility and they used a small space in the front of their
building for visitors and utilize shared space in the back. She stated the proposed project
used the shared lot to build their structure and questioned what kind of access to parking
they could expect in order to serve their patients. She stated Access D, as a primary
entrance into the residential area, would increase traffic flow and that was the only
entrance and exit into their back space and was where emergency vehicles parked. She
added the proposal would not allow them to serve the emergency medical needs of their
patients. She referenced an easement agreement and stated the current proposal had not
been agreed to in their easement agreement.
City Council Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 3d) Page 6
Title: City Council Meeting Minutes of June 1, 2015
Councilmember Mavity thanked everyone for their comments and stated that Council
was not evaluating or approving the project this evening but was being asked to change
the land use map from Commercial to Mixed Use, and pointed out the site currently
allowed up to 50 units of housing without a PUD. She explained the proposed change
required a PUD, which gave Council more control over development of the site. She did
not believe this project was ready for approval because it had not addressed the issues
that were raised and suggested more work needed to be done before any development
took place on this site. She agreed that the traffic issues at Park Commons and Monterey
would be unbearable if this project moved forward and stated there must be further
comprehensive strategies in place for how traffic moves in the area and this project
should not go forward until the traffic issues are resolved. She also felt the issues with
36-1/2 Street needed to be addressed before going forward with any project. She stated
she had been an advocate of small business and finding ways in which the City Code
could help support small business, including forthcoming recommendations on form
based code, but was concerned about long stretches of commercial spaces with blank
cement walls and little pedestrian experience. She stated this was an active corridor that
was going to see more development in the future and it was important to make sure
Council was guiding development in a way that supported the vision for local small
businesses and safety.
Councilmember Sanger stated the development proposal was far from being ready for
approval and she preferred that the PUD be put on hold until Council had greater clarity
about how the issues with the current design were being addressed. She felt the traffic
issues would only get worse with the project and the nursing home’s concerns about
access and parking needed to be addressed. She was concerned about the number of
small residential units and stated this development had almost no green space and she
would not support the amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map at this time.
She pointed out that many of the resident comments were similar to comments that
Council had heard about other developments and felt there needed to be a conversation
with the entire community to help shape this development and other developments going
forward.
Councilmember Brausen stated that Council was not being asked to approve the
development this evening and acknowledged Council’s serious concerns with the
proposed development including the traffic issues. He felt that Council could approve the
amendment and thus, guide the development on this property.
It was moved by Councilmember Brausen, seconded by Councilmember Mavity, to adopt
Resolution No. 15-078 Approving an Amendment to the 2030 Comprehensive Plan for
the City of St. Louis Park under Minnesota Statutes 462.351 to 462.364 – 4400 and 4424
Excelsior Boulevard and 3743 Monterey Drive.
Councilmember Spano asked about the height limits under the current zoning.
Mr. Kelley stated the current zoning allows building height up to six stories or 75’.
Councilmember Spano stated he had serious concerns about access and traffic in this
area. He did not have concerns about green space, and pointed out this property was one-
half block from Wolfe Park, one of the biggest green space areas in the City.
City Council Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 3d) Page 7
Title: City Council Meeting Minutes of June 1, 2015
Mr. Ron Mehl, Dominium Development, stated they share some of the same concerns as
residents and they want traffic to work in this area. He stated they were willing to work
with the neighborhood and City staff to take actions to make the development work for
the neighborhood. He advised that they were meeting with Park Health and
Rehabilitation Center to discuss the easement.
The motion passed 6-1 (Councilmember Sanger opposed).
8b. Conditional Use Permit for Fill/Excavation Westside Center 5320 West 23rd
Street. Resolution No. 15-079.
Mr. Boyce presented the staff report and explained that COB, LLC, proposed to build an
expansion for Lyman Lumber for indoor and outdoor storage, as well as construction of a
ring road and storm water management. He stated the applicant proposed to excavate
approximately 8,000 cubic yards of fill and import approximately 1,000 cubic yards of
fill in the floodplain. He presented an aerial map and proposed layout of the site and
explained that portions of the ring road and reconfigured parking would impact
approximately 1,002 cubic yards of floodplain and the applicant proposed compensatory
floodplain storage of 1,020 cubic yards and improved storm water management systems
for the site with infiltration swales. He discussed the hauling route and stated the project
would last 2-4 weeks with 5-10 trucks per day and hours of operation from 7:00 a.m.-
5:00 p.m. weekdays. He noted that weekend work may occur due to unexpected weather
delays and weekend hours would be limited to 9:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m. He stated that
materials to be imported included an unknown amount of Class V material and Braun
Intertec would be on-site to screen excavated materials for possible use.
Councilmember Sanger expressed concern about trucks using 23rd Street to the T.H. 100
frontage road because of the ongoing T.H. 100 project and asked if the City could modify
the hauling hours so trucks were not using this road during rush hour.
Mr. Walther stated the Ordinance allowed hours of operation from 7:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m.
and he did not think the trucks would cause a significant problem over the course of four
weeks, adding if the contractor found there were issues with traffic delays, they would
adjust their hours.
It was moved by Councilmember Sanger, seconded by Councilmember Mavity, to adopt
Resolution No. 15-079 Granting Conditional Use Permit under Section 36-79(a) and (b)
of the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code relating to Zoning to Permit Excavation and Fill of
Approximately 9,000 Cubic Yards from Property Zoned Industrial Park and General
Industrial District located at 5320 West 23rd Street.
The motion passed 7-0.
8c. Inclusionary Housing Policy
Ms. Schnitker presented the staff report and proposed Housing Policy and explained the
policy required the inclusion of affordable housing in new market rate residential
developments requesting financial assistance from the City. She stated the policy
contained two options for providing the required number of affordable units within a
project and provided that at least 10% of the units shall be affordable for households at
City Council Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 3d) Page 8
Title: City Council Meeting Minutes of June 1, 2015
60% AMI or at least 8% of the units shall be affordable for households at 50% AMI. She
stated the policy also allowed the income and affordability requirements to be fulfilled by
the development of units within the proposed market rate development or at another site
if approved by the City. She stated the length of the affordability requirement was a
minimum of 25 years, the bedroom type of affordable units must be reflective of the
market rate units and distributed throughout the development, and the policy was
applicable to buildings with ten or more units. She stated that staff would also be
preparing procedures to guide program implementation, including ongoing compliance.
Mr. Steve May, 3901 Joppa Avenue, referred to the earlier discussion regarding the
Bridgewater development and stated that when affordable housing was added to the mix
of residential units, this appeared to be driving up the size of a building and urged
Council to consider this concern about density. He also agreed with Councilmember
Sanger’s comment about the need for a discussion with the community about what types
of developments residents want to see in the community.
Councilmember Sanger acknowledged the need for more affordable housing in the metro
area and the push to create more affordable housing. She stated that St. Louis Park
already had a high ratio of affordable housing and Met Council ranked the City in the top
10% of communities with available affordable housing. She referred to Met Council’s
approach to push affordable housing to the outer ring suburbs and stated if St. Louis Park
kept adding more affordable housing, the pressure on those suburbs to have their fair
share of affordable housing was reduced. She stated the policy did not contain a
provision requiring a comparison of the cost to the City for requiring affordable housing
versus the cost to the City if the same project was built with no affordable housing and
felt it was important to be transparent about those costs and, as a result, she would not be
supporting this policy as proposed.
Councilmember Lindberg stated the policy represented over a year’s worth of work by
Council and Council was saying that if St. Louis Park is providing TIF assistance, there
should be an affordability element that resulted in options that might not exist otherwise.
He stated this policy provided direction to developers that when the City had a stake in a
particular project, the developer needed to do the right thing. He urged Council to take
into account the impact of this policy on the greater good. He recognized that other
communities were not doing things like this and that is what made St. Louis Park great.
He was supportive of the policy and was appreciative of all the staff work that had gone
into creating the policy.
Councilmember Brausen stated one of his priorities was to see the City increase its
supply of affordable housing. He stated the City had a lot of naturally occurring
affordable housing but most of the new developments were high-end luxury apartments
with no affordable units and this policy leveraged some of the City’s investment and
made sure community members benefitted from it.
It was moved by Councilmember Brausen, seconded by Councilmember Mavity, to
approve the Inclusionary Housing Policy, which would require the inclusion of
affordable housing units in new market rate multi-unit residential developments receiving
financial assistance from the City.
City Council Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 3d) Page 9
Title: City Council Meeting Minutes of June 1, 2015
Councilmember Hallfin urged Council to be the better council and the better city. He
stated that even though other cities were not adding affordable housing, St. Louis Park
was the better city and he was proud of the City Council for acting on the policy.
Councilmember Spano stated that Hennepin County needed to take a more active role in
guiding affordable housing throughout the metro. He stated this policy meant that a
family of four could afford to live in some of these new developments and that all sorts of
people could enjoy the benefits of the policy.
Councilmember Mavity stated she was proud of Council for taking this leadership role
and making sure people have choices and she was proud to support the housing policy.
The motion passed 6-1 (Councilmember Sanger opposed).
9. Communications
Mayor Jacobs reminded residents about Parktacular on June 19-21 and stated that buttons
were available at the Rec Center and various locations throughout the City and further
information is available at www.parktacular.org.
Mr. Harmening announced the opening of the aquatic park on Friday, June 5th, at 11:00
a.m. He reminded residents about the “Park the Street 2” event near TexaTonka on
Sunday, June 7th, from 12:00 noon-4:00 p.m. He reminded residents about the Fire
Department open house on Tuesday, June 9th, from 5:00-8:00 p.m. at Fire Station #1. He
also reminded residents about the household hazardous waste drop-off collection at the
middle school on June 11-13 from 9:00 a.m.-4:00 p.m.
Councilmember Spano reminded residents about Cleanup Day on Saturday, June 6th,
from 8:00 a.m.-1:00 p.m.
10. Adjournment
Mayor Jacobs adjourned the meeting at 9:35 p.m.
______________________________________ ______________________________________
Melissa Kennedy, City Clerk Jeff Jacobs, Mayor
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: June 15, 2015
Consent Agenda Item: 4a
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Special Assessment – Water and Sewer Service Line Repair 1810 Flag Avenue South
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to Adopt Resolution authorizing the special assessment
for the repair of the water and sewer service lines at 1810 Flag Avenue South, St. Louis Park,
Minnesota, P.I.D. 06-117-21-33-0044.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: The proposed action is consistent with policy previously
established by the City Council.
SUMMARY: Kristi Svenkeson, owner of the single family residence at 1810 Flag Avenue
South, has requested the City to authorize the repair of the water and sewer service lines for her
home and assess the cost against the property in accordance with the City’s special assessment
policy.
This is a 2015 repair that was made between the home and the curb box and is not impacted by the
City’s new waterline ownership policy. Homeowners are still responsible for water lines repairs that
occur between their home and the curb box located in the right of way.
The City requires the repair of service lines to promote the general public health, safety and welfare
within the community. The special assessment policy for the repair or replacement of water and/or
sewer service lines for existing homes was adopted by the City Council in 1996. This program was
put into place because sometimes property owners face financial hardships when emergency repairs
like this are unexpectedly required.
Plans and permits for the service line repair work were completed, submitted, and approved by City
staff. The property owner hired a contractor and repaired the water and sewer service lines in
compliance with current codes and regulations. Based on the completed work, this repair qualifies for
the City’s special assessment program. The property owner has petitioned the City to authorize the
water and sewer service line repairs and special assess the cost of the repair. The total eligible cost of
the repair has been determined to be $6,415.00.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: The City has funds in place to finance the
cost of this special assessment.
VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Resolution
Prepared by: Jay Hall , Utility Superintendent
Reviewed by: Mark Hanson, Public Works Superintendent
Brian Swanson, Controller
Cindy Walsh, Director of Operations & Recreation
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 4a) Page 2
Title: Special Assessment – Water and Sewer Service Line Repair 1810 Flag Avenue South
RESOLUTION NO. 15-____
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE SPECIAL ASSESSMENT
FOR THE REPAIR OF THE WATER AND SEWER SERVICE LINES AT
1810 FLAG AVENUE SOUTH, ST. LOUIS PARK, MN
P.I.D. 06-117-21-33-0044
WHEREAS, the Property Owner at 1810 Flag Avenue South, have petitioned the City of
St. Louis Park to authorize a special assessment for the repair of the water and sewer service
lines for the single family residence located at 1810 Flag Avenue South, and
WHEREAS, the Property Owner has agreed to waive the right to a public hearing, right
of notice and right of appeal pursuant to Minnesota Statute, Chapter 429; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park has received a report from the
Utility Superintendent related to the repair of the water and sewer service lines.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park, Minnesota, that:
1. The petition from the Property Owner requesting the approval and special assessment for the
water and sewer service line repair is hereby accepted.
2. The water and sewer service line repair that was done in conformance with the plans and
specifications approved by the Public Works Department and Department of Inspections is
hereby accepted.
3. The total cost for the repair of the water and sewer service line is accepted at $6,415.00.
4. The Property Owner has agreed to waive the right to a public hearing, notice and appeal from
the special assessment; whether provided by Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429, or by other
statutes, or by ordinance, City Charter, the constitution, or common law.
5. The Property Owner has agreed to pay the City for the total cost of the above improvements
through a special assessment over a ten (10) year period at the interest rate of 4.00%.
6. The Property Owner has executed an agreement with the City and all other documents
necessary to implement the repairs of the water and sewer service line and the special
assessment of all costs associated therewith.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council June 15, 2015
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: June 15, 2015
Consent Agenda Item: 4b
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Special Assessment – Sewer Service Line Repair at 3912 Joppa Avenue South
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to Adopt Resolution authorizing the special assessment
for the repair of the sewer service line at 3912 Joppa Avenue South, St. Louis Park, Minnesota,
P.I.D. 07-028-24-12-0149.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: The proposed action is consistent with policy previously
established by the City Council.
SUMMARY: Scott Hallett and Jane Ferguson Hallett, owners of the single family residence at
3912 Joppa Avenue South, have requested the City authorize repair of the sewer service line for
their home and assess the cost against the property in accordance with the City’s special
assessment policy.
The City requires the repair of service lines to promote the general public health, safety and welfare
within the community. The special assessment policy for the repair or replacement of water or sewer
service lines for existing homes was adopted by the City Council in 1996. This program was put into
place because sometimes property owners face financial hardships when emergency repairs like this
are unexpectedly required.
Plans and permits for this service line repair work were completed, submitted, and approved by City
staff. The property owners hired a contractor and repaired the sewer service line in compliance with
current codes and regulations. Based on the completed work, this repair qualifies for the City’s special
assessment program. The property owners have petitioned the City to authorize the sewer service line
repair and special assess the cost of the repair. The total eligible cost of the repair has been determined
to be $7,500.00.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: The City has funds in place to finance the
cost of this special assessment.
VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Resolution
Prepared by: Jay Hall , Utility Superintendent
Reviewed by: Mark Hanson, Public Works Superintendent
Brian Swanson, Controller
Cindy Walsh, Director of Operations & Recreation
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 4b) Page 2
Title: Special Assessment – Sewer Service Line Repair at 3912 Joppa Avenue South
RESOLUTION NO. 15-____
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE SPECIAL ASSESSMENT
FOR THE REPAIR OF THE SEWER SERVICE LINE AT
3912 JOPPA AVENUE SOUTH, ST. LOUIS PARK, MN
P.I.D. 07-028-24-12-0149
WHEREAS, the Property Owners at 3912 Joppa Avenue South, have petitioned the City
of St. Louis Park to authorize a special assessment for the repair of the sewer service line for the
single family residence located at 3912 Joppa Avenue South, and
WHEREAS, the Property Owners have agreed to waive the right to a public hearing,
right of notice and right of appeal pursuant to Minnesota Statute, Chapter 429; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park has received a report from the
Utility Superintendent related to the repair of the sewer service line.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park, Minnesota, that:
1. The petition from the Property Owners requesting the approval and special assessment for
the sewer service line repair is hereby accepted.
2. The sewer service line repair that was done in conformance with the plans and specifications
approved by the Public Works Department and Department of Inspections is hereby
accepted.
3. The total cost for the repair of the sewer service line is accepted at $7,500.00.
4. The Property Owners have agreed to waive the right to a public hearing, notice and appeal
from the special assessment; whether provided by Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429, or by
other statutes, or by ordinance, City Charter, the constitution, or common law.
5. The Property Owners have agreed to pay the City for the total cost of the above
improvements through a special assessment over a ten (10) year period at the interest rate of
4.00 %.
6. The Property Owners have executed an agreement with the City and all other documents
necessary to implement the repair of the sewer service line and the special assessment of all
costs associated therewith.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council June 15, 2015
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: June 15, 2015
Consent Agenda Item: 4c
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Retirement Recognition Resolution for Public Service Worker Dallas Bahe
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to Adopt Resolution to recognize Public Service
Worker Dallas Bahe for his nearly 34 years of service to the City of St. Louis Park.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: None at this time.
SUMMARY: City policy states that employees who retire or resign in good standing with over
20 years of service will be presented with a resolution from the Mayor, City Manager and City
Council. Dallas has chosen not to be honored with a presentation, and will not be attending the
Council meeting.
This consent item will officially adopt the resolution that honors Dallas for his years of service.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Resolution
Prepared by: Ali Timpone, HR Coordinator
Reviewed by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 4c) Page 2
Title: Retirement Recognition Resolution for Public Service Worker Dallas Bahe
RESOLUTION NO. 15-___
RESOLUTION OF THE
CITY COUNCIL OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA,
RECOGNIZING THE CONTRIBUTIONS OF AND EXPRESSING APPRECIATION
TO PUBLIC SERVICE WORKER DALLAS BAHE
WHEREAS, Dallas began his employment with the City of St. Louis Park nearly 34 years
ago on August 10, 1981; and
WHEREAS, Dallas has painted tens of thousands of gallons of field paint on soccer and
football fields providing top quality playing areas; and
WHEREAS, Dallas has worked long hours during winter snowstorms and summer blow
downs; and
WHEREAS, Dallas has brought a sense of humor to work creating a pleasant atmosphere for
his peers; and
WHEREAS, Dallas has worked with various youth groups and associations to help the City
be a leader in the recreation industry; and
WHEREAS, Dallas will enjoy retirement in his new travel trailer in Cokato, MN with his
wife Debra; and
WHEREAS, Dallas is very musically talented, and retirement may give him time to pursue a
career in music with his brother Rick;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park, Minnesota, by this resolution and public record, would like to thank Public Service Worker
Dallas Bahe for his great contributions and nearly 34 years of dedicated service to the City of St.
Louis Park and wish him the best in his retirement.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council June 15, 2015
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: June 15, 2015
Consent Agenda Item: 4d
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Call for Public Hearing to Consider Establishment of The Shoreham TIF District
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to Adopt Resolution calling for a public hearing relative
to the proposed establishment of The Shoreham Tax Increment Financing (TIF) District within
Redevelopment Project No. 1 (a redevelopment district).
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the City Council wish to hold a public hearing on August
3, 2015 to consider the establishment of a Redevelopment Tax Increment Financing District to
facilitate Bader Development’s proposed Shoreham project?
SUMMARY: Bader Development is proposing to construct a major mixed-use redevelopment at
the SW corner of CSAH 25 and France Ave. During its due diligence, Bader discovered that
there are significant extraordinary costs associated with redeveloping the proposed site such as
contaminated fill material, underground storage tanks and structurally unstable soils which make
the project financially infeasible. Consequently Bader applied to the EDA for Tax Increment
Financing (TIF) assistance to offset a portion of these costs so as to enable its proposed
Shoreham project to proceed. The Developer’s application was reviewed at the June 1st Special
Study Session where it was favorably received.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: The cost to construct the proposed
Shoreham project is projected at $44.5 million. It is estimated to have a total taxable market
value of $32.6 million upon completion. The proposed mixed-use project is not financially
feasible due to more than $7.8 million of extraordinary costs associated with redeveloping the
site. In order for the project to proceed, it is proposed that the EDA consider reimbursing the
Developer for qualified costs up to $3,050,000 in pay-as-you-go tax increment generated by the
project for a term of 9 years. The TIF amount could be further reduced based upon any grant
awards. Once the TIF Note is retired the additional property taxes generated by the project would
accrue to the local taxing jurisdictions.
Setting a hearing date for the proposed Shoreham TIF District does not, in itself, authorize or
commit the EDA/City to any level of TIF assistance for the proposed project. Procedurally it
simply enables the City to hold a public hearing to consider the creation of the new TIF district.
The EDA will have the opportunity to consider the precise amount of financial assistance along
with other business terms in the near future. Those terms will be incorporated into a
redevelopment contract with Bader Development which will be brought to the EDA for formal
consideration the same evening as the proposed TIF district public hearing.
VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to providing a well-maintained and
diverse housing stock.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion
Resolution
TIF Schedule
Prepared by: Greg Hunt, Economic Development Coordinator
Reviewed by: Michele Schnitker, Housing Supervisor
Approved by: Tom Harmening, EDA Executive Director and City Manager
City Council Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 4d) Page 2
Title: Call for Public Hearing to Consider Establishment of The Shoreham TIF District
DISCUSSION
BACKGROUND: Bader Development (“Developer”) has option agreements to acquire five
properties at the SW corner of CSAH 25 and France Ave. These include two commercial
properties located at 3907 & 3915 Highway 7, (the ASAP building and Battlefield Store
respectively), two single-family homes located at 3031 Glenhurst Ave. and 3914 31st St. and a
townhome duplex located at 3918 31st St. The land assemblage creates a 2.23-acre
redevelopment site.
The Developer proposes to raze the current commercial buildings and residences, remove the
contaminated fill material and soils impacting the site, and construct a mixed-use development
called The Shoreham. The proposed building would consist of 150 residential units (of which
20% would be designated for households earning 50% of area median income) and 20,000
square feet of office space (split between Bader Development/Steven Scott Management and a
medical office tenant). Also included would be structured underground and surface parking.
Bader Development’s preliminary sources and uses statements, cash flow projections, and
investor rate of return (ROR) related to Shoreham were reviewed by Staff and Ehlers. The
estimates were found to be reasonable and within industry standards for this type of
redevelopment. It was also concluded that constructing Shoreham was not financially feasible
without some financial assistance from the EDA. Bader Development is seeking financial
assistance specifically to offset the extraordinary costs of redeveloping the five properties.
Level and Type of Financial Assistance
Upon analysis by Ehlers and Staff, and discussion with Bader Development, it was determined
that up to $3,050,000 in tax increment assistance would allow the project to move forward and
achieve a standard return. Providing assistance makes it possible to construct a high quality
project consistent with the Livable Communities design principles and many other objectives
listed in the City’s Comprehensive Plan. This proposed amount of assistance is in-line with other
similar mixed-use developments the EDA has aided in the past. Upon project completion, tax
increment generated from the increased value of the property would be provided to Bader
Development on a "pay-as-you-go" basis, which is the preferred financing method under the
City's TIF Policy. The Shoreham meets the requirements of a Redevelopment TIF District (25
year TIF District). If this type of district were created, the proposed project would generate the
above amount of tax increment in approximately 9 years .
Request for TIF Assistance
At the June 1st Special Study Session the EDA reviewed the TIF Application from Bader
Development. Following discussion there was consensus support for favorably considering the
Developer’s request for up to $3,050,000 in tax increment assistance. As a result, Staff was
directed to call for a public hearing on the proposed Redevelopment TIF District and to begin
drafting a formal redevelopment contract with Bader Development.
Call for Public Hearing
The TIF program is administered by the EDA. However in order to create a TIF district, city
councils are statutorily required to hold a public hearing. To start the TIF district process, the
EDA must formally request the City Council to set a date and hold a public hearing. Calling for
the public hearing is the first step in the formal creation of The Shoreham Tax Increment
Financing District. The public hearing is scheduled to be held on August 3, 2015.
City Council Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 4d) Page 3
Title: Call for Public Hearing to Consider Establishment of The Shoreham TIF District
NEXT STEPS:
Staff will coordinate with Ehlers to prepare the documents necessary for the formal creation of
the proposed Shoreham TIF District. At the same time Staff will work with legal counsel to draft
the business terms and redevelopment contract with Bader Development for the provision of the
proposed assistance for EDA consideration.
City Council Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 4d) Page 4
Title: Call for Public Hearing to Consider Establishment of The Shoreham TIF District
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
HENNEPIN COUNTY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 15-____
RESOLUTION CALLING FOR A PUBLIC HEARING BY THE CITY
COUNCIL ON THE PROPOSED ADOPTION OF A MODIFICATION TO
THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
NO. 1 AND THE PROPOSED ESTABLISHMENT OF THE SHOREHAM
REDEVELOPMENT TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT
THEREIN AND THE ADOPTION OF THE TAX INCREMENT
FINANCING PLAN THEREFOR.
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council (the "Council") for the City of St. Louis Park,
Minnesota (the "City"), as follows:
Section 1. Public Hearing. This Council shall meet on August 3, 2015, at approximately
7:30 P.M., to hold a public hearing on the proposed adoption of a Modification to the
Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project No. 1, the proposed establishment of the
Shoreham Redevelopment Tax Increment Financing District, and the proposed adoption of a Tax
Increment Financing Plan therefor, all pursuant to and in accordance with Minnesota Statutes,
Sections 469.090 to 469.1082, and Sections 469.174 to 469.1794, inclusive, as amended, in an
effort to encourage the development and redevelopment of certain designated areas within the
City; and
Section 2. Notice of Public Hearing, Filing of Plans. City staff is authorized and directed
to work with Ehlers to prepare a Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment
Project No. 1 and a Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Shoreham Redevelopment Tax
Increment Financing District and to forward documents to the appropriate taxing jurisdictions
including Hennepin County and Independent School District No. 283. The Economic
Development Coordinator is authorized and directed to cause notice of the hearing, together with
an appropriate map as required by law, to be published at least once in the official newspaper of
the City not later than 10, nor more than 30, days prior to August 3, 2015, and to place a copy of
the Plans on file in the Economic Development Coordinator's office at City Hall and to make
such copy available for inspection by the public.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the Economic Development
Authority on June 15, 2015
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
Clerk
City Council Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 4d) Page 5
Title: Call for Public Hearing to Consider Establishment of The Shoreham TIF District
SCHEDULE OF EVENTS
ST. LOUIS PARK ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
AND THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
FOR THE MODIFICATION TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN
FOR REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 1
AND THE ESTABLISHMENT OF
THE SHOREHAM TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT
(a redevelopment district)
June 8, 2015Ehlers confirms with the City whether building permits have been issued on the property
to be included in the TIF District.
June 8, 2015Project information (property identification numbers and legal descriptions, detailed
project description, maps, but/for statement, and list of sources and uses of funds)
for drafting necessary documentation sent to Ehlers.
June 15, 2015EDA requests that the City Council call for a public hearing.
June 15, 2015City Council calls for a public hearing.
June 19, 2015County receives TIF Plan for review for County Road impacts (at least 45 days prior to
public hearing). *The County Board, by law, has 45 days to review the TIF Plan to
determine if any county roads will be impacted by the development. Because the City
staff believes that the proposed tax increment financing district may require county road
improvements, the TIF Plan will be forwarded to the County Board 45 days prior to the
public hearing.
June 23, 2015 Letter received by County Commissioner giving notice of a potential
redevelopment tax increment financing district (at least 30 days prior to
publication of public hearing notice). [Ehlers will fax and mail on or before June
23, 2015]
July 2, 2015 Fiscal/economic implications received by School Board Clerk and County
Auditor (at least 30 days prior to public hearing). [Ehlers will fax and mail on or
before July 2, 2015.]
July 13, 2015 Ehlers conducts internal review of the Plans.
July 15, 2015 Planning Commission reviews Plans to determine if they are in compliance with
City's comprehensive plan and adopts a resolution approving the Plans.
City Council Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 4d) Page 6
Title: Call for Public Hearing to Consider Establishment of The Shoreham TIF District
SCHEDULE OF EVENTS – PAGE 2
ST. LOUIS PARK ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
AND THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
FOR THE MODIFICATION TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN
FOR REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 1
AND THE ESTABLISHMENT OF
THE SHOREHAM TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT
(a redevelopment district)
July 23, 2015 Date of publication of hearing notice and map (at least 10 days but not more than
30 days prior to hearing). [Ehlers will submit notice & map to the St. Louis Park
Sun Sailor on or before July 16, 2015 at sunlegals@ecm-inc.com]
August 3, 2015 EDA adopts a resolution approving the Plans.
August 3, 2015 City Council holds public hearing at 7:30 p.m. on a Modification to the
Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project No. 1, the establishment of the
Shoreham Tax Increment Financing District and passes resolution approving the
Plans. [Ehlers will email Council packet information to the City on or before
July 27, 2015]
August 4, 2015 City can issue building permits.
___________ Ehlers requests certification of the TIF District from the state and county.
An action under subdivision 1, paragraph (a), contesting the validity of a determination by an authority under section 469.175, subdivision 3,
must be commenced within the later of:
(1) 180 days after the municipality’s approval under section 469.175, subdivision 3; or
(2) 90 days after the request for certification of the district is filed with the county auditor under section 469.177, subdivision1.
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: June 15, 2015
Consent Agenda Item: 4e
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Temporary On-Sale Intoxicating Liquor License – Minnesota Grape Growers
Association
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to Approve a Temporary On-Sale Intoxicating Liquor
License for the Minnesota Grape Growers Association for an event on West End Boulevard at
the Shops at West End for July 11, 2015.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does Council agree with staff’s recommendation to approve a
Temporary On-Sale Intoxicating Liquor License for the Minnesota Grape Growers Association
during their event scheduled for Saturday, July 11, 2015?
BACKGROUND: The Minnesota Grape Growers Association has made application for a
Temporary On-Sale Intoxicating Liquor License for an event to be held on Saturday, July 11,
2015, from 12:00 noon to 5:00 pm to showcase wines produced by members of the association.
The Minnesota Grape Growers Association was formed in 1976 to heighten public awareness
and advance legislative support of the Minnesota grape and wine industry and to advance quality
standards in the production of Minnesota grown grapes and wines. A list of their member
wineries is listed on their website www.mngrapes.org.
Under State Statute 340A.4175, “A municipality with the approval of the commissioner may
issue a temporary license to a bona fide association of owners and operators of wineries
sponsoring an annual festival to showcase wines produced by members of the association.”
The Police Department has completed the background investigation on the principals and has
found no reason to deny the temporary license. The applicant has met all requirements for
issuance of the license, including implementation of all safety and security measures suggested
by the Police, Fire, and Inspections departments. Staff is recommending approval of the request.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: The fee for a temporary liquor license is
$100 per day of the event.
VISION CONSIDERATION: Not Applicable.
Attachments: None
Prepared by: Kay Midura, Office Assistant – City Clerk’s Office
Reviewed by: Melissa Kennedy, City Clerk
Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: June 15, 2015
Consent Agenda Item: 4f
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Temporary Extension of Licensed Premises - Frank Lundberg American Legion
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to approve a temporary extension of the licensed
premises located at 5605 36th St. W. to include the west parking lot for the American Legion’s
Celebrate the Park event to be held June 20, 2015 in conjunction with Parktacular.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does Council wish to approve the temporary extension of the
licensed premises for the American Legion’s Celebrate the Park event on June 20, 2015?
BACKGROUND: The American Legion Post 282 currently holds an On-Sale Club liquor
license for the premises located at 5605 36th St. W. The licensee has requested a one-time,
temporary extension of the licensed premises to include the west parking lot for their Celebrate
the Park event to be held on Saturday, June 20, from 2:00 to 10:00 pm, in conjunction with
Parktacular. After the Parktacular parade, the American Legion color guard will conduct an
American Flag retirement ceremony. The ceremony is held before the burning of the first flag,
with the remaining flags being burned one by one.
Food will be prepared and served indoors, though there will be tables for eating outside. Beer is
proposed to be sold within a designated area of the licensee’s west parking lot. The parking lot
will be fenced off, with two driveways left open for emergency vehicles. Wristbands will be
issued to control the service of alcohol and small tents will be put up over the beer taps only.
The City Fire and Police Departments have been notified of the event and did not object to the
proposed extension of the licensed premises.
The American Legion Post 282 is a service organization with the purpose of promoting
Americanism, patriotism, and to provide for the needs of our youth and children.
The applicant has met the requirements for the temporary extension of the licensed premises, and
staff is recommending approval.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: None
VISION CONSIDERATION: Not Applicable.
Attachments: None
Prepared by: Kay Midura, Office Assistant – Administration
Reviewed by: Melissa Kennedy, City Clerk
Nancy Deno, HR Director/Deputy City Manager
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: June 15, 2015
Consent Agenda Item: 4g
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Boy Scout Troop 282 Request for Temporary Signs in the Public Right-of-Way
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to Adopt Resolution to approve Boy Scout Troop
3282’s request for placing temporary signs in the public right-of-way.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: None.
SUMMARY: Troop 282 has requested permission to install temporary signs in the public right-
of-way for their Father’s Day Waffle Breakfast event. The Council has been granting a similar
request for the Lion’s Pancake Breakfast every year since 2005.
Section 36-362(e)(2) of the Zoning Code states that prohibited signs include, “Signs on or
over the public right-of-way unless the City Council grants permission for a temporary
sign on or over the public right-of-way for a period not to exceed ten days.”
The requested signs advertise the Father’s Day Waffle Breakfast to be held on Sunday, June 21st,
from 9am to 1pm. This activity is a fund raiser for the Boy Scout Troop. The request is to
install 10 sandwich board style signs as early as June 16, 2015; these will be removed on the day
of the event.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: None
VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Resolution
Sign Plan
Prepared by: Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator
Reviewed by: Sean Walther, Senior Planner
Michele Schnitker, Housing Supervisor
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 4g) Page 2
Title: Boy Scout Troop 282 Request for Temporary Signs in the Public Right-of-Way
RESOLUTION NO. 15-____
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE BOY SCOUT TROOP #282
APPLICATION FOR THE PLACEMENT OF TEMPORARY SIGNS
WITHIN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY
WHEREAS, The Boy Scout Troop #282 made application for the placement of 10
temporary sandwich board type signs for six days beginning June 16, 2015; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 36-362(e)(2) of the St. Louis Park Zoning Ordinance,
the City Council may approve the placement of temporary signs within the public right-of-way
for a period not to exceed 10 days;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park, Minnesota, that the City Council approves the Boy Scout Troop #282 application for the
placement of 10 sandwich board type temporary signs within the public right-of-way beginning
June 16, 2015, and to be removed immediately following the conclusion of the event on June 21,
2015.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the size and placement of the 10 sandwich board
are approved as shown on the attached sign plan (Exhibit A).
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council June 15, 2015
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
City Council Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 4g) Page 3
Title: Boy Scout Troop 282 Request for Temporary Signs in the Public Right-of-Way
Sign Plan
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: June 15, 2015
Consent Agenda Item: 4h
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Amendment to the Equipment Replacement Capital Plan
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to approve the amendment to the Equipment
Replacement Capital Plan.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Do the benefits justify the change to the original plan?
SUMMARY: The Fire Department is proposing to accelerate the replacement of certain large
vehicles ahead of the current replacement schedule in order to “right size” their large vehicle
fleet to better meet the needs of the community. The change will improve alignment between the
fleet and the staffing model, call mix, the capabilities of mutual aid partners and the exposures
we protect. The proposed fleet creates a more nimble and flexible response capability, reduces
the department’s vehicle footprint (by nearly 30 tons) improves fuel efficiency, and is friendlier
to the environment.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: The proposed changes will drive
significant savings to both the capital plan ($800,000 estimated) and the operating plan
($500,000 estimated) over a 10 year period. Savings are driven by lower cost vehicles, reduced
maintenance costs & higher trade in values by replacing vehicles over the next 2-3 years.
As proposed in the attached plan, the most immediate change to our equipment replacement plan
involves purchasing a new ladder truck. The current plan assumes the purchase of a new ladder
truck in 2018 at a cost of $1.1 million. The proposed plan is to purchase a new ladder in the fall
of 2015 for $775,000. Not only is the price less expensive at this point, the Fire department has
located a buyer for the current ladder truck whose offer represents a significant increase over
todays normal market value and a tenfold increase over the forecasted value of the truck should it
be sold on the normal schedule.
VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to being a leader in environmental
stewardship. We will increase environmental consciousness and responsibility in all areas of city
business.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion
Fire Department Fleet Acceleration Detail (New CIP vs. Old CIP)
Fire Department Equipment Replacement Fund Addendum
Prepared by: Steve Koering, Fire Chief
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 4h) Page 2
Title: Amendment to the Equipment Replacement Capital Plan
DISCUSSION
BACKGROUND: Over the last 20 months since coming on board as the Chief, I have been
evaluating the effectiveness and design of our response vehicles. Our call mix, along with
changes in the community suggests that we should be considering a lighter, more versatile
apparatus to meet the day to day demands. Upon hiring Deputy Chief Wolff, I tasked him with
doing an analysis of our fleet, including cost of operation, replacement costs, alternative designs
and trade in values. These documents show the results of that analysis.
Objectives:
1. Consider response capabilities and all mutual aid partners
2. Use lighter more maneuverable vehicles which reduce the footprint
3. Maintain ISO rating
4. Maximize trade in values and reduce maintenance cost
5. Reduce the impact of Fire Department needs on the overall CIP
Current Trends
Looking at data over the last 10 years, the trend continues to show an increase in overall call
volume of 26%, with 24% of that increase happening in the last four years. We are currently on
pace for an 11% increase over last year. EMS calls represent 72% of the calls and account for
our greatest category of increase. What this means is that the vehicles we use need to be more
appropriate for this type of call, while still offering the capacity to meet the needs of the other
30%. Attachment #1 details the vehicles that were planned for the department in the old CIP
compared to the vehicles that we propose for our current model. You will notice a difference in
cost and vehicle type which is relative to the changes needed. The engines are shorter and
lighter, along with our rescue vehicles moving to an SUV. Attachment #1 also shows the
addition of one smaller vehicle, an ATV, for brush and wild land, which will support response in
the areas where we have an interface with residential and nature, and difficult access areas such
as where rails go through town. We intend to convert a Utility Vehicle to a Ramp Vehicle,
which gives us the capability of attacking fires in parking ramps where time is of the essence.
As more ramps become part of the landscape, including those for park and ride areas and
commercial business, we can expect a greater likelihood of these fires occurring.
Financial Impacts
Attachment #2 is designed to answer the WHY question. Slide 1 provides the analysis of the
impacts on cash flow and how the plan actually provides lower exposure to the city in the CIP
over the longer period. Slide 2 outlines the comprehensive analysis of trade in values,
maintenance costs and normal inflationary impacts on vehicle costs to support the idea of why it
serves us to consider this now as opposed to later. All of our discussions with Finance suggest
there a number of options available to support the acceleration and the approximate $1.29 M of
savings to the CIP and operating budgets over the next 10 years.
Environmental Impacts
While these vehicles are still fossil fueled, it is important to note that the entire fleet is being
downsized by over thirty tons or sixty thousand pounds. This equates to lower fuel consumption,
and less wear and tear on city streets. This should also translate into lower maintenance costs
because of the reduced weight. By taking advantage of the latest emission technology, we are
improving the impacts of the carbon footprint throughout the city.
City Council Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 4h) Page 3
Title: Amendment to the Equipment Replacement Capital Plan
NEXT STEPS:
1. It is our recommendation to approve the amendment to the CIP as outlined
2. Move forward upon approval with the acquisition of the replacement ladder truck and
subsequent trade opportunity.
New Vehicle Plan 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
Ladder 1 775,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Engine 2 -$ -$ 369,360$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Engine 4 -$ 360,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Rescue 2 -$ 72,500$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Rescue 1 -$ -$ 74,313$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Brush/Ramp 1 (U1)-$ 100,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
ATV 1 -$ -$ 35,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Tech Rescue Trailer -$ 25,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Zodiak 1 -$ 12,500$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Utility 2 -$ -$ -$ 70,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Squad 1 -$ -$ -$ -$ 50,100$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Squad 2 -$ -$ -$ 46,500$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Squad 3 -$ -$ -$ -$ 47,500$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Squad 4 -$ -$ -$ -$ 50,100$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Utility 3 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 52,500$ -$ -$
LSU Trailer -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 13,000$ -$ -$
Engine 1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Total 775,000$ 570,000$ 478,673$ 116,500$ 147,700$ -$ -$ -$ 65,500$ -$ -$ 2,153,373$
Old Vehicle Plan 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
Ladder 1 -$ -$ -$ 1,092,500$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Engine 2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 536,674$ -$ -$
Engine 4 -$ -$ 462,365$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Rescue 1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 232,029$ -$ -$
Rescue 2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 226,675$ -$ -$ -$
Brush/Ramp 1 (U1)-$ 68,517$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
ATV 1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Tech Rescue -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Zodiak 1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Utility 2 -$ -$ -$ 70,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Squad 1 -$ -$ -$ -$ 50,100$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Squad 2 -$ -$ -$ 46,500$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Squad 3 -$ -$ -$ -$ 47,500$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Squad 4 -$ -$ -$ -$ 50,100$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Utility 3 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 52,500$ -$ -$
LSU -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 13,000$ -$ -$
Engine 1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Total -$ 68,517$ 462,365$ 1,209,000$ 147,700$ -$ -$ 226,675$ 834,203$ -$ -$ 2,948,460$
Difference 795,087$
City Council Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 4h) Title: Amendment to the Equipment Replacement Capital Plan Page 4
Legend New CIP* Old CIP
2015 $ 775,000 $ -
2016 $ 570,000 $ 68,517
2017 $ 478,673 $ 462,365
2018 $ 116,500 $ 1,209,000
2019 $ 147,700 $ 147,700
2020 $ - $ -
2021 $ - $ -
2022 $ - $ 226,675
2023 $ 65,500 $ 834,203
2024 $ - $ -
2025 $ - $ -
Total $ 2,153,373 $ 2,948,460
Difference $ 795,087
*New CIP savings are driven by “Right Sizing” the fleet and lower inflation from accelerated
purchases.
$-
$200,000
$400,000
$600,000
$800,000
$1,000,000
$1,200,000
$1,400,000
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
CIP Cash Flow Impact
New CIP Old CIP
City Council Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 4h)
Title: Amendment to the Equipment Replacement Capital Plan Page 5
Impact of Trade In and Maintenance Savings on CIP
NEW CIP PROGRAM
New CIP
Old CIP
Year Trade In * Maint Savings
New CIP
Year
Maintenance
Costs/Year
Ladder 18 $ 100,000 $ 52,698 15 $ 17,566
Engine 4 17 $ 25,000 $ 16,190 16 $ 16,190
Engine 2 23 $ 35,000 $ 73,344 17 $ 12,224
Rescue 1 23 $ 125,000 $ 12,138 17 $ 2,023
Rescue 2 22 $ 105,000 $ 41,886 16 $ 6,981
Potential Savings
$ 390,000 $ 196,256
$ 586,256
OLD CIP PROGRAM
New CIP
Old CIP
Year Trade In * Maint Savings
Old
CIP
Year
Maintenance
Costs/Year
Ladder 18 $ 15,000 $ - 18 $ 17,566
Engine 2 17 $ 17,500 $ - 17 $ 16,190
Engine 4 23 $ 18,000 $ - 23 $ 12,224
Rescue 2 23 $ 20,000 $ - 23 $ 2,023
Rescue 1 22 $ 21,000 $ - 22 $ 6,981
Potential Savings
$ 91,500 $ -
$ 91,500
Difference
$ (298,500) $ (196,256)
$ (494,756)
*Trade In values are estimated.
City Council Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 4h)
Title: Amendment to the Equipment Replacement Capital Plan Page 6
Why Accelerate?
• Alignment with “One Big Thing ”
• “Right Sizing ”
• Maintains ISO Rating
• Lower Purchase Cost
• Higher Trade In Values
• Lower Maintenance Costs
• Save $1.29M
City Council Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 4h)
Title: Amendment to the Equipment Replacement Capital Plan Page 7
Benefits
• Better alignment
with:
– Staffing model
– Call mix
– Regional
capabilities
• Maintains ISO
Rating for:
– Non-sprinkled
commercial
buildings and
– Residents
• “Right Sizing ”:
– Creates a more
nimble & flexible
fleet,
– Reduces footprint
by 30 tons,
– Enhances fuel
efficiency and is
more friendly to
the environment.
City Council Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 4h)
Title: Amendment to the Equipment Replacement Capital Plan Page 8
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: June 15, 2015
Consent Agenda Item: 4i
OFFICIAL MINUTES OF JULY 24, 2014
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
The St. Louis Park Board of Zoning Appeals conducted a meeting on July 24, 2014, at St. Louis
Park City Hall, 5005 Minnetonka Boulevard, St. Louis Park, Minnesota – Council Chambers.
Members Present: Susan Bloyer, Justin Kaufman, James Gainsley
Henry Solmer
Members Absent: Paul Roberts
Staff Present: Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator
Emily Goellner, Community Development Intern
Nancy Sells, Administrative Secretary
1. CALL TO ORDER – ROLL CALL
Chair Gainsley called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF MAY 27, 2014
Chair Gainsley made a motion to approve the minutes of May 27, 2014. The motion
passed on a vote of 3-0. (Commissioner Kaufman arrived at 6:01 p.m.)
3. CONSENT AGENDA: None
4. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Variance: Side yard setback for construction of single-family home
Location: 3911 W. 31st St.
Applicant: Joe Meyer Homes
Case No. 14-14-VAR
Emily Goellner, Community Development Intern, presented the staff report. She stated
that the applicant is requesting a variance from side yard setback requirements to allow
the construction of a single family home with a 7 foot setback on each side yard. A
variance of 5 feet is requested from the required 12 feet setback requirement on the west
side of the proposed home to allow for a total setback of 7 feet. On the east side of the
home, a variance of 8 feet is requested from the required 15 feet setback requirement to
allow a total setback of 7 feet. Ms. Goellner explained that the lot is smaller than most
lots in the R-4 District, which makes building to the required side yard setbacks more
challenging.
City Council Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 4i) Page 2
Title: Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes of July 24, 2014
Ms. Goellner reviewed the required criterion for a variance. She said staff finds the
proposed application does meet the criterion required for granting a variance because it is
within reasonable distance from the surrounding properties and the proposed home fits
the character of the neighborhood. Staff recommends adoption of a resolution granting
the requested variance of 5 feet and 8 feet to allow the construction of the proposed
single-family home. Ms. Goellner stated the conditions and read the appeal process.
Commissioner Bloyer asked how much of the neighborhood is zoned R-4 Multiple
Family Residential. She asked if future plans for the neighborhood include demolition of
single family homes.
Ms. Goellner responded that there are no current plans to demolish homes on the block
for multiple family residential. The R-4 District extends to Cedar Lake trail to the south
and to County Rd. 25 to the north.
Commissioner Solmer asked if the city permits the garage door to be at the front of the
house closest to the street.
Ms. Goellner replied that the zoning ordinance does not prohibit that kind of design. She
added that in this application the garage does not cause the need for the side yard setback
variance.
The Chair opened the public hearing.
Joe Meyer, Joe Meyer Homes, the general contractor, said he was available for any
questions.
Commissioner Solmer said he noticed that the driveways of the adjacent properties are
located at the edge of the property which helps them meet the setback requirement. He
asked if that had been considered for this construction.
Mr. Meyer stated that the steep grade would make that very difficult.
Commissioner Solmer said he noticed there is currently a fabric covered temporary
garage on the property.
Mr. Meyer said that will be removed.
As no one else was present wishing to speak Chair Gainsley closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Bloyer said she had no issues with the request.
Commissioner Solmer asked where the city is going long term with the single family
properties on the block.
Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator, stated that the single family homes are
permitted uses in the R-4 District so are legally conforming to code.
City Council Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 4i) Page 3
Title: Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes of July 24, 2014
Commissioner Solmer said part of his concern is that the proposed house is going to be of
a different character because it will be garage front design.
Chair Gainsley made a motion to adopt Resolution No. 04-14 approving a 5 foot variance
to the required 12 foot side yard and an 8 foot variance to the required 15 foot side yard
for the construction of a single family home. The motion passed on a vote of 4-0.
B. Appeal of a Zoning Determination
Location: 2211 Florida Ave. S.
Applicant: Marty Bell, Marty Bell Properties, LLC
Case No.: 14-18-AP
Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator, presented the staff report. He stated that
the appellant is appealing staff’s determination that the Outdoor Storage conducted by
Tim’s Tree Service at 2211 Florida Ave. S. is a principal land use. Mr. Morrison pointed
out that in the staff report Marty Bell and Tim’s Tree Service were named as appellant in
the staff report. He noted that since the report went out Tim’s Tree Service has asked not
to be named as an appellant of the appeal.
Mr. Morrison provided a definition of Outdoor Storage from the zoning ordinance. He
provided background on the 2211 Florida and 2220 Florida properties. He presented
photographs of equipment and materials being stored on the properties.
Mr. Morrison discussed the structure of zoning districts. He spoke about the conditions
of outdoor storage as an accessory use in the code. He discussed the definitions in the
City Code for principal use and accessory use.
Mr. Morrison noted that the appellant did send a response to the staff report by email on
July 22, 2014. That response was emailed to the board on July 22nd for review. Mr.
Morrison discussed his responses to that document.
Commissioner Bloyer asked if the city has a definition of land or same land.
Mr. Morrison responded that it is not defined in the code.
Commissioner Kaufman asked if Tim’s Tree Service is a licensed business in St. Louis
Park.
Mr. Morrison answered that the business doesn’t have a Registration of Land Use for the
outdoor storage. The City doesn’t license all of its businesses.
Commissioner Kaufman asked what the business address is for Tim’s Tree Service.
Mr. Morrison said 2220 Florida is listed as the business address for Tim’s Tree Service
on Google. He added that the website for Tim’s Tree Service does not include a business
address.
City Council Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 4i) Page 4
Title: Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes of July 24, 2014
Commissioner Solmer said nothing has been presented that indicates there was any
requirement that additional parking spaces be provided.
Mr. Morrison responded there is no documentation indicating that was the expectation.
He said the code would allow it but there is nothing in the files indicating that. At that
time there would have to be a Letter of Understanding. Currently that would be allowed
by Conditional Use Permit.
Chair Gainsley opened the public hearing.
Marvin Liszt, attorney, Bernick Lifson, asked staff for a set of construction plans which
were submitted at an earlier time.
Chair Gainsley asked what the plans were for.
Mr. Morrison said that the point of the plans was to show that an addition was
constructed to the building. One of the plan sheets shows a building and a parking lot
across the street. He continued by saying the problem with those plans is that the addition
shown on those plans was never constructed.
Chair Gainsley remarked that the plans were not relevant.
Mr. Liszt responded that the plans were very relevant.
A brief recess was held while staff obtained the plans.
Mr. Liszt said he wanted the board to see the plans because Mr. Bell bought the property
in Dec. 1986, did some work to the building and occupied it a few months later. Some of
the work on the plans was done at that time and some of the work was not done. Mr.
Liszt said the point of showing the plans is that for as long as Mr. Bell has owned 2220
Florida, the 2211 and 2221 Florida properties have supplied the required parking
necessary. 2211 and 2221 Florida are a part of that plan and the property. It has always
been required as necessary parking for the 2220 building. Mr. Liszt said that Mr. Bell has
always considered it one in the same because he needs that parking. It has always been
shown that way.
Mr. Liszt went on to say that the use of the parking area by Tim’s Tree Service is in line
with other uses in that area. Marcy’s has a large outdoor storage facility, buses are parked
in various lots in the area, Swanson Youngdale’s facility is across from Mr. Bell’s
property, with all sorts of equipment. He said the area has various types of
office/warehouse and storage. He stated that Mr. Bell has owned the property for about
28 years. When he bought the property, and as it exists today, the code allowed that the
parking lot at 2211 Florida and 2221 are necessary to meet the code requirements for
parking. Mr. Bell considers it all one use and all one entity because they are required for
each other.
Mr. Liszt said technically under the code it is not outdoor storage. Outdoor storage means
the receiving, keeping and shipping of goods and materials outside of an enclosed
City Council Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 4i) Page 5
Title: Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes of July 24, 2014
building. He said the materials on Mr. Bell’s property are not kept there for more than a
very short time period, in most cases less than a day. They are used in and out within
Tim’s Tree Service business.
Mr. Liszt said outdoor storage is prohibited as a principal use in the IP District as
indicated in the staff report and as the code sets forth. He said the use is not outdoor
storage so that doesn’t apply. If it is not outdoor storage it is an accessory use which is
permitted. He read the definition of accessory use from the code as a use or structure
subordinate to the principal use or structure on the same land. Mr. Liszt added that it does
not say the same lot. He stated that land is a broader term. Accessory use does not use
the term lot or parcel, it uses the term land. He stated that 2220, 2211 and 2221 are the
same land. It has been treated that way by Mr. Bell and by the City for the last 20 years.
He said it is necessary and it is legally required. Land is not defined in the code. He
said if it is the same land, which he believes it is, then Tim’s Tree Service as outdoor
storage is an accessory use which is permitted under the code. Mr. Liszt said that is the
argument, and that is why he believes Tim’s Tree Service can legally operate there.
Mr. Liszt said Tim’s Tree Service does rent office space within the building. If outdoor
storage is conducted on 2211 Florida Ave. Mr. Liszt said he does believe it is plain and
simple an accessory use to that building across the street. He added that the only
difference between what is going on with Tim’s Tree Service and the building and every
other outdoor storage within a block or two is that the city contends it is done on a
different parcel or lot. Mr. Liszt said he thinks that is a distinction without any difference.
He went on to say he doesn’t think it is a legitimate distinction when the parking lots are
required for 2220.
Mr. Liszt said his other argument is that a parking lot can also be a principal land use
under the code in this district. In that case, if this is outdoor storage that can be an
accessory use to the principal land use which is a parking lot.
Martin Bell stated he has owned the property for about 28 years. He provided background
on the property. He spoke about the plans that were submitted to the city for the addition.
Plans were submitted for warehouse and office space and to include the parking across
the street. He felt it was always considered the same land use, which was bisected by the
street. There is no parking in front of the building and there are restrictions after 4 p.m.
He said he refurbished the office for Tim’s Tree Service. He concluded by saying he
hopes the board will allow Tim’s Tree Service to continue tenancy.
Commissioner Solmer said he found Mr. Liszt’s discussion on what constitutes land to be
very interesting. He said he would leave his comments at that.
Commissioner Kaufman said the argument about land sounds logical. He asked if the
applicant can provide any more clarity on that issue.
Mr. Liszt said there are other places in the code in the IP District that use the terms lot
and parcel. The courts presume that when a statute, ordinance, regulation or rule is
drafted it means what it says, someone did it for a reason. He said in the case of accessory
City Council Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 4i) Page 6
Title: Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes of July 24, 2014
use the term land was used when other parts of the IP District do use the words lot or
parcel. Mr. Liszt said he has to assume by law that the use of land is a broader term.
Mr. Morrison stated that the ordinance defines lot and parcel and they refer to each other.
Lot is defined and parcel refers to the definition of lot. Land is not defined. He said in
looking at the definition of accessory use, “a use subordinate to the principal use on the
same land,” he does not follow the logic of how that can extend to another parcel of land
that is under common ownership whether it is across the street, next door, next block, or
somewhere else in St. Louis Park. Common ownership of the land can’t infer rights of an
accessory use to another piece of land.
Mr. Liszt replied that is what it says, it doesn’t say lot or parcel it says land. It’s under
common ownership and there is a street in-between it. He commented that for the city to
say that when they require by code that 2220 Florida is a legal building for parking
purposes, it naturally follows that it is all part of the same land.
Commissioner Solmer asked if the required parking is contemplated to be for private
passenger vehicles.
Mr. Morrison responded that the principal use is occurring at 2220. There is a provision
in the code that allows the required parking, and only the required parking, to take place
on a separate parcel.
Commissioner Solmer commented that it isn’t contemplated that the required parking
would include overnight storage, weekend/holiday storage, commercial trucks, bobcats,
and dumpsters.
Mr. Morrison said Commissioner Solmer was correct. He said the code is very clear that
only the required parking can take place on this other lot.
Commissioner Kaufman asked if there was any requirement that storage has to be on the
back lot.
Mr. Morrison said as an accessory use in the IP District it is required to be in the rear
yard only.
As no one else was present wishing to speak the Chair closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Bloyer said she was not persuaded by the argument regarding the land for
required parking because there are often contract relationships with other landowners for
the parking that is required. That does not become the same land as the original business.
She said generally when something is not defined it goes into the plain language of how it
is ordinarily used. How it is ordinarily used would not include land across the street.
Commissioner Bloyer said she was also concerned about the implication of a lessor and
lessee and changing the use of a property. She concluded by saying she does not see this
as one property. Because of that any other argument doesn’t work.
City Council Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 4i) Page 7
Title: Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes of July 24, 2014
Commissioner Kaufman said land versus parcel seems to be an interesting argument. He
said the definition of accessory use also includes “and customarily incidental thereto.”
He said in the context of an industrial park and what would be customarily incidental to
the type of work that is being done, he questions this. He added that looking at the
photographs it does also appear as though there are two other lots that are used for
storage that abut the property.
Mr. Morrison responded that there is outside storage occurring on other properties. That
outside storage is accessory to the office use or manufacturing use, which is permitted in
the IP District.
The Chair reopened the public hearing.
Mr. Liszt stated every building along Edgewood has outdoor storage that abuts Mr. Bell’s
property. He said however Tim’s Tree Service use of that property is categorized, it is a
similar type of use that goes on within 20 ft. away. It is not necessarily a legal argument
but it is a practical argument.
Mr. Bell said in the use of that property in the past his own business had at least 7 trucks
parked on the property overnight on the weekends, plus semi-trailers and containers
bringing product in from overseas. They were always parked in that area, every weekend
and every night. He said he sees no difference between that and Tim’s Tree Service truck
parking. He said his employees would come in, park their cars on the lot and take the
trucks away. The same action that Tim’s Tree Service is doing. Mr. Bell stated that went
on for the 20 years his business occupied warehouses and offices on that property.
The Chair reclosed the public hearing.
Chair Gainsley asked staff if there were any further remarks.
Mr. Morrison said when Volkswagen stored vehicles on the site they received notice that
was not allowed. They tried but ultimately the City removed the vehicles. Regarding the
practical matter of the outside storage, Mr. Morrison said the intent of the IP District is to
provide an industrial setting where the primary use is inside the building. It is a jobs
oriented district. He said an example is an industrial building at the end of Edgewood.
Built 6-7 years ago, it is a multi-tenant industrial building, lots of jobs, warehouse,
manufacturing, some office, and no outside storage. That is the intent of the Industrial
Park District. Mr. Morrison said that a lot where the principal use is outside storage is not
the direction this district is supposed to be going. He spoke about ratios between
accessory and principal uses that may make some of the other nearby businesses legally
non-conforming.
Commissioner Kaufman asked about remediation to make the current use conforming.
Mr. Morrison replied that could only occur through a code change.
Commissioner Solmer remarked that the applicant could find space for the intended use
in other parts of the city.
City Council Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 4i) Page 8
Title: Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes of July 24, 2014
Commissioner Bloyer made a motion to adopt Resolution No. 05-14 denying the appeal.
Commissioners Kaufman and Gainsley discussed whether or not a request for a variance
would be an option.
Commissioner Bloyer commented that technical merits of the appeal have not been
presented, making the request for appeal impossible to consider.
The motion to adopt Resolution No. 05-14 denying the appeal was approved by a vote of
4-0.
Mr. Morrison read the process for appeal to the City Council.
5. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
6. NEW BUSINESS: None
7. COMMUNICATIONS
8. ADJOURN
The meeting was adjourned at 7:25 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Nancy Sells
Administrative Secretary
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: June 1, 2015
Consent Agenda Item: 4j
OFFICIAL MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
May 20, 2015 – 6:20 p.m.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MEMBERS PRESENT: Robert Kramer, Lisa Peilen, Richard Person, Carl Robertson, Ethan
Rickert (youth member)
MEMBERS ABSENT: Lynne Carper, Claudia Johnston-Madison, Joe Tatalovich
STAFF PRESENT: Alex Boyce, Ryan Kelley, Gary Morrison, Sean Walther, Nancy Sells
1. Call to Order – Roll Call
2. Approval of Minutes of May 6, 2015
Commissioner Robertson moved approval of the minutes of May 6, 2015. Commissioner
Kramer seconded the motion, and the motion passed on a vote of 4-0.
3. Public Hearings
A. Conditional Use Permit for Off-Site Parking
Location: 7400 and 7500 Excelsior Boulevard
Applicant: Japs-Olson Company
Case No.: 15-08-CUP
Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator, presented the staff report. He explained
that the Conditional Use Permit is requested to construct an off-site parking lot, reduce
the amount of required parking, and export more than 400 cubic yards of soil. He
discussed the proposed expansion of the building which would require the relocation of
the parking lot. Mr. Morrison reviewed all conditions related to the Conditional Use
Permit request.
Commissioner Rickert asked about the duration of the proposed excavation.
Bruce Quam, D.J. Crans Co., project general contractor, responded that the excavation
process, including rough grading, will take about one month.
Chair Person opened the public hearing. As no one was present wishing to speak he
closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Robertson stated it is a straightforward and exciting project. He asked that
before the City Council review the accessible access parking aisles be drawn at 8 ft. wide
(Minn. Code) rather than 5 ft., and final parking numbers be adjusted.
City Council Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 4j) Page 2
Title: Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of May 20, 2015
Commissioner Peilen said she agreed that it is exciting to see Japs Olson expand. She
noted they have been in St. Louis Park a long time and it is a good project.
Commissioner Robertson made a motion to recommend approval of the Conditional Use
Permit subject to conditions recommended by staff. Commissioner Kramer seconded the
motion, and the motion passed on a vote of 4-0.
B. Conditional Use Permit for Excavation and Fill
Location: 5320 West 23rd Street
Applicant: COB, LLC/Hillcrest Development
Case No.: 15-16-CUP
Alex Boyce, Community Development Intern, presented the staff report. He stated the
property is part of the former Nestle site which is currently undergoing a major
renovation. He explained that the excavation and fill is required for the expansion of the
existing facility for Lyman Lumber. Stormwater ponds, a ring-road, and parking will also
be created. Mr. Boyce noted that City Council has heard a request for a vacation of
easements on the site. Second reading of the vacation request will be held on June 1.
Mr. Boyce discussed erosion control, stormwater, floodplain and hauling details. He
reviewed the conditions of approval.
Commissioner Peilen asked for clarification about a 24th St. exit to 394 for hauling
activities.
Sean Walther, Senior Planner, said it is essentially Hwy. 100 southbound collector
distributor roadway alongside the freeway.
Charlie Nestor, Hillcrest Development, said the renovation is going well. Great feedback
has been received from many tenants.
Chair Person opened the public hearing. As no one was present wishing to speak he
closed the public hearing.
Commissioners Kramer and Robertson commented they were pleased to see development
at the site.
Commissioner Peilen made a motion recommending approval of the request for
conditional use permit. Commissioner Robertson seconded the motion, and the motion
passed on a vote of 4-0.
4. Other Business
Chair Person welcomed Ethan Rickert, Youth Member, to the Planning Commission.
Commissioner Rickert stated he is a freshman at St. Louis Park High School.
5. Communications
City Council Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 4j) Page 3
Title: Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of May 20, 2015
6. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 6:45 p.m.
A Study Session followed at 6:50 p.m. Study topics were the Bridgewater Development
concept plan and a proposed sign code amendment.
Respectfully submitted,
Nancy Sells
Administrative Secretary
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: June 15, 2015
Consent Agenda Item: 4k
MINUTES
ENVIRONMENT AND SUSTAINABILITY COMMISSION: SUSTAINABLE SLP
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
May 6, 2015
Community Room, City Hall
MEMBERS PRESENT: Terry Gips, Rachel Harris, Paul Zeigle, Ryan Griffin, Karen Laumb
Judy Voigt, Chris Anderson, Nancy Rose, and Jayne Stevenson
EXCUSED ABSENCE: Alex Sundvall, Mark Eilers, Cindy Larson O’Neil and Renee McGarvey
STAFF PRESENT: Phillip Elkin
1. The meeting was called to order at 6:38 p.m.
2. Roll Call was taken
3. The minutes of the April 7, 2015 meeting were approved unanimously.
4. Unfinished Business
a. Study Session Follow-up
An informal discussion was held asking each of the commissioners their
impression and takeaways from the City Council Study Session. Overall the
commissioners felt that it was a positive experience and enjoyed the interaction
with the Council. Commissioner Voigt asked the rest of the group about
Councilmember Mavity’s comment on the ESC becoming engaged in the
community. A brief discussion followed on how the ESC could reach out and
connect with more residents and businesses on sustainability issues. Health in the
Park and efforts in the Light Rail discussion were cited as examples of successful
community engagement. Some ideas mentioned included; attending neighborhood
meetings; connecting with neighborhood groups; and using the Education
Outreach and Action workgroup as a focal point.
b. Partners in Energy
Commissioner Griffin gave a report on the activities of the Energy workgroup,
specifically the partnership with Xcel Energy in their Partners in Energy (PIE)
program. The workgroup is looking for representatives to sit on the project team
to develop an energy use evaluation of the City. Commissioner Griffin’s “Big
Ask” was to have each commissioner forward to the energy workgroup the names
of potential volunteers for this project.
c. Organic Living Festival/Earth Day
3 commissioners attended the City of St. Louis Park’s Organic Living workshop
on Saturday April 18 at the Rec Center. The ESC was listed as a sponsoring
organization. One of the successes of the workshop was that twelve residents
signed up to volunteer on ESC workgroups. Commissioner Voigt also made a
connection with a representative of the organics compost site which receives the
City Council Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 4k) Page 2
Title: Environment and Sustainability Commission: Sustainable SLP Meeting Minutes of May 6, 2015
organic waste from the City of St. Louis Park. Commissioner Voigt recommended
a tour of the facility as a potential ESC activity. Three of the Organic Living
sessions were videotaped and available for viewing on the City’s website. The
commissioners who attended recommended that the ESC get more involved next
year by increasing advertising exposure; including kids activities; and possibly
setting up a plant sale as part of the event.
5. New Business
a. Work Group Reports
Communications
No new actions. The work group needs to reconvene and pick up the
communication plan prepared by City’s Communications Staff.
Water Land and Wildlife
The work group will be participating in the upcoming Arbor Day event at the
Bass Lake Preserve on Saturday May 9. Commissioner Voigt also reported that
the work group recruited three more members at the Organics Workshop and will
be holding the May meeting at the Municipal Service Center so that they can
incorporate a walk along the new Minnehaha Creek trail as part of their meeting.
The group has also been working to find more information on where the City
purchases trees, specifically finding the source supplier to ensure that the trees
are free of neonicotinoides. Commissioner Gips suggested that the group work
with Jim Vaughan and bring the issue to the full commission later in the year.
Transportation
The workgroup is currently brainstorming on ideas looking to Health in the Park
and Connect the Park as models for future actions. Commissioner Eilers did
some research on Car2Go, currently operating in St. Paul and Minneapolis, and
began inquiring about having their business in St. Louis Park. Commissioner
Gips noted that his was one of three car services operating the metro area and
suggested using a locally based company.
Energy
The work group has been working on three separate subgroups; B3 energy
assessment, Community Solar; and Partners in Energy.
Education and Action
Commissioner Gips announced that the work group was looking for new
members.
b. Organics/Recycling/Solid Waste work group
Commissioner Gips introduced the idea of starting a new work group involved in
organics and recycling. After commissioner Stevenson volunteered to be in the
group, Commissioner Gips asked for two more volunteers. The issue will be
discussed further at the next commission meeting, as Scott Merkley and Kala
Fisher will be speaking to the ESC about the organics/recycling program at the
City, as well as the proposed ban on plastic bags. Commissioner Voigt made a
motion to form a organics work group. Commissioner Anderson seconded the
motion, and it passed unanimously.
City Council Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 4k) Page 3
Title: Environment and Sustainability Commission: Sustainable SLP Meeting Minutes of May 6, 2015
6. Communications
Commissioner Gips requested that all work groups forward to him their meeting dates
and times so that other commissioners and residents would be encouraged to attend.
He also asked that the ESC meeting minutes be available earlier in the month,
preferable within a week of the meeting so that corrections could be made while it
was still fresh in the minds of the commissioners. Commissioner Zeigle also asked
that minutes from individual work groups be available to share with the ESC.
Upcoming Events
a. Commissioner Harris shared that the Active Connections Group of Health in the
Park would be meeting on May 27 at 5:15 in the Community Room at City Hall.
She also added that June 7th would be the second annual Park the Street event
from 12:00 noon - 4:00 pm. The event will be held on Texas Avenue between
Minnetonka Boulevard and the regional bike trail
.
b. Commissioner Griffin announced that June 6 was also the date of the Tar Sands
March in St. Paul. The event will start at noon on Shepard Street, and more
information can be found on 350.org.
c. Commissioner Gips asked the group to think about re-scheduling the July ESC
meeting to avoid absences due to the Fourth of July holiday. Further discussion
will be held at next month’s meeting.
7. The meeting was adjourned at 8:06.
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: June 15, 2015
Public Hearing Agenda Item: 6a
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Team DHW, LLC, dba Blaze Pizza - On-Sale Wine and 3.2% Malt Liquor License
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Mayor to close public hearing. Motion to approve application
from Team DHW, LLC, dba Blaze Pizza, for an On-Sale Wine and 3.2% Malt Liquor License to
be located at 8126 Highway 7, with the license term through March 1, 2016.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the Council wish to approve the liquor license for Team
DHW, LLC?
SUMMARY: The City received an application from Team DHW, LLC, dba Blaze Pizza, for an
On-Sale Wine and 3.2% Malt Liquor license for a new restaurant to be located at 8126 Highway
7. The premises, located at the east end of Knollwood Mall, is 2,430 square feet in size, with an
indoor seating capacity of 54 and outdoor patio seating for 8.
Christopher Wolf and Donald Doan are the owners of the establishment, their operating partner,
John Tyler, will serve as the manager. Team DHW, LLC plans to open the restaurant in July,
2015. The proposed location in the Knollwood area will be the first Blaze Pizza in Minnesota.
The franchise has numerous locations across the United States.
The Police Department conducted a full background investigation, and nothing was discovered
during the course of the investigation that would warrant denial of the license. The application
and police report are on file in the City Clerk’s office, should Council members wish to review
the information. The required notice of the public hearing was published June 4, 2014.
Should Council approve the liquor license, no actual license will be issued until all requirements
have been met with the City Inspections Department, Hennepin County, and the State Alcohol
and Gambling Enforcement Division.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Fees for this applicant include $500 for the
police background investigation and $2,750 for the On-Sale Wine and 3.2% Malt Liquor annual
license fee. Pursuant to City Code provisions, the license fee will be pro-rated for the remainder
of the license term based on the actual date the restaurant opens.
VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: None
Prepared by: Melissa Kennedy, City Clerk
Reviewed by: Nancy Deno, HR Director/Deputy City Manager
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: June 15, 2015
Action Agenda Item: 6b
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Appeal of BOZA Decision – St. Louis Park Properties, Mr. Todd Jones Chief Manager,
5305 Parkdale Drive
RECOMMENDED ACTION: The Mayor is asked to open the public hearing, accept
testimony, and then close the public hearing. Motion to Adopt Resolution upholding the Board of
Zoning Appeals (BOZA) decision to deny the appeal of St. Louis Park Properties.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Should the Council uphold the BOZA decision to deny the
variance to allow 0.7 Floor Area Ratio (FAR) instead of the 0.5 FAR allowed by city code?
SUMMARY: St. Louis Park Properties recently purchased the industrial property at 5305
Parkdale Drive with the intent of converting it into a self-storage building. A building permit for
the conversion was issued on April 17, 2015. A second building permit was submitted on April
28 to add a second floor inside the building to create additional self-storage units for rental. This
permit brings the FAR up to 0.5. There is additional space within the building that could
accommodate more second floor construction, however, a variance would be required to increase
the FAR to 0.7.
The BOZA conducted a public hearing, and was split 2-2 on the application, therefore, the
application is denied since BOZA was unable to successfully pass a motion to approve it.
The appellant can appeal within 10 days of the BOZA decision. An appeal was submitted to the
City on May 29, 2015, one day after the decision.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion
Draft Resolution
Letter of Appeal to City Council w/ enclosures (May 29, 2015)
1. Letter Requesting Variance (April 28, 2015)
2. Development Plans
BOZA Resolution Denying Appeal
BOZA Staff Report w/ attachments (May 28, 2015)
BOZA Minutes (unofficial) – (May 28, 2015)
Exhibits Submitted to BOZA at Public Hearing
Prepared by: Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator
Reviewed by: Soren Mattick, City Attorney
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 6b) Page 2
Title: Appeal of BOZA Decision – St. Louis Park Properties, Mr. Todd Jones Chief Manager, 5305 Parkdale Drive
DISCUSSION
The building was constructed in 1960 and the property has been zoned Industrial since.
Zoning Regulation:
Section 36-243(g)(2) of the City Code states “The floor area ratio within the I-P district shall not
exceed 0.5.”
Section 366-4 of the City Code defines:
Floor area as “…the sum of the gross horizontal areas of the several floors of a building including
interior balconies, mezzanines, basements, attics, penthouses, and attached accessory buildings.
Measurements shall be made from the inside of exterior walls and to the center of interior walls. For the
purposes of determining off-street parking requirements, inside off-street parking or loading space is
excluded from floor area.”
Floor area ratio as “the numerical value obtained by dividing the total floor area of buildings
excluding the basement by the lot area on which the buildings are located.”
Proposal – Second Floor Expansion:
A building permit was issued on April 17, 2015 to renovate the building into an indoor, climate
controlled self-storage facility, and that renovation is underway.
The appellant submitted a second building permit to add a second floor inside the existing
building to create additional self-storage units for rental. This permit is currently under review
and may be issued at any time as long as the FAR is kept below 0.5.
The Appellant, however, would like to expand the project proposed under this permit application
by extending the second floor over the entire portion of the building that has sufficient floor-to-
ceiling space for a second floor. The expansion would result in more floor area on the site
available for rental than is otherwise allowed by the 0.5 FAR limitation established by City
Code. The additional request would result in a FAR of 0.7, and would require the requested
variance.
The second floor expansion is contained entirely within the building, and would not result in a
taller building, or any other improvement that would be visible from the exterior.
Proposal – Exterior Improvements:
In conjunction with the second floor expansion, the Appellant proposes to improve the building
façade as depicted in the attached building elevations. The improvements would be made to both
the north and south elevations. The existing building has a brick façade which is considered a
Class 1 material under city code. City code requires each elevation to have at least 60% Class 1
materials. The proposed building improvements are presented as concept, and a percentage
calculation has not been submitted. If approved, the Appellant would submit a building permit
to alter the building façade, and staff at that time would confirm the Class 1 ratios. Exterior
alterations to improve the façade would be allowed independent of this variance request.
In addition to building façade improvements, the Appellant is proposing to replace some existing
asphalt with rain garden and additional landscaping. A more detailed summary of the proposal is
provided in the Appellant’s letter which is attached. Again, these site improvements would be
allowed independent of the variance request.
City Council Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 6b) Page 3
Title: Appeal of BOZA Decision – St. Louis Park Properties, Mr. Todd Jones Chief Manager, 5305 Parkdale Drive
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ACTION:
The BOZA consists of five residents appointed by the City Council. Their charge is to conduct
public hearings and make decisions on variances and appeals of staff determinations. Their
decisions are final unless an appeal is made to the City Council.
The Appellants variance application was heard by the BOZA on May 28, 2015. A public hearing
was conducted, and comments were received from the Appellant only. There were four
members of the BOZA in attendance. A motion was made to deny the application, which failed
on a 2-2 vote. A second motion was made to approve the application, which also failed on a 2-2
vote. The application was automatically denied because the BOZA was unable to pass a motion
to approve. A copy of the unofficial minutes is attached.
BOZA FINDINGS:
The BOZA denial is based on consideration of the criteria outlined in Section 36-34(2) of the
City Code, and as outlined below:
1. The effect of the proposed variance upon the health, safety and welfare of the community.
2. The request is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance and,
3. The request is consistent with the comprehensive plan.
4. The applicant for the variance establishes that there are practical difficulties in complying
with the zoning ordinance. “Practical difficulties,” as used in connection with the granting
of a variance, means that:
a. The property owner proposes to use the property for a land use permitted in the
zoning district in which the land is located. A variance can be requested for
dimensional items required in the zoning ordinance, including but not limited to
setbacks and height limitations;
b. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created
by the landowner; and,
c. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality.
d. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties.
e. Practical difficulties include inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy
systems.
5. There are circumstances unique to the property including the shape, topography, water
conditions, or other physical conditions unique to the property; and,
6. The granting of the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantial property right of the applicant; and,
7. The granting of the variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to the
adjacent property, unreasonably increase the congestion in the public streets, increase the
danger of fire, or endanger public safety; and,
8. The granting of the variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant but is
necessary to alleviate a practical difficulty.
City Council Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 6b) Page 4
Title: Appeal of BOZA Decision – St. Louis Park Properties, Mr. Todd Jones Chief Manager, 5305 Parkdale Drive
When considering the above standards, the BOZA reviewed the following:
1. The effect of the proposed variance upon the health, safety, and welfare of the
community.
The increased floor area would result in additional storage units the Appellant can rent,
which gives the appellant a competitive advantage over other properties in the district that are
complying with the law establishing a maximum 0.5 FAR.
The construction will be contained within the existing building, and therefore, will not add
additional height to the structure.
A self-storage facility generates minimal traffic.
2. Whether or not the request is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the
Zoning Ordinance.
Indoor storage is a permitted use in the Industrial Park district. However, the request isn’t
about indoor storage. The request is to increase the FAR to 0.7 from the 0.5 maximum
allowed by law in the Industrial Park district.
This request is not in harmony with the intent of the zoning ordinance. All properties in the
Industrial Park district are required to maintain a FAR not to exceed 0.5. The request to
exceed this maximum would give the Appellant more rentable floor area than allowed at any
other property in this district. The variance would result in a potential competitive advantage
over other properties that comply with City Code.
If the Appellant desires additional floor area, then the he could have requested a rezoning to
the General Industrial zoning district which allows a FAR of 1.0.
3. Whether or not the request is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
The request to allow more FAR than is otherwise allowed per the zoning ordinance is not
addressed by the Comprehensive Plan.
4. Whether or not the applicant establishes that there are practical difficulties in
complying with the Zoning Ordinance. Practical Difficulty means:
a. The proposed use is permitted in the zoning district in which the land is located. A
variance can be requested for dimensional items only.
The storage facility is permitted in this zoning district.
b. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property and not
created by the landowner.
As noted in item #4 above, the standard for granting the variance is to overcome a
practical difficulty resulting from complying with the zoning ordinance.
The Appellant has not demonstrated that a practical difficulty exist in complying with the
ordinance. As noted in the Appellant’s letter dated April 28, 2015, the variance would
simply allow him to fill what he calls “dead space” resulting from the high ceilings. The
applicant has not demonstrated that exceeding the allowed FAR would alleviate a
circumstance that is unique to this particular property.
The variance is not required to mitigate a practical difficulty.
City Council Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 6b) Page 5
Title: Appeal of BOZA Decision – St. Louis Park Properties, Mr. Todd Jones Chief Manager, 5305 Parkdale Drive
c. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality.
The additional floor area is contained entirely within the existing building, and is not
noticeable from the exterior.
d. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties.
The Appellant is in the process of renovating the building into a self-storage building that
meets the 0.5 FAR maximum allowed by city code, therefore:
1. The variance is not necessary to assist the Appellant in overcoming a practical
difficulty in complying with the maximum 0.5 FAR.
2. The variance is not necessary to assist the Appellant to reach the 0.5 FAR allowed by
code and enjoyed by all other property owners in the Industrial Park zoning district.
3. A practical difficulty does not exist that is preventing the Appellant from having
reasonable use of the property.
4. The only result of increasing the FAR to 0.7 is to increase the amount of rentable
floor area, thereby increasing the income potential of the property.
The appellant has not demonstrated that the variance is for anything other than economic
considerations.
e. Practical difficulties include inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy
systems.
Access to direct sunlight is not a factor in the request or the project.
5. Whether or not there are circumstances unique to the shape, topography, water
conditions, or other physical conditions of the property.
The Appellant is currently utilizing the property as a self-storage facility in a manner that
meets the 0.5 FAR maximum. The self-storage facility is the use desired by the Appellant.
The condition of the building is not unique to St. Louis Park. Below are 16 properties with
buildings constructed around 1960 that have been added onto, yet they continue to be used in
a manner that meets code.
Zoning Address
IG 7500 Excelsior Blvd
IG 7400 Excelsior Blvd
IG 8000 Powell Rd
IG 3965 Meadowbrook Rd
IG 3825 Edgewood Ave
BP 7201 Lake St
BP 3715 Oregon Ave
C-2 5201 Excelsior Blvd
IG 5005 State Highway 7
IP 7309 27th St
IP 2220 Florida Ave
IP 6701 23rd St
IP 2212 Edgewood Ave
IP 2219 Edgewood
C-2 5525 Cedar Lake Rd
IG 5320 23rd St
City Council Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 6b) Page 6
Title: Appeal of BOZA Decision – St. Louis Park Properties, Mr. Todd Jones Chief Manager, 5305 Parkdale Drive
There are no unique circumstances applying to this property that prevent the Appellant from
achieving the maximum 0.5 FAR allowed by city code.
There are no unique circumstances applying to this property that prevent the Appellant from
enjoying a reasonable use of the property.
There are no unique circumstance that would require the property to have more floor area
than allowed by City Code or allowed for other properties in this district.
6. Whether or not the granting of the variance is necessary for the preservation and
enjoyment of a substantial property right.
The variance is not requested to achieve the same maximum FAR allowed by code which is
enjoyed by all other properties in the Industrial Park zoning district.
The variance is requested to have more use of the land than is otherwise enjoyed by all other
properties located in the Industrial Park zoning district.
The 0.5 maximum FAR does not prohibit reasonable use of the property. The building has
had reasonable use since it was constructed, and the appellant is in the process of renovating
it into a self-storage facility that meets the 0.5 FAR.
The variance is not needed for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right.
7. Whether or not the granting of the variance will impair light and air to the surrounding
properties, unreasonably increase congestion, increase the danger of fire, or endanger
public safety.
If approved, the proposed variance would not impair light and air to the surrounding
properties, or increase the congestion, danger of fire, or endanger public safety.
8. Whether or not the granting of the variance will merely serve as a convenience or is it
necessary to alleviate a practical difficulty.
A building permit has been granted to convert the building to a self-storage facility. The
building permit demonstrates how he can use the building without the need of a variance to
overcome any difficulties.
A building permit was submitted to add additional floor space to bring the property up to the
maximum 0.5 FAR allowed by city code. The building permit demonstrates how he can use
the building without a variance to overcome any difficulties.
The Appellant stated in his April 28, 2015 that the variance would allow him to fill “dead
space” with additional storage units he could rent out. These additional rental storage units
are a convenience, and are not necessary to alleviate a practical difficulty resulting from
complying with the 0.5 FAR maximum.
The only result of the variance is to increase the income potential of the property by
increasing the amount of storage units he can rent out.
City Council Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 6b) Page 7
Title: Appeal of BOZA Decision – St. Louis Park Properties, Mr. Todd Jones Chief Manager, 5305 Parkdale Drive
APPEAL:
The Appellant is appealing BOZA’s decision to deny the application for a variance to increase
the maximum allowed FAR from 0.5 to 0.7 for property he owns at 5305 Parkdale Drive. A
copy of the letter (dated May 29, 2015) requesting the appeal is attached.
The Appellant states he applied for the variance because the existing configuration of the
building creates circumstances in which complying with the city code is a practical difficulty due
to the design constraints that would result from a partial mezzanine.
City Council Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 6b) Page 8
Title: Appeal of BOZA Decision – St. Louis Park Properties, Mr. Todd Jones Chief Manager, 5305 Parkdale Drive
DRAFT RESOLUTION NO. 15-____
RESOLUTION ADOPTING FINDINGS AND DECISION
UPHOLDING THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS (BOZA)
DENIAL OF APPEAL OF ST. LOUIS PARK PROPERTIES
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, that
the following Findings and Decision are adopted upholding the Board of Zoning Appeals
(BOZA) denial of the appeal of St. Louis Park Properties.
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
1. On or about April 28, 2015, St. Louis Park Properties filed a written request for a
variance related to the Floor Area Ration (“FAR”). Specifically, the applicant is requesting a .7
FAR where only a .5 FAR is allowed.
2. On May 28, 2015, the request came on for hearing before BOZA.
3. BOZA voted 2-2 to approve the variance, which means the variance request was
denied. BOZA adopted Resolution 1-15.
4. St. Louis Park Properties appealed the decision to the City Council on May 29,
2015.
5. This matter came on for hearing before the City Council on June 15, 2015.
6. The record consists of the following:
a. Council staff report – June 15, 2015
b. Draft resolution upholding the BOZA determination
c. Letter of appeal to city council, dated May 29, 2015 with enclosures
(i) Letter requesting variance, dated April 28, 2015
(ii) Development plans
d. BOZA resolution denying appeal
e. BOZA staff report with attachments – May 28, 2015
f. BOZA minutes (unofficial) – May 28, 2015
g. Exhibits submitted to BOZA at the public hearing.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The property is located at 5403 Parkdale Drive, St. Louis Park, Minnesota
(“Subject Property”).
2. The Subject Property is zoned Industrial Park (IP).
3. The applicant is seeking to add a second floor inside the building that would result
in a .7 FAR where .5 FAR is allowed.
City Council Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 6b) Page 9
Title: Appeal of BOZA Decision – St. Louis Park Properties, Mr. Todd Jones Chief Manager, 5305 Parkdale Drive
4. When reviewing a variance, the following criteria are examined:
A. The effect of the proposed variance upon the health, safety, and welfare of
the community.
The construction will be contained within the existing building, and therefore, will not
add additional height to the structure. A self-storage facility generates minimal traffic.
B. Whether or not the request is in harmony with the general purposes and
intent of the Zoning Ordinance.
Indoor storage is a permitted use in the Industrial Park district.
However, the request isn’t about indoor storage. The City Code was established to create
a uniform set of performance standards for all properties located in this Zoning district.
This request is not in harmony with the intent of the zoning ordinance. The request is to
increase the FAR to 0.7 from the 0.5 maximum allowed by law in the Industrial Park
district. All properties in the Industrial Park district are required to maintain a FAR not
to exceed 0.5. The request to exceed this maximum would give the Applicant more
rentable floor area than allowed at any other property in this district. The variance would
result in a potential competitive advantage over other properties that comply with City
Code.
If the Applicant desires additional floor area, then the Applicant could have requested a
rezoning to the General Industrial zoning district which allows a FAR of 1.0.
C. Whether or not the request is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
The request to allow more FAR than is otherwise allowed per the zoning ordinance is not
addressed by the Comprehensive Plan.
D. Whether or not the applicant establishes that there are practical difficulties
in complying with the Zoning Ordinance. Practical Difficulty means:
1. The proposed use is permitted in the zoning district in which the land
is located. A variance can be requested for dimensional items only.
The storage facility is permitted in this zoning district.
2. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the
property and not created by the landowner.
The Applicant has not demonstrated that there are any circumstances that
are unique to the property. As noted in the Applicant’s letter dated April
28, 2015, the variance would simply allow him to fill what he calls “dead
space” resulting from the high ceilings. The applicant has not
demonstrated that exceeding the allowed FAR would alleviate a
circumstance that is unique to this particular property. High ceilings and
City Council Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 6b) Page 10
Title: Appeal of BOZA Decision – St. Louis Park Properties, Mr. Todd Jones Chief Manager, 5305 Parkdale Drive
maximizing interior space does not constitute unique circumstances that
justify exceeding the allowed FAR.
3. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the
locality.
The additional floor area is contained entirely within the existing building,
and is not noticeable from the exterior.
4. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties.
The Applicant is in the process of renovating the building into a self-
storage building that meets the 0.5 FAR maximum allowed by city code,
therefore:
5. The variance is not necessary to assist the Applicant in overcoming
a practical difficulty in complying with the maximum 0.5 FAR.
6. The variance is not necessary to assist the Applicant to reach the
0.5 FAR allowed by code and enjoyed by all other property owners
in the Industrial Park zoning district.
7. The Applicant has a reasonable use of the property without
increasing the FAR beyond the limits as stated in the ordinance.
8. The only result of increasing the FAR to 0.7 is to increase the
amount of rentable floor area, thereby increasing the income
potential of the property.
The applicant has not demonstrated that the variance is for anything other
than economic considerations.
5. Practical difficulties include inadequate access to direct sunlight for
solar energy systems.
Access to direct sunlight is not a factor in the request or the project.
E. Whether or not there are circumstances unique to the shape, topography,
water conditions, or other physical conditions of the property.
The Applicant is currently utilizing the property as a self-storage facility in a manner that
meets the 0.5 FAR maximum. The self-storage facility is the use desired by the
Applicant.
The condition of the building is not unique to the neighborhood surrounding the building
or located in St. Louis Park. Below are 16 properties with buildings constructed around
1960 that have been added onto, yet they continue to be used in a manner that meets
code.
City Council Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 6b) Page 11
Title: Appeal of BOZA Decision – St. Louis Park Properties, Mr. Todd Jones Chief Manager, 5305 Parkdale Drive
Zoning Address
IG 7500 Excelsior Blvd
IG 7400 Excelsior Blvd
IG 8000 Powell Rd
IG 3965 Meadowbrook Rd
IG 3825 Edgewood Ave
BP 7201 Lake St
BP 3715 Oregon Ave
C-2 5201 Excelsior Blvd
IG 5005 State Highway 7
IP 7309 27th St
IP 2220 Florida Ave
IP 6701 23rd St
IP 2212 Edgewood Ave
IP 2219 Edgewood
C-2 5525 Cedar Lake Rd
IG 5320 23rd St
There are no unique circumstances applying to this property that prevent the Appellant from
achieving the maximum 0.5 FAR allowed by city code. The applicant has not demonstrated
any unique circumstances concerning this property that prevent the Applicant from enjoying
a reasonable use of the property as provided in the City Code.
F. Whether or not the granting of the variance is necessary for the preservation
and enjoyment of a substantial property right.
The variance is not requested to achieve the same maximum FAR allowed by code which is
enjoyed by all other properties in the Industrial Park zoning district. The variance is
requested to have more use of the land than is otherwise enjoyed by all other properties
located in the Industrial Park zoning district.
The 0.5 maximum FAR does not prohibit reasonable use of the property. The building has
had reasonable use since it was constructed, and the applicant is in the process of renovating
it into a self-storage facility that meets the 0.5 FAR.
The variance is not needed for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right.
G. Whether or not the granting of the variance will impair light and air to the
surrounding properties, unreasonably increase congestion, increase the
danger of fire, or endanger public safety.
If approved, the proposed variance would not impair light and air to the surrounding
properties, or increase the congestion, danger of fire, or endanger public safety.
H. Whether or not the granting of the variance will merely serve as a
convenience or is it necessary to alleviate a practical difficulty.
City Council Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 6b) Page 12
Title: Appeal of BOZA Decision – St. Louis Park Properties, Mr. Todd Jones Chief Manager, 5305 Parkdale Drive
A building permit was submitted to add additional floor space to bring the property up to the
maximum 0.5 FAR allowed by city code. The building permit demonstrates how the
Applicant can use the building without a variance to overcome any difficulties.
The Applicant stated in his April 28, 2015 that the variance would allow him to fill “dead
space” with additional storage units he could rent out. These additional rental storage units
are a convenience, and are not necessary to alleviate a practical difficulty resulting from
complying with the 0.5 FAR maximum. The Applicant has failed to demonstrate that a
practical difficulty exists as opposed to increasing the allowed FAR for mere convenience
and the ability to maximize the interior space.
DECISION
Based upon the above findings, the Board of Zoning Appeals’ denial of St. Louis Park
Properties variance application is upheld. This appeal to the City Council is denied.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council June 15, 2015
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
(SEAL)
City Clerk
City Council Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 6b) Title: Appeal of BOZA Decision – St. Louis Park Properties, Mr. Todd Jones Chief Mgr, 5305 Parkdale DrPage 13
City Council Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 6b) Title: Appeal of BOZA Decision – St. Louis Park Properties, Mr. Todd Jones Chief Mgr, 5305 Parkdale DrPage 14
City Council Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 6b) Title: Appeal of BOZA Decision – St. Louis Park Properties, Mr. Todd Jones Chief Mgr, 5305 Parkdale DrPage 15
City Council Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 6b) Title: Appeal of BOZA Decision – St. Louis Park Properties, Mr. Todd Jones Chief Mgr, 5305 Parkdale DrPage 16
City Council Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 6b) Title: Appeal of BOZA Decision – St. Louis Park Properties, Mr. Todd Jones Chief Mgr, 5305 Parkdale DrPage 17
City Council Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 6b) Title: Appeal of BOZA Decision – St. Louis Park Properties, Mr. Todd Jones Chief Mgr, 5305 Parkdale DrPage 18
City Council Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 6b) Title: Appeal of BOZA Decision – St. Louis Park Properties, Mr. Todd Jones Chief Mgr, 5305 Parkdale DrPage 19
City Council Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 6b) Title: Appeal of BOZA Decision – St. Louis Park Properties, Mr. Todd Jones Chief Mgr, 5305 Parkdale DrPage 20
City Council Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 6b) Title: Appeal of BOZA Decision – St. Louis Park Properties, Mr. Todd Jones Chief Mgr, 5305 Parkdale DrPage 21
City Council Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 6b) Title: Appeal of BOZA Decision – St. Louis Park Properties, Mr. Todd Jones Chief Mgr, 5305 Parkdale DrPage 22
City Council Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 6b) Title: Appeal of BOZA Decision – St. Louis Park Properties, Mr. Todd Jones Chief Mgr, 5305 Parkdale DrPage 23
City Council Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 6b) Title: Appeal of BOZA Decision – St. Louis Park Properties, Mr. Todd Jones Chief Mgr, 5305 Parkdale DrPage 24
City Council Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 6b) Title: Appeal of BOZA Decision – St. Louis Park Properties, Mr. Todd Jones Chief Mgr, 5305 Parkdale DrPage 25
City Council Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 6b) Title: Appeal of BOZA Decision – St. Louis Park Properties, Mr. Todd Jones Chief Mgr, 5305 Parkdale DrPage 26
City Council Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 6b) Title: Appeal of BOZA Decision – St. Louis Park Properties, Mr. Todd Jones Chief Mgr, 5305 Parkdale DrPage 27
City Council Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 6b) Title: Appeal of BOZA Decision – St. Louis Park Properties, Mr. Todd Jones Chief Mgr, 5305 Parkdale DrPage 28
City Council Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 6b) Title: Appeal of BOZA Decision – St. Louis Park Properties, Mr. Todd Jones Chief Mgr, 5305 Parkdale DrPage 29
City Council Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 6b) Title: Appeal of BOZA Decision – St. Louis Park Properties, Mr. Todd Jones Chief Mgr, 5305 Parkdale DrPage 30
City Council Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 6b) Title: Appeal of BOZA Decision – St. Louis Park Properties, Mr. Todd Jones Chief Mgr, 5305 Parkdale DrPage 31
City Council Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 6b) Title: Appeal of BOZA Decision – St. Louis Park Properties, Mr. Todd Jones Chief Mgr, 5305 Parkdale DrPage 32
BOZA RESOLUTION NO. 1-15
A RESOLUTION DENYING A 0.7 FLOOR AREA RATIO INSTEAD OF THE
ALLOWED MAXIMUM OF 0.5 FOR A PROPOSED SELF-STORAGE FACILITY
LOCATED AT 5305 PARKDALE DRIVE
BE IT RESOLVED BY the Board of Zoning Appeals of St. Louis Park, Minnesota:
FINDINGS
1. On April 28, 2015, St. Louis Park Properties, LLC (Jacobs Management) applied for a
variance from the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance (Section 36-243(g)(2)) to allow
a 0.7 floor area instead of the required maximum floor area of 0.5 for a proposed self-
storage facility.
2. The property is located at 5305 Parkdale Drive and described below as follows, to wit:
Lot 1, Block 1, Bell Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota
3. The Board of Zoning Appeals has reviewed the application for variance Case No. 15-18-
VAR on May 28, 2015.
4. Based on the testimony, evidence presented, and files and records, the Board of Zoning
Appeals has determined that the requested variance does not meet the requirements of
Section 36-34(a)(2) of the Zoning Ordinance necessary to be met for the Board of Zoning
Appeals to grant variances, and makes the following findings:
a. There are no factors related to the shape, size or other extraordinary conditions on
the lot which prevent a reasonable use.
b. Granting of the requested variance is not necessary for the preservation and
enjoyment of a substantial property right. The property has had a reasonable use in the
past and continues to have a reasonable use.
c. Granting of the requested variance would be contrary to the intent and provisions
of the Zoning Ordinance since, if granted, it would permit a great floor area ratio than
allowed by code and required for other properties in the Industrial Park zoning district.
d. There are no demonstrable or undue hardships or practical difficulties under the
terms of the Zoning Ordinance or Minnesota Statue, and therefore, conditions necessary
for granting the requested variance do not exist.
5. The contents of the Board of Zoning Appeals Case File 15-18-VAR are hereby entered
into and made part of the public hearing record and the record of decision for this case.
City Council Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 6b)
Title: Appeal of BOZA Decision – St. Louis Park Properties, Mr. Todd Jones Chief Mgr, 5305 Parkdale Dr
Page 33
CONCLUSION
The Board of Zoning Appeals hereby denies the requested 0.2 variance to the required 0.5 floor
area ratio maximum for the proposed self-storage facility located at 5305 Parkdale Drive.
Adopted by the Board of Zoning Appeals: May 28, 2015
Effective date: June 7, 2015
___________________________
James Gainsley, Chairperson
ATTEST:
_______________________________________
Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator
City Council Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 6b)
Title: Appeal of BOZA Decision – St. Louis Park Properties, Mr. Todd Jones Chief Mgr, 5305 Parkdale Dr
Page 34
Board of Zoning Appeals
Meeting of May 28, 2015
4A Variance to the Floor Area Ratio
Location: 5305 Parkdale Drive
Applicant: St. Louis Park Properties, Mr. Todd Jones Chief Manager
Case No.: 15-18-VAR
Recommended
Action:
Comprehensive Plan:
Zoning:
Motion to adopt a resolution denying a 0.2 increase to the
allowed 0.5 maximum floor area ratio.
Industrial
Industrial Park (IP)
REQUEST:
The Applicant is in the process of remodeling an industrial building into an indoor self-storage
facility. As part of the remodel, the Applicant would like to construct a second floor inside the
building. The 0.5 FAR maximum, however, limits how much of the building can be improved
with a second floor. If approved, the variance would allow the Applicant to construct a second
floor throughout the building.
BACKGROUND:
Existing Conditions:
The lot is 44 feet wide and 120 feet deep, with a total lot size of 5,280 square feet. The adjacent
lots are similar in size, where single-family homes exist today. A single-family home was
previously built on this property and was demolished in 2003. The lot is smaller than most
others in the R-4 district, which makes building to the required side yard setbacks more
challenging.
SITE
City Council Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 6b)
Title: Appeal of BOZA Decision – St. Louis Park Properties, Mr. Todd Jones Chief Mgr, 5305 Parkdale Dr
Page 35
Board of Zoning Appeals – May 28, 2015
St. Louis Park Properties, 5305 Parkdale Drive
2
BACKGROUND:
The building was constructed in 1960 and the property has been zoned Industrial since.
Zoning Regulation:
Section 36-243(g)(2) of the City Code states “The floor area ratio within the I-P district shall not
exceed 0.5.”
Section 366-4 of the City Code defines:
Floor area as “…the sum of the gross horizontal areas of the several floors of a building including
interior balconies, mezzanines, basements, attics, penthouses, and attached accessory buildings.
Measurements shall be made from the inside of exterior walls and to the center of interior walls. For the
purposes of determining off-street parking requirements, inside off-street parking or loading space is
excluded from floor area.”
Floor area ratio as “the numerical value obtained by dividing the total floor area of buildings
excluding the basement by the lot area on which the buildings are located.”
Proposal – Second Floor Expansion:
A building permit was issued on April 17, 2015 to renovate the building into an indoor, climate
controlled self-storage facility, and that renovation is underway.
The applicant submitted a second building permit to add a second floor inside the existing
building to create additional self-storage units for rental. This permit is currently under review
and may be issued at any time as long as the FAR is kept below 0.5.
The Applicant, however, would like to expand the project proposed under this permit application
by extending the second floor over the entire portion of the building that has sufficient floor-to-
ceiling space for a second floor. The expansion would result in more floor area on the site
available for rental than is otherwise allowed by 0.5 FAR limitation established by City Code.
The additional request would result in a FAR of 0.7, and would require the requested variance.
The second floor expansion is contained entirely within the building, and would not result in a
taller building, or any other improvement that would be visible from the exterior.
Proposal – Exterior Improvements:
In conjunction with the second floor expansion, the Applicant proposes to improve the building
façade as depicted in the attached building elevations. The improvements would be made to both
the north and south elevations. The existing building has a brick façade which is considered a
Class 1 material under city code. City code requires each elevation to have at least 60% Class 1
materials. The proposed building improvements are presented as concept, and a percentage
calculation has not been submitted. If approved, the Applicant would submit a building permit
to alter the building façade, and staff at that time, would confirm the Class 1 ratios. Exterior
alterations to improve the façade would be allowed independent of this variance request.
In addition to building façade improvements, the Applicant is proposing to replace some existing
asphalt with rain garden and additional landscaping. A more detailed summary of the proposal is
provided in the Applicants letter which is attached. Again, these site improvements would be
allowed independent of the variance request.
City Council Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 6b)
Title: Appeal of BOZA Decision – St. Louis Park Properties, Mr. Todd Jones Chief Mgr, 5305 Parkdale Dr
Page 36
Board of Zoning Appeals – May 28, 2015
St. Louis Park Properties, 5305 Parkdale Drive
3
ANALYSIS:
As required by City Code, the Board of Zoning Appeals (BOZA) considers the following prior to
ruling on a variance. Staff has provided an analysis of each point below, and the Applicant has
also provided an analysis of each point in the attached letter.
1. The effect of the proposed variance upon the health, safety, and welfare of the
community.
There are no apparent negative impacts to the health, safety, and welfare of neighboring
properties. The requested improvement is contained entirely within the existing building,
and would not be noticeable from the exterior. The increased floor area would result in
additional storage units the Applicant can rent, which will result in additional traffic,
however, as a storage facility; the additional traffic would be negligible.
2. Whether or not the request is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the
Zoning Ordinance.
Indoor storage is a permitted use in the Industrial Park district. However, the request isn’t
about indoor storage. The request is to increase the FAR to 0.7 instead of the 0.5 maximum
allowed by the Industrial Park district, and this request is not in harmony with the intent of
the zoning ordinance. All properties in the Industrial Park district are required to maintain a
FAR less than 0.5. The request to exceed this maximum would give the Applicant more
rentable floor area than allowed at any other property in this district. The variance would
result in a potential competitive advantage over other properties that comply with City Code.
If the Applicant desires additional floor area, then the Applicant could request a rezoning to
the General Industrial zoning district which allows a FAR of 1.0. It is unlikely, however, that
the City would support the rezoning, as General Industrial, including storage facilities, is not
viewed as a desired use in the West End area.
3. Whether or not the request is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
The request to allow more FAR than is otherwise allowed per the zoning ordinance is not
addressed by the Comprehensive Plan.
4. Whether or not the applicant establishes that there are practical difficulties in
complying with the Zoning Ordinance. Practical Difficulty means:
a. The proposed use is permitted in the zoning district in which the land is located. A
variance can be requested for dimensional items only.
The storage facility is permitted in this zoning district.
b. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property and not
created by the landowner.
A practical difficulty preventing the Applicant from complying with the 0.5 FAR
maximum does not exist. The Applicant has already demonstrated that he has reasonable
use of the property and is not having a difficulty complying with the 0.5 maximum FAR.
He has already purchased the property and began renovating the building into a self-
storage facility that complies with the 0.5 FAR maximum. As noted in the Applicant’s
letter, the variance would simply allow him to fill what he calls “dead space” resulting
from the high ceilings. The variance is not required to mitigate a practical difficulty.
City Council Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 6b)
Title: Appeal of BOZA Decision – St. Louis Park Properties, Mr. Todd Jones Chief Mgr, 5305 Parkdale Dr
Page 37
Board of Zoning Appeals – May 28, 2015
St. Louis Park Properties, 5305 Parkdale Drive
4
c. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality.
As noted in the report, the additional floor area is contained entirely within the existing
building, and is not noticeable from the exterior.
d. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties.
As noted above, a practical difficulty does not exist that is preventing the Applicant from
having reasonable use of the property. The Applicant is in the process of renovating the
building into a self-storage building that meets the 0.5 FAR. The variance, however,
would result in additional rentable floor area, and an FAR that exceeds the maximum
allowed by code, and required for other properties in the Industrial Park district. In the
absence of a practical difficulty preventing reasonable use of the property, it appears that
economic considerations would be the only result of the variance.
e. Practical difficulties include inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy
systems.
Access to direct sunlight is not a factor in the request or the project.
5. Whether or not there are circumstances unique to the shape, topography, water
conditions, or other physical conditions of the property.
This consideration does not apply. There are no unique circumstances applying to this
property that would require it to have more floor area than allowed by City Code or allowed
for other properties in this district.
6. Whether or not the granting of the variance is necessary for the preservation and
enjoyment of a substantial property right.
As noted above, the 0.5 maximum FAR does not prohibit reasonable use of the property.
The building has had reasonable use since it was constructed, and the applicant is in the
process of renovating it into a self-storage facility that meets the 0.5 FAR.
7. Whether or not the granting of the variance will impair light and air to the surrounding
properties, unreasonably increase congestion, increase the danger of fire, or endanger
public safety.
If approved, the proposed variance would not impair light and air to the surrounding
properties, or increase the congestion, danger of fire, or endanger public safety.
8. Whether or not the granting of the variance will merely serve as a convenience or is it
necessary to alleviate a practical difficulty.
A practical difficulty does not exist that would require a FAR greater than allowed by City
Code and applied to other properties in this district. The Applicant has reasonable use of the
property, and has already begun construction of that use. It appears that the request would
result in a convenience that would allow more rentable floor area.
City Council Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 6b)
Title: Appeal of BOZA Decision – St. Louis Park Properties, Mr. Todd Jones Chief Mgr, 5305 Parkdale Dr
Page 38
Board of Zoning Appeals – May 28, 2015
St. Louis Park Properties, 5305 Parkdale Drive
5
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff finds the proposed application for a 0.7 FAR instead of the 0.5 maximum FAR allowed by
City Code does not meets the criterion required for granting a variance because a practical
difficulty does not exist that requires a greater FAR than allowed by City Code, and the
Applicant has reasonable use of the property with the 0.5 FAR maximum allowed by City Code.
Therefore, staff recommends adoption of the attached Resolution denying the requested variance
for a 0.7 floor area ratio instead of the maximum 0.5 floor area ratio allowed.
PREPARED BY:
Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator
REVIEWED BY:
Sean Walther, Senior Planner
ATTACHMENTS:
Aerial Photo
Proposed Resolution
Letter from Applicant
Elevations & Floor Plan
Survey
City Council Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 6b)
Title: Appeal of BOZA Decision – St. Louis Park Properties, Mr. Todd Jones Chief Mgr, 5305 Parkdale Dr
Page 39
Board of Zoning Appeals – May 28, 2015
St. Louis Park Properties, 5305 Parkdale Drive
6
Aerial Photo
City Council Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 6b)
Title: Appeal of BOZA Decision – St. Louis Park Properties, Mr. Todd Jones Chief Mgr, 5305 Parkdale Dr
Page 40
Board of Zoning Appeals – May 28, 2015
St. Louis Park Properties, 5305 Parkdale Drive
7
BOZA RESOLUTION NO. _____
A RESOLUTION DENYING A 0.7 FLOOR AREA RATIO INSTEAD OF THE
ALLOWED MAXIMUM OF 0.5 FOR A PROPOSED SELF-STORAGE FACILITY
LOCATED AT 5305 PARKDALE DRIVE
BE IT RESOLVED BY the Board of Zoning Appeals of St. Louis Park, Minnesota:
FINDINGS
1. On April 28, 2015, St. Louis Park Properties, LLC (Jacobs Management) applied for a
variance from the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance (Section 36-243(g)(2)) to allow
a 0.7 floor area instead of the required maximum floor area of 0.5 for a proposed self-
storage facility.
2. The property is located at 5305 Parkdale Drive and described below as follows, to wit:
Lot 1, Block 1, Bell Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota
3. The Board of Zoning Appeals has reviewed the application for variance Case No. 15-18-
VAR on May 28, 2015.
4. Based on the testimony, evidence presented, and files and records, the Board of Zoning
Appeals has determined that the requested variance does not meet the requirements of
Section 36-34(a)(2) of the Zoning Ordinance necessary to be met for the Board of Zoning
Appeals to grant variances, and makes the following findings:
a. There are no factors related to the shape, size or other extraordinary conditions on
the lot which prevent a reasonable use.
b. Granting of the requested variance is not necessary for the preservation and
enjoyment of a substantial property right. The property has had a reasonable use in the
past and continues to have a reasonable use.
c. Granting of the requested variance would be contrary to the intent and provisions
of the Zoning Ordinance since, if granted, it would permit a great floor area ratio than
allowed by code and required for other properties in the Industrial Park zoning district.
d. There are no demonstrable or undue hardships or practical difficulties under the
terms of the Zoning Ordinance or Minnesota Statue, and therefore, conditions necessary
for granting the requested variance do not exist.
5. The contents of the Board of Zoning Appeals Case File 15-18-VAR are hereby entered
into and made part of the public hearing record and the record of decision for this case.
City Council Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 6b)
Title: Appeal of BOZA Decision – St. Louis Park Properties, Mr. Todd Jones Chief Mgr, 5305 Parkdale Dr
Page 41
Board of Zoning Appeals – May 28, 2015
St. Louis Park Properties, 5305 Parkdale Drive
8
CONCLUSION
The Board of Zoning Appeals hereby denies the requested 0.2 variance to the required 0.5 floor
area ratio maximum for the proposed self-storage facility located at 5305 Parkdale Drive.
Adopted by the Board of Zoning Appeals: May 28, 2015
Effective date: June 7, 2015
___________________________
James Gainsley, Chairperson
ATTEST:
_______________________________________
Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator
City Council Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 6b)
Title: Appeal of BOZA Decision – St. Louis Park Properties, Mr. Todd Jones Chief Mgr, 5305 Parkdale Dr
Page 42
Larkin
Hoffi.u~ Larkin Hoffman
8300 Norman Center Drive
Suite 1000
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55437-1060
GENERAL, 952-835-3800
FAX, 952-896-3333
WEB, www.larkinhoffman.com
April 28, 2015
Mr. Gary Morrison
Assistant Zoning Administrator
City of St. Louis Park
5005 Minnetonka Blvd.
St. Louis Park, MN 55416
Re: 5305 Parkdale Drive: Floor Area Ratio Variance; Our File #38,229-00
Dear Mr. Morrison:
This firm represents Jacobs Management Corporation and property owner St. Louis Park
Properties, LLC (together referred to as "Jacobs") with respect to the property located at 5305
Parkdale Drive (the "Property") in the City of St. Louis Park (the "City"). Jacobshas received a
building permit to convert the existing warehouse structure on the Property (the "Building") to a
fully-enclosed, climate controlled, self-storage facility with a partial mezzanine. This letter is
intended to provide a narrative and summary of the required findings for a variance application
by Jacobs to increase the maximum floor area ratio from .50 to .70 to allow the completion of a
fully-internal mezzanine level in the Building (the "Project").
Project Description & Background
The Property is located in the middle of an irregularly-shaped block immediately west of
Highway 100 and north of Cedar Lake Road. The existing structure is a one-story warehouse
building with a total building coverage of 56,090 square feet situated on a 2.95 acre lot. The
Property is zoned I-P Industrial Park District (the "I-P District"). Under St. Louis Park City
Code (the "City Code"), the maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) for properties in the I-P District
is 0.50 and includes the gross horizontal areas of all floors in the building, interior balconies,
mezzanines, basements, attics and penthouses, but excluding interior parking or loading spaces.
City Code Sec. 36-4, Definitions.
Jacobs is currently in the process of converting the existing warehouse and office building on the
Property to self-service storage. The Project as proposed will have one drive through loading
and unloading area and one additional drive in loading and unloading area. A partial mezzanine
City Council Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 6b)
Title: Appeal of BOZA Decision – St. Louis Park Properties, Mr. Todd Jones Chief Mgr, 5305 Parkdale Dr
Page 43
Mr. Gary Morrison
April 28, 2015
Page 2
has been permitted by the City and Jacobs is proposing to construct an additional 26,000 square
feet of additional storage on an internal mezzanine level. Based the current allowable FAR of
.50, a partial, 11,093 square foot mezzanine is permitted; however, the proposed additional
26,000 square foot mezzanine will result in a FAR of .70 which exceeds the 0.50 FAR
maximum.
In addition to converting the Building to self-storage, Jacobs intends to install a number of
exterior site improvements to coincide with the expansion of the mezzanine. These site
enhancements include the removal of approximately 12,055 square feet of existing asphalt,
primarily from the southeast corner of the Property, for a net hardcover reduction of7,890 square
feet, and replacement of this parking area with a rain garden to handle on-site runoff. Rain
gardens will be located close to the source of runoff and serve to slow the storm water as it travels
to the rain garden, giving the stormwater more time to infiltrate and less opportunity to discharge
off site.
In addition, the Property will receive new curb and gutter and enhanced landscaping throughout.
The north and south building elevations will also be improved significantly, as shown in the
enclosed drawings. These enhancements would be in addition to the already approved and
permitted fencing and screening investment for the Property, which includes decorative masonry
columns and cedar fencing.
Required Findings
Jacobs is requesting a variance to permit the construction of a full mezzanine level in order to
alleviate design, construction, and operational constraints that result from the construction of a
partial mezzanine located in only a portion of the building. The proposed variance meets the
following required findings under City Code Section 36-34:
1. The effect of the proposed variance upon the health, safety and welfare of the
community;
The effect of the proposed variance will have no adverse impact on the health, safety and welfare
of the community. The mezzanine storage will be fully within the existing structure and will not
be visible from the exterior. The additional mezzanine square footage will not have any impact
off-site or to the community.
2. The request is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance; and
The Project is a low intensity warehousing-type use, which is in harmony with the general
purposes and intent of the ordinance. The purpose and intent of the 1- P District is to provide
locations for large and small scale industrial enterprises engaged in activities including storage,
warehousing and light manufacturing, which are not typically associated with high levels of
noise, soot, odors and other potential nuisance impacts upon adjoining properties in an industrial
park setting. City Code Sec. 243 (a). The Project is fully consistent with the stated purpose and
intent of the ordinance.
City Council Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 6b)
Title: Appeal of BOZA Decision – St. Louis Park Properties, Mr. Todd Jones Chief Mgr, 5305 Parkdale Dr
Page 44
Mr. Gary Morrison
April 28, 2015
Page 3
3. The request is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
The proposed warehousing and storage use of the Property is consistent with the Industrial Land
Use category of the Property as established in the Comprehensive Plan. The Industrial Land Use
category is intended to capture all industrial uses, including manufacturing, assembly,
processing, warehousing, storage, and related offices. Comprehensive Plan IV-B15. The Project
is consistent with this land use category and is appropriate in this future land use designation.
4. The applicant for the variance establishes that there are practical difficulties in complying
with the zoning ordinance. "Practical difficulties," as used in connection with the
granting of a variance, means that:
a. The property owner proposes to use the property for a land use permitted in the
zoning district in which the land is located. A variance can be requested for
dimensional items required in the zoning ordinance, including but not limited to
setbacks and height limitations;
Self-service storage is a permitted use in the I-P District. The variance is requested to vary the
dimensional FAR requirement under City Code Sec. 36-243(g) (2).
b. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not
created by the landowner; and,
The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property and specifically the
existing structure on the property. These circumstances are existing conditions and not created
by the landowner. The Building was constructed in three different phases, initially as two
separate buildings that were later connected at the center. The result is a varying floor to ceiling
clearance that is, in a large portion of the Building, substantially higher than a traditional
building story. The result is that the development of any usable space on the first floor leaves a
substantial portion of "dead space" where a second floor would be located. The dead space
creates operational (heating, cooling, security, safety, etc.) concerns. While a partial mezzanine
will be constructed, the .50 FAR only permits an 11,093 square foot mezzanine, which will result
in a substantial portion of the structure remaining as dead space. Furthermore, a partial
mezzanine would create substantial design constraints and require inefficient customer access
and operation of the facility.
c. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality.
The variance, if granted, will have no impact on the essential character of the locality because all
changes to the structure will be fully enclosed. The variance seeks only to increase the size of
the internal mezzanine to alleviate issues related to design, construction, and operation of a
partial mezzanine. Moreover, by permitting the full mezzanine, the immediate market will be
more fully served, which will decrease the off-site impacts in the locality by satisfying the
market demand and reducing the likelihood of future self-storage facilities in the vicinity.
City Council Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 6b)
Title: Appeal of BOZA Decision – St. Louis Park Properties, Mr. Todd Jones Chief Mgr, 5305 Parkdale Dr
Page 45
Mr. Gary Morrison
April 28, 2015
Page 4
d. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties.
Economic considerations are not the primary issue to be remedied by the variance. The Project
is already permitted and under construction and is economically viable in the current
configuration. Rather, the practical difficulties arise out of the design, construction, and
operation of a facility in which a portion of the structure remains dead space that must be
designed around but also heated, cooled, and secured.
e. Practical difficulties include inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy
systems.
This finding is not applicable.
5. There are circumstances unique to the property including the shape, topography, water
conditions, or other physical conditions unique to the property; and,
The unique circumstances of the property are the result of the age and existing configuration of
the Building. The Building was constructed at three different times, initially as two separate
buildings that were later connected at the center. The resulting physical condition is a varying
floor to ceiling clearance that is, in a large portion of the Building substantially higher than a
traditional building story. The result is that the development of any usable space on the first
floor leaves a substantial portion of dead spacewhere a second floor would be located. The dead
space creates operational (heating, cooling, security, safety, etc.) concerns. While a partial
mezzanine will be constructed, the .50 FAR only permits an 11,093 square foot mezzanine,
which will result in a substantial portion of the structure remaining as dead space. Furthermore,
a partial mezzanine would create substantial design constraints and require inefficient customer
access and operation of the facility. These circumstances are unique to this Property.
6. The granting of the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantial property right of the applicant; and
Jacobs seeks to preserve its substantial property right to construct and use a self-service storage
facility on the Property, which is properly zoned for warehousing and storage uses. The granting
of the variance is necessary for the preservation of that right and to alleviate the challenges that
result from the existing physical conditions of the Property.
7. The granting of the variance will not impair an adequate supply oflight and air to the
adjacent property, umeasonably increase the congestion in the public streets, increase the
danger of fire, or endanger public safety;
The granting of the variance will result only in a change to the internal configuration of the
building to create a full mezzanine, rather than a partial mezzanine level. Approval of the
variance will not affect the access to light and air of adjacent property, have any impact on the
congestions of public streets, increase the danger of fire, or endanger public safety.
City Council Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 6b)
Title: Appeal of BOZA Decision – St. Louis Park Properties, Mr. Todd Jones Chief Mgr, 5305 Parkdale Dr
Page 46
Mr. Gary Morrison
April 28, 2015
Page 5
8. The granting of the variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant but is
necessary to alleviate a practical difficulty.
The granting of the variance will not merely serve as a convenience to Jacobs, but will
alleviate a practical difficulty that will otherwise result from design and construction
challenges, as well as day to day operational challenges.
Conclusion
Jacobs has obtained the permits necessary to convert the use of the Building and the Property and
has commenced construction. Approval of the variance will only affect the internal design of the
Building and permit the efficient and effective use of the existing Building, while minimizing
any off-site impacts. The existing configuration of the physical structures on the Property
creates the circumstances in which complying with the strict letter of the City Code is a practical
difficulty due to the design constraints that would result from a partial mezzanine. The findings
required, as described above, have been satisfied. Accordingly, we respectfully request that the
Board of Zoning Appeals grants this variance request.
If you have questions about this letter or any of the information contained above, please feel free
to contact me.
$~~40
William C. Griffith, for V" ~ J
Larkin Hoffman {/
Direct Dial:
Direct Fax:
Email:
(952) 896-3290
(952) 842-1729
wgriffith@larkinhoffman.com
Enclosure
cc: Todd Jones
4817-9966-4931, v. 4
City Council Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 6b)
Title: Appeal of BOZA Decision – St. Louis Park Properties, Mr. Todd Jones Chief Mgr, 5305 Parkdale Dr
Page 47
Rain Garden Design and Benefits:
A rain garden is a garden which takes advantage of rainfall and stormwater runoff in its design and plant
selection. It is designed to withstand the extremes of moisture and concentrations of nutrients,
particularly Nitrogen and Phosphorus, that are found in stormwater runoff. Rain gardens are located
close to the source of the runoff and serve to slow the stormwater as it travels downhill, giving the
stormwater more time to infiltrate and less opportunity to discharge off site. The stormwater is cleaned
and reduced in volume once it enters the rain garden. Nitrogen and phosphorus levels and overall
sediment loads in the stormwater are reduced by the action of the plants and growing media on the
water. The plants selected for the rain garden need to be able to withstand both the extremes of
flooding and drought.
City Council Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 6b)
Title: Appeal of BOZA Decision – St. Louis Park Properties, Mr. Todd Jones Chief Mgr, 5305 Parkdale Dr
Page 48
City Council Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 6b) Title: Appeal of BOZA Decision – St. Louis Park Properties, Mr. Todd Jones Chief Mgr, 5305 Parkdale DrPage 49
City Council Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 6b) Title: Appeal of BOZA Decision – St. Louis Park Properties, Mr. Todd Jones Chief Mgr, 5305 Parkdale DrPage 50
City Council Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 6b) Title: Appeal of BOZA Decision – St. Louis Park Properties, Mr. Todd Jones Chief Mgr, 5305 Parkdale DrPage 51
City Council Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 6b) Title: Appeal of BOZA Decision – St. Louis Park Properties, Mr. Todd Jones Chief Mgr, 5305 Parkdale DrPage 52
City Council Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 6b)
Title: Appeal of BOZA Decision – St. Louis Park Properties, Mr. Todd Jones Chief Mgr, 5305 Parkdale Dr
Page 53
City Council Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 6b)
Title: Appeal of BOZA Decision – St. Louis Park Properties, Mr. Todd Jones Chief Mgr, 5305 Parkdale Dr
Page 54
City Council Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 6b)
Title: Appeal of BOZA Decision – St. Louis Park Properties, Mr. Todd Jones Chief Mgr, 5305 Parkdale Dr
Page 55
City Council Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 6b)
Title: Appeal of BOZA Decision – St. Louis Park Properties, Mr. Todd Jones Chief Mgr, 5305 Parkdale Dr
Page 56
PROPOSED GRADING LIMITSPROPOSED CONTOUR LINEPROPOSED SILT FENCE892PROPOSED LEGENDCONSTRUCTION & GRADING NOTES1. UTILITIES SHOWN ARE AT APPROXIMATE LOCATIONS. THERE MAY BE ADDITIONAL UNDERGROUND ANDOVERHEAD UTILITIES NOT SHOWN ON THE PLAN. CALL GOPHER STATE ONE CALL AT 651-454-0002 FORUTILITY, GAS LINE, AND ELECTRICAL LINE LOCATIONS PRIOR TO EXCAVATION.2. AREA OF DISTURBANCE IS LESS THAN 1 ACRE. AN NPDES PERMIT IS NOT REQUIRED FOR THIS SITE.3. PERIMETER SEDIMENT CONTROL BMP'S SHALL BE ESTABLISHED PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OFANY UPGRADIENT LAND DISTURBING ACTIVITIES AND SHALL REMAIN IN PLACE UNTIL FINALSTABILIZATION.4. DISTURBED SOIL AREAS AND STOCK PILES SHALL BE STABILIZED AS SOON AS POSSIBLE BUT IN NOCASE LATER THAN 7 DAYS FROM THE LAST CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY IN THAT AREA.5. SEDIMENT OR DEBRIS DEPOSITED IN PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY SHALL BE REMOVED BY THE END OF EACHDAY.6. CONSTRUCT TEMPORARY ROCK CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE AT ENTRANCE TO EACH GRADING AREA.7. PROPOSED ELEVATIONS SHOWN ON THE PLAN ARE TO TOP OF PAVING, GUTTER FLOW LINE, OR FINISHGRADE UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE.8. SITE DESIGN DOES NOT NECESSARILY BALANCE EARTHWORK MATERIAL ON SITE. CONTRACTORSHALL PROVIDE SUITABLE MATERIAL AS NEEDED, OR DISPOSE OF ANY EXCESS MATERIAL ATDESIGNATED LOCATIONS.PROPOSED BITUMINOUSPROPOSED SPOT ELEVATIONPROPOSED SLOPE ARROW City Council Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 6b) Title: Appeal of BOZA Decision – St. Louis Park Properties, Mr. Todd Jones Chief Mgr, 5305 Parkdale DrPage 57
City Council Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 6b) Title: Appeal of BOZA Decision – St. Louis Park Properties, Mr. Todd Jones Chief Mgr, 5305 Parkdale DrPage 58
City Council Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 6b) Title: Appeal of BOZA Decision – St. Louis Park Properties, Mr. Todd Jones Chief Mgr, 5305 Parkdale DrPage 59
City Council Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 6b) Title: Appeal of BOZA Decision – St. Louis Park Properties, Mr. Todd Jones Chief Mgr, 5305 Parkdale DrPage 60
D R A F T
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES OF MAY 28, 2015
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
6:00 p.m.
The St. Louis Park Board of Zoning Appeals conducted a meeting on May 28, 2015, at
St. Louis Park City Hall, 5005 Minnetonka Boulevard, St. Louis Park, Minnesota –
Council Chambers.
Members Present: James Gainsley, Justin Kaufman, Paul Roberts,
Henry Solmer
Members Absent: Susan Bloyer
Staff Present: Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator
Nancy Sells, Administrative Secretary
1. CALL TO ORDER – ROLL CALL
The meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF JULY 24, 2014
Commissioner Solmer made a motion to approve the minutes of July 24, 2014.
The motion passed on a vote of 3-0. (note: Commissioner Kaufman arrived at
6:05 p.m.)
3. CONSENT AGENDA: None
4. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Variance: Floor Area Ratio
Location: 5305 Parkdale Drive
Applicant: St. Louis Park Properties, Mr. Todd Jones Chief Mgr.
Case No. 15-18-VAR
Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator, presented the staff report. He
explained that the applicant is in the process of remodeling an industrial building
into an indoor self-storage facility. The applicant would like to construct a second
floor inside the building. The 0.5 FAR maximum, however, limits how much of
the building can be improved with a second floor. The applicant is requesting a
0.2 increase to the allowed 0.5 maximum floor area ratio. If approved, the
City Council Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 6b)
Title: Appeal of BOZA Decision – St. Louis Park Properties, Mr. Todd Jones Chief Mgr, 5305 Parkdale Dr
Page 61
variance would allow the applicant to construct a second floor throughout the
building.
Mr. Morrison reviewed zoning code regulations regarding Floor Area Ratio
within the I-P (Industrial Park) District.
Mr. Morrison reviewed staff findings for variance criteria.
As regards whether or not the request is in harmony with the general purposes and
intent of the Zoning Ordinance, he stated that an increase of FAR to 0.7 is not in
harmony with the intent of the ordinance. He stated that all properties in the I-P
district are required to maintain a FAR less than 0.5. The request to exceed the
maximum would give the applicant more rentable floor area than allowed at any
other property in the district.
Mr. Morrison said staff is unable to determine that a practical difficulty exists to
prevent conformance with the 0.5 FAR.
Mr. Morrison said staff has not been able to find unique circumstances applying
to the property that would require increase in FAR.
Mr. Morrison stated that the 0.5 maximum FAR does not prohibit reasonable use
of the property. The building has had reasonable use since construction, and the
applicant is in the process of renovating it into a self-storage facility that meets
the 0.5 FAR.
Mr. Morrison said a practical difficulty does not exist that would require a FAR
greater than allowed by City Code and applied to other properties in the district.
The applicant has reasonable use of the property, and has already begun
construction of that use. He said it appears that the request would result in a
convenience that would allow more rentable floor area.
Mr. Morrison stated that based on the review, staff is recommending a motion to
adopt a resolution denying the requested variance.
Commissioner Kaufman asked for additional background as to criteria regarding
whether or not a request is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the
zoning ordinance as it relates to FAR.
Mr. Morrison responded that FAR addresses building bulk, height, and traffic. He
added that it also addresses a level playing field; all properties have a certain
amount of floor area to work with.
Commissioner Kaufman asked for an example of a unique circumstance.
City Council Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 6b)
Title: Appeal of BOZA Decision – St. Louis Park Properties, Mr. Todd Jones Chief Mgr, 5305 Parkdale Dr
Page 62
Mr. Morrison answered that typically in looking at unique circumstances with a
variance request it is easier to point one out that applies to setbacks because the
shape of the property comes into play or maybe the property is impacted by a
wetland. He said in the current request the property is approximately 2.95 acres
in size, plenty of area to construct a building that does meet the FAR requirement.
Staff has been unable to come up with something related to the property that is
unique to that property that would require it to have a higher FAR than other
properties in that zoning district.
Commissioner Solmer inquired as to the zoning and desired use in the West End
area. He asked what desired uses might be.
Mr. Morrison said the property is guided Industrial and is zoned Industrial Park.
He said uses that are anticipated include multi-family, office or MX-Mixed Use.
Commissioner Roberts asked how something is categorized as a practical
difficulty.
Mr. Morrison said staff looks specifically at the request, asking what would
justify going from a 0.5 to a 0.7. What kind of practical difficulties exist to justify
that increase. He said typically when looking at a variance one argues that the
property owner does not have reasonable use of the property without a variance.
He said in this case staff cannot come to a conclusive answer to be able to say to
the board that this variance is needed for this property to have a reasonable use.
He said it has had a reasonable use since it was built. Staff has not been able to
come up with a practical difficulty, something unique to this property that is
preventing them from having reasonable use. He added that variance requests are
reviewed by the entire Planning Department.
Chair Gainsley opened the public hearing.
Todd Jones, Jacobs Management and St. Louis Park Properties, LLC, applicant,
said they are very pleased to be moving forward with the construction of the
project. He said they believe it will be an excellent location for the company,
residents and small businesses of St. Louis Park. He said there is no question
that there is significant demand for this product in St. Louis Park. He said if the
demand is not satisfied in St. Louis Park additional storage facilities will be
developed elsewhere in the market.
Mr. Jones stated St. Louis Park has an IP District, which allows 0.5 FAR, and it
has an IG District which allows FAR of 1.0. He said across the street 1.0 is
allowed. His company is asking for 0.7, which is in-between.
Mr. Jones discussed construction plans. He said the expansion would be within
the existing envelope. The request is not to expand the exterior or the footprint
City Council Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 6b)
Title: Appeal of BOZA Decision – St. Louis Park Properties, Mr. Todd Jones Chief Mgr, 5305 Parkdale Dr
Page 63
but to expand the building floor area utilizing only the space within the existing
building envelope. He said plans would significantly reduce the present
hardcover on the site.
Mr. Jones discussed the business. He said most of the customers come from a one
to two mile radius. He said 25 % of their customers are small business owners in
the community. He said the use is a very low industrial use and the lowest
generator of traffic. Mr. Jones said the company is local and has developed
properties nationally for over 25 years. He distributed before and after
photographs of several properties the company has developed.
Mr. Jones stated that the building is a bit of an oddball. The north building was
built as a separate building in 1960 with frontage on Parkdale Dr. The south
building has frontage on Cedar Lake Road. Forty years later a company gained
control of both buildings and they built a middle building in 1999 which connects
all the buildings together. He said the building isn’t impossible but very difficult
with different floor elevations, different roof elevations, and different ceiling
heights. He said there are a series of ramps tying the buildings together internally.
He stated that these conditions are very unique to this property. It makes it very
difficult for any use to go in there. Mr. Jones said they found a way to do it as
they have flexibility with their product type.
Mr. Jones discussed exterior improvements which will coincide with the interior
floor expansion. These include reduction of hardcover on site to be replaced with
a rain garden and significant landscape design. The rain garden would control
rate and quality of stormwater discharged from the site. An interior drive-
through loading area is also included in the expansion. The north and south
building facades will be enhanced and updated with contemporary design. Mr.
Jones distributed photographs of similar conversion projects the company has
completed.
Mr. Jones said the request is not all about economic gain. He said it is a feasible
project. It is going forward. They want to provide the best development plan
possible for the benefit of everybody. He said he has discussed the plan with
many neighbors in the community. They all support it and cannot imagine the
variance request not being approved. He said the company has one opportunity to
do the project right.
William Griffith, Larkin Hoffman Attorneys, representing the applicant, discussed
the criteria regarding reasonability. He said the Minnesota Courts have said “Is
the applicant proposing something that is reasonable in light of the locality,
impact on neighbors and impact on infrastructure?” Mr. Griffith said the
applicant submits that it is a reasonable proposal. In regards to the rational basis
of FAR and is it negatively impacted by granting a variance, Mr. Griffith submits
that generally the purpose is to control bulk, height, density, intensity of use to as
City Council Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 6b)
Title: Appeal of BOZA Decision – St. Louis Park Properties, Mr. Todd Jones Chief Mgr, 5305 Parkdale Dr
Page 64
not to burden the public infrastructure and over burden the surrounding neighbors.
Mr. Griffith said he did not believe the purpose of zoning is to regulate
economics. He asked is the zoning ordinance undermined by granting what the
applicant feels is a modest variance. He said the answer has to be no, based on
staff’s own findings.
Mr. Griffith said regarding reasonability, the variance would create no impact on
surrounding properties. The additional site enhancements would improve the
property and be upgraded for the area. Mr. Griffith said storage center uses are
the lowest trip generating uses.
Mr. Griffith said he wanted to read four positive findings about the use found in
the staff report. He read those findings.
In summary Mr. Griffith asked why grant the variance? Mr. Griffith said the
proposed use is reasonable. Mr. Griffith discussed the unique circumstances. He
said to not grant the variance wastes the opportunity to maximize this use in this
location. If the city does not want to see the use proliferated then why would it
deny a variance that would maximize the use without impacting neighbors. He
discussed the service provided to the community.
Mr. Griffith discussed the zoning rationale for FAR. He stated the rationale basis
for FAR is not undermined by a modest increase from 0.5 to 0.7.
Commissioner Roberts said practical difficulty was mentioned in the attorney’s
letter multiple times. He asked Mr. Griffith to comment.
Mr. Griffith said the applicant finds the practical difficulty is having an industrial
building with this configuration. Because it is not generally amenable for typical
industrial use or industrial park, to make the best use of the building under the 0.5
FAR creates a practical difficulty in re-using the building. Construction is
already underway for a storage center. How do you best use the building? And
is the proposal for best use of building reasonable in light of the circumstances
and what is that impact on others. And that is part of the practical difficulty
finding. Mr. Griffith said that is in case law.
Commissioner Kaufman asked Mr. Griffith if he was saying the practical
difficulty lies with the nature of the property, not of the applicant’s making.
Mr. Griffith said that was correct.
Commissioner Solmer asked if any of the projects the company has developed
involved an increase in the FAR.
Mr. Jones said no variances were required.
City Council Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 6b)
Title: Appeal of BOZA Decision – St. Louis Park Properties, Mr. Todd Jones Chief Mgr, 5305 Parkdale Dr
Page 65
The Chair closed the public hearing as no one else was present wishing to speak.
Mr. Solmer asked about the potential buyer for the property proposing retail
development who was discouraged by the city from going forward.
Mr. Morrison said a proposal was brought forward for a one-story strip mall.
Commissioner Kaufman asked if that proposal was for a tear down.
Mr. Morrison responded that it was for a tear down.
Commissioner Kaufman stated if the issue for the FAR is bulk, height and traffic
with no effect on surrounding area, that sways him a little bit. He said his other
concern regards the difficulty with a three building connection and using the
property as it is, as opposed to a tear down.
Commissioner Roberts said those were his concerns too. The FAR is 3 of the 4
things staff mentioned. He said the one thing he is hung up on is the fairness of
everyone having to comply with the 0.5 FAR in that zoning district and if there is
unfair advantage there. He said he could be persuaded either way.
Chair Gainsley said the applicant is given a very wide latitude with the 0.5 FAR
and is being given just about everything in the way of reasonable use and there is
really no hardship. The building is there, the space is there and it is being used to
its fullest capacity, using it reasonably, and will make money with it. Chair
Gainsley said he doesn’t see there is any particular problem with the project and
doesn’t see any reason to have a variance. He said he doesn’t see a practical
difficulty that would be of such an immediate need that a variance would be
warranted.
Commissioner Kaufman asked if the bar for practical difficulty was so that high
that the property could not be used but for the variance?
Mr. Morrison answered that it used to be that high. He said there is a little more
discretion in the recent statute changes. Reasonable use is still part of the
consideration. Can this property be used as it is? Yes, it can. He said the
Novartis property is a primary example of that as it was built in several stages
with uneven floors and that is not uncommon in St. Louis Park. These buildings
are old and have been added on to. And they are being re-used. The Novartis
building was snatched up immediately and is almost fully complete and almost
fully occupied.
City Council Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 6b)
Title: Appeal of BOZA Decision – St. Louis Park Properties, Mr. Todd Jones Chief Mgr, 5305 Parkdale Dr
Page 66
Chair Gainsley made a motion to deny the variance request based on the staff
report. The motion failed on a vote of 2-2. (Gainsley and Solmer voting to deny;
Kaufman and Roberts voting against motion to deny).
Commissioner Kaufman made a motion to approve the variance. The motion
failed on a vote of 2-2. (Kaufman and Roberts voting to approve; Gainsley and
Solmer voting against motion to approve).
Mr. Morrison read the statement regarding appeal to the City Council.
5. Unfinished Business
6. New Business
A. Election of Officers
Commissioner Roberts nominated Justin Kaufman for Chair.
Chair Gainsley remarked that Justin Kaufman had not yet served five
years.
Chair Gainsley nominated Paul Roberts for Chair. The motion passed on
a vote of 4-0.
Chair Gainsley nominated Justin Kaufman for Vice-Chair. The motion
passed on a vote of 4-0.
7. Communications
8. Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 7:00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Nancy Sells
Administrative Secretary
City Council Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 6b)
Title: Appeal of BOZA Decision – St. Louis Park Properties, Mr. Todd Jones Chief Mgr, 5305 Parkdale Dr
Page 67
City Council Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 6b)
Title: Appeal of BOZA Decision – St. Louis Park Properties, Mr. Todd Jones Chief Mgr, 5305 Parkdale Dr
Page 68
City Council Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 6b)
Title: Appeal of BOZA Decision – St. Louis Park Properties, Mr. Todd Jones Chief Mgr, 5305 Parkdale Dr
Page 69
City Council Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 6b)
Title: Appeal of BOZA Decision – St. Louis Park Properties, Mr. Todd Jones Chief Mgr, 5305 Parkdale Dr
Page 70
City Council Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 6b)
Title: Appeal of BOZA Decision – St. Louis Park Properties, Mr. Todd Jones Chief Mgr, 5305 Parkdale Dr
Page 71
City Council Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 6b)
Title: Appeal of BOZA Decision – St. Louis Park Properties, Mr. Todd Jones Chief Mgr, 5305 Parkdale Dr
Page 72
City Council Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 6b)
Title: Appeal of BOZA Decision – St. Louis Park Properties, Mr. Todd Jones Chief Mgr, 5305 Parkdale Dr
Page 73
City Council Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 6b)
Title: Appeal of BOZA Decision – St. Louis Park Properties, Mr. Todd Jones Chief Mgr, 5305 Parkdale Dr
Page 74
City Council Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 6b)
Title: Appeal of BOZA Decision – St. Louis Park Properties, Mr. Todd Jones Chief Mgr, 5305 Parkdale Dr
Page 75
City Council Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 6b)
Title: Appeal of BOZA Decision – St. Louis Park Properties, Mr. Todd Jones Chief Mgr, 5305 Parkdale Dr
Page 76
City Council Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 6b)
Title: Appeal of BOZA Decision – St. Louis Park Properties, Mr. Todd Jones Chief Mgr, 5305 Parkdale Dr
Page 77
City Council Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 6b)
Title: Appeal of BOZA Decision – St. Louis Park Properties, Mr. Todd Jones Chief Mgr, 5305 Parkdale Dr
Page 78
City Council Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 6b)
Title: Appeal of BOZA Decision – St. Louis Park Properties, Mr. Todd Jones Chief Mgr, 5305 Parkdale Dr
Page 79
City Council Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 6b)
Title: Appeal of BOZA Decision – St. Louis Park Properties, Mr. Todd Jones Chief Mgr, 5305 Parkdale Dr
Page 80
City Council Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 6b)
Title: Appeal of BOZA Decision – St. Louis Park Properties, Mr. Todd Jones Chief Mgr, 5305 Parkdale Dr
Page 81
City Council Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 6b)
Title: Appeal of BOZA Decision – St. Louis Park Properties, Mr. Todd Jones Chief Mgr, 5305 Parkdale Dr
Page 82
City Council Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 6b)
Title: Appeal of BOZA Decision – St. Louis Park Properties, Mr. Todd Jones Chief Mgr, 5305 Parkdale Dr
Page 83
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: June 15, 2015
Public Hearing Agenda Item: 6c
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: 2014 Annual MS4 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) Meeting
RECOMMENDED ACTION: None at this time. Each year the City is required to hold a
public meeting to provide an opportunity for residents to review and comment on its Storm
Water Pollution Prevention Plan and its storm water management program. This agenda item
serves to meet this requirement. After a staff presentation the Mayor is asked to open up the
meeting for public comment.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the City Council have questions or concerns regarding
the City’s storm water management program?
SUMMARY: The purpose of this report is to provide the Council with a summary of
stormwater activities conducted in 2014 and to solicit comments from the public on the operation
and management of stormwater throughout the City of St. Louis Park as a part of the City’s
Municipal Separate Stormwater System (MS4) permit.
The City of St. Louis Park has a permit with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA)
for the discharge of stormwater from the city. This permit is required based on the 1987
amendment to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Clean Water Act, through the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). St Louis Park, along with 229 other
Minnesota cities, is permitted as a Municipal Separate Stormwater System (MS4).
As a part of the MS4 permit, the City is required to hold a public meeting in which residents
have an opportunity to review the City’s Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and
comment on its stormwater management program. These comments are then recorded and
considered for incorporation in the City’s SWPPP. In the past this meeting has been held by staff
separate from regular City Council meetings, but has been included in the Council’s agenda this
year to hopefully increase participation and awareness of the SWPPP.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not applicable at this time.
VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to being a leader in environmental
stewardship. We will increase environmental consciousness and responsibility in all areas of city
business.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion
MPCA 2014 Issuance of Coverage
2014 SWPPP Activity Highlights
Detailed List of 2014 Activities
Appendix M 2015 Update
Prepared by: Phillip Elkin, Sr. Project Manager
Reviewed by: Debra Heiser, Engineering Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 6c) Page 2
Title: 2014 Annual MS4 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) Meeting
DISCUSSION
Each year the City of St. Louis Park is required to prepare an annual report which discusses the
status of compliance with NPDES MS4 Stormwater Permit Conditions. Since this permit does
not contain specific end of the pipe discharge effluent limits, cities use programmatic
requirements to reduce pollutants discharged to the “maximum extent practicable” through the
implementation of Best Management Practices (BMPs). The information requested from the
MPCA is meant to provide the basis for an assessment of the appropriateness of the BMPs and
the progress that has been made toward achieving the identified goals for each of the minimum
control measures. This assessment is based on results collected and analyzed, inspection
findings, and public input received during the reporting period.
In August of 2013, the MPCA approved a new permit for the MS4 SWPPP program. With these
changes, the City was required to revise some operating procedures and requirements in its
stormwater requirements in order to be in compliance with the new stormwater permit
requirements. These revisions were accomplished by updating Appendix M of the City’s Surface
Water Management Plan, which details the City’s Erosion Control and Stormwater Management
requirements. These changes included:
• Update Erosion Control Requirements
• Update Construction Site Inspection Requirements
• Update Enforcement Response Procedures
• Revise Post Construction site requirements which include: dewatering, infiltration, limits
and expectations and mitigation
The revised Appendix M of the City’s Surface Water Management Plan is posted on the City of
St. Louis Park Website.
The City continues to move forward with the Stormwater Capital Improvement Plan that was
approved in 2012 by the City Council. The most visible of these projects is the Bass Lake
Preserve Restoration Project. In 2015 we completed the first area of vegetation restoration, along
with the Annual Arbor Day Celebration, where 80 new trees were planted, and look to continue
this effort in the fall with area 2. In addition, we are working in partnership with Great River
Greening on an overall upland vegetation management plan as well as the permitting required for
excavation within the wetland this winter.
While we are continuing to refine our record keeping and bookkeeping procedures, we do not
anticipate any significant changes or modifications to the SWPPP in 2015.
wq-strm4-59p · 1/16/14 · Doc Type: Permit Approval
April 3, 2014
Phillip Elkin
City of St. Louis Park
5005 Minnetonka Boulevard
St. Louis Park, MN 55416
RE: Issuance of Coverage under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System/State
Disposal System (NPDES/SDS) General Permit MNR040000 for Municipal Separate Storm
Sewer Systems for City of St. Louis Park MS4
Dear Mr. Elkin:
In accordance with Minn. R. 7001.0140, the Commissioner of the Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency (MPCA) has made a final determination to issue coverage under the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System/State Disposal System (NPDES/SDS) General Permit MNR040000
for Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4 General Permit) to the City of St. Louis Park
MS4, effective April 3, 2014. Please find enclosed a copy of the above referenced MS4 General
Permit.
The MPCA’s final decision to issue permit coverage is based on the following:
MPCA staff has reviewed your MS4 General Permit application and Stormwater
Pollution Prevention Program (SWPPP) Document.
Public notice and opportunity for comment on your MS4 General Permit application and
SWPPP Document has been provided, and no comments were received.
As you know, it is the responsibility of the MS4 owner and/or operator to comply with the
requirements of the MS4 General Permit and your SWPPP Document. This issuance of coverage
does not preclude the MPCA from following up with an inspection or audit to verify compliance
with the MS4 General Permit and SWPPP Document. Also, be aware that as a condition of
recordkeeping, Part IV.C.3. of the MS4 General Permit requires that the permittee retain their
SWPPP Document and all records pertinent to it for at least three (3) years beyond the term of
the MS4 General Permit.
In addition, for an MS4 that was covered under the previous MS4 General Permit (issuance date
June 1, 2006), coverage under that permit is terminated on the coverage date as specified
above. An MS4 covered under the new MS4 General Permit is required to report on activities
that were required or committed to under the previous permit.
City Council Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 6c)
Title: 2014 Annual MS4 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) Meeting Page 3
wq-strm4-59p · 1/16/14 · Doc Type: Permit Approval
City of St. Louis Park
Page 2
April 3, 2014
Finally, the MPCA thanks you for your cooperation in the permitting process . Please retain this
letter as documentation of your MS4 General Permit coverage under the NPDES/SDS Permit
MNR040000.
Please contact MS4 team member Dan Miller at 651-757-2246 with any questions.
Sincerely,
Duane Duncanson
This document has been electronically signed.
Duane Duncanson
Supervisor, Municipal Compliance Unit I
St. Paul Office
Municipal Division
cc: Debra Heiser, City of St. Louis Park MS4
City of St. Louis Park MS4 File
City Council Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 6c)
Title: 2014 Annual MS4 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) Meeting Page 4
Highlight of Activities
for the
2014 City of St. Louis Park Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
Outlined below are the stormwater management responsibilities that have been accomplished during the
2014 calendar year. These responsibilities are required and were completed in conjunction with the City of
St. Louis Park’ National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Small Municipal Separate Storm
Sewer System (MS4) permit issued that is issued by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA):
MCM‐1 Public Education and Outreach Activities
Permit Requirement:
Permittee’s shall implement a public education program that informs the public of the impact
that stormwater discharges have on water bodies and to includes actions that citizens can
take to reduce the discharge of pollutants into stormwater and surface waters.
Activities Competed:
• Selected two high priority stormwater related issues for review and updating
Updated construction stormwater runoff design guideline
Updated post construction design guideline
• Provided training to City staff on Illicit discharge
• Implemented My St. Louis Park App for reporting stormwater issues throughout
the City
• Distributed stormwater management educational materials
Sun Sailor (circulation of 28,075 residents)
Radio (available listener area of 45,000 residents)
Park TV (access to 13,000 residents)
City website (2,359 clicks)
School presentations (34,267 students educated at Westwood Nature Center)
• Held workshops and educational forums on stormwater management
Landscape workshop
Raingarden workshop
Tree sale
Metro Watershed Partnership
Eco Fair at the Parktacular!
MCM‐2 Public Involvement and Participation
Permit Requirement:
Permittee’s shall implement Public Participation/Involvement program to solicit public input
on the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP).
Activities Competed:
• Collected seasonal samples were at selected water bodies as part of the CAMP
(Citizen‐Assisted Monitoring Program)
• Volunteered for Minnehaha Creek Cleanup
• Completed the Beautify the Park Day
City Council Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 6c)
Title: 2014 Annual MS4 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) Meeting Page 5
Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
2014 Stormwater Management Activity Highlights
2
• Continued development of the Environment and Sustainability Commission
• Implemented My St. Louis Park App for reporting stormwater issues throughout
the City
MCM‐3 Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination
Permit Requirement:
Permittee’s shall implement and enforce a program to detect and eliminate illicit discharges
into the City’s storm sewer system.
Activities Competed:
• Implemented My St. Louis Park App for reporting illicit discharge issues
throughout the City
• Continually monitor for illicit stormwater discharges as City staff work and travel
throughout the city performing their routine duties
MCM‐4 Construction Site Storm Water Run‐off Control
Permit Requirement:
Permittee’s shall implement and enforce a Construction Site Stormwater Runoff Control
program that reduces pollutants in stormwater runoff related to construction activity.
Activities Competed:
• Performed 55 compliance inspections on 14 projects greater than once acre
• Performed over 300 inspections on 32 projects smaller than one acre
• Updated design guidelines and inspection policies for erosion and sediment
control inspections
• Issued 37 notices of violation for noncompliance
o No monetary fines or site shutdowns were issued
MCM‐5 Post Construction Runoff Control
Permit Requirement:
Permittee’s shall implement and enforce a Post‐Construction Stormwater Management
Program that prevents or reduces water pollution after construction activity is completed and
as it relates to new development and redevelopment.
Activities Competed:
• Updated design guidelines to retain 1 inch of rainfall on site
• Updated design guidelines to control the discharge rate of the 6 inch rainfall event
to not exceed the 4.2 inch rainfall event
• Provided plan review for 12 new developments greater than one acre
• Assisted in pollutant reductions to the Brownie Lake as part of the West End
Development, which is now delisted as an Impaired Water by the Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency
City Council Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 6c)
Title: 2014 Annual MS4 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) Meeting Page 6
Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
2014 Stormwater Management Activity Highlights
3
MCM‐6 Pollution Prevention/Good Housekeeping for Municipal Operations
Permit Requirement:
Permittee’s shall develop and implement an operations and maintenance program that
prevents or reduces the discharge of pollutants from permittee owned and operated facilities.
Activities Competed:
• Inspected over 100 outfalls within the City of St. Louis Park
• Inspected over 5 ponds within the City of St. Louis Park
• Inspected 1,200 catch basins
• Repaired 125 catch basins
• Swept over 600 miles of streets (155 miles within City 4 times)
• Removed sediment from over 17 miles of storm sewer
• Inspected stockpile and storage areas quarterly
• Continued to evaluate operations policies and practices and to look for areas to
improve process and reduce pollution
Residents of the City of St. Louis Park are encouraged to review and comment on the City’s SWPPP, which
can be found on the City’s Stormwater Page:
• http://www.stlouispark.org/storm‐water/pollution‐prevention‐plan.html
For additional information on the Small Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Permit, which
provides the guidance for the afore mentioned items, can be found on the Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency’s website:
• http://www.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/water/water‐types‐and‐programs/stormwater/municipal‐
stormwater/municipal‐separate‐storm‐sewer‐systems‐ms4.html
If you have further questions on stormwater management within the City of St. Louis Park, feel free to
contact Erick Francis, the City’s Water Resources Manager, at 952‐924‐2690 or at
efrancis@stlouispark.org.
City Council Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 6c)
Title: 2014 Annual MS4 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) Meeting Page 7
2014 MS4 Annual Report Worksheet:
Questions: Contact Cole Landgraf (651-757-2880, cole.landgraf@state.mn.us) or Rachel Stangl
(651-757-2879, rachel.stangl@state.mn.us).
MS4 General Contact Information
1
2
3
4
5
6
Instructions: Complete this annual report to provide a summary of your activities under the 2013 MS4
Permit (Permit) between January 1, 2014 and December 31, 2014. You may provide additional
explanation and/or information in an email with the subject YourMS4NameHere_2014AR to
ms4permitprogram.pca@state.mn.us. MPCA staff may also contact you for additional information.
Information to provide: Last name, First name, Title, Mailing address, City, State, Zip
code, Phone, Email.
MCM List:
Pollution Prevention/Good Housekeeping for Municipal Operations
Post Construction Stormwater management
Construction Site Stormwater Runoff Control
Illicit Discharge
Public Participation / involvement
Public Education and Outreach
City Council Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 6c)
Title: 2014 Annual MS4 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) Meeting Page 8
2014 MS4 Annual Report Worksheet:
Item
Number Yes No
Construction Activity
Post Construction Activity
Implement My St. Louis Park App, which has stormwater related notifications such as ESC and IDDE notifications
Newspapers
Radio
Cable access channel
School presentations
City website
Residents Developers
Employees
Business
Students
Newspapers: Circulation of 27,075
Radio: Metro wide, 45,00 St. Louis Park residents
Cable access channel: 13,000 subscriber's
School presentations: Westwood Center formal programs 34,267
3/25/14 Landscape workshop (20 attendees)
4/17/14 Raingarden workshop (40 attendees)
3/1/14 Tree Sale (300 Trees for planting in private property; stormwater mitigation promoted
All year - Metro Watershed Partners -advertisements and PSA's via radio, TV, billboard, website
6/14/14 - Eco Fair @ Parktacular
Promoted water quality landscape activates
Raingarden workshop - provides education on how to's of raingardens, while promoting benefits of
Tree Sale -promote stormwater mitigation through trees
Eco Fair - provide water resources, such as fishing and canoeing for kids and promote surface water quality
Yes, added My St. Louis Park App and are anticipating a greater use for this App
Plan on working with additional organizations throughout the City and other communities
Website clicks: 2,359 --
Instructions: Complete this annual report to provide a summary of your activities under the 2013 MS4 Permit (Permit) between January 1, 2014 and December 31, 2014. You may provide
additional explanation and/or information in an email with the subject YourMS4NameHere_2014AR to ms4permitprogram.pca@state.mn.us. MPCA staff may also contact you for additional
information.
[Part III.D.1.a.(1)] Yes, No
[Part III.D.1.a.(2)] (Yes, No)
Check all that apply: Residents, Local Businesses, Developers, Students, Employees, Other.
For the above checked in Q5, what is the intended audience?
If ‘Yes ,’ what is your stormwater-related issue(s)? Check all that apply.
TMDLs, Local Businesses, Residential BMPs, Pet waste, Yard waste, Deicing materials, Household chemicals, Construction Activities, Post-construction
activities, Other: describe.
--
x
Task to be Completed
Did you select a stormwater-related issue of high priority to be emphasized during this permit term?
-
x
--
--
Between January 1, 2014 and December 31, 2014, did you modify your BMPs, measurable goals, or future plans for your public education and outreach
program? [Part IV.B.]
3
4
5
7
8
9
10
Did you begin to educate the public on illicit discharge recognition and reporting?
For the above checked in Q5, enter the total circulation/audience (if unknown, use best estimate) For questions 8 and 9, provide a brief description of
each activity related to public education and outreach (e.g. rain garden workshop, school presentation, public works open house) held and the date each
activity was held from January 1, 2014 to December 31, 2014.
Date of activity
Description of activity
6
[Part III.D.1.c.(4)]
Yes, No If ‘Yes,’ describe these modifications. If ‘Yes,’ describe these modifications.
How did you distribute educational materials or equivalent outreach? Check all that apply and provide circulation/audience associated with each item.
-
x
MCM 1: Public Education and Outreach
The following questions refer to Part III.D.1. of the Permit.
2
[Part III.D.1.a.] Brochure, Newsletter, Utility bill insert, Newspaper ad, Radio ad, Television ad, Cable access channel, Stormwater- related event, School
presentation or project, Website, Other: describe.--
City Council Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 6c)
Title: 2014 Annual MS4 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) Meeting Page 9
2014 MS4 Annual Report Worksheet:
Item
Number Yes No
Public Meeting
Combined with City Council meeting
City Council meeting 6/16/2014
8 +/-
N/A
Between January 1, 2014 and December 31, 2014, did you receive any input regarding your SWPPP?
N/A
Implemented My St. Louis Park App for public use
17
If ‘Yes’ in Q16, did you modify your SWPPP as a result of written input received?
18
Between January 1, 2014 and December 31, 2014, did you modify your BMPs, measurable goals, or future plans for your public participation/involvement
program?
xIf ‘Yes,’ describe those modifications.
[Part IV.B.] Yes, No
[Part III.D.2.b.(2)] Yes, No
If ‘Yes’ in Q17, describe those modifications.
Enter the date of the public meeting.
15
16 x
Yes, No
Enter the number of citizens that attended and were informed about your SWPPP.
Enter the total number of individuals or organizations that provided comments on your
14
Enter the date of the public meeting.
If ‘Other’ in Q12, describe.
If ‘Public event’ in Q12, describe.
Enter the number of citizens that attended and were informed about your SWPPP.
12
If ‘Yes,’ What was the opportunity that you provided? Check all that apply.
Public meeting, Public event, Other.
13
If ‘Public meeting,’ did you hold a stand-alone meeting or combine it with another event?
Stand-alone, Combined
Instructions: Complete this annual report to provide a summary of your activities under the 2013 MS4 Permit (Permit) between January 1, 2014 and December 31, 2014. You may provide
additional explanation and/or information in an email with the subject YourMS4NameHere_2014AR to ms4permitprogram.pca@state.mn.us. MPCA staff may also contact you for additional
information.
Task to be Completed
11
You must provide a minimum of one opportunity each year for the public to provide input on the adequacy of your Stormwater Pollution Prevention
Program (SWPPP). Did you provide this opportunity between January 1, 2014 and December 31, 2014?
x
[Part III.D.2.a.(1)] Yes, No
MCM 2: Public Participation/Involvement
The following questions refer to Part III.D.2.a. of the Permit.
City Council Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 6c)
Title: 2014 Annual MS4 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) Meeting Page 10
2014 MS4 Annual Report Worksheet:
Item
Number Yes No
Current regulatory mechanism is consistent with regulatory standards
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Do you have written Enforcement Response Procedures (ERPs) to compel compliance with your illicit discharge regulatory mechanism(s)?
[Part III.B.] Yes, No
x30
Optional, describe status.
26
Did any of the discovered illicit discharges result in an enforcement action (this includes verbal warnings)?
x
Yes, No
24
25
If ‘Staff’ in Q23, enter the number discovered by staff.
If ‘Yes’ in Q21, how did you discover these illicit discharges? Check all that apply and enter the number of illicit discharges discovered by each category.
If ‘Public complaint’ in Q23, enter the number discovered by the public.
23
Instructions: Complete this annual report to provide a summary of your activities under the 2013 MS4 Permit (Permit) between January 1, 2014 and December 31, 2014. You may provide
additional explanation and/or information in an email with the subject YourMS4NameHere_2014AR to ms4permitprogram.pca@state.mn.us. MPCA staff may also contact you for additional
information.
Task to be Completed
19
Between January 1, 2014 and December 31, 2014, did you update your regulatory mechanism(s) which prohibits non-stormwater discharges to your MS4?
x
Yes, No
The following questions refer to Part III.D.3. of the Permit.
Public complaint, Staff
22
If ‘Yes’ in Q21, enter the number of illicit discharges detected.
20
Between January 1, 2014 and December 31, 2014, what was the status of this regulatory mechanism(s)?
Not yet started, Research, Development, Current regulatory mechanism sufficient. Optional, describe status.
21
Did you identify any illicit discharges between January 1, 2014 and December 31, 2014?
x
[Part III.D.3.h.(4)] Yes, No
MCM 3: Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination
27
If ‘Yes’ in Q26, what type of enforcement action(s) was taken and how many of each action were issued between January 1, 2014 and December 31, 2014?
Check all that apply.
Verbal warning, Notice of violation, Fines, Criminal action, Civil penalties, Other: describe.
For each of the above checked, enter the number that were issued.
29
If ‘No’ in Q28, why was the enforcement not sufficient to address the illicit discharge(s)?
28
If ‘Yes’ in Q26, did the enforcement action(s) taken sufficiently address the illicit discharge(s)?
Yes, No
City Council Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 6c)
Title: 2014 Annual MS4 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) Meeting Page 11
Complete
Other, individual discussions with key staff on how to adequately distribute the My St. Louis Park App.
GIS
Implement My St. Louis Park App for City employees to identify and locate illicit discharges
The following questions refer to Part III.C.1. of the Permit.
40
Between January 1, 2014 and December 31, 2014, did you modify your BMPs, measurable goals, or future plans for your illicit discharge detection and
elimination (IDDE) program?
x
[Part IV.B.] Yes, No
If ‘Yes,’ describe those modifications.
39
In what format is your storm sewer map available?
Hardcopy only, GIS, CAD, Other: describe.
38
Does your storm sewer map include all receiving waters?
x
[Part III.C.1.d.] Yes, No
37
Does your storm sewer map include all structural stormwater BMPs that are part of your MS4?
x
[Part III.C.1.c.] Yes, No
Does your storm sewer map include outfalls, including a unique identification (ID) number and an associated geographic coordinate?
[Part III.C.1.b.] Yes, No
35
Does your storm sewer map include all pipes 12 inches or greater in diameter and the direction of stormwater flow in those pipes?
x
[Part III.C.1.a.] Yes, No
34
Did you update your storm sewer system map between January 1, 2014 and December 31, 2014?
x
[Part III.C.1.] Yes, No
33
If ‘Yes’ in Q32, how did you train your field staff? Check all that apply.
Email, PowerPoint, Presentation, Video, Field Training, Other: describe.
32
Did you train all field staff in illicit discharge recognition (including conditions which could cause illicit discharges) and reporting illicit discharges for
further investigations?
x
[Part III.D.3.e.] Yes, No
36 x
31
If ‘No’ in Q30, Between January 1, 2014 and December 31, 2014, what was the status of your ERPs?
Not yet started, Research, Development.
Optional, describe status.
City Council Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 6c)
Title: 2014 Annual MS4 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) Meeting Page 12
2014 MS4 Annual Report Worksheet:
Item
Number Yes No
Developed
10
Verbal warnings and notice of violation
Verbal warnings: 15
Notice of Violations: 22
Developed
14
50
Do you have written procedures for identifying priority sites?
x
49
Enter the number of active construction sites an acre or greater that were in your jurisdiction between January 1, 2014 and December 31, 2014.
[Part III.D.4.d.(1)] Yes, No
47
Do you have written Enforcement Response Procedures (ERPs) to compel compliance with your construction site stormwater runoff control regulatory
mechanism(s)?
x
[Part III.B.] Yes, No
48
If No in Q47, Between January 1, 2014 and December 31, 2014, what was the status of your ERPs?
Not yet started, Research, Development
Optional: describe status.
Enter the number of site plan reviews conducted for sites an acre or greater between January 1, 2014 and December 31, 2014:
46
Verbal warnings, Notice of violation, Administrative orders, Stop-work orders, Fines, Forfeit of security of bond money, Withholding of certificate of
occupancy, Criminal actions, Civil penalties, Other: describe.
What types of enforcement actions do you have available to compel compliance with your regulatory mechanism? Check all that apply and enter the
number of each used from January 1, 2014 to December 31, 2014.
45
For each of the above checked, enter the number of enforcement actions issued.
43
Have you developed written procedures for site plan reviews as required by the Permit?
x
[Part III.D.4.b.] Yes, No
44
Have you documented each site plan review as required by the Permit?
x
[Part III.D.4.f.] Yes, No
42
If no in Q41, Between January 1, 2014 and December 31, 2014, what was the status of this regulatory mechanism?
Not yet started, Research, Development, Current regulatory mechanism sufficient.
Optional, describe status.
Instructions: Complete this annual report to provide a summary of your activities under the 2013 MS4 Permit (Permit) between January 1, 2014 and December 31, 2014. You may provide
additional explanation and/or information in an email with the subject YourMS4NameHere_2014AR to ms4permitprogram.pca@state.mn.us. MPCA staff may also contact you for additional
information.
MCM 4: Construction Site Stormwater Runoff Control
The following questions refer to Part III.D.4. of the Permit.
Task to be Completed
41
Between January 1, 2014 and December 31, 2014, did you update your regulatory mechanism to be at least as stringent as the Agency's general permit to
Discharge Stormwater Associated with Construction Activity (CSW Permit) No. MN R100001
x
(http://www.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/view-document.html?gid=18984) for erosion and sediment controls and waste controls?
[Part III.D.4.a.] Yes, No
City Council Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 6c)
Title: 2014 Annual MS4 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) Meeting Page 13
Site topography, types of receiving waters, compliance history, weather conditions, potential for groundwater contamination.
55
Twice a month and after a two year 24 hour rainfall event
3
Erick Francis efrancis@stlouispark.org 952-924-2690
Luke Ingram lingram@stlouispark.org 952-924-2666
Jim Vaughan jvaugn@stlouispark.org 952-924-2699
5005 Minnetonka Blvd, St. Louis Park, MN 55416
University of Minnesota Erosion and Stormwater Management Certification
Revised erosion control requirements, design standards, revise inspection process, provide employee training.
[Part IV.B.] Yes, No
56
Provide the contact information for the inspector(s) and/or organization that conducts construction stormwater inspections for your MS4. List your
primary construction stormwater contact first if you have multiple inspectors.
Information to provide: Inspector name, Organization, Phone (Office), Phone (Work cell), Email, Preferred contact method.
What training did inspectors receive? Check all that apply.
University of Minnesota Erosion and Stormwater Management Certification Program, Qualified Compliance Inspector of Stormwater (QCIS), Minnesota
Laborers Training Center Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan Installer or Supervisor, Minnesota Utility Contractors Association Erosion Control Training,
Certified Professional in Erosion and Sediment Control (CPESC), Certified Professional in Stormwater Quality (CPSWQ), Certified Erosion, Sediment and Storm
Water Inspector (CESSWI), Other: describe.57
58
Between January 1, 2014 and December 31, 2014, did you modify your BMPs, measurable goals, or future plans for your construction site stormwater
runoff control program? [Part IV.B.] Yes, No
x
54
Enter the frequency at which site inspections are conducted (e.g. daily, weekly, monthly).
55
Enter the number of trained inspectors that were available for construction site inspections between January 1, 2014 and December 31, 2014.
[Part III.D.4.d.(2)]
52 x
Do you have a checklist or other written means to document site inspections when determining compliance?
51
[Part III.D.4.d.(4)] Yes, No
53
Enter the number of site inspections conducted for sites an acre or greater between January 1, 2014 and December 31, 2014.
If Yes in Q50, How are sites prioritized? Check all that apply.
Site topography, Soil characteristics, Types of receiving water(s), Stage of construction, Compliance history, Weather conditions, Other: describe.
City Council Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 6c)
Title: 2014 Annual MS4 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) Meeting Page 14
2014 MS4 Annual Report Worksheet:
Item
Number Yes No
Yes
Updated
Retain a runoff volume equal to one inch times the area of the proposed increase of impervious surfaces on-site
Implemented.
Implemented new design standards
Not yet started, Research, Development.
64
Between January 1, 2014 and December 31, 2014, did you modify your BMPs, measurable goals, or future plans for your post-construction stormwater
management program? [Part IV.B.]
x
Yes, No
Optional: describe status.
If ‘Yes,’ describe those modifications.
63
If no in Q62, Between January 1, 2014 and December 31, 2014, what was the status of your ERPs?
Retain a runoff volume equal to one inch times the area of the proposed increase of impervious surfaces on-site, Retain the post-construction runoff volume
on site for the 95th percentile storm, Match the pre-development runoff conditions, Adopt the Minimal Impact Design Standards (MIDS), An approach has not
been selected, Other methods (Must be technically defensible—e.g. based on modeling, research and acceptable engineering practices).
62
Do you have written Enforcement Response Procedures (ERPs) to compel compliance with your post-construction stormwater management regulatory
x
[Part III.B.] Yes, No
If ‘Other methods,’ describe.
61
What approach are you using, or planning to use, to meet the performance standard for Volume, Total Suspended Solids (TSS), and Total Phosphorus (TP)
as required by the permit? [Part III.D.5.a.(2)] Check all that apply. Refer to the link http://www.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/view-
document.html?gid=17815 for guidance on stormwater management approaches.
City requires that discharges form a site cannot increase from the existing rate and discharge from the site resulting from the 6 inch event must be held on site
and released no greater than the 4.2 year rainfall event.
60
If No in Q59, Between January 1, 2014 and December 31, 2014, what was the status of this regulatory mechanism?
Not yet started, Research, Development, Current regulatory mechanism sufficient.
Optional: describe status.
Instructions: Complete this annual report to provide a summary of your activities under the 2013 MS4 Permit (Permit) between January 1, 2014 and December 31, 2014. You may provide
additional explanation and/or information in an email with the subject YourMS4NameHere_2014AR to ms4permitprogram.pca@state.mn.us. MPCA staff may also contact you for additional
information.
MCM 5: Post-Construction Stormwater Management
The following questions refer to Part III.D.5. of the Permit.
Task to be Completed
59
Between January 1, 2014 and December 31, 2014, did you update your regulatory mechanism(s) to incorporate all requirements as specified in Part
III.D.5.a. of the Permit?
x
Yes, No
City Council Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 6c)
Title: 2014 Annual MS4 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) Meeting Page 15
2014 MS4 Annual Report Worksheet:
Item
Number Yes No
Structural stormwater BMPs: 6
Outfalls: 236
Ponds: 57
Structural stormwater BMPs: 0
Outfalls: 100
Ponds: 57
City is reevaluating current standard operating procedures and documentation practices and are updating policies for 2015.
74
Between January 1, 2014 and December 31, 2014, did you modify your BMPs, measurable goals, or future plans for your pollution prevention/good
housekeeping for municipal operations program?
Yes
[Part IV.B.] Yes, No
If ‘Yes,’ describe those modifications.
73
If ‘Yes’ in Q72, briefly describe the maintenance that was conducted
72
If ‘Yes’ in Q71, based on inspection findings, did you conduct maintenance at any of the stockpiles and/or storage and material handling areas?
x
Yes, No
Stockpiles are located at Municipal Service Center and at tree deposit facility. City employees are at these two facilities 5 to 6 days
a week and are observed and maintained as material of dropped off and removed.
71
If ‘Yes’ in Q70, did you inspect all stockpiles and storage and material handling areas quarterly?
x
[Part III.D.6.e.(3)] Yes, No
70
Do you own or operate any stockpiles, and/or storage and material handling areas?
x
[Part III.D.6.e.(3)] Yes, No
If ‘Yes’ in Q68, briefly describe the maintenance that was conducted.
67
Have you developed an alternative inspection frequency for any structural stormwater BMPs, as allowed in Part III.D.6.e.(1) of the Permit?
x
Yes, No
69
68
Based on inspection findings, did you conduct any maintenance on any structural stormwater BMPs?
x
[Part III.D.6.e.(1)] Yes, No
City performed 1,200 catch basin inspections, repaired 125 CB's & CBMH's, 25 CB & CBMH rebuilds cleaned 90,516 linear feet of storm
sewer
66
Enter the number of structural stormwater BMPs, outfalls (excluding underground outfalls), and ponds that were inspected from January 1, 2014 to
December 31, 2014 within your MS4 (exclude privately owned). [Part III.D.6.e.]
Instructions: Complete this annual report to provide a summary of your activities under the 2013 MS4 Permit (Permit) between January 1, 2014 and December 31, 2014. You may provide
additional explanation and/or information in an email with the subject YourMS4NameHere_2014AR to ms4permitprogram.pca@state.mn.us. MPCA staff may also contact you for additional
information.
MCM 6: Pollution Prevention/Good Housekeeping for Municipal Operations
The following questions refer to Part III.D.6. of the Permit.
Task to be Completed
65
Enter the total number of structural stormwater BMPs, outfalls (excluding underground outfalls), and ponds within your MS4 (exclude privately owned).
City Council Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 6c)
Title: 2014 Annual MS4 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) Meeting Page 16
2014 MS4 Annual Report Worksheet:
Item
Number Yes No
See attached work sheet
Attach your completed TMDL Annual report form to the actual Annual Report as instructed within that document. [Part III.E.]76
Instructions: Complete this annual report to provide a summary of your activities under the 2013 MS4 Permit (Permit) between January 1, 2014 and December 31, 2014. You may provide
additional explanation and/or information in an email with the subject YourMS4NameHere_2014AR to ms4permitprogram.pca@state.mn.us. MPCA staff may also contact you for additional
information.
Discharges to Impaired Waters with a USEPA-Approved TMDL that Includes an Applicable WLA
Task to be Completed
Question blank to attach file
If you have been assigned a Waste Load Allocation (WLA) in a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) that was approved by the USEPA prior to August 1, 2013, and
were not meeting WLA(s) at the time of your permit application, you must complete the TMDL Annual Report Form, available at:
http://stormwater.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/Forms_and_guidance_for_TMDLs.
City Council Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 6c)
Title: 2014 Annual MS4 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) Meeting Page 17
2014 MS4 Annual Report Worksheet:
Item
Number Yes No
82
Any performance issues and corrective action(s), including date(s) when corrective action(s) were taken, between January 1, 2014 and December 31,
2014.
x
81
Calculated pounds of phosphorus removed
x
79
Gallons of alum or ferric chloride treatment
x
80
Gallons of water treated
x
78
Chemical(s) used for treatment
x
Instructions: Complete this annual report to provide a summary of your activities under the 2013 MS4 Permit (Permit) between January 1, 2014 and December 31, 2014. You may provide
additional explanation and/or information in an email with the subject YourMS4NameHere_2014AR to ms4permitprogram.pca@state.mn.us. MPCA staff may also contact you for additional
information.
Alum or Ferric Chloride Phosphorus Treatment Systems
The following questions refer to Part III.F.3.a. of the Permit. Provide the information below as it pertains to your alum or ferric chloride phosphorus treatment system.
Task to be Completed
77
Date(s) of operation
x
City Council Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 6c)
Title: 2014 Annual MS4 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) Meeting Page 18
2014 MS4 Annual Report Worksheet:
Item
Number Yes No
84
If ‘Yes’ in Q83, describe the agreements you have with other regulated MS4s and which permit requirements the other regulated MS4s help satisfy:
[Part IV.B.6.]
Work with Metro Watershed Partners for additional training, Minnehaha Creek Watershed District for project permitting, Bassett Creek
Watershed Management Commission for project permitting. Partnership with Minneapolis to improve the quality of water in the Minneapolis
Chain of Lakes. MCWD, Minneapolis, Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board, and Hennepin County to improve overall water quality.
Instructions: Complete this annual report to provide a summary of your activities under the 2013 MS4 Permit (Permit) between January 1, 2014 and December 31, 2014. You may provide
additional explanation and/or information in an email with the subject YourMS4NameHere_2014AR to ms4permitprogram.pca@state.mn.us. MPCA staff may also contact you for additional
information.
Partnerships
Task to be Completed
83
Did you rely on any other regulated MS4s to satisfy one or more permit requirements?
xYes, No
City Council Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 6c)
Title: 2014 Annual MS4 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) Meeting Page 19
2014 MS4 Annual Report Worksheet:
Item
Number Yes No
88
Optional, describe the file(s) uploaded.
x
86
Question left blank to attach file
x
87
Question left blank to attach file
x
Instructions: Complete this annual report to provide a summary of your activities under the 2013 MS4 Permit (Permit) between January 1, 2014 and December 31, 2014. You may provide
additional explanation and/or information in an email with the subject YourMS4NameHere_2014AR to ms4permitprogram.pca@state.mn.us. MPCA staff may also contact you for additional
information.
Additional Information
If you would like to provide any additional files to accompany your annual report, use the space below to upload those files. For each space, you may attach one file.
Task to be Completed
85
Question left blank to attach file
x
City Council Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 6c)
Title: 2014 Annual MS4 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) Meeting Page 20
- 1 -
Appendix M: Erosion Control and Stormwater Management Plan Guidelines
Erosion and Sediment Control Plan and Site Management Guidelines
Outlined below are the City’s guidelines for erosion and sediment control plan (SWPPP)
development, SWPPP implementation, and ongoing site maintenance:
Projects Requiring Permits: All projects disturbing 5,000 square feet or excavating,
filling, or stockpiling 50 cubic yards of material within the City must be compliant with
NPDES, Minnehaha Creek Watershed, Bassett Creek Watershed Management
Organization, or any other regulatory agency having jurisdiction within the City, erosion
and sediment control guidelines
Site Plan Requirements: Site plan design shall be adequate to prevent erosion and the
transportation of sediment and other pollutants from the permitted site to the satisfaction
of the City Engineer. At a minimum, the plan should include the following items so plan
review can begin.
1. Provide schedule for overall project construction, phasing, and erosion and
sediment control plan implementation
2. Identify an adequately trained erosion control supervisor, SWPPP amendment
procedures, record retention, and rainfall monitoring policies
3. Identify BMP’s to minimize erosion
4. All exposed soils shall be stabilized within seven days of inactivity
5. Slopes along surface waters require soil stabilization within 72 hours
6. Slopes greater than 3:1 or greater require a category 3 erosion control blanket
7. Identify BMP’s to minimize sedimentary and other pollutant discharges
8. All down gradient slopes shall have adequate sediment and pollutant controls that
will not allow sediment or other pollutants to overtop or to undermine the BMPs
9. Outline a process and BMP’s for dewatering activities
10. All dewatering activities require an individual site plan to be submitted to the City
Engineer and to include, at a minimum, sampling protocol for selected pollutants,
identification and protection plan for downstream receiving waters, adequate
treatment process to reduce pollutants and to protect downstream receiving waters
11. Provide BMP maintenance timelines and practices per NPDES guidelines
a. Guidelines for maintenance of sediment control BMPs (24 hours)
b. Implementation of erosion control BMPs (no greater than 7 days)
c. Stabilize ditches and outfalls with adequate BMPs (24 hours)
12. Define the management practices of solid and hazardous wastes per NPDES
guidelines:
a. No vehicle washing on site will be allowed
b. Hazardous materials must be kept in secured location
c. Concrete washout and slurry must not come in contact with pervious
surfaces
13. Provide design calculations for the use of temporary sediment basins for sites
greater than five acres.
City Council Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 6c)
Title: 2014 Annual MS4 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) Meeting Page 21
- 2 -
14. Plan must implement construction phasing, maintain vegetative buffer strips,
horizontal slope grading, and minimize the need for disturbance.
15. Additional site plan design may be required to meet TMDL requirements.
16. Review of erosion and sediment control plan cannot begin until all of these
aforementioned criteria have been met.
Construction Activity Requirements: During the construction process the Owner and
Contractor must maintain site wide compliance as defined within their SWPPP and with
NPDES and local watershed standards
Material testing and quantity verification requirements: Permittee’s and contractors are
required to work closely with City to ensure that the installation, application, location,
and quantity of the selected erosion and sediment control BMP are in conformance with
the approved plans and specifications for the project. The City reserves the right to refuse
any work that is not in conformance with the approved plans and specifications for the
project or is deemed to be inadequate due to existing conditions.
Project Closeout: The following outlines the City’s project certification and permit
closeout procedures to ensure that the project has been completed in conformance with
the plans and specification developed for project that are one acre or greater. The
permittee shall implement the following to obtain final project closeout.
1. Permittee shall provide the City Engineer with an as-built grading plan as defined
in the City’s erosion and sediment control plan requirements and design
Guidelines (section 02050 Standard Specifications).
2. The City will withhold all securities until the approved certified as-built grading
plan has been approved by the City Engineer.
Final Stabilization Plan: Plan to establish permanent perennial vegetative cover to
prevent erosion of the soil and include the following:
Provide final soil stabilization and or landscaping plan
Define specific vegetation species and locations within the project
Define performance standard and schedule for desired vegetative cover
Define soil amendments and usage of fertilizers
Outline long term vegetation maintenance practices
City Council Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 6c)
Title: 2014 Annual MS4 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) Meeting Page 22
- 3 -
Stormwater Management Design Requirements
Stormwater Management Plan: A plan must be submitted to the City which describes
how runoff and associated water quality impacts resulting from the development will be
controlled or managed. This plan must indicate whether stormwater will be managed on-
site or off-site and, if on-site, the general location and type of practices. This final plan
must be signed by a licensed professional engineer (PE), who will verify that the design
of all stormwater management practices meet the submittal requirements of the
Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan (CWRMP).
Stormwater Management Plan Required for all new developments and redevelopment
project which resulting in site disturbance that is one acre or greater or any project that
proposes 10,000 square feet of new impervious surface. Construction of a single family
home is exempt from this requirement.
The stormwater management plan shall detail how runoff and associated water quality
impacts resulting from the project will be controlled or managed. This plan must indicate
whether stormwater will be managed on-site or off-site and, if on-site, the general
location and type of practices. This plan should also conform to the requirements of the
jurisdictional watershed district.
A stormwater management plan submitted to the City of St. Louis Park must meet the
following requirements:
Phosphorus Control
Construction projects subject to this rule shall result in no net increase in
phosphorus loading from existing conditions.
Total Suspended Solids
Construction projects subject to this rule shall result in no net increase in Total
suspended solids loading from existing conditions.
Rate Control
For all projects subjected to this rule, the site design shall provide on-site facilities
for post-construction conditions to ensure that discharge rates from the 6.0 inch
24 hour rainfall event is no greater than the existing discharge rates from a 4.2-
inch 24 hour rainfall event.
Volume Control
For all projects subjected to this rule, the stormwater management plan must
provide for the abstraction of the first one inch of rainfall from the site’s
impervious surface. Credit toward compliance with the one inch volume control
standard will be calculated by the applicant using industry accepted hydrologic
models and Appendix A: Volume Abstraction Credit Schedule, following
guidance provided in the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency’s Minnesota
Stormwater Manual.
City Council Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 6c)
Title: 2014 Annual MS4 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) Meeting Page 23
- 4 -
Stormwater Management Limitations.
Applicant shall fully attempt to comply with the appropriate performance goals described
above. Options considered and presented shall examine the merits of relocating project
elements to address, varying soil conditions and other constraints across the site. If full
compliance is not possible due to any of the factors listed below, the applicant must
document the reason.
Volume reduction techniques considered shall include infiltration, reuse & rainwater
harvesting, and canopy interception & evapotranspiration and/or additional techniques
included in the Minnesota Stormwater Manual. Higher priority shall be given to BMPs
that include volume reduction. Secondary preference is to employ filtration techniques,
followed by rate control BMPs. Factors to be considered for each alternative will include
following restricted and prohibited site conditions:
Restricted Infiltration Areas:
1. Hydraulic Soil Group D (clay) Soil
2. Within 1,000 feet up-gradient, or 100 feet down-gradient of active karst
features.
3. Drinking Water Source Management Areas or within 200 feet of drinking
water well per MN R.4720.5100, subp. 13
4. Poor soils (infiltration rates that are too low or too high, above 8.3 inches
per hour, or problematic urban soils)
5. Zoning, setbacks, prohibited areas, or other land use requirements
Prohibited Infiltration Areas:
1. Where industrial facilities are not authorized to infiltrate industrial
stormwater under an NPDES/SDS Industrial Stormwater Permit issued by
the MPCA.
2. Where vehicle fueling and maintenance occur.
3. With less than three feet of separation distance from the bottom of the
infiltration system to the elevation of the seasonally saturated soils or the top
of bedrock.
4. Where high levels of contaminants in soil or groundwater will be mobilized
by the infiltrating stormwater.
5. Zoning, setbacks, prohibited areas, or other land use requirements
Mitigation Provisions: In the case that infiltration practices cannot be implemented on
site, steps must be taken to mitigate stormwater runoff volume, rate, and pollutant
reduction. This may include off site or regional treatment for additional volume retention,
additional pollutant or reduction. The City Engineer and all permitting agencies must
approve all mitigation projects and document who is responsible for the long term
maintenance of the facility. Mitigation project areas, if approved, are selected in the
following order of preference:
1. Locations that yield benefits to the same receiving water that receives runoff from
the original construction activity.
2. Locations within the same watershed area as the original construction activity.
City Council Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 6c)
Title: 2014 Annual MS4 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) Meeting Page 24
- 5 -
3. Locations in the next adjacent upstream watershed.
4. An alternate location within the City of St. Louis Park.
5. Mitigation projects must involve the creation of new structural stormwater BMPs
or the retrofit of existing structural stormwater BMPs, or the use of a properly
designed regional structural stormwater BMP.
6. Routine maintenance of structural stormwater BMPs already required by this
permit cannot be used to meet mitigation requirements of this part.
7. Mitigation projects shall be completed within 24 months after the start of the
original construction activity.
8. The City’s Engineering Department shall determine, and document, who will be
responsible for long-term maintenance on all mitigation projects of this part.
9. If a regional project has been identified, the City of St. Louis Park may consider a
cash payment from the owner and/or operator of a construction activity for
mitigation purposes in lieu of the owner or operator of that construction
activity meeting the conditions for post-construction stormwater management.
Upon receipt of a cash payment in lieu of onsite treatment, a project must be
implemented with the designated funds. Mitigation projects must be
completed within two years upon the start of construction of the project.
Maintenance: All stormwater management structures and facilities must be designed for
maintenance access and properly maintained in perpetuity to assure that they continue to
function as designed. Permit applicants must provide a maintenance plan that identifies
and protects the design, capacity and functionality of onsite and offsite stormwater
management facilities; specifies the methods, schedule and responsible parties for
maintenance; provides for the maintenance in perpetuity of the facility; and contains at a
minimum the requirements in the City of St. Louis Park’s standard maintenance
declaration. The plan will be recorded on the deed in a form acceptable to the District. A
public entity assuming the maintenance obligation may do so by filing with the District a
document signed by an official with authority.
City Council Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 6c)
Title: 2014 Annual MS4 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) Meeting Page 25
- 6 -
Stormwater Management Design Requirements
The following information shall be provided to describe the conditions which will exist
on the site following completion of final construction of structures and improvements
General Requirements
Proposed drainage plan and hydraulic calculations are dated and signed by a
licensed professional.
Size of the project shown:
o Existing impervious and pervious surface areas of the site.
o Ultimate (when site fully developed) impervious and pervious surface of
the site.
Plan is drawn in 2-foot contours. Existing contours are dashed and proposed are
solid. All contours are labeled and legible. Where applicable, extend existing 2-
foot contour lines a minimum 100 feet beyond the site boundary or more to
accurately depict the drainage patterns.
Existing vegetation: Describe and identify the location of existing vegetation.
Areas not to be disturbed clearly defined.
On-site soil characteristics and groundwater elevations.
Existing drainage: Show pre-developed drainage areas, land use and the direction
of flow for each area and travel path used to determine the Time of Concentration.
Final drainage: Show post-developed drainage areas, land use and the direction of
flow for each area and travel path used to determine the Time of Concentration.
Identify off-site catchment areas draining to the site. Provide 2-foot contours.
Show land use and the direction of flow for each area and travel path used to
determine the Time of Concentration.
Existing public and private utilities shown.
All receiving waters, including wetlands, identified.
Property limits shown. Streets labeled. Lot and block information shown if
platted. Street address shown if unplatted.
A long-term inspection and maintenance plan for all permanent stormwater
treatment practices is required to be submitted with the SWPPP following the
City’s examples.
o Existing and proposed drainage easements shown and labeled on the plan.
o All existing and proposed lot corner elevations shown to the nearest tenth
of a foot.
o Control/spot elevations for drainage ways provided.
Building pads, type of house to be built, garage floor elevation, lowest floor
elevation and lowest opening elevation are shown.
Driveway slope, from garage to the gutter is shown.
Lowest opening elevation: Min. 2 feet above 100-year HWL and min. 1 foot
above emergency overflow elevation.
Pipe size, length, grade and material shown
Top of castings and all inverts of catch basins and manholes shown. Label storm
drain structures.
City Council Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 6c)
Title: 2014 Annual MS4 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) Meeting Page 26
- 7 -
Overflow design to be considered for events greater than storm sewer system
design event.
Infiltration/Filtration
Refer to the Minnesota Stormwater Manual for specific infiltration/filtration
practices.
Infiltration systems shall meet volume control standards as set by the City.
Filtration systems shall achieve approximately 80% removal of total suspended
solids.
Infiltration or filtration systems should not be excavated to final grade until the
contributing drainage area has been constructed and fully stabilized.
During construction of infiltration or filtration systems, rigorous erosion
prevention and sediment controls (e.g. diversion berms) should be used to keep
sediment and runoff completely away from the infiltration or filtration area. The
area must be staked off and marked so that heavy construction equipment will not
compact the soil in the proposed infiltration or filtration area.
Area to be infiltrated or filtrated shall be delineated on plans.
Calculations or computer model results that demonstrate the design adequacy of
the infiltration or filtration system must be included as part of the SWPPP.
The water quality volume shall discharge through the soil surface or filter media
in 48 hours or less. Additional flows that cannot be infiltrated or filtered in 48
hours should be routed to bypass the system through a stabilized discharge point.
A way to visually verify that the system is as designed must be provided.
Appropriate on-site testing is required and must be consistent with the
recommendations in the Minnesota Stormwater Manual. Testing shall be
conducted to verify soil types, infiltration capacity characteristics, and to ensure a
minimum of 3 feet of separation from the seasonally saturated soils (or from
bedrock) and the bottom of the proposed infiltration system.
Adequate maintenance access must be provided (typically 12 ft. wide).
Provide scaled drawing of infiltration or filtration BMP, with typical detail and
typical cross section. Outline area which runoff is directed to the BMP. As part of
the drawing set submittal, provide in table form the following information:
Alternative Volume Reduction and Treatment Practices: Green Infrastructure techniques
and practices (including, but not limited to, infiltration, evapotranspiration,
reuse/harvesting, conservation design, urban forestry, green roofs), shall be given
preference as design options consistent with zoning, subdivision and PUD requirements.
Alternative practices must follow requirements and recommendations in the Minnesota
Stormwater Manual.
City Council Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 6c)
Title: 2014 Annual MS4 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) Meeting Page 27
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: June 15, 2015
Action Agenda Item: 8a
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: CUP Allowing Off-site Parking, Reducing Required Parking Amount, and Excavation
at 7400 Excelsior Blvd
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to Adopt Resolution approving a Conditional Use
Permit (CUP) to allow off-site parking, a reduction in the amount of required parking, and
excavation at 7400 Excelsior Boulevard of more than 400 cubic yards of material, subject to
conditions recommended by staff.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the proposed CUP meet the conditions of the Zoning
Ordinance?
SUMMARY: Japs-Olson is in the process of planning a 192,000 square foot addition to the
existing 512,850 square foot building located at 7500 Excelsior Blvd. The addition will require
the relocation of their parking lot to a property they purchased at 7400 Excelsior Blvd. The
parking lot relocation requires three approvals from the Council, all covered by one CUP:
1. Providing required parking on a parcel separate from the principal building.
2. Reducing the amount of parking. City Code allows the Council to approve a reduction in the
amount of required parking when a conditional use permit is required for the development
activity, and when verifiable information pertaining to parking is submitted to justify the
decreased parking. This is not a variance, so the variance criteria do not apply.
3. More than 400 cubic yards of material is removed from the site.
The CUP was presented to the Planning Commission on May 20, 2015, where a public hearing
was conducted. Nobody spoke at the public hearing, and the Planning Commission
recommended approval.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion
Aerial Photo
Draft Resolution
Excerpt of Planning Commission Minutes
Letter from Applicant
Parking Lot Site Plans
Building Site Plan
Prepared by: Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator
Reviewed by: Sean Walther, Senior Planner
Michele Schnitker, Housing Supervisor
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 8a) Page 2
Title: CUP Allowing Off-site Parking, Reducing Required Parking Amount, and Excavation at 7400 Excelsior Blvd
DISCUSSION
Zoning: IG General Industrial
Comprehensive Plan: Industrial
Applicant: Japs-Olson Company, Mr. Robert Murphy, Chairman
Description of Request:
Requested is a Conditional Use Permit to construct an off-site parking lot, reduce the amount of
required parking, and export more than 400 cubic yards of material.
Location:
The property consists of two parcels. The westerly property is improved with the existing Japs-
Olson building, the easterly property is the Appliancesmart building which is proposed to be
removed and replaced with a parking lot that will service the Japs-Olson building after it is
expanded.
Analysis:
Japs-Olson is a direct mail and commercial printing facility located on the northwest corner of
Excelsior Blvd and Meadowbrook Road. Japs-Olson has been in business for 107 years, and has
operated at this location since 1997. They would like to expand their building; however, the
proposed expansion requires the relocation of their parking lot. The property to the east of their
printing facility (Appliancesmart) was purchased with the intent of removing the existing
building and constructing a new parking lot that would provide almost all of the required parking
for the printing facility.
The expansion will be completed in two phases. First, the Applicant will remove the
Appliancesmart building and construct the parking lot improvements. Then they will complete
the expansion of the building. The CUP is required for the parking lot improvements.
Additional approvals including a plat and municipal boundary change will be required for the
second phase.
City Council Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 8a) Page 3
Title: CUP Allowing Off-site Parking, Reducing Required Parking Amount, and Excavation at 7400 Excelsior Blvd
Building Expansion (Phase 2):
A site plan showing the proposed expansion is attached to this report. The existing building is
512,850 square feet in area. The addition is 192,000 square feet, and will result in a total
building size of 704,850 square feet.
The expansion will require the removal of a second building, currently located in the City of
Hopkins. It is a 23,000 square foot building located at the northeast corner of Excelsior Blvd and
Powell Road. As discussed previously with the City Council, the cities of St. Louis Park and
Hopkins are working together to relocate the municipal boundary so this building will be located
in St. Louis Park and other properties will go to Hopkins. The expansion will also displace
approximately 500 parking spaces currently located on Powell Road on the west side of the Japs
Olson building.
Municipal Boundary Change:
The exhibit above shows the existing and proposed municipal boundary change. After the cities
finalize the proposal, the application to amend the municipal boundary will be submitted to the
State for approval. After it is approved, the Applicant will submit a plat to combine all
properties on the northeast corner of Excelsior Blvd and Powell Road.
Parking:
As noted above, the expansion will displace approximately 500 parking places. The parking
spaces will be replaced by a new parking lot proposed in the Phase 1 project, which is the subject
of this CUP application and discussed below.
City Council Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 8a) Page 4
Title: CUP Allowing Off-site Parking, Reducing Required Parking Amount, and Excavation at 7400 Excelsior Blvd
Zoning Analysis:
A Conditional Use Permit (CUP) is required for the following reasons:
1. Off-site parking is allowed by CUP.
2. City Code allows a reduction in the amount of required parking when processed in
conjunction with a CUP.
3. A CUP is required to remove more than 400 cubic yards of material.
Off-Site Parking:
Exhibits showing the proposed parking lot improvements are attached for your review and
reference. Section 36-361(h) of the zoning ordinance allows off-site parking with the following
conditions:
1. Paved pedestrian access shall be provided and maintained between the off-site parking
facility and the principle structure.
This condition is met. There is an existing sidewalk along Excelsior Blvd, and the
Applicant proposes to construct a new sidewalk along Meadowbrook Road. Pedestrian
access from the parking lot to the Meadowbrook Road sidewalk will be provided.
Additionally, a crosswalk will be installed to direct pedestrians across Meadowbrook
Road to the Japs Olson building and employee entrances. Sidewalk improvements will
be made on the west side of Meadowbrook Road to safely direct pedestrians to the
employee entrances.
2. The off-site parking facility shall be located no further than 300 feet from a residential
structure and no further than 500 feet from a non-residential structure. Shuttle service
may be provided as an alternative means of access for non-residential uses.
This condition is met. The proposed parking lot is located 71 feet from the Japs Olson
property line, and 124 feet from the employee entrances into the building.
3. Off-site parking facilities shall be protected by an irrevocable covenant recorded by the
County. A certified copy of the recorded document shall be provided to the Zoning
Administrator within 60 days after approval of the agreement by the City Council.
This condition is met. It is also a condition of approval of the CUP. The CUP will be
automatically revoked if the irrevocable covenants are not recorded.
Parking Counts:
The Applicant is currently operating with a
parking variance that was granted in 1989 and
reaffirmed in 1996 when an addition was
constructed. The parking required for the existing
building is 815 spaces. The variance approved in
1996 reduced the parking to 586 spaces, a
reduction of 229 spaces. The primary reason for
the variance is that the nature of the business
requires large machinery that occupies most of the
space, thereby reducing the capacity and need for
employees.
Parking
West side of Meadowbrook 58 spaces
East side of Meadowbrook
(constructed) 514 spaces
East side of Meadowbrook
(Proof of parking) 237 spaces
On-street 16 spaces
Total Provided: 825 spaces
Required spaces: 1,244 spaces
Less transit reduction: 124 spaces
Total Required: 1,120 spaces
Requested Reduction: 295 spaces
City Council Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 8a) Page 5
Title: CUP Allowing Off-site Parking, Reducing Required Parking Amount, and Excavation at 7400 Excelsior Blvd
The proposed project will increase the required parking spaces by 305 spaces, from 815 spaces to
1,120 spaces. It will also increase the number of parking spaces provided from 586 spaces to
825 spaces. The requested reduction is 295 spaces, which compared to the existing variance,
represents a reduction of an additional 66 spaces. (Note that staff is recommending that the
existing variance be rescinded. The requested reduction of 295 spaces replaces the existing
variance of 229 spaces; it is not in addition to it.)
History has shown that the parking variance was justified. Japs Olson has been operating
successfully since 1997 without parking complaints or parking issues, and despite the parking
variance, the parking lot is still consistently only half to two-thirds full.
Attached to the report, is a letter from the Applicant detailing the number of employees working
at the site. Japs-Olson currently has 614 employees working over three shifts. With the
proposed addition, the total number of employees will increase to 764. The 764 employees will
also be spread over three shifts in the following manner:
1st Shift: 405 employees
2nd Shift: 130 employees
3rd Shift: 229 employees
Each shift has staggering start times, which will ease the need for parking during the transition
between shifts. Also, many employees utilize public transportation, although an exact number is
not known.
Therefore, staff supports the Applicant’s request for the parking reduction and reserving 237 of
the required spaces as proof of parking. Both the reduction and the proof of parking will reduce
the expense of constructing and maintaining parking spaces the Applicant is convinced won’t be
needed, (which is also supported by the history of successfully operating with the parking
variance), and which is consistent with the City’s goal of reducing the size of parking lots when
possible and practical.
Bicycle Parking:
City Code requires bicycle parking spaces equal to at least 10% of the required automobile
parking spaces. As noted above, with the proposed reduction, 825 parking spaces are required.
Therefore, 83 bicycle parking spaces are required. The plan shows 30 spaces. An additional 53
spaces must be provided, although the Applicant can show some of the spaces as proof of bicycle
parking.
Setbacks:
The zoning ordinance requires a five foot minimum setback from property lines adjacent to
streets. The proposal shows a five foot setback from the west property line, adjacent to
Meadowbrook Road. It also shows a considerable setback ranging from 60 to 120 feet from
Excelsior Blvd. The purpose of this setback is two-fold, to accommodate proof of parking, and
to accommodate future right-of-way n eeds along Excelsior Blvd. Hennepin County has been
improving Excelsior Blvd in phases over the past several years, and this section of Excelsior
Blvd is anticipated to be completed within five years.
City Council Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 8a) Page 6
Title: CUP Allowing Off-site Parking, Reducing Required Parking Amount, and Excavation at 7400 Excelsior Blvd
Access:
The access from Excelsior Blvd is an existing access that will be incorporated into the parking
lot layout. Hennepin County has reviewed the plan, and accepted the access.
The two driveways on Meadowbrook Road meet the distance requirement from Excelsior Blvd,
and line up with the drive aisle in the parking lot.
Landscaping:
The landscaping ordinance requires one tree per 50 feet of site perimeter, which translates to 53
trees. The Applicant is proposing to install 56 trees. The landscaping plan shows these trees to
be planted along Excelsior Blvd and Powell Road. Additional trees will be planted throughout
the parking lot in the required landscaped islands. Additionally shrubs will be planted in
required screening areas between the parking lot and the streets and within the landscaped
islands.
Stormwater:
The stormwater treatment will be sized to treat runoff from the proposed parking lot (including
the proof of parking), and to include the existing building on the west side of Meadowbrook
Road. The runoff from the proposed building addition is not included because the Applicant has
an agreement with the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) to divert this runoff to a
treatment pond located in Hopkins.
Most of the water generated by the parking lot will be pre-treated in three rain gardens located in
the middle of the parking lot. The rain gardens will drain into the main treatment area located to
the north and east of the parking lot. The proposed plan meets the City and MCWD
requirements. The MCWD, however, is working with the Applicant to incorporate the
stormwater pond into the existing wetland located to the east with the goal of providing the
required stormwater treatment and enhancing the natural habitat. Therefore, the proposed plan,
as shown, will be constructed only if the MCWD, in cooperation with the Applicant, does not
complete the anticipated enhancements.
A financial guarantee will be submitted to the City to guarantee the construction of the proposed
stormwater improvements. Staff is recommending that the approved stormwater plan can be
administratively replaced by a plan submitted to the City in partnership with the MCWD.
Parking Reduction:
City Code allows a reduction in the amount of required parking when processed in conjunction
with a CUP. There are no conditions specific to this request. Consideration to a reduction is
given to factors such as size of building, type of use, number of employees, expected volume and
turnover of customer traffic, expected frequency and number of delivery or service vehicles, and
reasonable factors pertaining to the use.
As noted above, Japs Olson has successfully since 1997 with a large parking variance.
Additionally given the nature of the operations and the size of the machinery in use, the parking
reduction is reasonable. Attached are two letters from the Applicant that summarize the number
of employees working at the site, and actual use of the parking lot during shift changes. The
findings support the history and the requested reduction.
City Council Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 8a) Page 7
Title: CUP Allowing Off-site Parking, Reducing Required Parking Amount, and Excavation at 7400 Excelsior Blvd
Excavation:
A CUP is required when more than 400 cubic yards of material are removed from a site. The
construction of the parking lot will exceed this limit. The haul route to remove the material will
include Excelsior Blvd to Hwy 169 or Hwy 100. No local streets will be utilized.
Planning Commission Review:
The Planning Commission conducted the public hearing on May 20, 2015. No comments from
the public were received, and the Planning Commission recommended approval of the CUP. A
copy of the meeting minutes is attached.
City Council Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 8a) Page 8
Title: CUP Allowing Off-site Parking, Reducing Required Parking Amount, and Excavation at 7400 Excelsior Blvd
AERIAL PHOTO
City Council Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 8a) Page 9
Title: CUP Allowing Off-site Parking, Reducing Required Parking Amount, and Excavation at 7400 Excelsior Blvd
RESOLUTION NO. 15-_____
A RESOLUTION RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. 8-96 AND
GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT UNDER SECTION 36-361(h)
OF THE ST. LOUIS PARK ORDINANCE CODE RELATING TO
ZONING TO PERMIT OFF-SITE PARKING, SECTION 36-361(c)(1) TO
ALLOW A REDUCTION IN THE AMOUNT OF REQUIRED PARKING
SPACES, AND SECTION 36-79(b) TO ALLOW THE EXCAVATION OF
MORE THAN 400 CUBIC YARDS OF MATERIALS ALL AT PROPERTY
ZONED GENERAL INDSTRIAL (IG) LOCATED AT
7400 EXCELSIOR BLVD
BE IT RESOLVED BY the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park:
Findings
1. Japs-Olson Company, Mr. Robert Murphy, Chairman has made application to the City
Council for a Conditional Use Permit under the following sections of the City Code pertaining
to zoning:
Section 36-361(h) to allow off-site parking
Section 36-361(c)(1) to allow a reduction in the amount of required parking spaces
Section 36-79(b) to allow the excavation of more than 400 cubic yards of material
2. The Conditional Use Permit is requested for property zoned General Industrial (IG),
located at 7400 Excelsior Blvd legally described as follows, to-wit:
TRACT D, REGISTERED LAND SURVEY NO. 1674,
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
3. The City Council has considered the advice and recommendation of the Planning
Commission (Case No. 15-08-CUP) and the effect of the proposed conditional use permit on
the health, safety and welfare of the occupants of the surrounding lands, existing and
anticipated traffic conditions, the effect on values of properties in the surrounding area, the
effect of the use on the Comprehensive Plan, and compliance with the intent of the Zoning
Ordinance.
4. The Council has determined that the conditional use permit will not be detrimental to the
health, safety, or general welfare of the community nor will it cause serious traffic congestion
nor hazards, nor will it seriously depreciate surrounding property values, and it is in harmony
with the general purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan.
5. The contents of Planning Case File 15-08-CUP are hereby entered into and made part of
the public hearing record and the record of decision for this case.
City Council Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 8a) Page 10
Title: CUP Allowing Off-site Parking, Reducing Required Parking Amount, and Excavation at 7400 Excelsior Blvd
Conclusion
Resolution No. 8-96 is hereby rescinded, and the Conditional Use Permit to allow off-site
parking, a reduction in the amount of required parking spaces, and to excavate more than 400
cubic yards of material at the location described is granted based on the findings set forth above
and subject to the following conditions:
1. The number of required parking spaces is reduced to 825 spaces. This reduction is approved
for the floor plan shown on Exhibit D. Any other change in use, modification, addition, or
re-use of the building shall comply with parking regulations required at the time of the
change.
2. The site shall be developed, used and maintained in conformance with the Official Exhibits.
a. Exhibit A: Site Plan
b. Exhibit B: Landscaping Plan
c. Exhibit C: Lighting
d. Exhibit D: Grading & Drainage Plan
e. Exhibit D: Floor Plan
3. One crosswalk located mid-block on Meadowbrook Road is allowed. The crosswalk shall be
installed and maintained by the property owner.
4. 83 bicycle parking spaces shall be provided.
5. The approved stormwater plan may be administratively amended by replacing the approved
plan with a revised plan submitted in partnership with the Minnehaha Creek Watershed
District.
6. All trucks used for excavation and removal of materials shall utilize Excelsior Blvd.
7. The site shall meet all fire lane requirements.
8. Prior to commencing land disturbing activities:
a. The off-site parking shall be protected by a permanent and recorded covenant approved
reviewed and approved by the City Attorney.
b. A sidewalk easement shall be provided for sections of the public sidewalk located on
private property.
c. A financial guarantee in the amount of 125% of the estimated cost of improvements shall
be submitted to ensure the completion of the landscaping, sidewalk, and stormwater
improvements.
d. All necessary permits must be obtained, including from the Minnehaha Creek Watershed
District (MCWD).
e. Approval of permits, which may impose additional requirements.
9. The applicant shall comply with the following conditions during construction:
a. The site shall be kept free of dust and debris that could blow onto neighboring properties.
b. Public streets shall be maintained free of dirt and shall be cleaned as necessary.
c. The Zoning Administrator may impose additional conditions if it becomes necessary in
order to mitigate the impact of excavation on surrounding properties.
10. In addition to any other remedies, the developer or owner shall pay an administrative fee of
$750 per violation of any condition of this approval.
11. Under the Zoning Ordinance Code, this permit shall be revoked and cancelled if the building
or structure for which the conditional use permit is granted is removed.
12. The City Clerk is instructed to record certified copies of this resolution in the Office of the
Hennepin County Register of Deeds or Registrar of Titles as the case may be.
City Council Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 8a) Page 11
Title: CUP Allowing Off-site Parking, Reducing Required Parking Amount, and Excavation at 7400 Excelsior Blvd
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council June 15, 2015
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
City Council Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 8a) Page 12
Title: CUP Allowing Off-site Parking, Reducing Required Parking Amount, and Excavation at 7400 Excelsior Blvd
EXCERPT OF OFFICIAL MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
May 20, 2015 – 6:20 p.m.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MEMBERS PRESENT: Robert Kramer, Lisa Peilen,
Richard Person, Carl Robertson,
Ethan Rickert (youth member)
MEMBERS ABSENT: Lynne Carper, Claudia Johnston-Madison, Joe Tatalovich
STAFF PRESENT: Alex Boyce, Ryan Kelley, Gary Morrison,
Sean Walther, Nancy Sells
3. Public Hearings
A. Conditional Use Permit for Off-Site Parking
Location: 7400 and 7500 Excelsior Boulevard
Applicant: Japs-Olson Company
Case No.: 15-08-CUP
Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator, presented the staff report. He explained
that the Conditional Use Permit is requested to construct an off-site parking lot, reduce
the amount of required parking, and export more than 400 cubic yards of soil. He
discussed the proposed expansion of the building which would require the relocation of
the parking lot. Mr. Morrison reviewed all conditions related to the Conditional Use
Permit request.
Commissioner Rickert asked about the duration of the proposed excavation.
Bruce Quam, D.J. Crans Co., project general contractor, responded that the excavation
process, including rough grading, will take about one month.
Chair Person opened the public hearing. As no one was present wishing to speak he
closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Robertson stated it is a straightforward and exciting project. He asked
that before the City Council review the accessible access parking aisles be drawn at 8 ft.
wide (Minn. Code) rather than 5 ft., and final parking numbers be adjusted.
Commissioner Peilen said she agreed that it is exciting to see Japs Olson expand. She
noted they have been in St. Louis Park a long time and it is a good project.
Commissioner Robertson made a motion to recommend approval of the Conditional Use
Permit subject to conditions recommended by staff. Commissioner Kramer seconded
the motion, and the motion passed on a vote of 4-0.
City Council Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 8a) Title: CUP Allowing Off-site Parking, Reducing Required Parking Amount, and Excavation at 7400 Excelsior BlvdPage 13
City Council Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 8a) Title: CUP Allowing Off-site Parking, Reducing Required Parking Amount, and Excavation at 7400 Excelsior BlvdPage 14
City Council Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 8a) Title: CUP Allowing Off-site Parking, Reducing Required Parking Amount, and Excavation at 7400 Excelsior BlvdPage 15
City Council Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 8a) Title: CUP Allowing Off-site Parking, Reducing Required Parking Amount, and Excavation at 7400 Excelsior BlvdPage 16
City Council Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 8a) Title: CUP Allowing Off-site Parking, Reducing Required Parking Amount, and Excavation at 7400 Excelsior BlvdPage 17
City Council Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 8a) Title: CUP Allowing Off-site Parking, Reducing Required Parking Amount, and Excavation at 7400 Excelsior BlvdPage 18
City Council Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 8a) Title: CUP Allowing Off-site Parking, Reducing Required Parking Amount, and Excavation at 7400 Excelsior BlvdPage 19
City Council Meeting of June 15, 2015 (Item No. 8a) Title: CUP Allowing Off-site Parking, Reducing Required Parking Amount, and Excavation at 7400 Excelsior BlvdPage 20