HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015/01/26 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - Study SessionAGENDA
JANUARY 26, 2015
6:15 p.m. SOUTHWEST LRT BAC INTERVIEW – Community Room
6:30 p.m. CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION – Community Room
Discussion Items
1. 6:30 p.m. Future Study Session Agenda Planning – February 2 and 9, 2015
2. 6:35 p.m. Outdoor Refrigerated Ice Update
3. 7:20 p.m. Small Business Assistance Program Update
4. 7:50 p.m. Municipal Boundary Change with the City of Hopkins/Japs-Olson Building
Expansion
5. 8:20 p.m. Boards and Commissions Appointment Process
9:05 p.m. Communications/Meeting Check-In (Verbal)
9:10 p.m. Adjourn
Written Reports
6. Southwest LRT Update
7. December 2014 Monthly Financial Report
8. Fourth Quarter Investment Report (October – December 2014)
9. Zoning Text Amendment – Outside Storage in the Industrial Park District
10. Proposed Acquisition Terms of 5725 Highway 7 (former McGarvey Coffee property)
11. Health in the Park Update
12. Rezoning of Meadowbrook Golf Course
Auxiliary aids for individuals with disabilities are available upon request.
To make arrangements, please call the Administration Department at
952/924-2525 (TDD 952/924-2518) at least 96 hours in advance of meeting.
Meeting: Study Session
Meeting Date: January 26, 2015
Discussion Item: 1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Future Study Session Agenda Planning – February 2 and February 9, 2015
RECOMMENDED ACTION: The City Council and the City Manager to set the agenda for
the Special Study Session on February 2, 2015 and the regularly scheduled Study Session on
February 9, 2015.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the Council agree with the agenda as proposed?
SUMMARY: At each study session approximately five minutes are set aside to discuss the next
study session agenda. For this purpose, attached please find the proposed discussion items for
the Special Study Session on February 2, 2015 and the regularly scheduled Study Session on
February 9, 2015.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Future Study Session Agenda Planning February 2 & 9, 2015
Prepared by: Debbie Fischer, Office Assistant
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of January 26, 2015 (Item No. 1) Page 2
Title: Future Study Session Agenda Planning – February 2 and February 9, 2015
Special Study Session, February 2, 2015 – 6:30 p.m.
Tentative Discussion Items
1. Development Proposal for Properties at 13th Lane and Texas Avenue – Community
Development (20 minutes)
A multi-family development is being proposed on two MnDOT parcels near Wayzata Blvd.
The developer will attend and present the development concept for the Council’s review and
initial feedback.
Study Session, February 9, 2015 – 6:30 p.m.
Tentative Discussion Items
1. Future Study Session Agenda Planning – Administrative Services (5 minutes)
2. MAC Noise Report – Inspections (30 minutes)
MAC staff will be presenting the results of last year’s Noise Monitoring Study in St. Louis
Park and Edina.
3. Broadband and Fiber Update – Information Resources (30 minutes)
Update for Council on what has been accomplished since a 2012 study of the city’s fiber optic
network possibilities, some planned initiatives, and potential opportunities for provision of
enhanced broadband services on the part of private providers. Council will be asked for policy
direction on planned initiatives and potential opportunities.
4. Southwest LRT – Community Development (30 minutes)
Discussion will be on station area improvements and related upcoming public processes.
5. Small Cell Antennae Applications – Engineering (30 minutes)
The city has received requests from two telecommunication providers, AT&T and Verizon,
to install small antennas on existing poles in the City. These antennas would be accompanied
with a utility box to be located in the ROW within the Browndale and Minikahda Vista
Neighborhoods.
Communications/Meeting Check-In – Administrative Services (5 minutes)
Time for communications between staff and Council will be set aside on every study session
agenda for the purposes of information sharing.
End of Meeting: 8:40 p.m.
Reports
6. Proposed Allocation of FY2015 CDBG Funds
7. Open to Business Update
Meeting: Study Session
Meeting Date: January 26, 2015
Discussion Item: 2
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Outdoor Refrigerated Ice Update
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff desires direction on the policy question below.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Is Council supportive of authorizing staff to begin the next
phase of the design process, which is design development, and negotiate a specific written
agreement with the Hockey Association for the Councils consideration?
SUMMARY: At the Study Session held on October 27, 2014, Council was presented with the
results of the schematic design for an outdoor refrigerated ice rink at The Rec Center. The site is
in the northwest corner of The Rec Center campus. The Hockey Association has discussed their
desire for outdoor refrigerated ice for several years. While the Association has discussed a
number of sites, their preference is adjacent to The Rec Center. Staff and the Hockey Association
believe there are many synergies’ created by having this facility near The Rec Center. The idea is
to create a year-round community resource and gathering place. Staff has worked with RSP
Architects and members of the St. Louis Park Hockey Association to prepare a schematic design
for an outdoor refrigerated rink at the Rec Center. The scope of this project is a covered 200’ by
85’ refrigerated outdoor ice rink with related support spaces (resurfacer storage garage, parking)
and additional future site improvements/amenities.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: The cost estimate for the next phase -
design development - is $41,619. The total estimated cost of the entire project is $5,635,833.
This project is being proposed in one phase, per Councils direction from the October 27, 2014
Council Study Session. It includes the complete construction of the outdoor refrigerated rink, a
fabric roof, ice resurfacer (Zamboni), garage for the resurfacer, parking, locker room space,
viewing plaza, storage and the potential for other site improvements At this time the Hockey
Association is willing to commit a total of $1.55 million to the capital cost of the project. Thus
far the Hockey Association has deposited $300,000 with the City and proposes to repay the
remaining$1.25 million over time with a minimum payment of $100,000/yr. Attached is a letter
of intent outlining their contribution to the project.
VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged
community.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion
Schematic Design from RSP Architects
Cost Estimates from RJM
SLP HA Letter of Intent
Draft Operating Pro Forma
Hockey Association Financial Review from Ehlers, Inc.
Prepared by: Jason Eisold, Rec Center Manager
Reviewed by: Cindy S. Walsh, Director of Operations and Recreation
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of January 26, 2015 (Item No. 2) Page 2
Title: Outdoor Refrigerated Ice Update
DISCUSSION
BACKGROUND: The Hockey Association and the City of St. Louis Park have a long history of
partnerships. They have participated financially in the east rink addition, the skate shop
renovation, and the public address system in the arena.
The intent for this proposed facility is to be a year-round community asset. Although it will be
primarily a skating rink, the idea is to use this facility during the spring, summer and fall for
other activities and events. Staff has met with the soccer, lacrosse, baseball, and track youth
associations and all have expressed interest in using the facility for practice when spring weather
does not allow outdoor fields to be used. The cost of turf is included in this estimate. This space
can also be used for other activities such as craft fairs, pet expos, dog training, concerts, farmers
markets, and garage sales.
SCHEMATIC DESIGN RESULTS: The Feasibility Study recommended locating the new
outdoor refrigerated ice rink and related facilities adjacent to the existing Rec Center building in
order to utilize the existing infrastructure and facilitate management of the rink. The current
design includes:
• Refrigerated rink with adequate slab beyond dasher boards and a Tensile (fabric) roof
• Ice resurfacer (Zamboni) garage
• Parking to accommodate 38 stalls
• Artificial turf (to be used seasonally when the ice comes out)
• Locker rooms
• Storage
• Viewing plaza
• Potential for other site improvements as bid alternates (outdoor fire place, expanded pool
deck space, storage)
OCTOBER 24th QUESTIONS: At the October 24th study session, council requested additional
information from staff on the questions listed below; supporting information is provided.
• Samples of roof material (to be shared at study session).
• Operating Pro Forma (see attached).
• Current building code/ordinance on use of tensile (fabric) roof material: currently there is
not an ordinance/code restricting the use of tensile (fabric) as a roof material. Community
Development staff will be in attendance at the study session should questions come up.
• Why tensile (fabric) roof vs. steel? A tensile roof allows the roof to undulate more. This
allows the roof to be installed lower to the ground to help shield the facility (South from
winter sun; West from wind; North to follow the grade and not be so monumental).
Translucence will afford some "free" lighting. Aesthetics - Lighter structure reduces
visual weight and mass of the roof. Steel joists would require a soffit to protect from bird
nesting. RSP will be in attendance to address any questions.
• Detailed payment breakdown of Hockey Association contribution and funding source for
City portion: see attached letter of intent from the Hockey Association. Thus far the
Hockey Association has deposited $300,000 with the City and proposes to repay the
remaining$1.25 million over time with a minimum payment of $100,000/yr. Project
financing would come from the sale of GO Bonds. Staff will also be pursuing grants for
the project.
Study Session Meeting of January 26, 2015 (Item No. 2) Page 3
Title: Outdoor Refrigerated Ice Update
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: The cost estimate of the next phase, design
development is $41,619. The total estimated cost of the entire project is $5,635,833.
This project is being proposed in one phase, per Council direction from the October 27, 2014
Council study session. It includes the complete construction of the outdoor refrigerated rink, a
fabric roof, ice resurfacer (Zamboni), garage for the resurfacer, parking, locker room space,
viewing plaza, storage and the potential for other site improvements At this time the Hockey
Association is willing to commit a total of $1.55 million to the capital cost of the project,
attached is an intent letter outlining their contribution to the project.
Staff asked Mark Ruff, Senior Financial Advisor/Director of Ehlers, Inc., to review the financial
status of the St. Louis Park Hockey Association and to identify any concerns regarding the
ability of the Association to continue to make annual capital contributions that they have
pledged. While there are always risks involved with undertaking this type of project with a youth
association, he believes that they are more stable and better governed than most youth
associations. Mark’s comments are attached to this report.
Operating Pro Forma: Staff has drafted an operating pro forma based on other outdoor arenas
and number of hours we hope to see ice/turf/dry floor activities. At this point in time, our hope is
to break even. The first year of operation will definitely be a year of learning for us. We are
proposing to sell outdoor ice at $90 and $100 per hour. Our hourly turf rate is $25 per hour. The
pro forma is attached.
SKATE PARK RELOCATION: There is $85,000 in the 2015 CIP budget to purchase new
skate park equipment. Regardless of whether the skate park changes locations, the equipment is
in need of replacement. Staff has some ideas of adding amenities like a “pump track” to be used
by bicycles and skate boarders. At this time, staff is recommending that the skate park move to
EDA owned property on the corner of Beltline and 36th Street. This keeps the skate park in the
same vicinity of The Rec Center that it is now. If at some point in the future the EDA has a
development proposal for this site, the skate park could be relocated.
NEED FOR OUTDOOR REFRIGERATED ICE: The Hockey Association has approximately
500 families involved in their program. They currently use ice at The Rec Center’s two existing
rinks and have a need for more hours than they are able to acquire at The Rec Center. They
purchase additional ice from a private company and from neighboring arenas. Building an
outdoor refrigerated rink would provide more hours of available ice for practices and games to
be played in the city.
NEXT STEPS: If there is an interest in continuing the design process, it is recommended that
staff move forward to design development. In addition, it is further recommended that staff begin
to negotiate a final agreement with the Hockey Association and begin plans to relocate the skate
park, possibly this summer.
Staff is asking for a decision on moving forward, as well as approval to move forward on the
entire project, by April 15th. This timeline will allow staff to design the necessary specs starting
in May for the refrigeration system replacement. The refrigeration system replacement of the
current Rec Center systems is scheduled for installation in the spring of 2016.
Study Session Meeting of January 26, 2015 (Item No. 2) Page 4
Title: Outdoor Refrigerated Ice Update
If Council decides not to go ahead with the project now and does add it at a later date, the
increased cost in refrigeration would be $300,000 to build a stand along system. In addition,
there would need to be a building to house the outdoor refrigerated rink equipment at an
approximate cost of $100,000. The total additional cost would be $400,000 if a decision is made
to add the outdoor rink/refrigeration system at a later date.
Study Session Meeting of January 26, 2015 (Item No. 2) Title: Outdoor Refirgerated Ice UpdatePage 5
RESURFACER218.4COACH'SOFFICEEXISTHS SLPGIRLSEXISTLOCKERROOM HEXISTMECHANICALEXISTHS BSMGIRLSEXISTHS SLPBOYSEXISTEXISTING RAMPICE PIT WITHFLOOR DRAINT.O. SLABEL. = 173' - 2"T.O. SLABEL. = 179' - 8"RELOCATED FENCECENTERED ON COLUMNSRELOCATED FENCE,SEE SITE PLANOFFICIALSEXISTPOOLMECHEXISTLOCKERROOM EEXISTLOCKERROOM FEXISTLOCKERROOM GEXISTEXISTING FLOORDRAINT.O. CONCRETEEL. = 179' - 0"T.O. CONCRETEEL. = 179' - 0"SLAB EXTENSION FORWARMING TRAILEREXISTING COOLINGTOWER STRUCTURETO REMAINRETAINING WALL5' - 2"200' - 0"6' - 0"15' - 0"10' - 11"85' - 0"8' - 1"NEW SIDEWALKEXISTING FENCENEW FENCE LOCATIONPARKING LIGHTPARKING LIGHTR S P A R C H I T E C T SSt. Louis Park, Minnesota October 8, 2014RINK LEVEL - PHASE 1Study Session Meeting of January 26, 2015 (Item No. 2) Title: Outdoor Refirgerated Ice UpdatePage 6
RESURFACER218.4COACH'SOFFICEEXISTHS SLPGIRLSEXISTLOCKERROOM HEXISTMECHANICALEXISTHS BSMGIRLSEXISTHS SLPBOYSEXISTLOCKERROOM I218.13EXISTING RAMPCITYMECHANICAL218.14UNASSIGNEDSTORAGE218.15ICE PIT WITHFLOOR DRAINT.O. SLABEL. = 177' - 0"RELOCATED STAIRNEW 3'-4" x 8'-2"OPENINGT.O. SLABEL. = 175' - 6"NEW DOOR AND STAIRT.O. SLABEL. = 173' - 2"T.O. SLABEL. = 175' - 6"EL - 184' - 3" (VERIFY)T.O. GRADEEL - 175' - 4" (VERIFY)T.O. POOL DECKKEYSTONE WALLT.O. WALLEL. = 182' - 6"T.O. SLABEL. = 179' - 8"RELOCATED FENCE,SEE SITE PLANOFFICIALSEXISTSCOREBOARDPOOLMECHEXISTDASHER BOARDSTORAGE STACKED 2HIGH ON SHELVESGLASS STORAGELOCKERROOM EEXISTLOCKERROOM FEXISTLOCKERROOM GEXISTEXISTING FLOORDRAINPERVIOUS PAVERS W/GRASS. GRASS PAVEOR EQUALRAMPGAS FIRE PIT INRAISED BENCHSPORT FLOOR IN LOCKER ROOMS, HALL,AND WAITING. EXTEND TO RINK DOOR@ EXTERIORNEW ULTILITYLOCATIONS IF REQ'D.EL = 179' - 2 1/2"EXISTINGLOCKERROOM L218.5LOCKERROOM M218.6WAITING218.12SLABSTORAGE218.7STORAGE218.10STORAGE218.9T.O. SLABEL. = 181' - 0"T.O. SLABEL. = 179' - 0"R S P A R C H I T E C T SSt. Louis Park, Minnesota October 8, 2014RINK LEVEL - PHASE 2Study Session Meeting of January 26, 2015 (Item No. 2) Title: Outdoor Refirgerated Ice UpdatePage 7
R S P A R C H I T E C T SSt. Louis Park, Minnesota October 8, 2014 1" = 20'-0"NORTH ELEVATION - PHASE 11 1" = 20'-0"NORTH ELEVATION - PHASE 22Study Session Meeting of January 26, 2015 (Item No. 2) Title: Outdoor Refirgerated Ice UpdatePage 8
R S P A R C H I T E C T SSt. Louis Park, Minnesota October 8, 2014VIEW FROM 36THStudy Session Meeting of January 26, 2015 (Item No. 2) Title: Outdoor Refirgerated Ice UpdatePage 9
R S P A R C H I T E C T SSt. Louis Park, Minnesota October 8, 2014VIEW FROM POOL DECKStudy Session Meeting of January 26, 2015 (Item No. 2) Title: Outdoor Refirgerated Ice UpdatePage 10
R S P A R C H I T E C T SSt. Louis Park, Minnesota October 8, 2014ENTRY PLAZA - PHASE 1Study Session Meeting of January 26, 2015 (Item No. 2) Title: Outdoor Refirgerated Ice UpdatePage 11
R S P A R C H I T E C T SSt. Louis Park, Minnesota October 8, 2014ENTRY PLAZA - PHASE 2Study Session Meeting of January 26, 2015 (Item No. 2) Title: Outdoor Refirgerated Ice UpdatePage 12
BUDGET SUMMARY
ESTIMATE DATE:
PROJECT:
ARCHITECT:
DRAWING DATE:
Base
DESCRIPTION Notes Estimate
Construction Costs
Building Expansion $1,121,929
Roof Structure - Rink $1,841,840
Ice Rink $549,945
Dasher Boards $178,500
Zamboni Room $59,604
Zamboni Used machine $60,000
Earthwork $159,798
Asphalt $35,658
Site Concrete $48,800
Retaining Walls $28,700
Site Utilities Allowance $50,000
Landscaping Allowance $15,000
Survey $3,500
General Conditions $120,000
Temp Fencing $5,768
General Liability Insurance $28,414
Builders Risk Insurance $7,893
Building Permit $57,135
Bond $39,450
Subtotal Construction Costs $4,411,934
Escalation 3%$132,358
Contingency 7%$318,100
Contractor's Fee 2.95%$143,441
A&E Design Fees $205,000
Additional Capacity to Refrigeration $250,000
Turf $175,000
SAC/WAC Fees Allowance $15,000
Construction Estimate Total $5,635,833
ALTERNATES:
No. 1:Add $78,632
No. 2:Add $272,708
No. 3:Add $142,773
No. 4:Add $16,445
No. 5:Add $114,638
Sub-Total:$625,197
6,000SF (team rooms, storage and ext. improvements)
Expand Zamboni structure to create Nest viewing area.
Single level storage area.
Add a second level to storage area.
Fire pit and structure.
Pool terrace extended slab. Concrete slab-on-grade with ramp
St. Louis Park Ice Sheet
RSP Architects
September 29, 2014
January 19, 2015
Study Session Meeting of January 26, 2015 (Item No. 2)
Title: Outdoor Refirgerated Ice Update Page 13
Study Session Meeting of January 26, 2015 (Item No. 2)
Title: Outdoor Refirgerated Ice Update Page 14
Study Session Meeting of January 26, 2015 (Item No. 2)
Title: Outdoor Refirgerated Ice Update Page 15
OUTDOOR ARENA
Income Statement Pro Forma 1/13/2015
Assume $5 increase in ice costs every 2 years
Revenue Year 1
Ice Rental Revenues 38,500$ 150 hours per year @ $90/hr; 250 @ $100/hour
Turf Rentals 1,000$ 5 hours per week for 8 weeks @ $25/hour
Open Skate/Hockey 2,500$
Dry Floor Rentals 2,000$ $500/month for 4 months; June-Sept
Operating Income/Net Sales 44,000$
Assume 3% Increase Year-Over-Year
Expenses Year 1
Utilities (electric, water/sewer)*29,750 *Based off of Edina's pro forma
Operational Supplies 4,000 Rink paint, zamboni fuel, misc. supplies
Staffing 6,000 400 hours @ $15/hour
Capital Replacement/Unforeseen Expenses 5,000
Total Operating Expenses 44,750$
Operating Income (Loss)(750)
Estimated Cost Recovery Operating Expenses 98%
Year 1
Fund Balance as of Beg of Year -$
Fund Balance as of End of Year (750)$
Study Session Meeting of January 26, 2015 (Item No. 2)
Title: Outdoor Refirgerated Ice Update Page 16
Study Session Meeting of January 26, 2015 (Item No. 2)
Title: Outdoor Refirgerated Ice Update Page 17
Meeting: Study Session
Meeting Date: January 26, 2015
Discussion Item: 3
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Small Business Assistance Program Update
RECOMMENDED ACTION: No action required at this time. Per previous Council direction
staff desires to review with the Council current or future City programs and resources aimed at
assisting local small businesses and discuss possible future initiatives.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Are the small business programs and resources identified in
this report consistent with the Councils expectations?
SUMMARY: St. Louis Park is home to over 4,900 total businesses. These enterprises employ
nearly 42,000 workers and comprise a sizable portion of the city’s tax capacity. Small business is
integral to the economic strength enjoyed in St. Louis Park and their vitality has a direct bearing
on the community’s future prosperity. The City recognizes the vital role small business plays in
its economy and believes it has a vested interest in seeing that small businesses find St. Louis
Park fertile ground for starting, growing and expanding their enterprises. To that end, the City
provides a variety of resources, services and programs aimed at helping its local small businesses
succeed. The following report highlights the City’s new and existing small business assistance
offerings and identifies potential future initiatives.
(Note – the SBA generally defines a small business as having fewer than 500 employees. This
standard is used to determine eligibility for the SBA’s programs. For purposes of the study
session discussion, City staff would define a small business as having 50 or fewer employees.)
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: The EDA may wish to consider making an
allocation within the Development Fund for a small business revolving loan fund. The concept
and precise allocation amount will require further discussion.
VISION CONSIDERATION: Not Applicable
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion
Small Business Resources Brochure
Prepared by: Julie Grove, Planning & Economic Development Assistant
Reviewed by: Greg Hunt, Economic Development Coordinator
Michele Schnitker, Housing Supervisor
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager and EDA Executive Director
Study Session Meeting of January 26, 2015 (Item No. 3) Page 2
Title: Small Business Assistance Program Update
DISCUSSION
While in some respects all City departments have a responsibility to aid the community’s small
businesses, it is the charge of the Community Development Department in general and its
Economic Development Division in particular, to oversee the City’s small business assistance
programs. The primary objective of these efforts is to help entrepreneurs and small business
managers successfully start, grow, and expand their enterprises in the city.
New Initiatives
Small Business Liaison – In an effort to meet the above objective, the responsibilities of the
Planning and Economic Development Assistant has been expanded to also serve as Small
Business Liaison. This new role will offer small business owners and managers a single point of
contact for various small business assistance information. The Small Business Liaison will be the
point person for referring businesses to the wide variety of small business assistance resources
and programs offered locally and by various metro agencies and organizations. The Small
Business Liaison will also help businesses search for appropriate available properties within St.
Louis Park. Furthermore, the Small Business Liaison will help businesses determine the permit,
licensing and zoning requirements pertinent to their particular projects, provide guidance on city
permit and approval processes, as well as respond to questions and concerns as they arise.
Customized Business Consultant – In the event a business owner needs additional step-by-step
assistance beyond that which the Small Business Liaison can provide, is uncomfortable
completing required applications, or simply lacks the time to go through the approval process
themselves, the City has partnered with a business consultant-Donna Sanders with JBS Business
Solutions. This consultant can act in several capacities. She can serve as a general advisor to help
businesses navigate the City regulatory process as it applies to such things as locating a business,
changing the use within a building, or other matters related to expanding and remodeling. She
can meet with city officials to help a business through the development review process or she can
be more hands-on and assume the full responsibility of completing applications and obtaining the
necessary licenses, permits, or zoning approvals on behalf of clients. Ms. Sanders has experience
assisting businesses in Minneapolis obtain various permits and approvals.
JBS Business Solutions’ services can be accessed either by a referral from the Small Business
Liaison or from the City’s web site. The City will pay for an initial consultation with Ms.
Sanders for up to two hours. If the client feels they need additional, more hands-on, assistance,
the client may retain the services of the consultant at her normal hourly consulting rate at their
expense. The consultant will invoice the City at a rate of $90 per hour for up to two hours of
service, not to exceed $180 per project. The City has entered into this arrangement with JBS
Business Solutions on a pilot basis. Staff will be monitoring the services provided by the
consultant and assess the frequency of these services and their effectiveness.
The above initiatives augment other business resources and programs currently offered by the
City. These include the following:
Current Small Business Services/Resources
Web Listing of Available Small Business Resources - On its web site the City provides a section
outlining the various small business resources available in St Louis Park and the metro area.
Information can be found on starting or expanding a business, financing options, obtaining City
Study Session Meeting of January 26, 2015 (Item No. 3) Page 3
Title: Small Business Assistance Program Update
approvals, as well as a robust list of links to other agencies and organizations that offer
assistance.
Business Advisor Services - The City provides small business advising services through its Open
to Business program. Through this program the City offers one-on-one technical assistance to
existing local businesses, aspiring entrepreneurs, and parties interested in opening a business in
St. Louis Park. The assistance is provided through a contract with the Metropolitan Consortium
of Community Developers (MCCD). Business owners and managers receive counseling with a
business advisor from the MCCD staff who provide help with planning and organizing business
ideas, financial management, marketing, regulatory compliance, and assistance with leases or
property purchases. Business advisors help develop business and marketing plans, identify both
strategic and financial challenges and opportunities, and tailor solutions. They also help connect
entrepreneurs to potential financing options and resources as well as training programs,
community services, and industry contacts. MCCD also offers a small business loan program.
Advising sessions occur at City Hall the fourth Monday of each month from 9 a.m. to 11 a.m. or
by appointment at the place of business. The service is free to those who live or work in St.
Louis Park. A few of the last year’s highlights from this program include:
• Direct loans totaling $115,240 to St. Louis Park residents and businesses;
• Capital leveraged: $924,000;
• Served 68 entrepreneurs with a St. Louis Park connection;
• Provided 345 technical assistance hours;
• Assisted a SLP business with accessing a $7,500 STEP grant for export assistance.
The 2014 annual report on this program will be provided in February. The City has offered the
Open to Business program since 2011. The annual cost of this service to the EDA is $10,000.
Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) - is a new, alternative financing tool that will help St.
Louis Park building owners make energy efficient upgrade investments in their properties and
reduce their utility bills. PACE eliminates up-front costs and provides low-cost, long-term, fixed
rate financing that is repaid through a voluntary special assessment carried on a building’s
property taxes. The City now offers this financing program through a Joint Powers Agreement
with the St. Paul Port Authority (SPPA) which administers the program at no cost the City and
provides the up-front financing. The City Council approved this program last November. During
2015 Staff will be working to make this program operational and promote its benefits. Staff has
been in discussion with several property owners who have expressed interest in utilizing this
program.
Business Retention and Expansion - A business retention and expansion (BR&E) visitation
program was recently launched in an effort to build relationships, share information, collect data,
identify and respond to particular needs, and assist with potential expansion plans. Staff has been
working jointly with Greater MSP on this effort. As part of this initiative a new BR&E survey
was developed to help Staff gain greater insight into local companies’ operations and facility
needs. Additionally a contact list was prepared of key personnel at the City to which businesses
could refer in the event they had a specific question or concern. Staff hopes to visit 12-24
businesses a year, depending on available Staff time. The ultimate objective of this program is to
retain jobs and tax revenues within the community, foster the growth and development of local
firms and enhance St. Louis Park’s reputation as a strategic place in which to do business.
Study Session Meeting of January 26, 2015 (Item No. 3) Page 4
Title: Small Business Assistance Program Update
Web-based Property Searches – So as to enable businesses to more-readily research available
properties in St. Louis Park, Staff has been working to add a link on the City’s website that
allows for a more user-friendly property search as well as a method for submitting their search
request on-line to the Business Liaison. This webpage is expected to be completed and
operational in the next few months.
Outreach - In an effort to further promote the City’s various small business assistance offerings a
new marketing brochure was recently prepared. The brochure highlights all the resources,
services and programs currently available through the City. The intent was to package the above
in a single, convenient promotional piece. A copy of the brochure is attached. Additionally the
small business assistance pages on the City’s web site have recently been reformatted making
them easier to navigate. Small business assistance information will also be highlighted in the
Park Perspective, in newsletters and on Park TV. Staff will also be working with the
Information Resources Department to help determine the most effective methods for marketing
the City’s small business resources, services and programs.
Looking Forward
Staff is routinely researching other small business programs that the City could potentially offer
on a cost-effective basis. Below are several initiatives that Staff is currently considering.
Financing Programs - One of the most frequent inquiries Staff receives is whether the City has
any financing programs available. Conventional financing can be challenging for a small
business to secure, especially for start-ups, due to insufficient collateral or a limited track record.
Fortunately, there are multiple financial institutions and organizations (locally and in the metro
area) that can provide financing to local businesses and Staff frequently makes referrals to these
entities. For instance, MCCD currently offers a micro loan to businesses; however it has
drawbacks in that the maximum loan amount is $25,000 and has a higher interest rate.
Occasionally there are instances in which, due to unique circumstances, a local company needs a
little additional capital to fill its financing gap to purchase some equipment or pursue an
expansion or they exhaust nearly all their existing capital in the down payment and, as a result,
lack sufficient operating capital to effectively run the business. In these types of circumstances it
would be helpful if the EDA offered a program that provided additional gap financing.
The EDA used to offer a Commercial Rehabilitation Loan Fund; however it was suspended in
favor of participation in a metro-wide revolving loan pool called the Twin Cities Community
Capital Fund (TCCF). Unfortunately, the TCCF dissolved last year. As noted above, there are
valid reasons for the EDA offering its own revolving loan fund to provide gap financing for
commercial or industrial capital improvements. However, there are greater risks associated with
operating such a program independently and it requires significant Staff time to properly
underwrite, package and service these loans.
To alleviate the above concerns, Staff has been investigating other existing small business
lending programs with which the EDA could partner. One such entity is the Central Minnesota
Development Company (CMDC). CMDC is a nonprofit SBA Certified Development Company
located in the north metro. It can offer below market, fixed rate loans in conjunction with local
lenders that require lower down payments and up to 20-year terms. It was named one of
Minnesota’s Top 10 SBA Lenders and is one of only 25 Premier Certified Lenders in the nation.
CMDC has partnered with a number of cities in the area, including Brooklyn Park, Bloomington,
Burnsville, Coon Rapids, Minneapolis, and South St. Paul, and manages their revolving loan
Study Session Meeting of January 26, 2015 (Item No. 3) Page 5
Title: Small Business Assistance Program Update
portfolio through a management contract. Under such an arrangement, CMDC would administer
the program, conduct the underwriting, do a credit analysis, collect loan payments, and provide
quarterly payments and report to the City. Financing is available for land and buildings,
machinery and equipment. To streamline the lending process, loan decisions could be based on
criteria pre-established jointly by the CMDC and the EDA.
How would such a revolving loan fund be initially capitalized? One idea might be through a
public /private match in which the EDA agrees to commit up to a certain dollar amount (such as
$300,000 to 500,000) if private sector entities (such as financial institutions, community-minded
companies, utilities, and various other organizations) would commit to a like amount. The EDA
funds would be a set-aside from within the Development Fund. If the EDA were interested in
pursuing such a program it could enter into consulting contract with one CMDC principals under
which they would establish the program and conduct the fund raising. This or other potential
loan programs would require further research and discussion at future study sessions if the EDA
is interested.
Doing Business with the City (Purchasing: SLP-based vendor list & encourage local small
businesses to bid for City contracts) - In an effort to encourage the City government to buy local
and support local businesses, it is proposed that a St. Louis Park-based vendor list be created.
Under this program any St. Louis Park business wishing to have its goods or services considered
by City purchasers would voluntarily apply to be on a list. While it would not guarantee the City
would purchase a product or services it would allow a local business the opportunity to have its
name in front of City purchasers and compete for City purchases. The City of Burnsville offers a
similar program. Additionally, it is proposed that the City encourage local small businesses to
bid for city contracts by providing more detailed information on project contracts and the City’s
bidding process. This could include a sign up for notification of contract opportunities, provide
links to educational training on procurement processes and identify ways that a small business
could better position themselves as a potential bidder. Staff would work with other departments
citywide to determine the feasibility of this program and how it could be designed and
implemented.
Workforce Development, MN Workforce Center – One of the biggest concerns facing local
companies is a shortage of qualified labor. To address this growing challenge Staff has begun
working with the business representative from DEED’s Workforce Center assigned to St. Louis
Park. Together Staff hopes to explore new ways in which local businesses could find, recruit and
train potential employees. Ideas being discussed include providing workshops, access to training,
job fairs and sponsoring a business visitation program between local manufactures and high
school students.
Staff would like feedback on the above initiatives and whether the EDA/Council wishes for Staff
to further explore them. Staff is also interested in any other ideas the EDA/Council may wish to
consider related to aiding the community’s small businesses recognizing that any such initiatives
would require balancing available resources.
Resources
Experience BUSINESS in the Park
St. Louis Park is a vibrant, engaged and innovative
community that is home to approximately 48,000
residents and 2,700 employers. Recently named the
27th Best Place to Live in the US by Livability.com,
St. Louis Park has been designated ve-times as one
of the 100 Best Places for Young People by America’s
Promise Alliance.
St. Louis Park o ers employers multiple location
advantages such as an easily accessible, central location
within the inner-ring of the Twin Cities. Located
immediately west of Minneapolis, the city is less than
ve miles from downtown and 15 miles from the
Minneapolis/St. Paul International Airport (MSP).
Businesses here enjoy reduced commute times due to
convenient access to multiple highways that can take
them quickly in any direction within the metro area.
To see all the reasons St. Louis Park makes an ideal
business location, visit our website:
Community profi le: s l p m n . u s / p r o l e
City website: stlouispark.org
Resources
SMALL BUSINESS
Experience BUSINESS in the ParkEconomic DevelopmentCity of St. Louis Park5005 Minnetonka Blvd. St. Louis Park, MN 55416Study Session Meeting of January 26, 2015 (Item No. 3)
Title: Small Business Assistance Program Update
Page 6
Helping Businesses Navigate in the Park
Small Business Liaison
inking about starting, expanding or relocating a
business in St. Louis Park and need to know what
regulations may apply or what approvals or permits
may be necessary? Our small business liaison can help.
What can the small business liaison do for you?
• Explain the city approval processes.
• Respond to questions, concerns.
• Search available properties.
• Answer questions regarding process, permit and
licensing.
• Provide contact information for additional
resources.
If you are confused by the governmental approval
process, uncomfortable completing required
applications, or simply lack the time to go through the
process yourself and need more intensive assistance,
the city has partnered with a small business consultant
who can further help you.
What can the small business consultant do for you?
• Assist in obtaining city licenses, permits or zoning
approvals.
• Complete city applications.
• Attend meetings with city o cials on your behalf.
• Advocate for your approvals.
Small Business Financing
Whether you are starting your business or need to
expand, St. Louis Park can point you toward available
small business nancing programs that may be suitable
to your particular business needs.
List of local organizations specializing in small business
n a n c e : slpmn.us/sbf
Some of our local programs include:
PACE – Property Assessed Clean Energy Program
Looking for ways to be Green and reduce operating
costs by installing energy saving building improvements
but having trouble accessing capital? St. Louis Park
o ers alternative nancing for energy e ciency and
renewable energy upgrades to buildings through its
new PACE program. To be eligible you must be a
commercial, industrial and multi-family residential
property owner located in St. Louis Park.
Live Where You Work Program
• Employees of St. Louis Park businesses can obtain a
grant of $2,500 to be used toward the purchase of a
home in the city.
• Additional $1,000 assistance if purchasing a
foreclosed home.
• Income restrictions apply. Household income 120
percent of area median income.
• Contact CEE at (612) 335-5884
Helping Your Small Business Grow
Small businesses are integral to St. Louis Park’s
economic prosperity. In order to support the hundreds
of small businesses that call St. Louis Park home, the
city o ers a variety of resources to help them prosper.
Whether you are opening a business, expanding or
relocating in the city, here’s a brief overview of the
resources, tools and programs the city provides to help
your venture proceed.
Open to Business
inking about starting a new business or expanding an
existing one? Here’s a chance to test drive your idea with
a business advisor for free!
On the fourth Monday of each month, test drive your
business idea during a 15-minute consultation, available
between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m. at St. Louis Park City Hall.
For more information, call Rob Smolund at
Metropolitan Consortium of Community Developers
(MCCD) at (612) 789-7337, ext. 260.
Small Business Assistance
St. Louis Park can provide existing and new businesses
with valuable information for assistance with your
business needs. To access the city’s extensive list of
available small business programs and resources, go to
slpmn.us/sbr
Questions?
Contact: Julie Grove
Planning & Economic Development Assistant
(952) 924-2523
jgrove@stlouispark.org
Study Session Meeting of January 26, 2015 (Item No. 3)
Title: Small Business Assistance Program Update Page 7
Meeting: Study Session
Meeting Date: January 26, 2015
Discussion Item: 4
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Municipal Boundary Change with the City of Hopkins/Japs-Olson Building
Expansion
RECOMMENDED ACTION: No formal action required at this time. Staff desires to discuss
with the City Council a proposal to adjust the municipal boundary between the cities of Hopkins
and St. Louis Park to allow Japs Olson to undertake a significant expansion to their plant located
at 7500 Excelsior Blvd.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the City Council wish to pursue a city boundary change
to allow for a significant addition to the Japs–Olson building?
SUMMARY: Japs-Olson is a St. Louis Park company that specializes in commercial and direct
mail print. The company desires to construct a 192,000 sf addition to the west side of their
building, bringing the total building size to 704,850 sf. A portion of the Japs-Olson property
proposed to be used for the addition, as well as a portion of an adjacent property, is currently
located in Hopkins.
Japs-Olson currently employees approximately 570 people. Approximately 150 employees
would be added as a result of the expansion. In preparation for the addition, Japs-Olson has
acquired the existing Appliance One building and parking lot located directly to the east in St.
Louis Park, which would serve as parking for the company employees.
City Staff has had discussions with the City of Hopkins and Japs-Olson about the options to
complete the addition utilizing the existing boundary locations. Complicating this approach are
the differing land use plans and zoning in the area. While St. Louis Parks zoning and land use
plans will allow for the expansion, the City of Hopkins will not. The City of Hopkins has
indicated they are not willing to make changes to their future land use plans to accommodate the
portion of the project in their community. As a result, several options for adjusting the municipal
boundary were discussed, and the proposal is to adjust the line as shown on the attached map.
Under the proposal three properties to the west of Powell Road would be located within the City
of Hopkins and two properties east of Powell Road would be located in St. Louis Park. This
proposal is a relatively even trade in terms of future projected property values and will make
future development in the area easier to undertake (including the Japs Olson expansion).
Provided both communities are in agreement, a municipal boundary change is relatively easy to
undertake. A resolution must be passed by each community and filed with the chief
administrative law judge. A hearing is then held and the judge issues an order on the request.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not applicable at this time.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Map with Proposed Change
Prepared by: Meg McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor
Bill Chang, Administrative Intern
Reviewed by: Michele Schnitker, Acting Community Development Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
5
4
3
2
1
Japs-Olson
¯
0 330 660165
Feet
Japs-Olson Location Map
Parcels in Consideration
City Boundary
New City Boundary
Study Session Meeting of January 26, 2015 (Item No. 4)
Title: Municipal Boundary Change with the City of Hopkins/Japs-Olson Building Expansion Page 2
Meeting: Study Session
Meeting Date: January 26, 2015
Discussion Item: 5
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Boards and Commissions Appointment Process
RECOMMENDED ACTION: No formal action at this time. Per Council direction this report
has been prepared to facilitate a discussion on the process of appointing and reappointing citizen
representatives to the City’s Boards and Commissions.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the Council need any further information or wish to take
any further steps regarding the process of appointing and reappointing citizen representatives to
the City’s Boards and Commissions?
SUMMARY: Council has the legal authority to create and manage all aspects of Boards and
Commissions as set forth in Section 2.02 of the Home Rule Charter. The City Code Chapter 2
and the Rules and Procedures for Boards and Commissions (Resolution No. 12-069) are the
main documents adopted by Council and used by staff to manage Boards and Commissions.
Council has requested that discussion take place regarding the current process of appointing and
reappointing citizen representatives to the City’s Boards and Commissions. These topics are
addressed in the City Councils Rules and Procedures for Boards and Commissions as follows:
K. Candidate Review Process and Appointment
“Written applications are forwarded to Councilmembers for review as openings occur.
Councilmembers will inform the Administrative Services Department of the candidates they
wish to interview based upon their review of written materials within two weeks of receiving the
materials. Interviews are conducted by the City Council, usually prior to a Monday evening
meeting. Following the interview, the Mayor will inform the Administrative Services
Department about the status of each applicant.”
L. Appointment
“Council will inform the Administrative Services Department when an appointment is to be
made so that the appointment can be added to the council agenda.”
N. Reappointment
“Reappointments are made as needed by the City Council. Performance and attendance by
Board and Commission members requesting reappointment will be considered by the Council.
Council may choose to re-interview any commission member as a means to determine whether
the commission member should continue to serve. A member may continue to serve beyond
their expiration date until a reappointment is made.”
Attached to this report is a copy of all current St. Louis Park Boards and Commissions, their
membership and member terms.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged
community.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: 2015 SLP Boards and Commissions Membership Table
Current Boards and Commissions Application
Prepared by: Kay Midura, Office Assistant – City Clerk’s Office
Reviewed by: Nancy Stroth, City Clerk
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of January 26, 2015 (Item No. 5) Page 2
Title: Boards and Commissions Appointment Process
2015 St. Louis Park Boards and Commissions Membership
Commission Membership
Appointed by Council Terms
Bassett Creek Water
Management Commission
1 commissioner
1 alternate commissioner
1 technical advisor
(all appointed by resolution)
3 year terms ending 1/31
Board of Zoning Appeals
(BOZA) 5 members 3 year terms ending 12/31
Community Education
Advisory Commission
4 commissioners
2 Council representatives
3 year terms ending 6/30
No term expiration
Environmental &
Sustainability Commission:
Sustainable SLP
8 regular members
2 business members
1 residential tenant member
2 youth members
3 year terms ending 12/31
3 year terms ending 12/31
3 year term ending 12/31
1 year terms ending 8/31
Fire Civil Service 3 commissioners 3 year terms ending 12/31
Housing Authority 4 commissioners
1 program participant commissioner 5 year terms ending 6/30
Human Rights Commission
6 commissioners
1 attorney commissioner
1 youth commissioner
3 year terms ending 12/31
3 year term ending 12/31
1 year term ending 8/31
Parks & Recreation Advisory
Commission
4 commissioners
1 youth commissioner
3 year terms ending 12/31
1 year term ending 8/31
Planning Commission 6 commissioners
1 youth commissioner
3 year terms ending 12/31
1 year term ending 8/31
Police Advisory Commission 11 commissioners
1 youth commissioner
3 year terms ending 12/31
1 year term ending 8/31
Telecommunications Advisory
Commission
6 commissioners
1 youth commissioner
3 year terms ending 12/31
1 year term ending 8/31
Study Session Meeting of January 26, 2015 (Item No. 5) Page 3
Title: Boards and Commissions Appointment Process
APPLICATION
BOARD/COMMISSION MEMBER
These questions are designed to obtain information about your experience and interest in civic
activities. You may return your application by mail, email or fax. Mail to: City Clerk’s Office,
5005 Minnetonka Boulevard, St. Louis Park, MN 55416; E-Mail to: kmidura@stlouispark.org; or
Fax to (952) 924-2170. Your application will remain on file for six months. If you have questions,
please call the City Clerk’s Office at (952) 924-2505. Thank you for your interest!
Name:
Adult (18+)
Student (under 18)
Address: Zip:
Home #: Cell #:
Email: Work #:
Length of residence in St. Louis Park (in years) _____ May we call you at work? Yes No
I am interested in serving on the following commission:
(If you have an interest in more than one commission, you may rank your choices)
Bassett Creek Watershed Commission Board of Zoning Appeals (BOZA)
Charter Commission Community Education Advisory Council (CEAC)
Fire Civil Service Commission Housing Authority (HA)
Human Rights Commission (HRC) Parks & Recreation Advisory Commission (PRAC)
Planning Commission Police Advisory Commission (PAC)
Environment and Sustainability Commission: Sustainable SLP (Supplemental application required- See pg. 3)
Telecommunications Advisory Commission (TAC)
Community, Civic or Volunteer Experience: _____________________________________________
Interests and Hobbies:____________________________________________________________
Occupation and Work Experience (you may attach a resume if desired): ____________________
Please complete other side
Office Use Only: (01/13)
Rec’d ______ Contact 1 __________ Council Review ______ Contact 2 ___________ Interviewed _____________
Commission Appt _______________________ Term ___________ Date _________ Contact 3 ______________
PDRF Rec’d _________ PAC Applicants Only: Informed Consent Rec’d ________ Background Comp’d ________
ESC Applicants Only-Ward No.___
Study Session Meeting of January 26, 2015 (Item No. 5) Page 4
Title: Boards and Commissions Appointment Process
Educational Background/Training: _________________________________________________
What skills or personal qualities do you possess that would make you valuable as a board or
commission member?____________________________________________________________
Why are you interested in volunteering? _____________________________________________
Membership and Terms
(1) The City Council will not consider applications from regular full-time or part-time St. Louis
Park employees, or seasonal, temporary, paid on call firefighter or contract employees if
appointment could cause a conflict of interest.
(2) The City Council will not appoint a Board and/or Commission member to serve concurrently
on more than one board or commission (not including the Charter Commission), and
commissioners may only serve one consecutive year as chair. Board and commission members
cannot serve on the same commission as a member of the immediate family, registered
domestic partner or members of the same household. Youth are exempt from this provision.
Conflicts of Interest
No commissioner shall: (1) Enter into any contract with the city unless otherwise authorized by
law. (2) Use their position to secure any special privilege or exemption for themselves or others.
(3) Use their office or otherwise act in any manner which would give the appearance of or result
in any impropriety or conflict of interest.
IMPORTANT INFORMATION CONCERNING YOUR APPLICATION
DATA PRIVACY NOTICE: Minnesota law requires that you be informed of the purposes and
intended uses of the information you are providing on this application. Pursuant to Minnesota
Statutes Section 13.601, your name, city of residence, employment history, volunteer work,
awards and honors are public data and is available to anyone who requests the information. The
data that you give us about yourself is also needed to identify you and assist in determining your
suitability for the commission(s) for which you are applying. This data is not legally required,
but refusal to supply the information requested may affect the City Council’s ability to evaluate
your application. Should you be appointed to serve on a board or commission, pursuant to
Minnesota Statutes Section 13.601, your residential address and either a telephone number or
electronic mail address (or both) where you can be reached also become public information.
I have read and understand the data privacy information given above and authorize investigation of
all statements contained in this application as may be necessary to arrive at an appointment
decision. I certify that all answers given here are true, and I understand that any false information
on or omission of information from this application will be cause for rejection of this application.
______________________________________________ __________________
Applicant signature (electronic) Date
Study Session Meeting of January 26, 2015 (Item No. 5) Page 5
Title: Boards and Commissions Appointment Process
SUPPLEMENTAL APPLICATION
ENVIRONMENT AND SUSTAINABILITY COMMISSION: SUSTAINABLE SLP
An Advisory Commission to the City Council dedicated to issues related to the environment and
sustainability in St. Louis Park. The 13 member commission will include eight regular members,
two business members, one residential tenant member, and two youth members.
1. For which type of member position are you applying?
All members must reside in SLP and be qualified to vote.
Regular member
Business member (owns or operates a business in SLP)
Residential Tenant member (has resided in SLP for at least 365 days and holds a
lease to occupy the whole or part of a building or land in SLP)
Youth member (high school student)
2. Please describe your experience with environmental or sustainability activities, initiatives,
and/or programs.
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
3. Please briefly describe 3 - 5 main environmental ideas or areas that are of most interest to
you and the City of St. Louis Park. (You may use the back of this page.)
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
Meeting: Study Session
Meeting Date: January 26, 2015
Written Report: 6
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Southwest LRT Update
RECOMMENDED ACTION: No action required at this time. This report is to update the
Council on the new costs for design of the Locally Requested Capital Investments (LRCIs) that
will be the subject of agreements at the February 2nd City Council meeting.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Formal consideration of the agreements to design the LRCIs
will be on the City Council agenda on February 2, 2015.
SUMMARY:
Several LRCIs have been proposed for St. Louis Park:
1. Xenwood Avenue underpass
2. Beltline Boulevard underpass
3. Lynn Avenue Extension
4. Intersection improvements at Beltline Boulevard and CSAH 25
5. A multi-purpose trail connection from the Louisiana station area to the Wooddale station.
(This is new - Please see attached drawing)
A “Master Funding Agreement” (MFA) will provide for the transfer of funds between the Met
Council and the City. Each individual project will be the subject of a “Subordinate Funding
Agreement” (SFA), which spells out the amount the City would pay the Met Council for the
design (and later for the construction) of each improvement. In 2015, the SFAs would be for
design and environmental work only; costs that will be in the SFAs are shown in the attached
table for each LRCI.
Additional design will need to be undertaken by the city, particularly for the Xenwood
underpass; staff has estimated those additional 2015 costs as well (as shown in the table).
NEXT STEPS: Agreements for LRCIs are anticipated to be brought forward for Council
consideration on February 2, 2015.
FINANCIAL CONSIDERATION: It is likely the City will need to issue GO Bonds to pay for
all or a significant portion of the expense the City will experience for designing the LRCI’s.
VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged
community.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Cost Estimates for LRCIs
Multi-Purpose Trail LRCI Drawing
Prepared by: Meg McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor
Reviewed by: Jack Sullivan, Sr. Engineering Project Manager
Michele Schnitker, Interim Community Development Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Special Study Session Meeting of January 26, 2015 (Item No.6) Page 2
Title: Southwest LRT Update
LRCI Costs 2015
$ to SPO Est. $ by City Total City pays ‘15
Xenwood underpass $382,607 $300,000 $682,607
Beltline underpass $1,192,792 $1,192,792
Lynn extension $72,230 $72,230
CSAH 25/BL intersection $127,000 $127,000
Trail Oxford to WD $68,600 $68,600
Total in 2015 $1,843,229 $300,000 $2,143,229
Study Session Meeting of January 26, 2015 (Item No. 6) Title: Southwest LRT UpdatePage 3
Meeting: Study Session
Meeting Date: January 26, 2015
Written Report: 7
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: December 2014 Monthly Financial Report
RECOMMENDED ACTION: No action required at this time.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: None at this time.
SUMMARY: The Monthly Financial Report provides a summary of General Fund revenues
and departmental expenditures and a comparison of budget to actual throughout the year.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Preliminary year end numbers show
General Fund revenues for 2014 at 102.6% of budget and expenditures at 96.8%. Please see the
attached analysis for more details.
VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion
Summary of Revenues & Expenditures
Prepared by: Darla Monson, Senior Accountant
Reviewed by: Brian A. Swanson, Controller
Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of January 26, 2015 (Item No. 7) Page 2
Title: December 2014 Monthly Financial Report
DISCUSSION
BACKGROUND: This report is designed to provide summary information of the overall level
of revenues and departmental expenditures in the General Fund and a comparison of budget to
actual throughout the year.
PRESENT CONSIDERATIONS: Preliminary year end numbers show General Fund revenues
for 2014 at 102.6% of budget and expenditures at 96.8%. This report does not represent the final
numbers for the year ending December 31, 2014. Invoices for 2014 expenses will continue to be
paid through the end of January, additional revenues pertaining to 2014 will be recorded,
including the final property tax settlement to be received in late January, and year end entries
will be completed over the next few months. The final audited financial statements for 2014 will
be presented at a separate Council meeting in the spring of 2015.
The General Fund looks to be on track with projections prepared earlier in the year. As approved
at the December 15, 2014 Council meeting, an equity transfer in the amount of $1,050,000 from
the General Fund to the Capital Replacement Fund will be made.
The budget revisions approved by Council at the December 15, 2014 meeting are reflected in this
report. A few brief comments on specific variances are noted below.
Revenues:
• License and permit revenues have exceeded budget by nearly 27% or $725,000 in 2014.
New construction projects that contributed to the higher permit revenues in 2014 include
the Millennium Apartments, Eliot Park Apartments, and Wooddale Flats, as well as large
commercial alterations at Knollwood Mall and the Nestle building.
• Fine revenues have exceeded budget by 15.5% or approximately $50,000. Liquor
violation and police fines had been higher than budget for most of the year and are
$58,000 higher than in 2013.
• Intergovernmental revenues will exceed budget by over $100,000 after all year end
receivables are recorded. The Police and Fire Aid revenue received from the State in
2014 was higher than the amount budgeted by nearly $60,000. Highway User Tax
revenue received was also higher than budget by almost $50,000. While approximately
$15,000 of FEMA revenue from the 2013 storm reimbursement request was de-obligated
in 2014 and will not be received, a receivable for expected reimbursement revenue for the
2014 flooding will be recorded.
Expenditures:
• Administration has an expenditure variance of about 2.5%. There were additional
election costs of just under $25,000 that were incurred by the City for the County
Commissioner election last spring, which have been reimbursed by Hennepin County.
The offsetting revenue for these expenses appears under Intergovernmental Revenue and
there is no net effect on the overall budget.
• Human Resources expenditures are exceeding budget because of unbudgeted expenses
related to the Health in the Park program. These additional expenses are offset by
unbudgeted grant revenues, which means there is no net effect on the overall budget.
Study Session Meeting of January 26, 2015 (Item No. 7) Page 3
Title: December 2014 Monthly Financial Report
• Police is running an overage of approximately $55,000 due to necessary overtime
expense for position vacancies in Dispatch and other unanticipated personnel costs.
Please note that a portion of this overage is offset by corresponding revenue in the
amount of $31,330 from entities that requested special police services that required
overtime to be paid (e.g. School District, BSM etc)
• Public Works Administration has an overage of about 2.5% which relates to a staffing
allocation. The variance is caused by a change to one of the admin positions splitting
time between City Hall and the Municipal Service Center. The additional payroll
expenses in Public Works Administration are offset in the Engineering budget, which is
well under budget at just 52% spent to date due to this and other staffing changes.
• The Vehicle Maintenance Division is approximately 1% over budget for the year because
of expenditures in a couple of areas, including overtime and equipment parts.
NEXT STEPS: None are required at this time.
Summary of Revenues & Expenditures - General Fund
As of December 31, 2014 (Preliminary)
2014 2014
2012 2012 2013 2013 2014 2014 Balance YTD Budget
Budget Actual Budget Audited Budget Dec YTD Remaining to Actual %
General Fund Revenues:
General Property Taxes 20,169,798$ 20,209,604$ 20,657,724$ 21,987,968$ 21,157,724$ 21,162,435$ (4,711)$ 100.02%
Licenses and Permits 2,375,399 3,241,812 2,481,603 3,069,088 2,691,518 3,417,375 (725,857) 126.97%
Fines & Forfeits 328,150 341,356 335,150 311,882 320,150 369,795 (49,645) 115.51%
Intergovernmental 1,232,579 1,365,023 1,300,191 2,031,355 1,282,777 1,380,717 (97,940) 107.63%
Charges for Services 2,341,104 2,169,631 1,837,976 1,779,259 1,857,718 1,842,582 15,136 99.19%
Miscellaneous Revenue 1,079,550 1,092,234 1,092,381 1,067,210 1,112,369 1,215,347 (102,978) 109.26%
Transfers In 2,023,003 2,066,136 1,816,563 1,805,223 1,837,416 1,812,416 25,000 98.64%
Investment Earnings 125,000 136,415 150,000 14,180 150,000 - 150,000 0.00%
Other Income 45,600 276,273 36,650 10,756 17,950 13,306 4,644 74.13%
Total General Fund Revenues 29,720,183$ 30,898,483$ 29,708,238$ 32,076,921$ 30,427,622$ 31,213,971$ (786,349)$ 102.58%
General Fund Expenditures:
General Government:
Administration 1,012,554$ 977,392$ 877,099$ 890,883$ 939,391$ 963,427$ (24,036)$ 102.56%
Accounting 641,691 639,999 827,320 819,458 876,216 862,075 14,141 98.39%
Assessing 517,840 518,271 543,855 543,202 559,749 554,035 5,714 98.98%
Human Resources 667,612 645,357 678,988 731,634 693,598 769,233 (75,635) 110.90%
Community Development 1,076,376 1,052,186 1,094,517 1,090,213 1,151,467 1,099,908 51,559 95.52%
Facilities Maintenance 1,083,128 972,481 1,074,920 1,058,127 1,053,715 999,154 54,561 94.82%
Information Resources 1,507,579 1,363,266 1,770,877 1,597,993 1,456,979 1,361,434 95,545 93.44%
Communications & Marketing 265,426 244,392 201,322 170,013 566,801 559,620 7,181 98.73%
Community Outreach 8,185 5,341 8,185 (22,450) 8,185 6,381 1,804 77.96%
Engineering 927,337 939,425 303,258 296,383 506,996 262,959 244,037 51.87%
Total General Government 7,707,728$ 7,358,111$ 7,380,341$ 7,175,456$ 7,813,097$ 7,438,226$ 374,871$ 95.20%
Public Safety:
Police 7,273,723$ 7,124,784$ 7,443,637$ 7,225,579$ 7,571,315$ 7,625,568$ (54,253)$ 100.72%
Fire Protection 3,346,931 3,291,655 3,330,263 3,246,162 3,458,161 3,459,247 (1,086) 100.03%
Inspectional Services 1,889,340 1,869,616 1,928,446 1,932,021 2,006,200 1,841,992 164,208 91.81%
Total Public Safety 12,509,994$ 12,286,055$ 12,702,346$ 12,403,762$ 13,035,676$ 12,926,807$ 108,869$ 99.16%
Operations & Recreation:
Public Works Administration 389,783$ 378,852$ 393,054$ 288,207$ 222,994$ 228,723$ (5,729)$ 102.57%
Public Works Operations 2,604,870 2,521,463 2,698,870 2,720,563 2,625,171 2,487,368 137,803 94.75%
Organized Recreation 1,305,747 1,352,273 1,280,117 1,256,678 1,290,038 1,263,715 26,323 97.96%
Recreation Center 1,466,246 1,516,121 1,449,930 1,501,627 1,543,881 1,538,433 5,448 99.65%
Park Maintenance 1,461,645 1,444,448 1,431,825 1,424,139 1,445,813 1,378,405 67,408 95.34%
Westwood 515,456 506,404 520,554 503,309 531,853 501,015 30,838 94.20%
Environment 390,009 382,378 430,876 434,297 433,750 373,915 59,835 86.21%
Vehicle Maintenance 1,188,705 1,326,153 1,240,325 1,268,559 1,285,489 1,295,786 (10,297) 100.80%
Total Operations & Recreation 9,322,461$ 9,428,091$ 9,445,551$ 9,397,379$ 9,378,989$ 9,067,359$ 311,630$ 96.68%
Non-Departmental:
General -$ 65,292$ -$ 256,627$ 4,000$ 2,742$ 1,258$ 68.56%
Transfers Out - 1,160,000 - 60,000 - - - 0.00%
Tax Court Petitions 180,000 - 180,000 53,345 195,860 13,912 181,948 7.10%
Total Non-Departmental 180,000$ 1,225,292$ 180,000$ 369,972$ 199,860$ 16,655$ 183,205$ 8.33%
Total General Fund Expenditures 29,720,183$ 30,297,549$ 29,708,238$ 29,346,569$ 30,427,622$ 29,449,047$ 978,575$ 96.78%
Study Session Meeting of January 26, 2015 (Item No. 7)
Title: December 2014 Monthly Financial Report Page 4
Meeting: Study Session
Meeting Date: January 26, 2015
Written Report: 8
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Fourth Quarter Investment Report (October – December 2014)
RECOMMENDED ACTION: No action required at this time.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: None at this time.
SUMMARY: The Quarterly Investment Report provides an overview of the City’s investment
portfolio, including the types of investments held, length of maturity, and yield.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: The total portfolio value at December 31,
2014 is just over $62 million. This includes the proceeds received from the bonds that were
issued on December 18, 2014, which are invested in a separate money market fund.
Approximately 42% of the portfolio is in longer term investments that include agency bonds,
municipal debt securities, and certificates of deposit. The remainder is held in money market
accounts for future cash flow needs, project costs, and investing opportunities. The overall yield
is at .62%, which is a bit lower than third quarter due to a larger amount held in money market
accounts.
VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion
Investment Portfolio Summary
Prepared by: Darla Monson, Senior Accountant
Reviewed by: Brian A. Swanson, Controller
Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of January 26, 2015 (Item No. 8) Page 2
Title: Fourth Quarter Investment Report (October – December 2014)
DISCUSSION
BACKGROUND: The City’s investment portfolio is focused on short term cash flow needs and
investment in longer term securities. This is done in accordance with Minnesota Statute 118A
and the City’s Investment Policy objectives of: 1) Preservation of capital; 2) Liquidity; and 3)
Return on Investment.
PRESENT CONSIDERATIONS: The total portfolio value increased by approximately $19
million in the fourth quarter from $43.1 million at 9/30/2014 to $62 million at 12/31/2014. The
increase is almost entirely in money market funds. Just under $11 million in bond proceeds was
received on December 18, 2014 and is invested in a separate money market account to fund
future project costs. The second half property tax and tax increment settlement was also received
on December 1, 2014 totaling approximately $17.5 million, the majority of which is currently in
money market funds.
Because the balances in lower yielding money market accounts increased substantially this
quarter, the overall yield of the portfolio decreased to .62% from .86% in the third quarter.
Cities generally use a benchmark such as the two year Treasury (.67% at 12/31/2014) or some
similar measure for yield comparison of their overall portfolio, and two year Treasury rates have
declined to .44% as of January 15, 2015. The yield of the portfolio excluding the bond proceeds
money market is .73%. Short-term investments may be considered for the bond proceeds as a
spend down plan is determined.
Approximately 58% or $36.1 million of the portfolio is currently held in money markets,
including the $11 million of bond proceeds. While some of the cash in the regular money market
accounts may be used to purchase longer term investments in the coming months, it is necessary
to keep a large amount of cash available between property tax settlements for on-going operating
expenses and payroll, as well as the February 1, 2015 debt service and Pay As You Go TIF note
payments. A 70% advance on the first half property tax settlement won’t be received until the
last week of June 2015.
Another 9% or $5.5 million of the portfolio is invested in fixed rate certificates of deposit. There
are currently 23 CD’s in the portfolio, each with a face value of $240,000, which guarantees that
each CD is insured by the FDIC up to $250,000. Two CD’s with rates below 1% matured during
the quarter and were replaced with two new CD’s with rates of 2.1%.
The remaining $20.4 million of the portfolio is invested in other long term securities, including
municipal debt and agency bonds. Municipal debt instruments are bonds issued by States, local
governments, or school districts to finance special projects. Agency bonds are issued by
government agencies such as the Federal Home Loan Bank or Fannie Mae and typically have
call dates at specific intervals where they can be called prior to their five-year maturity date if
interest rates decline. There were two agency bonds totaling $3 million called during the fourth
quarter, and a replacement step up bond was purchased for the same amount at a yield to
maturity of 2.19%.
Here is a summary of the City’s portfolio at December 31, 2014:
Study Session Meeting of January 26, 2015 (Item No. 8) Page 3
Title: Fourth Quarter Investment Report (October – December 2014)
NEXT STEPS: None at this time.
09/30/14 12/31/14
<1 Year 50% 67%
1-2 Years 9% 3%
2-3 Years 17% 13%
3-4 Years 14% 9%
>4 Years 10% 8%
09/30/14 12/31/14
Money Markets $16,637,171 $36,137,468
Commercial Paper $0 $0
Certificates of Deposit $5,488,251 $5,471,211
Municipal Debt $10,902,960 $10,353,493
Agency Bonds $10,037,406 $10,063,919
City of St. Louis Park
Investment Portfolio Summary
December 31, 2014
Institution/Broker Investment Type CUSIP Maturity Date
Yield to
Maturity Par Value
Market Value at
12/31/2014
Estimated Avg
Annual Income
Citizens Indep Bank Money Market 0.08%3,047,253 3,047,253 2,438
4M Fund Money Market 0.02%3,707,884 3,707,884 742
Northeast Bank Money Market 0.40%5,013,382 5,013,382 20,054
UBS CD - Amer Exp Cent UT 02587DLS5 01/26/2015 0.85%240,000 240,065 2,040
UBS Muni Debt - Amer Munic Pwr Ohio 02765UER1 02/15/2015 1.54%1,000,000 1,003,840 15,400
UBS Muni Debt - Gilroy, CA 376087CZ3 04/01/2015 1.81%1,125,000 1,134,450 20,363
UBS Muni Debt - Dist of Columbia 25476FLE6 06/01/2015 1.33%1,000,000 1,013,340 13,310
UBS CD - Apple Bank NY 0378304L7 09/14/2015 0.35%240,000 239,846 840
UBS Muni Debt - Calif State 13063BNR9 10/01/2015 2.00%1,000,000 1,017,470 20,000
UBS CD - BMW Bank UT 05568PZ59 10/26/2015 1.05%240,000 241,121 2,520
UBS CD - Barclays Bank DE 06740KFS1 01/11/2016 1.60%240,000 242,875 3,840
UBS CD - Medallion Bank UT 58403BM52 05/09/2016 0.50%240,000 239,369 1,200
UBS FHLMC 3134G3NN6 02/27/2017 0.72%1,000,000 998,960 7,220
UBS CD - Discover Bank DE 254671AG5 05/02/2017 1.75%240,000 241,721 4,200
UBS CD - GE Cap Retail Bank UT 36160NJZ3 05/04/2017 1.75%240,000 242,263 4,200
UBS Muni Debt - N. Orange Cty CA 661334DR0 08/01/2017 1.01%1,000,000 1,005,410 10,110
UBS CD - Sallie Mae Bnk UT 79545OPE9 08/29/2017 1.70%240,000 242,110 4,080
UBS CD - Sun Natl Bank NJ 86682ABV2 10/03/2017 1.00%240,000 241,769 2,400
UBS CD - Everbank Jacksonvl FL 29976DPB0 10/31/2017 1.00%240,000 240,886 2,400
UBS CD - Comenity Bank DE 981996AX9 12/05/2017 1.25%200,000 197,998 2,500
UBS CD - Banco Popular PR 05967ESG5 12/05/2017 1.10%240,000 238,942 2,640
UBS FNMA 3136G1AJ8 01/30/2018 1.06%1,000,000 995,390 10,630
UBS CD - Third Fed S&L Assn OH 88413QAT5 02/22/2018 1.35%240,000 237,389 3,240
UBS FHLB 313381JW6 06/27/2018 0.92%1,000,000 1,103,259 9,200
UBS Muni Debt - NYC Trans Fin Auth 64971QH55 11/01/2018 1.33%1,000,000 980,550 13,280
UBS CD - Cit Bank UT 17284CH49 06/04/2019 1.90%240,000 237,926 4,560
UBS CD - Amer Exp F UT 02587CAC4 07/10/2019 1.95%240,000 237,530 4,680
UBS CD - First Bk Highland IL 3191408W2 08/13/2019 2.00%240,000 237,310 4,800
UBS CD - Webster Bk NA CT 94768NJX3 08/20/2019 1.90%240,000 237,175 4,560
UBS CD - Bk Hapoalim BM NY 06251AD31 08/22/2019 2.10%240,000 236,568 5,040
UBS CD - Capital One Bank 140420PS3 10/08/2019 2.10%240,000 237,823 5,040
UBS CD - State Bk India IL 856283XJ0 10/15/2019 2.10%240,000 237,871 5,040
UBS FHLB Step Up 3130A3T61 12/30/2019 2.19%3,000,000 3,002,790 65,700
UBS Money Market - 2014 Bonds 0.03%10,090,174 10,090,174 3,027
UBS Money Market 0.03%14,278,776 14,278,776 4,284
41,372,966
Sterne, Agee Muni Debt - Smithfield, RI 832322NP2 01/15/2015 1.90%275,000 275,187 5,225
Sterne, Agee Muni Deb - Smithfield, RI 832322NQ0 01/15/2016 2.40%275,000 280,214 6,600
Sterne, Agee Muni Debt - Elmore Cnty AL 28976PAS4 02/01/2016 0.85%1,050,000 1,065,992 8,925
Sterne, Agee Muni Debt - Elmore Cnty AL 28976PAT2 02/01/2017 1.15%1,000,000 1,011,980 11,500
Sterne, Agee Muni Debt - New York, NY 64966HJS0 04/01/2017 1.20%500,000 551,660 6,000
3,185,033
Wells Fargo CD - Goldman Sachs Bank NY 38143AGR0 01/12/2015 1.50%240,000 240,041 3,600
Wells Fargo CD - Ally Bank UT 0200SQYM9 01/26/2015 1.15%240,000 240,134 2,760
Wells Fargo CD - GE Capital UT 36160XC62 01/06/2016 1.70%240,000 242,479 4,080
Wells Fargo Muni Debt - Fond Du Lac WI Schl 344496JQ8 04/01/2017 1.05%1,000,000 1,013,400 10,500
Wells Fargo FNMA 3135G0NH2 08/23/2017 0.95%1,000,000 993,220 9,500
Wells Fargo Fannie Mae 3136G04A6 11/21/2017 1.00%1,000,000 991,700 10,000
Wells Fargo FNMA 3135G0TM5 01/30/2018 1.02%1,000,000 990,760 10,200
Wells Fargo Fannie Mae 3136G1AZ2 01/30/2018 1.00%1,000,000 987,840 10,000
5,699,574
GRAND TOTAL 62,026,091 384,466
Current Portfolio Yield To Maturity 0.62%
Study Session Meeting of January 26, 2015 (Item No. 8)
Title: Fourth Quarter Investment Report (October – December 2014) Page 4
Meeting: Study Session
Meeting Date: January 26, 2015
Written Report: 9
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Zoning Text Amendment – Outside Storage in the Industrial Park District
RECOMMENDED ACTION: No action required at this time.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the Council have any questions or concerns regarding the
proposed text amendment?
SUMMARY: Mr. James T. Smith (Applicant) is an Attorney representing Mr. Martin Bell. Mr.
Bell owns property on Florida Ave in the Industrial Park (IP) zoning district. He is requesting
amendments to the zoning ordinance to clarify some provisions, and to allow Outdoor Storage by
Conditional Use Permit (CUP) in the Industrial Park zoning district so he can use vacant land he
owns in the IP district for outdoor storage.
The Planning Commission held a public hearing for the proposed ordinance on January 7, 2015.
The matter was tabled to the January 21, 2015 meeting, where the Commission unanimously
denied the proposed amendments.
The Commission cited that the proposed amendments have broader city wide impacts than they
were comfortable with, and that the existing zoning applied to Mr. Bell’s property is the result of
two task force studies conducted in 1989 and 1991. The studies were made up of residential and
industrial property owners in and around Mr. Bell’s property and he had opportunity to
participate in those studies. The Commission did not think it appropriate to take action that is
contrary to the agreed upon zoning.
Staff met with the applicant prior to the second Commission meeting to review and recommend
changes to the proposed ordinance. The applicant accepted the recommendations, and the
revised ordinance was presented to the Commission on the January 21st meeting. Despite the
revisions, staff still recommended denial to the Planning Commission.
In addition to the conclusions summarized above, staff presented the stated purpose/intent of the
Industrial Park district which is to maintain an “Industrial Park setting.” Development in the
Industrial Park district is held to a higher performance standard to decrease the nuisance impacts
on adjacent industrial and residential properties. It is also held to a higher aesthetic standard to
provide a more professional and jobs oriented district. Outdoor storage is not consistent with
Industrial Park intent and setting, and is currently allowed in the General Industrial district.
The application and recommendation will be brought to the City Council for action in February.
VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: None
Prepared by: Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator
Reviewed by: Sean Walther, Senior Planner
Michele Schnitker, Housing Supervisor
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting: Study Session
Meeting Date: January 26, 2015
Written Report: 10
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Proposed Acquisition Terms of 5725 Highway 7 (former McGarvey Coffee property)
RECOMMENDED ACTION: None at this time. Please let staff know of any questions or
comments that you might have. Action regarding the purchase of this property is scheduled for
the February 2 EDA meeting.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the EDA support the proposed terms for acquiring the
5725 Highway 7 property?
SUMMARY: At the November 3rd Special Study Session, the EDA reaffirmed its interest in
seeing the PLACE redevelopment project proceed on the former McGarvey Coffee property
located at 5725 Highway 7 (“subject property”). In light of PLACE’s lack of project capital at
the present time, the EDA directed staff to secure the property on behalf of PLACE. Staff has
reached agreement on terms to acquire the subject property through a Purchase Agreement and
Contract for Deed. Attached is a summary of key terms of those agreements.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Under the proposed Purchase Agreement,
the EDA agrees to purchase the subject property for $2,750,000 and put down $550,000 at
closing. Under the proposed Contract for Deed, the EDA would make monthly payments of
$15,000 plus 4% interest for a period of 24 months at which point the total remaining balance
would be due. The EDA would incur additional costs related to property management. The cost
of the property acquisition and related expenses would derive from the Development Fund.
The advantages of this property acquisition approach are that it requires a lower upfront cash
outlay from the EDA and provides the time necessary for the EDA/City to secure potential
funding commitments from other agencies as well as for PLACE to complete its project due
diligence and assemble its financing. Once those are completed, the intent is that PLACE would
purchase the subject property from the EDA prior to the end of the contract term thereby making
the EDA financially whole. In the event that does not occur, the EDA could sell the property to
another developer that shares the EDA’s redevelopment objectives for the site. If the EDA does
not sell the property prior to expiration of the Contract for Deed it would be obligated to make a
balloon payment of the total remaining balance.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
1. 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.
2. St. Louis Park is committed to providing a well-maintained and diverse housing stock.
3. St. Louis Park is committed to promoting and integrating arts, culture and community
aesthetics in all City initiatives, including implementation where appropriate.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion
Prepared by: Greg Hunt, Economic Development Coordinator
Reviewed by: Michele Schnitker, Housing Supervisor
Approved by: Tom Harmening, EDA Executive Director and City Manager
Study Session Meeting of January 26, 2015 (Item No. 10) Page 2
Title: Proposed Acquisition Terms of 5725 Highway 7 (former McGarvey Coffee property)
DISCUSSION
Per EDA direction, Staff has reached agreement on terms to acquire the former McGarvey
Coffee property located at 5725 Highway 7 (“subject property”). The subject property fronts on
the south side of Highway 7 immediately east of 5925 Highway 7, a vacant parcel owned by the
EDA. It also lies immediately northeast of the proposed Wooddale Ave SWLRT station
platform. The subject property consists of a vacant 27,075 square foot industrial building on 1.78
acres. It is the key parcel in a four parcel land assemblage creating a 3.5 acre redevelopment site
stretching between the Cityscape Apartments on the east and Wooddale Ave on the west.
EDA ownership of the subject property will provide the City future control of a key stretch of
property along Highway 7 near the future Wooddale SWLRT station. It will also ensure that it is
redeveloped to an optimal market value and in a manner that achieves multiple community
objectives consistent with the Wooddale SWLRT station area plans. Acquisition, clearance, and
redevelopment of this site will also improve the image and appearance of the Highway 7
corridor. Consistent with the Comprehensive Plan the EDA has actively encouraged
redevelopment in this corridor for some time. Acquiring the subject property for redevelopment
is a logical next step in that process.
Purchase price
The purchase price for the property is $2,750,000 which is partly based upon review of recent
comparable multi-family residential land sales in the area and the appraisal of the EDA property
next door. On a per unit basis, the proposed purchase price is reasonable and within market
(albeit toward the upper end) according to the City Assessor.
Study Session Meeting of January 26, 2015 (Item No. 10) Page 3
Title: Proposed Acquisition Terms of 5725 Highway 7 (former McGarvey Coffee property)
The EDA would incur additional costs related to property management during the time it
controls the property.
Property Acquisition Terms
It is proposed the EDA secure control of the subject property through a Purchase Agreement and
Contract for Deed. Key terms included within the proposed Purchase Agreement and Contract
for Deed between DMD Properties, LLC (“Seller”) and the EDA (“Buyer”) are summarized
below.
Under the proposed Purchase Agreement the parties agrees that:
1. The purchase price for the subject property shall be $2,750,000 and shall be payable as
follows:
a. $550,000.00 in a single wire transfer on the Closing Date; and
b. The balance of $2,200,000.00 payable over a period of 24 months pursuant to a
contract for deed.
2. Conditions to Closing. The closing of the transaction contemplated by this Agreement
and the obligation of the Seller to sell the Property and of the Buyer to purchase the
Property shall be subject to the following conditions:
a. The Buyer having determined on or before the Closing Date that it is satisfied, based
upon the results of and matters disclosed by the Buyer’s investigation of the Property,
that there are no conditions that would interfere with the Buyer’s proposed use of the
Property;
b. The Buyer having reviewed and approved title to the Property; and
c. Approval of the Agreement by the EDA.
3. Real Estate Taxes. The Seller has paid all delinquent real estate taxes, penalties and
interest, if any. The Seller has paid all real estate taxes payable in the year 2014. Real
estate taxes payable in the year of 2015 will be prorated between the Seller and the Buyer
as of the Closing Date.
4. Closing. The closing shall take place on or before February 20, 2015, or at such other
time and place as may be agreed to by the parties in writing (the “Closing Date”).On the
Closing Date, the Buyer shall deliver to the Seller the portion of the Purchase Price, and
the Seller shall deliver to the Buyer possession of the Property
a. The Seller shall pay at closing:
1. The cost of recording all documents necessary to vest marketable title in
the Buyer and cure title objections, if any;
2. Fees incurred in obtaining the title commitment, if not paid prior to closing;
3. State deed tax applicable to the transfer of the Property to the Buyer;
4. Well disclosure certificate filing fee, if applicable;
5. One-half of any title company closing fee; and
6. Its own attorneys’ fees
Study Session Meeting of January 26, 2015 (Item No. 10) Page 4
Title: Proposed Acquisition Terms of 5725 Highway 7 (former McGarvey Coffee property)
b. The Buyer shall pay at closing:
1. Title insurance premium and any premiums for endorsements;
2. The cost of recording all other documents, including, but not limited to,
the Contract for Deed;
3. One-half of any title company closing fee; and
4. Its own attorneys’ fees.
5. Possession. The Seller shall deliver possession of the Property not later than 5:00 p.m.
on the Date of Closing in the condition as the Property existed on the date of execution of
this Purchase Agreement.
6. As Is. Subject to the Seller’s representations and warranties expressly set forth in the
Agreement and in any documents delivered by the Seller to the Buyer, the Buyer agrees
to purchase the property “as is”, with all faults and conditions thereon.
7. Broker Commissions. The Seller and the Buyer represent that neither party has engaged
the services of any realtor, broker or other person who would be entitled to a fee or
commission in connection with the sale of the Property.
Under the proposed Contract for Deed the parties agrees that:
1. Delivery of Deed and Evidence of Title. Upon Purchaser’s full performance of this
Contract, Seller shall:
a. Deliver to Purchaser a Warranty Deed, in recordable form, conveying marketable
title to the Property to Purchaser
b. Deliver to Purchaser the certificate of title to the Property.
2. Purchase Price. Purchaser shall pay to Seller $2,750,000.00, as the purchase price for
the Property, payable as follows:
a. $550,000.00 at closing;
b. $2,200,000.00, together with interest at 4% per annum, payable in monthly
installments of $15,000.00, commencing on the 1st day of April, 2015, through
and including March 1, 2017, at which time all accrued interest and all unpaid
principal shall be due and payable in full. The final payment shall be a balloon
payment.
3. Prepayment. Purchaser shall have the right to fully or partially prepay this Contract.
4. Real Estate Taxes and Assessments. Seller warrants that the real estate taxes and
installments of special assessments which were due and payable in the years preceding
the year in which this Contract is dated are paid in full. Real estate taxes and
installments of special assessments assessed against the Property that are due and
payable in the year 2015 shall be prorated between the Purchaser and the Seller as of the
date of this Contract. Purchaser shall pay, before penalty accrues, all real estate taxes
assessed against the Property that are due and payable in subsequent years after the year
2015.
Study Session Meeting of January 26, 2015 (Item No. 10) Page 5
Title: Proposed Acquisition Terms of 5725 Highway 7 (former McGarvey Coffee property)
5. Property Insurance. Purchaser shall keep all buildings, improvements, and fixtures
located on the Property insured against loss by fire, lightning and such other perils as are
included in a standard “all-risk” endorsement, and against loss or damage by all other
risks and hazards covered by a standard extended coverage insurance policy.
6. Injury or Damage Occurring on the Property.
a. Liability. Seller shall be free from liability and claims for damages by reason of
injuries occurring on or after the date of this Contract to any person or persons or
property while on or about the Property. Purchaser shall defend and indemnify
Seller from all liability, loss, cost, and obligations, including reasonable
attorneys’ fees, on account of or arising out of any such injuries. However,
Purchaser shall have no liability or obligation to Seller for such injuries which
are caused by the negligence or intentional wrongful acts or omissions of Seller.
b. Liability Insurance. Purchaser shall, at Purchaser’s own expense, procure and
maintain liability insurance against claims for bodily injury, death and property
damage occurring on or about the Property in amounts reasonably satisfactory to
Seller and naming Seller as an additional insured.
7. Waste, Repair, and Liens. Purchaser shall not remove or demolish any buildings,
improvements, or fixtures now on the Property, nor shall Purchaser commit or allow
waste of the Property. Purchaser shall maintain the Property in good condition and repair.
Overview of Property Acquisition Approach
The advantages of this property acquisition approach are that it requires a lower upfront cash
outlay from the EDA and provides the time necessary for the EDA/City to secure potential
funding commitments from other agencies as well as for PLACE to complete its project due
diligence and assemble its financing. Once those are completed, the intent is that PLACE would
purchase the subject property from the EDA prior to the end of the contract term thereby making
the EDA financially whole. In the event that does not occur, the EDA could sell the property to
another developer that shares the EDA’s redevelopment objectives for the site. If the EDA does
not sell the property prior to expiration of the Contract for Deed it would be obligated to make a
balloon payment of the total remaining balance.
Source of Funds
The initial down payment, monthly installment payments, and property maintenance costs would
derive from the Development Fund.
Next Steps
The proposed Purchase Agreement and Contract for Deed will be brought to the February 2nd
EDA meeting for formal consideration. Closing is scheduled to occur on or before February
20th.
Meeting: Study Session
Meeting Date: January 26, 2015
Written Report: 11
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Health in the Park Update
RECOMMENDED ACTION: None at this time. The purpose of this report is to provide
Council with an update on the Health in the Park initiative.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: None at this time. Does the Council have any questions or
comments regarding Health in the Park?
SUMMARY: Health in the Park (HIP) is a grass-roots initiative which is creating connections,
conversations and actions to make St. Louis Park a healthier and more active community. HIP
continues to work on various projects to improve the health and wellness of the people who live,
work, and play in St. Louis Park. HIP members also continue to meet through their champion
and steering groups to address issues in the community and plan for the future of HIP.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Blue Cross Blue Shield has provided
funding for this initiative.
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
Community Conversation on Mental Health Flyer
Prepared by: Bill Chang, Administrative Services Intern
Reviewed by: Bridget Gothberg, Organizational Development Coordinator
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of January 26, 2015 (Item No. 11) Page 2
Title: Health in the Park Update
DISCUSSION
BACKGROUND: Staff applied for and was granted funding from The Center for Prevention at
Blue Cross Blue Shield of Minnesota to encourage a healthier community. Staff created HIP to
meet and talk with St. Louis Park residents to personally experience what a “connected and
engaged” community looks like. Focus groups provided an understanding of the viewpoints of
the diverse segments of St. Louis Park, and sought to discover underlying common ground for
creating a healthier community which could be prioritized to form an action plan. These
conversations consistently reinforced the commitment of those who live, work and play in St.
Louis Park to create connections and conversations to inspire healthier individuals and the
community as a whole.
PRESENT CONSIDERATIONS: HIP is currently working on a number of projects. These
projects include:
Community Conversation on Mental Health: HIP has invited KSTP Meteorologist Ken Barlow
as the keynote speaker to talk about his personal journey with mental health. A follow up
conversation will allow for attendees to share their insights on mental health and sign up for
upcoming events. The event will be at the St. Louis Park Middle School gym on February 8th
from 1:30 pm – 4:00 pm
Pop Up 2: The planning for the next pop up event is currently in progress. HIP and staff have
chosen the Texa-Tonka community as the location for the event. The location was picked
because it was a recommend choice during a tactical urbanism seminar in May 2014 that
community members participated in. The Texa-Tonka location also offers many opportunities
that align with HIP goals. These include access to parks and trails, bike facilities, green space,
and different groups of people. HIP has identified June 7, 2015 as the possible event date and
have partnered with The Musican Group to manage the project. Representatives from the
Musican Group and members of HIP are currently surveying businesses for support and will be
contacting residents for their support within the next few weeks. The planning procedure for this
event will be similar to the first pop up event, Park the Street!.
Health policy review and assessment: Resolution 13-069 approving a Healthy Eating and Active
Living Policy was adopted in 2013. Staff is currently evaluating the policy to identify gaps or
areas for improvement. Staff will then provide an assessment and recommendation to improve on
the current policy along with a plan of action.
HIP Video: HIP is current developing a fun, educational video to be played at the Neighborhood
Leader Forum on February 12th. The purpose of the film is to show what HIP is about and recruit
more community members to become involved.
Steering and Champion group meetings: HIP steering groups have recently been reorganized to
become more strategic. The steering groups now consist of;
• Well Being – This group’s emphasis for 2014-15 will concentrate on mental health
awareness and education. HIP will partner with National Alliance on Mental Illness
(NAMI) to create a variety of opportunities to reduce the stigma, dispel the myths and
open up the conversation around mental illness.
Study Session Meeting of January 26, 2015 (Item No. 11) Page 3
Title: Health in the Park Update
• Active Connections - This groups overarching goal is to champion safe and connected
environments that encourage walking, biking and physical activity.
• Better Eating – This group continues to find ways to create better eating choices in our
schools and greater community. They are passionate about community gardening and
sustainable communities.
• Inclusion – This group is working on forming a St. Louis Park Multi-Cultural Advisory
Committee (MAC) to represent the voices of the diverse cultures of our community and
create conversations on how we can be a community of equity for all.
Healthy Eating Month – February is recognized as healthy eating month. Staff will be drafting a
resolution for Council to endorse February as healthy eating month in St. Louis Park.
NEXT STEPS: HIP will continue to work on its current projects to promote health and wellness
in St. Louis Park. HIP will also bring forward a resolution for City to recognized February as
Healthy Eating Month
Sunday, February 8 • 1:30 – 4 p.m.
St. Louis Park Middle School Gym
Ken Barlow – Keynote Speaker 1:30 – 2:45 p.m.
Join KSTP Meteorologist Ken Barlow as he shares his personal journey
facing a mental illness. Ken will discuss his diagnosis, its impact
on his life, and commitment to reducing stigma
associated with mental illness.
Community Conversation 2:45 – 4 p.m.
• Ask questions and share insights to support mental
health awareness.
• Sign-up for free upcoming classes
• Learn more at Mental Health Resource Fair
Sunday, February 8 • 1:30 – 4 p.m.
Community
Conversation
on Mental Health
Presents
Sponsored by:
Pre-register at register.hipslp.org
or call (952) 928-2858
Certificates of Attendance available (for potential CEU credits)
Free Refreshments
Free Health in the Park t-shirt
(while supplies last)
Free & Open to the Public
Study Session Meeting of January 26, 2015 (Item No. 11)
Title: Health in the Park Update Page 4
Meeting: Study Session
Meeting Date: January 26, 2015
Written Report: 12
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Rezoning of Meadowbrook Golf Course
RECOMMENDED ACTION: No formal action requested. The purpose of this report is to
inform the City Council of the proposed rezoning of Meadowbrook Golf Course from R-1 Single
Family Residence District to Parks and Open Space District.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the City Council wish to rezone the Meadowbrook Golf
Course to become consistent with the Comprehensive Plan?
SUMMARY: As directed by the City Council, staff is beginning the process of rezoning
Meadowbrook Golf Course to maintain consistency with the Comprehensive Plan which
currently specifies the land as a Parks and Open Space District. As specified in Section 36-151,
a golf course is a permitted use within the Parks and Open Space District.
Staff has been in contact with the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board to rezone the
Meadowbrook Golf Course from R-1 Single Family Residence District to Parks and Open Space
District. The Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board has stated that the proposed action is
consistent with their future plans to improve and maintain the Golf Course.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
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: Map of Proposed Rezoning of Meadowbrook Golf Course
2030 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map
Prepared by: Alex Boyce, Community Development Intern
Reviewed by: Meg McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Current Zoning
Proposed Rezoning
Zoning Districts
C-1 Neighborhood Commercial
C-2 General Commerical
I-G General Industrial
I-P Industrial park
M-X Mixed Use
O Office
POS Park and Open Space
R-1 Single-Family Residence
R-2 Single-Family Residence
R-3 Two-Family Residence
R-4 High-Density Multiple-Family Residence
R-C High-Density Mulitple-Family Residence
0 10.5 Miles ±
Proposed Rezoning of
Meadowbrook Golf Course
from R-1 to POS
Meadowbrook Golf
Course
Meadowbrook Golf
Course
Meadowbrook
Lake
Meadowbrook
Lake
City of Edina
City of Edina
Study Session Meeting of January 26, 2015 (Item No. 12)
Title: Rezoning of Meadowbrook Golf Course Page 2
Westwood HillsNature Center
Cedar Manor School
Minneapolis Golf Club
Knollwood Mall
Benilde-St.MargaretSchool
Bass LakePreserve
Wolfe Park
MeadowbrookGolf Course
Louisiana Oaks Park
Aquila Park
St. Louis ParkSenior High School
St. Louis ParkMiddle School
MethodistHospital
JewishCommunity Center
ShelardPark
City Hall
Dakota Park
Peter HobartSchool
KeystonePark
Hannon Lake Victoria Lake
Cobble CrestLake
Westwood Lake
LamplighterPond
MeadowbrookLake
South OakPond
Twin Lake
City of MinnetonkaCity of Plymouth
City of Golden Valley
City of Hopkins
City of Edina City of MinneapolisTDM Zone ATDM Zone B
Recreation Center
Fire Station#2
Oak HillPark
MunicipalService Center
Park NicolletClinic
Fire Station#1
PoliceStation
MinnehahaCreek
Prepared by the City of St. Louis Park Community Development Department
$$5
$$52
""7
$$3
""100
""100
¡¡169
¡¡169
E
§¨¦394
§¨¦394
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1Miles
1 inch = 2,889 feet
Comprehensive Plan 2030
Land Use Categories
RL - Low Density Residential
RM - Medium Density Residential
RH - High Density Residential
MX - Mixed Use
COM - Commercial
IND - Industrial
OFC - Office
BP - Business Park
CIV - Civic
PRK - Park and Open Space
ROW - Right of Way
RRR - Railroad
Site Location
Study Session Meeting of January 26, 2015 (Item No. 12)
Title: Rezoning of Meadowbrook Golf Course Page 3