The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2014/12/15 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - RegularAGENDA DECEMBER 15, 2014 6:00 p.m. BOARDS & COMMISSIONS INTERVIEW – Community Room 6:15 p.m. SPECIAL STUDY SESSION – Community Room Discussion Items 1. 6:15 p.m. Southwest LRT%HOWOLQH7UDIILF)ROORZ8S 7:00 p.m. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY -- Council Chambers 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Minutes 3a. Economic Development Authority Meeting Minutes of December 1, 2014 4. Approval of Agenda 5. Reports 6. Old Business – None 7. New Business 7a. Assignment & Assumption of Redevelopment Contract - Duke Realty Limited Partnership and Central Park West, LLC Recommended Action: Motion to Adopt Resolution approving the Assignment and Assumption of Redevelopment Contract between Duke Realty Limited Partnership and Central Park West, LLC. 7b. Second Amendment to the Redevelopment Contract with Central Park West, LLC Recommended Action: Motion to Adopt EDA Resolution approving the Second Amendment to the Contract for Private Redevelopment By and Between the City of St. Louis Park, St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority and Central Park West, LLC. This action requires approval by the Council and is listed on the December 15th Consent Calendar. 7c. Issuance of a TIF Revenue Note – TowerLight Project Recommended Action: Motion to Adopt Resolution Authorizing the Issuance of a Tax Increment Revenue Note, Series 2015 to Wooddale Catered Living Owner, LP Totaling $490,000. 7d. 2015 Final HRA Levy Certification and Budget Adoption Recommended Action: Motion to Adopt EDA Resolution authorizing the proposed levy of a special benefit levy pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 469.033, Subdivision 6, and approval of the 2015 Final HRA Levy and Budget for fiscal year 2015. 7e. Fund Transfers and Interfund Loan Recommended Action: • Motion to Adopt EDA Resolution authorizing fund transfers. • Motion to Adopt EDA Resolution approving an interfund loan. 8. Communications -- None 9. Adjournment Meeting of December 15, 2014 City Council Agenda 7:30 p.m. CITY COUNCIL MEETING – Council Chambers 1. Call to Order 1a. Pledge of Allegiance 1b. Roll Call 2. Presentations -- None 3. Approval of Minutes 3a. Study Session Meeting Minutes of November 24, 2014 3b. Special Study Session Meeting Minutes of December 1, 2014 3c. City Council Meeting Minutes of December 1, 2014 4. Approval of Agenda and Items on Consent Calendar NOTE: The Consent Calendar lists those items of business which are considered to be routine and/or which need no discussion. Consent items are acted upon by one motion. If discussion is desired by either a Councilmember or a member of the audience, that item may be moved to an appropriate section of the regular agenda for discussion. The items for the Consent Calendar are listed on the last page of the Agenda. Recommended Action: Motion to approve the Agenda as presented and items listed on the Consent Calendar; and to waive reading of all resolutions and ordinances. (Alternatively: Motion to add or remove items from the agenda, or move items from Consent Calendar to regular agenda for discussion.) 5. Boards and Commissions -- None 6. Public Hearings - None 7. Requests, Petitions, and Communications from the Public -- None 8. Resolutions, Ordinances, Motions and Discussion Items 8a. Central Park West Preliminary Plat & Preliminary PUD Recommended Action: Planning Commission and City staff recommend: • Motion to Adopt Resolution approving a Preliminary Plat with Subdivision Variances for Central Park West, subject to conditions; and • Motion to Adopt Resolution approving Preliminary Planned Unit Development (PUD) for Central Park West, subject to conditions. 8b. 2015 Budget, Final City and HRA Property Tax Levies and 2015 – 2024 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) Recommended Action: • Motion to Adopt Resolution approving the 2014 Amended General Fund Budget, 2015 Budgets and 2015 Final Property Tax Levy. • Motion to Adopt Resolution authorizing the 2015 Final HRA Levy. • Motion to Adopt Resolution approving the 2015 - 2024 Capital Improvement Program. 8c. Fund Equity and Operating Transfers, Interfund Loan, and Fund Closings Recommended Action: • Motion to Adopt Resolution authorizing fund equity transfer, operating transfers, and fund closings. • Motion to Adopt Resolution approving an interfund loan. Meeting of December 15, 2014 City Council Agenda Auxiliary aids for individuals with disabilities are available upon request. To make arrangements, please call the Administration Department at 952/924-2525 (TDD 952/924-2518) at least 96 hours in advance of meeting. 8d. 2015 Employee Compensation Recommended Action: Motion to Adopt a Resolution confirming a 2.5% general increase for non-union employees effective 1/1/15; approving the City Manager’s salary for 2015, continuing participation in the Volunteer Firefighter Benefit Program; and increasing performance program pay by 2.5% for Paid-On-Call Firefighters for 2015. 8e. Paid Parenting Leave Policy Recommended Action: Motion to Adopt Resolution adding a Paid Parenting Leave Policy to the Personnel Manual. 9. Communications -- None Immediately Following City Council Meeting SPECIAL STUDY SESSION Continued – Community Room Discussion Items 2. 45 min. Comcast Franchise Transfer Meeting of December 15, 2014 City Council Agenda CONSENT CALENDAR 4a. Motion to Adopt Resolution authorizing award of the 2015 St. Louis Park Arts and Culture Grants. 4b. Motion to Adopt Resolution approving the Assignment and Assumption of Redevelopment Contract between Duke Realty Limited Partnership and Central Park West, LLC. 4c. Motion to Adopt Resolution approving the Second Amendment to the Contract for Private Redevelopment By and Between the City of St. Louis Park, St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority and Central Park West, LLC. 4d. Motion to Adopt Resolution authorizing execution of a one (1) year contract with Summit Envirosolutions, Inc., for consultant services related to the implementation of the Reilly Tar & Chemical Corporation (Reilly) Remedial Action Plan (RAP) during year 2015. 4e. Motion to Adopt Resolution authorizing Execution of the Next Steps to Increase the Climate Resilience of Communities Grant Agreement with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. 4f. Motion to Adopt Resolution authorizing the special assessment for the repair of the water service line at 2921 Louisiana Avenue South, St. Louis Park, Minnesota, P.I.D. 08-117-21-43-0124. 4g. Approve for Filing Environment and Sustainability Commission: Sustainable SLP Meeting Minutes of November 5, 2014 4h. Motion to Adopt Amended Resolution authorizing special assessments for the installation of a traffic signal at the shared entrance of 36 Park Apartments and Target. 4i Motion to Adopt Resolution appointing City Council Member Mavity as a non-voting member of the SWLRT Executive Change Control Board (ECCB) and Council Member Sanger as the alternate. St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority and regular City Council meetings are carried live on Civic TV cable channel 17 and replays are frequent; check www.parktv.org for the schedule. The meetings are also streamed live on the internet at www.parktv.org, and saved for Video on Demand replays. The agenda is posted on Fridays on the official city bulletin board in the lobby of City Hall and on the text display on Civic TV cable channel 17. The agenda and full packet are available by noon on Friday on the city’s website. Meeting: Special Study Session Meeting Date: December 15, 2014 Discussion Item: 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: Southwest LRT - Beltline Traffic Follow-Up RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff desires direction on moving forward with the SWLRT Locally Requested Capital Improvements (LRCIs) for the Beltline Boulevard underpass. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the City Council wish to move forward on commitment to funding the design for the Beltline Boulevard underpass LRCIs as discussed in this report? SUMMARY: At the December 8, 2014 Study Session, staff presented the City Council information regarding the Beltline Boulevard underpass LRCI. This LRCI is to grade separate the roadway under the rail tracks and regional trail. At the meeting, Council asked for additional information. A summary of the questions asked are as follows: 1. Additional information about the existing and future of freight rail operations. 2. Historic and forecast traffic for CSAH 25, Ottawa, Beltline, and Park Glen. 3. Information showing TAZ zones, ADT from each zone and vehicle distribution. 4. Development projections near the Beltline LRT Station. 5. Level of Service at intersections. 6. Impacts to other LRCIs due to the underpass This additional information is attached. Staff will present the information for Council discussion. NEXT STEPS: Agreements for the LRCIs will be brought forth for Council consideration in January. VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged community. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion December 8, 2014 Council Report Prepared by: Jack Sullivan, Senior Engineer Project Manager Reviewed by: Debra Heiser, Engineering Director Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Special Study Session Meeting of December 15, 2014 (Item No. 1) Page 2 Title: Southwest LRT Update- Beltline Traffic Follow-Up DISCUSSION 1. Additional information about the existing and future of freight rail operations. Existing rail operations: • The railroad crossing arms and signal lights are engaged 3 to 4 times per day. This is a combination of shorter (manifest) trains and longer (unit) trains. o The typical manifest train is about 6,000 feet long. There is typically one manifest train that makes a round trip in to and back out of Minneapolis per day. These trains are scheduled 5-6 days per week and arrive at Beltline Boulevard at variable times based on other train traffic in Minneapolis. o The typical unit train is about 7,500 feet long. There is on average only one unit train crossing of Beltline Blvd per day and the schedule is random but mostly during the day. • The current train speed is about 10 mph and switching occurs at Beltline Blvd to utilize the siding tracks. • The crossing blockage today is on average between 3-8 minutes. Future rail forecasts: • The forecasted freight train traffic is for 4 to 5 train crossings at Beltline Blvd per day, an increase of 1 to 2 trains from current levels. • The new track design will allow for a 25 mph operation. This should reduce the crossing blockage time to about 4-5 minutes. • The removal of the storage tracks should eliminate the extended closures caused by switching that happens occasionally. • It is not likely that the Bakken Oil will use the TC&W track but the ethanol trains will continue. • The south wye use to Savage may increase if Savage becomes more activate. The bridge over the Minnesota River will require major renovation if this becomes a regular route again. • If the train traffic picks up to Savage, the number of trains operating on the Bass Lake Spur will most likely stay the same but will probably be shorter. • The typical daily manifest train that the TC&W operates has between 60 and 100 cars. If TC & W starts running more than 100 cars, many times they will split it into 2 trains. The unit trains are between 90 and 120 cars depending on the commodity. For example, if they start running 20 to 30 cars destined for Savage, the Bass Lake Spur trains would have 20 to 30 fewer cars. 2. Historic and forecast traffic for CSAH 25, Ottawa, Beltline, and Park Glen. Historic traffic: The information shown in Figure 1 includes historic traffic volumes from 2005, 2009 and 2013 for CSAH 25, Ottawa Avenue and Beltline Boulevard. On many of these segments the volume of traffic has remained stagnant or even gone down over the last 9 years. Forecasted traffic: Figure 1 includes forecasted traffic volumes for CSAH 25, Ottawa Avenue, Beltline Boulevard and Park Glen Road. The 2030 forecast is based on the current Comprehensive Plan and is the same data the Southwest Project Office (SPO) is using to complete their traffic analysis. In addition, City staff has completed a more robust development scenario (called 2030 enhanced plan) that includes the development projections consistent with the Transitional Station Area Action Plans (TSAAP) and increased development interest in this area. The 2030 enhanced forecast is expected to be largely similar to the 2040 forecast that SPO will be completing in 3-5 months. Special Study Session Meeting of December 15, 2014 (Item No. 1) Page 3 Title: Southwest LRT Update- Beltline Traffic Follow-Up 3. Information showing TAZ zones, ADT from each zone and vehicle distribution. Figure 2 shows the projected average daily traffic generated for each of the six traffic analysis zones (TAZ) for 2030 land use and the 2030 enhanced traffic projections. The distribution of the traffic from each TAZ is plotted on CSAH 25, Ottawa Avenue, Beltline Boulevard and Park Glen Road. Less than half of the traffic on any given roadway is generated from the proposed land uses. The majority of the average daily traffic is from vehicles passing through the area headed for a different destination. Special Study Session Meeting of December 15, 2014 (Item No. 1) Page 4 Title: Southwest LRT Update- Beltline Traffic Follow-Up 4. Development projections near the Beltline LRT Station. The SPO is now required to complete a 2040 traffic forecast for the LRT corridor. This City has provided SPO with the following land use updates for modeling. Figure 3 shows the location and Table 1 shows the projected development anticipated for this area. This data will be used by the SPO to generate the 2040 traffic forecast. In anticipation of this analysis, staff has completed the 2030 enhanced traffic analysis to get a sense of additional traffic generation and mitigation measures that might be required. Special Study Session Meeting of December 15, 2014 (Item No. 1) Page 5 Title: Southwest LRT Update- Beltline Traffic Follow-Up Figure 3 – Projected Development Map Special Study Session Meeting of December 15, 2014 (Item No. 1) Page 6 Title: Southwest LRT Update- Beltline Traffic Follow-Up 2040 Development Projections Map # Site Retail Sq Ft Non-Retail Sq Ft Dwelling Units 2 36 Park 192 multi family 4 Bally's 28,000 104 retail & multi family 44A Beltline mixed use 50,000 400 retail & multi family 63 Quentin & Excelsior 60,000 office 64 3705 Park Center Blvd ? 6 Ellipse 15,000 132 multi family 6A e2 58 multi family 59 CASH 25 south, west half 9,000 268 commercial & multi family 60 CSAH 25 south, east half 20,000 80,000 200 retail, office, & multi family 61 Mini-storage 200 multi family 62 Monterey & Excelsior 18,000 130 multi family 65 County site 4,000 130 retail & multi family 68 ASAP 5,000 5,000 130 retail, office, & multi family 69 Valu Inn + Retail 15,000 commercial/medical office Table 1 – Projected Development 5. Level of Service at intersections. An intersection operations analysis was conducted using the Synchro/SimTraffic software to determine existing and future traffic operations using the following: § Peak Hour Volumes § Traffic Controls § Roadway and Intersection Geometry This analysis provides us with a Level of Service (LOS) ranking, from LOS A through LOS F. LOS A indicates the best traffic operation and LOS F indicates an intersection where demand exceeds capacity. Typically, LOS A through D is considered acceptable by drivers in the Twin Cities metropolitan area. The LOS results are based on the average delay per vehicle. The level of service criteria for signalized intersections is presented below: Level of Service Signalized A 0 – 10 seconds B 10 – 20 seconds C 20 – 35 seconds D 35 – 55 seconds E 55 – 80 seconds F > 80 seconds Special Study Session Meeting of December 15, 2014 (Item No. 1) Page 7 Title: Southwest LRT Update- Beltline Traffic Follow-Up Table 2 shows the LOS at the key intersections in the Beltline corridor for the PM rush hour (typically 5-6 pm). The tables show the LOS at each leg of an intersection along with the overall LOS at each of the intersections. This information is helpful in understanding the best locations for investing mitigation monies. Staff compared the 2030 enhanced traffic forecasts of the SPO’s mitigation to the additional mitigation we are recommending. In addition, each of the scenarios compare the LOS with and without grade separation. There are two key pieces of data from this table: 1. There is little difference in LOS between a grade separated Beltline Boulevard and an at- grade intersection with rail (freight and LRT). 2. Staff believes the following additional mitigation measures will improve the LOS in the corridor. o Dual left turns for west bound CSAH 25 to south bound Beltline Boulevard o Change the lane configuration on south bound Ottawa and CSAH 25. This will allow more green time, subsequently increasing the number of vehicles able to get through each cycle of the signal. o Widen south bound Beltline between CSAH 25 and the railroad tracks, to create two receiving lanes creating more room for vehicle stacking. o Signalize the Park Glen Road and Beltline Blvd intersection, adding turn lanes as redevelopment happens. The mitigation measures are not part to the SPO’s project scope and could be considered future Locally Requested Capital Improvement projects (LRCI). The estimated cost for the mitigation measures in #2 above is $2 million. It is expected that they would significantly improve the operations for the north-south legs of the intersection, reducing the delays at all times of the day. Special Study Session Meeting of December 15, 2014 (Item No. 1) Page 8 Title: Southwest LRT Update- Beltline Traffic Follow-Up Table 2 – Level of Service 6. Impacts to other LRCIs due to a Beltline Boulevard underpass At this time, the Beltline Boulevard underpass has not been fully vetted for impacts to the other LRCIs the City has requested. This station area has many components related to the joint development site that are still uncertain. Figure 4 shows the two locations that have the most potential for conflicts between the LRCIs. Staff is unsure if or how these conflicts could be resolved as SPO progresses through final design. o Conflict area #1 illustrates the amount of space a bus pull off and turn around would need. The bus roadway network reduces the land available for joint development. o Conflict area #2 shows the overlap of backage road and the regional trail bridge. Staff is dedicated to finding solutions to these conflicts that will result in a high quality design of the station area. 2030 Enhanced Traffic Forecasts 2030 Enhanced Traffic Forecasts SPO Improvements (2) Grade Separation LOS Notes NB C C C C C SB E F F E E EB C D E D D WB D E F D D NB C E E D E SB A C A D A D A C A D EB F F F E F NB A A B A B SB A A B A B NB A A A A A (1)SB A A A A A EB B D F D E WB B F F F F NB C D F D D EB A A B B B C A B A B WB A B D A A Notes: 1 - A traffic signal at Beltline and Park Glen may be necessary in 2030 to improve the level of service for Park Glen egress to Beltline Blvd. 2 - SPO improvements include NB Beltline to WB CSAH 25 dual left lanes 3 - SLP Mitigation includes: a. WB CSAH 25 Dual lefts and two receiving lanes b. SB Ottawa permissive/protective left turn phasing c. Additional green signal timing for SB Ottawa CSAH 25/Lynn Ave Intersection Approach Beltline Blvd/CSAH 25 Beltline Blvd/South Frontage Rd Beltline Blvd/Rail Crossing Beltline Blvd/Park Glen Rd SPO Improvements + Additional Mitigation recommended by SLP (3) 2013 Traffic Data Approach Intersection Approach Intersection Approach Intersection Approach Intersection Approach Intersection Existing LOS LRT + Freight LOS Grade Separation LOS LRT + Freight LOS A A B A B A B D B D D DDEE Special Study Session Meeting of December 15, 2014 (Item No. 1) Page 9 Title: Southwest LRT Update- Beltline Traffic Follow-Up Figure 4 – Conflict Points Meeting: Study Session Meeting Date: December 8, 2014 Discussion Item: 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: Southwest LRT Update RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff desires final direction on moving forward with the SWLRT Locally Requested Capital Improvements (LRCIs) for the Beltline Boulevard underpass. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the City Council wish to confirm moving forward on a commitment to funding the design for the Beltline Boulevard underpass LRCIs as discussed in this report? SUMMARY: A table showing the status of the city requested LRCIs is attached. The Beltline Boulevard underpass LRCI is the subject of the study session Monday night. This LRCI is to grade separate the roadway under the rail tracks/ future LRT tracks and regional trail. A focus of the discussion will relate to understanding the cost/benefit of grade separating Beltline Blvd. and other impacts. Additional information is also provided on the BAC and CAC committees, as well as the Executive Change Control Board (ECCB). Background Information Engineering staff will present information provided by the city’s consultants and Southwest Project Office (SPO) related to traffic operations along Beltline and the impacted intersections. Timeline If the city decides to pursue the design for the various LRCIs, a Master Funding Agreement and a Subordinate Funding Agreement between the City and SPO will be needed in early 2015. Draft agreements were received this week from Met Council and the City Attorney is reviewing them. CAC and BAC members - Advertisements for Community Advisory Committee (CAC) and Business Advisory Committee (BAC) members to represent St. Louis Park have been sent out and on the city’s web site. Tentatively, Council interviews will be held on January 5th with appointments on January 20th. The first meeting for the combined committees is expected to be the first week of February. ECCB Members – The Southwest Project Office (SPO) has requested that the City appoint a non-voting member to the Executive Change Control Board. The first meeting is on Thursday, December 18th from 11:30 am – 1:00 pm at the SPO (6465 Wayzata Blvd). VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged community. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion Prepared by: Meg J. McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor Jack Sullivan, Senior Engineer Project Manager Reviewed by: Debra Heiser, Engineering Director Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager City Council Meeting of December 15, 2014 (Item No. 1) Title: Southwest LRT Update- Beltline Traffic Follow-Up Page 10 DISCUSSION Locally Requested Capital Improvements: The City will need to commit to covering design and environmental costs for the LRCIs we wish to pursue. Agreements will need to be in place by early 2015. Below is the list of the city’s LRCIs with the current status of each. For discussion purposes, 5 as highlighted in pink is proposed for discussion at the meeting. LRCI STATUS 1. Grade separated trail crossing at Wooddale Hennepin County is undertaking the responsibility of this LRCI and along with Three Rivers Park District. The two agencies will apply for grant funds and share the design and construction costs to build a trail tunnel at Wooddale. 2. Xenwood Underpass Discussed at 11/24/14 meeting. 3. Grade separated trail bridge at Beltline Hennepin County is undertaking the responsibility of this LRCI and along with Three Rivers Park District. The two agencies will apply for grant funds and share the design and construction costs to extend the trail bridge at Beltline, in the event the roadway is not built as an underpass. 4. Beltline Blvd underpass Traffic and design information will be presented for a detailed discussion at December 8th Study Session. 5. Circulation and access improvements at Beltline Station* Discussed at 11/24/14 meeting. 6. A commitment to structured parking at Beltline Park & Ride Working with SPO to apply for a CMAQ grant and complete the Joint Development process to build a ramp with development. No action required at this time. 7. Ped/Bike Connection to Methodist Hospital from Lou Ave station SWLRT not intending to make improvements off of the LRT corridor. Staff will continue to work on this issue with a longer time horizon. 8. Streetscape and engineering plans to accommodate development in accordance with TSAAP plans Some of this will be covered in station area design; some will be undertaken with Connect the Park; additional improvements off of the LRT corridor are being considered in the City’s CIP. City Council Meeting of December 15, 2014 (Item No. 1) Title: Southwest LRT Update- Beltline Traffic Follow-Up Page 11 LRCI Total Project Expenditure Opening day (estimated) Constr. Cost estimating Design & Environmenta l costs New Design Cost Estimate New Environ- mental Analysis Cost Estimate Level of Schedule Impact 9. Grade separated trail crossing at Wooddale $3.5 m $2,300,000 $230,000 $46,000 1B 10. Xenwood Underpass thru rail/lrt/trail corridor only (city would be responsible for extending street to underpass) $13-15 m $3,500,000 $350,000 $170,000 1B 11. Grade separated trail crossing at Beltline $775,000 $500,000 $50,000 $10,000 1B 12. Beltline Blvd underpass $17-23 m $11,500,000 $1,150,000 $345,000 1A 13. Circulation & access improvements at Beltline Station* $1.5 m $300,000* $30,000 $9,000 1A 14. A commitment to structured parking at Beltline Park & Ride No estimates; assumed to be covered in Joint Development project 2 15. Ped/Bike Connection to Methodist Hospital from Lou Ave station No estimates; SWLRT not intending to make improvements off of the LRT corridor. 1A 16. Streetscape and engineering plans to accommodate development in accordance with TSAAP plans No estimates; These issues will be addressed during the Advanced Design stage of the SWLRT design process. Changed to level 2 *Note: LRCI 6 entails some property acquisitions that are not included in the construction estimate. The acquisition is needed for the extension of Lynn Ave to a new “backage” road at the Beltline station. City Council Meeting of December 15, 2014 (Item No. 1) Title: Southwest LRT Update- Beltline Traffic Follow-Up Page 12 Beltline Boulevard Underpass of Rail and Trail Explanation of Issue The Beltline Boulevard corridor from 36th Street to north of County State Aid Highway (CSAH) 25 is a heavily traveled roadway and the only north-south crossing of the railroad east of Trunk Highway (TH) 100 in St. Louis Park. What follows are the 2013 traffic counts for this corridor. Road Segment Average daily traffic CSAH 25 TH100 to Beltline Blvd 25,500 CSAH 25 Beltline Blvd to France Ave 20,000 Ottawa Ave Minnetonka Blvd to CSAH 25 3,750 Beltline Blvd CSAH 25 to 35th Street 14,900 Beltline Blvd 35th Street to 36th Street 10,000 Within this stretch of road drivers currently encounter the intersection of CSAH 25, an at-grade railroad crossing and an at-grade regional trail crossing. This report focuses on the CSAH 25 intersection, existing freight rail crossing and proposed LRT crossing. The Beltline Blvd regional trail crossing is not discussed in depth in this report due to the commitment from Three Rivers Parks and Hennepin County to construct a grade separation as part of the LRT project. The intersection with CSAH 25 creates backups on Beltline and Ottawa throughout the day. This is a function of the signal timing and lane geometrics at this intersection. In general since there is more traffic on CSAH 25, the east-west legs of the intersection receive more green time. This creates delay and backups for the north- south legs of the intersection. A freight event occurs at the railroad crossing once or twice a day. This event can block the roadway up to 8 minutes. When the event occurs during the PM peak hour, the system needs time to recover from the traffic backups. Knowing that this corridor experiences backups under existing conditions, the City is concerned about how this corridor will function with the introduction of the Southwest Light Rail Transit (SWLRT), Beltline Station platform and park and ride lot. This area is anticipated to have an increase in new development due to the strong growth of St. Louis Park and joint development opportunities that are planned near the Beltline Station. In addition, freight activities will remain in the corridor and have some variability in frequency and duration based on projected rail shipping in the upper Midwest. Staff has been working closely with the SWLRT project office (SPO) and various consultants to analyze the multi-modal use of the corridor in an effort to find solutions to the traffic issues in the corridor. The City’s focus is to ensure that we take advantage of the opportunities presented to successfully and economically mitigate the current and future congestion issues in this corridor. In order to understand the challenges of this corridor it is helpful to look at the existing traffic conditions, projections for future traffic, and intersection operations. Taking a look at this City Council Meeting of December 15, 2014 (Item No. 1) Title: Southwest LRT Update- Beltline Traffic Follow-Up Page 13 information will help the City determine if grade separating the roadway will create enough benefit for traffic operations to justify the estimated $23+ million cost. Previous Studies During freight rail events this area experiences delays at the railroad tracks that can last up to 8 minutes. The traffic backs up north to CSAH 25 and south of Park Glen Road (see figure #1). Since Beltline Boulevard is an important part of our transportation system the City began exploring ways mitigate the delay created by the freight rail crossings in a series of studies completed from 2010 to 2013: • Beltline Station Multi-Modal Access and Circulation Study (2010-2011) • Beltline Station Area Alignment Studies (2012) • Beltline Station Area Alignment Studies –Advisory Committee Input (2012-2013) At the time of these studies there was little information known about frequency and duration of LRT trains. Therefore the studies looked mainly at the vehicle traffic and freight traffic interactions. These studies indicated that congestion occurs at the intersection of CSAH 25 and improvements to the geometrics and signal timing could produce reduced congestion of the corridor. Figure #1 – Existing vehicle backups due to freight events (Extending from CSAH 25 to south of Park Glen Road) City Council Meeting of December 15, 2014 (Item No. 1) Title: Southwest LRT Update- Beltline Traffic Follow-Up Page 14 Southwest Project Office Studies Since the time the aforementioned studies were completed, the Southwest Project Office (SPO) has been able to provide detailed information regarding the proposed operations of the LRT. This information has been incorporated in to the analysis completed by SPO and the City’s consultants. The updated models incorporate: • 4 - 5 freight trains a day (currently 3-4 trains per day) with delay ranging from 3 to 8 minutes. • 1 freight unit train in the pm peak hour (5-7 pm timeframe with delay of 8 minutes) • 10 minute headway frequency of LRT trains (current operations suggest 15 minute headways) • Traffic growth consistent with our Comprehensive Plan for 2030. The City has also run a more robust growth scenario that is more representative of a projected 2040 traffic forecast for St. Louis Park. This growth scenario was provided to SPO so that they can complete the 2040 regional model traffic forecasts, because of the complexity of the regional model, it will take 4 to 5 months to complete. CSAH 25 Intersection Operations The CSAH 25 intersection is operated by Hennepin County and is configured to give priority to the traffic traveling east and west due to the high volume of traffic (up to 25,500 cars per day). Beltline Boulevard carries approximately 14,900 cars per day with the predominate movement of traffic to west bound CSAH 25. Ottawa Avenue carries approximately 3,750 cars per day. The large discrepancy between 25,500 and 3,750 cars per day create a signal timing that gives only 13 percent of the green signal phase for vehicles traveling southbound on Ottawa Avenue. Similarly, north bound Beltline Boulevard receives 26 percent of the green signal phasing. As a result, it is common to witness substantial backups in the north and south bound directions at this signal. Freight Operations Freight rail induced backups are a problem today without light rail on the occasion that longer unit trains block Beltline Boulevard for 8 minutes. These trains are often traveling at about 10 mph and sometimes slower in order to store cars on the siding track. Freight rail events that produce delays in the 8 minute range (see figure #1) happen infrequently. On average there is only one train a week that comes at the PM peak hour (5-7 pm). This represents only 1.5% of the total weekday evening peak hour time. The other two trains that cross Beltline Boulevard are typically during the mid-day times when there is less traffic, subsequently producing a shorter backup. As a part of the SWLRT project, Met Council is proposing the removal of the siding track and the installation of new higher quality tract will help to reduce the delays created by the train. The removal of the siding track eliminates the delay created by trains that would move across Beltline, slow to a stop and back up across Beltline to move onto the siding. New track will City Council Meeting of December 15, 2014 (Item No. 1) Title: Southwest LRT Update- Beltline Traffic Follow-Up Page 15 allow the train speed to increase from 10 mph to as much as 25 mph reducing the amount of time that Beltline is blocked. In order to predict the future of freight traffic along this corridor, we have looked back at trends. Over the last 2 decades, freight traffic has been relatively stable or even decreasing. The character of the trains and what they haul has changed, but the number of trains is relatively consistent. In the 1990’s there were 30 trains per week, in 2010 about 25 trains and today only about 20 trains per week. Another thing to consider is that in this corridor there is a single freight track. With one track, the frequency of the freight trains can only be about once every 30 minutes but most likely it would not be more than once every four to five hours due to the limitations of the capacity of the single rail and the limitations at either end of the track (the origins and destination would not have the capacity to handle more trains).. LRT Operations The introduction of light rail trains at 5 minute intervals (10 minute headways) will block Beltline Boulevard for 45 seconds. This blockage is similar in operation to a traffic signal. For comparison, a traffic signal at a typical intersection takes about 2 minutes to complete a cycle. Analysis indicates that light rail trains produce a modest delay in the traffic through the corridor. SPO has proposed to mitigate this delay by making signal timing improvements and adding an additional northbound to westbound left turn lane at the CSAH 25 and Beltline intersection. When freight train events and light rail events happen at the same time, or back to back, the delay at the tracks is similar to a freight rail only event. (see figure #1) Beltline Boulevard will experience about the same severity of backs ups with or without light rail since freight rail is the event that creates the longer delays. Traffic Mitigation Review Staff has been investigating ways to improve the operations of the Beltline Boulevard corridor. Analysis has indicated that the current configuration of the CSAH 25 and Beltline intersection and the freight train events are the two features that create the majority of the delay and backups along this corridor. What follows are some of the mitigation measures that have been looked at and some of the findings. Intersection Improvements The City, SPO and Hennepin County all acknowledge there are congestion problems that occur at the intersection of CSAH 25 and Beltline Boulevard. The congestion occurs at all times of the day, independent of freight rail. SPO identified and has indicated they would be responsible for the following intersection improvements that will help to reduce backups today and for the future: • Dual left turns for north bound Beltline Boulevard to west bound CSAH 25 • Queue cutter signal at the LRT tracks that will be coordinated with the signal at CSAH 25 City Council Meeting of December 15, 2014 (Item No. 1) Title: Southwest LRT Update- Beltline Traffic Follow-Up Page 16 The following improvements have been identified as part of our additional analysis and are potentially new Locally Requested Capital Improvements (LRCIs). The changes further improve the traffic operations of the intersection and Beltline Boulevard: • Dual left turns for west bound CSAH 25 to south bound Beltline Boulevard • Change the lane configuration on south bound Ottawa and CSAH 25. This will allow more green time, subsequently increasing the number of vehicles able to get through each cycle of the signal. • Widen south bound Beltline between CSAH 25 and the railroad tracks, to create two receiving lanes creating more room for vehicle stacking. • Signalize the Park Glen Road and Beltline Blvd intersection, adding turn lanes as redevelopment happens. The estimated cost for these improvements is $2 million. It is expected that they would significantly improve the operations for the north-south legs of the intersection, reducing the delays at all times of the day. In addition to these improvements, staff is suggesting that the City complete a corridor study of CSAH 25 east of TH 100 to establish the vision for the corridor. This study would involve representatives from Hennepin County, MnDOT and the City of Minneapolis. Staff expects this study will take six to eight months to complete and would coincide with the advance design plans for the SWLRT. The results would be used to guide SPO’s final design plans to ensure the infrastructure is built with the forethought to accommodate the ultimate build of CSAH 25. This study could cost as much as $100,000. The costs of the subsequent improvements to CSAH 25 depend on the study findings; however, similar corridor reconstruction projects have cost about 5 million dollars. Grade Separation Grade separation of the freight rail by lowering Beltline Boulevard under the freight tracks is estimated to cost 23 million dollars (see item #12 on page 3). This estimated cost does not include land acquisition that may be needed to complete construction. Also, this segment of the road crosses an old rail yard. It is likely that during construction we will encounter contaminated soils; this is a cost that is not included in the existing estimate. The high ground water table in this area requires a unique design for this underpass. It will also mean a higher than typical on-going maintenance costs and ultimate reconstruction cost. Creating an underpass at this location will change the character of the area. The vertical separation may be perceived as a barrier between the station and the roadway users, creating a less attractive pedestrian and bicyclist environment. (see figure #2) . The introduction of multiple retaining walls creates challenges for integration of the Beltline Station platform and the anticipated redevelopment opportunities. City Council Meeting of December 15, 2014 (Item No. 1) Title: Southwest LRT Update- Beltline Traffic Follow-Up Page 17 Figure #2 – Grade Separation of Beltline As shown in figure #3, this underpass would be similar in scale to the Highway 7 and Wooddale grade separation completed in 2010. In addition, this separation creates design and access challenges for the Beltline Joint Development site and the backage road that would connect to Lynn Avenue as discussed at the study session on November 24th. City Council Meeting of December 15, 2014 (Item No. 1) Title: Southwest LRT Update- Beltline Traffic Follow-Up Page 18 Figure #3 – Grade Separation of Beltline Next Steps The Beltline Boulevard corridor is the spine that connects residents and businesses to the many amenities on the east side of TH 100. The introduction of a high quality light rail line and the Beltline Station will continue to enhance the area. The continued growth of this area and the introduction the LRT will require infrastructure improvements to handle the increase vehicle, pedestrian and bicycle traffic in this area. Intersection improvements at CSAH 25 and grade separation of Beltline Boulevard are two major infrastructure projects outlined in this report that will have a significant impact on the mitigation of future congestion in this area. The large design and construction costs associated with the options will be the responsibility of the City. Staff is prepared to help inform Council on the cost-benefit of the proposed improvements. City Council Meeting of December 15, 2014 (Item No. 1) Title: Southwest LRT Update- Beltline Traffic Follow-Up Page 19 Meeting: Economic Development Authority Meeting Date: December 15, 2014 Minutes: 3a UNOFFICIAL MINUTES ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA DECEMBER 1, 2014 1. Call to Order President Mavity called the meeting to order at 7:29 p.m. Commissioners present: President Anne Mavity, Tim Brausen, Steve Hallfin, Jeff Jacobs, Gregg Lindberg, Susan Sanger, and Jake Spano. Commissioners absent: None. Staff present: Executive Director (Mr. Harmening) and Recording Secretary (Ms. Staple). 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Minutes 3a. Economic Development Authority Minutes November 3, 2014 It was moved by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Lindberg, to approve the EDA minutes as presented. The motion passed 6-0. Commissioner Hallfin arrived. 4. Approval of Agenda It was moved by Commissioner Lindberg, seconded by Commissioner Spano, to approve the EDA agenda as presented. The motion passed 7-0. 5. Reports 5a. Approval of EDA Disbursements It was moved by Commissioner Lindberg, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs, to approve the EDA Disbursements. The motion passed 7-0. 6. Old Business - None 7. New Business - None 8. Communications - None 9. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 7:30 p.m. ______________________________________ ______________________________________ Secretary President Meeting: Economic Development Authority Meeting Date: December 15, 2014 Action Agenda Item: 7a EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: Assignment & Assumption of Redevelopment Contract - Duke Realty Limited Partnership and Central Park West, LLC RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to Adopt the Resolution approving the Assignment and Assumption of Redevelopment Contract between Duke Realty Limited Partnership and Central Park West, LLC. This action requires a similar approval by the City Council and is listed on the December 15th Consent Calendar. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the EDA find that the Assignment and Assumption of the Redevelopment Contract between Duke Realty Limited Partnership and Central Park West, LLC (DLC Residential, LLC) is in the best interest of the City and its residents? SUMMARY: The Amended and Restated Contract for Private Redevelopment of May 17, 2010 between the EDA, the City, and Duke Realty LP (the "Redeveloper") provides that whenever the Redeveloper wishes to convey any portion of The West End Redevelopment Property and assign its obligations under the Contract to a third party, the EDA and City must review and formally approve the proposed assignment. Duke is selling the vacant, 14-acre portion of The West End property east of Utica Ave. and “subject Redevelopment Property” to Central Park West, LLC (an affiliate of DLC Residential and “CPW”) which intends to construct the phases included in the proposed Central Park West Master Site Plan. Approval of the Assignment means that the EDA/City Council consents to CPW’s assumption of all the obligations and conditions of the current Redevelopment Contract applicable to the subject Redevelopment Property. Approval of the Assignment however does not constitute approval of CPW’s proposed Plan. The Redeveloper has provided a proposed Assignment and Assumption of Redevelopment Contract and has requested that the EDA and City provide written approval of the Assignment by executing the Consent, Estoppel and Agreement attached to the Assignment. The EDA’s legal counsel has reviewed the proposed Assignment and the attached Consent, and recommends the EDA and City approve and consent to this document. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Under the proposed Assignment and Assumption Agreement, Central Park West, LLC assumes the financial obligations that were to be incurred by Duke Realty under the Redevelopment Contract as it pertains to the subject Redevelopment Property. All costs associated with this agreement (Kennedy & Graven) are to be paid by Duke Realty. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Resolution Assignment & Assumption of Redevelopment Contract Prepared by: Greg Hunt, Economic Development Coordinator Reviewed by: Michele Schnitker, Housing Supervisor Approved by: Tom Harmening, EDA Executive Director, and City Manager Economic Development Authority Meeting of December 15, 2014 (Item No. 7a) Page 2 Title: Assignment & Assumption of Redevelopment Contract - Duke Realty Limited Partnership and Central Park West, LLC ST. LOUIS PARK ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY EDA RESOLUTION NO. 14-___ RESOLUTION APPROVING AN ASSIGNMENT AND ASSUMPTION OF REDEVELOPMENT CONTRACT BETWEEN DUKE REALTY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP AND CENTRAL PARK WEST, LLC BE IT RESOLVED By the Board of Commissioners ("Board") of the St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority ("Authority") as follows: Section 1. Recitals. 1.01. The Authority is currently administering its Redevelopment Project No. 1 ("Project") pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.001 to 469.047 ("HRA Act"), and within the Project has established The West End Tax Increment Financing District (“TIF District”). 1.02. The Authority, the City of St. Louis Park (“City”) and Duke Realty Limited Partnership (the “Redeveloper”) entered into an Amended and Restated Contract for Private Redevelopment Dated as of May 17, 2010, as amended (the “Contract”), regarding redevelopment of a portion of the property within the TIF District. 1.03. The Redeveloper proposes to convey a portion of the property that is the subject of the Contract (the “Subject Property”) to Central Park West, LLC (the “Assignee”), and the Assignee intends to construct certain future phases of development on the Subject Property. In connection with such conveyance, Redeveloper seeks to assign certain obligations of Redeveloper related to the Subject Property to the Assignee, and the Assignee agrees to accept such obligations, all pursuant to an Assignment and Assumption of Redevelopment Contract between Redeveloper and Assignee (the “Assignment”). Assignee’s obligation to construct the future phases of development will be memorialized in a Second Amendment to Amended and Restated Contract for Private Redevelopment, to be executed contemporaneously with the Assignment. 1.04. The Board has reviewed the Assignment and finds that the approval and execution of the Authority’s consent thereto are in the best interest of the City and its residents. Section 2. Authority Approval; Other Proceedings. 2.01. The Assignment, including the attached Consent, Estoppel and Agreement of the Authority related thereto, as presented to the Board is hereby in all respects approved, subject to modifications that do not alter the substance of the transaction and that are approved by the President and Executive Director, provided that execution of the consent to the Assignment by such officials shall be conclusive evidence of approval. 2.02. The President and Executive Director are hereby authorized to execute on behalf of the Authority the Consent, Estoppel and Agreement attached to the Assignment and any other documents requiring execution by the Authority in order to carry out the transaction described in the Assignment. 2.03. Authority staff and consultants are authorized to take any actions necessary to carry out the intent of this resolution. Economic Development Authority Meeting of December 15, 2014 (Item No. 7a) Page 3 Title: Assignment & Assumption of Redevelopment Contract - Duke Realty Limited Partnership and Central Park West, LLC Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the Economic Development Authority December 15, 2014 Executive Director President Attest Secretary Economic Development Authority Meeting of December 15, 2014 (Item No. 7a) Page 4 Title: Assignment & Assumption of Redevelopment Contract - Duke Realty Limited Partnership and Central Park West, LLC ASSIGNMENT AND ASSUMPTION OF REDEVELOPMENT CONTRACT THIS ASSIGNMENT AND ASSUMPTION OF REDEVELOPMENT CONTRACT (this “Agreement”) dated as of the 15th day of December, 2014, is made and entered into by and between Duke Realty Limited Partnership, an Indiana limited partnership (“Assignor”), and Central Park West, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company (“Assignee”). WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, Assignor is the Redeveloper under that certain Amended and Restated Contract for Private Redevelopment dated May 17, 2010 (the “Contract”), and that certain First Amendment to Amended and Restated Contract for Private Redevelopment dated November 21, 2011 (the “First Amendment”), by and among Assignor, as Redeveloper, the City of St. Louis Park, a Minnesota municipal corporation (“City”), and the St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority (the “Authority”); and WHEREAS, Assignor is contemporaneously herewith conveying certain real property, legally described in Exhibit A attached hereto (the “Subject Property”), to Assignee pursuant to that certain Purchase and Sale Agreement dated _____________, 2014, as amended (the “Purchase Agreement”), by and between Assignor and Assignee; and WHEREAS, Assignor and Assignee are also contemporaneously herewith executing a Second Amendment to Amended and Restated Contract for Private Redevelopment dated December 15, 2014 (together with the Contract and the First Amendment, the “Redevelopment Contract”), by and between the Assignor, the Assignee, the City, and the Authority; and WHEREAS, title to the Subject Property (and other property owned by Assignor) is subject to and encumbered by the Redevelopment Contract, and the Subject Property consists of a portion of the real property defined as the Redevelopment Property under the Redevelopment Contract and the real property defined as the Golden Valley Property under the Redevelopment Contract; and WHEREAS, Assignor desires to assign certain of its obligations, rights and interest in, to and under the Redevelopment Contract to Assignee as of the date on which title to the Subject Property is vested in Assignee (the “Transfer Date”), and Assignee desires to accept the assignment thereof and assume certain of Assignor’s obligations under the Redevelopment Contract from and after the Transfer Date, all as more particularly hereinafter set forth. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and the covenants and agreements contained herein, Assignor and Assignee hereby covenant and agree as follows: 1. Any capitalized term used herein and not otherwise defined herein shall have the meaning ascribed to such term in the Redevelopment Contract. 2. As of the Transfer Date, Assignor hereby assigns to Assignee the Assumed Obligations (as defined in Section 4 below), and all of Assignor’s rights and interest in, to and under the Redevelopment Contract relating or pertaining to, and to the extent applicable to, the Subject Property. Economic Development Authority Meeting of December 15, 2014 (Item No. 7a) Page 5 Title: Assignment & Assumption of Redevelopment Contract - Duke Realty Limited Partnership and Central Park West, LLC 3. Assignor hereby agrees to indemnify and defend Assignee, its successors and assigns, and its and their employees, agents, members, managers and officers (collectively the “Assignee Indemnified Parties”) against, and hold the Assignee Indemnified Parties harmless from, any and all cost, liability, loss, damage or expense, including, without limitation, reasonable attorneys’ fees and expenses (collectively, “Losses and Liabilities”), arising out of or in any way related to a failure by Assignor, its successors or assigns to keep and perform, or a default by Assignor, its successors or assigns under, any of the covenants, obligations and agreements to be kept and performed by the Redeveloper under the Redevelopment Contract with regard to the Subject Property prior to or after the Transfer Date, except for the Assumed Obligations (as hereinafter defined). 4. Assignee, as of the Transfer Date, hereby accepts the foregoing assignment, and, except as hereinafter expressly provided, assumes and agrees to keep and perform all of the covenants, obligations and agreements relating to, and to the extent applicable to, the Subject Property, and to be kept and performed by the Redeveloper under the Redevelopment Contract from and after the Transfer Date, (collectively, the “Assumed Obligations”). More specifically, Assignor and Assignee agree that the Assumed Obligations consist of the following (and only the following): (a) Section 2.2(b),(c), (d) and (f) to the extent such representations and warranties relate to the Subject Property; further, Assignee expressly represents, for the benefit of the Authority, that it is a limited liability company duly organized and in good standing under the laws of the State of Florida, is not in violation of any provisions of its organizational documents or (to the best of its knowledge) the laws of the State of Minnesota, is in good standing, and has power to enter into this Agreement and has duly authorized the execution, delivery and performance of this Agreement by proper action of its governing body; (b) Sections 3.1(c) and 3.2, to the extent such covenants relate to the Subject Property; (c) Section 3.3 to the extent such covenants relate to the Subject Property; (d) Sections 4.1(b) (c), and (d), clauses (1), (7), (8) and (9), all to the extent such covenants relate to the Subject Property; (e) Article IV, to the extent such covenants relate to the Subject Property (f) Article V, to the extent such insurance covenants relate to the Subject Property; (g) Article VI, to the extent such covenants relate to the Subject Property; (h) Sections 7.1 and 7.2(a) to the extent such financing covenants relate to the Subject Property; (i) Article VIII, to the extent such covenants relate to the Subject Property; provided that the parties agree and understand that this Assignment effectuates the Transfer of the Subject Property as contemplated in Section 8.2(b), (c) and (d); (j) Article IX, to the extent related to an Event of Default by Assignee in connection with any of the Assumed Obligations; and Economic Development Authority Meeting of December 15, 2014 (Item No. 7a) Page 6 Title: Assignment & Assumption of Redevelopment Contract - Duke Realty Limited Partnership and Central Park West, LLC (k) Article X, to the extent such covenants relate to the Subject Property; and provided that the notice address for Assignee for purposes of Section 10.5 is as provided in Section 7 of this Agreement. Notwithstanding the foregoing or anything else to the contrary contained herein or in the Redevelopment Contract, Assignor and Assignee agree that Assignee is not hereby assuming or agreeing to keep and perform any of the covenants, obligations and agreements to be kept and performed by the Redeveloper under the Redevelopment Contract other than the Assumed Obligations. Without limiting the generality of the immediately preceding sentence, it is specifically understood and agreed that except for any of the Redeveloper Public Improvements not completed by Assignor prior to the date hereof, Assignee shall have no responsibility or obligation whatsoever with respect to the construction of, or payment of the costs of constructing, the Redeveloper Public Improvements, or the payment of the Other Redevelopment Costs. Assignee hereby agrees to indemnify and defend Assignor, its successors and assigns, and its and their employees, agents, partners and officers (collectively the “Assignor Indemnified Parties”) against, and hold the Assignor Indemnified Parties harmless from, any and all Losses and Liabilities arising out of or in any way related to a failure by Assignee, its successors or assigns to keep and perform, or a default by Assignee, its successors or assigns under, any of the Assumed Obligations. 5. Assignor hereby warrants and represents to Assignee as follows: (a) The Redevelopment Contract has not been modified or amended and is full force and effect as of the date hereof; and (b) To Assignor's knowledge, there is no Event of Default in existence under the Redevelopment Contract, nor is there in existence any state of facts or circumstances which, with the giving of notice or lapse of time or both, would constitute an Event of Default under the Redevelopment Contract. 6. Assignor will not enter into any modification or amendment of the Redevelopment Contract that would adversely affect the rights and interest of Assignee thereunder or the Assumed Obligations unless such modification or amendment is entered into by Assignee. Assignor will not enter into any agreement terminating the Redevelopment Contract without the prior written consent of Assignee. The foregoing notwithstanding, the Assignor reserves the right to enter into any modification and amendment of the Redevelopment Contract that would not adversely affect the rights and interest of Assignee with respect to the Assumed Obligations, and further, Assignor reserves the right to partially terminate the Redevelopment Contract, to the extent such partial termination would not adversely affect the rights and interest of Assignee with respect to the Assumed Obligations, without Assignee’s consent. 7. Assignor shall give and deliver a copy of any notice, demand or other communication which Assignor gives or delivers to, or receives from, City and/or the Authority under the Redevelopment Contract, and that relates to or may affect the rights and interest of Assignee under the Redevelopment Contract or the Assumed Obligations, to Assignee in the manner set forth in Section 10.5 of the Redevelopment Contract, addressed or delivered personally to Assignee as follows: Economic Development Authority Meeting of December 15, 2014 (Item No. 7a) Page 7 Title: Assignment & Assumption of Redevelopment Contract - Duke Realty Limited Partnership and Central Park West, LLC Central Park West, LLC Attn: Russ Krivor 21500 Biscayne Blvd. Suite 402 Aventura, FL 33180 With copy to: Messerli & Kramer, P.A.. Attn: David L. Weigman, Esq. 100 South Fifth Street, Suite 1400 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 672-3610 Telecopy: (612) 672-3777 or at such other address as Assignee may, from time to time, designate by written notice to Assignor given or delivered in the manner set forth in Section 10.5 of the Redevelopment Contract. Assignee shall give and deliver a copy of any notice, demand or other communication which Assignee gives or delivers to, or receives from, City and/or the Authority under the Redevelopment Contract, and that relates to or may affect the rights and interest of Assignor under the Redevelopment Contract, delivered personally to Assignor or given or delivered in the manner set forth in Section 10.5 of the Redevelopment Contract to Assignor pursuant to the notice addresses set forth therein, or at such other address as Assignor may, from time to time, designate by written notice to Assignee. 8. This Assignment shall be binding on and inure to the benefit of the parties hereto and their successors and assigns. 9. This Assignment shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Minnesota. 10. This Assignment may be executed in counterparts, which counterparts when considered together shall constitute a single, binding, valid and enforceable agreement. Economic Development Authority Meeting of December 15, 2014 (Item No. 7a) Page 8 Title: Assignment & Assumption of Redevelopment Contract - Duke Realty Limited Partnership and Central Park West, LLC IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Assignor and Assignee have executed and delivered this Assignment and Assumption of Redevelopment Contract as of the date first above written. ASSIGNOR: DUKE REALTY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, an Indiana limited partnership By Duke Realty Corporation, an Indiana corporation, its General Partner By:_________________________ ______________________________ STATE OF MINNESOTA) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ______ day of _________________, 2014, by ____________________, the _____________________ of Duke Realty Corporation, an Indiana corporation, the General Partner of Duke Realty Limited Partnership, an Indiana limited partnership, on behalf of the limited partnership. Notary Public Economic Development Authority Meeting of December 15, 2014 (Item No. 7a) Page 9 Title: Assignment & Assumption of Redevelopment Contract - Duke Realty Limited Partnership and Central Park West, LLC ASSIGNEE: CENTRAL PARK WEST, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company By: __________________________ Printed: ___________________ Title: STATE OF ________________) ) ss. COUNTY OF ______________) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ______ day of _________________, 2013, by ______________________________ of Central ParkWest, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company, on behalf of the company. Notary Public THIS INSTRUMENT WAS DRAFTED BY: KENNEDY & GRAVEN, CHARTERED (MNI) US Bank Plaza, Suite 470 200 South 6th Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Economic Development Authority Meeting of December 15, 2014 (Item No. 7a) Page 10 Title: Assignment & Assumption of Redevelopment Contract - Duke Realty Limited Partnership and Central Park West, LLC Exhibit A SUBJECT PROPERTY Redevelopment Property: Outlot A, The Shops At West End, Hennepin County, Minnesota. Registered Property Certificate of Title No. 1222619 Golden Valley Property: Parcel 2: Lots 2, 3, 4 and 6, Block 4 except that portion of said Lots taken for Belt Line Highway; Lots 7 to 12 inclusive, Block 4 and that part of Raleigh Avenue vacated lying between the Westerly extension of the South line of said Lot 7 and the North line of said Lot 12 and that part of the vacated alley in said Block 4 lying between the Easterly extensions of the North and South lines of said Lot 7 and between the South line of said Lot 9 and the North line of said Lot 11 and that part of the West 1/2 of the vacated alley in said Block 4 lying between the extensions of the North and South lines of said Lot 8 and between the North and South lines of said Lot 12; All in "Kavlis Cedardale". That part of the following described property: That part of vacated Raleigh and Douglas Avenues as shown on the plat of "Kavlis Cedardale" lying between the extensions across said Avenues of the South and West lines of Lot 7, Block 4 and that part of said vacated Douglas Avenue adjoining Lots 6 and 7, Block 4 of said plat lying between the Westerly line of Belt Line Highway and the extension across said Avenue of the West line of said Lot 7, Block 4, "Kavlis Cedardale"; Which lies Northerly of a straight line extending between the Southwest corner of Tract E, Registered Land Survey No. 864, Hennepin County, Minnesota and the Westerly right-of-way of State Trunk Highway 100 passing through a point on the East line of said Tract E distant 18.18 feet North of the Southeast corner of said Tract E as measured along said East line. Registered Property Certificate of Title No. 1012678 Parcel 3: Economic Development Authority Meeting of December 15, 2014 (Item No. 7a) Page 11 Title: Assignment & Assumption of Redevelopment Contract - Duke Realty Limited Partnership and Central Park West, LLC Lot 1, Block 4, "Kavlis Cedardale" and that part of the vacated alley in said Block 4, lying East of the center line thereof and between the extensions across it of the North and South lines of said Lot 1. And That part of the North 693.61 feet of the Northeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 30, Township 29, Range 24 lying Westerly and Southerly of State Trunk Highway No. 100, also known as the Belt Line Highway. Registered Property Certificate of Title No. 1012734 Parcel 4: That part of the South 60 feet of the North 753.61 feet of the Northeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 30, Township 29, Range 24, lying West of the Belt Line Highway. Registered Property Certificate of Title No. 1012680 Parcel 5: That part of vacated Raleigh Avenue and of vacated Douglas Avenue, all according to the plat of "Kavlis Cedardale" lying Westerly of the Westerly right of way line of State Trunk Highway No. 100 as described in the Final Certificate recorded in Book 412 of Miscellaneous Records, page 148 in the office of the County Recorder and lying Southerly of a line drawn from the Southwest corner of Tract E, Registered Land Survey No. 864 and passing through a point on the East line of said Tract E distant 18.18 feet North of the Southeast corner of said Tract E. Registered Property Certificate of Title No. 1012686 Economic Development Authority Meeting of December 15, 2014 (Item No. 7a) Page 12 Title: Assignment & Assumption of Redevelopment Contract - Duke Realty Limited Partnership and Central Park West, LLC CONSENT, ESTOPPEL AND AGREEMENT The undersigned, City of St. Louis Park, a Minnesota municipal corporation (“City”), and St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority, a public body corporate and politic (the “Authority”), hereby (i) consent to (A) the transfer of the Subject Property (as defined in the foregoing Assignment and Assumption of Redevelopment Contract) (the “Assignment and Assumption”) by the Assignor named therein (the “Assignor”) to the Assignee named therein (the “Assignee”) , and (B) the execution and delivery by the Assignor and the Assignee of the Assignment and Assumption, and the terms and provisions thereof; (ii) agree that in the event of any inconsistency between the terms and provisions of the Assignment and Assumption and the terms and provisions of the Redevelopment Contract (as defined in the Assignment and Assumption), the terms and provisions of the Assignment and Assumption shall control; (iii) releases Assignor from all the Assumed Obligations as defined in the Assignment and Assumption; (iv) warrant, represent and certify to the Assignee as follows: (A) The Redevelopment Contract has not been modified or amended and is in full force and effect as of the date hereof; and (B) There is no Event of Default in existence, nor is there in existence any state of facts or circumstances which, with the giving of notice or lapse of time or both, would constitute an Event of Default under the Redevelopment Contract. City and the Authority further covenant and agree to and for the benefit of the Assignee as follows: (C) City and the Authority will not enter into any modification or amendment of the Redevelopment Contract that would affect the rights and interest of the Assignee under the Redevelopment Contract or the Assumed Obligations (as defined in the Assignment and Assumption) unless such modification or amendment is entered into by Assignee. City and the Authority will not enter into any agreement terminating the Redevelopment Contract without the prior written consent of Assignee, unless such termination does not affect the rights and interests of the Assignee. (D) If an Event of Default (as defined in the Redevelopment Contract) occurs, and such Event of Default does not relate to the Assumed Obligations (as defined in the Assignment and Assumption), City and the Authority may not and will not exercise their rights and remedies under the Redevelopment Contract arising or existing by reason of such Event of Default with respect to the Assignee or the Subject Property. (E) If the City and the Authority deliver any notice, demand or other communication to the Redeveloper under the Redevelopment Contract that relates to or may affect the rights and interest of the Assignee under the Redevelopment Contract or the Assumed Obligations, the City or Authority (as the case may be) shall deliver a copy of such notice, demand or communication to the Assignee in the manner set forth in Section 10.5 of the Redevelopment Contract, addressed or delivered personally to the Assignee as follows: Economic Development Authority Meeting of December 15, 2014 (Item No. 7a) Page 13 Title: Assignment & Assumption of Redevelopment Contract - Duke Realty Limited Partnership and Central Park West, LLC Central Park West, LLC Attn: Russ Krivor 21500 Biscayne Blvd. Suite 402 Aventura, FL 33180 With copy to: Messerli & Kramer, P.A. Attn: David L, Weigman, Esq. 100 South Fifth Street, Suite 1400 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 672-3610 Telecopy: (612) 672-3777 or at such other address as the Assignee may, from time to time, designate by written notice to City and the Authority given or delivered in the manner set forth in Section 10.5 of the Redevelopment Contract. Economic Development Authority Meeting of December 15, 2014 (Item No. 7a) Page 14 Title: Assignment & Assumption of Redevelopment Contract - Duke Realty Limited Partnership and Central Park West, LLC IN WITNESS WHEREOF, City and the Authority have caused this Consent, Estoppel and Agreement to be duly executed as of this _____________ day of December, 2014. CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK By: Its Mayor By: Its City Manager STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ______ day of December, 2014, by Jeff Jacobs and Thomas Harmening, the Mayor and City Manager, respectively, of the City of St. Louis Park, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the City. Notary Public Economic Development Authority Meeting of December 15, 2014 (Item No. 7a) Page 15 Title: Assignment & Assumption of Redevelopment Contract - Duke Realty Limited Partnership and Central Park West, LLC ST. LOUIS PARK ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY By: Its President By: Its Executive Director STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ______ day of December, 2014, by Anne Mavity and Thomas Harmening, the President and Executive Director, respectively, of the Economic Development Authority of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, a public body corporate and politic, on behalf of the Authority. Notary Public Meeting: Economic Development Authority Meeting Date: December 15, 2014 Action Agenda Item: 7b EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: Second Amendment to the Redevelopment Contract with Central Park West, LLC RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to Adopt EDA Resolution approving the Second Amendment to the Contract for Private Redevelopment By and Between the City of St. Louis Park, St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority and Central Park West, LLC. This action requires approval by the Council and is listed on the December 15th Consent Calendar. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the EDA/City Council support the terms and requirements related to The West End redevelopment as specified in the proposed Second Amendment to the Contract for Private Redevelopment with Central Park West, LLC ? SUMMARY: The Amended and Restated Contract for Private Redevelopment of May 17, 2010 between the EDA, the City, and Duke Realty LP (the "Redeveloper") provides that whenever the Redeveloper wishes to make a material changes to The West End project, the EDA and City must formally approve the modifications. Duke is selling the eastern 14 acres of The West End redevelopment property to Central Park West, LLC (an affiliate of DLC Residential and “CPW”) which intends to construct the phases included in the proposed Central Park West Master Site Plan. The mechanism for approving these proposed improvements along with associated infrastructure on the subject site is through the proposed Second Amendment to the Contract for Private Redevelopment. The proposed Second Amendment includes specific terms and requirements of CPW and the City along with construction timelines. Furthermore, CPW will be held responsible for the portion of the redevelopment site which it owns and that Duke will continue to be held responsible for the remaining portions of the redevelopment site which it is retaining. A summary of the key proposed terms and requirements is attached. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Per the Council’s request, Staff had Ehlers determine the new taxable value likely to result from the construction of Central Park West. Per Ehlers’ analysis, it is estimated that Phases I – V would create (upon full development) roughly $171,999,430 in new value (or $3,050,289 in new tax capacity) in St. Louis Park. Ehlers was also asked to compare the estimated taxes payable between Duke’s original redevelopment plan for the subject site and CPW’s current redevelopment plan assuming all phases were completed simultaneously. That analysis indicated there would be little difference in total net taxes payable under either redevelopment plan. Specifically for St. Louis Park, there would be approximately $14,000 less in net taxes payable under CPW’s current plan, however given that the Duke Plan would have taken longer to fully complete, the total taxes payable under the CPW plan would, in fact, exceed the total taxes payable under the Duke plan. VISION CONSIDERATION: This project is consistent with the City Council’s strategic direction of being a connected and engaged community. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion Resolution of Approval Second Amendment to the Redevelopment Contract Prepared by: Greg Hunt, Economic Development Coordinator Reviewed by: Michele Schnitker, Housing Supervisor Approved by: Nancy Deno, EDA Deputy Executive Director, and Deputy City Manager Economic Development Authority Meeting of December 15, 2014 (Item No. 7b) Page 2 Title: Second Amendment to the Redevelopment Contract with Central Park West, LLC DISCUSSION Current Conditions The vacant portion of The West End redevelopment site east of Utica Ave. (“subject site”) is approximately 14 acres; 8 acres of which are located in the City of St. Louis Park and 6 acres are in the City of Golden Valley. It is currently guided and zoned Office. Duke Realty’s original Master Plan for the area called for a Class “A” office park that included approximately 1.1 million square feet of office space distributed between three or four office buildings. The office buildings were to be constructed in St. Louis Park and connected to a seven level parking structure constructed in Golden Valley. Duke has not proceeded with office construction due to market conditions and an adjustment in its corporate strategic focus. Revised Concept Plan Central Park West, LLC (an affiliate of DLC Residential) wishes to pursue a new Concept Plan on the subject site that includes a mix of uses. The proposed new uses would complement, enhance and become an integral part of The West End’s “urban village”. Generally, it creates a residential/hospitality district at the north end of development and an office district to the south. The new development, named “Central Park West” will be constructed in five phases. The Central Park West Concept Plan was presented, reviewed and discussed at the August 18th and November 24th Study Sessions. The Plan was favorably received and staff was directed to work with the developer on the necessary formal approvals Summary of 2nd Amendment to West End Redevelopment Contract The following are the key Business Terms between the St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority (“EDA”), the City of St. Louis Park (“City”) and Central Park West, LLC (“Redeveloper”), incorporated in the proposed Second Amendment to the Contract for Private Redevelopment for The West End Redevelopment. The required Minimum Improvements are to be constructed on the properties east of Utica Ave (“Outlot A, The Shops at West End Addition”) and 5235 Wayzata Blvd (currently leased to The Olive Garden restaurant) collectively referred to as the “subject property”. 1. Minimum Improvements. The Minimum Improvements consist of the following constructed in phases, located as shown on the Master Site Plan and Central Park West Master Site Plan and in accordance with the Final PUD and Final Central Park West PUD: (a) Phase I: Approximately 199 or more multi-family residential units to be located in a multi-story building with associated underground structured parking. Reconstruction of Utica Avenue from approximately the south end of Outlot A West End Addition north to Wayzata Blvd with a boulevard in the middle to match the existing boulevard in Utica Ave south of 16th Street. Construction of a central, outdoor gathering place and public pedestrian/bicycle connection between Lilac Drive in Golden Valley and Utica Avenue in St. Louis Park. (b) Phase II: Approximately 164 units of multi-family housing to be located in a multistory building with associated underground structured parking. Economic Development Authority Meeting of December 15, 2014 (Item No. 7b) Page 3 Title: Second Amendment to the Redevelopment Contract with Central Park West, LLC The multi-family housing units in Phases I and II combined may not exceed 400 units, and at least 11 units of such housing will be reserved for individuals whose income is 60% or less of area median gross income (the “Affordable Units”). The parties agree that all Affordable Units will be located on the subject property located in the City of St. Louis Park. (c) Phase III: A 120 to 150-room hotel with associated surface and underground structured parking. (d) Phase IV: Approximately 353,353 gross square feet of Class A office located in a multi-story building to be located adjacent to and integrated with Phases I-III, including underground structured parking and an adjacent, below/above grade, multi-level parking garage primarily located on the Golden Valley Property. (e) Phase V: Approximately 353,353 gross square feet of Class A office located in a multi-story building to be located adjacent to and integrated with Phases I-IV, including underground structured parking and an adjacent, below/above grade, multi-level parking garage primarily located on the Golden Valley Property. Between Phases IV and V the Redeveloper may construct no more than 710,000 total gross square feet of Class A office space. (f) Phase VI: A future Phase of development on that portion of the Redevelopment Property described as (the property currently leased to Olive Garden) to be determined and subject to terms mutually agreed upon by CPW and the EDA prior to submission of formal planning applications to the City. 2. Additional Covenants. The Minimum Improvements must substantially comply with the Master Site Plan and Central Park West Master Site Plan and with the Final PUD and Final Central Park West PUD, and must meet the following specifications: (a) CPW shall, for Central Park West Phases I-VI, comply with the City’s Green Building Policy adopted by the City and Authority on February 16, 2010. The core and shell of all Phases of Class A office facilities must meet either current LEED or B3 certification requirements; provided that CPW shall have the authority to choose which of these certification methods apply and shall also have the right to select whatever certification standard LEED allows. CPW shall deliver evidence of compliance with the applicable certification method to the City upon receipt. (b) CPW agrees to provide outdoor gathering places in Central Park West Phase I, which will be as shown on the Central Park West Master Site Plan and will be in accordance with the Final Central Park West PUD. The outdoor gathering place shall include a plaza, green space, or other open space available for use by the general public and incorporating features such as fountains, public art, street furnishings, special lighting or other public amenities. Such space will be privately owned, controlled and managed but available for use by the public, subject to such protocols and scheduling as reasonably established by the owner of such Phase. As a condition to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for Central Park West Phase I, the City and CPW shall enter into a reasonably Economic Development Authority Meeting of December 15, 2014 (Item No. 7b) Page 4 Title: Second Amendment to the Redevelopment Contract with Central Park West, LLC acceptable use agreement (a “Use Agreement”), that will generally provide for notice and review by CPW of activities requested by the City, and will describe the respective insurance and maintenance obligations of the parties in connection with such activities. (c) CPW agrees to provide on-site public pedestrian connections throughout the Redevelopment Property and Golden Valley Property, substantially in accordance with the Central Park West Master Site Plan. (d) CPW shall provide a public pedestrian/bicycle connection through the Redevelopment Property and Golden Valley Property that joins Lilac Drive and Utica Avenue, substantially in accordance with the Central Park West Master Site Plan and Final Central Park West PUD.. (e) If required by Metro Transit and agreed to by the City, CPW shall construct a circular transit bus turnaround at the termination of 16th Street and Utica Avenue (or other such accommodations as reasonably required by Metro Transit), and shall accommodate public transit throughout the Redevelopment Property and Golden Valley Property, in accordance with the Master Site Plan and Central Park West Master Site Plan and the Final PUD and Final Central Park West PUD. (f) CPW shall accommodate and include public art throughout the Redevelopment Property and Golden Valley Property in accordance with the requirements of the Final Central Park West PUD. The parties agree that $180,000 shall be required for public art in connection with Central Park West Phases I-V. The City agrees that CPW may divide this requirement among Central Park West Phases I-V, as determined by CPW at its sole discretion, and that no additional public art will be required in any of Central Park Phases I-V. (g) CPW shall accommodate electronic communication construction and cabling by the City throughout the Redevelopment Property and Golden Valley Property, including without limitation granting or dedicating to the City (without cost to the City) easements or similar rights to (i) place fiber and conduit in private roadways, from public or private roadways to each building, within each building to a point of presence, and from the point of presence to the roof; (ii) place wireless radio equipment on each building’s roof; and (iii) install wireless or fiber access in public spaces in each building (e.g. lobby, waiting areas) and in the central, outdoor gathering space. All such rights and easements are subject to reasonable review by CPW as to location and aesthetics. Except for contribution of easements or other rights described above, installation of electronic communication and cabling shall be at no cost to CPW. (h) CPW shall provide easements or access for wireless communication conduit and cabling throughout the Redevelopment Property and Golden Valley Property. (i) CPW shall install dedicated conduit from each building’s point of presence to each internal wiring closet, thence to each living/working space. Each living/working space shall have two (2) connections, each capable of supporting at minimum a one-gigabit connection. At its option, CPW may instead provide a Economic Development Authority Meeting of December 15, 2014 (Item No. 7b) Page 5 Title: Second Amendment to the Redevelopment Contract with Central Park West, LLC minimum of two (2) CAT 6 cable connections from each internal wiring closet to each living/working space. 3. Minimum Improvements. (i) Subject to Unavoidable Delays, the Redeveloper shall Commence construction of each Phase of the Minimum Improvements by the Required Commencement Date, and shall substantially complete construction of each Phase by the Required Completion Date, all as follows: Phase Required Commencement Date Required Completion Date CENTRAL PARK WEST Phase I (multi-family housing) June 1, 2015 December 31, 2016 Central Park West Phase II (multi- family housing) April 1, 2016 August 31, 2017 Central Park West Phase III (hotel) April 1, 2016 August 31, 2017 Central Park West Phase IV (office) April 1, 2016 September 30, 2017 Central Park West Phase V (office) April 1, 2019 September 30, 2020 Central Park West Phase VI (future redevelopment) TBD TBD If the Redeveloper anticipates that the timetable for any Phase will not be met, Redeveloper shall provide a written and oral presentation to the City Council of the City at a regular City Council meeting prior to the relevant Required Commencement Date or Completion Date. The report must describe the reasons for the expected failure to meet the schedule, evidence of Redeveloper’s due diligence in working toward construction of the relevant Phase, and a detailed revised schedule. Failure to timely provide such written and oral report is an Event of Default. 4. Redeveloper Public Improvement Costs. Redeveloper shall pay all costs of Redeveloper Public Improvements. 5. Maintenance Requirements. The parties agree that, as a condition to issuance of the Certificate of Completion for each Phase, the Redeveloper and City shall execute a reciprocal easement and maintenance agreement (“REMA”) that assigns those parties’ respective responsibilities regarding maintenance, repairs, and cost of such activities, related to the subject Phase. The parties agree that the City has entered into a REMA with Duke in connection with Phases I, IIA, and IIC. For the remaining Phases, there may be a single REMA, or separate documents related to each Phase, as the parties mutually agree. The City and DLC agree that each REMA will be based on the following principles. (a) The City will have primary responsibility for: (i) customary maintenance, snow removal and sand/salt, repair and replacement up to the curb line of all public streets and utilities within and immediately adjacent to the Redevelopment Property. Economic Development Authority Meeting of December 15, 2014 (Item No. 7b) Page 6 Title: Second Amendment to the Redevelopment Contract with Central Park West, LLC (ii) customary maintenance, repair and replacement of standard street lighting located in the public right of way within and immediately adjacent to the Redevelopment Property; and (iii) customary maintenance, repair and replacement of streetscape between the curb line and the boundary of the right-of-way along the west side of Park Place Boulevard between Gamble Drive and Interstate 394 and along the south side of Gamble Drive, together with the entire median within those portions of Park Place Drive and Gamble Drive; provided that the City may in its sole discretion assign such maintenance obligation to any other party and/or assign all or any portion of the cost of such obligation to owners of property west of Park Place Boulevard and south of Gamble Drive through a special service district. (b) The Redeveloper will have primary responsibility for: (i) customary maintenance, repair and replacement of all private streets and alleys within the Redevelopment Property and Golden Valley Property (ii) customary repair and replacement (but not maintenance such as street cleaning and plowing) of aesthetic enhancements within any public right of way within and immediately adjacent to the Redevelopment Property and Golden Valley Property.. (iii) customary maintenance, repair and replacement for all streetscape between the curb line and the boundary of the right-of-way along all public streets within and immediately adjacent to the Redevelopment Property and Golden Valley Property except as otherwise provided regarding specified portions of streetscape under Section 4.8(a)(iii), including without limitation snow removal from private streets, sidewalks, public gathering spaces, and pedestrian connections; (iv) customary maintenance, repair and replacement of medians within West 16th Street and Utica Avenue. (c) Each party will have access to property controlled by the other in order carry out responsibilities under the REMA. (d) The City will be given authority to cure any defaults by Redeveloper under the REMA by undertaking the Redeveloper’s defaulted responsibilities under the REMA and assessing the cost to the relevant Parcels, provided that such remedy will not be the City’s exclusive remedy. 6. Assessment Agreements. Upon completion of each Central Park West Phase of the Minimum Improvements, CPW and the EDA shall execute one or more Assessment Agreements specifying an assessor’s minimum market value for such Phase, together with the Parcel on which it is constructed. The amount of minimum market value for each agreement will be mutually determined by the parties based upon final Construction Plans. Economic Development Authority Meeting of December 15, 2014 (Item No. 7b) Page 7 Title: Second Amendment to the Redevelopment Contract with Central Park West, LLC 7. The parties acknowledge that Duke intends to Transfer Central Park West Phases I- VI to CPW, and that Duke will seek release of Duke’s obligations with respect to these Phases. The EDA will cooperate with Duke and CPW in such effort, provided that the Transfer will be subject to all the terms and conditions of this agreement. 8. The Amended and Restated Contract for Private Redevelopment dated May 17, 2010 as amended remains in full force and effect. Economic Development Authority Meeting of December 15, 2014 (Item No. 7b) Page 8 Title: Second Amendment to the Redevelopment Contract with Central Park West, LLC ST. LOUIS PARK ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY RESOLUTION NO. 14-____ RESOLUTION APPROVING A SECOND AMENDMENT TO AMENDED AND RESTATED CONTRACT FOR PRIVATE REDEVELOPMENT AMONG THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, THE ST. LOUIS PARK ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, DUKE REALTY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, AND CENTRAL PARK WEST, LLC BE IT RESOLVED By the Board of Commissioners ("Board") of the St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority ("Authority") as follows: Section 1. Recitals. 1.01. The Authority is currently administering its Redevelopment Project No. 1 ("Project") pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.001 to 469.047 ("HRA Act"), and within the Project has established The West End Tax Increment Financing District (“TIF District”). 1.02. The Authority, the City of St. Louis Park (“City”), and Duke Realty Limited Partnership (“Duke”) entered into an Amended and Restated Contract for Private Redevelopment Dated as of May 17, 2010 (the “Contract”), regarding redevelopment of a portion of the property within the TIF District. 1.03. In connection with an Assignment and Assumption of Contract pursuant to which Duke will assign certain of its obligations under the Contract to Central Park West, LLC (“CPW”), the parties to the Contract have determined to a need to revise the Contract in certain respects, and to that end have prepared a Second Amendment to Amended and Restated Contract for Private Redevelopment (the “Second Amendment”), by and among the Authority, the City, Duke, and CPW. 1.04. The Board has reviewed the Second Amendment and finds that the approval and execution thereof and performance of the Authority's obligations thereunder are in the best interest of the City and its residents. Section 2. Authority Approval; Other Proceedings. 2.01. The Second Amendment as presented to the Board is hereby in all respects approved, subject to modifications that do not alter the substance of the transaction and that are approved by the President and Executive Director, provided that execution of the documents by such officials shall be conclusive evidence of approval. 2.02. The President and Executive Director are hereby authorized to execute on behalf of the Authority the Second Amendment and any documents referenced therein requiring execution by the Authority, and to carry out, on behalf of the Authority its obligations thereunder. 2.03. Authority staff and consultants are authorized to take any actions necessary to carry out the intent of this resolution. Economic Development Authority Meeting of December 15, 2014 (Item No. 7b) Page 9 Title: Second Amendment to the Redevelopment Contract with Central Park West, LLC Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the Economic Development Authority December 15, 2014 Executive Director President Attest Secretary Economic Development Authority Meeting of December 15, 2014 (Item No. 7b) Page 10 Title: Second Amendment to the Redevelopment Contract with Central Park West, LLC Fifth draft, December 11, 2014 SECOND AMENDMENT TO AMENDED AND RESTATED CONTRACT FOR PRIVATE REDEVELOPMENT THIS AGREEMENT, made as of the ___ day of December, 2014, by and between the CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, a Minnesota municipal corporation, (the “City”); the ST. LOUIS PARK ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, a public body corporate and politic (the “Authority”), established pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.090 to 469.1081 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”); DUKE REALTY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, an Indiana limited partnership (“Duke”); and CENTRAL PARK WEST, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company (“CPW”, and together with Duke, the “Redeveloper”). WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the Authority was created pursuant to the Act and was authorized to transact business and exercise its powers by a resolution of the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park (the “City”); and WHEREAS, the Authority has undertaken a program to promote redevelopment of land that is characterized by blight and blighting factors within the City, and in this connection the Authority has created Redevelopment Project No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as the “Project”) in the City, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.001 to 469.047 (the “HRA Act”); and WHEREAS, the Authority has established a redevelopment tax increment financing district known as The West End Tax Increment Financing District (the “TIF District”) within the Project and adopted a financing plan (the “TIF Plan”) for the TIF District in order to facilitate redevelopment of certain property in the Project, all pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.174 to 469.179; and WHEREAS, the Authority, City and Duke entered into an Amended and Restated Contract for Private Redevelopment dated May 17, 2010, as amended by a First Amendment thereto dated November 21, 2011 (as so amended, the “Contract”), which described the parties’ respective responsibilities regarding redevelopment of certain property in the TIF District (referred to as the “Redevelopment Property”); and WHEREAS, Duke has proposed to partially assign its interest in the Contract to CPW, and CPW has agreed to assume the rights and obligations of Duke as to a portion of the Redevelopment Property through an Assignment and Assumption of Contract to be executed simultaneously with this Agreement; and WHEREAS, the parties have determined a need to modify the Contract to memorialize certain changes to the Minimum Improvements and associated infrastructure and timeline for the construction thereof; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and the mutual obligations of the parties hereto, each of them does hereby covenant and agree with the other as follows: Economic Development Authority Meeting of December 15, 2014 (Item No. 7b) Page 11 Title: Second Amendment to the Redevelopment Contract with Central Park West, LLC 1. Section 1.1 of the Contract is amended to add or modify the following definitions: “Central Park West Master Site Plan” means the plan for development of those portions of the Redevelopment Property and Golden Valley Property located on the east side of Utica Avenue, attached as Schedule B, as it may be revised from time to time under Section 4.2. “Central Park West Phase I” means the multifamily housing development on the Redevelopment Property and a portion of the Golden Valley Property, as described in Section 4.1(b). “Central Park West Phase II” means the multifamily housing development on the Redevelopment Property, as described in Section 4.1(b). “Central Park West Phase III” means the hotel development on the Redevelopment Property, as described in Section 4.1(b). “Central Park West Phase IV” means the office development on the Redevelopment Property and a portion of the Golden Valley Property, as described in Section 4.1(b). “Central Park West Phase V” means the office development on the Redevelopment Property and a portion of the Golden Valley Property, as described in Section 4.1(b). “Central Park West Phase VI” means a future phase of development to be determined by reasonable agreement of CPW and the Authority, on the portion of the Redevelopment Property described as Lot 2, Block 1, the Shops at West End. “Central Park West Plat” means the final plat of the Central Park West Phases of the Redevelopment Property and Golden Valley Property, as approved and recorded in the office of the Hennepin County Registrar of Titles. “Central Park West PUD” has the meaning provided in Section 3.1. “CPW” means CPW, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company, as permitted assignee of Duke for the construction of the Central Park West Phases of the Minimum Improvements, and any permitted successors and assigns of CPW. “Duke” means Duke Realty Limited Partnership, an Indiana partnership, and any permitted successors and assigns of Duke in connection with construction of Phases I, IIA, and IIC of the Minimum Improvements. “Phase” means a discrete portion of the Minimum Improvements as described in Section 4.1(b) and the Master Site Plan or Central Park West Master Site Plan. The term includes both the improvements and the Parcels on which they are constructed unless the context requires otherwise. “Redeveloper” means CPW, Duke, or any permitted assignee, as applicable, in connection with any Phase of the Minimum Improvements. 2. Section 1.1 of the Contract is amended to delete the definitions of Phase IIB and Phase III. Economic Development Authority Meeting of December 15, 2014 (Item No. 7b) Page 12 Title: Second Amendment to the Redevelopment Contract with Central Park West, LLC 3. Schedule B of the Contract is amended to read as attached hereto. 4. Section 3.1 of the Contract is amended to include a new Section 3.1(c), as follows: Section 3.1(c). CPW shall prepare and obtain City approval of a planned unit development (the “Central Park West PUD”) and Plat of the Central Park West Phases of the Redevelopment Property (“Central Park West Plat”) at CPW’s cost and subject to all City and City of Golden Valley ordinances and procedures. In the Central Park West Plat, CPW must dedicate to the City all public rights of way and utility easements. 5. Section 4.1 of the Contract is amended as follows: Section 4.1. Construction of Improvements. (a) Generally. The Redeveloper agrees that, subject to all the terms of this Agreement, (i) Duke has constructed Phases I, IIA, and IIC of the Minimum Improvements and the Redeveloper Public Improvements on the Redevelopment Property, the Adjacent Property and/or the Golden Valley Property, as the case may be; (ii) CPW will construct or cause the construction of Central Park West Phases I through VI of the Minimum Improvements on the Redevelopment Property or the Golden Valley Property, as the case may be; (iii) all construction will be substantially in accordance with the Central Park West Master Site Plan and approved Construction Plans and (iv) Redeveloper will at all times while Redeveloper owns any Phase and through the Maturity Date operate and maintain, preserve and keep each Phase of the Minimum Improvements, or cause each Phase, to be maintained, preserved and kept with the appurtenances and every part and parcel thereof, in good repair and condition. The Authority and the City shall have no obligation to operate or maintain the Minimum Improvements, except as otherwise provided herein. (b) Minimum Improvements. The Minimum Improvements consist of the following constructed in phases, located as shown on the Master Site Plan and Central Park West Master Site Plan (Schedule B) and in accordance with the Final PUD and Final Central Park West PUD: Phase I (completed by Duke): Demolition of all buildings on the Redevelopment Property (except the two existing restaurants on the Parcel at 5245 Wayzata Boulevard) and on the Golden Valley Property; public utility relocation and construction work under 16th Street (to the extent required for Phase I) ; soil correction and earthwork for the entire Redevelopment Property; and the construction of 16th Street (which work also constitutes a portion of the Redeveloper Public Improvements described in Section 4.4(a) hereof); Phase IIA (completed by Duke): Approximately 350,000 square feet of retail, entertainment, and restaurants; approximately 28,000 square feet of second story office space, certain public space as described in Section 4.1(b) hereof, and all related parking structures; and the construction of West End Boulevard as a private road; all as generally shown on the Master Site Plan on the western portion of the redevelopment, such Phase IIA to be integrated with and connected to Phases IIB, and III. Phase IIA includes any pedestrian connections and public gathering space located on the Adjacent Property, as shown on the Master Site Plan. Phase IIC (completed by Duke): multifamily rental housing with at least 100 units. Central Park West Phase I: Approximately 199 units of multifamily housing to be located in a multistory building with associated underground structured parking; reconstruction of Economic Development Authority Meeting of December 15, 2014 (Item No. 7b) Page 13 Title: Second Amendment to the Redevelopment Contract with Central Park West, LLC Utica Avenue from approximately the south end of Outlot A, The Shops at West End to Wayzata Boulevard, including landscape medians (as generally shown on the Public Improvements Plan) to match the existing landscape medians on that portion of Utica Avenue south of 16th Street in the City; and construction of a central, outdoor gathering space and public pedestrian and bicycle connection, as described in Section 4.1(d)(5) hereof. Central Park West Phase II: Approximately 164 units of multifamily housing to be located in a multistory building with associated underground structured parking. Central Park West Phase III: A 120 to 150 room hotel located on a portion of the Redevelopment Property, with associated surface and underground structured parking located on portions of the Redevelopment Property and Golden Valley Property. Central Park West Phase IV: Approximately 353,353 gross square feet of Class A office located in a multistory building to be located adjacent to and integrated with Central Park West Phases I-III, including underground structured parking and an adjacent, below/above grade, multilevel parking garage primarily located on the Golden Valley Property; provided that CPW may allocate gross square footage of Class A office space between Central Park West Phase IV and Central Park West Phase V, but in no event may CPW construct more than 710,000 total gross square feet of Class A office space. Central Park West Phase V: Approximately 353,353 gross square feet of Class A office located in a multistory building to be located adjacent to and integrated with Central Park West Phases I-IV, including underground structured parking and an adjacent, below/above grade, multilevel parking garage primarily located on the Golden Valley Property; provided that CPW may allocate gross square footage of Class A office space between Central Park West Phase IV and Central Park West Phase V, but in no event may CPW construct more than 710,000 total gross square feet of Class A office space. Central Park West Phase VI: A future Phase of development on that portion of the Redevelopment Property described as Lot 2, Block 1, The Shops at West End, to be determined and subject to terms mutually agreed upon by CPW and the Authority prior to submission of formal planning applications to the City. (c) Multifamily Housing. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary herein, multifamily housing units in Central Park West Phases I and II combined may not exceed 400 units, and at least 11 units of the Central Park West Phase I and II housing will be reserved for individuals whose income is 60% or less of area median gross income (the “Affordable Units”). The parties agree that all Affordable Units in Central Park West Phase I and II will be located on the Redevelopment Property. CPW acknowledges and understands that construction of multifamily housing in Central Park West Phase I and II is contingent upon final approval of the Final Central Park West PUD (as described in Section 3.1 hereof), and nothing in this Agreement constitutes approval by the City of such PUD. (d) Additional Covenants. In addition to any other requirements of this Agreement, the Minimum Improvements must substantially comply with the Master Site Plan and Central Park West Master Site Plan and with the Final PUD and Final Central Park West PUD, and must meet the following specifications: (1) CPW shall, for Central Park West Phases I-VI, comply with the City’s Green Economic Development Authority Meeting of December 15, 2014 (Item No. 7b) Page 14 Title: Second Amendment to the Redevelopment Contract with Central Park West, LLC Building Policy adopted by the City and Authority on February 16, 2010, and as such policy may be amended as of the date of issuance of a building permit for any Phase. The core and shell of all Phases of Class A office facilities must meet either current LEED or B3 certification requirements; provided that CPW shall have the authority to choose which of these certification methods apply and shall also have the right to select whatever certification standard LEED allows. CPW shall deliver evidence of compliance with the applicable certification method to the City upon receipt. (2) The parties agree and understand that Phase IIA began construction before adoption of the City’s Green Policy (referenced in clause (1) above), but that Phase IIA incorporated various elements of the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (“LEED”) rating system, as described in a letter from Duke to the Authority dated May 11, 2010 on file in City Hall. (3) CPW agrees to provide outdoor gathering places in Central Park West Phase I, which will be as shown on the Central Park West Master Site Plan and will be in accordance with the Final Central Park West PUD. The outdoor gathering place shall include a plaza, green space, or other open space available for use by the general public and incorporating features such as fountains, public art, street furnishings, special lighting or other public amenities. Such space will be privately owned, controlled and managed but available for use by the public, subject to such protocols and scheduling as reasonably established by the owner of such Phase. As a condition to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for Central Park West Phase I, the City and CPW shall enter into a reasonably acceptable use agreement (a “Use Agreement”), that will generally provide for notice and review by CPW of activities requested by the City, and will describe the respective insurance and maintenance obligations of the parties in connection with such activities. Meeting: Economic Development Authority Meeting Date: December 15, 2014 Action Agenda Item: 7c EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: Issuance of a TIF Revenue Note – TowerLight Project RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to Adopt Resolution Authorizing the Issuance of a Tax Increment Revenue Note, Series 2015 to Wooddale Catered Living Owner, LP Totaling $490,000. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the EDA ratify the finding that the conditions required for the issuance of the proposed TIF Revenue Note to Wooddale Catered Living Owner, LP related to the TowerLight on Wooddale Avenue project have been met? SUMMARY: On June 7, 2010, the EDA entered into an Updated Redevelopment Contract with Wooddale Catered Living Owner, LP (Greco Development and “Redeveloper”) in which the Redeveloper committed to acquire the 2 vacant parcels at the southeast corner of 36th Street and Wooddale Avenue (specifically 3601 Wooddale Ave., and 5810 37th Street West), remediate the contaminated soils, and prepare the 2-acre site for redevelopment. Upon completion, the Redeveloper agreed to construct a five story, mixed-use, senior residential housing complex (currently named “TowerLight on Wooddale Avenue”). In order to make the project financially feasible, the EDA agreed in the Contract to reimburse the Redeveloper for a portion of the costs associated with environmental remediation, site preparation, and construction of the underground structured parking (collectively referred to as “Public Redevelopment Costs”) related to the Redevelopment Property. To reimburse the Public Redevelopment Costs incurred by Redeveloper, the EDA agreed to issue a TIF Revenue Note to the Redeveloper in the maximum principal amount of $490,000. The Contract states that the TIF Note will be issued when the Redeveloper has submitted to the EDA, and the EDA certifies, that the required Public Redevelopment Costs were actually incurred by the Redeveloper. Staff has reviewed the Public Redevelopment Costs submitted by the Redeveloper and has verified that the Redeveloper incurred more than sufficient certified Public Redevelopment Costs during construction of the project to warrant issuance of the Note. Given that the Redeveloper has met this and other required conditions for the issuance of the Note, the EDA/City Council is being asked to formally approve issuance of the TIF Note. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Issuance of the TIF Note will not require any cash payments from the EDA or City. All costs associated with issuance of the Note (Kennedy & Graven and Ehlers) are paid from gross proceeds of the tax increment. VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to providing a well-maintained and diverse housing stock. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion Resolution of Approval Prepared by: Greg Hunt, Economic Development Coordinator Reviewed by: Michele Schnitker, Housing Supervisor Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager and EDA Executive Director Economic Development Authority Meeting of December 15, 2014 (Item No. 7c) Page 2 Title: Issuance of a TIF Revenue Note – TowerLight Project DISCUSSION BACKGROUND: On June 7, 2010, the EDA entered into a Updated Redevelopment Contract with Wooddale Catered Living Owner, LP (Greco Development and “Redeveloper”) in which the Redeveloper committed to acquire 2 vacant parcels at the southeast corner of 36th Street and Wooddale Avenue, remediate the contaminated soils, and prepare the 2-acre site for redevelopment. In their place, the Redeveloper agreed to construct a five story, mixed use, building with structured underground parking. The building was to consist of 115 senior (independent and assisted living) units on the second through fifth floors, 10,000 SF of retail on the first floor and a small outdoor public gathering area that would include public art. In order to make the project financially feasible, the EDA agreed in the Redevelopment Contract to reimburse the Redeveloper for a portion of the costs associated with contamination remediation, site preparation, and underground structured parking related to the Redevelopment Property up to a maximum of $490,000. To reimburse the Public Redevelopment Costs incurred by Redeveloper, the EDA agreed to issue to the Redeveloper a TIF revenue Note. The Contract states that the TIF Note will be issued when the Redeveloper has submitted satisfactory written evidence to the EDA, and the EDA certifies, that the above Public Redevelopment Costs were actually incurred by the Redeveloper. The TowerLight building project was completed in the fall of 2012 but some of the stormwater infrastructure related to the redevelopment was not satisfactorily completed until this fall. Staff has reviewed the Public Redevelopment Costs submitted by the Redeveloper and has verified that the Redeveloper has incurred more than sufficient certified Public Redevelopment Costs within the project to warrant the issuance of the Note. Given that the Redeveloper has met this and other required conditions under the Contract for the issuance of the Note, the EDA is being asked to formally approve the issuance of the TIF Note. The proposed Note will be issued in the maximum principal amount of $490,000 and will be secured by available tax increment generated from the improved properties located within the existing Elmwood Village Tax Increment Financing District. The Note will be “pay-as-you-go” which is the desired financing method under the city's TIF Policy. The Note will bear interest at a rate of 6.5%, and will have a term of approximately 5 years. Consistent with the City’s TIF Policy, Fiscal Disparities will be taken from inside the district. A 5% administrative fee will be charged to the district which is the EDA’s typical rate. To secure the Note, the Redeveloper signed a Minimum Assessment Agreement which indicates that the minimum market value of the project shall be $13,650,000 as of January 2, 2012. The subject property’s current assessed value is $18,400,000. The EDA acknowledges that the Redeveloper may assign the Note to third parties. The EDA consents to such an assignment, conditioned upon receipt of an investment letter from such third parties in a form reasonably acceptable to the EDA. The Redeveloper acknowledged in the Redevelopment Contract that the EDA makes no representations or warranties regarding the amount of Tax Increment, or that revenues pledged to the Notes will be sufficient to pay the principal and interest on the Notes. Economic Development Authority Meeting of December 15, 2014 (Item No. 7c) Page 3 Title: Issuance of a TIF Revenue Note – TowerLight Project ST. LOUIS PARK ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY EDA RESOLUTION NO. 14-___ RESOLUTION AWARDING THE SALE OF, AND PROVIDING THE FORM, TERMS, COVENANTS AND DIRECTIONS FOR THE ISSUANCE OF ITS TAX INCREMENT REVENUE NOTE, SERIES 2013 TO WOODDALE CATERED LIVING OWNER, LP. BE IT RESOLVED BY the Board of Commissioners (“Board”) of the St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority, St. Louis Park, Minnesota (the “Authority”) as follows: Section 1. Authorization; Award of Sale. 1.01. Authorization. The Authority and the City of St. Louis Park have heretofore approved the establishment of its Elmwood Village Tax Increment Financing District (the “TIF District”) within Redevelopment Project No. 1 (“Project”), and have adopted a tax increment financing plan for the purpose of financing certain improvements within the Project. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.178, the Authority is authorized to issue and sell its bonds for the purpose of financing a portion of the public development costs of the Project. Such bonds are payable from all or any portion of revenues derived from the TIF District and pledged to the payment of the bonds. The Authority hereby finds and determines that it is in the best interests of the Authority that it issue and sell its Tax Increment Revenue Note, Series 2013 (the “Note”) for the purpose of financing certain public development costs of the Project. 1.02. Issuance, Sale, and Terms of the Note. (a) The Authority hereby authorizes the President and Executive Director to issue the Note in accordance with the Contract for Private Redevelopment dated as of June 7, 2010, between the Authority and Wooddale Catered Living, LLC, and approved on June 7, 2010 by the Authority, as amended (the “Agreement”), as assigned to Wooddale Catered Living Owner, LP (the “Owner”). All capitalized terms in this resolution have the meaning provided in the Agreement unless the context requires otherwise. (b) The Note shall be issued in the maximum aggregate principal amount of $490,000 to the Owner in consideration of certain eligible costs incurred by the Owner under the Agreement, and shall bear interest at the lesser of 6.5% or the actual rate of financing obtained by the Owner, from the date of issue per annum to the earlier of maturity or prepayment. The Note will be issued in the principal amount of Public Redevelopment Costs submitted and approved in accordance with Section 3.3 of the Agreement. The Note is secured by Available Tax Increment, as further described in the form of the Note herein. The Authority hereby finds that the Owner satisfied the contractual conditions precedent to issuance of the Note as of August 1, 2013, and has determined to deliver the Note to the Owner upon approval of this Resolution, but constructively as of August 1, 2013. Section 2. Form of Note. The Note shall be in substantially the following form: Economic Development Authority Meeting of December 15, 2014 (Item No. 7c) Page 4 Title: Issuance of a TIF Revenue Note – TowerLight Project UNITED STATE OF AMERICA STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ST. LOUIS PARK ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY No. R-1 $490,000 TAX INCREMENT REVENUE NOTE SERIES 2013 Date Rate of Original Issue 6.5% August 1, 2013 The St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority (the “Authority”) for value received, certifies that it is indebted and hereby promises to pay to Wooddale Catered Living Owner, LP or registered assigns (the “Owner”), the principal sum of $490,000 and to pay interest thereon at the rate of six and one-half percent (6.5%) per annum, solely from the sources and to the extent set forth herein. Capitalized terms shall have the meanings provided in the Contract for Private Redevelopment between the Authority and Wooddale Catered Living, LLC, dated as of June 7, 2010, as amended (the “Agreement”), as assigned to the Owner, unless the context requires otherwise. 1. Payments. Principal and interest (“Payments”) shall be paid on February 1, 2015 and each February 1 and August 1 thereafter to and including February 1, 2021 (“Payment Dates”) in the amounts and from the sources set forth in Section 3 herein. Payments shall be applied first to accrued interest, and then to unpaid principal. Payments are payable by mail to the address of the Owner or such other address as the Owner may designate upon thirty (30) days written notice to the Authority. Payments on this Note are payable in any coin or currency of the United States of America which, on the Payment Date, is legal tender for the payment of public and private debts. 2. Interest. Interest at the rate stated herein shall accrue on the unpaid principal, commencing on the date of original issue, through and including February 1, 2015. Interest shall be computed on the basis of a year of 360 days comprised of twelve 30-day months. 3. Available Tax Increment. (a) Payments on this Note are payable on each Payment Date solely from and in the amount of Available Tax Increment, which shall mean, on each Payment Date, Ninety-five percent (95%) of the Tax Increment attributable to the Minimum Improvements and Redevelopment Property that is paid to the Authority by Hennepin County in the six months preceding the Payment Date. (b) The Authority shall have no obligation to pay principal of and interest on this Note on each Payment Date from any source other than Available Tax Increment and the failure of the Authority to pay the entire amount of principal or interest on this Note on any Payment Date shall not constitute a default hereunder as long as the Authority pays principal and interest Economic Development Authority Meeting of December 15, 2014 (Item No. 7c) Page 5 Title: Issuance of a TIF Revenue Note – TowerLight Project hereon to the extent of Available Tax Increment. The Authority shall have no obligation to pay any unpaid balance of principal or accrued interest that may remain after the final Payment on February 1, 2021. 4. Default. If on any Payment Date there has occurred and is continuing any Event of Default under the Agreement, the Authority may withhold from payments hereunder under all Available Tax Increment. If the Event of Default is thereafter cured in accordance with the Agreement, the Available Tax Increment withheld under this Section shall be deferred and paid, without interest thereon, within thirty (30) days after the Event of Default is cured. If the Event of Default is not cured in a timely manner, the Authority may terminate this Note by written notice to the Owner in accordance with the Agreement. 5. Prepayment. The principal sum and all accrued interest payable under this Note is prepayable in whole or in part at any time by the Authority without premium or penalty. No partial prepayment shall affect the amount or timing of any other regular Payment otherwise required to be made under this Note. 6. Nature of Obligation. This Note is one of an issue in the total principal amount of $490,000, issued to aid in financing certain public redevelopment costs and administrative costs of a Project undertaken by the Authority pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.001 through 469.047, and is issued pursuant to an authorizing resolution (the “Resolution”) duly adopted by the Authority on December 15, 2014, and pursuant to and in full conformity with the Constitution and laws of the State of Minnesota, including Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.174 to 469.179, as amended. This Note is a limited obligation of the Authority which is payable solely from Available Tax Increment pledged to the payment hereof under the Resolution. This Note and the interest hereon shall not be deemed to constitute a general obligation of the State of Minnesota or any political subdivision thereof, including, without limitation, the Authority. Neither the State of Minnesota, nor any political subdivision thereof shall be obligated to pay the principal of or interest on this Note or other costs incident hereto except out of Available Tax Increment, and neither the full faith and credit nor the taxing power of the State of Minnesota or any political subdivision thereof is pledged to the payment of the principal of or interest on this Note or other costs incident hereto. 7. Registration and Transfer. This Note is issuable only as a fully registered note without coupons. As provided in the Resolution, and subject to certain limitations set forth therein, this Note is transferable upon the books of the Authority kept for that purpose at the principal office of the City Finance Director, by the Owner hereof in person or by such Owner’s attorney duly authorized in writing, upon surrender of this Note together with a written instrument of transfer satisfactory to the Authority, duly executed by the Owner. Upon such transfer or exchange and the payment by the Owner of any tax, fee, or governmental charge required to be paid by the Authority with respect to such transfer or exchange, there will be issued in the name of the transferee a new Note of the same aggregate principal amount, bearing interest at the same rate and maturing on the same dates. Except as otherwise provided in Section 3.4(d) of the Agreement, this Note shall not be transferred to any person or entity, unless the Authority has provided written consent to such transfer and the Authority has been provided with an opinion of counsel or a certificate of the transferor, in a form satisfactory to the Authority, that such transfer is exempt from registration and prospectus delivery requirements of federal and applicable state securities laws. Economic Development Authority Meeting of December 15, 2014 (Item No. 7c) Page 6 Title: Issuance of a TIF Revenue Note – TowerLight Project IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED AND RECITED that all acts, conditions, and things required by the Constitution and laws of the State of Minnesota to be done, to exist, to happen, and to be performed in order to make this Note a valid and binding limited obligation of the Authority according to its terms, have been done, do exist, have happened, and have been performed in due form, time and manner as so required. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Board of Commissioners of the St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority have caused this Note to be executed with the manual signatures of its President and Executive Director, all as of the Date of Original Issue specified above. ST. LOUIS PARK ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Executive Director President Economic Development Authority Meeting of December 15, 2014 (Item No. 7c) Page 7 Title: Issuance of a TIF Revenue Note – TowerLight Project REGISTRATION PROVISIONS The ownership of the unpaid balance of the within Note is registered in the bond register of the City Finance Director, in the name of the person last listed below. Date of Registration Registered Owner Signature of City Controller _________, 2014 Wooddale Catered Living Owner, LP Federal Tax I.D No. 27-128067 Economic Development Authority Meeting of December 15, 2014 (Item No. 7c) Page 8 Title: Issuance of a TIF Revenue Note – TowerLight Project Section 3. Terms, Execution and Delivery. 3.01. Denomination, Payment. The Note shall be issued as a single typewritten note numbered R-1. The Note shall be issuable only in fully registered form. Principal of and interest on the Note shall be payable by check or draft issued by the Registrar described herein. 3.02. Dates; Interest Payment Dates. Principal of and interest on the Note shall be payable by mail to the owner of record thereof as of the close of business on the fifteenth day of the month preceding the Payment Date, whether or not such day is a business day. 3.03. Registration. The Authority hereby appoints the City Controller to perform the functions of registrar, transfer agent and paying agent (the “Registrar”). The effect of registration and the rights and duties of the Authority and the Registrar with respect thereto shall be as follows: (a) Register. The Registrar shall keep at its office a bond register in which the Registrar shall provide for the registration of ownership of the Note and the registration of transfers and exchanges of the Note. (b) Transfer of Note. Upon surrender for transfer of the Note duly endorsed by the registered owner thereof or accompanied by a written instrument of transfer, in form reasonably satisfactory to the Registrar, duly executed by the registered owner thereof or by an attorney duly authorized by the registered owner in writing, the Registrar shall authenticate and deliver, in the name of the designated transferee or transferees, a new Note of a like aggregate principal amount and maturity, as requested by the transferor. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Note shall not be transferred to any person other than an affiliate, or other related entity, of the Owner unless the Authority has been provided with an opinion of counsel or a certificate of the transferor, in a form satisfactory to the Authority, that such transfer is exempt from registration and prospectus delivery requirements of federal and applicable state securities laws. The Registrar may close the books for registration of any transfer after the fifteenth day of the month preceding each Payment Date and until such Payment Date. (c) Cancellation. The Note surrendered upon any transfer shall be promptly cancelled by the Registrar and thereafter disposed of as directed by the Authority. (d) Improper or Unauthorized Transfer. When the Note is presented to the Registrar for transfer, the Registrar may refuse to transfer the same until it is satisfied that the endorsement on such Note or separate instrument of transfer is legally authorized. The Registrar shall incur no liability for its refusal, in good faith, to make transfers which it, in its judgment, deems improper or unauthorized. (e) Persons Deemed Owners. The Authority and the Registrar may treat the person in whose name the Note is at any time registered in the bond register as the absolute owner of the Note, whether the Note shall be overdue or not, for the purpose of receiving payment of, or on account of, the principal of and interest on such Note and for all other purposes, and all such payments so made to any such registered owner or upon the owner’s order shall be valid and effectual to satisfy and discharge the liability of the Authority upon such Note to the extent of the sum or sums so paid. Economic Development Authority Meeting of December 15, 2014 (Item No. 7c) Page 9 Title: Issuance of a TIF Revenue Note – TowerLight Project (f) Taxes, Fees and Charges. For every transfer or exchange of the Note, the Registrar may impose a charge upon the owner thereof sufficient to reimburse the Registrar for any tax, fee, or other governmental charge required to be paid with respect to such transfer or exchange. (g) Mutilated, Lost, Stolen or Destroyed Note. In case any Note shall become mutilated or be lost, stolen, or destroyed, the Registrar shall deliver a new Note of like amount, maturity dates and tenor in exchange and substitution for and upon cancellation of such mutilated Note or in lieu of and in substitution for such Note lost, stolen, or destroyed, upon the payment of the reasonable expenses and charges of the Registrar in connection therewith; and, in the case the Note lost, stolen, or destroyed, upon filing with the Registrar of evidence satisfactory to it that such Note was lost, stolen, or destroyed, and of the ownership thereof, and upon furnishing to the Registrar of an appropriate bond or indemnity in form, substance, and amount satisfactory to it, in which both the Authority and the Registrar shall be named as obligees. The Note so surrendered to the Registrar shall be cancelled by it and evidence of such cancellation shall be given to the Authority. If the mutilated, lost, stolen, or destroyed Note has already matured or been called for redemption in accordance with its terms, it shall not be necessary to issue a new Note prior to payment. 3.04. Preparation and Delivery. The Note shall be prepared under the direction of the Executive Director and shall be executed on behalf of the Authority by the signatures of its President and Executive Director. In case any officer whose signature shall appear on the Note shall cease to be such officer before the delivery of the Note, such signature shall nevertheless be valid and sufficient for all purposes, the same as if such officer had remained in office until delivery. When the Note has been so executed, it shall be delivered by the Executive Director to the Owner thereof in accordance with the Agreement. Section 4. Security Provisions. 4.01. Pledge. The Authority hereby pledges to the payment of the principal of and interest on the Note all Available Tax Increment as defined in the Note. Available Tax Increment shall be applied to payment of the principal of and interest on the Note in accordance with the terms of the form of Note set forth in Section 2 of this resolution. 4.02. Bond Fund. Until the date the Note is no longer outstanding and no principal thereof or interest thereon (to the extent required to be paid pursuant to this resolution) remains unpaid, the Authority shall maintain a separate and special “Bond Fund” to be used for no purpose other than the payment of the principal of and interest on the Note. The Authority irrevocably agrees to appropriate to the Bond Fund on or before each Payment Date the Available Tax Increment received during the six-month period preceding such Payment Date. Any Available Tax Increment remaining in the Bond Fund shall be transferred to the Authority’s account for the TIF District upon the termination of the Note in accordance with its terms. 4.03. Additional Obligations. The Authority will issue no other obligations secured in whole or in part by Available Tax Increment unless such pledge is on a subordinate basis to the pledge on the Note. Economic Development Authority Meeting of December 15, 2014 (Item No. 7c) Page 10 Title: Issuance of a TIF Revenue Note – TowerLight Project Section 5. Certification of Proceedings. 5.01. Certification of Proceedings. The officers of the Authority are hereby authorized and directed to prepare and furnish to the Owner of the Note certified copies of all proceedings and records of the Authority, and such other affidavits, certificates, and information as may be required to show the facts relating to the legality and marketability of the Note as the same appear from the books and records under their custody and control or as otherwise known to them, and all such certified copies, certificates, and affidavits, including any heretofore furnished, shall be deemed representations of the Authority as to the facts recited therein. Section 6. Effective Date. This resolution shall be effective upon approval. Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority December 15, 2014 Executive Director President Attest Secretary Meeting: Economic Development Authority Meeting Date: December 15, 2014 Action Agenda Item: 7d EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: 2015 Final HRA Levy Certification and Budget Adoption RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to Adopt EDA Resolution authorizing the proposed levy of a special benefit levy pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 469.033, Subdivision 6, and approval of the 2015 Final HRA Levy and Budget for fiscal year 2015. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the EDA desire to continue to levy the full 0.0185% of estimated market value allowable for HRA purposes of $953,238, which is an increase of $3,879 or approximately 0.41% from 2014? SUMMARY: HRA Levy proceeds are used for infrastructure improvements in redevelopment areas. Thus far, some of the HRA Levy proceeds have been used to fund infrastructure studies, analyses for future improvement projects and are currently paying for the City’s share of Highway 7 and Louisiana. By law, these funds could also be used for other housing and redevelopment purposes, but they are committed to funding Highway 7 and Louisiana until 2021 based on the current Long Range Financial Management Plan. Given the significant infrastructure needs facing the City in the future, staff recommends the HRA Levy continue at the maximum allowed by law for the 2015 budget year. The HRA Levy cannot exceed 0.0185% of the estimated market value of the City. Therefore, staff has calculated the maximum HRA Levy for 2015 to be $953,238 based on data from Hennepin County which is a $3,879 increase or approximately 0.41% from the 2014 HRA Levy of $949,359. The EDA is allowed to authorize the HRA levy and then forward this recommendation to the City Council. Council action is required before certification, which is also scheduled to occur on December 15, 2014. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: The proposed levy will help support infrastructure in redevelopment areas and possible affordable housing initiatives. VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged community. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: EDA Resolution 2015 HRA Levy Final Budget Prepared by: Brian A. Swanson, Controller Reviewed by: Nancy Deno, EDA Deputy Executive Director/Deputy City Manager Approved by: Tom Harmening, EDA Executive Director and City Manager Economic Development Authority Meeting of December 15, 2014 (Item No. 7d) Page 2 Title: 2015 Final HRA Levy Certification and Budget Adoption ST. LOUIS PARK ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY EDA RESOLUTION NO. 14-____ AUTHORIZING THE FINAL LEVY OF A SPECIAL BENEFIT LEVY PURSUANT TO MINNESOTA STATUTES, SECTION 469.033, SUBDIVISION 6 AND APPROVAL OF A FINAL BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2015 WHEREAS, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.090 to 469.108 (the “EDA Act”), the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park created the St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority (the "Authority"); and WHEREAS, pursuant to the EDA Act, the City Council granted to the Authority all of the powers and duties of a housing and redevelopment authority under the provisions of the Minnesota Statutes, sections 469.001 to 469.047 (the "HRA Act"); and WHEREAS, Section 469.033, Subdivision 6, of the HRA Act permits the Authority to levy and collect a special benefit levy of up to .0185 percent of estimated market value in the City upon all taxable real property within the City; and WHEREAS, the Authority desires to levy a special benefit levy in the amount of up to .0185 percent of estimated market value in the City for taxes payable in 2015; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 275.065, the Authority is required to adopt a proposed budget and a proposed tax levy and submit the same to the County Auditor by September 15; and WHEREAS, the Authority has before it for its consideration a copy of a proposed budget for its operations for the fiscal year 2015 and the amount of the proposed levy for collection in 2015 shall be based on this budget and the long range financial management plan, subject to any adjustments in the budget as finally approved prior to certification of the final special benefit levy. NOW THEREFORE, be it resolved by the Board of Commissioners of the St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority: 1. The proposed budget for the operations of the Authority in fiscal year 2015, as presented for consideration by the City Council, is hereby in all respects approved, subject to final approval by the Authority before certification of the tax levy under Minnesota Statutes, Section 275.07. 2. Staff of the Authority are hereby authorized and directed to file the proposed budget with the City in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.033, Subdivision 6. 3. The proposed special benefit levy pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.033, Subdivision 6, is hereby approved in a maximum amount equal to .0185 percent of estimated market value in City of St. Louis Park, currently estimated to be $5,152,637,838 with respect to taxes payable in calendar year 2015, subject to final approval by the Authority before certification of the special benefit levy pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 275.07. Economic Development Authority Meeting of December 15, 2014 (Item No. 7d) Page 3 Title: 2015 Final HRA Levy Certification and Budget Adoption 4. Staff of the Authority are hereby authorized and directed to seek the approval by resolution of the City Council of the levy of special benefit taxes payable in 2015 and to take such other actions as are necessary to bring before the Board the final budget and levy to be sent to the county auditor on or before five working days after December 20, 2014. Reviewed for Administration Adopted by the Economic Development Authority December 15, 2014 Executive Director President Attest: Secretary Economic Development Authority Meeting of December 15, 2014 (Item No. 7d) Page 4 Title: 2015 Final HRA Levy Certification and Budget Adoption HRA Levy 2015 Preliminary Budget December 15, 2014 2013 2014 2015 Actual Budget Proposed Budget Revenues: Property Tax Levy 899,390$ 949,359$ 953,238$ Market Value Homestead Credit 2 - - Interest Income 14,029 4,221 - Transfer In from Development Fund - 5,000,000 - Total Revenue 913,421$ 5,953,580$ 953,238$ Expenditures: Infrastructure Projects 3,552,017$ 5,220,000$ 2,027,403$ Services and Other Charges 4,708 51,369 52,577 Transfer Out to Development Fund 1,000,000 Total Expenditures 3,556,725$ 5,271,369$ 3,079,980$ Beginning Fund Balance 4,777,369$ 2,134,065$ 2,816,276$ Net Change in Fund Balance (2,643,304)$ 682,211$ (2,126,742)$ Ending Fund Balance 2,134,065$ 2,816,276$ 689,534$ Meeting: Economic Development Authority Meeting Date: December 15, 2014 Action Agenda Item: 7e EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: Fund Transfers and Interfund Loan RECOMMENDED ACTION: • Motion to Adopt EDA Resolution authorizing fund transfers. • Motion to Adopt EDA Resolution approving an interfund loan. POLICY CONSIDERATION: • Does the EDA desire to approve the proposed fund transfers from the Park Center TIF District to the Housing Rehabilitation Fund and from the Development Fund to the Hwy 7 Corporate Center TIF District? • Does the EDA desire to approve the interfund loan from the Development Fund to the Housing Rehabilitation Fund? SUMMARY: Fund transfers are recommended from the Park Center TIF District to the Housing Rehabilitation Fund and from the Development Fund to the Hwy 7 Corporate Center TIF District. An interfund loan is also proposed from the Development Fund to the Housing Rehabilitation Fund. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Tax increment generated by the Park Center TIF District can be used to fund eligible housing programs, and all previous obligations in this district have been satisfied. A transfer of $110,000 is proposed in 2014 from the Park Center TIF District to the Housing Rehabilitation Fund. Annual transfers of available Park Center increment will be recommended going forward to provide additional funding for eligible housing program expenditures in the Housing Rehabilitation Fund. A one-time transfer is necessary from the Development Fund to the Hwy 7 Corporate Center TIF District to correct a previous salary allocation where expenses were inadvertently charged to the TIF District. This causes the district to have a negative cash balance after the 2/1 and 8/1 Pay As You Go note payments are made each year. The expenses should have been correctly paid by the Development Fund. A transfer of $47,356 is recommended from the Development Fund to the Hwy 7 Corporate Center TIF District in 2014 to make this correction. As discussed in the past, the Housing Rehabilitation Fund continues to have funding challenges. An interfund loan is necessary to have in place in the event that the Housing Rehabilitation Fund should run a cash deficit at the end of 2014 or in a future year. Staff proposes that the EDA approve an interfund loan resolution from the Development Fund to the Housing Rehabilitation Fund in an amount not to exceed $500,000. The Housing Rehabilitation Fund will repay any funds borrowed from the Development Fund with 4% interest when sufficient resources are available. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: EDA Resolutions 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 Economic Development Authority Meeting of December 15, 2014 (Item No. 7e) Page 2 Title: Fund Transfers and Interfund Loan ST. LOUIS PARK ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY EDA RESOLUTION NO. 14-____ RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING FUND TRANSFERS WHEREAS, the Economic Development Authority has created various special purpose funds; and WHEREAS, fund transfers may be required to reallocate amounts between funds; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Board of Commissioners of the St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority: Approval is hereby given to the Controller to make fund transfers as shown. Transferring Fund Receiving Fund Amount Park Center TIF District Housing Rehabilitation Fund $ 110,000 Development Fund Hwy 7 Corporate Center TIF District $ 47,356 Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the Economic Development Authority December 15, 2014 Executive Director President Attest Secretary Economic Development Authority Meeting of December 15, 2014 (Item No. 7e) Page 3 Title: Fund Transfers and Interfund Loan ST. LOUIS PARK ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY EDA RESOLUTION NO. 14-____ RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING INTERFUND LOAN WHEREAS, the Economic Development Authority has created various special purpose funds; and WHEREAS, interfund loans may be authorized to other funds as necessary; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Board of Commissioners of the St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority: 1. The following interfund loan is approved from the Development Fund as needed: Loan From Loan To Maximum Loan Development Fund Housing Rehabilitation Fund $ 500,000 2. Such loan is to be repaid with 4% interest when sufficient resources are available. Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the Economic Development Authority December 15, 2014 Executive Director President Attest Secretary Meeting: City Council Meeting Date: December 15, 2014 Minutes: 3a UNOFFICIAL MINUTES CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA NOVEMBER 24, 2014 The meeting convened at 6:30 p.m. Councilmembers present: Mayor Jeff Jacobs, Tim Brausen, Steve Hallfin, Gregg Lindberg, Anne Mavity, Susan Sanger, and Jake Spano. Councilmembers absent: None. Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), Senior Engineering Project Manager (Mr. Sullivan), Planning/Zoning Supervisor (Ms. McMonigal), Director of Engineering (Ms. Heiser), Economic Development Coordinator (Mr. Hunt), Communications & Marketing Coordinator (Mr. Zwilling), and Recording Secretary (Ms. Staple). Guest: None. 1. Future Study Session Agenda Planning – December 8 and 15, 2014 Mr. Harmening presented the proposed study session agenda for December 8th and the proposed study session agenda for December 15th. He stated that it has been the practice to not hold the second study session of the month during December and confirmed that the December 22nd meeting will be canceled. Councilmember Sanger stated that she has been approached with two proposals regarding smoking, specifically whether e-cigarettes should be banned in a similar method to cigarettes and the second regarding second hand smoke. She requested that the Council discuss those items in a future study session. Councilmember Hallfin stated that he has also heard the complaint regarding second hand smoke and was willing to consider discussing the issue at a future study session. Councilmember Brausen stated that he would like to see the Council discuss green technologies and sustainability discussed at a future study session. The Council supported that direction on a visioning level to discuss as a topic for the annual retreat. Mr. Harmening stated that he could obtain an update from the Environmental and Sustainability Commission, as well. Councilmember Mavity stated that there is a petition circling requesting that the designation as a Municipal State Aid (MSA) be removed from 38th Street and she had been asked to bring the issue forward. The consensus of the Council was not to discuss that item further at this time. 2. Southwest LRT Update Ms. McMonigal presented the staff report. She provided estimated design costs and timelines for the Xenwood station along with the estimated construction costs. City Council Meeting of December 15, 2014 (Item No. 3a) Page 2 Title: Study Session Minutes of November 24, 2014 Councilmember Mavity referenced the bridge structure identified in the SPO budget and questioned if that would be a pedestrian bridge. Ms. McMonigal explained that the City would have to pay for the design but the Metropolitan (Met) Council would design the bridge, which would accommodate the train. She confirmed that this would also accommodate bicycle and pedestrian access and trail connection. Mr. Harmening explained that Three Rivers Park District and Hennepin County are partnering to provide the grade-separated trail under Wooddale. Councilmember Sanger questioned if the initial design costs would be funded through the TIF District. Ms. McMonigal stated that depending upon the type of development that would occur in those areas, some of the funds could be generated from the TIF District that would be created. Councilmember Brausen asked for additional detail on which properties are developable surrounding the station areas. Ms. McMonigal identified the potential development opportunities nearby the station locations. Councilmember Mavity proposed that the City move forward on the issue of the Xenwood station, contingent upon the finalizing of a final package. It was the consensus of the City Council to continue to move forward on the design plans for Xenwood station as proposed. Councilmember Brausen stated that he is not committing to the full project but simply the design phase at this point. Councilmember Sanger referenced the EDA owned land near some of the station locations and stated that she is not interested in giving land to the Met Council, noting that if the Met Council needs the land they could purchase the land. Ms. McMonigal presented the Beltline station plans along with the estimated design costs and timeline as well as the estimated construction costs. Councilmember Mavity questioned if the City would have any further input into the design that will not be funded by the City. Mr. Sullivan stated that the project office is working with Hennepin County as the lead municipality, noting that the City has been working to provide input. Councilmember Mavity stated that she is opposed to the design. She stated that the residents put a large amount of effort into developing the Beltline design guidelines for this area and questioned which aspects of those guidelines are even being considered. She did not remember when this Council decided that this is the plan that they wanted and questioned why the other options were not included in this plan. She asked for additional information on the input that was received from the public process. City Council Meeting of December 15, 2014 (Item No. 3a) Page 3 Title: Study Session Minutes of November 24, 2014 Councilmember Spano clarified that the Council did not decide on this plan and explained that this is the design that the Met Council has presented. He stated that it was his understanding that the Council would like to place additional options for this location as a top priority. Ms. McMonigal explained that staff discussed several things during the design guidelines and circulation plan. She stated that the decision regarding frontage road access for Nordic Ware trucks had not been made at this time. Councilmember Sanger asked that staff review the various improvements requested for the area and provides a sense of priority for those options, specifically which items would need to be completed now compared to later. She questioned if the City has the ability to deny the design plans and whether that would provide an opportunity to further negotiate this area. Mr. Harmening advised that the surface lot was included in the base plan. He explained that the City is asking for the additional items, not the Met Council. It was noted that the surface lot was already approved through municipal consent for the base plan. Councilmember Lindberg stated that in his opinion this plan must be approved in order to obtain the backage road to facilitate development. He explained that the reality between municipal consent for this regional transit project and now is that the City must now make decisions to spend local tax dollars in order to build this project correctly. It was the consensus of the City Council to continue to move forward on the design plans for Beltline as proposed. Ms. McMonigal shared four potential station platform designs that will be presented at the SW Corridor Management Committee Meeting next week. She explained that the Master Funding Agreement will be the mechanism for exchanging funds. She stated that a draft of that agreement is not yet available but believed that it would come before the Council in the next month. She advised that two Committees will be restarting including the Business Advisory Committee and the Citizens Advisory Committee. She stated that she did ask the level of interest from previous members. It was the consensus of the Council to post the Committee positions to the general public, ask interested existing and previous members to reapply, and to interview the applicants. 3. West End Redevelopment Update Mr. Hunt presented the staff report related to the proposed Central Park West Master Plan. He believed the Amendment to the Redevelopment Contract will come before the Council on December 15th. Councilmember Mavity commended this plan for their thought towards pedestrian and traffic flow. Mr. Harmening discussed the electronic communication aspects of the project including the location of fiber connections. City Council Meeting of December 15, 2014 (Item No. 3a) Page 4 Title: Study Session Minutes of November 24, 2014 Councilmember Sanger noted that this plan has been changed from the original and development will now be split further with Golden Valley and questioned the tax implications that would have. She referenced the timeline for construction of the parking ramps and confirmed that adequate parking would be provided throughout the first phases of the project. Ms. McMonigal noted that the Planning Commission did discuss parking and advised that the plan would be tweaked slightly to ensure adequate parking will be provided throughout each phase of the project. Councilmember Brausen referenced certain aspects of the project including the 11 units of affordable housing, hoping that those units would all be located in St. Louis Park. He also questioned whether the apartment building split by the city boundaries would be entirely located in one city or split, for mailing and voting purposes. He also inquired as to how the privately owned public open space would operate. Mr. Hunt provided details as to how the privately owned public open space would operate.. Councilmember Lindberg stated that he would like to see the hotel developed as soon as possible and not limited by the construction of parking ramps. Councilmember Mavity referenced a pedestrian crossing at a blind intersection and wanted to ensure that was adequately marked and safe. 4. City Manager’s 2014 Performance Evaluation Mr. Harmening presented the staff report with options for the evaluation. Councilmember Sanger stated that she would like to see the supervisory skills evaluated over the outcome of the goals. Commissioner Brausen confirmed that Mr. Harmening would find the more formal evaluation beneficial. Councilmember Mavity stated that she would be in favor of using a multi-year approach, using the 360 degree tool only every four years or so. Councilmember Sanger stated that if Mr. Harmening desires the 360-degree review she would be in agreement but stated that it probably is not necessary because of the great performance of the City Manager. Mr. Harmening stated that the City Council is doing a lot right now and he would like to have a discussion with the Council in order to determine the most important items the Council should be focusing on in the next two to three years. He noted that he had a similar discussion with the City staff recently. Councilmember Mavity stated that if time would be better spent on other items she did not see the purpose of doing the 360-degree review this year. Councilmember Brausen stated that he would find it beneficial to have the input of staff. Mr. Harmening stated that all other staff receive an evaluation on an annual basis. City Council Meeting of December 15, 2014 (Item No. 3a) Page 5 Title: Study Session Minutes of November 24, 2014 It was the consensus of the City Council to review the performance of the City Manager in a similar method to what has been done in the past. 4. 2015 City Council Workshop Mr. Harmening presented the staff report. He confirmed that the Council could discuss the priority focus for the next few years, and also in that regard to review the input that has been received from staff on that issue. Councilmember Spano stated that the Council frequently talks about large scale and small scale, often shifting to the smaller scale. He suggested that the Council engages in the discussion regarding what future residents will desire in a city. He stated that he would like the Council to consider what the future generation of residents will desire in the future rather than focusing just on what is happening now. Councilmember Sanger stated that the Council must also consider the residents here now, including seniors, to ensure that there are residents in the future. She stated that she would also like to discuss the potential community center and an overall financial picture. Commissioner Brausen agreed that the Council should consider goals setting and discussions for the future. Mayor Jacobs confirmed that some team building could take place on Thursday night and then discussions could focus on large-scale visions. He agreed that it would be beneficial to have the input of the younger generation and to have a long range visioning discussions. Councilmember Mavity stated that it would also be beneficial to have more information regarding long-term financial stability for the City including the implications that certain items, such as a community center, would have. She believed that item could be relatively short with a written report provided in advance. Mr. Harmening suggested that Thursday night be reserved for governance and relational learning, which are very beneficial activities. Councilmember Brausen stated that he would also like to hear the goals of the department heads. Councilmember Sanger stated that she would also like to see comparative information to other cities in terms of long-term financial plans. Councilmember Hallfin stated that perhaps a Subcommittee should be formed with some staff members in order to better set the agenda for the retreat. Councilmembers Brausen, Sanger, and Mavity volunteered to join the Subcommittee. Communications (verbal) None. The meeting adjourned at 8:40 p.m. City Council Meeting of December 15, 2014 (Item No. 3a) Page 6 Title: Study Session Minutes of November 24, 2014 Written Reports provided and documented for recording purposes only: 6. Friends of the Arts Update 7. October 2014 Monthly Financial Report 8. Environmentally Preferred Purchasing Policy Proposal 9. East Triangle Neighborhood Redevelopment Update 10. Update on 40th and France ______________________________________ ______________________________________ Nancy Stroth, City Clerk Jeff Jacobs, Mayor Meeting: City Council Meeting Date: December 15, 2014 Minutes: 3b UNOFFICIAL MINUTES SPECIAL STUDY SESSION ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA DECEMBER 1, 2014 The meeting convened at 7:00 p.m. Councilmembers present: Mayor Jeff Jacobs, Tim Brausen, Steve Hallfin, Gregg Lindberg, Anne Mavity, Susan Sanger, and Jake Spano. Councilmembers absent: None. Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening) and Recording Secretary (Ms. Staple). Guest: None. 1. Council Overview of National League of Cities Conference Councilmember Hallfin presented an overview of the National League of Cities Conference, including an affordable housing tour. He explained that their affordable housing was more project based than the scattered site approach that Saint Louis Park uses. He noted that one site was located near the Community College and was age limited for those 16-24. Councilmember Spano stated that during the tour he spoke with a councilmember from a southern state specifically regarding a buyout clause for affordable housing, where a developer could “buy out” affordable units by placing a set amount into a fund. He stated that the other councilmember recommended not using that “buy out” option as in her experience, developers will simply use that option the majority of the time. Councilmember Hallfin stated that in regard to parking, there was a statement made that parking does not need to be a huge focus because banks will not fund a project that they do not think is successful. He stated that perhaps the City does not need to regulate parking for developments in the current manner because some millennials are choosing not to have vehicles. Councilmember Spano agreed that there was a clear statement that millennials do not view ownership and property (e.g., vehicles) in the same manner as people in other generations. He stated that the young people in attendance voiced their desire to be heard. Councilmember Brausen echoed the comments regarding millennials and their views on ownership. He stated that the idea had been discussed that planning should also focus on what that generation will want in their city in the future. He stated that he also attended breakout sessions on LED lighting; open data to public engagement; long-term fiscal health; green infrastructure; and energy efficiency. Councilmember Spano stated that he did not believe the breakout sessions this year were as good as the previous year, although he did find the session on data in driving better communities to be very interesting. City Council Meeting of December 15, 2014 (Item No. 3b) Page 2 Title: Special Study Session Minutes of December 1, 2014 Councilmember Hallfin stated that he really enjoyed the breakout session titled Creating Inclusive Communities. Councilmember Spano noted that they also visited the Johnson Presidential Museum, which the three Councilmembers found to be phenomenal. Communications (verbal) None. The meeting adjourned at 7:25 p.m. Written Reports provided and documented for recording purposes only: 2. Draft Hennepin County Bike Plan ______________________________________ ______________________________________ Nancy Stroth, City Clerk Jeff Jacobs, Mayor Meeting: City Council Meeting Date: December 15, 2014 Minutes: 3c UNOFFICIAL MINUTES CITY COUNCIL MEETING ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA DECEMBER 1, 2014 1. Call to Order Mayor Jacobs called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Councilmembers present: Mayor Jeff Jacobs, Tim Brausen, Steve Hallfin, Gregg Lindberg, Anne Mavity, Susan Sanger, and Jake Spano. Councilmembers absent: None. Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), Controller (Mr. Swanson), and Recording Secretary (Ms. Staple). Guests: Mark Ruff, Ehlers. 1a. Pledge of Allegiance 1b. Roll Call 2. Presentations – None 3. Approval of Minutes 3a. Special Study Session Meeting Minutes October 20, 2014 The minutes were approved as presented. 3b. Study Session Meeting Minutes October 27, 2014 The minutes were approved as presented. 3c. Special Study Session Meeting Minutes November 3, 2014 Councilmember Brausen noted on page three, following the first sentence, the following statement should be added, “He thanked the hockey association for their willingness to make a substantial donation and inquired if they would be willing to increase that donation to 50 percent of project cost.” The minutes were approved as amended. 3d. Special Session Meeting Minutes November 10, 2014 Councilmember Spano noted on page five, the third paragraph from the bottom, it should state, “…time off after the birth. The policy should also be supportive of same sex couples desire to have and/or adopt children.” City Council Meeting of December 15, 2014 (Item No. 3c) Page 2 Title: City Council Meeting Minutes of December 1, 2014 The minutes were approved as amended. 3e. Special Study Session Meeting Minutes November 17, 2014 Councilmember Sanger noted on page three, the fourth paragraph, it should state, “…because of reimbursement process through developed by the State in response to the Affordable Care Act.” Councilmember Spano noted on page three, the third paragraph, it should state, “He questioned what the vision of was…” The minutes were approved as amended. 3f. City Council Meeting Minutes November 17, 2014 Councilmember Hallfin noted on page five, following the third paragraph, the following sentence should be deleted, “Mayor Pro Tem Hallfin closed the public hearing.” The minutes were approved as amended. 4. Approval of Agenda and Items on Consent Calendar NOTE: The Consent Calendar lists those items of business which are considered to be routine and/or which need no discussion. Consent items are acted upon by one motion. If discussion is desired by either a Councilmember or a member of the audience, that item may be moved to an appropriate section of the regular agenda for discussion. 4a. Accept for filing City Disbursement Claims for the period of October 25 through November 21, 2014. 4b. Accept for filing Fire Civil Service Commission Meeting Minutes of June 26, 2014 4c. Accept for filing Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of October 15, 2014 It was moved by Councilmember Brausen, seconded by Councilmember Lindberg, to approve the Agenda as presented and items listed on the Consent Calendar; and to waive reading of all resolutions and ordinances. The motion passed 7-0. 5. Boards and Commissions – None 6. Public Hearings 6a. Public Hearing – 2015 Proposed Budget, Tax Levies and Truth in Taxation Public Hearing Mr. Swanson presented the staff report and explained that this is an informational meeting to provide information on the budget process and proposed levies and to obtain public input before action is taken on December 15th. He reviewed the 2014 adopted City Council Meeting of December 15, 2014 (Item No. 3c) Page 3 Title: City Council Meeting Minutes of December 1, 2014 budget and 2015 proposed budget. He advised that the general fund has eight main types of revenue sources, with the largest portion (69 percent) generated from property taxes which is proposed at $22,400,000 for 2015. He compared the 2014 adopted budget to the 2015 proposed budget noting an estimated 7.22 percent increase in revenues, which will create a total of $32,600,000, which is an increase of $2,200,000. He reviewed the general fund expenditures including general government, public safety, operations and recreation and non-departmental. He reviewed the tax levy allocation, which has a proposed increase of 5.50 percent. He provided key dates in the tax process including the time a taxable market value is set for property in January, the mailing of valuation notices in March, the City Board of Equalization meeting in April or May, the Hennepin County Board of Equalization in June, and values established for preliminary property tax notices, which are mailed in November. He reported that across all jurisdictions 41 percent of residential property owners will see a decrease in their property taxes while 93 percent of businesses will see a decrease in their property taxes. He stated that the City ranks 16th out of 45 for city residential property taxes in Hennepin County, noting that a lower ranking equates to lower property taxes. Mayor Jacobs opened the public hearing. Steve May referenced the 5.5 percent increase which he believed to be double the growth rate of the economy. He recognized that this is late in the process but asked that the Council consider something going forward that would be attached to the growth of the economy. He stated that sometimes the Council needs to draw the line and not consider everything that residents ask of them, as that accounts for additional staff time. He asked that the Council obtain input for those businesses that would be impacted by a community center. He appreciated the good work of the Council and for their time tonight. Pat Nelson stated that he has lived in his home for 25 years and has been in the city since 1962. He stated that in that time City taxes have quadrupled, which is well past the growth of the economy. He stated that the utility value of his home has not changed and did not believe that the wages of residents have increased by 5.5 percent in the past year. He stated that he is in the group of residents that will see a change of more than 10 percent for his property taxes. He stated that if the citizens do not become more engaged, the proposed increases will continue on this trend. He asked how the community can address the rapid growth in City services that are not supported by resident wages. He asked how he could get involved in the budget process at an earlier time. Mayor Jacob stated that discussions begin around June of each year. He recognized the point made by the residents. Councilmember Sanger noted that some of the increase is due to aging infrastructure. Councilmember Mavity asked for a better explanation on why some residents will see a decrease in taxes while others will see an increase. Mr. Swanson explained that a larger tax base is created through development, noting that properties that had valuations that did not change will see a decrease in their property tax while properties that have a valuation that increased following the recession will see an increase in their taxes. City Council Meeting of December 15, 2014 (Item No. 3c) Page 4 Title: City Council Meeting Minutes of December 1, 2014 Mr. Harmening stated that the budget process does not tie together the taxable value or tax rate, explaining that the City views the budget independent from the tax rate. He stated for taxes payable in 2015 the value of commercial and business property stayed mainly flat, which is why that property tax rate is mainly decreasing while residential property values increased, which in turn increased the property tax rate. Mr. Nelson questioned why the tax rate is tied to the value of a property, as his wages and use of City services have not increased. Mr. Harmening stated that situation is a product of the property tax process developed by the State Legislature. He agreed that someone may be asset rich but income poor and acknowledged that may not work out well. Councilmember Mavity stated that cities do not have the ability to tax income as the State does; the City can only tax property. Councilmember Sanger explained that over the years more and more costs have been passed along to cities. Councilmember Spano stated that he and two other Councilmembers attended a national conference in Texas and had the opportunity to speak with people from across the nation. He noted that although the City has creative funding sources for road improvements, other than simply assessments, but also recognized the aging infrastructure of the City. He stated that the Council always considers the cost of projects to residents and the impact that could have on taxes, noting that is why the community center discussions have been placed on hold. Stan Jurgenson, West Ridge Lane, confirmed that 41 percent of residents will see a decrease in taxes but meanwhile the median tax rate for the City is 5.5 percent. He stated that appears that a different taxing mechanism is dropping their tax rate, not the City. Mr. Swanson explained that the average home value increased from around $204,700 to $217,600. Mr. Jurgenson stated that if a business tax rate increases, they will pass that cost on to the consumer and if someone owns a rental property, they will pass that increase on to their renters. He stated that the 5.5 percent increase proposed for the tax rate is well above the 1.7 percent increase that individuals will see. He stated that people will then have to spend less money on other items in order to afford that increase. He stated that utility charges are increasing 4.6 percent and the franchise fees are also proposed for increase. He noted that all these increases have an impact and questioned where residents will gain the funds for that as the tax rate is increasing faster than the economic growth rate. Mr. Harmening appreciated the comments made by Mr. Jurgenson and recognized that there are limitations on what people can pay in property taxes. He asked that residents consider not just one year of tax rates but review a larger picture as there were large property tax decreases for properties that occurred during the recession. Mr. Jurgenson cautioned the City against spending more than what resident budgets can allow. City Council Meeting of December 15, 2014 (Item No. 3c) Page 5 Title: City Council Meeting Minutes of December 1, 2014 Mr. Harmening stated that he would be happy to review information with Mr. Jurgenson. He noted that in 2003, all local government aid was lost and spending was cut because the City could not fund what they had been able to. Patty Carlson stated that she is on a fixed income and has been in the City for 38 years. She asked that the Council consider what is necessary for the City and not just nice, noting that she was pleased that the community center is on hold. She questioned whether items such as dredging Bass Lake and building a boardwalk are necessary. She stated that her street was not swept this year or last year. She appreciated the work of the Council. Mayor Jacobs asked that residents with any questions or input contact City staff prior to the meeting on December 15th when action will be taken. Councilmember Brausen encouraged residents from Ward 4 to contact himself with concerns about the budget. He stated that the Council is spending 2.2 percent on staff wages in order to be competitive and keep the best staff and is also investing in aging infrastructure. Councilmember Mavity referenced the statement that 5.5 percent is double the growth rate of the economy and appreciated the input. She stated that in the past years the City is and continues to be an attractive place for business to be and to invest in. She questioned the business investment in the City and how that compares to other cities. Mr. Harmening stated that building permits pulled is one method to measure that investment, noting that the City will be in the range of $120,000,000 this year, which is higher than had been estimated. He agreed that the City has, and continues to be, an attractive location for business providing an example of the reuse of the Novartis building. Mayor Jacobs closed the public hearing. Informational; no action required. 7. Requests, Petitions, and Communications from the Public – None 8. Resolutions, Ordinances, Motions and Discussion Items 8a. Award Sale of 2014A G.O. Bonds for Sidewalks and Trails and Utilities – Resolution No. 14-170 Mr. Swanson presented the staff report regarding the bond sale for the 2014A bonds for sidewalks, trails and utilities. He stated that a bond sale occurred at 11:00 a.m. this morning. Mark Ruff, Ehlers, presented the results of the bond sale today. He stated that the City is able to achieve low rates because of the AAA rating, noting that there are less than 20 cities in Minnesota that have an AAA rating. He stated that the increased property values, the ability to maintain reserves during the recession and a low level of debt contributed to the AAA rating. He reviewed the bids that were received and recognized City Council Meeting of December 15, 2014 (Item No. 3c) Page 6 Title: City Council Meeting Minutes of December 1, 2014 the winning bid, noting that there was national interest in the bonds. He reported that the City was able to achieve an additional $250,000 in proceeds with a lower than estimated interest rate. He congratulated the City and recommended approval of the bonds. It was moved by Councilmember Sanger, seconded by Councilmember Mavity, to Adopt Resolution No. 14-170 Awarding Sale of $10,000,000 General Obligation Bonds, Series 2014A. The motion passed 7-0. 9. Communications – None None. 10. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 8:35 p.m. ______________________________________ ______________________________________ Nancy Stroth, City Clerk Jeff Jacobs, Mayor Meeting: City Council Meeting Date: December 15, 2014 Consent Agenda Item: 4a EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: Award of the 2015 Arts and Culture Grants RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to Adopt Resolution authorizing award of the 2015 St. Louis Park Arts and Culture Grants. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Do the proposed grant projects help further the City Councils Strategic Direction related to arts and culture? SUMMARY: The Council has supported the Arts and Culture Grant program since its inception in 2006. The grant application for 2015 was released in May with an August 8 deadline. This process allows grantees one full year to complete their projects. Each year the Arts & Culture Grant Committee offers a grant to fund art projects and cultural activities that build bridges between artists and communities, engages people in creative learning, and promotes artistic production and cultural experiences in St. Louis Park. This program is funded through the city’s budget process ($16,000). St. Louis Park Friends of the Arts provides technical assistance. The review committee is comprised of the St. Louis Park Community Foundation, Friends of the Arts, city staff, and community members. They reviewed the applications and identified applicants whose proposals best met the objectives and are compatible with the Council’s strategic direction for arts, culture and community aesthetics. For the 2015 grant process, three applications were received and the following two were recommended for approval. The Park Theater Company: St. Louis Park’s Community Theater: $4,700 to be used for the premier production of “Buffalo Child” an original play written by longtime St. Louis Park resident Jim McDonough Jr. Seven Performances are scheduled for November 2015. Sabes Jewish Community Center Performing Arts: $3,500 for the regional premier of “Leah’s Train” by Karen Hartman, performing at the Sabes Jewish Community Center in February 2015, in collaboration with 20% Theatre Company. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: This program is funded from the Housing Rehab Fund. The total amount granted for art projects in 2015 will be $8,200. VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to promoting an integrating arts, culture and community aesthetics in all City initiatives, including implementation where appropriate. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Resolution Prepared by: Stacy M. Voelker, Administrative Secretary Lisa Abernathy, Recreation Coordinator Reviewed by: Cindy Walsh, Director of Operations and Recreation Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager City Council Meeting of December 15, 2014 (Item No. 4a) Page 2 Title: Award of the 2015 Arts and Culture Grants RESOLUTION NO. 14-___ RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AWARD OF ST. LOUIS PARK ARTS & CULTURE GRANTS TO THE PARK THEATER COMPANY AND SABES JEWISH COMMUNITY CENTER WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park created this program in 2006 with the assistance of Friends of the Arts and the St. Louis Park Community Foundation to create and support a grant program to fund art projects and cultural activities that build bridges between artists and communities, engage people in creative learning, and promote artistic production and cultural experiences in St. Louis Park; and WHEREAS, three applicants responded to the call for proposals and were evaluated by a committee comprised of representatives of the St. Louis Park Community Foundation, Friends of the Arts, city staff, and community members; and WHEREAS, the committee recommends the City Council fund two (2) grant proposals for a total of $8,200. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, authorizes execution of grant agreements with the following organizations based on the review committee’s recommendations and the applicants’ proposals. 1. The Park Theater Company is awarded a maximum of $4,700. 2. Sabes Jewish Community Center Performing Arts is awarded a maximum of $3,500. Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council December 15, 2014 City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk Meeting: City Council Meeting Date: December 15, 2014 Consent Agenda Item: 4b EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: Assignment & Assumption of Redevelopment Contract - Duke Realty Limited Partnership and Central Park West, LLC RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to Adopt the Resolution approving the Assignment and Assumption of Redevelopment Contract between Duke Realty Limited Partnership and Central Park West, LLC. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the Council find that the Assignment and Assumption of the Redevelopment Contract between Duke Realty Limited Partnership and Central Park West, LLC (DLC Residential, LLC) is in the best interest of the City and its residents? SUMMARY: The Amended and Restated Contract for Private Redevelopment of May 17, 2010 between the EDA, the City, and Duke Realty LP (the "Redeveloper") provides that whenever the Redeveloper wishes to convey any portion of The West End Redevelopment Property and assign its obligations under the Contract to a third party, the EDA and City must review and formally approve the proposed assignment. Duke is selling the vacant, 14-acre portion of The West End property east of Utica Ave. and “subject Redevelopment Property” to Central Park West, LLC (an affiliate of DLC Residential and “CPW”) which intends to construct the phases included in the proposed Central Park West Master Site Plan. Approval of the Assignment means that the EDA/City Council consents to CPW’s assumption of all the obligations and conditions of the current Redevelopment Contract applicable to the subject Redevelopment Property. Approval of the Assignment however does not constitute approval of CPW’s proposed Plan. The Redeveloper has provided a proposed Assignment and Assumption of Redevelopment Contract and has requested that the EDA and City provide written approval of the Assignment by executing the Consent, Estoppel and Agreement attached to the Assignment. The EDA’s legal counsel has reviewed the proposed Assignment and the attached Consent, and recommends the EDA and City approve and consent to this document, which is substantially similar to the previous Assignment documents approved by the City and EDA in the past. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Under the proposed Assignment and Assumption Agreement, Central Park West, LLC assumes the financial obligations that were to be incurred by Duke Realty under the Redevelopment Contract as it pertains to the subject Redevelopment Property. All costs associated with this agreement (Kennedy & Graven) are to be paid by Duke Realty. VISION CONSIDERATION: Not Applicable SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Resolution Assignment & Assumption of Redevelopment Contract Prepared by: Greg Hunt, Economic Development Coordinator Reviewed by: Michele Schnitker, Housing Supervisor Approved by: Tom Harmening, EDA Executive Director, and City Manager City Council Meeting of December 15, 2014 (Item No. 4b) Page 2 Title: Assignment & Assumption of Redevelopment Contract - Duke Realty & Central Park West RESOLUTION NO. 14-____ RESOLUTION APPROVING AN ASSIGNMENT AND ASSUMPTION OF REDEVELOPMENT CONTRACT BETWEEN DUKE REALTY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP AND CENTRAL PARK WEST, LLC BE IT RESOLVED By the City Council ("Council") of the City of St. Louis, Minnesota ("City") as follows: Section 1. Recitals. 1.01. The St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority (“Authority”) is currently administering its Redevelopment Project No. 1 ("Project") pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.001 to 469.047, and within the Project has established The West End Tax Increment Financing District (“TIF District”). 1.02. The Authority, the City and Duke Realty Limited Partnership (the “Redeveloper”) entered into an Amended and Restated Contract for Private Redevelopment Dated as of May 17, 2010, as amended (the “Contract”), regarding redevelopment of a portion of the property within the TIF District. 1.03. The Redeveloper proposes to convey a portion of the property that is the subject of the Contract (the “Subject Property”) to Central Park West, LLC (the “Assignee”), and the Assignee intends to construct several future phases of development on the Subject Property. In connection with such conveyance, Redeveloper seeks to assign certain obligations of Redeveloper related to the Subject Property to the Assignee, and the Assignee agrees to accept such obligations, all pursuant to an Assignment and Assumption of Redevelopment Contract between Redeveloper and Assignee (the “Assignment”). Assignee’s obligation to construct the future phases of development will be memorialized in a Second Amendment to Amended and Restated Contract for Private Redevelopment, to be executed contemporaneously with the Assignment. 1.04. The Council has reviewed the Assignment and finds that the approval and execution of the City’s consent thereto are in the best interest of the City and its residents. Section 2. City Approval; Other Proceedings. 2.01. The Assignment, including the attached Consent, Estoppel and Agreement of the City related thereto, as presented to the Council is hereby in all respects approved, subject to modifications that do not alter the substance of the transaction and that are approved by the Mayor and City Manager, provided that execution of the consent to the Assignment by such officials shall be conclusive evidence of approval. 2.02. The Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized to execute on behalf of the City, the Consent, Estoppel and Agreement attached to the Assignment and any other documents requiring execution by the City in order to carry out the transaction described in the Assignment. 2.03. City staff and consultants are authorized to take any actions necessary to carry out the intent of this resolution. City Council Meeting of December 15, 2014 (Item No. 4b) Page 3 Title: Assignment & Assumption of Redevelopment Contract - Duke Realty & Central Park West Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council December 15, 2014 City Manager Mayor Attest City Clerk City Council Meeting of December 15, 2014 (Item No. 4b) Page 4 Title: Assignment & Assumption of Redevelopment Contract - Duke Realty & Central Park West ASSIGNMENT AND ASSUMPTION OF REDEVELOPMENT CONTRACT THIS ASSIGNMENT AND ASSUMPTION OF REDEVELOPMENT CONTRACT (this “Agreement”) dated as of the 15th day of December, 2014, is made and entered into by and between Duke Realty Limited Partnership, an Indiana limited partnership (“Assignor”), and Central Park West, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company (“Assignee”). WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, Assignor is the Redeveloper under that certain Amended and Restated Contract for Private Redevelopment dated May 17, 2010 (the “Contract”), and that certain First Amendment to Amended and Restated Contract for Private Redevelopment dated November 21, 2011 (the “First Amendment”), by and among Assignor, as Redeveloper, the City of St. Louis Park, a Minnesota municipal corporation (“City”), and the St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority (the “Authority”); and WHEREAS, Assignor is contemporaneously herewith conveying certain real property, legally described in Exhibit A attached hereto (the “Subject Property”), to Assignee pursuant to that certain Purchase and Sale Agreement dated _____________, 2014, as amended (the “Purchase Agreement”), by and between Assignor and Assignee; and WHEREAS, Assignor and Assignee are also contemporaneously herewith executing a Second Amendment to Amended and Restated Contract for Private Redevelopment dated December 15, 2014 (together with the Contract and the First Amendment, the “Redevelopment Contract”), by and between the Assignor, the Assignee, the City, and the Authority; and WHEREAS, title to the Subject Property (and other property owned by Assignor) is subject to and encumbered by the Redevelopment Contract, and the Subject Property consists of a portion of the real property defined as the Redevelopment Property under the Redevelopment Contract and the real property defined as the Golden Valley Property under the Redevelopment Contract; and WHEREAS, Assignor desires to assign certain of its obligations, rights and interest in, to and under the Redevelopment Contract to Assignee as of the date on which title to the Subject Property is vested in Assignee (the “Transfer Date”), and Assignee desires to accept the assignment thereof and assume certain of Assignor’s obligations under the Redevelopment Contract from and after the Transfer Date, all as more particularly hereinafter set forth. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and the covenants and agreements contained herein, Assignor and Assignee hereby covenant and agree as follows: 1. Any capitalized term used herein and not otherwise defined herein shall have the meaning ascribed to such term in the Redevelopment Contract. 2. As of the Transfer Date, Assignor hereby assigns to Assignee the Assumed Obligations (as defined in Section 4 below), and all of Assignor’s rights and interest in, to and under the Redevelopment Contract relating or pertaining to, and to the extent applicable to, the Subject Property. 3. Assignor hereby agrees to indemnify and defend Assignee, its successors and assigns, and its and their employees, agents, members, managers and officers (collectively the City Council Meeting of December 15, 2014 (Item No. 4b) Page 5 Title: Assignment & Assumption of Redevelopment Contract - Duke Realty & Central Park West “Assignee Indemnified Parties”) against, and hold the Assignee Indemnified Parties harmless from, any and all cost, liability, loss, damage or expense, including, without limitation, reasonable attorneys’ fees and expenses (collectively, “Losses and Liabilities”), arising out of or in any way related to a failure by Assignor, its successors or assigns to keep and perform, or a default by Assignor, its successors or assigns under, any of the covenants, obligations and agreements to be kept and performed by the Redeveloper under the Redevelopment Contract with regard to the Subject Property prior to or after the Transfer Date, except for the Assumed Obligations (as hereinafter defined). 4. Assignee, as of the Transfer Date, hereby accepts the foregoing assignment, and, except as hereinafter expressly provided, assumes and agrees to keep and perform all of the covenants, obligations and agreements relating to, and to the extent applicable to, the Subject Property, and to be kept and performed by the Redeveloper under the Redevelopment Contract from and after the Transfer Date, (collectively, the “Assumed Obligations”). More specifically, Assignor and Assignee agree that the Assumed Obligations consist of the following (and only the following): (a) Section 2.2(b),(c), (d) and (f) to the extent such representations and warranties relate to the Subject Property; further, Assignee expressly represents, for the benefit of the Authority, that it is a limited liability company duly organized and in good standing under the laws of the State of Florida, is not in violation of any provisions of its organizational documents or (to the best of its knowledge) the laws of the State of Minnesota, is in good standing, and has power to enter into this Agreement and has duly authorized the execution, delivery and performance of this Agreement by proper action of its governing body; (b) Sections 3.1(c) and 3.2, to the extent such covenants relate to the Subject Property; (c) Section 3.3 to the extent such covenants relate to the Subject Property; (d) Sections 4.1(b) (c), and (d), clauses (1), (7), (8) and (9), all to the extent such covenants relate to the Subject Property; (e) Article IV, to the extent such covenants relate to the Subject Property (f) Article V, to the extent such insurance covenants relate to the Subject Property; (g) Article VI, to the extent such covenants relate to the Subject Property; (h) Sections 7.1 and 7.2(a) to the extent such financing covenants relate to the Subject Property; (i) Article VIII, to the extent such covenants relate to the Subject Property; provided that the parties agree and understand that this Assignment effectuates the Transfer of the Subject Property as contemplated in Section 8.2(b), (c) and (d); (j) Article IX, to the extent related to an Event of Default by Assignee in connection with any of the Assumed Obligations; and City Council Meeting of December 15, 2014 (Item No. 4b) Page 6 Title: Assignment & Assumption of Redevelopment Contract - Duke Realty & Central Park West (k) Article X, to the extent such covenants relate to the Subject Property; and provided that the notice address for Assignee for purposes of Section 10.5 is as provided in Section 7 of this Agreement. Notwithstanding the foregoing or anything else to the contrary contained herein or in the Redevelopment Contract, Assignor and Assignee agree that Assignee is not hereby assuming or agreeing to keep and perform any of the covenants, obligations and agreements to be kept and performed by the Redeveloper under the Redevelopment Contract other than the Assumed Obligations. Without limiting the generality of the immediately preceding sentence, it is specifically understood and agreed that except for any of the Redeveloper Public Improvements not completed by Assignor prior to the date hereof, Assignee shall have no responsibility or obligation whatsoever with respect to the construction of, or payment of the costs of constructing, the Redeveloper Public Improvements, or the payment of the Other Redevelopment Costs. Assignee hereby agrees to indemnify and defend Assignor, its successors and assigns, and its and their employees, agents, partners and officers (collectively the “Assignor Indemnified Parties”) against, and hold the Assignor Indemnified Parties harmless from, any and all Losses and Liabilities arising out of or in any way related to a failure by Assignee, its successors or assigns to keep and perform, or a default by Assignee, its successors or assigns under, any of the Assumed Obligations. 5. Assignor hereby warrants and represents to Assignee as follows: (a) The Redevelopment Contract has not been modified or amended and is full force and effect as of the date hereof; and (b) To Assignor's knowledge, there is no Event of Default in existence under the Redevelopment Contract, nor is there in existence any state of facts or circumstances which, with the giving of notice or lapse of time or both, would constitute an Event of Default under the Redevelopment Contract. 6. Assignor will not enter into any modification or amendment of the Redevelopment Contract that would adversely affect the rights and interest of Assignee thereunder or the Assumed Obligations unless such modification or amendment is entered into by Assignee. Assignor will not enter into any agreement terminating the Redevelopment Contract without the prior written consent of Assignee. The foregoing notwithstanding, the Assignor reserves the right to enter into any modification and amendment of the Redevelopment Contract that would not adversely affect the rights and interest of Assignee with respect to the Assumed Obligations, and further, Assignor reserves the right to partially terminate the Redevelopment Contract, to the extent such partial termination would not adversely affect the rights and interest of Assignee with respect to the Assumed Obligations, without Assignee’s consent. 7. Assignor shall give and deliver a copy of any notice, demand or other communication which Assignor gives or delivers to, or receives from, City and/or the Authority under the Redevelopment Contract, and that relates to or may affect the rights and interest of Assignee under the Redevelopment Contract or the Assumed Obligations, to Assignee in the manner set forth in Section 10.5 of the Redevelopment Contract, addressed or delivered personally to Assignee as follows: City Council Meeting of December 15, 2014 (Item No. 4b) Page 7 Title: Assignment & Assumption of Redevelopment Contract - Duke Realty & Central Park West Central Park West, LLC Attn: Russ Krivor 21500 Biscayne Blvd. Suite 402 Aventura, FL 33180 With copy to: Messerli & Kramer, P.A.. Attn: David L. Weigman, Esq. 100 South Fifth Street, Suite 1400 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 672-3610 Telecopy: (612) 672-3777 or at such other address as Assignee may, from time to time, designate by written notice to Assignor given or delivered in the manner set forth in Section 10.5 of the Redevelopment Contract. Assignee shall give and deliver a copy of any notice, demand or other communication which Assignee gives or delivers to, or receives from, City and/or the Authority under the Redevelopment Contract, and that relates to or may affect the rights and interest of Assignor under the Redevelopment Contract, delivered personally to Assignor or given or delivered in the manner set forth in Section 10.5 of the Redevelopment Contract to Assignor pursuant to the notice addresses set forth therein, or at such other address as Assignor may, from time to time, designate by written notice to Assignee. 8. This Assignment shall be binding on and inure to the benefit of the parties hereto and their successors and assigns. 9. This Assignment shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Minnesota. 10. This Assignment may be executed in counterparts, which counterparts when considered together shall constitute a single, binding, valid and enforceable agreement. City Council Meeting of December 15, 2014 (Item No. 4b) Page 8 Title: Assignment & Assumption of Redevelopment Contract - Duke Realty & Central Park West IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Assignor and Assignee have executed and delivered this Assignment and Assumption of Redevelopment Contract as of the date first above written. ASSIGNOR: DUKE REALTY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, an Indiana limited partnership By Duke Realty Corporation, an Indiana corporation, its General Partner By:_________________________ ______________________________ STATE OF MINNESOTA) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ______ day of _________________, 2014, by ____________________, the _____________________ of Duke Realty Corporation, an Indiana corporation, the General Partner of Duke Realty Limited Partnership, an Indiana limited partnership, on behalf of the limited partnership. Notary Public City Council Meeting of December 15, 2014 (Item No. 4b) Page 9 Title: Assignment & Assumption of Redevelopment Contract - Duke Realty & Central Park West ASSIGNEE: CENTRAL PARK WEST, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company By: __________________________ Printed: ___________________ Title: STATE OF ________________) ) ss. COUNTY OF ______________) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ______ day of _________________, 2013, by ______________________________ of Central ParkWest, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company, on behalf of the company. Notary Public THIS INSTRUMENT WAS DRAFTED BY: KENNEDY & GRAVEN, CHARTERED (MNI) US Bank Plaza, Suite 470 200 South 6th Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 City Council Meeting of December 15, 2014 (Item No. 4b) Page 10 Title: Assignment & Assumption of Redevelopment Contract - Duke Realty & Central Park West Exhibit A SUBJECT PROPERTY Redevelopment Property: Outlot A, The Shops At West End, Hennepin County, Minnesota. Registered Property Certificate of Title No. 1222619 Golden Valley Property: Parcel 2: Lots 2, 3, 4 and 6, Block 4 except that portion of said Lots taken for Belt Line Highway; Lots 7 to 12 inclusive, Block 4 and that part of Raleigh Avenue vacated lying between the Westerly extension of the South line of said Lot 7 and the North line of said Lot 12 and that part of the vacated alley in said Block 4 lying between the Easterly extensions of the North and South lines of said Lot 7 and between the South line of said Lot 9 and the North line of said Lot 11 and that part of the West 1/2 of the vacated alley in said Block 4 lying between the extensions of the North and South lines of said Lot 8 and between the North and South lines of said Lot 12; All in "Kavlis Cedardale". That part of the following described property: That part of vacated Raleigh and Douglas Avenues as shown on the plat of "Kavlis Cedardale" lying between the extensions across said Avenues of the South and West lines of Lot 7, Block 4 and that part of said vacated Douglas Avenue adjoining Lots 6 and 7, Block 4 of said plat lying between the Westerly line of Belt Line Highway and the extension across said Avenue of the West line of said Lot 7, Block 4, "Kavlis Cedardale"; Which lies Northerly of a straight line extending between the Southwest corner of Tract E, Registered Land Survey No. 864, Hennepin County, Minnesota and the Westerly right-of-way of State Trunk Highway 100 passing through a point on the East line of said Tract E distant 18.18 feet North of the Southeast corner of said Tract E as measured along said East line. Registered Property Certificate of Title No. 1012678 Parcel 3: Lot 1, Block 4, "Kavlis Cedardale" and that part of the vacated alley in said Block 4, lying East of the center line thereof and between the extensions across it of the North and South lines of said Lot 1. And City Council Meeting of December 15, 2014 (Item No. 4b) Page 11 Title: Assignment & Assumption of Redevelopment Contract - Duke Realty & Central Park West That part of the North 693.61 feet of the Northeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 30, Township 29, Range 24 lying Westerly and Southerly of State Trunk Highway No. 100, also known as the Belt Line Highway. Registered Property Certificate of Title No. 1012734 Parcel 4: That part of the South 60 feet of the North 753.61 feet of the Northeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 30, Township 29, Range 24, lying West of the Belt Line Highway. Registered Property Certificate of Title No. 1012680 Parcel 5: That part of vacated Raleigh Avenue and of vacated Douglas Avenue, all according to the plat of "Kavlis Cedardale" lying Westerly of the Westerly right of way line of State Trunk Highway No. 100 as described in the Final Certificate recorded in Book 412 of Miscellaneous Records, page 148 in the office of the County Recorder and lying Southerly of a line drawn from the Southwest corner of Tract E, Registered Land Survey No. 864 and passing through a point on the East line of said Tract E distant 18.18 feet North of the Southeast corner of said Tract E. Registered Property Certificate of Title No. 1012686 City Council Meeting of December 15, 2014 (Item No. 4b) Page 12 Title: Assignment & Assumption of Redevelopment Contract - Duke Realty & Central Park West CONSENT, ESTOPPEL AND AGREEMENT The undersigned, City of St. Louis Park, a Minnesota municipal corporation (“City”), and St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority, a public body corporate and politic (the “Authority”), hereby (i) consent to (A) the transfer of the Subject Property (as defined in the foregoing Assignment and Assumption of Redevelopment Contract) (the “Assignment and Assumption”) by the Assignor named therein (the “Assignor”) to the Assignee named therein (the “Assignee”) , and (B) the execution and delivery by the Assignor and the Assignee of the Assignment and Assumption, and the terms and provisions thereof; (ii) agree that in the event of any inconsistency between the terms and provisions of the Assignment and Assumption and the terms and provisions of the Redevelopment Contract (as defined in the Assignment and Assumption), the terms and provisions of the Assignment and Assumption shall control; (iii) releases Assignor from all the Assumed Obligations as defined in the Assignment and Assumption; (iv) warrant, represent and certify to the Assignee as follows: (A) The Redevelopment Contract has not been modified or amended and is in full force and effect as of the date hereof; and (B) There is no Event of Default in existence, nor is there in existence any state of facts or circumstances which, with the giving of notice or lapse of time or both, would constitute an Event of Default under the Redevelopment Contract. City and the Authority further covenant and agree to and for the benefit of the Assignee as follows: (C) City and the Authority will not enter into any modification or amendment of the Redevelopment Contract that would affect the rights and interest of the Assignee under the Redevelopment Contract or the Assumed Obligations (as defined in the Assignment and Assumption) unless such modification or amendment is entered into by Assignee. City and the Authority will not enter into any agreement terminating the Redevelopment Contract without the prior written consent of Assignee, unless such termination does not affect the rights and interests of the Assignee. (D) If an Event of Default (as defined in the Redevelopment Contract) occurs, and such Event of Default does not relate to the Assumed Obligations (as defined in the Assignment and Assumption), City and the Authority may not and will not exercise their rights and remedies under the Redevelopment Contract arising or existing by reason of such Event of Default with respect to the Assignee or the Subject Property. (E) If the City and the Authority deliver any notice, demand or other communication to the Redeveloper under the Redevelopment Contract that relates to or may affect the rights and interest of the Assignee under the Redevelopment Contract or the Assumed Obligations, the City or Authority (as the case may be) shall deliver a copy of such notice, demand or communication to the Assignee in the manner set forth in Section 10.5 of the Redevelopment Contract, addressed or delivered personally to the Assignee as follows: City Council Meeting of December 15, 2014 (Item No. 4b) Page 13 Title: Assignment & Assumption of Redevelopment Contract - Duke Realty & Central Park West Central Park West, LLC Attn: Russ Krivor 21500 Biscayne Blvd. Suite 402 Aventura, FL 33180 With copy to: Messerli & Kramer, P.A. Attn: David L, Weigman, Esq. 100 South Fifth Street, Suite 1400 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 672-3610 Telecopy: (612) 672-3777 or at such other address as the Assignee may, from time to time, designate by written notice to City and the Authority given or delivered in the manner set forth in Section 10.5 of the Redevelopment Contract. City Council Meeting of December 15, 2014 (Item No. 4b) Page 14 Title: Assignment & Assumption of Redevelopment Contract - Duke Realty & Central Park West IN WITNESS WHEREOF, City and the Authority have caused this Consent, Estoppel and Agreement to be duly executed as of this _____________ day of December, 2014. CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK By: Its Mayor By: Its City Manager STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ______ day of December, 2014, by Jeff Jacobs and Thomas Harmening, the Mayor and City Manager, respectively, of the City of St. Louis Park, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the City. Notary Public City Council Meeting of December 15, 2014 (Item No. 4b) Page 15 Title: Assignment & Assumption of Redevelopment Contract - Duke Realty & Central Park West ST. LOUIS PARK ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY By: Its President By: Its Executive Director STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ______ day of December, 2014, by Anne Mavity and Thomas Harmening, the President and Executive Director, respectively, of the Economic Development Authority of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, a public body corporate and politic, on behalf of the Authority. Notary Public Meeting: City Council Meeting Date: December 15, 2014 Consent Agenda Item: 4c EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: Second Amendment to the Redevelopment Contract with Central Park West, LLC RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to Adopt Resolution approving the Second Amendment to the Contract for Private Redevelopment By and Between the City of St. Louis Park, St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority and Central Park West, LLC. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the EDA/City Council support the terms and requirements related to The West End redevelopment as specified in the proposed Second Amendment to the Contract for Private Redevelopment with Central Park West, LLC? SUMMARY: The Amended and Restated Contract for Private Redevelopment of May 17, 2010 between the EDA, the City, and Duke Realty LP (the "Redeveloper") provides that whenever the Redeveloper wishes to make a material changes to The West End project, the EDA and City must formally approve the modifications. Duke is selling the eastern 14 acres of The West End redevelopment property to Central Park West, LLC (an affiliate of DLC Residential and “CPW”) which intends to construct the phases included in the proposed Central Park West Master Site Plan. The mechanism for approving these proposed improvements along with associated infrastructure on the subject site is through the proposed Second Amendment to the Contract for Private Redevelopment. The proposed Second Amendment includes specific terms and requirements of CPW and the City along with construction timelines. Furthermore, CPW will be held responsible for the portion of the redevelopment site which it owns and that Duke will continue to be held responsible for the remaining portions of the redevelopment site which it is retaining. A summary of the key proposed terms and requirements is attached. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Per the Council’s request, Staff had Ehlers determine the new taxable value likely to result from the construction of Central Park West. Per Ehlers’ analysis, it is estimated that Phases I – V would create (upon full development) roughly $171,999,430 in new value (or $3,050,289 in new tax capacity) in St. Louis Park. Ehlers was also asked to compare the estimated taxes payable between Duke’s original redevelopment plan for the subject site and CPW’s current redevelopment plan assuming all phases were completed simultaneously. That analysis indicated there would be little difference in total net taxes payable in St. Louis Park and Golden Valley under either redevelopment plan. Specifically for St. Louis Park, there would be approximately $14,000 less in net taxes payable under CPW’s current plan, however given that the Duke Plan would have taken longer to fully complete, the total taxes payable under the CPW plan would, in fact, exceed the total taxes payable under the Duke plan. VISION CONSIDERATION: This project is consistent with the City Council’s strategic direction of being a connected and engaged community. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion Resolution of Approval Second Amendment to the Redevelopment Contract (Provided in the EDA staff report.) Prepared by: Greg Hunt, Economic Development Coordinator Reviewed by: Michele Schnitker, Housing Supervisor Approved by: Nancy Deno, HR Director/Deputy City Manager City Council Meeting of December 15, 2014 (Item No. 4c) Page 2 Title: Second Amendment to the Redevelopment Contract with Central Park West, LLC DISCUSSION Current Conditions The vacant portion of The West End redevelopment site east of Utica Ave. (“subject site”) is approximately 14 acres; 8 acres of which are located in the City of St. Louis Park and 6 acres are in the City of Golden Valley. It is currently guided and zoned Office. Duke Realty’s original Master Plan for the area called for a Class “A” office park that included approximately 1.1 million square feet of office space distributed between three or four office buildings. The office buildings were to be constructed in St. Louis Park and connected to a seven level parking structure constructed in Golden Valley. Duke has not proceeded with office construction due to market conditions and an adjustment in its corporate strategic focus. Revised Concept Plan Central Park West, LLC (an affiliate of DLC Residential) wishes to pursue a new Concept Plan on the subject site that includes a mix of uses. The proposed new uses would complement, enhance and become an integral part of The West End’s “urban village”. Generally, it creates a residential/hospitality district at the north end of development and an office district to the south. The new development, named “Central Park West” will be constructed in five phases. The Central Park West Concept Plan was presented, reviewed and discussed at the August 18th and November 24th Study Sessions. The Plan was favorably received and staff was directed to work with the developer on the necessary formal approvals Summary of 2nd Amendment to West End Redevelopment Contract The following are the key Business Terms between the St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority (“EDA”), the City of St. Louis Park (“City”) and Central Park West, LLC (“Redeveloper”), incorporated in the proposed Second Amendment to the Contract for Private Redevelopment for The West End Redevelopment. The required Minimum Improvements are to be constructed on the properties east of Utica Ave (“Outlot A, The Shops at West End Addition”) and 5235 Wayzata Blvd (currently leased to The Olive Garden restaurant) collectively referred to as the “subject property”. 1. Minimum Improvements. The Minimum Improvements consist of the following constructed in phases, located as shown on the Master Site Plan and Central Park West Master Site Plan and in accordance with the Final PUD and Final Central Park West PUD: (a) Phase I: Approximately 199 or more multi-family residential units to be located in a multi-story building with associated underground structured parking. Reconstruction of Utica Avenue from approximately the south end of Outlot A West End Addition north to Wayzata Blvd with a boulevard in the middle to match the existing boulevard in Utica Ave south of 16th Street. Construction of a central, outdoor gathering place and public pedestrian/bicycle connection between Lilac Drive in Golden Valley and Utica Avenue in St. Louis Park. (b) Phase II: Approximately 164 units of multi-family housing to be located in a multistory building with associated underground structured parking. City Council Meeting of December 15, 2014 (Item No. 4c) Page 3 Title: Second Amendment to the Redevelopment Contract with Central Park West, LLC The multi-family housing units in Phases I and II combined may not exceed 400 units, and at least 11 units of such housing will be reserved for individuals whose income is 60% or less of area median gross income (the “Affordable Units”). The parties agree that all Affordable Units will be located on the subject property located in the City of St. Louis Park. (c) Phase III: A 120 to 150-room hotel with associated surface and underground structured parking. (d) Phase IV: Approximately 353,353 gross square feet of Class A office located in a multi-story building to be located adjacent to and integrated with Phases I-III, including underground structured parking and an adjacent, below/above grade, multi-level parking garage primarily located on the Golden Valley Property. (e) Phase V: Approximately 353,353 gross square feet of Class A office located in a multi-story building to be located adjacent to and integrated with Phases I-IV, including underground structured parking and an adjacent, below/above grade, multi-level parking garage primarily located on the Golden Valley Property. Between Phases IV and V the Redeveloper may construct no more than 710,000 total gross square feet of Class A office space. (f) Phase VI: A future Phase of development on that portion of the Redevelopment Property described as (the property currently leased to Olive Garden) to be determined and subject to terms mutually agreed upon by CPW and the EDA prior to submission of formal planning applications to the City. 2. Additional Covenants. The Minimum Improvements must substantially comply with the Master Site Plan and Central Park West Master Site Plan and with the Final PUD and Final Central Park West PUD, and must meet the following specifications: (a) CPW shall, for Central Park West Phases I-VI, comply with the City’s Green Building Policy adopted by the City and Authority on February 16, 2010. The core and shell of all Phases of Class A office facilities must meet either current LEED or B3 certification requirements; provided that CPW shall have the authority to choose which of these certification methods apply and shall also have the right to select whatever certification standard LEED allows. CPW shall deliver evidence of compliance with the applicable certification method to the City upon receipt. (b) CPW agrees to provide outdoor gathering places in Central Park West Phase I, which will be as shown on the Central Park West Master Site Plan and will be in accordance with the Final Central Park West PUD. The outdoor gathering place shall include a plaza, green space, or other open space available for use by the general public and incorporating features such as fountains, public art, street furnishings, special lighting or other public amenities. Such space will be privately owned, controlled and managed but available for use by the public, subject to such protocols and scheduling as reasonably established by the owner of such Phase. As a condition to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for Central Park West Phase I, the City and CPW shall enter into a reasonably City Council Meeting of December 15, 2014 (Item No. 4c) Page 4 Title: Second Amendment to the Redevelopment Contract with Central Park West, LLC acceptable use agreement (a “Use Agreement”), that will generally provide for notice and review by CPW of activities requested by the City, and will describe the respective insurance and maintenance obligations of the parties in connection with such activities. (c) CPW agrees to provide on-site public pedestrian connections throughout the Redevelopment Property and Golden Valley Property, substantially in accordance with the Central Park West Master Site Plan. (d) CPW shall provide a public pedestrian/bicycle connection through the Redevelopment Property and Golden Valley Property that joins Lilac Drive and Utica Avenue, substantially in accordance with the Central Park West Master Site Plan and Final Central Park West PUD.. (e) If required by Metro Transit and agreed to by the City, CPW shall construct a circular transit bus turnaround at the termination of 16th Street and Utica Avenue (or other such accommodations as reasonably required by Metro Transit), and shall accommodate public transit throughout the Redevelopment Property and Golden Valley Property, in accordance with the Master Site Plan and Central Park West Master Site Plan and the Final PUD and Final Central Park West PUD. (f) CPW shall accommodate and include public art throughout the Redevelopment Property and Golden Valley Property in accordance with the requirements of the Final Central Park West PUD. The parties agree that $180,000 shall be required for public art in connection with Central Park West Phases I-V. The City agrees that CPW may divide this requirement among Central Park West Phases I-V, as determined by CPW at its sole discretion, and that no additional public art will be required in any of Central Park Phases I-V. (g) CPW shall accommodate electronic communication construction and cabling by the City throughout the Redevelopment Property and Golden Valley Property, including without limitation granting or dedicating to the City (without cost to the City) easements or similar rights to (i) place fiber and conduit in private roadways, from public or private roadways to each building, within each building to a point of presence, and from the point of presence to the roof; (ii) place wireless radio equipment on each building’s roof; and (iii) install wireless or fiber access in public spaces in each building (e.g. lobby, waiting areas) and in the central, outdoor gathering space. All such rights and easements are subject to reasonable review by CPW as to location and aesthetics. Except for contribution of easements or other rights described above, installation of electronic communication and cabling shall be at no cost to CPW. (h) CPW shall provide easements or access for wireless communication conduit and cabling throughout the Redevelopment Property and Golden Valley Property. (i) CPW shall install dedicated conduit from each building’s point of presence to each internal wiring closet, thence to each living/working space. Each living/working space shall have two (2) connections, each capable of supporting at minimum a one-gigabit connection. At its option, CPW may instead provide a City Council Meeting of December 15, 2014 (Item No. 4c) Page 5 Title: Second Amendment to the Redevelopment Contract with Central Park West, LLC minimum of two (2) CAT 6 cable connections from each internal wiring closet to each living/working space. 3. Minimum Improvements. (i) Subject to Unavoidable Delays, the Redeveloper shall Commence construction of each Phase of the Minimum Improvements by the Required Commencement Date, and shall substantially complete construction of each Phase by the Required Completion Date, all as follows: Phase Required Commencement Date Required Completion Date CENTRAL PARK WEST Phase I (multi-family housing) June 1, 2015 December 31, 2016 Central Park West Phase II (multi- family housing) April 1, 2016 August 31, 2017 Central Park West Phase III (hotel) April 1, 2016 August 31, 2017 Central Park West Phase IV (office) April 1, 2016 September 30, 2017 Central Park West Phase V (office) April 1, 2019 September 30, 2020 Central Park West Phase VI (future redevelopment) TBD TBD If the Redeveloper anticipates that the timetable for any Phase will not be met, Redeveloper shall provide a written and oral presentation to the City Council of the City at a regular City Council meeting prior to the relevant Required Commencement Date or Completion Date. The report must describe the reasons for the expected failure to meet the schedule, evidence of Redeveloper’s due diligence in working toward construction of the relevant Phase, and a detailed revised schedule. Failure to timely provide such written and oral report is an Event of Default. 4. Redeveloper Public Improvement Costs. Redeveloper shall pay all costs of Redeveloper Public Improvements. 5. Maintenance Requirements. The parties agree that, as a condition to issuance of the Certificate of Completion for each Phase, the Redeveloper and City shall execute a reciprocal easement and maintenance agreement (“REMA”) that assigns those parties’ respective responsibilities regarding maintenance, repairs, and cost of such activities, related to the subject Phase. The parties agree that the City has entered into a REMA with Duke in connection with Phases I, IIA, and IIC. For the remaining Phases, there may be a single REMA, or separate documents related to each Phase, as the parties mutually agree. The City and DLC agree that each REMA will be based on the following principles. (a) The City will have primary responsibility for: (i) customary maintenance, snow removal and sand/salt, repair and replacement up to the curb line of all public streets and utilities within and immediately adjacent to the Redevelopment Property. City Council Meeting of December 15, 2014 (Item No. 4c) Page 6 Title: Second Amendment to the Redevelopment Contract with Central Park West, LLC (ii) customary maintenance, repair and replacement of standard street lighting located in the public right of way within and immediately adjacent to the Redevelopment Property; and (iii) customary maintenance, repair and replacement of streetscape between the curb line and the boundary of the right-of-way along the west side of Park Place Boulevard between Gamble Drive and Interstate 394 and along the south side of Gamble Drive, together with the entire median within those portions of Park Place Drive and Gamble Drive; provided that the City may in its sole discretion assign such maintenance obligation to any other party and/or assign all or any portion of the cost of such obligation to owners of property west of Park Place Boulevard and south of Gamble Drive through a special service district. (b) The Redeveloper will have primary responsibility for: (i) customary maintenance, repair and replacement of all private streets and alleys within the Redevelopment Property and Golden Valley Property (ii) customary repair and replacement (but not maintenance such as street cleaning and plowing) of aesthetic enhancements within any public right of way within and immediately adjacent to the Redevelopment Property and Golden Valley Property.. (iii) customary maintenance, repair and replacement for all streetscape between the curb line and the boundary of the right-of-way along all public streets within and immediately adjacent to the Redevelopment Property and Golden Valley Property except as otherwise provided regarding specified portions of streetscape under Section 4.8(a)(iii), including without limitation snow removal from private streets, sidewalks, public gathering spaces, and pedestrian connections; (iv) customary maintenance, repair and replacement of medians within West 16th Street and Utica Avenue. (c) Each party will have access to property controlled by the other in order carry out responsibilities under the REMA. (d) The City will be given authority to cure any defaults by Redeveloper under the REMA by undertaking the Redeveloper’s defaulted responsibilities under the REMA and assessing the cost to the relevant Parcels, provided that such remedy will not be the City’s exclusive remedy. 6. Assessment Agreements. Upon completion of each Central Park West Phase of the Minimum Improvements, CPW and the EDA shall execute one or more Assessment Agreements specifying an assessor’s minimum market value for such Phase, together with the Parcel on which it is constructed. The amount of minimum market value for each agreement will be mutually determined by the parties based upon final Construction Plans. City Council Meeting of December 15, 2014 (Item No. 4c) Page 7 Title: Second Amendment to the Redevelopment Contract with Central Park West, LLC 7. The parties acknowledge that Duke intends to Transfer Central Park West Phases I- VI to CPW, and that Duke will seek release of Duke’s obligations with respect to these Phases. The EDA will cooperate with Duke and CPW in such effort, provided that the Transfer will be subject to all the terms and conditions of this agreement. 8. The Amended and Restated Contract for Private Redevelopment dated May 17, 2010 as amended remains in full force and effect. City Council Meeting of December 15, 2014 (Item No. 4c) Page 8 Title: Second Amendment to the Redevelopment Contract with Central Park West, LLC RESOLUTION NO. 14-___ RESOLUTION APPROVING A SECOND AMENDMENT TO AMENDED AND RESTATED CONTRACT FOR PRIVATE REDEVELOPMENT AMONG THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, THE ST. LOUIS PARK ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, DUKE REALTY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, AND CENTRAL PARK WEST, LLC BE IT RESOLVED By the City Council ("Council") of the City of St. Louis Park ("City") as follows: Section 1. Recitals. 1.01. The St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority (the “Authority”) is currently administering its Redevelopment Project No. 1 ("Project") pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.001 to 469.047 ("HRA Act"), and within the Project has established The West End Tax Increment Financing District (“TIF District”). 1.02. The Authority, the City, and Duke Realty Limited Partnership (“Duke”) entered into an Amended and Restated Contract for Private Redevelopment dated as of May 17, 2010, regarding redevelopment of a portion of the property within the TIF District, and entered into a First Amendment thereto dated as of November 21, 2011 (as so amended, the “Contract”). 1.03. In connection with an Assignment and Assumption of Contract pursuant to which Duke will assign certain of its obligations under the Contract to Central Park West, LLC (“CPW”), the parties to the Contract have determined to a need to revise the Contract in certain respects, and to that end have prepared a Second Amendment to Amended and Restated Contract for Private Redevelopment (the “Second Amendment”), by and among the Authority, the City, Duke, and CPW. 1.04. The Council has reviewed the Second Amendment and finds that the approval and execution thereof and performance of the City’s obligations thereunder are in the best interest of the City and its residents. Section 2. City Approval; Other Proceedings. 2.01. The Second Amendment as presented to the Council is hereby in all respects approved, subject to modifications that do not alter the substance of the transaction and that are approved by the Mayor and City Manager, provided that execution of the documents by such officials shall be conclusive evidence of approval. 2.02. The Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized to execute on behalf of the City the Second Amendment and any documents referenced therein requiring execution by the City, and to carry out, on behalf of the City, its obligations thereunder. 2.03. City staff and consultants are authorized to take any actions necessary to carry out the intent of this resolution. City Council Meeting of December 15, 2014 (Item No. 4c) Page 9 Title: Second Amendment to the Redevelopment Contract with Central Park West, LLC Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council December 15, 2014 City Manager Mayor Attest City Clerk Meeting: City Council Meeting Date: December 15, 2014 Consent Agenda Item: 4d EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: Authorize Contract for 2015 Consultant Services Related to the Reilly Tar Site RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to Adopt Resolution authorizing execution of a one (1) year contract with Summit Envirosolutions, Inc., for consultant services related to the implementation of the Reilly Tar & Chemical Corporation (Reilly) Remedial Action Plan (RAP) during year 2015. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the City Council desire to continue with Summit as the City’s consultant for the Reilly Tar and Chemical RAP? SUMMARY: In September, 1986, the Reilly Consent Decree became effective and the City accepted responsibility for a number of environmental remediation tasks contained in the Reilly Remedial Action Plan (RAP). Over the last 28 years, the City has retained the services of ten consulting engineers or firms to provide for the design and/or implementation of RAP activities. Annual Reilly contract activities have included, but not been limited to: • Groundwater sampling and analysis • Drafting annual reports for agency review • Aquifer studies and historical file searches • General project administration FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: As we approach the 30-year anniversary of the CD/RAP, staff has asked the Agencies to review where, when and why we are sampling. This request has resulted in costs rising in recent years as the Agencies have requested additional sampling and data collection so they can evaluate the long-term sampling needs of the site. Staff is hopeful that this short-term rise in costs will result in significant long-term savings. Staff and legal counsel will provide the City Council with a detailed update on recent Reilly activities, costs and next steps in early 2015. The proposal received from Summit estimates the cost for 2015 work tasks at $257,500. The 2015 Water Fund budget contains funding for these Reilly related consultant activities. 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 Resolution Prepared by: Mark Hanson, Superintendent of Public Works Reviewed by: Cindy Walsh, Director of Operations and Recreation Tom Scott, City Attorney Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager City Council Meeting of December 15, 2014 (Item No. 4d) Page 2 Title: Authorize Contract for 2015 Consultant Services Related to the Reilly Tar Site DISCUSSION BACKGROUND: While many of the studies required by the Reilly RAP have been completed, certain tasks such as groundwater sample retrieval and annual reporting represent ongoing activities which require consultant services. Summit has provided consultant services for these ongoing tasks in the past, and as such, has been recognized by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) and Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) as an approved consultant for such activities. Contract activities have included, but not been limited to: • Groundwater sampling and analysis • Drafting annual reports for agency review • Aquifer studies • Investigation of leaking wells • Soil investigations • Historical file searches • General project administration 2015 Environmental Services The following work tasks describe the work and associated costs expected during 2015: Task 100 - 2011 Annual Monitoring Report: Summit will draft text and prepare figures and tables to assist the City in completing the 2014 annual Monitoring Report. The Annual Monitoring Report will include analytical results, groundwater contour maps, a historical summary of analytical results, and a data quality review. This report is due to the U.S. Agencies on March 15, 2015. The budget shown in Table 1 assumes that the report will provide detailed discussions of the performance of the remedy in each aquifer. Task 150 - 2011 Annual Progress Report and GAC Plant Report: Summit will assist the City in completing these two reports for submittal to the Agencies on March 15, 2015. The GAC report will be a chapter in the Annual Monitoring Report. Task 400 - Groundwater Monitoring and Sample Shipping: Summit will collect all of the monitoring well and municipal well samples identified in accordance with the 2015 Sampling Plan. The numbers of samples are shown below in the description for Task 600. Task 480 - Sampling Plan and QAPP: This task involves the preparation of the annual sampling plan, due October 31, 2014, and the Quality Assurance Project Plan. We anticipate that next year’s sampling plan will contain the same numbers of samples for each analysis as for 2014. This task will likely include one or more meetings with the Agencies to ensure the plan meets everyone’s expectations. City Council Meeting of December 15, 2014 (Item No. 4d) Page 3 Title: Authorize Contract for 2015 Consultant Services Related to the Reilly Tar Site Task 500 – Five Year Review Issues: The last Five-Year Review was completed by the Agencies in 2011. One remaining issue is their concern PAH is migrating towards Edina. The 2016 report will contain this and other items the Agencies would like the City to address. Summit tracks its costs for assisting the City in response to the 2016 Five Year Review under Task 500. For 2015, however, these costs are estimated to be zero. Task 600 - Laboratory Coordination: Table 1 provides cost estimates for four subtasks as summarized below: 1. Working with ALS Kelso and Pace Labs on implementing the QAPP, coordinating sampling events, and updating and maintaining the water quality database. 2. Providing data quality review and/or data validation for all of the laboratory testing. The data validation/data quality review will be documented in the Annual Monitoring Report. 3. ALS Kelso laboratory subcontract for part-per-trillion PAH analyses for an estimated 120 samples. ALS charges $324.28 per sample for this test including the Level 4 data package and Summit’s 10% handling fee. 4. Pace laboratory subcontract for extended PAH analyses for an estimated 65 samples. The total cost per sample in 2015 will be $205.70 including the Level 4 data package and Summit’s 10% handling fee. The estimated number of samples going to each lab includes four QA/QC samples (duplicate, field blank, matrix spike, and matrix spike duplicate) for each day of sampling. If the Agencies reject the June 2014 sampling results from Test America and require an extra sampling round in 2015 to replace those data, that would entail analyzing approximately 60 additional samples. Table 1 includes that laboratory cost in a separate line item. Task 700 - Site Closure: This task involves the collection of water level and flow data and analysis using groundwater visualization software that can be used to demonstrate the extent to which actual municipal pumping meets the requirements of the remedy in the Prairie du Chien – Jordan Aquifer. The cost estimate shown in Table 1 includes on-line, computer-sharing teleconferences to review the data and visualization results. Task 810 - Program Management and Miscellaneous: This task includes overall planning, directing, and controlling Summit’s resources to perform this project. The task also includes miscellaneous project activities throughout the year, such as responding to requests for data, correspondence or historical project information. Summary As noted above, Summit staff has been deeply involved in previous related activities and has collaborated with the City in the development of proposals submitted to the Agencies for the work tasks listed. As in the past, all activities are assigned through and closely monitored by staff. Wherever possible, staff drafts reports for submittals, makes contacts with the Agencies, and coordinates the consultant activities, thereby reducing out of pocket expenditures. Staff supports the use of Summit for the work tasks described in this report. City Council Meeting of December 15, 2014 (Item No. 4d) Page 4 Title: Authorize Contract for 2015 Consultant Services Related to the Reilly Tar Site FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Significant funds are expended on responding to Agency concerns over sampling, monitoring, and reporting. The variation in costs from year to year is associated with responding to EPA/MPCA concerns. Additionally, as we approach the 30-year anniversary of the CD/RAP, staff has asked the Agencies to review where, when and why we are sampling. This request has resulted in costs rising in recent years, as the Agencies have requested additional sampling and data collection so they can evaluate the long-term sampling needs of the site. The proposal received from SUMMIT estimates the cost for 2015 work tasks at $257,500. The 2015 Water Fund Budget contains funding for these Reilly related consultant activities. A summary of the 2015 Summit work tasks and their estimated costs is shown below in Table 1: Table 1. 2015 Reilly Site Estimated Project Costs Task Description Estimated Cost Task 100 ‐ 2013 Annual Monitoring Report $30,000 Task 150 ‐ 2013 Progress Report and GAC Plant Report $3,000 Task 400 ‐ Groundwater Monitoring $50,000 Task 480 ‐ 2015 Sampling Plan and QAPP $10,000 Task 600 ‐ Laboratory Coordination Subtask 1: Lab coordination $10,000 Subtask 2: Data validation and review $15,000 Subtask 3: ALS Kelso subcontract 120 PPT samples at $325/sample (2015) $45,000 60 PPT samples at $325/sample (likely 2014 redo) $19,500 Subtask 4: Pace subcontract (65 samples at $206 each) $15,000 Task 600 Total $104,500 Task 700 ‐ Site Closure $10,000 Task 810 ‐ Project Management and Miscellaneous $50,000 Total estimated project cost $257,500 Contract Terms The following significant terms have been in past contracts and are also incorporated in this contract: 1. Contract terminates on December 31, 2015 with City rights to extend for up to two (2) additional one (1) year periods. 2. Compensation to be based on actual work performed with a maximum contract amount of $257,500 for 2015. 3. Summit will defend and indemnify the City for Summit’s actions related to this contract. 4. Summit has independent contractor status. 5. City may terminate this contract at any time for any reason with a 60 day written notice. The City Attorney was involved in the preparation of this contract. City Council Meeting of December 15, 2014 (Item No. 4d) Page 5 Title: Authorize Contract for 2015 Consultant Services Related to the Reilly Tar Site RESOLUTION NO. 14-____ RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AGREEMENT WITH SUMMIT ENVIROSOLUTIONS, INC. FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES RELATED TO IMPLEMENTATION OF THE REILLY TAR & CHEMICAL CORPORATION REMEDIAL ACTION PLAN THIS AGREEMENT is made on December 15, 2014, by and between the CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, Minnesota, a Minnesota municipal corporation (hereinafter referred to as “City"), and SUMMIT Envirosolutions, Inc., a Minnesota corporation (hereinafter referred to as "SUMMIT"). WHEREAS, pursuant to the execution of a Consent Decree in the case of the United States of America, et al versus Reilly Tar & Chemical Corporation, et al, the City of St. Louis Park has assumed certain responsibilities in the implementation of a Remedial Action Plan related thereto; and WHEREAS, the City has determined that it will be necessary to retain the services of a professional consultant to implement various activities for which it is responsible under the terms of the Consent Decree and Remedial Action Plan. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, that: 1. The Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized to enter into a contract with Summit Envirosolutions, Inc. in the amount of $257,500 for consultant activities related to the implementation of the Reilly Tar & Chemical Corporation Remedial Action Plan during 2015. Reviewed for Administration Adopted by the City Council December 15, 2014 City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk Meeting: City Council Meeting Date: December 15, 2014 Consent Agenda Item: 4e EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: Next Steps to Increase the Climate Resilience of Communities Grant Agreement RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to Adopt Resolution Authorizing Execution of the Next Steps to Increase the Climate Resilience of Communities Grant Agreement with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the City Council wish to receive a $3,000 grant to fund a project to assist in increasing St. Louis Park’s resilience to climate change? SUMMARY: The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency has made funds available to those cities that attended the Midwest Regional Convening on Climate Resilience last September. A team of St Louis Park elected officials and staff attended this conference. The conference focused on the ongoing climate change and provided information about climate resilience. Climate resilience is generally described as the ability to overcome adverse climate change and become better prepared for future climate impacts. These grant funds are administered as part of the Environmental Assistance Time Sensitive Grant Program, which is administered under MN Statute 115A.0716 and MN Rules 9210.0840. The focus of the grant is to help eligible cities to move forward with next step projects to: • Engage and inform community stake holders • Build support for climate resilience efforts • Assess vulnerabilities • Identify and plan actions for greater resilience, and/or • Implement specific resilience measures FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: The grant agreement is for a maximum amount of $3,000, which includes a 25% match. The City of St. Louis Park would be responsible for providing the required matching funds of $1,000. 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 Resolution Prepared by: Bill Chang, Administrative Services Intern Reviewed by: Nancy Deno, HR Director/ Deputy City Manager Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager City Council Meeting of December 15, 2014 (Item No. 4e) Page 2 Title: Next Steps to Increase the Climate Resilience of Communities Grant Agreement DISCUSSION BACKGROUND: In September, a team consisting of staff and elected officials from St. Louis Park attended the National League of Cities Midwest Regional Convening on Climate Resilience (“the Convening”). The team’s attendance qualified St. Louis Park for application to the Next Steps to Increase the Climate Resilience of Communities Grant. The purpose of the grant is to help qualified cities and counties provide information learned from the Convening to its communities with a next steps project. The Convening provided information about climate change and adaptation. It also provided information about potential partnerships to achieve climate resilience. The project will further the development of environmental and sustainable practices in Minnesota. Climate resilience has continued to grow as a high priority issue and should be in the same conversation as sustainability. It is generally described as the ability to overcome adverse climate change and become better prepared for future climate impacts. In addition to being better prepared, climate resilience planning often leaves the community better connected. It connects across economic, social, and ecological sectors. PRESENT CONSIDERATIONS: The grant and matching funds will be used for a Next Steps Project, which will meet the grant requirements to: • Engage and inform community stake holders • Build support for climate resilience efforts • Assess vulnerabilities • Identify and plan actions for greater resilience, and/or • Implement specific resilience measures The project will included a two pronged approach that focuses on information sharing and assessment of climate change and adaptation for St. Louis Park. First, staff will bring in presenters to speak to the City Council, the Environment and Sustainability Commission, staff, and the community about climate change and climate adaptation. Second, staff will create a vulnerability assessment and booklet on climate change and adaptation to be distributed during the presentation and throughout the community. The assessment will then be utilized to determine the next steps in the overall climate resilience planning for the City. This material will also be available online. The grant application has been approved by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and is awaiting approval of the resolution before administering signatures and the allocation of funds. NEXT STEPS: If approved, the next steps would be to schedule the presenters and draft the assessment and booklet. City Council Meeting of December 15, 2014 (Item No. 4e) Page 3 Title: Next Steps to Increase the Climate Resilience of Communities Grant Agreement RESOLUTION NO. 14-____ RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF THE NEXT STEPS TO INCREASE THE CLIMATE RESILIENCE OF COMMUNITIES GRANT AGREEMENT WITH THE MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park has made application to the Next Steps to Increase the Climate Resilience of Communities Grant Fund through the Environmental Assistance Time Sensitive Grant Program, administered by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency to take the information provided at the said Convening and move forward with next step projects to engage and inform community stakeholders, build support for climate resilience efforts, assess vulnerabilities, identify and plan actions for greater resilience, and/or implement specific resilience measures; and WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park participated in the Midwest Regional Convening on Climate Resilience by the National League of Cities’ Sustainable Cities Institute held in St. Paul, Minnesota, September 21-23, 2014; and WHEREAS, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency has approved the City of St. Louis Park’s request for grant funds; and WHEREAS, it is necessary for the City of St. Louis Park to enter into a grant agreement with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency as a part of receiving said grant funds; and WHEREAS, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency awarded the City a grant in the amount of $3,000; and WHEREAS, it is necessary for the City of St. Louis Park to provide a match of $1,000; and NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, that the Mayor and City Manager are authorized to execute the grant agreement with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council December 15, 2014 City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk Meeting: City Council Meeting Date: December 15, 2014 Consent Agenda Item: 4f EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: Special Assessment - Water Service Line Repair at 2921 Louisiana Avenue South RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to Adopt Resolution authorizing the special assessment for the repair of the water service line at 2921 Louisiana Avenue South, St. Louis Park, Minnesota, P.I.D. 08-117-21-43-0124. POLICY CONSIDERATION: The proposed action is consistent with policy previously established by the City Council. SUMMARY: Kevin and Christine Kartak, owners of the single family residence at 2921 Louisiana Avenue South, have requested the City to authorize the repair of the water service line for their home and assess the cost against the property in accordance with the City’s Special Assessment Policy. The City requires the repair of service lines to promote the general public health, safety and welfare within the community. The Special Assessment Policy for the repair or replacement of water or sewer service lines for existing homes was adopted by the City Council in 1996. This program was put into place because sometimes property owners face financial hardships when emergency repairs like this are unexpectedly required. Plans and permits for this service line repair work were completed, submitted, and approved by City staff. The property owners hired a contractor and repaired the water service line in compliance with current codes and regulations. Based on the completed work, this repair qualifies for the City’s Special Assessment Program. The property owners have petitioned the City to authorize the water service line repair and special assess the cost of the repair. The total eligible cost of the repair has been determined to be $8,585.87. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: The City has funds in place to finance the cost of this special assessment. VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Resolution Prepared by: Jay Hall , Utility Superintendent Reviewed by: Mark Hanson, Public Works Superintendent Brian Swanson, Controller Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager City Council Meeting of December 15, 2014 (Item No. 4f) Page 2 Title: Special Assessment - Water Service Line Repair at 2921 Louisiana Avenue South RESOLUTION NO. 14-____ RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE SPECIAL ASSESSMENT FOR THE REPAIR OF THE WATER SERVICE LINE AT 2921 LOUISIANA AVENUE SOUTH, ST. LOUIS PARK, MN P.I.D. 08-117-21-43-0124 WHEREAS, the Property Owners at 2921 Louisiana Avenue South, have petitioned the City of St. Louis Park to authorize a special assessment for the repair of the water service line for the single family residence located at 2921 Louisiana Avenue South, and WHEREAS, the Property Owners have agreed to waive the right to a public hearing, right of notice and right of appeal pursuant to Minnesota Statute, Chapter 429; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park has received a report from the Utility Superintendent related to the repair of the water service line. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, that: 1. The petition from the Property Owners requesting the approval and special assessment for the water service line repair is hereby accepted. 2. The water service line repair that was done in conformance with the plans and specifications approved by the Public Works Department and Department of Inspections is hereby accepted. 3. The total cost for the repair of the water service line is accepted at $8,585.87. 4. The Property Owners have agreed to waive the right to a public hearing, notice and appeal from the special assessment; whether provided by Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429, or by other statutes, or by ordinance, City Charter, the constitution, or common law. 5. The Property Owners have agreed to pay the City for the total cost of the above improvements through a special assessment over a ten (10) year period at the interest rate of 5.85 %. 6. The Property Owners have executed an agreement with the City and all other documents necessary to implement the repair of the water service line and the special assessment of all costs associated therewith. Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council December 15, 2014 City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk Meeting: City Council Meeting Date: December 15, 2014 Consent Agenda Item: 4g MINUTES ENVIRONMENT AND SUSTAINABILITY COMMISSION: SUSTAINABLE SLP ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA November 5, 2014 Community Room, City Hall MEMBERS PRESENT: Mark Eilers, Terry Gips, Rachel Harris, Tom Hillstrom, Cindy Larson O’Neil, Alex Sundvall, Judy Voigt, Chris Anderson, Nancy Rose, Karen Kaphingst, Rene McGarvey and Ryan Griffin STAFF PRESENT: Phillip Elkin 1. The meeting was called to order at 6:34 p.m. 2. The minutes of the October 1, 2014 meeting were unanimously approved. 3. Phil introduced the new commission members Nancy Rose and Karen Kaphingst. Nancy and Karen gave a brief background of their experiences and their reasons for joining the Environment and Sustainability Commission. The introductions continued as each of the current commissioners introduced themselves to the new members and shared their own background stories. Each of the work group leaders gave a brief description of their groups and accomplishments. 4. Chair Harris reminded each of the work groups about producing their work group description for the ESC web page. Currently, the Energy Work Group and the Environmentally Preferred Purchasing Work Group were the only submissions. Commissioner Anderson stated that he would like to see a new work group that focused on land, water and wildlife and proposed that it could be combined with the native landscape group. The commissioners discussed the possibility of merging groups to become more effective. 5. Commissioner Hillstrom led the next discussion, updating the commissioners on the ESC web page on the City of St. Louis Park’s web site. The discussion focused on the layout of the page and the current buttons and improvements. Commissioner Hillstrom had previously sent each of the commissioners several examples of web pages from other cities for ideas. Commissioner Anderson questioned the accessibility of the ESC page, noting that the homepage has a link to environment which is not connected or linked to the ESC page. It was also noted that there was an energy resources page not linked or associated with the ESC. The group discussed ideas on how to configure the ESC page to look cleaner and attract visitors. Suggestions that came out of this discussion were: • Add the words “work group” to the descriptions • Change the buttons to photographs or images rather than the logo icons • Replace the current buttons with Green Step Cities; Energy; Environmentally Preferred Purchasing; Communications; Education; and Water, Land and Wildlife. City Council Meeting of December 15, 2014 (Item No. 4g) Page 2 Title: Environment and Sustainability Commission: Sustainable SLP Meeting Minutes of November 5, 2014 The discussion ended with Commissioner Larson volunteering to go through the web site and look for duplicity, and Commissioner Hillstrom would meet with Jamie Zwilling to discuss the proposed changes. 6. Commissioner Larson and Commissioner Voigt gave the commissioners an update from the Energy Work Group, focusing on opportunities with the Clean Energy Resource Team (CERTS). 7. The work group discussion was tabled as each group leader was asked to submit a written write-up of activities for the next meeting. Commissioner Kaphingst and Commissioner Rose were asked which workgroups they were interested in and both responded favorably to the newly formed Water, Land and Wildlife Work Group. 8. The meeting adjourned at 8:05 Meeting: City Council Meeting Date: December 15, 2014 Consent Agenda Item: 4h EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: Amendment to Special Assessment - Signal System at Park Center Boulevard for 36 Park Apartments RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to Adopt the Amended Resolution authorizing special assessments for the installation of a traffic signal at the shared entrance of 36 Park Apartments and Target. POLICY CONSIDERATION: The proposed action is consistent with policy previously established by the City Council. SUMMARY: Resolution 14-157 was approved by Council on November 17, 2014 authorizing the assessment amount and repayment schedule for the 36 Park Apartments. That resolution incorrectly stated the method of repayment schedule. The attached resolution clarifies that the special assessment is to be payable in equal annual principal installments together with accumulated interest. As part of the 2011 redevelopment of 3601 Park Place Boulevard a traffic signal was installed. This signal consolidated the access from Parkshore Assisted Living and 36 Park Apartments on the east side of the road. In addition, the two accesses to Target on the west side of the road were consolidated to utilize the new signal. This project was completed to make the area safer and more efficient for the various existing and proposed uses. The Planned Unit Development Agreement with 3601 Park Place Boulevard required the development to pay up to 50 percent of the signal and related roadway costs. The City entered in to a Public Improvement Agreement with Target Corporation during the summer of 2012 to fund a portion of the signal system and related roadway costs on the west side of the roadway. The following table outlines the cost shares for 36 Park Apartments and Target Corporation. PID Owner Street Address, St. Louis Park, Mn 55416 Cost 06-028-24-33-0019 36 Park Apartments 3601 Park Center Blvd $ 200,000 06-028-24-33-0015 Target Corporation 3601 State Highway 100 $ 199,500 The remainder of the project cost was funded by Municipal State Aid funds. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: The City has funds in place to finance the cost of this special assessment. VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Resolution Prepared by: Jack Sullivan, Senior Engineering Project Manager Reviewed by: Debra Heiser, Engineering Director Brian Swanson, Controller Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager City Council Meeting of December 15, 2014 (Item No. 4h) Page 2 Title: Amendment to Special Assessment–Signal System at Park Center Blvd. for 36 Park Apartments RESOLUTION NO. 14-___ RESOLUTION AMENDING AND RESTATING RESOLUTION 14-157 AUTHORIZING THE SPECIAL ASSESSMENT FOR THE INSTALLTION OF THE TRAFFIC SIGNAL AT THE SHARED ENTRANCE TO 36 PARK APARTMENTS AND TARGET WHEREAS, Resolution 14-157 approved on November 17, 2014 inaccurately stated the repayment schedule for the special assessment; and WHEREAS, Resolution 14-157 shall be amended and restated as set forth below and WHEREAS, the following Property Owner has petitioned the City of St. Louis Park to authorize a special assessment for the installation of the traffic signal at the shared entrance to 36 Park Apartments and Target; and PID Street Address, St. Louis Park, Mn 55416 06-028-24-33-0019 3601 Park Center Blvd WHEREAS, this Property Owner has agreed to the assessment pursuant to the Planned Unit Development Agreement and to waive its right to a public hearing, right of notice and right of appeal pursuant to Minnesota Statute, Chapter 429; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park has received a report from the City Engineer, or designee, related to the installation of the traffic signal, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, that: 1. The petition from the Property Owner requesting the traffic signal be constructed by the city and specially assessed to the property is hereby accepted. 2. The installation of the traffic signal and adjoining roadway work was done in conformance with the plans and specifications approved by the Engineering Department and are hereby accepted. 3. The owner, location, and total eligible cost of this work have been determined to be as follows: PID Street Address, St. Louis Park, Mn 55416 Cost 06-028-24-33-0019 3601 Park Center Blvd $ 200,000 4. This Property Owner has agreed to waive their right to a public hearing, notice and appeal from the special assessment; whether provided by Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429, or by other statutes, or by ordinance, City Charter, the constitution, or common law. City Council Meeting of December 15, 2014 (Item No. 4h) Page 3 Title: Amendment to Special Assessment–Signal System at Park Center Blvd. for 36 Park Apartments 5. This Property Owner has agreed to pay the City for the total eligible cost of the above improvements in the amount of $200,000.00 through a special assessment payable in equal annual principal installments together with accumulated interest at the rate of 5.88 % over a ten (10) year period, with interest calculated from the date of the adoption of the assessment. 6. The Property Owner has executed a Planned Unit Development Agreement with the City and all other documents necessary to implement the traffic signal work and the special assessment of all costs associated therewith. Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council December 15, 2014 City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk Meeting: City Council Meeting Date: December 15, 2014 Consent Agenda Item: 4i EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: Appointment to SWLRT Executive Change Control Board RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to Adopt Resolution appointing City Council Member Mavity as a non-voting member of the SWLRT Executive Change Control Board (ECCB) and Council Member Sanger as the alternate. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the City Council wish to appoint a non-voting member to the Executive Change Control Board (ECCB) for the SWLRT project? SUMMARY: The Executive Change Control Board (ECCB) was formed by the Counties Transit Improvement Board (CTIB) and Hennepin County Regional Rail Authority (HCRRA) to: • To approve all change orders, project requirements, contracts and contract cost increases of $250,000 or more, as well as changes to project schedule that will delay the revenue service date. • To approve the use of contingency funds for all scope deferrals and Locally Requested Capital Improvements costing $75,000 or more. • To review at regular intervals all change orders less than $250,000. The Board will include the following members: • HCRRA 1 member – Appointed Commissioner Callison (Alternate: Commissioner Greene) • CTIB 3 members – Appointed Commissioner McLaughlin (Hennepin County), Commissioner Schouweiler (Dakota County), Commissioner Miron (Washington County) • Met Council 1 member (not yet designated); will also serve as the ECCB Chair • Non-voting from each of the five cities The first meeting is on Thursday, December 18th from 11:30 am – 1:00 pm at the SPO (6465 Wayzata Blvd). VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged community. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: CTIB Procedures for SWLRT Project Contingency Mgmt. Resolution Prepared by: Meg J. McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor Approved by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director City Council Meeting of December 15, 2014 (Item No. 4i) Page 2 Title: Appointment to SWLRT Executive Change Control Board CTIB - Attachment to Resolution #49-2014 Procedures for SWLRT Project Contingency Management I. Structure a. Executive Change Control Board (“ECCB”): i. Membership: a) The members of the ECCB shall be proportional to local funding contributions and shall include: three CTIB commissioners, one HCRRA Commissioner, and one Met Council member. b) The Metropolitan Council member shall chair the ECCB. c) Non-voting membership will include a representative from each municipality along the line. d) A technical advisory committee will be formed to advise the ECCB. ii. Purpose: a) To approve all change orders, project requirements, contracts and contract cost increases of $250,000 or more, as well as changes to project schedule that will delay the revenue service date. b) To approve the use of contingency funds for all scope deferrals and Locally Requested Capital Improvements costing $75,000 or more. c) To review at regular intervals all change orders less than $250,000. iii. Guiding principles: a) The ECCB will act in a timely manner to avoid delays in project delivery. b) Scope deferrals or Locally Requested Capital Improvements will be funded only if the proposed improvement results in a regional system benefit, improves connectivity to the community with a resultant increase in ridership or safety and security for patrons, or reduces operating costs. iv. Quorum: a) 50% plus one of the ECCB members. b) For emergencies resulting in cost increases of more than $250,000, a quorum shall be three members of the ECCB, including one CTIB member, one Met Council member and one HCRRA member. II. Additional Requirements a. The ECCB shall have final decision-making authority. b. Potential change orders should not be packaged in a manner to avoid higher levels of oversight. c. Emergencies shall be defined as necessary expenditures requiring immediate action in order to protect the health and safety of the public, contractors or employees or to avoid significant threats to the Project schedule or budget. d. Items to be approved pursuant to these requirements include the use of contingency funds for the following: i. Construction change orders ii. Project requirements iii. Scope deferrals or Locally Requested Capital Improvements with FFGA funding iv. Changes in classification from one category to another City Council Meeting of December 15, 2014 (Item No. 4i) Page 3 Title: Appointment to SWLRT Executive Change Control Board RESOLUTION NO. 14-___ RESOLUTION APPOINTING COUNCIL MEMBER MAVITY TO THE SWLRT EXECUTIVE CHANGE CONTROL BOARD AND APPOINTING COUNCIL MEMBER SANGER AS THE ALTERNATE MEMBER WHEREAS, The Counties Transit Improvement Board (CTIB) and Hennepin County Regional Rail Authority (HCRRA) created a SWLRT Executive Change Control Board (ECCB); and WHEREAS, a non-voting member from each of the SWLRT cities may be appointed; and WHEREAS, the Council wishes to appoint a City Council Member to the Board. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the St. Louis Park City Council that Council Member Anne Mavity is hereby appointed as a Member of the SWLRT Executive Change Control Board (ECCB), and Council Member Susan Sanger is appointed as the Alternate Member. Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council December 15, 2014 City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk Meeting: City Council Meeting Date: December 15, 2014 Action Agenda Item: 8a EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: Central Park West Preliminary Plat & Preliminary PUD RECOMMENDED ACTION: Planning Commission and City staff recommend: • Motion to Adopt Resolution approving a Preliminary Plat with Subdivision Variances for Central Park West, subject to conditions; and • Motion to Adopt Resolution approving Preliminary Planned Unit Development (PUD) for Central Park West, subject to conditions. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does City Council support the proposed plat and PUD for Central Park West and does it meet the requirements for plat and PUD approvals? SUMMARY: The requested Preliminary Planned Unit Development proposes to construct five buildings in phases. The development includes two 6-story multiple-family residential buildings, a 6-story limited service hotel, two 11-story office buildings, a 2,534-stall parking ramp, and a privately maintained gathering space. At full build-out, the development proposes 363 residential units, up to 706,706 square feet of office, and a 150-room hotel. Eleven residential units will be affordable to households with incomes at or below 60% of the area median income. The plans also include reconstruction of Utica Avenue adjacent to the development site. The development includes property in both St. Louis Park and Golden Valley. The Preliminary Plat proposes to create three lots and two outlots. The subdivision variances relate to drainage and utility easements along interior lot lines. There have been various opportunities for public comment. A neighborhood meeting was held November 12th, which was sparsely attended. The questions were mainly regarding the building locations, unit mix, unit sizes, etc. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on November 19th. No residents attended or provided comments. The Commission recommended approval of the applications. The Golden Valley Planning Commission also recommended approval on November 24th after two hours of public comments and Commission discussion. The Park and Recreation Advisory Commission reviewed the plan on December 3rd and recommended approval of accepting cash in-lieu of land for park dedication and the trail dedication fees. Golden Valley City Council will hold a formal public hearing on Tuesday, December 16. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged community. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: • Discussion • Resolutions • AUAR Update Summary • Unofficial Planning Commission Minutes • Color Site Plan • Architectural Design Renderings • Preliminary Plat Preliminary Civil Plans (selected sheets) • DORA Area Calculation Exhibit • Apartment Preliminary Floor Plans • Unit Metrics • Utica Avenue Civil Plans (selected sheets) Prepared by: Sean Walther, Senior Planner Reviewed by: Meg McMonigal, Planning & Zoning Supervisor Approved by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director City Council Meeting of December 15, 2014 (Item No. 8a) Page 2 Title: Central Park West Preliminary Plat & Preliminary PUD DISCUSSION PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT PLANS: The requested Preliminary Planned Unit Development proposes to construct five buildings in phases. The proposed land use would include two 6-story multiple-family residential buildings, a 6-story limited service hotel, two 11- story office buildings, a 2,534-stall parking ramp, and a privately maintained gathering space. At full build-out, the development proposes 363 residential units, up to 706,706 square feet of office, and up to a 150-room hotel. The plans also include reconstruction of Utica Avenue adjacent to the development site. The development includes property in both St. Louis Park and Golden Valley. BACKGROUND: The proposed development site is part of the larger West End Redevelopment area. The West End includes 49 acres of land at the southwest corner of I-394 and Highway 100. Of the 49 acres, six acres are in Golden Valley. The developments within the West End include The Shops at West End shopping center, The Flats at West End apartments, Millennium at West End apartments (currently under construction), the Moneygram and 1600 office towers, and the Olive Garden restaurant, all of which are located west of Utica Avenue between Gamble Drive and Wayzata Boulevard. The proposed development site is located east of Utica Avenue and was originally planned to include four new office towers totaling 1.1 million square feet with a shared 7-level parking ramp having 4,400 parking spaces. This site is mostly vacant land with some surface parking lots. It is 13.48 acres in size, and the eastern 6 acres of the site are in the City of Golden Valley. In 2008, Duke Realty received Preliminary Plat and Preliminary PUD approvals from St. Louis Park and Golden Valley for the first of the office buildings. The development was called The Towers at West End. However, Duke Realty has not applied for final approvals due to market conditions. The cities have granted several extensions to allow Duke Realty more time to submit the Final Plat and Final PUD. The current applicant, DLC Residential, intends to purchase the land from Duke Realty for the proposed development. Environmental Review: Five scenarios for development were analyzed in 2006 and 2007 for the environmental review, called an Alternative Urban Area-wide Review (AUAR). The analysis covered a wide variety of environmental impacts as required by state statutes, including traffic generation and transportation improvements, provision of utilities to the site, and impact to any natural systems. The AUAR was adopted in 2007 and updated in 2013. The 2007 AUAR identified several mitigation items. Most of those recommended improvements were implemented as part of the first phase of the West End Redevelopment. There were also certain limits established in the AUAR, which the City continues to monitor as each phase develops, relating to traffic generation, water use, and sanitary sewer uses. To analyze this most recent application from DLC Residential for Central Park West, the City hired Kimley-Horn to review the AUAR and compare the impacts of the proposed land use changes to the scenario(s) previously studied. The study found: City Council Meeting of December 15, 2014 (Item No. 8a) Page 3 Title: Central Park West Preliminary Plat & Preliminary PUD • Traffic generated by the revised scenario is beneath the limits established in the original AUAR with the exception of morning peak (outbound) volumes. No additional mitigation measures or adjustments are needed at this time because the morning peak can be accommodated in the existing capacity of the transportation system, which was designed to accommodate the higher afternoon peak traffic volumes. • Sanitary sewer usage generated by the revised scenario will be accommodated within the limits established in the original AUAR. No additional mitigation is needed. • Water use is anticipated to be under the AUAR thresholds for the revised scenario. However, the City’s preferred 90 percent total system use would be exceeded. Additional mitigation measures or adjustments may be required. A condition of approval is included in the draft resolution. A memorandum that provides more details about the study findings is attached for your review. Jessica Laabs from Kimley-Horn will present the findings at the Planning Commission meeting and will be available to respond to questions. Joint Powers Agreement: St. Louis Park city staff proposes that the City enter into a Joint Powers Agreement with Golden Valley in order to address certain issues that will arise from having buildings and other improvements that cross the municipal boundary of the two cities. It would be advisable for only one city to be responsible for certain services, such as ongoing permitting and licensing for specific improvements in “Central Park West.” At this time, a Joint Powers Agreement has not been completed. Therefore, the developer is submitting plans to both the cities for zoning and subdivision review and approvals. Travel Demand Management: St. Louis Park and Golden Valley have a joint powers agreement that requires developers to “prepare and effectuate traffic management plans which will serve to reduce the traffic congestion.” The Travel Demand Management Ordinance (TDM) in St. Louis Park requires that “the owner shall submit the traffic management plan to the joint task force which shall review and approve all traffic management plans before they may be implemented.” The joint task force is made up of two council members from each city, each city manager and one staff member from each city. A TDM plan was approved for the overall West End Redevelopment. Staff reviewed the plan and finds the approved strategies are still valid. However, staff will work with Golden Valley staff to determine if any amendments are required to reflect the new site plan and determine if an amended plan requires approval by the joint task force as a part of the final PUD. Public Spaces: A gathering space (labeled “linear park” in the plans) that would be accessible to the public is proposed at the terminus of 16th Street and extends almost to Wayzata Boulevard. The site is planned to include pedestrian and bicycle pathways through the site, landscaping, lighting, seating, as well as open green space allows for both active and passive recreation. This gathering space is proposed to be privately-owned, privately maintained, and accessible to the public. The City will work with the developer on an agreement for public use of the gathering space to be finalized as a part of the final PUD. City Council Meeting of December 15, 2014 (Item No. 8a) Page 4 Title: Central Park West Preliminary Plat & Preliminary PUD Public Art: The gathering space (linear park) seems a natural location for public art. The city will lead a process with the developer to identify potential opportunities, and select an artist and art work. The Developer will fund $180,000 toward public art as a part of the PUD. Sustainable Elements: The developer and city will explore opportunities to incorporate low impact development best management practices and appropriate storm water management in this development. Details on these elements will be completed with the final PUD. Each phase is expected to follow the Green Building Policy, and the developer will build the future office buildings to Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) core and shell standards, in accordance with the Redevelopment Agreement for the site. SITE INFORMATION: Site Location Map: Site Area: 13.48 acres (7.53 acres in St. Louis Park) Zoning: O – Office (in St. Louis Park) Comprehensive Plan: Office Current Use: Surface parking and vacant land Proposed Use: Multiple Family Residential, Hotel, Office Surrounding Land Uses: North: Wayzata Boulevard, I-394 East: Lilac Drive (private drive), Highway 100 South: Health Partners office building, Gamble Drive West: Utica Avenue, office towers, Olive Garden restaurant City Council Meeting of December 15, 2014 (Item No. 8a) Page 5 Title: Central Park West Preliminary Plat & Preliminary PUD PRELIMINARY PLAT ANALYSIS: Description: The developer proposes a preliminary plat for 13.48 acres known as “Central Park West.” The preliminary plat consists of three lots and two outlots. The plat includes reconstruction of Utica Avenue adjacent to the development. The City approved a final plat in 2008 that laid out the basic framework of road right-of-ways and parcels for the overall West End Redevelopment. Most of the required right-of-way for Utica Avenue, which is adjacent to this development, was dedicated as part of The Shops at West End plat. Uses: The preliminary plans include significant future office development, and this site has been planned as part of the overall West End Redevelopment area which includes the two existing office towers across the street. The office uses are allowed with a conditional use permit due to the size of the buildings. The proposed multiple family dwellings are allowed by PUD. The hotel is permitted with conditions. Lot 1, Block 1 is located northeast of the intersection of 16th Street and Utica Avenue. This lot is expected to be developed in the first phase with a 199-unit multiple-family building with parking under the building and some surface parking stalls. The lot has parallel frontage onto both Utica Avenue and Wayzata Blvd. Lot 2, Block 1 is a corner lot abutting both Utica Avenue and Wayzata Boulevard. Lot 2 would contain a 164-unit multiple-family building with parking under the building and some surface parking stalls. Lot 3, Block 1 is located on the northeast corner of the site along Wayzata Boulevard. Lot 3 would contain a future 120-150 room hotel. Outlot A lies east of the 16th Street and Utica Avenue intersection in the middle of the site. This location is proposed to serve as a privately-owned, privately-maintained, and publicly accessible gathering space and amenity to the overall development. This area provides a needed east-west pedestrian and bicycle connection through the otherwise very large block. Staff has included a condition of approval in the resolution that in the final plat, rather than platting this area as an Outlot A, that this area be combined with the proposed Lot 1, Block 1 and protected by easements or other agreements between the property owner and the City of St. Louis Park to preserve this gathering space. Outlot B is proposed to be future office development. The preliminary plans show two class “A” office towers totaling 706,706 square feet, underground parking, and a shared parking structure holding 2,534 parking spaces. Outlot B must be re-platted into lot and block descriptions in the future to build the office phases. The lots in the proposed plat meet all subdivision requirements for minimum lot size, shape, and dimension. Right-of-way Dedication: The majority of the right-of-way needed for this development has previously been provided. A very small (133 square feet) of additional right-of-way is being dedicated to cover the proposed public sidewalk at the intersection of Utica Avenue and Wayzata Boulevard. City Council Meeting of December 15, 2014 (Item No. 8a) Page 6 Title: Central Park West Preliminary Plat & Preliminary PUD The preliminary plat shows a portion of the Utica Avenue right-of-way adjacent to Lot 2, Block 1 will need to be vacated. This “bump out” was a relic of the Towers at West End concept plans which contemplated on-street loading areas adjacent to the northernmost office building main entry. The applicant will need to apply for a vacation as a part of the final PUD and final plat. Easements: The preliminary plat provides drainage and utility easements that are 10 feet wide adjacent to public streets. The developer has applied for a subdivision variance to provide no easements along the interior lot lines of Lots 1, 2 and 3 and Outlots A and B. An analysis of the variances is provided later in the report. A 25-foot wide sewer easement runs along the St. Louis Park side of the municipal boundary. This easement is for existing utilities that are proposed to be relocated to Utica Avenue. DLC Residential will apply for an easement vacation after the existing utilities are relocated to Utica Avenue. The construction cannot proceed until this easement is vacated. The plan includes a sanitary sewer line connecting from Utica Avenue to the Metropolitan Council lift station along the south side Outlot B. Due to the depth of the line, the proposed 30- foot wide easement will not be adequate. The City Engineer recommends a 45-foot wide easement be provided along the south property line of Outlot B to adequately cover the sanitary sewer line and dedicated on the final plat. This is a conditional of approval in the resolution. There are a number of temporary construction easements through the site that relate to the Metropolitan Council Environmental Services lift station and sanitary sewer force main construction, which is underway and will be completed in 2015. This improved infrastructure will add 5 million gallons per day sewer capacity to this area. There are also some private utility easements (communication and gas line) that will need to be vacated as part of the development. The developer will work with the utility providers to relocate the services to this site and vacate any unnecessary easements. Park & Trail Dedication: Multiple-family residential generates greater park dedication requirements than commercial development. The City will calculate the required park dedication based on the new uses proposed, and credit any previous park dedication that was paid (or waived) for the site. The new development will be responsible to pay the difference. Any park dedication fees will be calculated and collected before the City signs the final plat. Staff presented the proposed development to the Park and Recreation Advisory Commission on December 3, 2014, with estimates of the park and trail dedication fees. The Commission recommended approval. Tree Preservation: The existing trees on the site will be removed. Based on the preliminary landscaping plan, the developer will meet the tree replacement requirements. SUBDIVISION VARIANCE ANALYSIS: The subdivision code requires drainage and utility easements along interior lot lines to be 5 feet wide. The applicant requests subdivision variances for Lots 1, 2 and 3 and Outlots A and B to provide no interior lot line perimeter easements. The proposed redevelopment project has a very urban character. The proposed buildings have large underground parking garages that would be built up to the interior property lines. The City Council Meeting of December 15, 2014 (Item No. 8a) Page 7 Title: Central Park West Preliminary Plat & Preliminary PUD development is a dense urban site due to both the existing economics of the land basis as well as the desire of both the developer and the City for maximum market impact. The applicant will be providing adequate locations for public and private utilities to serve the site, and will be required to provide easements elsewhere for those services. Staff supports granting the subdivision variances. Granting of the variances will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare of the community and are not contrary to the intent of the Comprehensive Plan. ZONING ANALYSIS: The property is in the Office zoning district and a PUD is requested. The City can approve modifications to the zoning requirements through the PUD process. A summary of the zoning requirements and compliance is provided on the following page in the Zoning Compliance Table. City Council Meeting of December 15, 2014 (Item No. 8a) Page 8 Title: Central Park West Preliminary Plat & Preliminary PUD Zoning Compliance Table. Factor Required Proposed Met? Use Office (with CUP); Multiple-Family Dwelling (with PUD); and Hotel (with conditions) Office (with CUP/PUD); Multiple-Family Dwelling (with PUD); and Hotel (with conditions) Yes Lot Area 2.0 acres 7.53 acres Yes Height 240 feet or 45 feet for hotels near residential uses; None with PUD Outlot B office: 176 ft. Outlot B ramp: 71 ft. Lot 1-2 residential: 68 ft. Lot 3 hotel: 66 ft. Yes Building Materials 60% Class I materials This will be required and shown in the final PUD. TBD Residential Density 50 units per acre; more with a PUD Lot 1 – 77.14 units/acre Lot 2 – 107.2 units/acre Yes Floor Area Ratio 1.5, None with PUD Lot 1 – 1.89 Lot 2 – 2.58 Lot 3 – 1.21 Outlot A – N/A Outlot B – 2.35 Yes Off-Street Parking Lot 1 residential – 294 spaces Lot 2 residential – 235 spaces Lot 3 hotel – 203 spaces* Outlot A – N/A Outlot B offices – 2,227 spaces* Lot 1 residential – 317 spaces Lot 2 residential – 239 spaces Lot 3 hotel – 85 spaces Outlot A – N/A Outlot B offices – 2,634 spaces Yes; TBD for hotel Bicycle Parking 10% of the req’d vehicle parking This will be required and shown in the final PUD. TBD Open Area/DORA 141,180 sq. ft. (12% of gross floor area) 186,160 sq. ft. (15.8% of gross floor area) Yes Landscaping See Landscaping section of the report. This will be required and shown in the final PUD. Alternative landscaping will be used. TBD Setbacks None with PUD Varies, but at least 10 feet will be provided from public right-of- way lines Yes Mechanical Equipment Full screening required This will be required and shown in the final PUD. TBD Sidewalks Required along all streets and building frontages Provided along all streets and building frontages Yes Refuse handling Full screening required Within buildings Yes Transit service None required Served by routes 9, 604, 649 Yes Stormwater Management Required Preliminary calculations show this will be met. More detail will be shown in the final PUD. Yes *Includes the 10% parking reduction for transit City Council Meeting of December 15, 2014 (Item No. 8a) Page 9 Title: Central Park West Preliminary Plat & Preliminary PUD Uses: Offices: The proposal meets, or is able to meet, all the Office district conditions listed below. 1. The materials used in and placement of all signs shall be integrated with the building design and architecture. The sign plan has not been submitted with the preliminary PUD application. This is a condition of approval. 2. Landscape berms shall be used to reduce noise, improve views, and to produce other environmental benefits. Berms shall also be used for wildlife refuge, wind and snow breaks, dust reduction and to separate incompatible uses and control drainage. No landscape berms are proposed, needed, or desired on this site. 3. Buildings shall be designed with proper provision and orientation for the pedestrianway/skyway system to serve and link development. The plan provides pedestrian access through the middle of the site and between the office building and parking ramp(s). 4. Buildings shall be oriented and designed so as not to detract from one another or to unduly restrict views to open space, malls and vistas. The plan was developed in a coordinated fashion to preserve views of the Minneapolis skyline from the new office buildings to the extent possible and the north building will have views onto the central gathering space. 5. All new buildings shall be compatible and complementary with existing buildings. Elements of compatibility include, but are not limited to building form and mass, exterior materials and their appearance and durability, landscaping, exterior lighting and site improvements. The buildings will be compatible with the existing office towers west of Utica Avenue. 6. Loading areas, access, parking, signing, and building equipment shall be prohibited or minimized next to residential areas to the extent appropriate in order to ensure compatible development. The site is not adjacent to residential properties outside the PUD, and service areas for the offices will be screened from view of the residential uses. The parking structure is shown in the concept elevations to incorporate elements into the design to soften the views from residential buildings and gathering spaces. 7. Open space and pedestrian links shall be established to provide access to buildings, parking and transit; provide space for active and passive recreation; ponding, and for preserving wetlands; and a suitable setting for buildings. The plan provides for a large gathering space in the center of the development that is 0.87-acre in area. The design of this space will be refined, but provides the great opportunities for both active and passive recreation for office employees and people living near or passing through the site. 8. The use is in conformance with the comprehensive plan including any provisions of the redevelopment chapter and the plan by neighborhood policies for the neighborhood in which it is located and conditions of approval may be added as a means of satisfying this requirement. The plan is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and The West End PUD concept plan. Multiple-Family Dwellings: With a PUD, the plan meets the following Office district conditions. City Council Meeting of December 15, 2014 (Item No. 8a) Page 10 Title: Central Park West Preliminary Plat & Preliminary PUD 1. The housing is part of a larger development permitted within the district. Future offices are proposed as part of the Central Park West Development and it is part of the larger West End Redevelopment Area which includes two large office towers across the street. 2. The building design and placement provide a desirable residential environment. The proposed plan provides buildings that address the sidewalks at street level, limit the exposure to the nearby freeways extent possible, provides access to green space, and is located within a pedestrian friendly urban environment with a number grocery, retail and entertainment businesses and employment opportunities within walking distance of the residential buildings. 3. Access to off-site parks and open space, plazas and pedestrianways is provided. The development includes a large gathering space at the center of the development, amenities within the buildings, and a well-connect sidewalk network internal and external to the site. 4. The minimum spacing between buildings in a multi-building project is at least equal to the average heights of the buildings except where dwellings share a common wall. With the PUD, the multiple-family dwellings are allowed. 5. The density does not exceed 50 units per acre. The maximum density may be increased at the sole discretion of the city council if two or more of the features below are provided. The proposed residential densities of Lot 1 and Lot 2 are 77.14 units/acre and 107.2 units/acre respectively. The proposal meets all the provisions listed below. a. At least 80 percent of the required parking is provided in underground or aboveground structures, including all levels of parking ramps. This condition is met. b. Buildings are placed at or near the street right-of-way and off-street parking is screened from the public right-of-way by buildings. This condition is met. c. At least 35 percent of the building ground coverage contains structures of six or more stories in height, thereby conserving open space within the development site. This condition is met. The residential buildings are six stories tall and Central Park West provides an open space nearly an acre in size in the center of the development. d. The buildings are located in an area that is appropriate for urban development, and has supportive services and amenities including transit, a high-quality pedestrian environment, restaurants, retail shops, community gathering spaces and entertainment and recreation opportunities. This site is located in an area that provides all the features listed above. e. The lots are located a minimum of 500 feet from any R-1, R-2 or R-3 zoned property. The site is not located within 500 feet of low density residential zoning districts. f. Traffic analysis shows that the adequate levels of service standards can be met as defined by the City Zoning Administrator. The AUAR completed for the overall West End Redevelopment and the AUAR review of the proposed uses demonstrates that the traffic generated from this development can be accommodated by the transportation system and provide an acceptable level of service. City Council Meeting of December 15, 2014 (Item No. 8a) Page 11 Title: Central Park West Preliminary Plat & Preliminary PUD 6. The use is in conformance with the comprehensive plan including any provisions of the redevelopment chapter and the plan by neighborhood policies for the neighborhood in which it is located and conditions of approval may be added as a means of satisfying this requirement. The proposal meets this requirement. Hotels are permitted with conditions in the Office zoning district. Hotel heights are limited to four stories or 45 feet within 100 feet of any parcel that is zoned and used or subdivided for residential, or has an occupied institutional building, including but not limited to schools, religious institutions and community centers. The hotel is not located within 100 feet of any institutional buildings or any residential properties outside the PUD. However, it is within 100 feet of the two apartment buildings within the PUD. The PUD allows modifications to any required setback and height requirements. Staff finds that with a PUD, the hotel use is allowed. Architectural Design: The preliminary office, hotel and multiple-family dwelling building sketches demonstrate a class “A” image that will be compatible with the surroundings. The building exteriors are expected to include generous use of glass and other quality materials. The building heights of the hotel and apartment buildings are consistent with the developments to the west, and the 11-story office towers are appropriate in this class “A” office park. All the buildings shall meet or exceed City Code architectural standards. More details will be provided for the final PUD. Parking: Office: The plan provides a surplus of parking for the proposed office towers in an 8-level parking ramp as well as underground parking under the office buildings. Residential: Parking is provided underground and under the multiple-family residential buildings with some limited surface parking. The parking for the building on Lot 1 includes 16 tandem parking stalls. The minimum parking requirements are met for both the residential buildings. Hotel: The hotel parking does not meet the minimum parking requirements. The plan provides 85 parking spaces. The minimum requirement, after a 10% parking reduction for transit, is 203 spaces. This is a shortage of 118 parking spaces. The PUD process would allow the City to consider a further reduction in parking requirements up to an addition 15%, which would still not cover the deficit. A condition of approval requires that the hotel development provide additional underground parking, provide off-site parking and/or shared parking on Outlot B and in the future office ramps, reduce the number of hotel rooms, or some combination of these strategies to meet the parking requirements. Two potential issues may result from adding more underground parking. The building may extend over the municipal boundary which complicates the development. Also, the parking could impacts the location of the proposed underground storm water system shown under the hotel surface parking lot. Staff is confident that the future office parking ramps, at the size proposed, could accommodate the hotel’s parking needs, and the overnight hotel guest parking would not conflict with the office parking demand. Such off-site parking would need to be protected by a permanent easement or agreement. Also, depending on the phasing of development, an interim surface parking lot may be needed on the office site (Outlot B) for the hotel use. Staff believes these parking issues could be resolved in the final PUD application package. This is recommended as a condition of approval. City Council Meeting of December 15, 2014 (Item No. 8a) Page 12 Title: Central Park West Preliminary Plat & Preliminary PUD Access: The plan provides three driveways onto Utica Avenue and three driveways onto Wayzata Boulevard, plus the Lilac Drive (private) access. On Utica Avenue, a uniquely landscaped entrance is provided between the residential buildings. The plans refers to it as a “woonorf.’ It is designed to be an attractive and pedestrian-friendly space that also accommodates slow vehicle traffic. This area would provide access to both of the residential buildings’ parking garages and main entrances. Also on Utica Avenue, the main driveway to the future office parking ramp is between the two office buildings. Another third entrance/exit is provided on the south side of the office ramp and has connections to both Utica Avenue and Lilac Drive. It is not clear to staff if there is an existing or proposed easement for the shared driveway with the neighboring Health Partners office site; therefore, this access may need to be redesigned to separate and better define the access to these independent sites in the final PUD. This is a condition of approval. There is one more entrance to the office parking ramp on the northeast corner of the site. It connects to a surface parking lot and then follows the drive aisle to the hotel parking lot. This is meant to serve as a convenient connection for hotel parking. On Wayzata Boulevard, there are two driveways proposed from the hotel site and a driveway to the north side of the Lot 2 residential parking garage near Utica Avenue. Loading/Service Areas: The plan proposes to have a shared service court for the hotel and residential buildings. It is screened from view from the public streets and gathering spaces. The number and size of loading areas for the office meet City Code requirements. The plan does not entirely separate the loading areas from employee traffic. The loading/service areas would be screened view of public streets by the office buildings, parking ramps, and site landscaping. The loading areas are located between the office buildings and the parking ramp. Landscaping: The developer will submit a final landscape plan with the final PUD application. The preliminary landscape plan for demonstrates the ability to comply with that the tree replacement requirement. However, Central Park West plan cannot meet the minimum number of tree and shrub plantings due to the density of the development. The landscaping ordinance would require an unrealistic 1,183 trees to be planted based on the development density. The DLC proposal provides 245 trees (90 over-story trees). This development must rely on alternative landscaping provisions of the zoning code. There are sufficient opportunities within the site plan to provide alternative landscaping, but the final package needs further development and review. Most significantly, the 0.87-acre gathering space on Outlot A is viewed by staff as a “place-holder” and an envelope for more detailed and refined plans for the design, amenities, and uses of this gathering space. This is one area staff identifies as an appropriate location for public art. The City Forester provided additional comments to the developer, which staff anticipates will be incorporated into future plan revisions. Signs: A sign plan was not submitted for review. A condition of approval is included regarding signs. City Council Meeting of December 15, 2014 (Item No. 8a) Page 13 Title: Central Park West Preliminary Plat & Preliminary PUD Utilities: The Engineering Department has provided preliminary comments on the utility plan. These comments must be incorporated into future plan submissions. All small utilities shall be placed underground. This includes utilities service structures, such as electrical boxes. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) OBJECTIVES: The Central Park West preliminary PUD includes certain modifications from the Office zoning district standards. The Zoning Code requires that applicants for a Planned Unit Development demonstrate how the proposal will enhance, support, and further the following objectives: 1. Provide for integrated pedestrian facilities to and within the project: The overall West End Redevelopment extended the existing street grid, and incorporated the layout of 16th Street and Utica Avenue and augmenting the grid with additional private roads and pedestrian corridors. Sidewalks are provided along all streets. To further improve pedestrian connections, Central Park West proposes a public pedestrian and bike connection through the site. 2. Enhance linkages to mass transit facilities: At the current time, the development site is served by three Metro Transit routes: the 9, 604 and 649. Route 9 is a “frequently operating transit line” under the existing Zoning Code and Metro Transit may increase the frequency and modify the routes following the construction of the first few phases of development. Central Park West provides for a future bus turnaround at the intersection of West 16th Street and Utica Avenue, consistent with a request from Metro Transit in 2006. Alternative suggestions to better accommodate transit may be requested by Metro Transit, but formal comments have not yet been received. 3. Increase the supply of low-income and moderate-income housing: The project overall is proposed to be a luxury apartment building with high amenities and quality finishes. The developer has agreed to make 11 residential apartment units available to persons with incomes at or below 60% of the area median income. 4. Incorporate implementation of travel demand management strategies as part of the PUD: The St. Louis Park-Golden Valley joint task force approved a traffic demand management plan for the development in 2008. The purpose of a travel demand management plan is to spread the number of automobile trips throughout the day, reducing the negative impacts that occur during peak travel times. Staff will review the TDM plan with the new owner and decide if any amendments are needed prior to the final PUD. 5. Provide public plazas and designed outdoor recreation area which exceeds minimum chapter requirements: Central Park West provides approximately 15.8% of the gross building area for designed outdoor recreation area (DORA). The majority of the DORA is provided in Outlot A, but the individual Lots will also include DORA. The residential buildings include rooftop pool decks on the second floor, similar to the Flats at West End and Millennium at West End developments. The plan meets the requirements. 6. Provide a high degree of aesthetics through overall design and display of public art: The site landscaping and features will include enhanced gathering spaces, streetscape elements, upscale buildings, and public art opportunities. The specifics of these elements will City Council Meeting of December 15, 2014 (Item No. 8a) Page 14 Title: Central Park West Preliminary Plat & Preliminary PUD be determined during the final PUD review. It will be required in order to meet the alternative landscaping requirements and the City’s goals for the West End Redevelopment area. PUD MODIFICATIONS: The final PUD covers the conditional use permits required for the office towers, off-site parking for the hotel, and the grading work associated with the development. The developer requests the following PUD modifications: Setbacks: Buildings do not have to be set back from the property line in a PUD. All the buildings in The West End Redevelopment are located near the road right-of-way to achieve an urban image. Generally, the Central Park West buildings are at least ten feet from the property lines. In some cases the foundations of the buildings and underground parking will abut side property lines. There are generally setbacks required between residential buildings and between the hotel and residential buildings in the Office zoning district. A blanket waiver from the Office district building setback requirements is necessary for the development to proceed. The Planning Commission and staff support the setback modifications. Height: A modification from the Office district height restriction from 45 feet to 66 feet tall for the hotel use on Lot 3, Block 1, due to its proximity to residential uses. The Planning Commission and staff support the height modification for the hotel. Residential Density: A modification from 50 dwelling units per acre to 77.14 units per acre on Lot 1, and a modification from 50 dwelling units per acre to 107.2 units per acre on Lot 2. The Planning Commission and staff support the density modifications. Floor Area Ratio: Modifications to the floor area ratio on Lot 1 from 1.5 to 1.89; from 1.5 to 2.58 on Lot 2; and from 1.5 to 2.35 on Outlot B. The Planning Commission and staff support the floor area ratio modifications. Landscaping: A PUD modification for landscaping may be needed. Certainly, the number of tree and shrub plantings required by the City Code is not achievable with this redevelopment plan, and plenty of opportunities for alternative landscaping are available on the site. The Planning Commission and staff support making use of the alternative landscaping provisions in the code and incorporating alternative amenities to the site, including public art, in order to justify the modification and mitigate the impacts of the density and setback modifications being considered for this development. Parking: There is a request to reduce the number of stalls for the hotel use up to an additional 15% through the PUD. The plan currently provides 85 of the required 203 parking stalls on-site and appears to indicate additional off-site parking on Outlot B in the future office ramps. The precise arrangement for off-site parking, and the potential PUD modification, must be refined in the final PUD. A condition of approval is included in the resolution. NEXT STEPS: The Golden Valley City Council will consider the preliminary plat and preliminary PUD application at its meeting on Tuesday, December 16. If approved, the applicant will prepare final PUD applications for submittal to both cities in January. It is possible DLC will close on the purchase of the property before the end of the year. Staff will continue to work on a potential joint powers agreement with Golden Valley and intends to present an outline of an agreement for City Council review and discussion at a future study session. City Council Meeting of December 15, 2014 (Item No. 8a) Page 15 Title: Central Park West Preliminary Plat & Preliminary PUD RESOLUTION NO. 14-___ RESOLUTION GIVING APPROVAL OF PRELIMINARY PLAT WITH SUBDIVISION VARIANCES FOR PERIMETER DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENTS CENTRAL PARK WEST BE IT RESOLVED BY the City Council of St. Louis Park: Findings 1. The owner, Duke Realty L.P., and DLC Residential LLC, subdivider of the land proposed to be platted as Central Park West, have submitted an application (14-23-S) for approval of a preliminary plat of said subdivision with variances from the subdivision ordinance for perimeter drainage and utility easements (Section 26-154a) in the manner required for platting of land under the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code, and all proceedings have been duly had thereunder. 2. The proposed preliminary plat has been found to be in all respects consistent with the City Plan and the regulations and requirements of the laws of the State of Minnesota and the ordinances of the City of St. Louis Park. 3. The proposed plat is situated upon the following described lands in Hennepin County, Minnesota, to-wit: Outlot A, THE SHOPS AT WEST END, Hennepin County, Minnesota 4. There are special circumstances affecting the property such that the strict application of the provisions of the subdivision ordinance would deprive the applicant/owner of the reasonable use of the land. Such circumstances arise due to relocation of public sanitary sewer mains and urban design objectives for the site. The proposed construction plans include buildings and parking structures that will be constructed up to the interior property lines. 5. Granting the variances will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare or injurious to other property in the territory in which the property is situated. Granting variances to allow no perimeter drainage and utility easements along interior property lines of Lot 1, 2 and 3, Outlot A, and the north and east sides of Outlot B will not impair the ability to accommodate needed utilities to serve the development. The present road right-of-way and proposed drainage and utility easements will accommodate existing and relocated utilities. 6. The variances correct inequities resulting from an extreme physical hardship. The development requires relocation of public sanitary sewer mains and soil correction. 7. The variances are not contrary to the intent of the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan calls for such lands to be redeveloped and to include certain elements, such as stormwater management, structured parking, sidewalks, and buildings located close to the street. Such redevelopment on this site could not occur without the requested subdivision variances. City Council Meeting of December 15, 2014 (Item No. 8a) Page 16 Title: Central Park West Preliminary Plat & Preliminary PUD Conclusion 1. The proposed preliminary plat of Central Park West with subdivision variances is hereby approved and accepted by the City as being in accord and conformity with all ordinances, City plans and regulations of the City of St. Louis Park and the laws of the State of Minnesota, subject to the following conditions: a. City of Golden Valley approval of the preliminary plat for that portion of the proposed Central Park West within its jurisdiction is required. b. The underground stormwater management shall be a privately-owned and privately-maintained system. Drainage and utility easements over such systems shall be dedicated on the final plat, and said easements shall connect to a public right-of-way. The easement is needed for public inspection and emergency access. c. The plat shall be revised to dedicate a 45-foot wide drainage and utility easement along the south lot line of Outlot B to cover the proposed sanitary sewer line. d. The plat shall be amended to eliminate Outlot A and combine that area with the proposed Lot 1, Block 1. The area currently shown as Outlot A shall instead be protected by easements or other agreements between the property owner and the City of St. Louis Park to preserve the area as a privately- owned, privately-maintained and publicly-accessible designed outdoor recreation area and pedestrian/bicycle connection between Utica Avenue on the west to Wayzata Boulevard on the east. Such easements or agreements shall be in a form approved by the City Attorney and recorded with Hennepin County prior to issuance of building permits. f. Outlot B shall be re-platted into lot and block description in order to be consider buildable, except that surface parking lot structures may be allowed with written permission of the Zoning Administrator and City Engineer. Building permits for other improvements shall not be issued on Outlot B. It is understood that Outlot B on the proposed preliminary plat may be renamed Outlot A on the final plat due to condition 1e above. g. Final construction plans for public street and utility improvements must be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer prior to any construction or land disturbing activities. h. A development agreement will be required to address and secure financial guarantees for the public street, sidewalk and utility improvements, as well as for the grading and site vegetation. The agreement must be in place prior to commencement of construction of public improvements. i. The Developer shall pay park and trail dedication fees that due to the City prior to filing the Final Plat. City Council Meeting of December 15, 2014 (Item No. 8a) Page 17 Title: Central Park West Preliminary Plat & Preliminary PUD j. Certain public and private easements are proposed to be vacated on the preliminary plat. Formal applications for said easement vacations have not been submitted by the developer. No building permits shall be issued for improvements over said easements until the utilities have been relocated or removed and the City formally reviews and approves vacation of said public easements. k. All utility service structures shall be buried. If any utility service structure cannot be buried (i.e. electric transformer), it shall be integrated into the building design and 100% screened from off-site. 2. The developer or owner shall pay an administrative fee of $750 per violation of any condition of this approval. 3. The City Clerk is hereby directed to supply two certified copies of this Resolution to the above-named owner and subdivider, who are the applicants herein. 4. The City Clerk is instructed to record certified copies of this resolution in the Office of the Hennepin County Register of Deeds or Registrar of Titles as the case may be. Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council December 15, 2014 City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk City Council Meeting of December 15, 2014 (Item No. 8a) Page 18 Title: Central Park West Preliminary Plat & Preliminary PUD RESOLUTION NO. 14-___ RESOLUTION APPROVING A PRELIMINARY PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) LOCATED AT 1511 UTICA AVENUE SOUTH CENTRAL PARK WEST WHEREAS, DLC Residential LLC and Duke Realty LP submitted an application for approval of a Preliminary Planned Unit Development (PUD) under Section 36-367 of the zoning code; and WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the O – Office zoning district; and WHEREAS, the two proposed office buildings exceed intensity class 6 under Zoning Code Section 36-115, Table 36-115C and are permitted by conditional use permit. The proposal meets, or is able to meet, all the Office district conditions and said conditional use permit(s) shall be deemed granted upon final PUD approval of the office uses; and WHEREAS, the proposed hotel use relies upon off-site parking. Off-site parking is allowed with a conditional use permit. Said conditional use permit shall be deemed granted upon final PUD approval; and WHEREAS, the proposed multiple-family dwellings are allowed with a PUD and the proposal meets, or is able to meet, all the Office district conditions; and WHEREAS, notice of a public hearing on the Preliminary PUD was mailed to all owners of property within 350 feet of the subject property; and WHEREAS, notice of public hearing on the Preliminary PUD was published in the St. Louis Park Sailor on November 6, 2014; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held the public hearing at the meeting of November 19, 2014; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the Preliminary PUD on a 6-0 vote with all members present voting in the affirmative; and WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the staff report, Planning Commission minutes and testimony of those appearing at the public hearing or otherwise including comments in the record of decision. BE IT RESOLVED BY the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park: Findings 1. DLC Residential LLC and Duke Realty LP have made application to the City Council for a Preliminary Planned Unit Development under Section 36-367 of the St. Louis Park Ordinance City Council Meeting of December 15, 2014 (Item No. 8a) Page 19 Title: Central Park West Preliminary Plat & Preliminary PUD Code within the O - Office District located at 1511 Utica Avenue South for the legal description as follows, to-wit: Outlot A, THE SHOPS AT WEST END, Hennepin County, Minnesota 2. The City Council has considered the advice and recommendation of the Planning Commission (Case No. 14-24-PUD) and the effect of the proposed PUD on the health, safety and welfare of the occupants of the surrounding lands, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, the effect on values of properties in the surrounding area, the effect of the use on the Comprehensive Plan, and compliance with the intent of the Zoning Ordinance. 3. The City Council has determined that the PUD will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of the community nor with certain contemplated traffic improvements will it cause serious traffic congestion or hazards, nor will it seriously depreciate surrounding property values. The Council has also determined that the proposed PUD is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan and that the requested modifications comply with the requirements of Section 36-367(b)(5). The specific modifications include: a. Reduction in all yard (setback) requirements. b. Increase the height limit from 45 feet to 66 feet for the proposed hotel building on Lot 3, Block 1, of the proposed Central Park West Addition. c. Increase the residential density from 50 dwelling units per acre to 77.2 units per acre on Lot 1, Block 1, of the proposed Central Park West Addition. d. Increase the residential density from 50 dwelling units per acre to 107.2 units per acre on Lot 2, Block 1, of the proposed Central Park West Addition. e. Increase the floor area ratio from 1.5 to 1.89 on Lot 1, Block 1, of the proposed Central Park West Addition. f. Increase the floor area ratio from 1.5 to 2.58 on Lot 2, Block 1, of the proposed Central Park West Addition. g. Increase the floor area ratio for the future office from 1.5 to 2.35 on Outlot B of the proposed Central Park West Addition. h. The parking plan includes 16 tandem parking stalls for Lot 1, Block 1 of the proposed Central Park West Addition. i. Potential reduction in the tree and shrub planting requirements, the degree to which will be determined based on the final PUD application and its provision of alternative landscaping. j. Potential reduction in the hotel parking requirement, the number of stalls (up to 15% of the required parking) to be determined based on the final PUD application and its provision of permanent off-site parking. 4. The contents of Planning Case File 14-24-PUD are hereby entered into and made part of the public hearing record and the record of decision for this case. Conclusion The Preliminary Planned Unit Development and modifications at the location described is approved based on the findings set forth above and subject to the following conditions: 1. City of Golden Valley approval of that portion of the redevelopment within its jurisdiction. City Council Meeting of December 15, 2014 (Item No. 8a) Page 20 Title: Central Park West Preliminary Plat & Preliminary PUD 2. City Council approval of the vacation of existing easements. 3. Evidence of a shared driveway easement for the southernmost driveway access onto Utica Avenue shall be submitted to the City, or the site plan shall be revised to separate and better distinguish between the access and circulation of traffic between the two properties prior to final plat and final PUD approvals. 4. The final PUD plans shall provide adequate alternative landscaping elements and designed outdoor recreation area to compensate for the proposed reduction in the number of tree and shrub plantings. 5. Parking requirements for the hotel use on Lot 3 must be met in the final PUD. The site may be eligible for up to a 15% reduction through the final PUD. Permanent agreements for off- site parking and/or shared parking, provision of additional underground parking, reduction in the number of hotel rooms, or some combination of these strategies will be required with the final PUD. 6. The Developer shall enter into an agreement with the City of St. Louis Park for public use of the gathering spaces to be finalized as a part of the final PUD. 7. The Developer shall provide locations and funding for public art. The locations and funding amounts will be determined prior to the final PUD approvals. 8. The proposed south office building on Outlot B shall be moved to avoid any encroachments into public easements dedicated on the final plat. 9. The final PUD shall include bicycle parking locations, specifications, and bicycle parking counts in compliance with the zoning code requirements. A combination of short-term visitor and long-term resident and employee bicycle parking facilities shall be provided. Proof of parking may be considered for some portion of the required bicycle parking spaces. 10. The Developer shall abide by the City’s water use restrictions and follow state requirements for low-flow structures. After Phases 1 and 2 of the redevelopment, water usage shall be monitored. If capacity is exceeding 90% peak capacity, the City and the Developer shall cooperate to identify city-wide and project-specific measures to increase capacity and reduce consumption. 11. The property owner of any parcel in Central Park West PUD shall follow and effectuate the travel demand management plans approved for the West End Redevelopment which will serve to reduce traffic congestion. The owner may be required to update the traffic management plan to the St. Louis Park and Golden Valley I-394 Joint Task Force prior to final PUD approval. 12. The final PUD shall demonstrate that the stormwater management plan meets or exceeds the City of St. Louis Park rate control and the watershed treatment requirements. 13. The Developer shall provide a maintenance plan for the storm water chambers and note the maintenance requirements on the final PUD plan sheets (annual inspection and cleaning, etc.) on the final PUD. City Council Meeting of December 15, 2014 (Item No. 8a) Page 21 Title: Central Park West Preliminary Plat & Preliminary PUD 14. Separate domestic and fire suppression water services shall be provided to each building. 15. All utility service structures shall be buried. If any utility service structure cannot be buried (i.e. electric transformer), it shall be integrated into the building design and 100% screened from off-site. 16. All mechanical equipment shall be fully screened. 17. All proposed buildings shall provide a minimum of 60% class I building materials on each elevation. 18. The materials used in, and placement of, all signs shall be integrated with the building design and architecture. In addition to any other remedies, the developer or owner shall pay an administrative fee of $750 per violation of any condition of this approval. Pursuant to Section 36-367(e)(6) of the Zoning Ordinance, the City will require execution of a development agreement as a condition of approval of the final PUD. The development agreement shall address those issues which the City Council deems appropriate and necessary. The Mayor and City Manager are authorized to execute the development agreement upon final PUD approval. Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council December 15, 2014 City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk Date: October 30, 2014 To: Sean Walther, City of St. Louis Park From: Jessica Laabs, Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. (651-643-0437) Subject: West End AUAR Analysis Update – DLC Residential proposal PURPOSE OF MEMO This memo summarizes results of sanitary sewer, water use, and traffic analyses for the purposes of evaluating a development proposal from DLC Residential as part of the overall West End Development. This proposal would change the land use from what was included in the Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) completed under state environmental regulations for the West End development. Results of the analyses were compared to the thresholds established in the 2007 AUAR and 2013 AUAR Update to ensure the proposed development is in conformance with the AUAR and would not incur additional impacts or require additional mitigation measures. ASSUMPTIONS Analyses were compared to the 2007 AUAR and the 2013 AUAR Update, specifically: 2007 AUAR/2013 AUAR Update Scenario 1  1.0 million square feet (SF) of office space  400,000 SF of retail space  250 condo units The AUAR studied multiple scenarios with varying levels and types of development, but Scenario 1 most closely represents the actual plans for the site and has been consistently used as a comparison in other analyses. Since 2007, and even since 2013, some of the planned development has changed. Most notably, planned condos were replaced with apartment units (The Flats at West End), and additional apartments are under construction or planned for construction on the former Chili’s and Olive Garden sites. Therefore, the existing condition or baseline includes current restaurant, retail, grocery, theater, 2nd story office, and apartments (453 total: 119 apartment units for the Flats at West End and 334 apartment units under construction or planned for the Chili’s and Olive Garden sites). The total capacity of the City of St. Louis Park’s water system is also used as a baseline for estimating utility impact. The baseline condition incorporates removal of the Novartis/Nestle facility in April 2013 and adds in recently planned reuse of the facility. With these existing conditions incorporated, an updated analysis was completed for the following scenario (as confirmed by the City of St. Louis Park and DLC Residential). City Council Meeting of December 15, 2014 (Item No. 8a) Title: Central Park West Preliminary Plat & Preliminary PUD Page 22 Page 2 kimley-horn.com 2550 University Avenue West, Suite 238N, St. Paul, MN 55114 651 645 4197 Revised Scenario 1A The bullets highlighted in gray represent changes in land use and densities and were incorporated into the analysis. For the purpose of this analysis, the high end of any range of development was used (i.e., 706,706 SF of office, 400 apartment units, and 200 hotel rooms).  Existing uses (restaurant, retail, grocery, theater, 2nd story office, apartments)  Two 9- to 11-story office buildings with a combined total of approximately 578,000 to 706,706 SF of Class A office space  Two 6-story residential apartment buildings totaling up to 400 units  A 6-story, limited service hotel with 150 to 200 rooms  A structured parking ramp tucked alongside the southbound ramp from I-394 to Hwy 100  A linear green space providing pedestrian and bicycle connections from 16th Street through the middle of the site to Golden Valley (publicly accessible but privately owned)  A circular transit bus turnaround at 16th Street and Utica Ave  Rebuild of the northern portion of Utica Avenue with a boulevard in the middle to match the current boulevard south of 16th Street SANITARY SEWER ANALYSIS Sanitary sewer use is not anticipated to be a limiting factor to development. As noted, the baseline condition has been adjusted to reflect removal of the Novartis/Nestle facility and the addition of recent planned redevelopment for that site. Sanitary use generated by the full buildout of the development falls beneath the thresholds identified in the AUAR and within the available capacity of the current MCES interceptor (7.4 million gallons per day (MGD)). See Table 1. The Metropolitan Council is also in the process of designing improvements to the current sanitary sewer system that are anticipated to increase the system capacity by 5 MGD (to 12.4 MGD total capacity). Construction of the sewer improvements are anticipated to be complete in 2015. Table 1. Net Sanitary Peak Flow AUAR Scenario 1 (2007/2013) Revised Scenario 1A (2014) Existing Average Daily Flow (MGD) 2.6 2.6 Average Daily Flow Increase (MGD) 0.269 0.503 Average Daily Flow Decrease (MGD) 0.044 0.506 Net Average Daily Flow Adjustment (MGD) 0.225 -0.003 Total Average Daily Flow (Existing + Net Flow Adjustment) (MGD) 2.825 2.597 Peak Hourly Flow (2.7 Peak Factor) (MGD) 7.628 7.01 Peak Hourly Flow (2.37 Peak Factor) (MGD) 6.695 6.154 City Council Meeting of December 15, 2014 (Item No. 8a) Title: Central Park West Preliminary Plat & Preliminary PUD Page 23 Page 3 kimley-horn.com 2550 University Avenue West, Suite 238N, St. Paul, MN 55114 651 645 4197 WATER USE ANALYSIS Water use could remain a limiting factor for the revised scenario. At 92.68 percent use of the system, the proposed development would result in less water use than what was identified in the original AUAR. However, as stated in the original AUAR, it is the City’s desire to remain under a 90 percent threshold. To remain within 90 percent capacity, additional mitigation measures or adjustments to development would be necessary. Table 2. Water Use Summary AUAR Scenario 1 (2007/2013) Revised Scenario 1A (2014) Total Firm System Capacity (MGD) 13.32 13.32 City Firm Peak Usage (MGD) 11.880 10.920 Capacity Available (MGD) 1.436 2.400 Proposed Project Usage (MGD) 0.638 1.425 Total City Usage (MGD) 12.518 12.345 Capacity Available (post-construction) (MGD) 0.802 0.975 Percent Total System Utilized 93.98% 92.68% TRAFFIC ANALYSIS Under the revised scenario, AUAR thresholds are exceeded in the AM peak hour (outbound movement)1 by 40 trips (Table 3). This translates to approximately one vehicle every 90 seconds. Table 3. Estimated Scenario 1A Traffic Compared to AUAR Thresholds AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour In Out In Out Estimated Trips Under Current Scenario 1,039 568 1,050 1,486 AUAR Trip Generation Limits 1,320 528 1,167 1,883 Mitigation measures identified in the AUAR were designed to accommodate the heaviest traffic period, which is the PM peak outbound as illustrated in Table 3. The traffic mitigation that has already been implemented for the West End development accommodates the PM peak. As illustrated in the table, the AM peak outbound movement is much lower than the PM peak. Therefore, it is unlikely that this exceedance in the AM peak hour will present a capacity issue or require additional mitigation. The mitigation measures implemented in previous phases of development already provide the capacity needed. Traffic is not anticipated to be a limiting factor to the proposed development. A more detailed summary of traffic is provided in Table 4. 1 Vehicles exiting the site City Council Meeting of December 15, 2014 (Item No. 8a) Title: Central Park West Preliminary Plat & Preliminary PUD Page 24 Page 4 kimley-horn.com 2550 University Avenue West, Suite 238N, St. Paul, MN 55114 651 645 4197 Table 4. Traffic Summary1 Revised Scenario 1A Land Use Land Use Size Daily Trips AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour In Out In Out Office 742,102 square feet 5,606 788 108 151 738 Retail (2 Restaurants Removed) 346,674 square feet 14,863 218 139 624 676 Condos 0 units 0 0 0 0 0 Apartments 853 units 5,672 85 341 331 178 Hotels 200 rooms 1,634 63 43 61 59 Trip Generation Subtotal 27,775 1,154 631 1,167 1,651 Multi-Use Reduction (-10%) -2,778 -115 -63 -117 -165 TOTAL 24,997 1,039 568 1,050 1,486 Percent Increase 5% -12% 61% 16% -9% AUAR Trip Generation Limits 1,320 528 1,167 1,883 1Trip generation calculations as documented in the West End AUAR, based on ITE Trip Generation, 7th Edition (2003). Current trip generation calculations based on the most recent version of ITE Trip Generation, 9th Edition (2012). SUMMARY Sanitary sewer usage generated by the revised scenario can be accommodated within the limits established in the original AUAR. No additional mitigation is needed. Water use is anticipated to be under the AUAR thresholds for the revised scenario. However, the City’s preferred 90 percent total system use would be exceeded. Additional mitigation measures or adjustments may be required. Traffic generated by the revised scenario is beneath the limits established in the original AUAR with the exception of AM peak (outbound) volumes. No additional mitigation measures or adjustments are anticipated at this time because the AM peak is accommodated in the capacity of the transportation system, which was designed to accommodate the higher PM peak volumes. City Council Meeting of December 15, 2014 (Item No. 8a) Title: Central Park West Preliminary Plat & Preliminary PUD Page 25 UNOFFICIAL MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA NOVEMBER 19, 2014 – 6:00 p.m. COUNCIL CHAMBERS MEMBERS PRESENT: Lynne Carper, Claudia Johnston-Madison, Robert Kramer, Lisa Peilen, Richard Person, Carl Robertson MEMBERS ABSENT: Joe Tatalovich STAFF PRESENT: Sean Walther, Ryan Kelley, Nancy Sells 1. Call to Order – Roll Call 2. Approval of Minutes of October 15, 2014 Commissioner Robertson made a motion to approve the minutes. Commissioner Johnston-Madison seconded the motion, and the motion passed on a vote of 5-0-1 (Kramer abstained). 3. Public Hearings A. Preliminary Plat with variances and Preliminary Planned Unit Development Location: West End – 1511 Utica Ave. S. Applicant: DLC Residential Case No.: 14-23-S and 14-24-PUD The West End AUAR Analysis Update memorandum prepared by Kimley Horn was distributed. Also distributed was amended language for items No. 3 and 4 of the staff recommended conditions relating to the Preliminary Plat with variances. Sean Walther, Senior Planner, presented the staff report. He provided background on the larger West End Redevelopment area which was undertaken by Duke Realty. Mr. Walther stated that Kimley-Horn was hired to review the West End Alternative Urban Area-wide Review (AUAR) and compare the impacts of the proposed land use changes to the scenario(s) previously studied. Jessica Laabs, Kimley-Horn, discussed how the analyses of sanitary sewer, water use and traffic were conducted. Kimley-Horn found that sanitary sewer usage generated by the revised scenario can be accommodated within the limits established in the original AUAR and no additional mitigation is needed. The City’s preferred 90% total system use would be exceeded and additional mitigation measures or adjustments may be required. Traffic generated by the revised scenario is beneath the limits established in the original AUAR with the City Council Meeting of December 15, 2014 (Item No. 8a) Title: Central Park West Preliminary Plat & Preliminary PUD Page 26 Unofficial Minutes Planning Commission November 19, 2014 Page 2 exception of AM peak (outbound) volumes. No additional mitigation measures or adjustments are anticipated at this time because the AM peak is accommodated in the capacity of the transportation system, which was designed to accommodate the higher PM peak volumes. Mr. Walther presented the preliminary plat analysis. He explained that the eastern 6 acres of the site are within the City of Golden Valley. The applicant will be going to both the cities of St. Louis Park and Golden Valley for approvals of Preliminary and Final Plat and PUD. Mr. Walther discussed the request for subdivision variances for Lots 1, 2 and 3 to provide no interior lot line perimeter easements. Mr. Walther presented the preliminary PUD analysis. He noted that the 5 buildings are organized around a central park area, a privately owned and maintained open space at the terminus of 16th Street and Utica. He discussed access points, landscaping, parking, stormwater, DORA, and proposed PUD modifications for the site. Parking issues need to be resolved for the multiple- family dwelling on Lot 1 and the hotel on Lot 3 as a condition of approval. David Graham, architect, Elness Swenson Graham, described the proposed development and presented images of the project. Mr. Walther spoke about Utica Ave. reconstruction as part of the overall West End development. Commissioner Peilen asked about the transfer of land from Duke Realty to DLC Residential. Mr. Walther responded that Duke Realty is marketing the site and DLC Residential has a purchase agreement for the property. They anticipate closing before the end of the year. Commissioner Peilen asked if all market rate residential would have access to underground parking. She asked about number of bedrooms and amenities. Mr. Graham said there are about 40% 2-bedrooms and 3-bedrooms. He said every unit has one underground parking stall per bedroom to meet code. He went on to say that each unit will have top notch granite tops, cabinetry, and floors, and in-unit washers and dryers, similar to the amenities at Millennium and other DLC multi-family housing. Commissioner Person asked about phasing. City Council Meeting of December 15, 2014 (Item No. 8a) Title: Central Park West Preliminary Plat & Preliminary PUD Page 27 Unofficial Minutes Planning Commission November 19, 2014 Page 3 Mr. Walther responded that the parking structure would be built with the office towers. There might be an interim surface lot until the construction moved forward. Commissioner Person asked about the construction period for the entire project. Rich Kauffmann, DLC Residential, said Phase I could start in early 2015. Phase II would start in 2016. Office building construction would probably begin in 2016. Commissioner Person asked if the developer would pay for capacity improvements if it was determined by the City that additional capacity in the water system was needed. Mr. Walther responded that the City had identified this issue several years ago and began collecting a water access fee last January for any new development. The City has already planned, over a 10 year period, to collect the dollars needed, without borrowing, to add capacity to the system. Commissioner Peilen asked if bedroom size would be small. She also asked about rents. Mr. Graham replied bedrooms would be good sized. He said rents would probably be similar to West End Flats units which are approximately $950 - $2500. Chair Carper said it appears there will be no street parking on Utica or any of the bordering areas. Mr. Walther said that was correct. He added that there may be a couple of pull- out locations for temporary loading or drop-off. Chair Carper asked if any changes will be made to Wayzata Blvd. Mr. Walther responded there are no planned changes to Wayzata Blvd. He said Golden Valley may work with the developer to change the driveway entrance locations onto Wayzata Blvd. Chair Carper asked about shadow studies for the project. Mr. Walther said the applicant has been able to illustrate shadowing through 3D modeling. He added that the zoning ordinance regarding shadowing only applies City Council Meeting of December 15, 2014 (Item No. 8a) Title: Central Park West Preliminary Plat & Preliminary PUD Page 28 Unofficial Minutes Planning Commission November 19, 2014 Page 4 to property outside of the PUD. He said none of the buildings off-site are impacted buildings. Commissioner Kramer asked if there would be unified Golden Valley/St. Louis Park police staff for the development. Mr. Walther stated that those details have not yet been worked out. He said St. Louis Park does have a community oriented policing substation located in the Shops at West End. Policing may be addressed as part of the Joint Powers Agreement with Golden Valley. Commissioner Johnston-Madison asked if water and sewer will be addressed through the Joint Powers Agreement. Mr. Walther answered that there are a number of solutions. He said Golden Valley has a watermain in Wayzata Blvd. St. Louis Park does believe it can provide the capacity needed as each phase is developed. He added that the 10% buffer in the city’s capacity is designed for emergency. He said agreements are already in place with Edina, Mpls., Minnetonka, and Golden Valley for emergency water supply. Commissioner Johnston-Madison stated that at one time the Blackstone neighborhood was concerned about water capacity. She asked if that issue has been resolved. Mr. Walther stated that improvements were made to the watermains when Park Place Blvd. was reconstructed. The capacity of those actual lines was improved. He said he was not certain if that work improved service to the Blackstone neighborhood. He added that the capacity issues being discussed are much more broad and city-wide. Commissioner Person remarked that there is a lot of roof space on West End and on the proposed project with good south orientation. He asked if there has been any consideration of solar installation on the buildings. Mr. Graham said active solar hasn’t been considered at this point, although it could be looked at. He said similar to the Millennium project, access is provided to the rooftops. Green roof pavers are incorporated on top of the terrace areas. Chair Carper asked about the approval process. Mr. Walther said following St. Louis Park and Golden Valley City Council approval of preliminary PUD and plat, requests will be made to both cities for final PUD and plat approval. City Council Meeting of December 15, 2014 (Item No. 8a) Title: Central Park West Preliminary Plat & Preliminary PUD Page 29 Unofficial Minutes Planning Commission November 19, 2014 Page 5 The Chair opened the public hearing. The Chair closed the public hearing as no one was present wishing to speak. Commissioner Kramer noted that the Planning Commission did have an opportunity to discuss the proposal at a recent study session. Commissioner Kramer made a motion to recommend approval of the amended Preliminary Plat with Subdivision Variances subject to the conditions recommended by staff. Commissioner Johnston-Madison seconded the motion, and the motion passed on a vote of 6-0. Commissioner Person made a motion to recommend approval of the Central Park West preliminary planned unit development and requested modifications subject to the conditions recommended by staff. Commissioner Peilen seconded the motion, and the motion passed on a vote of 6-0. 4. Other Business Commissioner Johnston-Madison spoke about the recent joint study session held with the City Council regarding the South Excelsior Blvd. design guidelines. She remarked that the draft guidelines included possible zoning changes. She said that the Planning Commission needs to look at those and make recommendations. Mr. Walther said zoning items referred to for further study in the draft document would require zoning amendments. Mr. Walther spoke about next steps, beginning by going back to the task force for one final meeting to complete the study. That final draft will come to the Planning Commission either in a study session or a regular meeting. Commissioners Peilen and Johnston-Madison stated that councilmembers encouraged the Planning Commission to be proactive in bringing city-wide items to the Council’s attention. 5. Communications 6. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 7:10 p.m. Submitted by, Nancy Sells Administrative Secretary City Council Meeting of December 15, 2014 (Item No. 8a) Title: Central Park West Preliminary Plat & Preliminary PUD Page 30 LILAC DRIVESTATE HIGHWAY 100WOONERFWAYZATA BLVDRESIDENTIALUTICA AVENORTHOFFICELINEARPARKBUS TURNAROUNDProperty LineBike Service AreaGateway to Golden Valley KioskGatheringAreaPark GatewayMonumentOpen Recreation“Green”DECIDUOUS TREESORNAMENTAL TREESEVERGREEN TREESSHRUB BEDSSOUTHOFFICEPARKING STRUCTURERESIDENTIALHOTELLEGENDEXISTING HEALTH PARTNERS gggaaaaayyytttttttWEST END DEVELOPMENTSt. Louis Park, MN / Golden Valley, MNDecember 201425’050’City Council Meeting of December 15, 2014 (Item No. 8a) Title: Central Park West Preliminary Plat & Preliminary PUD Page 31 Central Park West at the West End1Central Park West - Preliminary PUD St. Louis Park / Golden Valley, MNSt Louis Park City Council - Dec. 15, 2014Golden Valley City Council - Dec. 16, 2014City Council Meeting of December 15, 2014 (Item No. 8a) Title: Central Park West Preliminary Plat & Preliminary PUD Page 32 12/15/2014 SLP City Council - 12/16/2014 GV City Council2 Birdseye View - Existing SiteSITE13.48 AcreshƟĐĂǀĞŶƵĞ^West 16th Street394100City Council Meeting of December 15, 2014 (Item No. 8a) Title: Central Park West Preliminary Plat & Preliminary PUD Page 33 3Central Park West - Preliminary PUD St. Louis Park / Golden Valley, MNBirdseye View - Developed SiteOVERALL KEY SITE DESIGN PRINCIPLES• tŽƌŬĐůŽƐĞůǇǁŝƚŚ^ƚ>ŽƵŝƐWĂƌŬͬ'ŽůĚĞŶsĂůůĞǇ^ƚĂī• Complete the extension of the shops at West End Mixed Use ZĞĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ• ZĞĚƵĐĞƚŚĞĂŵŽƵŶƚŽĨŽĸĐĞĨƌŽŵϭ͘ϭMillion SF ;ĂƐŝƐĐƵƌƌĞŶƚůǇĂƉƉƌŽǀĞĚͿto ϳϬϲ͕ϬϬϬ^&͕ƚŚƵƐƌĞĚƵĐŝŶŐƚƌĂĸĐͬƚƌŝƉƐĂŶĚŐƌĞĂƚůǇƌĞĚƵĐŝŶŐƚŚĞƉĂƌŬŝŶŐƌĂŵƉsize• WƌŽǀŝĚĞŚŝŐŚͲƋƵĂůŝƚǇ^ŝƚĞĂŶĚWƵďůŝĐZĞĂůŵĨĞĂƚƵƌĞƐŝŶĐůƵĚŝŶŐ͗ դ ĞŶƚƌĂůWĂƌŬWƵďůŝĐŵĞŶŝƚǇ դhƟĐĂŽƵůĞǀĂƌĚǆƚĞŶƐŝŽŶ դ EĞƚǁŽƌŬŽĨƉĞĚĞƐƚƌŝĂŶͬďŝŬĞĨƌŝĞŶĚůǇƐƚƌĞĞƚƐ͕ĐŽƵƌƚǇĂƌĚƐ͕ŐĂƌĚĞŶƐĂŶĚĂŵĞŶŝƚǇƚĞƌƌĂĐĞƐ• ƌĞĂƚĞĂƐƵƐƚĂŝŶĂďůĞŵŽĚĞůĨŽƌƌĞĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚŝŶĐůƵĚŝŶŐϳϬϲ͕ϬϬϬƐƋƵĂƌĞĨĞĞƚŽĨKĸĐĞƐƉĂĐĞ͕ϯϲϯZĞƐŝĚĞŶƟĂůƵŶŝƚƐĂŶĚϭϱϬ,ŽƚĞůƌŽŽŵƐ• WƌŽǀŝĚĞϯйĂīŽƌĚĂďůĞƌĞƐŝĚĞŶƟĂůĂƚϲϬйD/City Council Meeting of December 15, 2014 (Item No. 8a) Title: Central Park West Preliminary Plat & Preliminary PUD Page 34 12/15/2014 SLP City Council - 12/16/2014 GV City Council4 Birdseye View - Looking EastWoonerf: Auto/Pedestrian courtCentral Park:Program of active/passive uses being developed with StaffCity Council Meeting of December 15, 2014 (Item No. 8a) Title: Central Park West Preliminary Plat & Preliminary PUD Page 35 ϱCentral Park West - Preliminary PUD St. Louis Park / Golden Valley, MNGATEWAY TO GOLDEN VALLEY• ƌĞĂƚĞĂƉĞĚĞƐƚƌŝĂŶͬďŝŬĞŐĂƚĞǁĂǇůŝŶŬƚŽ'ŽůĚĞŶsĂůůĞǇƚŚƌŽƵŐŚĂŵĂũŽƌĞǆƚĞŶƐŝŽŶŽĨƚŚĞĞŶƚƌĂůWĂƌŬŐƌĞĞŶĂŶĚƚƌĂŝůĐŽŶŶĞĐƟŽŶƐ͘&ĞĂƚƵƌŝŶŐ͗ դExtended Trails դǆƚĞŶƐŝǀĞ'ƌĞĞŶŝŶŐ դEntry Kiosk դ/ŶŶŽǀĂƟǀĞŐƌĞĞŶƐĐƌĞĞŶƐĂŶĚƌĐŚŝƚĞĐƚƵƌĂůĨĂĐĂĚĞƐĂƚƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚƉĂƌŬŝŶŐĂŶĚďƵŝůĚŝŶŐƐ• ƵīĞƌŶĞǁĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚĨƌŽŵƚŚĞǀŝƐƵĂůĂŶĚĂĐŽƵƐƟĐďůŝŐŚƚĐĂƐƵĞĚďǇƚŚĞŵĂƐƐŝǀĞ;нͬͲϯϬ͛ŚŝŐŚĂŶĚнͬͲϰϬϬ͛ǁŝĚĞͿ,ŝŐŚǁĂǇϭϬϬĐŽŶĐƌĞƚĞĨƌĞĞǁĂǇƚŚƌŽƵŐŚĐĂƌĞĨƵůƉůĂĐĞŵĞŶƚŽĨƚŚĞƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚƉĂƌŬŝŶŐĨĂĐŝůŝƚǇĂŶĚŚĞĂǀŝůǇůĂŶĚƐĐĂƉĞĚƚƌĞĞďƵīĞƌĂůŽŶŐƚŚĞĞĂƐƚĞĚŐĞƐŽƵƚŚŽĨƚŚĞ'ĂƚĞǁĂǇ• ůŝŵŝŶĂƟŽŶŽĨƚŚĞƉĂƌŬŝŶŐƌĂŵƉ͞ǁĂůů͟ŶŽƌƚŚŽĨƚŚĞŐĂƚĞǁĂǇƚŽ'ŽůĚĞŶsĂůůĞǇĨƌŽŵƉƌĞǀŝŽƵƐůǇĂƉƉƌŽǀĞĚWƌĞůŝŵŝŶĂƌǇPUDCity Council Meeting of December 15, 2014 (Item No. 8a) Title: Central Park West Preliminary Plat & Preliminary PUD Page 36 6FDOH N12/15/2014 SLP City Council - 12/16/2014 GV City Council6 Excelsior & Grand ͲŽŵƉĂƌĂƟǀĞWůĂŶĨŽƌ^ĐĂůĞCentral Park Plan + Comparative PlanCentral Park West PlanPark Gateway MonumentOpen Recreation “Green”Gathering AreaChildren’s Play AreaBike Service AreaSustainable stormwater management/Native prairie AreaGateway to Golden Valley KioskPedestrian/Bike PathCity Council Meeting of December 15, 2014 (Item No. 8a) Title: Central Park West Preliminary Plat & Preliminary PUD Page 37 7Central Park West - Preliminary PUD St. Louis Park / Golden Valley, MNCentral Park - Birdseye View + PrecedentCity Council Meeting of December 15, 2014 (Item No. 8a) Title: Central Park West Preliminary Plat & Preliminary PUD Page 38 Scale: 1'-0" = 40'0' 10' 25' 40'N12/15/2014 SLP City Council - 12/16/2014 GV City Council8 Utica Enhancement - Plan + Birdseye ViewCity Council Meeting of December 15, 2014 (Item No. 8a) Title: Central Park West Preliminary Plat & Preliminary PUD Page 39 9Central Park West - Preliminary PUD St. Louis Park / Golden Valley, MNUtica Enhancement - Pedestrian View + PrecedentCity Council Meeting of December 15, 2014 (Item No. 8a) Title: Central Park West Preliminary Plat & Preliminary PUD Page 40 Scale: 1'-0" = 40'0' 10' 25' 40'N12/15/2014 SLP City Council - 12/16/2014 GV City Council10 woonerfƵƚĐŚƚĞƌŵĨŽƌ͞ůŝǀŝŶŐƐƚƌĞĞƚ͟Žƌ͞ůŝǀŝŶŐǇĂƌĚ͟ դůůŵŽĚĞƐŽĨƚƌĂĸĐŵŽǀĞĂƚĂǁĂůŬŝŶŐƉĂĐĞͲͲĂƵƚŽŵŽďŝůĞƐ͕ďŝĐǇĐůŝƐƚƐ͕ƉĞĚĞƐƚƌŝĂŶƐ դƵƌďƐ͕ǁŚŝĐŚĞŶĐŽƵƌĂŐĞƐƉĞĞĚ͕ĂƌĞƌĞŵŽǀĞĚ դĞƐŝŐŶĞĚĞůĞŵĞŶƚƐƉĂƩĞƌŶĂƐĂĨĞĞŶǀŝƌŽŶŵĞŶƚͲͲďŽůůĂƌĚƐ͕ƉĂǀŝŶŐƉĂƩĞƌŶƐ͕ďĞŶĐŚĞƐ͕ƚƌĞĞƐ͕ƉůĂŶƚĞƌƐ͕ůŝŐŚƟŶŐ“Woonerf” Plaza - Precedent/Plan/Pedestrian ViewCity Council Meeting of December 15, 2014 (Item No. 8a) Title: Central Park West Preliminary Plat & Preliminary PUD Page 41 11Central Park West - Preliminary PUD St. Louis Park / Golden Valley, MNCentral ParkWůĂǇŐƌŽƵŶĚϮŶĚ>ĞǀĞůApt TerraceWoonerfPlazahƟĐĂŶŚĂŶĐĞŵĞŶƚϮŶĚ>ĞǀĞůApt TerracePlazadƌĞĞĚŐĞWŽƚĞŶƟĂůWoonerfPlazaŝŬĞ,ƵďŽŐZƵŶZĞƐŝĚĞŶƟĂů,ŽƚĞůZĞƐŝĚĞŶƟĂůKĸĐĞKĸĐĞRampPhase IWŽƚĞŶƟĂůArt DŽŶƵŵĞŶƚPedestrian View + Site DiagramCity Council Meeting of December 15, 2014 (Item No. 8a) Title: Central Park West Preliminary Plat & Preliminary PUD Page 42 WWWWWWWWWWWWW W W W W W W WWWWWWWWWW WWLOT 2BLOCK 1LOT 3BLOCK 1LOT 1BLOCK 1OUTLOT BS0° 00' 00.00"E 69.53'S45° 00' 00.00"E8.49'S0° 00' 00.00"E 70.31'N88°48'56.08"W79.72'S52° 09' 54.91"E 10.04'S3°50'19.64"E63.88'S13°39'21.95"W36.52'N89°39'43.66"E283.49'S0°20'16.34"E49.00'S88°13'29.10"E150.81'N13°26'54.53"E108.30'N88° 41' 23.47"W13.70'N0° 16' 33.03"W59.76'S89° 07' 07.53"E28.25'N13° 26' 54.53"E70.18'N50°41'47.77"W62.49'S76° 33' 05.47"E18.08'L=266.54'R=510.04'ǻ=29°56'32.25"L=45.19'R=361.33'ǻ=7°09'54.91"L=93.17'R=438.67'ǻ=12°10'09.99"L=69.20'R=689.52'ǻ=5°45'00.68"L=99.63'R=1243.82'ǻ=4°35'22.19"L=32.17'R=332.10'ǻ=5°33'03.41"N90° 00' 00.00"W 114.75'N11°32'21.53"E142.68'N86° 52' 04.49"W19.34'L=46.38'R=904.93'ǻ=2°56'12.58"N90° 00' 00.00"E 323.08'S0° 00' 00.00"E 323.28'S7°09'54.91"E147.93'39.22'S7° 09' 54.91"ES0° 40' 55.89"W25.89'S0° 00' 00.00"E 93.80'S0° 40' 55.89"W 41.14'S0° 00' 00.00"E 161.99'N13° 26' 54.53"E29.19'N90° 00' 00.00"E 198.96'S0° 00' 00.00"E 141.03'S0°40'55.89"W100.95'N90° 00' 00.00"W 183.21'S0° 00' 00.00"E48.74'N90° 00' 00.00"E 473.45'S0° 00' 00.00"E52.20'N90° 00' 00.00"W291.45'N0°40'55.89"E100.95'S0° 00' 00.00"E71.63'S0° 00' 00.00"E24.85'N88° 43' 58.55"W23.71'L=37.60'R=24.33'ǻ=88°32'06.01"S0°40'55.89"W167.98'S0° 00' 00.00"E 303.02'S46° 20' 02.25"W9.98'S45° 00' 00.00"W8.49'N0° 00' 00.00"E81.53'CENTRAL PARK WESTST. LOUIS PARK/GOLDEN VALLEY, MNDLC RESIDENTIAL6000PRELIMINARY PLAT DATA TABLEOUTLOT B - FUTURE OFFICE6.90 ACRESOUTLOT A - PARK AREA0.87 ACRESLOT 1 - RESIDENTIAL2.58 ACRESLOT 2 - RESIDENTIAL1.53 ACRESLOT 3 - HOTEL1.61 ACRESTOTAL SITE13.49 ACRESPLANNED LAND USE DESIGNATION PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENTCURRENT ZONINGOFFICE & BUSINESS ANDPROFESSIONAL OFFICESPROPOSED ZONINGPUDLOCATIONSEC 30, TWNSP 29 N, RANGE 24 WESTSETBACKSBUILDING: 15' FROM BACK OF CURBOWNERDUKE REALTY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP1600 UTICA AVENUE S, SUITE 250MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55416PHONE: (952) 543-2900FAX: (952) 543-2975DEVELOPERRICH KAUFFMANDLC RESIDENTIAL, LLC5245 WAYZATA BOULEVARDST. LOUIS PARK, MN 55416PHONE: (612) 325-9767CIVIL ENGINEERLUCAS C. PAYNE, P.E.KIMLEY-HORN & ASSOCIATES, INC.2550 UNIVERSITY AVENUE W, SUITE 238NST. PAUL, MN 55114PHONE: (651) 645-4197SURVEYORSAMBATEK, INC.12800 WHITEWATER DRIVE, SUITE 300MINNETONKA, MN 55343PHONE: (763) 476-6010City Council Meeting of December 15, 2014 (Item No. 8a) Title: Central Park West Preliminary Plat & Preliminary PUD Page 43 6010TITLE SHEETCENTRAL PARK WESTST. LOUIS PARK/GOLDEN VALLEY, MNDLC RESIDENTIALCONSTRUCTION PLANS FORCENTRAL PARK WESTST LOUIS PARK/GOLDEN VALLEY, MINNESOTAPREPARED FOR:DLC RESIDENTIALCity Council Meeting of December 15, 2014 (Item No. 8a) Title: Central Park West Preliminary Plat & Preliminary PUD Page 44 WWWWWWWWWW W W W W W W WWWWWWWWWSTATEHWY.NO.100WAYZATABOULEVARDW WW137138144145146147148149311312313314315361362363400100101102103104105106107108109110111112113114115116117118119120121122123124111261271281291301311321331341351361391401411421431501511521531541551561581591601621641651661721731741751761771781791801811821831841851861871881891901911001011021031041051061071081091101111121131141151161171181191201211221231241112612712812913013113213313413513613914014114214315916516617317417517617717817918018118218318418518618718818919019141222233735997711113324777217733377555999SEE UTICA AVENUE IMPROVEMENTPLANS FOR OFF-SITE REMOVALS106030EXISTINGCONDITIONS &REMOVALS PLAN1KEYNOTE LEGENDREMOVE BITUMINOUS PAVEMENTREMOVE CONCRETE PAVEMENTREMOVE CURB AND GUTTEREXISTING SIGN TO BE REMOVEDEXISTING WATERMAIN TO BE REMOVED &RELOCATED. REFERENCE UTILITY PLAN.SAWCUT PAVEMENTEXISTING LIGHT POLE TO BE REMOVEDEXISTING HYDRANT TO BE REMOVED &RELOCATED. COORDINATE WITH OWNER.EXISTING GAS MAIN TO BE REMOVEDEXISTING STOCK PILE TO BE REMOVED2345678LEGENDPROPERTY LINE / ROWCITY LIMIT LINELIMITS OF DISTURNBANCEEXISTING CURB AND GUTTEREXISTING CURB AND GUTTER TO BE REMOVEDEXISTING BUILDINGEXISTING STORM SEWEREXISTING STORM CATCH BASIN / MANHOLEEXISTING SANITARY SEWEREXISTING SANITARY MANHOLEEXISTING WATERMAINEXISTING FIRE HYDRANTEXISTING GATE VALVEEXISTING GAS LINEEXISTING CHAIN LINK FENCEEXISTING CHAIN LINK FENCE TO BE REMOVEDEXISTING LIGHT POLEEXISTING LIGHT POLE TO BE REMOVEDEXISTING SIGNBITUMINOUS PAVEMENT TO BE REMOVEDCONCRETE PAVEMENT TO BE REMOVEDUTILITY TO BE ABANDONEDUTILITY TO BE REMOVEDEXISTING TREEGENERAL NOTES1. ALL WORK SHALL BE PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEYAND ST. LOUIS PARK SPECIFICATIONS AND BUILDING PERMIT REQUIREMENTS. WORKWITHIN WAYZATA BOULEVARD WILL REQUIRE A MNDOT ROW/UTILITY PERMIT.2. CONTRACTOR SHALL HAVE ALL UNDERGROUND PUBLIC AND PRIVATE UTILITIESLOCATED PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION.3. REFERENCE TREE PRESERVATION PLAN FOR REMOVALS OF EXISTING TREES.4. CONTRACTOR SHALL FIELD VERIFY THE LOCATIONS AND ELEVATIONS OF EXISTINGUTILITIES AND TOPOGRAPHIC FEATURES, SUCH AS EXISTING GUTTER GRADES AT THEPROPOSED DRIVEWAYS, PRIOR TO THE START OF SITE WORK.5. CONTRACTOR SHALL IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY THE ENGINEER OF ANY DISCREPANCIES ORVARIATIONS FROM THE PLANS.6. ALL PAVEMENT, CURB & GUTTER TO BE REMOVED SHALL BE SAWCUT AT REMOVALLIMITS OR NEAREST JOINT.7. UTILITIES NOT MARKED FOR REMOVAL SHALL BE PROTECTED FROM DAMAGE DURINGCONSTRUCTION. THIS WORK SHALL BE INCIDENTAL TO CONTRACT.8. STREET SHALL BE SWEPT IN ACCORDANCE WITH CITY REQUIREMENTS.9. COORDINATE REMOVALS OF PRIVATE UTILITIES WITH UTILITY COMPANIES.10. CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE A TRAFFIC CONTROL PLAN APPROVED BY THE CITYPRIOR TO COMMENCING ANY WORK WITHIN THE CITY ROW.11. ALL TRUNK LINES OR SERVICE LINES TO BE REMOVED SHALL BE PLUGGED AT MAIN.12. CONTRACTOR TO SEAL AND GROUT OPENINGS ABANDONED AT EXISTINGDISCONNECTS13. CONCRETE CRUSHING OF BUILDING MATERIALS IS ALLOWED ON-SITE. HOURS OFOPERATION SHALL BE LIMITED TO 7:00AMTO 7:00PM. CONCRETE TO BE REUSED ASAGGREGATE BASE SHALL CONFORM TO THE MNDOT SPECIFICATION FOR WHICHMATERIAL WILL BE USED.14. CONSTRUCTION LIMITS TO BE THE PROPERTY LINE UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE.CONTRACTOR TO REMOVE ITEMS WITHIN CONSTRUCTION LIMITS AS SHOWN ON THEPLANS AND DIRECTED PER THE OWNERS REPRESENTATIVE.15. EXISTING WATERMAIN TO BE ABANDONED IS TO BE CAPPED AT THE MAIN AND BULKHEADED.16. REMOVE EXISTING CATCH BASINS AND STORM SEWER CONNECTIONS TO CITY TRUNKLINES.9CENTRAL PARK WESTST. LOUIS PARK/GOLDEN VALLEY, MNDLC RESIDENTIAL10City Council Meeting of December 15, 2014 (Item No. 8a) Title: Central Park West Preliminary Plat & Preliminary PUD Page 45 CENTRAL PARK WESTST. LOUIS PARK/GOLDEN VALLEY, MNDLC RESIDENTIAL12345678910111213141516ABCDEFGHIKWEST END PARKING DATA TABLELOTSTANDARD PARKINGSOUTH OFFICEWEST END SITE DATA TABLEOUTLOT B6.90 ACRESOUTLOT A - PARK AREA0.87 ACRESLOT 1 - PHASE 1 RESIDENTIAL2.58 ACRESLOT 2 - PHASE 2 RESIDENTIAL1.53 ACRESLOT 3 - HOTEL1.61 ACRESTOTAL13.49 ACRESUSESIZEREQUIRED PARKING (PER SLP CODE)OUTLOT B353,353 SFNORTH OFFICEOUTLOT B353,353 SFPHASE 1 RESIDENTIALLOT 1199 UNITS/294 ROOMSPHASE 2 RESIDENTIALLOT 2164 UNITS/235 ROOMSHOTELLOT 3150 ROOMS3.5 SPACES/1,000 SF (1,237 SPACES)3.5 SPACES/1,000 SF (1,237 SPACES)1 SPACES/BEDROOM (294 SPACES)1 SPACES/BEDROOM (235 SPACES)1.5 SPACES/ROOM (225 SPACES)256 SPACES1KEYNOTE LEGENDSERVICE AREA (DELIVERIES, REFUSE, ANDMOVE-IN STAGING)FULL ACCESS DRIVEWAY6' SIDEWALKPARKING RAMP ENTRY / EXITSERVICE VEHICLES ONLYEXISTING SIDEWALKRESIDENTIAL GUEST PARKING / HOTELOVERFLOW PARKINGELEVATOR ACCESS TO OFFICE BUILDINGPROPOSED MCES LIFT STATIONREFERENCE HARDSCAPE PLANS FORWOONERF AREAB612 CURB AND GUTTERSURMOUNTABLE CURBFIRE LANE STRIPINGBIKE RACKRAISED LANDSCAPE PLANTER2345678LEGENDCITY PROPERTY LINE / ROWLOT LINEPROPOSED CURB AND GUTTEREXISTING CURB AND GUTTEREXISTING BUILDINGLIMITS OF UNDERGROUND PARKINGSTOP BARSTALL COUNTDIRECTIONAL ARROWROW DEDICATIONROW VACATION96040SITE PLAN#10111213LOT5.77 ACRES0.30 ACRES2.03 ACRES1.43 ACRES1.22 ACRES10.65 ACRES1.20 ACRES0.57 ACRES0.55 ACRES0.10 ACRES0.39 ACRES2.84 ACRESTOTAL AREA PERVIOUS AREA IMPERVIOUS AREATOTAL PARKING3.75 SPACES/1,000 SF (1,326 SPACES)3.70 SPACES/1,000 SF (1,308 SPACES)1.08 SPACES/BEDROOM (317 SPACES)1.02 SPACES/BEDROOM (239 SPACES)0.57 SPACES/ROOM (85 SPACES)197 SPACES79 SPACES141,284 SPACES1,302 SPACESCOMPACT PARKING52 SPACES34 SPACES0 SPACES0 SPACES0 SPACESADA PARKING9 SPACES8 SPACES6 SPACES24 SPACES24 SPACESBICYCLE PARKING135 SPACES (10% OF TOTAL PARKING)130 SPACES (10% OF TOTAL PARKING)112 SPACES (35% OF TOTAL PARKING)100 SPACES (42% OF TOTAL PARKING)0 SPACES (0% OF TOTAL PARKING)N/ATOTALN/A3,228 SPACES3,282 SPACES3,125 SPACES86 SPACES71 SPACES477 SPACES (15% OF TOTAL PARKING)15City Council Meeting of December 15, 2014 (Item No. 8a) Title: Central Park West Preliminary Plat & Preliminary PUD Page 46 STATEHWY.NO.100WAYZATABOULEVARDSOUTHOFFICEFFE=888.50NORTHOFFICEFFE=885.50RESIDENTIALPHASE2FFE=881.00HOTELFFE=880.00RESIDENTIALPHASE1FFE=881.00CB-1MH-1MH-13CB-3MH-2CB-4CB-5MH-3MH-4MH-5CB-6CB-7CB-8CB-10CB-11CB-12CB-13CB-19CB-20CB-18MH-11MH-10MH-12CB-21CB-22MH-9MH-8CB-16MH-7CB-14MH-6CB-15CB-9CB-17LEGENDPROPERTY LINEEXISTING CONTOUREXISTING STORM SEWER PIPEPROPOSED STORM SEWER PIPEPROPOSED CONTOURCB-1PROPOSED STORM SEWER STRUCTURE LABELDPROPOSED MANHOLEPROPOSED CURB/AREA INLETPROPOSED UNDERGROUND STORMWATERTREATMENT RESERVE AREAPROPOSED SLOPEEMERGENCY OVERFLOW ELEVATIONFINISHED FLOOR ELEVATIONPROPOSED SIPHONIC MANHOLECITY LIMIT LINEEXISTING BUILDINGEXISTING CURB AND GUTTERDRAINAGE SCHEDULESTRUCTURENO.CB-1CB-3CB-4CB-5CB-6CB-7CB-8CB-9CB-10CB-11CB-12CB-13CB-14CB-15CB-16CB-17CB-18CB-19STRUCTURETYPECATCH BASINCATCH BASINCATCH BASINCATCH BASINCATCH BASINCATCH BASINCATCH BASINCATCH BASINCATCH BASINCATCH BASINCATCH BASINCATCH BASINCATCH BASINCATCH BASINCATCH BASINCATCH BASINCATCH BASINCATCH BASINRIM/GRATEELEVATION887.68884.34884.85885.38881.40881.94881.94881.65881.45879.02877.99878.57879.95879.79880.02876.71876.69878.16INVERTELEVATIONINW 879.70E 879.70E 878.97N 872.61E 871.72W 871.72N 875.75E 872.61N 875.84E 873.41N 874.13NE 875.30NW 875.41N 873.42E 873.42NW 873.97NW 873.46N 872.52PIPESLOPEIN1.00%1.00%1.41%0.56%0.96%0.46%-3464.67%0.69%1.00%0.69%0.69%0.56%0.69%0.48%2.30%1.04%0.86%1.05%INVERTELEVATIONOUTN 884.00S 879.70E 881.25NW 878.97E 872.61S 871.72W 872.61W 873.41W 874.13S 875.30SW 875.41SE 875.60S 873.42W 876.00S 875.50SE 873.97S 873.46W 872.52PIPESLOPEOUT0.67%1.00%1.00%1.47%0.46%12467.36%0.96%0.69%0.69%0.69%0.56%0.69%0.56%2.30%0.60%0.86%1.05%1.00%DRAINAGE SCHEDULESTRUCTURENO.CB-20CB-21CB-22CB-23MH-1MH-2MH-3MH-4MH-5MH-6MH-7MH-8MH-9MH-10MH-11MH-12MH-13STRUCTURETYPECATCH BASINCATCH BASINCATCH BASINCATCH BASINMANHOLEMANHOLEMANHOLEMANHOLEMANHOLEMANHOLEMANHOLEMANHOLEMANHOLEMANHOLEMANHOLEMANHOLEMANHOLERIM/GRATEELEVATION878.56879.05879.06880.48888.12884.94884.27882.88883.91879.74880.69880.16877.46879.24878.57872.55885.63INVERTELEVATIONINE 872.28NW 875.26E 879.25S 882.81W 883.41W 880.41N 880.41SE 878.27NE 871.55E 871.84E 873.86E 873.97N 873.92W 875.54S 874.21W 874.35E 871.55S 871.38SW 870.30S 882.13N 879.08PIPESLOPEIN1.00%1.00%7.50%0.67%4.19%1.00%1.00%1.47%0.86%1.00%2.30%0.60%0.60%1.00%1.00%1.00%1.00%1.00%1.00%0.67%1.00%INVERTELEVATIONOUTW 872.28SE 875.50SE 875.26N 882.81E 880.41W 880.10W 871.45SW 871.84W 873.86S 873.92N 875.54N 871.55NE 871.38W 879.08PIPESLOPEOUT1.00%1.00%1.04%0.67%1.00%7.50%1.00%0.86%2.30%0.48%1.00%1.00%1.00%1.00%6050GRADING ANDDRAINAGE PLANGRADING NOTES1. ALL WORK SHALL BE PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEYAND ST. LOUIS PARK SPECIFICATIONS AND BUILDING PERMIT REQUIREMENTS. WORKWITHIN WAYZATA BOULEVARD WILL REQUIRE A MNDOT ROW/UTILITY PERMIT.2. CONTRACTOR TO CALL "GOPHER STATE ONE CALL" AT LEAST TWO WORKING DAYSPRIOR TO EXCAVATION/CONSTRUCTION FOR UTILITY LOCATIONS. TWIN CITIES METROAREA: 651-454-0002 OR TOLL FREE: 1-800-252-11663. CONTRACTOR TO FIELD VERIFY THE LOCATIONS AND ELEVATIONS OR EXISTINGUTILITIES AND TOPOGRAPHIC FEATURES PRIOR TO THE START OF SITE GRADING. THECONTRACTOR SHALL IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY THE PROJECT ENGINEER OF ANYDISCREPANCIES OR VARIATIONS.4. SUBGRADE EXCAVATION SHALL BE BACKFILLED IMMEDIATELY AFTER EXCAVATION TOHELP OFFSET ANY STABILITY PROBLEMS DUE TO WATER SEEPAGE OR STEEP SLOPES.WHEN PLACING NEW SURFACE MATERIAL ADJACENT TO EXISTING PAVEMENT, THEEXCAVATION SHALL BE BACKFILLED PROMPTLY TO AVOID UNDERMINING OF EXISTINGPAVEMENT.5. CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL CONTROL.6. CONTRACTOR SHALL EXCAVATE DRAINAGE TRENCHES TO FOLLOW PROPOSED STORMSEWER ALIGNMENTS.7. GRADES SHOWN ARE FINISHED GRADES. CONTRACTOR SHALL ROUGH GRADE TOSUBGRADE ELEVATION, LEAVE STREET READY FOR SUBBASE.8. ALL EXCESS MATERIAL, BITUMINOUS SURFACING, CONCRETE ITEMS, ANY ABANDONEDUTILITY ITEMS, AND OTHER UNSTABLE MATERIALS SHALL BECOME THE PROPERTY OFTHE CONTRACTOR AND SHALL BE DISPOSED OF OFF THE CONSTRUCTION SITE.9. REFER TO THE UTILITY PLAN FOR SANITARY SEWER MAIN, WATER MAIN SERVICELAYOUT AND ELEVATIONS AND CASTING / STRUCTURE SCHEDULE.10. CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR CONSTRUCTION OF PAVEMENTS AND CURB ANDGUTTER WITH SMOOTH UNIFORM SLOPES WITH PROVIDE POSITIVE DRAINAGE.11. INSTALL A MINIMUM OF 4" MNDOT CLASS 5 AGGREGATE BASE UNDER CURB ANDGUTTER.12. HAUL ROUTE SHALL BE WAYZAYTA BOULEVARD AND GAMBLE DRIVE TO PARK PLACEBOULEVARD TO HIGHWAY 394.13. UPON COMPLETION OF EXCAVATION AND FILLING, CONTRACTOR SHALL RESTORE ALLSTREETS AND DISTURBED AREAS ON SITE. ALL DISTURBED AREAS SHALL BERE-VEGETATED WITH CITY APPROVED GROUND COVER.14. CONTRACTOR IS TO PLACE ALL MANHOLES OUTSIDE OF DRIVING LANES.REVISIONSNo.DATECENTRAL PARK WESTST. LOUIS PARK/GOLDEN VALLEY, MNDLC RESIDENTIALCity Council Meeting of December 15, 2014 (Item No. 8a) Title: Central Park West Preliminary Plat & Preliminary PUD Page 47 WWWWWWWWW W W W W W W WSTATEHWY.NO.100WAYZATABOULEVARDW WWCITYOFST.LOUISPARKCITYOFGOLDENVALLEYLOT1-SOUTHOFFICEFFE=888.50LOT2-NORTHOFFICEFFE=885.50LOT4-RESIDENTIALPHASE2FFE=881.00LOT5-HOTELFFE=880.00LOT3-RESIDENTIALPHASE1FFE=881.00SANITARY SEWER STRUCTURE SCHEDULE6060UTILITY PLANLEGENDPROPERTY LINE / ROWCITY LIMIT LINEPROPOSED STORM SEWERPROPOSED STORM SEWER MH/CBEXISTING STORM SEWEREXISTING STORM SEWER MH/CBPROPOSED SANITARY SEWEREXISTING SANITARY SEWERPROPOSED 10" WATERMAINPROPOSED 8" WATERMAINPROPOSED 3" WATERMAINPROPOSED 2" WATERMAINEXISTING WATERMAINEXISTING GAS MAINEXISTING CURB AND GUTTEREXISTING BUILDING1. CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT GOPHER STATE ONE CALL AT LEAST 48 HOURS PRIOR TOEXCAVATION/CONSTRUCTION FOR EXISTING UNDERGROUND UTILITY LOCATIONS. TWIN CITIESMETRO AREA: 612-454-0002 OR TOLL FREE: 1-800-252-11662. PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL FIELD VERIFY ALL EXISTING UTILITYLOCATIONS AND INVERTS, SHOWN OR NOT SHOWN. ANY DISCREPANCY BETWEEN PLANS AND FIELDCONDITIONS SHALL BE REPORTED TO THE PROJECT ENGINEER IMMEDIATELY.3. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY THE LOCATIONS AND ELEVATIONS OF THE BUILDING PIPE SYSTEMPRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION SERVICE CONNECTIONS.4. ALL STORM SEWER AND APPURTENANCES MUST BE FURNISHED AND INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCEWITH THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK AND MOST RECENT REVISION OF THE "CITY ENGINEERSASSOCIATION OF MINNESOTA" (CEAM) STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR UTILITY CONSTRUCTION.5. WATERMAIN SHALL BE CLASS 52 DIP CONFORMING TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF ANSI/AWWACL51/A21.51 AND C104/A21.4. FITTINGS SHALL BE CLASS 250 CONFORMING TO THE REQUIREMENTSOF ANSI/AWWA C110/A21.10 OR ANSI/AWWA C153/A21.53. HYDRANTS SHALL BE PER CITY OF ST. LOUISPARK / GOLDEN VALLEY REQUIREMENTS. GATE VALVES SHALL BE SINGLE DISC TYPE WITH RESILIENTSEAL MEETING THE REQUIREMENTS OF AWWA C509. ALL PLUGS, TEES, BENDS AND OTHER THRUSTPOINTS SHALL BE PROVIDED WITH CONCRETE THRUST BLOCKING. ALL WATERMAIN SHALL BEINSTALLED WITH A MINIMUM OF 7.5' COVER AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH AWWA C600 ANDCONDUCTIVITY PROVISIONS CONFORMING TO ANSI/AWWA C111/A21.11. BEFORE BEING PLACED INSERVICE, THE COMPLETED WATERMAIN SHALL BE DISINFECTED AND FLUSHED IN ACCORDANCEWITH AWWA C651 AND THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH.6. SANITARY SEWER SHALL BE PVC SDR35 UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE. SANITARY MANHOLES SHALLBE 48" DIAMETER PRECAST REINFORCED CONCRETE IN ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM C478. CASTINGSHALL BE NEENAH R-1642 WITH TYPE "B" COVER. MANHOLES SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM OF TWO ANDMAXIMUM OF FOUR ADJUSTMENT RINGS.7. ALL PIPE CONNECTIONS TO EXISTING UTILITY STRUCTURES SHALL BE "KOR-N-SEAL" OR CITYAPPROVED EQUAL. FOR CONCRETE BLOCK OR BRICK STRUCTURES, CONSTRUCT AN OPENINGEQUAL TO THE PIPE SIZE, GROUT AROUND PIPE TO CLOSE OPENING, AND REPAIR STRUCTURE TOCITY REQUIREMENTS. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY THE TYPE OF CONNECTION WITH CITYENGINEERING DEPARTMENT AND COORDINATE ANY INSPECTIONS NEEDED FOR CITY ACCEPTANCE.8. UPON ANY GRADING, SURFACING, OR OTHER WORK, ALL UTILITY CASTINGS (INCLUDING VALVES,MANHOLES, AND DRAINAGE CASTINGS) MUST BE RAISED TO AT-GRADE OR ABOVE-GRADE (ASAPPROPRIATE) WITHIN 48 HOURS OF BEING COVERED. THIS INCLUDES ALL CASTINGS, OLD OR NEW.9. CONTRACTOR WILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR OBTAINING THE APPROPRIATE SEWER, WATER, ANDPLUMBING PERMITS FROM THE CITY BUILDING DEPARTMENT.10. UTILITY TRENCHES SHALL BE COMPACTED TO 95% STANDARD PROCTOR MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY(ASTM D698.78 OR AASHTO T-99) FROM THE PIPE ZONE TO WITHIN 3 FEET OF THE GROUND SURFACEAND 100% STANDARD PROCTOR IN THE UPPER THREE FEET.11. CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY THE CITY A MINIMUM OF 48 HOURS PRIOR TO WORKING WITHIN THERIGHT-OF-WAY.12. CONTRACTOR SHALL INSTALL, INSPECT, MAINTAIN AND REMOVE THE NECESSARY SIGNAGE FORLANE CLOSURES. ALL TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES AND SIGNING SHALL CONFORM TO THE MMUTCD,INCLUDING FIELD MANUAL FOR TEMPORARY TRAFFIC CONTROL ZONE LAYOUTS, DECEMBER 2001.ONE ELEVEN FOOT MINIMUM WITH LANE IN EACH DIRECTION SHALL BE PROVIDED AT ALL TIMES.13. REFER TO UTICA AVENUE IMPROVEMENT PLANS FOR ADDITIONAL DESIGN DETAIL FOR UTILITIES INUTICA AVENUE.14. CONTRACTOR IS TO LOCATE ALL MANHOLES OUTSIDE OF DRIVING LANES.UTILITY NOTESCENTRAL PARK WESTST. LOUIS PARK/GOLDEN VALLEY, MNDLC RESIDENTIALCity Council Meeting of December 15, 2014 (Item No. 8a) Title: Central Park West Preliminary Plat & Preliminary PUD Page 48 CENTRAL PARK WESTST. LOUIS PARK/GOLDEN VALLEY, MNDLC RESIDENTIAL12345678910111213141516ABCDEFGHIK6100LANDSCAPEPLANCity Council Meeting of December 15, 2014 (Item No. 8a) Title: Central Park West Preliminary Plat & Preliminary PUD Page 49 CENTRAL PARK WESTST. LOUIS PARK/GOLDEN VALLEY, MNDLC RESIDENTIAL12345678910111213141516ABCDEFGHIKDESIGNED OUTDOOR RECREATION AREA (DORA) LEGENDWEST END SITE DATA TABLEOUTLOT A7.90 ACRESOUTLOT B - PARK AREA0.87 ACRESLOT 1 - PHASE 1 RESIDENTIAL2.58 ACRESLOT 2 - PHASE 2 RESIDENTIAL1.53 ACRESLOT 3 - HOTEL1.61 ACRESTOTAL13.49 ACRESEX.1DORA AREACALCULATIONEXHIBITPROPOSED DORA AREASBUILDINGSNORTH AND SOUTH OFFICE706,706 SFLOT 1 - PHASE 1 RESIDENTIAL212,396 SFLOT 2 - PHASE 2 RESIDENTIAL172,586 SFLOT 3 - HOTEL84,816 SFTOTAL PROPOSED1,176,504 SFDORA CALCULATIONTOTAL REQUIRED (12% GROSS FLOOR AREA)141,180 SF = 3.24 AC.TOTAL PROVIDED (16% GROSS FLOOR AREA)186,160 SF = 4.27 AC.City Council Meeting of December 15, 2014 (Item No. 8a) Title: Central Park West Preliminary Plat & Preliminary PUD Page 50 6SDFHV36)+RWHO6WDQGDUG6SDFHVDQG7DQGHP6SDFHV36)$UHD6)$UHDOutline of Level 1 Above0HFKMechMechWaterUpMechMUA%LNH6SDFHVHOQHVVVZHQVRQJUDKDPDUFKLWHFWVZDVKLQJWRQDYHQXHVRXWKPLQQHDSROLVPLQQHVRWDSIZZZHVJDUFKFRP,KHUHE\FHUWLI\WKDWWKLVGRFXPHQWZDVSUHSDUHGE\PHRUXQGHUP\GLUHFWVXSHUYLVLRQDQGWKDW,DPDGXO\OLFHQVHGDUFKLWHFWXQGHUWKHODZVRIWKH6WDWHRI0LQQHVRWD6LJQDWXUH7\SHGRU3ULQWHG1DPH/LFHQVH'DWH25,*,1$/,668(5(9,6,2163UHOLPLQDU\38'352-(&7180%(5'5$:1%<&+(&.('%<$0A1.03/(9(/3/$1%/&'/*&HQWUDO3DUN:HVW6W/RXLV3DUN01'/&5HVLGHQWLDO35(/,0,1$5<38'68%0,77$/ 1" = 50'-0"A1.01BP-P11R'HVFULSWLRQ'DWHCity Council Meeting of December 15, 2014 (Item No. 8a) Title: Central Park West Preliminary Plat & Preliminary PUD Page 51 6)+27(/6SDFHV/HYHO3DUNLQJ6SDFHVLobby6)3$5.,1*6)%56)%56)%56)%56)$OF6)%56)%56)$OF6)/REE\7UDVK6)%56)%56)%56)%56)%56)%56)%57UDVK5DPS'RZQWR3Outline of P1 Below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ity Council Meeting of December 15, 2014 (Item No. 8a) Title: Central Park West Preliminary Plat & Preliminary PUD Page 52 6)+RWHO6)$OF6)%56)%56)%56)%56)$OF6)%56)%56)%56)%56)$OF6)%56)%5'(16)$OF6)%5'(16)$OF6)%56)%56)%5'(16)%5'(16)%56)%56)%56)%56)%56)%56)$OF6)%56)%56)%56)%56)%56)%56)%56)%56)%56)%56)%5$PHQLW\6SDFHV/HYHO$PHQLW\7HUUDFH6)%56)%56)%56)%56)%56)%56)%5'(16)%56)$OF6)%56)%56)%56)%56)%56)%56)%5'(16)%5'(16)%56)%56)%56)$OF6)$OF6)%56)%56)%56)$OF6)$OF6)%56)%57UDVKTr6)%56)%56)%5Roof BelowHOQHVVVZHQVRQJUDKDPDUFKLWHFWVZDVKLQJWRQDYHQXHVRXWKPLQQHDSROLVPLQQHVRWDSIZZZHVJDUFKFRP,KHUHE\FHUWLI\WKDWWKLVGRFXPHQWZDVSUHSDUHGE\PHRUXQGHUP\GLUHFWVXSHUYLVLRQDQGWKDW,DPDGXO\OLFHQVHGDUFKLWHFWXQGHUWKHODZVRIWKH6WDWHRI0LQQHVRWD6LJQDWXUH7\SHGRU3ULQWHG1DPH/LFHQVH'DWH25,*,1$/,668(5(9,6,2163UHOLPLQDU\38'352-(&7180%(5'5$:1%<&+(&.('%<$0A1.27<3,&$/833(5/(9(/3/$1%/&'/*&HQWUDO3DUN:HVW6W/RXLV3DUN01'/&5HVLGHQWLDO35(/,0,1$5<38'68%0,77$/ 1" = 50'-0"A1.21LEVEL 2 1-1601R'HVFULSWLRQ'DWHCity Council Meeting of December 15, 2014 (Item No. 8a) Title: Central Park West Preliminary Plat & Preliminary PUD Page 53 ZĞƐŝĚĞŶƚŝĂůWŚĂƐĞ/DĞƚƌŝĐƐ>ŽďďǇ>ĞǀĞů hƐĞ dŽƚĂů'^& WĂƌŬŝŶŐ Ɖƚ'^& ŵĞŶŝƚǇ Z^& hŶŝƚƐ WĂƌŬŝŶŐ>ĞǀĞůWϭ WĂƌŬŝŶŐ ϳϭ͕ϲϬϱ ϳϭ͕ϲϬϱ ϭϵϴ>ĞǀĞůϭ WĂƌŬŝŶŐͬZĞƐ ϱϮ͕ϵϯϴ ϯϰ͕ϯϰϳ ϭϴ͕ϱϵϭ ϭϮ͕ϲϮϰ ϭϯ ϳϴ>ĞǀĞůϮ ƌĞƐŝĚĞŶƚŝĂů ϯϴ͕ϵϴϭ ϯϴ͕ϵϴϭ ϯϬ͕ϴϱϬ ϯϱ>ĞǀĞůϯ ƌĞƐŝĚĞŶƚŝĂů ϯϴ͕ϵϴϭ ϯϴ͕ϵϴϭ ϯϰ͕ϭϭϵ ϯϴ>ĞǀĞůϰ ƌĞƐŝĚĞŶƚŝĂů ϯϴ͕ϵϴϭ ϯϴ͕ϵϴϭ ϯϰ͕ϭϭϵ ϯϴ>ĞǀĞůϱ ƌĞƐŝĚĞŶƚŝĂů ϯϴ͕ϵϴϭ ϯϴ͕ϵϴϭ ϯϰ͕ϭϭϵ ϯϴ>ĞǀĞůϲ ƌĞƐŝĚĞŶƚŝĂů ϯϳ͕ϴϴϭ ϯϳ͕ϴϴϭ ϯϯ͕Ϭϭϵ ϯϳϯϭϴ͕ϯϰϴ ϭϬϱ͕ϵϱϮ ϮϭϮ͕ϯϵϲ ϭϳϴ͕ϴϱϬ ϭϵϵ ϮϳϲdĂŶĚĞŵWĂƌŬŝŶŐϭϲϮϵϮ>ĞǀĞů ůĐŽǀĞ ϭZϭZEϮZ ϮZE ϯZ ĞĚƐhŶŝƚƐ>ĞǀĞůWϭ>ĞǀĞůϭ Ϯ ϯ ϳ ϭ ϮϮϭϯ>ĞǀĞůϮ ϱ ϭϰϮϭϮ ϭ ϭ ϱϬϯϱ>ĞǀĞůϯ ϲ ϭϰϮϭϮ Ϯ Ϯ ϱϲϯϴ>ĞǀĞůϰ ϲ ϭϰϮϭϮ Ϯ Ϯ ϱϲϯϴ>ĞǀĞůϱ ϲ ϭϰϮϭϮ Ϯ Ϯ ϱϲϯϴ>ĞǀĞůϲ ϲ ϭϰϮϭϭ Ϯ Ϯ ϱϰϯϳdŽƚĂů ϯϭ ϳϯϭϬϲϲ ϵ ϭϬ Ϯϵϰϭϵϵй ϭϲй ϯϳй ϱй ϯϯй ϱй ϱйZĞƐŝĚĞŶƚŝĂůWŚĂƐĞϮDĞƚƌŝĐƐ>ŽďďǇ>ĞǀĞů hƐĞ dŽƚĂů'^& WĂƌŬŝŶŐ Ɖƚ'^& ŵĞŶŝƚǇ Z^& hŶŝƚƐ WĂƌŬŝŶŐ>ĞǀĞůWϭ WĂƌŬŝŶŐ ϱϲ͕ϳϱϮ ϱϲ͕ϳϱϮ ϭϱϲ>ĞǀĞůϭ WĂƌŬŝŶŐͬZĞƐ ϰϳ͕ϲϲϳ ϯϯ͕ϵϱϳ ϭϯ͕ϳϭϬ ϴ͕ϲϭϮ ϵ ϳϵ>ĞǀĞůϮ ƌĞƐŝĚĞŶƚŝĂů ϯϭ͕ϵϵϳ ϯϭ͕ϵϵϳ Ϯϰ͕ϯϱϯ Ϯϴ>ĞǀĞůϯ ƌĞƐŝĚĞŶƚŝĂů ϯϭ͕ϵϵϳ ϯϭ͕ϵϵϳ Ϯϴ͕ϬϯϬ ϯϮ>ĞǀĞůϰ ƌĞƐŝĚĞŶƚŝĂů ϯϭ͕ϵϵϳ ϯϭ͕ϵϵϳ Ϯϴ͕ϬϯϬ ϯϮ>ĞǀĞůϱ ƌĞƐŝĚĞŶƚŝĂů ϯϭ͕ϵϵϳ ϯϭ͕ϵϵϳ Ϯϴ͕ϬϯϬ ϯϮ>ĞǀĞůϲ ƌĞƐŝĚĞŶƚŝĂů ϯϬ͕ϴϴϴ ϯϬ͕ϴϴϴ Ϯϲ͕ϵϮϭ ϯϭϮϲϯ͕Ϯϵϱ ϵϬ͕ϳϬϵ ϭϳϮ͕ϱϴϲ ϭϰϯ͕ϵϳϲ ϭϲϰ ϮϯϱdĂŶĚĞŵWĂƌŬŝŶŐϬϮϯϱ>ĞǀĞů ůĐŽǀĞ ϭZ ϭZE ϮZϮZEϯZ ĞĚƐhŶŝƚƐ>ĞǀĞůWϭ>ĞǀĞůϭ ϭ ϴ ϭϳϵ>ĞǀĞůϮ ϱ ϭϮ ϭ ϴϮ ϰϬϮϴ>ĞǀĞůϯ ϱ ϭϯ ϯ ϵϮ ϰϱϯϮ>ĞǀĞůϰ ϱ ϭϯ ϯ ϵϮ ϰϱϯϮ>ĞǀĞůϱ ϱ ϭϯ ϯ ϵϮ ϰϱϯϮ>ĞǀĞůϲ ϱ ϭϯ ϯ ϴϮ ϰϯϯϭdŽƚĂů Ϯϱ ϲϰ ϭϯ ϱϭϭϬ Ϯϯϱϭϲϰй ϭϲй ϯϵй ϴй ϯϭйϲйĞĐĞŵďĞƌϬϭ͕ϮϬϭϰ^'hŶŝƚŝƐƚƌŝďƵƚŝŽŶ^ƵŵŵĂƌǇhŶŝƚŝƐƚƌŝďƵƚŝŽŶ^ƵŵŵĂƌǇCity Council Meeting of December 15, 2014 (Item No. 8a) Title: Central Park West Preliminary Plat & Preliminary PUD Page 54 6310TITLE SHEETCONSTRUCTION PLANS FORCENTRAL PARK WEST - UTICA AVENUEIMPROVEMENTSST. LOUIS PARK / GOLDEN VALLEY, MINNESOTAPREPARED FOR:DLC RESIDENTIALCity Council Meeting of December 15, 2014 (Item No. 8a) Title: Central Park West Preliminary Plat & Preliminary PUD Page 55 WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWSEE ON-SITE PLANSFOR SITE REMOVALS44111122223333666772235899566666330EXISTINGCONDITIONS &REMOVALS PLAN1KEYNOTE LEGENDREMOVE BITUMINOUS PAVEMENTREMOVE CONCRETE PAVEMENTREMOVE CURB AND GUTTEREXISTING SIGN TO BE REMOVEDREFERENCE LANDSCAPE PRESERVATIONPLAN FOR REMOVAL OF EXISTING TREESSAWCUT PAVEMENTEXISTING LIGHT POLE TO BE REMOVEDEXISTING HYDRANT TO BE REMOVED &RELOCATED. COORDINATE WITH OWNER.REMOVE, SALVAGE AND RELOCATEDIRECTIONAL MONUMENT SIGN2345678LEGENDPROPERTY LINE / ROWCITY LIMIT LINEEXISTING CURB AND GUTTEREXISTING CURB AND GUTTER TO BE REMOVEDEXISTING BUILDINGEXISTING STORM SEWEREXISTING STORM CATCH BASIN / MANHOLEEXISTING SANITARY SEWEREXISTING SANITARY MANHOLEEXISTING WATERMAINEXISTING FIRE HYDRANTEXISTING GATE VALVEEXISTING GAS LINEEXISTING CHAIN LINK FENCEEXISTING CHAIN LINK FENCE TO BE REMOVEDEXISTING LIGHT POLEEXISTING LIGHT POLE TO BE REMOVEDEXISTING SIGNBITUMINOUS PAVEMENT TO BE REMOVEDCONCRETE PAVEMENT TO BE REMOVEDUTILITY TO BE ABANDONEDUTILITY TO BE REMOVEDEXISTING TREE TO BE REMOVEDGENERAL NOTES1. ALL WORK SHALL BE PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK& GOLDEN VALLEY SPECIFICATIONS AND BUILDING PERMIT REQUIREMENTS. WORKWITHIN WAYZATA BOULEVARD WILL REQUIRE A MNDOT ROW/UTILITY PERMIT.2. CONTRACT SHALL HAVE ALL UNDERGROUND PUBLIC AND PRIVATE UTILITIES LOCATEDPRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION.3. CONTRACTOR SHALL REMOVE ALL LANDSCAPING WITHIN REMOVAL AREA.CONTRACTOR SHALL PROTECT EXISTING VEGETATION AND SITE FEATURES, WITHAPPROVED METHODS AND MATERIALS, WHICH ARE TO REMAIN. ALL SITE FEATURESDAMAGED BY CONTRACTOR THAT ARE NOT DESIGNATED REMOVAL SHALL BEREPAIRED/REPLACED BY CONTRACTOR AT THEIR OWN EXPENSE.4. CONTRACTOR SHALL FIELD VERIFY THE LOCATIONS AND ELEVATIONS OF EXISTINGUTILITIES AND TOPOGRAPHIC FEATURES, SUCH AS EXISTING GUTTER GRADES AT THEPROPOSED DRIVEWAYS, PRIOR TO THE START OF SITE GRADING.5. CONTRACTOR SHALL IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY THE ENGINEER OF ANY DISCREPANCIES ORVARIATIONS FROM THE PLANS.6. ALL PAVEMENT, CURB & GUTTER TO BE REMOVED SHALL BE SAWCUT AT REMOVALLIMITS OR NEAREST JOINT.7. UTILITIES NOT MARKED FOR REMOVAL SHALL BE PROTECTED FROM DAMAGE DURINGCONSTRUCTION. THIS WORK SHALL BE INCIDENTAL TO CONTRACT.8. STREET SHALL BE SWEPT IN ACCORDANCE WITH CITY REQUIREMENTS.9. COORDINATE REMOVALS OF PRIVATE UTILITIES WITH UTILITY COMPANIES.10. CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE A TRAFFIC CONTROL PLAN APPROVED BY THE CITYPRIOR TO COMMENCING ANY WORK WITHIN THE CITY ROW.11. ALL TRUNK LINES OR SERVICE LINES TO BE REMOVED SHALL BE PLUGGED AT MAIN.12. CONTRACTOR TO SEAL AND GROUT OPENINGS ABANDONED AT EXISTINGDISCONNECTS13. CONCRETE CRUSHING OF BUILDING MATERIALS IS ALLOWED ON-SITE. HOURS OFOPERATION SHALL BE LIMITED TO 7:00AMTO 7:00PM. CONCRETE TO BE REUSED ASAGGREGATE BASE SHALL CONFORM TO THE MNDOT SPECIFICATION FOR WHICHMATERIAL WILL BE USED.14. CONSTRUCTION LIMITS TO BE THE PROPERTY LINE UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE.CONTRACTOR TO REMOVE ITEMS WITHIN CONSTRUCTION LIMITS AS SHOWN ON THEPLANS AND DIRECTED PER THE OWNERS REPRESENTATIVE.15. EXISTING WATERMAIN TO BE ABANDONED IS TO BE CAPPED AT THE MAIN AND BULKHEADED.9City Council Meeting of December 15, 2014 (Item No. 8a) Title: Central Park West Preliminary Plat & Preliminary PUD Page 56 12345678910111213141516ABCDEFGHIK1KEYNOTE LEGENDSTOP SIGN R1-1 (30" X 30")STOP ALL WAY R1-4 (12"X6")NO PARKING FIRE LANE R7-22 (12"X18")THRU - LEFT R3-6L (30"X36")THRU - RIGHT R3-6R (30"X36")LEFT ONLY R3-5L (30"X36")RIGHT ONLY R3-5R (30"X36")ONE WAY RIGHT R6-2L (18"X24")MEDIAN R4-7 (24"X30")2345678LEGENDPROPERTY LINE / ROWCITY LIMIT LINEPROPOSED CURB AND GUTTEREXISTING CURB AND GUTTEREXISTING BUILDINGSIGN96340SITE PLANALL WAYR1-1R1-4R3-6LR3-6RR3-5LR3-5RR6-2LFIRELANER7-22R4-7SITE PLAN NOTES1. ALL PAVEMENT STRIPING SHALL BE EPOXY WITH BEADS AND ADHERE TO THE CITY OFST. LOUIS PARK STANDARDS. ALL PAVEMENT ARROWS AND CROSSWALKS SHALL BEPOLY PREFORMED, PAVE-MARK, STA-MARK, OR APPROVED EQUAL.2. A PRECONSTRUCTION MEETING MUST BE HELD BY THE CONTRACTOR, DEVELOPER,AND THE CITY TO ENSURE ALL CONCERNS ARE ADDRESSED.3. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL ADHERE TO ALL CITY NOISE ORDINANCES. WORK WILL BELIMITED TO THE HOURS OF 7:00AM TO 9:00PM ON WEEKDAYS AND 9:00AM TO 9:00PM ONWEEKENDS.4. THE SITE SHALL BE KEPT FREE OF DUST AND DEBRIS THAT COULD BLOW ONTONEIGHBORING PROPERTIES.5. CONTRACTOR SHALL MONITOR DUST AND NOISE LEVELS AT THE PERIMETER OF THESITE AND SHALL REPORT THE RESULTS TO THE OWNER AND THE CITY.City Council Meeting of December 15, 2014 (Item No. 8a) Title: Central Park West Preliminary Plat & Preliminary PUD Page 57 6350STREET PROFILE&STORMSEWERPLANLEGENDPROPERTY LINE / ROWCITY LIMIT LINEEXISTING MAJOR CONTOUREXISTING MINOR CONTOURPROPOSED MAJOR CONTOURPROPOSED MINOR CONTOURPROPOSED STORM SEWERPROPOSED STORM SEWER MH/CBEXISTING CURB AND GUTTEREXISTING BUILDINGEXISTING STORM SEWEREXISTING STORM CATCH BASIN / MANHOLECity Council Meeting of December 15, 2014 (Item No. 8a) Title: Central Park West Preliminary Plat & Preliminary PUD Page 58 SEECENTRALPARKWESTPLANSWWWWWWWWWALERTTOCONTRACTOR:ALLMANHOLESARETOBELOCATEDOUTSIDEOFVEHICLEDRIVINGLANESONUTICA6360UTILITY PLAN &PROFILELEGENDPROPERTY LINE / ROWCITY LIMIT LINEPROPOSED STORM SEWERPROPOSED STORM SEWER MH/CBEXISTING STORM SEWEREXISTING STORM SEWER MH/CBPROPOSED SANITARY SEWEREXISTING SANITARY SEWERPROPOSED WATERMAINEXISTING WATERMAINEXISTING GAS MAINEXISTING CURB AND GUTTEREXISTING BUILDINGCity Council Meeting of December 15, 2014 (Item No. 8a) Title: Central Park West Preliminary Plat & Preliminary PUD Page 59 SWWWW W6361UTILITY PLAN &PROFILELEGENDPROPERTY LINE / ROWCITY LIMIT LINEPROPOSED STORM SEWERPROPOSED STORM SEWER MH/CBEXISTING STORM SEWEREXISTING STORM SEWER MH/CBPROPOSED SANITARY SEWEREXISTING SANITARY SEWERPROPOSED WATERMAINEXISTING WATERMAINEXISTING GAS MAINEXISTING CURB AND GUTTEREXISTING BUILDINGCity Council Meeting of December 15, 2014 (Item No. 8a) Title: Central Park West Preliminary Plat & Preliminary PUD Page 60 UTICAAVENUEWAYZAYTABOULEVARDLIMITSOFIRRIGATION6400LANDSCAPE &LIGHTING PLANLEGEND:ROW / PROPERTY LINELIMITS OF IRRIGATIONPROPOSED STREET/PARKING LIGHT ON 25' HIGHPOLE - 400 W HIGH PRESSURE SODIUMEXISTING TREES1. ALL BRANCHES LOWER THAN 8' ON PROPOSED TREES SHALL BE PRUNED2. ALL MEDIAN PLANTINGS SHALL BE A MAXIMUM 2' HEIGHT3. VERIFY ALL LANDSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS WITH REMOVALS AND SITEWORK.4. ALL DISTURBED LANDSCAPED AREAS, NOT INDICATED AS PLANTING BEDS, ARETO BE SODDED. SOD IS TO BE PRIMARILY KENTUCKY BLUEGRASS, FREE OFLAWN GRASS AND WEEDS. REPLACE DAMAGED LAWN GRASS WITH SOD ASDIRECTED BY ON-SITE REPRESENTATIVE. MATCH ALL PROPOSED LANDSCAPEDAREAS INTO EXISTING.5. CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY PLANTS REQUIRED AS REFLECTED ON PLAN.6. ALL LANDSCAPE AREAS SHALL HAVE TOPSOIL PLACED AT MINIMUM DEPTH OF4" FOR SOD AREAS, 12" FOR SHRUB/PERENNIAL/ANNUAL BEDS, AND 24" FORTREE AREAS.7. SINGLE TREE AND SHRUB PLANTINGS SHALL HAVE A 4" DEPTH SHREDDEDHARDWOOD MULCH RING AROUND EACH BASE. TREES SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM3' DIAMETER RING.8. SHREDDED HARDWOOD MULCH SHALL BE A MINIMUM OF 4" IN DEPTH, FREE OFALL DELETERIOUS MATERIAL AND LOCATED IN ALL LANDSCAPE BEDS.9. EXISTING TREES AND SHRUBS TO REMAIN, THROUGHOUT THE PROPERTY,SHALL BE PRUNED TO REMOVE DEAD OR UNDESIRABLE LIMBS AND TO SHAPEPLANT FOR DESIRABLE APPEARANCE. PROTECT EXISTING TREES.10. CONTRACTOR TO DISPOSE OF ALL REMOVALS OFF-SITE. SEE EXISTINGCONDITIONS & REMOVALS PLAN FOR MORE INFORMATION.11. CONTRACTOR TO WATER PLANT MATERIAL DURING INSTALLATION AND FOR A60 DAY ESTABLISHMENT PERIOD. VOLUME OF WATER TO BE PER PLANTREQUIREMENT FOR ESTABLISHMENT AND NORMAL GROWTH.12. CONTRACTOR TO WARRANTY NEW SOD FOR 60 DAYS AND NEW PLANTINGSFOR ONE YEAR UPON PROJECT COMPLETION.13. IRRIGATE WITH AUTOMATIC UNDERGROUND IRRIGATION SYSTEM AT ALLPLANTED AREAS WITHIN LIMITS AS SHOWN. SYSTEM SHALL BE COMPLETE.CONTRACTOR TO PROVIDE SHOP DRAWINGS FOR LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTSAPPROVAL.City Council Meeting of December 15, 2014 (Item No. 8a) Title: Central Park West Preliminary Plat & Preliminary PUD Page 61 Meeting: City Council Meeting Date: December 15, 2014 Action Agenda Item: 8b EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: 2015 Budget, Final City and HRA Property Tax Levies, and 2015 – 2024 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) RECOMMENDED ACTION: • Motion to Adopt Resolution approving the 2014 Amended General Fund Budget, 2015 Budgets and 2015 Final Property Tax Levy. • Motion to Adopt Resolution authorizing the 2015 Final HRA Levy. • Motion to Adopt Resolution approving the 2015 - 2024 Capital Improvement Program. POLICY CONSIDERATION: • Does the City Council desire to approve the 2014 Amended General Fund Budget, 2015 Budgets for General, Enterprise, Internal Service, Special Revenue, and select Capital Projects Funds? • Does the City Council desire to set the 2015 Final Property Tax Levy at $26,985,377 which is an increase of $1,407,469 or approximately 5.50% over the 2014 Final Tax Levy? • Does the City Council desire to levy the maximum HRA Levy allowed of $953,238 which is an increase of $3,879 or approximately 0.41% over the 2014 Final HRA Levy? • Does the City Council desire to approve the 2015 – 2024 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP)? SUMMARY: Information pertaining to the adoption of the 2014 Amended General Fund Budget, 2015 Budgets, 2015 General Property Tax Levy, 2015 HRA Levy, and 2015 – 2024 CIP is attached. Also provided is the City tax impact to a residential property for Council to consider. In addition, there is a brief discussion on 2015 utility rates and franchise fees that were approved on October 20, 2014, and the overall impact to property owners when considering the City share of property taxes and fee adjustments. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: The proposed tax levies and approved utility rates will help support necessary City services, capital improvements, and debt service obligations for Fiscal Year 2015. VISION CONSIDERATION: All Vision areas are taken into consideration and are an important part of the City’s budgeting process. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: 1) Discussion 2) Resolution - Adopting 2014 Final Amended General Fund Budget, 2015 Budgets and 2015 Final Property Tax Levy 3) Resolution - Authorizing the 2015 Final HRA Levy 4) Resolution – Adopting the 2015 – 2024 Capital Improvement Plan 5) 2015 – 2024 CIP Projects by Funding Source Summary 6) 2015 – 2024 CIP Projects and Funding Sources by Dept. Prepared by: Brian A. Swanson, Controller Reviewed by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager City Council Meeting of December 15, 2014 (Item No. 8b) Page 2 Title: 2015 Budget, Final Property Tax Levies (City & HRA) and 2015 - 2024CIP DISCUSSION BACKGROUND: On June 23, 2014, staff met with the City Council to discuss the 2015 Budget Process. Council indicated that staff should follow recommendations from the “2015 Budget Production Guidelines” when preparing the 2015 Budget. Assumptions for the 2015 Budget included a pattern similar to past years; 1) a levy increase, 2) modest increase in other fees and charges where appropriate to fit with business costs, 3) maintain high quality and responsive service delivery, 4) hold expenditures flat where possible with adjustments for some modest growth based on essential business needs, 5) funding for a wage and benefit contribution increase, 6) utility rate increases, and 7) continued long range financial planning. At the August 25, 2014, City Council Study Session, the City Council reviewed information from the staff report and subsequently directed staff to prepare a 2015 Preliminary Property Tax Levy increase of 5.50% when compared to the 2014 Final Property Tax Levy. In addition, the City Council directed staff to proceed with preparing the 2015 Preliminary HRA Levy at the maximum allowed by state statute, due to the significant infrastructure projects currently in progress and scheduled per the 2015 – 2024 Capital Improvement Plan. Council also directed staff to proceed with franchise fee and utility rate adjustments, which were brought back and approved by the City Council on October 20, 2014, and subsequently, will be in effect in 2015. On September 15th, the City Council adopted the 2015 Preliminary Property Tax Levy of $26,985,377, which is approximately 5.50% or $1,407,469 over the 2014 Final Property Tax Levy. This levy is utilized to support the operations of the General Fund, Capital Replacement Fund, Park Improvement Fund, Sidewalk and Trails Fund, Employee Administration Fund and Housing Rehabilitation Fund. In addition, the levy will provide for the pay down of principal and interest payments for the Debt Service Funds. In addition that evening the EDA and City Council approved the 2015 Preliminary HRA Levy of $953,238, which is approximately 0.41% or $3,879 over the 2014 Final HRA Levy. By law, this levy can only be used for infrastructure, housing and redevelopment purposes. On October 13th, the City Council reviewed and discussed the 2015 Proposed Budget, property tax levies, property tax implications, the 2015 – 2024 Capital Improvement Program (CIP), Long Range Financial Management Plan (LRFMP), and utility rates. Based on this discussion, the City Council directed staff to proceed with presenting information on December 1st based on a 5.50% property tax levy increase when compared to 2014 Final Property Tax Levy. Based on the outcome of the budget presentation and the Truth in Taxation Public Hearing, council directed staff to proceed with the budgets and tax levies as proposed. Therefore, formal adoption of the 2014 Final Amended Budget, 2015 Budget, 2015 Final Levy adoption for the City and HRA levies, and the 2015 – 2024 Capital Improvement Plan are scheduled for this evening. 2014 City Final Levy and 2015 Proposed Levies and General Fund Budget Information A synopsis of prior year levy information, the 2015 Proposed Levies and General Fund Budget information is shown below: 1. The 2014 Final Levy was $25,577,908, which was 3.50% or $864,967 more than 2013. 2. The 2015 Preliminary Property Tax Levy adopted on September 15, 2014 was $26,985,377, which is approximately 5.50% or $1,407,469 more than the 2014 Final Lev y. City Council Meeting of December 15, 2014 (Item No. 8b) Page 3 Title: 2015 Budget, Final Property Tax Levies (City & HRA) and 2015 - 2024CIP 3. The Proposed 2015 General Fund Budget is $32,624,438, which is an increase of approximately 7.22% or $2,196,816 compared to the 2014 Final Amended. 4. The 2015 Preliminary HRA Levy adopted on September 15, 2014, is $953,238, which is an increase of approximately 0.41% or $3,879 compared to the 2014 Final HRA Levy. The proposed breakdown of the Proposed Property Tax Levy by fund is shown below: 2014 2015 Dollar Change Percent Change Final Preliminary From 2014 From 2014 TAX CAPACITY BASED TAX LEVY General Fund $21,157,724 $22,364,509 1,206,785$ 5.70% Debt Service 1,422,477 1,423,161 684 0.05% Capital Replacement Fund 1,342,700 1,442,700 100,000 7.45% Park Improvement Fund 810,000 810,000 - 0.00% Sidewalk and Trails Fund 645,007 645,007 - 0.00% Employee Administration Fund 200,000 200,000 - 0.00% Housing Rehabilitation Fund - 100,000 100,000 N/A TOTAL TAX LEVIES $25,577,908 $26,985,377 $1,407,469 5.50% The 2015 Proposed Property Tax Levy increase of 5.50% is consistent with the information the City Council adopted on September 15, 2014 and with the information presented on October 13, 2014 and at the Truth in Taxation Public Hearing December 1, 2014. Proposed Property Tax Levy Increases of Neighboring Communities - Minnetonka 2.90% - Hopkins 5.39% - Golden Valley 6.40% - Edina 8.18% Fiscal Disparities The City received its final figures regarding fiscal disparities, and for 2015 the City will be a net tax capacity contributor of $3,879,478, which is $208,991, or approximately 5.7% more than 2014’s net contribution of $3,670,487. Being a net contributor to the fiscal disparities pool reduces the City’s overall net tax capacity, thereby resulting in a higher tax rate for property owners in St. Louis Park. The City has seen significant increases in its net contribution to the fiscal disparities pool over the last 5 years related to the development and redevelopment of its commercial sector of property. This significant activity resulted in nearly steady or slight increases in the overall valuation of the commercial sector of property in St. Louis Park. As many other participants in the fiscal disparities program saw declines in the valuation of their commercial property sector, St. Louis Park then held a larger share of the commercial sector market related to the fiscal disparities pool, and as such, was required to contribute a larger share to the program. This means that St. Louis Park fared much better during this economic turndown than many of the other participants in the fiscal disparities program, which is why the City’s net contribution has increased significantly over the last 5 years. City Council Meeting of December 15, 2014 (Item No. 8b) Page 4 Title: 2015 Budget, Final Property Tax Levies (City & HRA) and 2015 - 2024CIP 2015 Proposed HRA Levy This levy was originally implemented in St. Louis Park due to legislative changes in 2001 which significantly reduced future tax increment revenues. The City Council elected at that time to use the levy proceeds for future infrastructure improvements in redevelopment areas. Thus far, some of the HRA Levy proceeds have been used to fund infrastructure studies for future improvement projects and are currently beginning to pay for the City’s share of Highway 7 and Louisiana. By law these funds could also be used for other housing and redevelopment purposes, but they are committed to funding Highway 7 and Louisiana until 2021 based on the current Long Range Financial Management Plan. Given the significant infrastructure needs facing the City in the future, particularly transportation infrastructure needs, staff recommends the HRA Levy continue at the maximum allowed by law for the 2015 budget year. The HRA Levy cannot exceed 0.0185% of the estimated market value of the City. Therefore, staff has calculated the maximum HRA Levy for 2015 to be $953,238 based on data from Hennepin County which is a $3,879 increase or approximately 0.41% from the 2014 HRA Levy of $949,359. This amount has also been verified by Hennepin County. The EDA, as well as the City Council, is required to approve this levy. 2015 Budgets Monday night the City Council will consider a resolution for adoption that includes summary budget data for the General, Enterprise, Internal Service, Special Revenue, and select Capital Projects Funds. These summaries are consistent with previous years, as staff thought it was important to continue showing a more comprehensive picture of the resources the City is entrusted with and, subsequently, have the City Council formally adopt these budgets. Therefore, the total expenditures that the City Council adopts for budget purposes is approximately $65.06 million, with $32.63 million or 50.15% attributed to the General Fund with the remaining $32.43 million or 49.85% attributed to the other funds. In addition, the City Council will be adopting a 2014 Final Amended Budget for the General Fund. 2015 – 2024 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) The City Council reviewed the 2015 – 2024 CIP at study sessions throughout the 2015 Budget process. The CIP will continue to have aggressive infrastructure construction. This is evident with the Highway 7 and Louisiana Avenue interchange project that began in 2013, Highway 100 improvements that began in late 2014, and aggressive work on city owned utility infrastructure. In addition, continued investment in the regular cycle of street reconstruction projects and the replacement of existing vehicles and equipment is occurring. Therefore, it is vital that careful planning continues to occur in an effort to maintain financial stability while still investing in capital. The 2015 – 2024 CIP shows that: • $184 million in planned investment over the next ten years • $167 million of these costs are being paid for from sources or revenue streams the City has direct control of such as cash on hand, tax levy dollars, utility rates, future bonding, etc. • $17 million of this is planned as non-City resources such as federal, and state government, Municipal State Aid (MSA), (not all of these dollars have been committed by these entities). Also, $6.8 million of CIP projects do not have an identified funding source. There are some significant potential projects and costs not included in the proposed 2015 - 2024 Capital Improvement Plan due to either not being firm commitments, or the costs are too broad City Council Meeting of December 15, 2014 (Item No. 8b) Page 5 Title: 2015 Budget, Final Property Tax Levies (City & HRA) and 2015 - 2024CIP to accurately make an estimate on City resources by showing a funding source. Some of the significant items are: 1) SWLRT Infrastructure Needs 2) Community Center 3) Westwood Hills Nature Center upgrade to facilities 4) I-394 Ramp/CD Road Improvements 5) Excelsior Blvd. – Louisiana to western City limit Information regarding costs for these projects and quite a few others are being assembled, as well as possible ways to fund them, will be presented to the Council in 2015. Only those projects included in the CIP for 2015 are authorized during the next year. Years 2016 - 2024 are for planning purposes only and do not in all cases represent a firm commitment to construct or purchase any specific assets until authorized by the City Council. Any projects estimated to cost more than $100,000 will be formally bid and brought back for acceptance by the City Council. Utility Funds The changes in utility rates for 2015 were formally adopted by the City Council on October 20, 2014 for consumption or services provided beginning on January 1, 2015. These rates are consistent with the goal of achieving long-term sustainability in the funds. Detailed information is included in the attachment “2015 Proposed Rates – Impact on a Residential Property”. For 2015, the approximate cumulative effect on a typical residential property for all the utility rate adjustments would be an increase of $45 per year, or approximately $3.75 per month. This equates to an approximate 4.59% overall increase in utility rates for 2015 when compared to 2014. This calculation is based on a family of four using 30 units of water per quarter (22,500 gallons), and 60 gallon solid waste service which is consistent with prior scenarios presented. Franchise Fees In the past, Council has directed staff to consider franchise fee adjustments every other year. Based on the City’s schedule, those occur in odd numbered years. Therefore, in 2015, based on analysis within the Pavement Management Fund, Council directed staff to move forward with a franchise fee increase for customers of CenterPoint Energy and Xcel Energy. For a residential customer, staff is recommending an increase of $0.75 per utility, or $18 per year. The total fee for a residential customer would be $3.25 per utility per month. Based on this increase and increases in other customer classes, revenues would increase by approximately $700,000 within the Pavement Management Fund. These increases were approved by the City Council on October 20, 2014, effective in 2015. Estimated City Impact for 2015 on Taxes, Utilities and Franchise Fees Based on a 5.50% levy increase, and realizing there are many variables in estimating the City impact on a residential homestead property, a “typical” property in St. Louis Park valued at approximately $217,600 for taxes payable in 2015, having typical utilities and franchise fee increases as discussed earlier in the report, would experience an overall increase of approximately $9.67 per month or approximately $116 for the entire year. Of this estimated $115 increase, approximately $53 would be attributed to the City’s share of property taxes, $45 to utility rate adjustments, and $18 to franchise fees. City Council Meeting of December 15, 2014 (Item No. 8b) Page 6 Title: 2015 Budget, Final Property Tax Levies (City & HRA) and 2015 - 2024CIP RESOLUTION NO. 14-____ RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE 2014 FINAL AMENDED GENERAL FUND BUDGET, 2015 BUDGETS AND AUTHORIZING THE 2015 FINAL PROPERTY TAX LEVY WHEREAS, The City of St. Louis Park is required by Charter and State law to approve a resolution setting forth an annual tax levy to the Hennepin County Auditor; and WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes currently in force require approval of a property tax levy and a budget in December of each year; and WHEREAS, the City Council has received the budget document; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park that the 2014 Final Amended General Fund Budget and 2015 Budgets are adopted as presented in the 2015 budget document; and General Fund Summary of Budgeted Revenues 2014 2014 2015 Dollar Chng.% Change Adopted Final Adopted Final to Adop.Final to '15 AVAILABLE RESOURCES General Fund Revenues: General Property Taxes 21,157,724$ 21,157,724$ 22,364,509$ 1,206,785 5.70% Licenses and Permits 2,691,518 2,691,518 3,248,158 556,640 20.68% Intergovernmental 1,282,777 1,282,777 1,292,277 9,500 0.74% Charges for Services 1,857,718 1,857,718 1,907,292 49,574 2.67% Fines, Forfeits, and Penalties 320,150 320,150 320,200 50 0.02% Investment Earnings 150,000 150,000 140,000 (10,000) -6.67% Miscellaneous Revenue 1,130,319 1,130,319 1,500,243 369,924 32.73% Transfers In 1,837,416 1,837,416 1,851,759 14,343 0.78% Total General Fund Revenues:30,427,622$ 30,427,622$ 32,624,438$ 2,196,816 7.22% General Fund Summary of Budgeted Expenditures 2014 2014 2015 Dollar Chng. % Change Adopted Final Adopted Final to Adop.Final to '15 General Government 7,703,975 7,813,097 8,271,762 458,665 5.87% Public Safety 13,035,676 13,035,676 14,373,278 1,337,602 10.26% Operations and Recreation 9,356,187 9,378,989 9,801,414 422,425 4.50% Non-Departmental 331,784 199,860 177,984 (21,876) -10.95% Total General Fund 30,427,622$ 30,427,622$ 32,624,438$ 2,196,816 7.22% City Council Meeting of December 15, 2014 (Item No. 8b) Page 7 Title: 2015 Budget, Final Property Tax Levies (City & HRA) and 2015 - 2024CIP 2014 2015 Final Proposed HRA Levy Fund Total HRA Levy Revenues 953,580$ 953,238$ Total HRA Levy Expenditures 5,271,369 3,079,980 Cable TV Fund Total Cable TV Revenues 587,215 666,000 Total Cable TV Expenditures 686,590 811,967 Development Fund Total Development Fund Revenues 583,588 3,221,149 Total Development Fund Expenditures 1,099,073 2,578,759 CDBG Fund Total CDBG Revenues 195,859 199,308 Total CDBG Expenditures 195,859 199,308 Housing Rehabilitation Fund Total Housing Rehab Revenues 1,562,798 1,312,624 Total Housing Rehab Expenditures 882,842 783,802 Water Utility Fund Total Water Revenues 6,528,341 6,047,498 Total Water Expenses 4,486,661 6,883,012 Sewer Utility Fund Total Sewer Revenues 6,386,475 6,264,288 Total Sewer Expenses 5,564,654 7,678,139 Solid Waste Utility Fund Total Solid Waste Revenues 3,174,289 3,266,600 Total Solid Waste Expenses 3,222,044 3,236,902 Storm Water Utility Fund Total Storm Water Revenues 2,269,036 2,493,275 Total Storm Water Expenses 7,539,447 6,024,656 Employee Administration Fund Total Employee Benefits Revenues 555,567 597,660 Total Employee Benefits Expenses 1,065,250 981,400 Uninsured Loss Fund Total Uninsured Loss Revenues 187,894 183,400 Total Uninsured Loss Expenses 171,865 172,499 Enterprise, Internal Service, Special Revenue Summary of Budgeted Revenues and Expenditures and Select Capital Project Funds City Council Meeting of December 15, 2014 (Item No. 8b) Page 8 Title: 2015 Budget, Final Property Tax Levies (City & HRA) and 2015 - 2024CIP BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Hennepin County, Minnesota, that the following sums of money be levied in 2014, collectible in 2015 upon the taxable property in said City of St. Louis Park for the following purposes: 2015 FINAL TAX LEVY 2015 TAX CAPACITY BASED TAX LEVY General Fund $22,364,509 Debt Service 1,423,161 Capital Replacement Fund 1,442,700 Park Improvement Fund 810,000 Sidewalks and Trails Fund 645,007 Employee Administration Fund 200,000 Housing Rehabilitation Fund 100,000 TOTAL 2015 TAX CAPACITY BASED TAX LEVY $26,985,377 Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council December 15, 2014 City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk City Council Meeting of December 15, 2014 (Item No. 8b) Page 9 Title: 2015 Budget, Final Property Tax Levies (City & HRA) and 2015 - 2024CIP RESOLUTION NO. 14-____ RESOLUTION APPROVING THE 2015 FINAL HRA LEVY WHEREAS, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.090 to 469.108 (the “EDA Act”), the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park created the St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority (the "Authority"); and WHEREAS, pursuant to the EDA Act, the City Council granted to the Authority all of the powers and duties of a housing and redevelopment authority under the provisions of the Minnesota Statutes, sections 469.001 to 469.047 (the "HRA Act"); and WHEREAS, Section 469.033, subdivision 6 of the Act authorizes the Authority to levy a tax upon all taxable property within the City to be expended for the purposes authorized by the HRA Act; and WHEREAS, such levy may be in an amount not to exceed 0.0185 percent of taxable market value of the City; and WHEREAS, for 2015, the Final HRA Levy amount will be $953,238; and WHEREAS, the Authority has filed its budget for the special benefit levy in accordance with the budget procedures of the City; and WHEREAS, based upon such budgets the Authority will levy all or such portion of the authorized levy as it deems necessary and proper; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the St. Louis Park City Council: 1. That approval is hereby given for the Authority to levy, for taxes payable in 2015, such tax upon the taxable property of the City as the Authority may determine, subject to the limitations contained in the HRA Act. Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council December 15, 2014 City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk City Council Meeting of December 15, 2014 (Item No. 8b) Page 10 Title: 2015 Budget, Final Property Tax Levies (City & HRA) and 2015 - 2024CIP RESOLUTION NO. 14-____ RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE 2015 - 2024 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota has received a report from the Controller related to proposed capital spending for 2015 - 2024; and WHEREAS, it is necessary for the city to maintain and replace its capital stock in order to enhance the city’s attractiveness to residents and businesses; and WHEREAS, good planning is a necessary part of the stewardship that the City Council and staff exercise over the physical plant of the city; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, MN, that: 1. The 2015 - 2024 Capital Improvements Program is hereby adopted. 2. The City Manager is authorized to purchase or undertake the items included in the fiscal year 2015 funded portion of the plan as allowed by the City Charter and state statutes. 3. All purchases required to be competitively bid must come before the City Council for final approval. Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council December 15, 2014 City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk Capital Improvement Program City of St. Louis Park, MN FUNDING SOURCE SUMMARY 2015 2024thru Total20152016201720182019Source20202021202220232024 Cable TV - Time Warner Equipment Grant 768,700222,800 156,550 10,250 14,100 79,600 285,400 Capital Replacement Fund 33,405,6794,099,049 3,447,847 3,208,942 4,651,430 2,605,386 2,944,610 2,304,871 3,917,462 3,702,390 2,523,692 E-911 Funds 450,00015,000 15,000 90,000 15,000 85,000 15,000 15,000 95,000 15,000 90,000 EDA Development Fund 705,000475,000 185,000 45,000 G.O. Bonds 26,917,5003,621,000 1,185,000 1,323,000 5,062,000 6,314,000 5,747,000 1,913,000 1,052,500 100,000 600,000 Housing Authority 60,00060,000 HRA Levy 1,012,5421,012,542 Municipal State Aid 8,112,2002,029,000 696,700 854,100 1,232,400 327,600 778,600 586,700 535,700 535,700 535,700 Park Improvement Fund 16,856,0001,642,000 5,681,500 1,659,500 1,365,500 1,011,000 1,135,000 1,052,000 867,500 1,040,000 1,402,000 Pavement Management Fund 22,160,8002,020,500 2,709,500 1,979,200 2,042,800 2,106,400 2,135,500 2,198,000 2,257,700 2,326,300 2,384,900 Permanent Improvement Revolving Fund 198,000198,000 Police & Fire Pension 3,132,000305,000 720,000 10,000 129,500 156,500 32,000 33,000 150,000 106,500 1,489,500 PW Engineering Budget 271,750203,750 65,000 3,000 PW Operations Budget 3,679,013347,518 356,388 361,458 330,105 381,047 345,508 341,989 401,000 455,500 358,500 Reilly Industries 17,50017,500 Sanitary Sewer Utility 10,267,6702,122,333 1,876,333 708,333 736,333 776,333 841,001 790,001 779,001 809,001 829,001 Solid Waste Utility 110,00045,000 10,000 45,000 10,000 Special Assessments 2,621,700110,000 326,000 350,000 565,700 70,000 1,200,000 State of Minnesota 1,260,000220,000 1,040,000 Stormwater Utility 13,424,4034,449,000 2,568,667 1,388,867 690,967 664,067 533,167 1,518,267 520,367 801,467 289,567 Tax Increment - Elmwood 3,631,509605,000 3,026,509 Tax Increment Financing 75,00075,000 U.S. Government 800,000800,000 Unfunded 6,815,00065,000 200,000 200,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 6,050,000 Water Utility 27,280,6602,654,083 3,772,332 1,236,582 1,849,332 1,156,832 3,198,999 3,888,000 2,394,000 2,456,000 4,674,500 25,509,033 23,896,817 14,255,232 23,879,218 15,726,765 184,032,626GRAND TOTAL 18,131,785 14,690,828 13,020,230 12,467,858 22,454,860 Thursday, December 04, 2014 City Council Meeting of December 15, 2014 (Item No. 8b) Title: 2015 Budget, Final Property Tax Levies (City & HRA) and 2015 - 2024 CIP Page 11 Capital Improvement Program City of St. Louis Park, MN PROJECTS & FUNDING SOURCES BY DEPARTMENT 2015 2024thru Total20152016201720182019Department20202021202220232024 Buildings 2013PD/CH2 45,000Police Station/City Hall Fire Alarm Panel 45,000 2013PD4 18,000Police Station - HVAC Computer upgrade 18,000 2013PD6 10,000Police Station Dispatch workstation remodel 10,000 2014CH2 0City Hall Alarm Panel 0 31140002 0City Hall 3rd Floor Covering and Furniture 0 31150001 30,000City Hall Garage Overhead Doors 30,000 31150002 682,000City Hall 2nd Floor Remodel 682,000 31150003 598,000City Hall 3rd Floor Remodel 598,000 31160001 100,000City Hall Roof Top AC Units (two units)100,000 31160002 10,000City Hall Chip, Seal, Stripe Main Parking Lot 10,000 31160003 20,000City Hall Garage Unit Heaters 20,000 31170001City Hall Council Chambers Remodel 600,000600,000 31180002 30,000City Hall Remodel 2nd and 3rd floor restrooms 30,000 31200001City Hall Timber Retaining Walls 60,00060,000 31230001City Hall ITE & Gould Elect Panel Replacement 25,00025,000 32150001 35,000Police Station Seal for Air Infiltration 35,000 32150002 6,000Police Station Wall Sign with Lighting 6,000 32160002 20,000PD Dispatch Kitchen Remodel 20,000 32170001Police Station replace boiler system 60,00060,000 32170002Police Station Concrete Sidewalk 15,00015,000 32180002 180,000Police Station - Replace office furnishings 180,000 32180003 35,000Police- Replace ceiling tiles 35,000 Thursday, December 04, 2014 City Council Meeting of December 15, 2014 (Item No. 8b) Title: 2015 Budget, Final Property Tax Levies (City & HRA) and 2015 - 2024 CIP Page 12 Total20152016201720182019Department20202021202220232024 3,516,0001,234,000 205,000 745,000 280,000 245,000Capital Replacement Fund 202,000 115,000 415,000 75,000 60,00060,000EDA Development Fund 60,00060,000Housing Authority 63,00063,000Pavement Management Fund 180,000180,000PW Engineering Budget 32190001Police Station Remodel Restrooms 75,00075,000 32190002Police StationShooting Range Exhaust 45,00045,000 32200001Police Station Water Heaters 7,0007,000 33140001 45,000MSC - Chip Seal and Re-Stripe parking lot 45,000 33140002 15,000 15,000MSC & Fire Stations CO Nox Sensor Replacement 60,00015,000 15,000 33140003 40,000MSC Roof Mounted 40kw Photovoltaic Panel System 40,000 33150002 50,000MSC Fencing 50,000 33160001 20,000MSC Bay'sConvert HVAC to Digital Controls 20,000 33170001MSC Convert Exterior HID to LED 20,00020,000 33170002MSC 2nd Bay Sealant and Stripping 50,00050,000 33180001 0MSC Service Bays-Striping 0 33180002 20,000MSC Fuel Station Pump Controls 20,000 33190001 15,000MSC Air Compressor Replacement 15,000 33190002 50,000MSC 3rd Bay Sealant and Stripping 50,000 33200001 165,000MSC Car Wash Unit Replace with Automatic 165,000 33200003MSC Service Bays-Sealant 75,00075,000 33210001MSC 2nd Floor Office Carpeting/Floor Covering 15,00015,000 33210002MSC Paint Booth Maintenance 25,00025,000 33220001MSC Old Bay Roofing 400,000400,000 33250001MSC Fuel Station Replacement 50,00050,000 34160001 4,000FS #1 Chip, seal, stripe both prking lots 4,000 35160001 4,000FS #2 Chip, seal, stripe both prking lots 4,000 36160001 50,000Westwood Nature Master Planning 50,000 36190001 15,000Westwood Nature Center Replace Rooftop HVAC Unit 15,000 3,879,0001,534,000 268,000 745,000 280,000 245,000Buildings Total 202,000 115,000 415,000 75,000 Thursday, December 04, 2014 City Council Meeting of December 15, 2014 (Item No. 8b) Title: 2015 Budget, Final Property Tax Levies (City & HRA) and 2015 - 2024 CIP Page 13 Total20152016201720182019Department20202021202220232024 3,879,0001,534,000 268,000 745,000 280,000 245,000Buildings Total 202,000 115,000 415,000 75,000 Cable TV 11151001 120,000Van Cameras 120,000 11151002 20,000Van Camera Cases 20,000 11151003 13,000Van Camera Cables 13,000 11151004 15,000LCD monitors 15,000 11151005 2,500Hard-Drive Video Recorder 2,500 11151006 6,000Converter for Recorder 6,000 11151007 36,000Tripods for On Location 36,000 11151008 16,500Video Switcher 16,500 11151009 4,200SD/HD converter 4,200 11151010 1,500DVD recorders 1,500 11151011 1,500Tripods 1,500 11151012 900Unit pro light kit 900 11151013 28,200Playback systems 28,200 11152002 8,500Server for channel 96 8,500 11152003 1,000DSLR camera 1,000 11152004 45,000Community Room video production equipment 45,000 11152005 23,000Live TV over IP video transport 23,000 11161001 750Announcer Headsets 750 11161002 500Shotgun mics 500 11161003 300Hand-held mics 300 11161004 35,000Replacement edit systems 35,000 11171001Wireless mic systems 2,0002,000 11171002CG 7,0007,000 11171003CD Player 250250 11172006Announcer intercom,1,0001,000 11181001 2,000300-foot audio snake & reel 2,000 11181002 300Announcer Monitor 300 11181003 40050-foot audio snake 400 11181004 1,500Behringer Audio Equipment 1,500 11181005 7,500Camcorders 7,500 11181006 1,500DVD recorders 1,500 Thursday, December 04, 2014 City Council Meeting of December 15, 2014 (Item No. 8b) Title: 2015 Budget, Final Property Tax Levies (City & HRA) and 2015 - 2024 CIP Page 14 Total20152016201720182019Department20202021202220232024 768,700222,800 156,550 10,250 14,100 79,600Cable TV - Time Warner Equipment Grant 285,400 768,700222,800 156,550 10,250 14,100 79,600Cable TV Total 285,400 11181007 900Unit pro light kit 900 11191001 500DVD Recorders 500 11191002 30,000Slow-motion replay 30,000 11191003 70012-channel audio mixer 700 11191004 500Shotgun mics 500 11191005 300Hand-held mics 300 11191006 10,200NLE stations 10,200 11191007 900Microphones 900 11191008 1,500Tripods 1,500 11191009 35,000Replacement edit systems 35,000 11201001Van Cameras 120,000120,000 11201002Van Camera Cases 20,00020,000 11201003Van Camera Cables 13,00013,000 11201004LCD monitors 15,00015,000 11201005Studio cameras 15,00015,000 11201006Microphones 900900 11201007Camera monitors 900900 11201008Hard-Drive Video Recorder 2,5002,500 11201009Conveter for Recorder 6,0006,000 11201010Tripods for On Location 36,00036,000 11201011SD/HD converter 4,2004,200 11201012Video Switcher 16,50016,500 11201013DVD recorder 1,5001,500 11201014Playback systems 28,20028,200 11201015Production switcher 4,5004,500 11201016Teleprompter 1,2001,200 768,700222,800 156,550 10,250 14,100 79,600Cable TV Total 285,400 Engineering Thursday, December 04, 2014 City Council Meeting of December 15, 2014 (Item No. 8b) Title: 2015 Budget, Final Property Tax Levies (City & HRA) and 2015 - 2024 CIP Page 15 Total20152016201720182019Department20202021202220232024 20052000 2,488,000Street Project - TH 100 Reconstruction 2,488,000 40141300 355,000Traffic Signal - Wooddale @ W36th St 355,000 40144000 2,666,000 2,250,000Storm Water- Bass Lake Preserve Rehab 5,566,000650,000 40149000 5,000Sanitary Sewer - MCES Golden Valley 5,000 40149100 5,000Sanitary Sewer - MCES Hopkins Interceptor 5,000 40150003 194,000Concrete Replacement- SW-C&G-CB 194,000 40151003 2,642,250Street - Local Street Rehab (Area 3)2,642,250 40151100 1,696,500Street - MSA Street Rehab (Walker/ 36th) 1,696,500 40151207 275,000Street Mt Proj - Sealcoat Streets (Area 7) 275,000 40151208 268,518Street Mt Proj - Sealcoat Streets (Area 8) 268,518 40151600 110,000 158,000 37,500 5,500Parking Lot Rehabilitation Project 443,00010,000 120,000 02,000 40151700 316,250Bridge - W 36th St @ Minnehaha Creek 316,250 40152000 3,521,000CTP! Sidewalk - Trail - Bikeway Installations 2015 3,521,000 40153004 400,000Sanitary Sewer- Mainline Rehab (Area 4) 400,000 40154000 500,000Storm Water- Walker Pond Expansion 500,000 40154001 300,000Storm Water- MCWD Cold Storage Site 300,000 40160003 282,000Concrete Replacement- SW-C&G-CB 282,000 40161000 336,000Street - Reconstruction (Utica Avenue)336,000 40161004 5,810,500Street - Local Street Rehab (Area 4)5,810,500 40161100 596,700Street - MSA Street Rehab (CLR / Flag)596,700 40161201 269,388Street Mt Proj - Sealcoat Streets (Area 1) 269,388 40161300 47,500 46,500Traffic Signal - Repl Control Cabinets 198,00052,50051,500 40162000 917,000CTP! Sidewalk - Trail - Bikeway Installations 2016 917,000 40163005 420,000Sanitary Sewer- Mainline Rehab (Area 5) 420,000 40170003Concrete Replacement- SW-C&G-CB 198,400198,400 40171005Street - Local Street Rehab (Area 5)2,757,2502,757,250 40171100Street - MSA Street Rehab (Louisiana Ave) 854,100854,100 40171101Street - Cedar Lake Road Improvements 75,00075,000 40171202Street Mt Proj - Sealcoat Streets (Area 2) 270,276270,276 Thursday, December 04, 2014 City Council Meeting of December 15, 2014 (Item No. 8b) Title: 2015 Budget, Final Property Tax Levies (City & HRA) and 2015 - 2024 CIP Page 16 Total20152016201720182019Department20202021202220232024 40171203Street Mt Proj - Sealcoat Streets (Area 3) 271,182271,182 40171700Bridge - W 37th St @ Minnehaha Creek 1,150,0001,150,000 40172000CTP! Sidewalk - Trail - Bikeway Installations 2017 1,223,0001,223,000 40173006Sanitary Sewer- Mainline Rehab (Area 6) 440,000440,000 40174000Storm Water- Louisiana Oaks Pond Rehab 450,000450,000 40175000Water- Rehab WTP 16 Reservior 275,000275,000 40180003 200,600Concrete Replacement- SW-C&G-CB 200,600 40181006 3,970,500Street - Local Street Rehab (Area 6)3,970,500 40181100 678,600Street - MSA Street Rehab (Beltline Blvd) 678,600 40181101 535,700Street - MSA Street Rehab (Edgewood/Cambridge) 535,700 40181102 163,800Street - MSA Street Rehab (Ottawa)163,800 40181204 272,105Street Mt Proj - Sealcoat Streets (Area 4) 272,105 40181300 250,000Traffic Signal - W36th St @ Xenwood Ave 250,000 40181700 1,495,000Bridge - Louisiana Ave @ Minnehaha Creek 1,495,000 40182000 4,962,000CTP! Sidewalk - Trail - Bikeway Installations 2018 4,962,000 40183007 460,000Sanitary Sewer- Mainline Rehab (Area 7) 460,000 40184000 400,000Storm Water- Oregon Pond Basin Rehab 400,000 40186000 2,039,051Street- W36th Street Reconstruction 2,039,051 40186001 2,000,000Street- Wooddale Ave Reconstruction 2,000,000 40190003 202,800Concrete Replacement- SW-C&G-CB 202,800 40191007 3,211,500Street - Local Street Rehab (Area 7)3,211,500 40191100 327,600Street - MSA Street Rehab (W28th St)327,600 40191205 278,047Street Mt Proj - Sealcoat Streets (Area 5) 278,047 40192000 6,214,000CTP! Sidewalk - Trail - Bikeway Installations 2019 6,214,000 40193008 480,000Sanitary Sewer- Mainline Rehab (Area 8) 480,000 40194000 270,000Storm Water- Browndale Pond Rehab 270,000 40194001 90,000Storm Water- Sumter Pond Rehab 90,000 40197000 3,000Street - Excelsior Blvd Resurfacing 3,000 Thursday, December 04, 2014 City Council Meeting of December 15, 2014 (Item No. 8b) Title: 2015 Budget, Final Property Tax Levies (City & HRA) and 2015 - 2024 CIP Page 17 Total20152016201720182019Department20202021202220232024 40200003Concrete Replacement- SW-C&G-CB 205,000205,000 40201008Street - Local Street Rehab (Area 8)4,480,0004,480,000 40201100Street - MSA Street Rehab (Shelard Pkwy) 678,600678,600 40201206Street Mt Proj - Sealcoat Streets (Area 6) 284,008284,008 40201300Railroad - Whistle Quiet Zones 100,000100,000 40202000CTP! Sidewalk - Trail - Bikeway Installations 2020 5,647,0005,647,000 40203001Sanitary Sewer- Mainline Rehab (Area 1) 510,000510,000 40204000Storm Water- Lamplighter Pond Rehab 109,000109,000 40204001Storm Water- Otten Pond Rehab 109,000109,000 40205000Water - Recoat Reservoir 2 @ WTP #6 935,000935,000 40210003Concrete Replacement- SW-C&G-CB 206,100206,100 40211001Street - Local Street Rehab (Area 1)4,587,5004,587,500 40211100Street - MSA Street Rehab (TBD)586,700586,700 40211207Street Mt Proj - Sealcoat Streets (Area 7) 289,989289,989 40212000CTP! Sidewalk - Trail - Bikeway Installations 2021 1,813,0001,813,000 40213002Sanitary Sewer- Mainline Rehab (Area 2) 520,000520,000 40214000Storm Water- Twin Lakes Sed Basin Rehab 1,242,0001,242,000 40215000Water- Recoat Elevated Water Tower #2 1,540,0001,540,000 40220003Concrete Replacement- SW-C&G-CB 209,400209,400 40221002Street - Local Street Rehab (Area 2)4,695,0004,695,000 40221100Street - MSA Street Rehab (TBD)535,700535,700 40221208Street Mt Proj - Sealcoat Streets (Area 8) 290,000290,000 40222000CTP! Sidewalk - Trail - Bikeway Installations 2022 952,500952,500 40223003Sanitary Sewer- Mainline Rehab (Area 3) 540,000540,000 40224000Storm Water- Westdale Sed Basin Rehab 248,000248,000 40230003Concrete Replacement- SW-C&G-CB 211,600211,600 40231003Street - Local Street Rehab (Area 3)4,802,5004,802,500 40231100Street - MSA Street Rehab (TBD)535,700535,700 40231201Street Mt Proj - Sealcoat Streets (Area 300,000300,000 Thursday, December 04, 2014 City Council Meeting of December 15, 2014 (Item No. 8b) Title: 2015 Budget, Final Property Tax Levies (City & HRA) and 2015 - 2024 CIP Page 18 Total20152016201720182019Department20202021202220232024 240,000240,000EDA Development Fund 25,917,5003,521,000 1,085,000 1,223,000 4,962,000 6,214,000G.O. Bonds 5,647,000 1,813,000 952,500 500,000 1,012,5421,012,542HRA Levy 8,012,2002,029,000 596,700 854,100 1,232,400 327,600Municipal State Aid 778,600 586,700 535,700 535,700 535,700 22,047,8001,970,500 2,646,500 1,979,200 2,042,800 2,106,400Pavement Management Fund 2,135,500 2,198,000 2,257,700 2,326,300 2,384,900 198,000198,000Permanent Improvement Revolving Fund 91,75023,750 65,000 3,000PW Engineering Budget 1,791,513183,518 186,888 186,458 149,605 195,047PW Operations Budget 154,008 144,989 198,500 247,500 145,000 17,500Reilly Industries 17,500 7,320,000820,000 640,000 660,000 680,000 700,000Sanitary Sewer Utility 730,000 740,000 760,000 790,000 800,000 2,621,700110,000 326,000 350,000 565,700Special Assessments 70,000 1,200,000 1,260,000220,000 1,040,000State of Minnesota 13,183,4004,380,000 2,547,000 1,366,200 667,300 628,400Stormwater Utility 487,500 1,512,600 519,700 800,800 273,900 3,631,509605,000 3,026,509Tax Increment - Elmwood 75,00075,000Tax Increment Financing 1) 40233004Sanitary Sewer- Mainline Rehab (Area 4) 570,000570,000 40234000Storm Water- Cedar Manor Lake Rehab 528,000528,000 40240003Concrete Replacement- SW-C&G-CB 213,800213,800 40241004Street - Local Street Rehab (Area 4)4,910,0004,910,000 40241100Street - MSA Street Rehab (TBD)535,700535,700 40241202Street Mt Proj - Sealcoat Streets (Area 2) 300,000300,000 40243005Sanitary Sewer- Mainline Rehab (Area 5) 580,000580,000 40244000Storm Water- Flood Area #24 1,200,0001,200,000 40246000Street - I394 Ramp / CD Road Improvement 3,000,0003,000,000 40247000Street - Excelsior Blvd (Lou - W City Lim) 3,000,0003,000,000 40247001Traffic Signal Project - CSAH 25 @ Beltline Blvd. 500,000500,000 53155100 50,000Sanitary Sewer- LS Mtce (LS #5)50,000 53245500Water Project - WTP #6 GAC Upgrade 2,190,0002,190,000 53245501Reilly Site - Install Monitor Well (W413)35,00035,000 119,049,41416,042,518 11,087,088 8,614,208 17,214,856 11,128,947Engineering Total 13,067,608 10,785,289 7,524,100 7,120,300 16,464,500 Thursday, December 04, 2014 City Council Meeting of December 15, 2014 (Item No. 8b) Title: 2015 Budget, Final Property Tax Levies (City & HRA) and 2015 - 2024 CIP Page 19 Total20152016201720182019Department20202021202220232024 800,000800,000U.S. Government 6,000,000Unfunded6,000,000 24,829,0001,741,750 3,059,000 1,120,250 1,771,000 954,500Water Utility 3,135,000 3,790,000 2,300,000 2,350,000 4,607,500 119,049,41416,042,518 11,087,088 8,614,208 17,214,856 11,128,947Engineering Total 13,067,608 10,785,289 7,524,100 7,120,300 16,464,500 Fire 1,202,00034,000 440,000 28,000 48,000 28,000Capital Replacement Fund 28,000 8,000 550,000 38,000 1,202,00034,000 440,000 28,000 48,000 28,000Fire Total 28,000 8,000 550,000 38,000 65150001 6,000Rapid Response Inflatable 6,000 65160001 32,000SCBA Fill Stations 32,000 65990001 8,000 8,000 16,000 8,000Thermal Imagers 80,0008,000 8,000 8,000 8,0008,000 65990002 20,000 20,000Outside Warning Sirens 100,00020,000 20,000 20,000 65990003 400,000SCBA Replacement 860,000460,000 65990004Hydraulic Rescue Tool 60,00030,000 30,000 65990005 32,000Lucas Device 64,00032,000 1,202,00034,000 440,000 28,000 48,000 28,000Fire Total 28,000 8,000 550,000 38,000 Operations & Recreation 20130080 5,000Oak Hill Park Northern Lights (LED)10,0005,000 2020xxxxParking Lot Seal Coat - Oak Hill Park 00 20225007Rec Center Arenas Rubber Floor Replacement 250,000250,000 2023xxoxParking Lot Seal Coat - Dakota Park 00 2023xxxxParking Lot Seal Coat - Aquila Park 00 21150304 25,000Aquila Park Tennis Court Resurface 25,000 21150407 7,000Court Resurface(tns)-Bass Lake 7,000 21153609 252,000Louisiana Oaks North Parking Lot Addition 252,000 21154005 7,500Court Resurface (BB) Minikahda Vista Park 7,500 21154010 11,000Minikahda Vista Park Backstop Replacement 11,000 21154211 60,000Playground Eqpt Repl - Nelson Park 60,000 Thursday, December 04, 2014 City Council Meeting of December 15, 2014 (Item No. 8b) Title: 2015 Budget, Final Property Tax Levies (City & HRA) and 2015 - 2024 CIP Page 20 Total20152016201720182019Department20202021202220232024 21154308 7,000Court Resurface (tns) - Northside Park 7,000 21154806 7,500Court Resurface (BB) Pennsylvania Park 7,500 21155649 85,000Skate Park Equipment Replacement 85,000 21156422 100,000Wolfe Park Boardwalk Replacement (south end) 100,000 21159920 30,000Trail Reconstruction - CLR/Quentin Ave/Ridge Dr 30,000 21160201 17,000Aquila Park Building Locks and Security Camera 17,000 21160402 30,000ADA Trail Conn.-Bass Lake Pk to George Haun Trail 30,000 21160419 13,500Trail Seal Coat - Bass Lake 13,500 21160705 50,000Playground Eqpt Repl - Blackstone Park 50,000 21161103 60,000Carpenter Park Ball Field Fence Replacement 60,000 21161304 12,000Cedar Knoll Park/Carlson Field Scoreboard 12,000 21162706 50,000Playground Eqpt Repl - Jersey Park 50,000 21162907 50,000Playground Eqpt Repl - Justad Park 50,000 21164420 13,500Trail Seal Coat - Oak Hill Park 13,500 21165218 125,000Trail Lights (LED) at Shelard Park 125,000 21166408 100,000Playground Eqpt Repl - Wolfe Park 100,000 21166421 13,500Trail Seal Coat - Wolfe Park 13,500 21166425 16,000Trail Lights (LED) at Wolfe Park 16,000 21170302Aquila Park Fields 1-4 Lights and Poles Upgrade 450,000450,000 21170507Playground Eqpt Repl - Bass Lake Park 60,00060,000 21172106Parking Lot Seal Coat - Fern Hill Park 17,50017,500 21174404Oak Hill Park Splash Pad Feature Replacement 60,00060,000 21174908Playground Eqpt Repl - Rainbow Park 50,00050,000 21175220Trail Reconstruction - Shelard Park 40,00040,000 21175809Playground Eqpt Repl - Twin Lakes Park 60,00060,000 21175921Victoria Lake Parking Lot 50,00050,000 21176110Playground Eqpt Repl - Webster Park 60,00060,000 21176424Wolfe Park Pergola Work 10,00010,000 21179919Trail Sealcoat - Various Trails 30,00030,000 21180301 7,500Court Resurface (BB) Aquila Park 7,500 Thursday, December 04, 2014 City Council Meeting of December 15, 2014 (Item No. 8b) Title: 2015 Budget, Final Property Tax Levies (City & HRA) and 2015 - 2024 CIP Page 21 Total20152016201720182019Department20202021202220232024 21180305 35,000Parking Lot Resurface - Aquila Park 35,000 21180321 7,000Repaint Park Building - Aquila Park 7,000 21180611 62,500Playground Eqpt Repl - Birchwood Park 62,500 21180622 7,000Repaint Park Building - Birchwood Park 7,000 21181023 7,000Repaint Park Building - Browndale Park 7,000 21181124 6,000Repaint Park Building - Carpenter Park 6,000 21181306 8,000Parking Lot Resurface - Cedar Knoll Park 8,000 21181325 2,000Repaint Park Building - Cedar Knoll Park 2,000 21181707 8,000Parking Lot Resurface - Creekside Park 8,000 21181826 4,000Repaint Park Building - Dakota Park 4,000 21182127 5,000Repaint Park Building - Fern Hill Park 5,000 21183628 7,000Repaint Park Building - Louisiana Oaks Park 7,000 21184208 8,000Parking Lot Resurface - Nelson Park 8,000 21184229 7,000Repaint Park Building - Nelson Park 7,000 21184309 35,000Parking Lot Resurface - Northside Park 35,000 21184312 62,500Playground Eqpt Repl - Northside Park 62,500 21184330 6,000Repaint Park Building - Northside Park 6,000 21184431 9,000Repaint Park Building - Oak Hill Park 9,000 21185102 2,000Court Resurface (BB) Roxbury Park 2,000 21185113 62,500Playground Eqpt Repl - Roxbury Park 62,500 21185203 2,000Court Resurface (BB) Shelard Park 2,000 21185214 62,500Playground Eqpt Repl - Shelard Park 62,500 21186210 35,000Parking Lot Resurface - Westwood Hills NC 35,000 21186404 3,000Court Resurface (BB) Wolfe Park 3,000 21190304 20,000Parking Lot Seal Coat - Aquila Park 20,000 21190613 10,000Trail Reconstruction - Birchwood Park 10,000 21190714 10,000Trail Reconstruction - Blackstone Park 10,000 21191002 85,000Browndale Park Hockey Rink Lights 85,000 21191805 20,000Parking Lot Seal Coat - Dakota Park 20,000 21191815 75,000Trail Reconstruction - Dakota Park 75,000 21192116 45,000Trail Reconstruction - Fern Hill Park 45,000 21195406 65,000Playground Eqpt Repl - Sunshine Park 65,000 21195607 65,000Playground Eqpt Repl - Texa-Tonka Park 65,000 Thursday, December 04, 2014 City Council Meeting of December 15, 2014 (Item No. 8b) Title: 2015 Budget, Final Property Tax Levies (City & HRA) and 2015 - 2024 CIP Page 22 Total20152016201720182019Department20202021202220232024 21196308 65,000Playground Eqpt Repl - Willow Park 65,000 21199901 20,000ADA Connections to Picnic Shelter/Playgrounds 20,000 21199917 30,000Trail Sealcoat - Various Trails 30,000 21200912Trail Reconstruction - Bronx Park 15,00015,000 21203013Trail Reconstruction - Keystone Park 20,00020,000 21204314Trail Reconstruction - Northside Park 20,00020,000 21204502Playground Eqpt Repl - Oregon Park 65,00065,000 21205403Playground Eqpt Repl - Sunset Park 65,00065,000 21206204Playground Eqpt Repl - Westwood Hills NC 100,000100,000 21209901ADA Compliance Picnic Tables 15,00015,000 21210411Trail Reconstruction - Bass Lake Park 100,000100,000 21211712Playground Eqpt Repl - Parkview Park 60,00060,000 21213614Trail Reconstruction - Louisiana Oaks Park 65,00065,000 21213801Playground Eqpt Repl - Meadowbrook Manor Park 60,00060,000 21214002Playground Eqpt Repl - Minikahda Vista Park 60,00060,000 21214415Trail Reconstruction - Oak Hill Park 75,00075,000 21214803Playground Eqpt Repl - Pennsylvania Park 60,00060,000 21216416Trail Reconstruction - Wolfe Park 85,00085,000 21219912Trail Reconstruction - Franklin 45,00045,000 21219913Trail Reconstruction - Jordan 45,00045,000 21220902Playground Eqpt Repl - Bronx Park 65,00065,000 21221403Playground Eqpt Repl - Cedar Manor Park 60,00060,000 21221604Playground Eqpt Repl - Center Park 65,00065,000 21222401ADA Trail Compliance - Cedar Manor Park Trail 60,00060,000 21224109Trail Reconstruction - Minnehaha Creek 50,00050,000 21230301Playground Eqpt Repl - Aquila Park 85,00085,000 21231102Playground Eqpt Repl - Carpenter Park 65,00065,000 21231503Playground Eqpt Repl - Cedarhurst Park 65,00065,000 21234611Trail Reconstruction - Otten Pond 30,00030,000 21235112Trail Reconstruction - Roxbury Park 10,00010,000 21235813Trail Reconstruction - Twin Lakes Park 10,00010,000 Thursday, December 04, 2014 City Council Meeting of December 15, 2014 (Item No. 8b) Title: 2015 Budget, Final Property Tax Levies (City & HRA) and 2015 - 2024 CIP Page 23 Total20152016201720182019Department20202021202220232024 21240101Playground Eqpt Repl - Ainsworth Park 65,00065,000 21240130Repaint Park Building - Cedar Knoll Park 2,0002,000 21240306Repaint Park Building - Aquila Park 7,0007,000 21240317Trail Reconstruction - Aquila Park 75,00075,000 21240607Repaint Park Building - Birchwood Park 7,0007,000 21241002Playground Eqpt Repl - Browndale Park 65,00065,000 21241008Repaint Park Building - Browndale Park 7,0007,000 21241109Repaint Park Building - Carpenter Park 6,0006,000 21241118Trail Reconstruction - Carpenter Park 50,00050,000 21241811Repaint Park Building - Dakota Park 4,0004,000 21242112Repaint Park Building - Fern Hill Park 5,0005,000 21242719Trail Reconstruction - Jersey Park 30,00030,000 21243613Repaint Park Building - Louisiana Oaks Park 7,0007,000 21244214Repaint Park Building - Nelson Park 7,0007,000 21244315Repaint Park Building - Northside Park 6,0006,000 21244416Repaint Park Building - Oak Hill Park 9,0009,000 21994401 5,000Oak Hill Park Northern Lights (LED)10,0005,000 21999902 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000Playground Woodchips 200,00020,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,00020,000 21999903 100,000 100,000 100,000 60,000Minnehaha Creek Trail Repayment 460,000100,000 22173203Knollwood Canoe Landing - Dredge and Rebuild 25,00025,000 22193603 10,000Louisiana Canoe Landing Landscape 10,000 22206115Webster Park Community Garden 15,00015,000 22999901 60,000 60,000 60,000 60,000Tree Replacement 600,00060,000 60,000 60,000 60,000 60,00060,000 23156221 20,000Westwood Hills NC Wildflower Trail Restoration 20,000 23166222 16,000Westwood Hills NC Key Fob for Pavilion 16,000 23166223 60,000Westwood Hills NC Ravine Bridge Replacement 60,000 23166224 55,000Westwood Hills NC Storge Garage (30'x30') 55,000 23176222Westwood Hills NC North Staircase Overlook 10,00010,000 23176223Westwood Hills NC-Prairie Deck Rebuild 20,00020,000 23196218 50,000Westwood Hills NC Boardwalk Deck Repl, Phase 2 50,000 23196219 6,000Westwood Hills NC Brick House 6,000 Thursday, December 04, 2014 City Council Meeting of December 15, 2014 (Item No. 8b) Title: 2015 Budget, Final Property Tax Levies (City & HRA) and 2015 - 2024 CIP Page 24 Total20152016201720182019Department20202021202220232024 Furniture Repl 23196220 150,000Westwood Hills NC Interpretive Exhibit Repl 150,000 23206216Westwood Hills NC Staircase Rebuild 40,00040,000 23216217Westwood Hills NC Furniture Repl 10,00010,000 23226210Westwood Hills NC Water Garden, Phase 2 45,00045,000 23236214Westwood Hills NC Trail Bench Replacement 15,00015,000 23246220Westwood Hills NC Boardwalk Deck Repl, Phase 3 50,00050,000 24145018 400,000Rec Center Arena Reconstruction Engineering 400,000 24155015 15,000Rec Center Building Re-Keying 15,000 24155016 175,000Rec Center Exterior Building Repair 175,000 24155017 5,000Rec Center HVAC Study/Assessment 5,000 24165011 30,000Rec Center Banquet Room Carpet & Floor Replacement 30,000 24165012 55,000Rec Center Fire Alarm System Upgrade 55,000 24165013 35,000Rec Center Gallery & Hallway Flooring 35,000 24165014 4,400,000Rec Center Arena Refrigeration Replacement 4,400,000 24165015 110,000Rec Center Parking Lot Resurface 110,000 24165016 105,000Rec Center Rubber Floor Replacement - East & West 105,000 24165017 10,000Rec Center West Arena Press Area 10,000 24175013Rec Center Banquet Room/Gallery Furniture Repl 15,00015,000 24175014Rec Center Boiler Replacement & Pneumatics 200,000200,000 24175016Rec Center Hot Water Heater Tank Replacement 20,00020,000 24175017Rec Center Programming Office AC Replacement 50,00050,000 24175018Rec Center Programming Office Carpet 17,00017,000 24185015 50,000Rec Center Banquet & Gallery Remodel 50,000 24185016 120,000Rec Center Door Replacement (Front & Arena) 120,000 24185017 15,000Rec Center Landscaping 15,000 24185018 400,000Rec Center Roof Rplc-East Arena/Office/Banquet Rm 400,000 24185019 100,000Rec Center Upstairs Bthrm&Ctrng Kitchn Remodel 100,000 Thursday, December 04, 2014 City Council Meeting of December 15, 2014 (Item No. 8b) Title: 2015 Budget, Final Property Tax Levies (City & HRA) and 2015 - 2024 CIP Page 25 Total20152016201720182019Department20202021202220232024 24185020 40,000Rec Center West Arena Window Replacement 40,000 24195010 15,000Rec Center Banquet Room & Gallery Chair Repl. 15,000 24195011 50,000Rec Center East Arena Locker Room Remodel 50,000 24195012 75,000Rec Center Front Office AC Replacement 75,000 24205005Rec Center Aquatic Park Amenity Replacement 300,000300,000 24205006Rec Center Banquet Room PA Upgrade 50,00050,000 24205008Rec Center Marquee 200,000200,000 24205009Parking Lot Seal Coat - Rec Center 60,00060,000 24205010Rec Center Aquatic Park Sun Shelter Repl 75,00075,000 24205011Rec Center Rental Skate Replacement (Ph 1) 10,00010,000 24215006Rec Center Arena Compressor Rebuild 15,00015,000 24215007Rec Center Arena Rubber Floor 250,000250,000 24215008Rec Center Dasher Board Repair/Replacement 12,00012,000 24215009Rec Center Landscaping 15,00015,000 242150110Rec Center Rental Skate Replacement (Ph 2) 10,00010,000 24225006Rec Center East Arena Painting 60,00060,000 24225008Rec Center Scoreboard Replacement 32,50032,500 24235007Rec Center Arena Compressor Rebuild 15,00015,000 24235008Rec Center Arena Water Treatment Repl 75,00075,000 24235009Rec Center West Arena Painting 75,00075,000 24235010Rec Center West Arena Roof Replacement 500,000500,000 24245003Rec Center East Arena Dehumidification 400,000400,000 24245004Rec Center Generator Replacement 500,000500,000 24245005Rec Center Landscaping 20,00020,000 25150213 80,000Rec Center Aquatic Park Landscape Replacement 80,000 25150214 15,000Rec Center Aquatic Park Pumps Rebuild 15,000 25160209 45,000Rec Center Aquatic Park Drp Slide & Dvg Brd Repl 45,000 25160210 20,000Rec Center Aquatic Park Umbrellas 20,000 Thursday, December 04, 2014 City Council Meeting of December 15, 2014 (Item No. 8b) Title: 2015 Budget, Final Property Tax Levies (City & HRA) and 2015 - 2024 CIP Page 26 Total20152016201720182019Department20202021202220232024 25170211Rec Center Aquatic Park Filter Replacement 200,000200,000 25170212Rec Center Aquatic Park Pump Rebuild 20,00020,000 25170215Rec Center Concession Eqpt. Replacement 5,0005,000 25205007Rec Center Concession Eqpt. Replacement 5,0005,000 25220205Rec Center Aquatic Park Locker Room Remodel 100,000100,000 25230204Rec Center Concession Eqpt. Replacement 5,0005,000 25990212 25,000 5,000Rec Center Aquatic Park Deck Furniture 45,0005,000 10,000 40161103 100,000Street - MSA Retaining Wall (Hwy 7 SFR) 100,000 50150001 1,800,000 1,800,000Meter Replacement 3,600,000 50154101 150,000Street Light Annual Replacement (2015)150,000 50154301 14,000Traffic Signal Annual Painting (2015)14,000 50164101 155,000Street Light Annual Replacement (2016)155,000 50164301 14,500Traffic Signal Annual Painting (2016)14,500 50174101Street Light Annual Replacement (2017)160,000160,000 50174301Traffic Signal Annual Painting (2017)15,00015,000 50184101 165,000Street Light Annual Replacement (2018)165,000 50184301 15,500Traffic Signal Annual Painting (2018)15,500 50194101 170,000Street Light Annual Replacement (2019)170,000 50194301 16,000Traffic Signal Annual Painting (2019)16,000 50204101Street Light Annual Replacement (2020)175,000175,000 50204301Traffic Signal Annual Painting (2020)16,50016,500 50214101Street Light Annual Replacement (2021)180,000180,000 50214301Traffic Signal Annual Painting (2021)17,00017,000 50224101Street Light Annual Replacement (2022)185,000185,000 50224301Traffic Signal Annual Painting (2022)17,50017,500 50234101Street Light Annual Replacement (2023)190,000190,000 50234301Traffic Signal Annual Painting (2023)18,00018,000 50244101Street Light Annual Replacement (2024)195,000195,000 50244301Traffic Signal Annual Painting (2024)18,50018,500 53155001 45,000Water Well Rehab (SLP13)45,000 53155002 40,000Water Well Rehab (SLP15)40,000 53155003 65,000Water Treatment Plant GAC Replacement (WTP4) 65,000 Thursday, December 04, 2014 City Council Meeting of December 15, 2014 (Item No. 8b) Title: 2015 Budget, Final Property Tax Levies (City & HRA) and 2015 - 2024 CIP Page 27 Total20152016201720182019Department20202021202220232024 18,310,9121,400,016 1,874,481 1,364,076 3,157,564 1,253,020Capital Replacement Fund 1,834,076 1,288,837 2,593,928 2,129,556 1,415,358 100,000100,000Municipal State Aid 53155301 20,000Storm Sewer LS Maint (LS #2)20,000 53155501 60,000Reilly Site - Install Monitor Wells 60,000 53165001 30,000Water Well Rehab (SLP4)30,000 53165002 67,000Water Treatment Plant GAC Replacement (WTP1) 67,000 53165101 20,000Sanitary Sewer LS Maint (LS #11)20,000 53165301 21,000Storm Sewer LS Maint (LS #1)21,000 53175001Water Well Rehab (SLP8)32,00032,000 53175002Water Treatment Plant GAC Replacement (WTP4) 68,00068,000 53175101Sanitary Sewer LS Maint (LS #13)22,00022,000 53175102Sanitary Sewer LS Maint (LS #23)10,00010,000 53175301Storm Sewer LS Maint (LS #7)22,00022,000 53185001 52,000Water Well Rehab (SLP11)52,000 53185101 40,000Sanitary Sewer LS Maint (LS #9)40,000 53185301 23,000Storm Sewer LS Maint (LS #8)23,000 53195001 34,000Water Well Rehab (SLP14)34,000 53195002 71,000Water Treatment Plant GAC Replacement (WTP4) 71,000 53195003 71,000Water Treatment Plant GAC Replacement (WTP1) 71,000 53195101 45,000Sanitary Sewer LS Maint (LS #21)45,000 53195301 25,000Storm Sewer LS Impr (Add SCADA to Stns 1/5/7/8/9) 25,000 53205101Sanitary Sewer LS Maint (LS #22)47,00047,000 53215001Water Treatment Plant GAC Replacement (WTP4) 74,00074,000 53215100Sanitary Sewer LS Maint (LS #15)26,00026,000 53225002Water Treatment Plant GAC Replacement (WTP1) 75,00075,000 53235001Water Treatment Plant GAC Replacement (WTP4) 77,00077,000 53245001Water Well Rehab (SLP10)38,00038,000 E - XX01 1,400,016 1,874,481 3,157,564 1,253,020Annual Equipment Replacement Program 18,310,9121,364,076 1,834,076 1,288,837 2,129,556 1,415,3582,593,928 41,839,4125,101,016 9,763,481 3,352,576 4,818,564 2,696,020Operations & Recreation Total 3,207,576 2,637,837 3,738,928 3,454,556 3,068,858 Thursday, December 04, 2014 City Council Meeting of December 15, 2014 (Item No. 8b) Title: 2015 Budget, Final Property Tax Levies (City & HRA) and 2015 - 2024 CIP Page 28 Total20152016201720182019Department20202021202220232024 16,721,0001,507,000 5,681,500 1,659,500 1,365,500 1,011,000Park Improvement Fund 1,135,000 1,052,000 867,500 1,040,000 1,402,000 1,887,500164,000 169,500 175,000 180,500 186,000PW Operations Budget 191,500 197,000 202,500 208,000 213,500 2,610,0001,200,000 1,220,000 32,000 40,000 45,000Sanitary Sewer Utility 47,000 26,000 111,00020,000 21,000 22,000 23,000 25,000Stormwater Utility 2,099,000810,000 697,000 100,000 52,000 176,000Water Utility 74,000 75,000 77,000 38,000 41,839,4125,101,016 9,763,481 3,352,576 4,818,564 2,696,020Operations & Recreation Total 3,207,576 2,637,837 3,738,928 3,454,556 3,068,858 Police 79,10010,700 10,700 10,700 26,200 5,200Capital Replacement Fund 5,200 5,200 5,200 145,00070,000E-911 Funds 75,000 224,10010,700 10,700 10,700 26,200 75,200Police Total 5,200 5,200 5,200 75,000 PD - 1 10,700 10,700 26,200 5,200Laser/Radar and Message Board 79,10010,700 5,200 5,200 5,200 PD - 2 70,000911 Server Replacement 145,00075,000 224,10010,700 10,700 10,700 26,200 75,200Police Total 5,200 5,200 5,200 75,000 Technology 13125001 25,000IT: Audits - Fiber, Security, PCI 3 Re- Assessment 25,000 13125002IT: Server Farm / UPS Enhancements 35,00035,000 13135001 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000IT:Hosted E-Mail/VMWare/Web Relays/Archive/DR 250,00025,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,00025,000 13135003 10,000OR / Utilities: SCADA Solution 20,00010,000 13135004 20,000OR: AVL 40,00020,000 13145002 6,000Assessing: Wireless Equipment for Field Work 6,000 13145004 25,000IT: Fire Station 1 / Rec Center Fiber Redundancy 25,000 13145010Police: New CAD/RMS/Mobile Suite 550,000550,000 13145011 30,000OR: Banquet Rm Multiple Monitor / Projector 60,00030,000 13145012 10,000OR: Rec Center Gallery / Prog Office Monitors 20,00010,000 13155001 30,000IT: Fiber Conduit - West End Fr. Rd, Gamble, Utica 30,000 Thursday, December 04, 2014 City Council Meeting of December 15, 2014 (Item No. 8b) Title: 2015 Budget, Final Property Tax Levies (City & HRA) and 2015 - 2024 CIP Page 29 Total20152016201720182019Department20202021202220232024 13155002 200,000 200,000 100,000 100,000IR: Fiber - Sidewalks / Highway 100 Relocates 1,200,000100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000100,000 13155003 30,000IR: Study - Brickhouse Fiber and Wireless 30,000 13155004 5,000 5,000IT: Public Kiosks (City Hall, other sites)10,000 13155005 20,000 10,000 10,000 10,000Admin Serv: Agenda Management Software/Hardware 110,00010,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,00010,000 13155006 200,000 15,000 15,000 15,000Admin Serv:Agenda Doc Mgmt System/Microfilm Conver 335,00015,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,00015,000 13155007 17,500 17,500 17,500 17,500IR: Public Stuff CRM 175,00017,500 17,500 17,500 17,500 17,50017,500 13155008 60,000IR: City Hall Floor 2 / 3 Cabling Upgrade 60,000 13155009 20,000IR: Portable Web Cams 40,00020,000 13155010 18,000Insp / Eng / Asses: Scanners (3)36,00018,000 13155011 13,000IR: Security Camera Viewing for iPhone / iPads 13,000 13155012 20,000Insp / OR: BI Field iPads / Printers (10 / 1) 40,00020,000 13155013 20,000IR: GIS Public / Application Server 40,00020,000 13155014 12,000 2,000 2,000 2,000Admin Serv / Utilities: Infinity BI Service 30,0002,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,0002,000 13155015 50,000IT: Fiber Conduit - W. Lake St (west of La. Ave.) 50,000 13155016 15,000Eng: Survey GPS 15,000 13155017 13,000 13,000Police: ZuercherTech FBR Tablet Add- On Module 52,00013,000 13,000 13155018 40,000 2,500 2,500 2,500Admin: DocuSphere A/P Management 62,5002,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,5002,500 13155019 10,000IR: Microfilm Reader / Printer 10,000 13155020 32,000 10,000 10,000 10,000Police: ZuercherTech Crime Analysis Add-On Module 122,00010,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,00010,000 13165002 85,000IR: Study - Park Nicollet Fiber 85,000 13165003 200,000 200,000 50,000 50,000IR: Selected Fiber Rings, Parks, City Facilities 950,000200,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,00050,000 13165004 100,000IR: New City Website Platform 100,000 13165006 15,000OR: Aquila Park Building Fiber 15,000 13175001Insp: Permits / E-Permits System Replacement 21,00021,000 13175002OR: Rec Banquet Rm Smartboard/Video Conferencing 60,00030,000 30,000 13185001 205,000Admin Serv: Financial / HR/Payroll App Replacement 205,000 13195001 203,000Admin Serv: Utility Billing App Replacement 203,000 13215001OR: MSC Smartboard 15,00015,000 Thursday, December 04, 2014 City Council Meeting of December 15, 2014 (Item No. 8b) Title: 2015 Budget, Final Property Tax Levies (City & HRA) and 2015 - 2024 CIP Page 30 Total20152016201720182019Department20202021202220232024 13995001 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000IT: On-going Software Licenses, Mtce, Development 2,000,000200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000200,000 13995002 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000IT: On-going Network Adds & Replacement 1,000,000100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000100,000 13995003 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000IT: On-going Hardware/Telephone Adds & Replacement 1,500,000150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000150,000 13995004 250,000 600,000Police/Fire: 800 MHz Radio/Console Replacements 1,750,000900,000 13995006 100,000 125,000Police: Mobile Replacements 350,000125,000 13995007Fire / Police: Dispatch Voice Recorders 155,00075,000 80,000 13995008 8,000 8,000OR: Square Rigger Mobile Devices 24,0008,000 13995009 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000IR / Communications: Reverse 911 - ParkAlert 150,00015,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,00015,000 13995010Eng: Engineering Total Station 25,00025,000 13995011 159,999 46,998 46,998 46,998OR: Asset Mgmt Software 623,00046,998 55,001 55,002 55,002 55,00255,002 13995012 10,000 10,000Fire: Fire Department Mobile Solutions 40,00010,000 10,000 13995013 10,000 15,000Fire: EOC Computer / Phone Equipment 40,00015,000 13995014 15,000 15,000Admin Serv: Council Tablets 70,00020,000 20,000 13995015 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000IT: Tablet / Smartphone Hardware and Services 2,000,000200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000200,000 13995016 27,000Facilities: City Hall Cameras 54,00027,000 13995017 16,000 16,000 16,000 16,000ACCT- Insight Budgeting Annual Maintenance 160,00016,000 16,000 16,000 16,000 16,00016,000 13995019 55,000OR: Nature Center Surveillance Cameras 110,00055,000 13995020 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000IT: Network Switches 250,00025,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,00025,000 13995021 23,000Police: Jail Cameras 46,00023,000 13995022 12,000Police: Exterior Cameras 24,00012,000 13995023 6,500Police: Booking and Intox Room Cameras (2) 13,0006,500 13995024 55,000Police: Dispatch Camera Viewing Workstations 110,00055,000 13995025 45,000OR: Rec Center Cameras 90,00045,000 13995026 16,000 16,000 16,000 16,000IT: Surveillance Camera Maintenance 160,00016,000 16,000 16,000 16,000 16,00016,000 13995027 10,000OR: Point of Sale Equipment Replacements 20,00010,000 13995028 20,000IR/Facilities: Conference Room A/V Upgrades 20,000 13995029 7,500 7,500IT: Plotter Replacements 37,5007,500 7,500 7,500 13995030OR: Rec Center PA / Sound 50,00050,000 13995031 45,000MSC Cameras 90,00045,000 Thursday, December 04, 2014 City Council Meeting of December 15, 2014 (Item No. 8b) Title: 2015 Budget, Final Property Tax Levies (City & HRA) and 2015 - 2024 CIP Page 31 Total20152016201720182019Department20202021202220232024 10,297,6671,420,333 917,666 1,061,166 1,139,666 1,074,166Capital Replacement Fund 903,334 867,834 895,334 947,834 1,070,334 305,00015,000 15,000 90,000 15,000 15,000E-911 Funds 15,000 15,000 95,000 15,000 15,000 405,000175,000 185,000EDA Development Fund 45,000 1,000,000100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000G.O. Bonds 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 135,000135,000Park Improvement Fund 50,00050,000Pavement Management Fund 3,132,000305,000 720,000 10,000 129,500 156,500Police & Fire Pension 32,000 33,000 150,000 106,500 1,489,500 337,670102,333 16,333 16,333 16,333 31,333Sanitary Sewer Utility 64,001 24,001 19,001 19,001 29,001 110,00045,000 10,000Solid Waste Utility 45,000 10,000 130,00349,000 667 667 667 10,667Stormwater Utility 45,667 5,667 667 667 15,667 815,00065,000 200,000 200,000 50,000 50,000Unfunded 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 352,660102,333 16,332 16,332 26,332 26,332Water Utility 63,999 24,000 19,000 29,000 29,000 17,070,0002,563,999 2,170,998 1,494,498 1,477,498 1,473,998Technology Total 1,364,001 1,119,502 1,329,002 1,268,002 2,808,502 13995034 225,000IT: Server Farm Tape Lib/UPS/DR/SAN 450,000225,000 13995035IT: Telephone Handset Upgrade 200,000100,000 100,000 13995036 10,000Eng: Large Scanner / Plotter / Copier 20,00010,000 13995037Fire: Stations Media Package 200,000100,000 100,000 13995039 8,000Admin Serv: UB Meter Reading Handhelds (if no AMR) 8,000 13995040 6,500Police: Interview Room Cameras 13,0006,500 13995041 10,000 10,000IT: Wireless Hotspots 50,00010,000 10,000 10,000 61990001Police-LPR replacement 22,00022,000 17,070,0002,563,999 2,170,998 1,494,498 1,477,498 1,473,998Technology Total 1,364,001 1,119,502 1,329,002 1,268,002 2,808,502 25,509,033 23,896,817 14,255,232 23,879,218 15,726,765Grand Total 184,032,62618,131,785 14,690,828 13,020,230 12,467,858 22,454,860 Thursday, December 04, 2014 City Council Meeting of December 15, 2014 (Item No. 8b) Title: 2015 Budget, Final Property Tax Levies (City & HRA) and 2015 - 2024 CIP Page 32 Meeting: City Council Meeting Date: December 15, 2014 Action Agenda Item: 8c EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: Fund Equity and Operating Transfers, Interfund Loan, and Fund Closings RECOMMENDED ACTION: • Motion to Adopt Resolution authorizing fund equity transfer, operating transfers, and fund closings. • Motion to Adopt Resolution approving an interfund loan. POLICY CONSIDERATION: • Does the City Council concur with the staff recommendation regarding the level of fund balance in the General Fund after the proposed equity transfer to the Capital Replacement Fund? • Does the City Council desire to approve the other proposed operating transfers between funds? • Does the City Council desire to approve the interfund loan from the Development Fund to the Housing Rehabilitation Fund? • Does the City Council concur with the recommendation to close certain funds? SUMMARY: This report includes information on the projected level of fund balance in the General Fund and proposed transfers between funds for the year ending December 31, 2014. It also includes information on a proposed interfund loan and the closing of certain funds. The need for equity and operating transfers between funds is analyzed each year and information is forwarded to Council for approval. This process supports the continued work on the Long Range Financial Management Plan as discussed with Council. Interfund loans are necessary to have in place when particular funds may need additional cash to support their operations. All funds are reviewed annually to determine if there are any which are no longer necessary and should be closed. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: The proposed transfers will direct resources to funds where there are funding challenges to help achieve long-term sustainability. VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion Resolutions 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 City Council Meeting of December 15, 2014 (Item No. 8c) Page 2 Title: Fund Equity and Operating Transfers, Interfund Loan, and Fund Closings DISCUSSION BACKGROUND: At the end of each calendar year, all funds are analyzed to determine if transfers should be recommended to meet fund balance policy requirements or to assist with long-term sustainability. Cash balances are also analyzed to determine if interfund loans may be necessary. PRESENT CONSIDERATIONS: Equity Transfer As per the December 31, 2013 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR), the unassigned fund balance in the General Fund was $14,342,422, which was equal to 47.1% of the 2014 budgeted expenditures. The City’s Fund Balance Policy states that the City will strive to maintain a fund balance in the General Fund that is within a range of 35% to 50% of the following year’s budgeted expenditures, and that any amount greater than 40% can be transferred to other funds. The City’s policy follows the Office of the State Auditor’s recommended fund balance guidelines. At the end of 2014, Staff anticipates that the unassigned fund balance in the General Fund will increase to approximately $16.3 million. This is based on projections that were prepared by Staff using actual year to date numbers through October 2014 to project activity through the close of the fiscal year end. As a result, the projected end of year unassigned fund balance in the General Fund would grow to approximately 50% of the 2015 budgeted expenditures, which could potentially exceed the range of 35% to 50% stated in the policy. Therefore, it is recommended that an equity transfer from the General Fund of $1,050,000 be made in 2014 to the Capital Replacement Fund. With the recommended transfer to the Capital Replacement Fund, the fund balance within the General Fund would be projected to be in a range of 46% - 48% of the 2015 budgeted expenditures, with the target goal being approximately 47%, depending on 2014 final year end results. Capital Replacement Fund – Transfer in of $1,050,000: The Capital Replacement Fund provides for all technology, equipment, and municipal building improvement projects. This fund began receiving a property tax allocation in 2010 and Local Government Aid in 2014. Operating transfers from the Permanent Improvement Revolving Fund (PIR) have also occurred since 2012. However, the Capital Replacement Fund will continue to have sustainability challenges in future years without additional revenues. An equity transfer in 2014 of $1,050,000 from the General Fund to the Capital Replacement Fund is recommended. Other Operating Transfers Staff is also recommending additional transfers between funds in 2014 as follows: Permanent Improvement Revolving Fund (PIR) to Capital Replacement Fund – Transfer of $450,000: In 2012, a transfer of $300,000 was made from the PIR Fund to the Capital Replacement Fund, and the transfer was increased to $450,000 in 2013. As explained above, the Capital Replacement Fund continues to have challenges in future years. Therefore, a similar transfer is recommended in 2014 in the amount of $450,000 from the Permanent Improvement Revolving Fund (PIR) to the Capital Replacement Fund. This transfer will begin to be reduced in future City Council Meeting of December 15, 2014 (Item No. 8c) Page 3 Title: Fund Equity and Operating Transfers, Interfund Loan, and Fund Closings years and eliminated entirely by 2017 in order to maintain an appropriate fund balance in the PIR Fund. Park Center TIF District to Housing Rehabilitation Fund – Transfer of $110,000: The Housing Rehabilitation Fund was established to provide funding for projects and programs that focus on providing well-maintained and diverse housing along with increasing affordable ownership opportunities. The primary revenue source for this fund is the 1/8th of one percent fee received by the City on the outstanding balance of private activity revenue bonds, which amounts to approximately $600,000 per year. This fund has had and continues to have long-term sustainability challenges. Tax increment generated by the Park Center TIF District can be used to fund eligible housing programs, and all previous obligations in this district have been satisfied. An initial transfer of $500,000 was made in 2013 from the Park Center TIF District to the Housing Rehabilitation Fund, with a plan to make annual transfers of available Park Center increment going forward until the district ends in 2023 to provide additional funding for eligible housing program expenditures. A transfer of $110,000 is recommended from the Park Center TIF District to the Housing Rehabilitation Fund in 2014. Development Fund to Hwy 7 Corporate Center TIF District – Transfer of $47,356: A one-time transfer is necessary from the Development Fund to the Hwy 7 Corporate Center TIF District to correct a previous salary allocation entry where expenses were inadvertently charged to the TIF District. This causes the district to have a negative cash balance after the 2/1 and 8/1 Pay As You Go note payments are made each year. The expenses should have been correctly paid by the Development Fund. A transfer of $47,356 is recommended from the Development Fund to the Hwy 7 Corporate Center TIF District in 2014 to make this correction. 1999, 2003, and 2010B General Obligation Debt Service Funds to Housing Rehabilitation Fund – Transfer of $227,039: Cities are required by State Statute to levy 105% of principal and interest due each year on general obligations bonds. The purpose of the additional 5% is to cover possible delinquencies in tax collections. After general obligation bonds are paid off, any excess funds that remain in the debt service fund should be transferred to another fund to be used in a manner consistent with that of other levied general property tax dollars, after which the debt service fund should be formally closed. The debt service funds for the 1999 GO Improvement Bonds, the 2003 GO Improvement Bonds, and the 2010B GO Refunding Bonds have a combined cash balance remaining in them of $227,039. Since the debt obligations have been fully satisfied and paid, the balances can be transferred and the funds closed. It is recommended that a transfer of $227,039 be made in 2014 from these debt service funds to the Housing Rehabilitation Fund to help allow the continuation of the City’s various housing programs. Formal approval to close the funds will be discussed later in this report. Interfund Loan As Council knows from previous discussions with Staff on the Long Range Financial Management Plan, the Housing Rehabilitation Fund has and continues to have funding challenges. Further analysis is being conducted to identify additional sources of revenue to help this fund become sustainable. However, an interfund loan should be in place in the event that the Housing Rehabilitation Fund should run a cash deficit at the end of 2014 or in a future year. City Council Meeting of December 15, 2014 (Item No. 8c) Page 4 Title: Fund Equity and Operating Transfers, Interfund Loan, and Fund Closings Staff recommends that an interfund loan resolution be approved from the Development Fund to the Housing Rehabilitation Fund in an amount not to exceed $500,000. The Housing Rehabilitation Fund will repay any funds borrowed from the Development Fund with 4% interest when sufficient resources are available. Fund Closings At the end of each year, Staff determines if there are any funds which are no longer necessary and should be closed. Four funds have been identified that will be closed at the end of 2014. Final payments have been made on the 1999 General Obligation Improvement Bonds, the 2003 General Obligation Improvement Bonds, and the 2010B General Obligation Refunding Bonds. Proposed transfers for the balances remaining in these funds have been presented in this report. After the proposed transfers are made, Staff recommends that the funds be formally closed. In 2013, the former Park & Recreation Fund was moved into the General Fund as part of the reorganization. The former Park & Recreation Fund can be formally closed in 2014. Staff is recommending that the City Council take formal action to close the following funds for the year ending December 31, 2014: Fund Number Name 2000 Park & Recreation Fund 3400 1999 GO Improvement Debt Service 3450 2003 GO Improvement Debt Service 3470 2010B GO Refunding Debt Service City Council Meeting of December 15, 2014 (Item No. 8c) Page 5 Title: Fund Equity and Operating Transfers, Interfund Loan, and Fund Closings RESOLUTION NO. 14-____ RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING FUND EQUITY TRANSFER, OPERATING TRANSFERS, AND FUND CLOSINGS WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park has created various special purpose funds; and WHEREAS, some of those funds rely on transfers from other funds for their continued operation; and WHEREAS, certain funds are no longer necessary to the operation of the City; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the St. Louis Park City Council: 1. Approval is hereby given to the Controller to transfer the following sum of money from the General Fund to the Capital Replacement Fund as shown. Transferring Fund Receiving Fund Amount General Fund Capital Replacement Fund $ 1,050,000 2. Approval is hereby given to the Controller to make additional transfers between funds in the amounts as shown. Transferring Fund Receiving Fund Amount Permanent Improvement Revolving Fund (PIR) Capital Replacement Fund $ 450,000 Park Center TIF District Housing Rehabilitation Fund $ 110,000 Development Fund Hwy 7 Corporate Center TIF District $ 47,356 1999, 2003, & 2010B Debt Service Funds Housing Rehabilitation Fund $ 227,039 3. Approval is hereby given to the Controller to close the following funds as shown. Fund Number Name 2000 Park & Recreation Fund 3400 1999 GO Improvement Debt Service 3450 2003 GO Improvement Debt Service 3470 2010B GO Refunding Debt Service Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council December 15, 2014 City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk City Council Meeting of December 15, 2014 (Item No. 8c) Page 6 Title: Fund Equity and Operating Transfers, Interfund Loan, and Fund Closings RESOLUTION NO. 14-____ RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AN INTERFUND LOAN WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park has created various special purpose funds; and WHEREAS, some of those funds may at times run a cash deficit and require an inter- fund loan; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City of St. Louis Park City Council: 1. The following inter-fund loan is approved from the Development Fund to the Housing Rehabilitation Fund as needed: Loan From Loan To Maximum Loan Development Fund Housing Rehabilitation Fund $ 500,000 2. Such loans are to be repaid with 4% interest when sufficient resources are available. Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council December 15, 2014 City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk Meeting: City Council Meeting Date: December 15, 2014 Action Agenda Item: 8d EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: 2015 Employee Compensation RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to Adopt a Resolution confirming a 2.5% general increase for non-union employees effective 1/1/15; approving the City Manager’s salary for 2015, continuing participation in the Volunteer Firefighter Benefit Program; and increasing performance program pay by 2.5% for Paid-On-Call Firefighters for 2015. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does Council wish to confirm the recommended 2015 employee compensation as outlined in this report? SUMMARY: This report details staff’s recommendation for setting non-union employee compensation for 2015. Recommendation for 2015 Non-Union Employee Compensation: • Upon recommendation from the City’s consultant, approve 2.5% standard adjustment to compensation plan for non-union employees, allowing for regular progression through pay ranges. • Upon recommendation from consultant, increase City Manager’s pay range and allow movement through the range consistent with non-union. Pay increase would become effective upon Council approval of the City Manager’s performance evaluation and include retro-pay back to January 1, 2015. • Approve continuation in the Volunteer Firefighter Benefit Program. • Approve 2.5% increase to Paid-On-Call Firefighter Performance Program. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: The amount recommended has been included in the 2015 budget. VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion Resolution Prepared by: Ali Timpone, HR Coordinator Reviewed by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager City Council Meeting of December 15, 2014 (Item No. 8d) Page 2 Title: 2015 Employee Compensation DISCUSSION Non-Union Employee Compensation – 2.5% General Increase Effective 1/1/15 Our compensation plan, which was adopted in 1997, allows the City Manager to approve the standard adjustment based on information such as market value data, the CPI, and the general financial condition of the City. A review of our positions was conducted by consultant Saado Abboud of Keystone Compensation Group. Mr. Abboud reviewed the salaries of St. Louis Park in comparison with metro area cities (suburbs) with populations over 25,000 but less than 90,000 as required in our compensation plan. After review of the market, our consultant determined that pay maximums for St. Louis Park would remain competitive if increased by 2.5%. The increase for non-union employees will be applied in accordance with our compensation plan. In our plan, after successful completion of probation (typically six months), a position receives up to double the standard increase to progress through the pay range until they reach the pay line (maximum). Positions at the maximum will receive the standard adjustment of 2.5%. Salary Cap and City Manager Salary The contract for the City Manager states that base salary and benefits must be set when salaries are established for other non-union employees. Compensation must comply with the State mandated salary cap. • 2014 salary range for the City Manager was set at $151,725 - $178,500. • Salary cap in 2014 was $162,245. • 2014 annual salary for City Manager is $162,245 and additional PTO of 132.76 hours (at $78/hr. = $10,355) for a total of $172,600, not including car allowance. Historically, we have set the pay range at a wage that was commensurate with top executives from similarly sized Midwest cities in states other than Minnesota. Because Minnesota has an artificial salary cap, we don’t want to compare to actual pay in these cities. The general St. Louis Park philosophy for City Manager pay range has been to set it at a rate that is competitive with our neighboring states. For 2014, our consultant reviewed the data and has noted that similar Midwest cities have seen an increase of 3.3% to City Manager salaries. Therefore, a 2.5% increase to the City Manager’s salary range is recommended, consistent with other non- union staff. Because the City Manager’s compensation is not at the max of the 2015 range, the City Manager is eligible for double the standard increase (5%) in accordance with the compensation plan, consistent with other non-union employees. A 5% increase would be total compensation of $181,230. • 2015 salary range set for the City Manager recommended at $155,519 - $182,963 (2.5% increase, consistent with other non-union staff). • Salary cap for 2015 is set by state statute at $165,003 (1.7% increase). • It is recommended that effective January 1, 2015, Council approves an annual salary of $165,003 annually ($79.328 hourly) for the City Manager, not including car allowance, in accordance with the salary cap. Car allowance of $600 per month will be subject to the PTO program. In addition, Council approves 204.55 hours of PTO for the City Manager in 2015 (204.55 X $79.328 = $16,227). • The City Manager’s salary will remain at 2014 levels until approval of the annual performance evaluation by Council. Upon approval of the evaluation, the 2015 salary will be approved and the City Manager will receive retro-pay to January 1, 2015. City Council Meeting of December 15, 2014 (Item No. 8d) Page 3 Title: 2015 Employee Compensation Paid Time Off (PTO Program) The PTO program is approved by Council and part of the City’s Personnel Manual. Section 9.13 Paid Time Off (PTO) Program states: Effective 01/01/02, exempt employees, including the City Manager, who reach the salary limit requirements of M.S. 43A.17, Subd. 9, shall receive equivalent hours above the limit in paid leave (PTO). Amount of paid leave (PTO) is determined by the City Council. Paid leave (PTO) is typically accrued on a per pay period basis, although the Council may issue paid leave (PTO) as a lump sum amount of time. Paid leave (PTO) may be used as earned, maintained in a paid leave (PTO) bank or cashed out upon separation of employment. Paid leave (PTO) is separate and not part of the flex leave program (Resolution 02-127). Each July 31, all hours in the PTO balance must transfer to a Health Care Savings Plan account established for the employee in accordance with plan requirements (Resolution 05-104). Funds in the Health Care Savings Plan can only be used for reimbursement of eligible medical expenses after separation of employment. Volunteer Firefighter Benefit Program Our paid-on-call firefighters receive a life insurance benefit through the Volunteer Firefighters’ Benefit Association of Minnesota. Our personnel policy requires Council approval for conditions of employment relating to performance bonuses or insurance. This program is very affordable and covers our paid-on-call firefighters. It covers life insurance up to $20,000 and also provides some disability coverage. This program is a typical benefit offered to other paid-on-call firefighters in municipalities in the metro area. Since paid-on-call firefighters are not eligible for the benefits of other employees, it is important that we provide some type of life insurance coverage for this group. We recommend Council approves continued participation in this program consistent with Resolution 05-150. Paid-on-Call Firefighter Performance Program – 2.5% Increase Our Paid-on-Call Firefighter Performance Program was established in 1996. The Performance Program was designed for our paid-on-call firefighters to be competitive with our volunteer neighbors, and alleviate the need of a Fire Department Relief Association. The Performance Program is reviewed annually. The Fire Chief has recommended a 2.5% increase to this program, effective January 1, 2015. (Payment is based on performance as approved by the Fire Chief and is typically made at year end.) General comment: Copies of the Compensation Plan are available from the City Clerk. City Council Meeting of December 15, 2014 (Item No. 8d) Page 4 Title: 2015 Employee Compensation RESOLUTION NO. 14-___ RESOLUTION CONFIRMING 2015 COMPENSATION FOR NON-UNION EMPLOYEES; SETTING THE CITY MANAGER’S SALARY; CONTINUING PARTICIPATION IN THE VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTER BENEFIT PROGRAM; AND CONTINUING PERFORMANCE PROGRAM PAY FOR PAID-ON-CALL FIREFIGHTERS WHEREAS, the City Council established and approved, by Resolution, the Position Classification and Compensation Plan for the City of St. Louis Park, and Section VIII-C of such Plan directs the City Manager to approve the standard adjustment to the Plan; and WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to adopt policies for City employees and has conferred upon the City Manager the power to establish and administer additional administrative policies and rules as may be appropriate for the employment practices of the City; and NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park: A. Confirms the City Manager’s decision to implement a standard adjustment of 2.5%, effective January 1, 2015 for non-union employees in accordance with the Position Classification and Compensation Plan. B. Confirms a salary of $165,003 for the City Manager, not including car allowance. Salary application must comply with the salary limitations set by statute, therefore PTO applies to the City Manager’s car allowance of $600 per month. Council also approves an additional 204.55 hours of PTO for the City Manager in 2015. The City Manager’s salary will remain at 2014 levels until Council approves an annual performance evaluation, and at that time the 2015 salary stated here is approved with retro-pay back to January 1, 2015. C. Approves continuation of participation in the Volunteer Firefighters’ Benefit Association of MN Benefit Program for 2015, consistent with Resolution 05-150. D. Approves continuation of the Paid-on-Call Firefighters 2015 Performance Program with a 2.5% increase, effective January 1, 2015. Performance Program: Paid-on-Call Firefighters For 0 – 23 months of service, paid-on-call firefighters are eligible to receive a monthly amount. After 23 months, they are eligible to receive an annual amount. This amount may be pro-rated for actual number of months worked. All amounts after the 23 month timeframe show annual amounts as follows: Years of Service 2015 Annual Up to 23 Months of Service $157 per month 2 $2,048 3 $2,200 4 $2,367 5 $2,517 6 $2,669 7 $2,822 8 $2,988 City Council Meeting of December 15, 2014 (Item No. 8d) Page 5 Title: 2015 Employee Compensation Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council December 15, 2014 City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk 9 $3,142 10 $3,292 11 $3,460 12 $3,625 13 $3,777 14 $3,944 15 $4,095 16 $4,249 17 $4,400 18 $4,566 19 $4,717 20 $4,871 Meeting: City Council Meeting Date: December 15, 2014 Discussion Item: 8e EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: Paid Parenting Leave Policy RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to Adopt Resolution adding a Paid Parenting Leave Policy to the Personnel Manual. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the City Council wish to approve adding the Paid Parenting Leave Program to the Personnel Manual? BACKGROUND: At a study session on November 10, 2014, Council requested staff to prepare a resolution adding a Paid Parenting Leave Policy to the Personnel Manual. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Funds for a new policy would come from 2015 department budgets. VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion Resolution Prepared by: Ali Timpone, HR Coordinator Reviewed by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager City Council Meeting of December 15, 2014 (Item No. 8e) Page 2 Title: Paid Parenting Leave Policy DISCUSSION What leave is currently available for St. Louis Park employees for birth, adoption or parenting? Currently, any employee who experiences the birth or adoption of a child may qualify for the federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) if they have been employed for at least 12 months and have worked at least 1,250 hours. FMLA provides up to 12 weeks unpaid leave for the birth or adoption of a child. In addition, employees may qualify for Minnesota Parental Leave which provides up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave to employees who experience a birth or adoption if they have worked at least half time in the past twelve months. FMLA and MN Parental Leave run concurrently so the max amount of guaranteed leave is 12 weeks. The City also has a general leave of absence policy which allows employees to request additional time off if the 12 weeks provided by FMLA and MN Parental Leave do not meet the employee’s needs. Approval is not guaranteed, but determined on a case-by-case basis and in consideration of business needs. What do we currently offer for paid leave? At this time, employees on our flex leave program (all employees except members of the IAFF Firefighter union group) are required to use their accrued leave when on FMLA, MN Parental Leave, and/or a general leave of absence, although employees can choose to use unpaid leave if their balance is 80 hours or less. Fire union members have sick and vacation instead of flex leave and must use accrued vacation, holiday, comp time, or unpaid leave when on FMLA, MN Parental Leave, and/or a general leave of absence. Birthing parents on our flex leave program may also qualify for short term disability (STD), which provides 67% of non-exempt employee’s salary and 100% of exempt employee’s salary (paid by the city) after a three week waiting period. Fire union members do not qualify for short term disability as they have not adopted the flex leave plan and are on a sick and vacation program. Short term disability payments require physician certification and end when a doctor says an employee is physically able to return to work – typically six weeks after birth for a normal delivery, eight weeks for Cesarean section birth. See below illustration for a typical 12-week leave due to the birth or adoption of a baby: Birth 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 12 weeks for non-birthing parents and all Fire Union – must use accrued leave or unpaid leave. Birthing parent 3 week STD waiting period Must use accrued leave or unpaid leave. Birthing parent STD leave Typically add’l 3 weeks Paid at 67% non-exempt Paid at 100% exempt Birthing parent additional FMLA/Parental leave available Up to 12 weeks total Must use accrued leave or unpaid leave. City Council Meeting of December 15, 2014 (Item No. 8e) Page 3 Title: Paid Parenting Leave Policy What Do Other Cities Do? The City of St. Paul recently announced a paid parenting leave program which provides four weeks paid leave to a birthing parent and two weeks paid leave to other parents. The City of Brooklyn Park approved a parenting leave program on October 6, 2014 that provides one week of paid leave prior to FMLA, and another week of paid leave at the end of the 12-week FMLA leave (two weeks total). How do St. Louis Park leave programs compare? The flex leave program developed in the late 90’s along with short term disability was ahead of its time. Most cities had vacation and sick leave. The policy direction in our city was to move to a PTO or flex leave program to allow employees the flexibility and independence to manage their own leave. Leave accrual levels were re-set and severance payouts were adjusted. The short term disability program was developed to help employees who may run into some longer term illness or injury and this would provide up to six months assistance with salary in accordance with medical documentation. Flex leave and short term disability were first implemented with non-contractual employees and negotiated into each union upon their request for change of leave program. Firefighters are the only group who chose to remain on the old sick/vacation program without short term disability. What Would It Cost in SLP? We estimate we would have an average of six parental leaves per year with this policy. The chart below shows the approximate cost of a paid leave program if providing one, two or three weeks of paid leave for the estimated six births in 2015. 1 wk paid leave 2 wks paid leave 3 wks paid leave Estimated 6 births in 2015 (avg $1,360/person/wk) $8,160 $16,320 $24,480 Recommended Policy It is recommended that the new policy include the following components: 1. Purpose: To provide parents of all genders time to bond with newborn children in hopes of setting children up for long term health and wellbeing. 2. Eligibility: Eligibility for paid parenting leave mirrors the eligibility for MN Parental Leave (must have worked at least half time in previous 12 months) and the employee must be a regular benefit-earning employee of the City of St. Louis Park. 3. Birthing and non-birthing parents (regardless of gender) are eligible for the same benefit upon birth or placement for adoption. 4. Surrogate mothers and sperm donors are excluded from coverage. 5. Paid leave must begin on the date of the baby’s birth or placement for adoption. (Paid leave cannot be held for use later. It begins upon date of birth or adoption with no exceptions.) 6. Amount of Pay: Eligible employees will receive 100% of their regular hourly base wage for regularly scheduled hours while on paid leave. 7. Length of Paid Leave: Paid leave expires 21 calendar days after birth or placement for adoption. Paid leave cannot be extended. It must end 21 calendar days after date of birth or adoption with no exceptions. 8. After Leave: Short term disability eligibility continues to apply to those eligible (Fire Union is not eligible for short term disability as they are on sick and vacation); FMLA and MN Parenting Leave eligibility continue to apply. City Council Meeting of December 15, 2014 (Item No. 8e) Page 4 Title: Paid Parenting Leave Policy 9. Multiple births or adoptions (twins, triplets, etc.), medical conditions, and/or other circumstances will not extend the paid leave past three weeks. 10. The Paid Parental Leave policy will run concurrently with FMLA, MN Parental Leave, and/or STD and does not extend the expiration dates of those programs. See below illustration for how this paid leave policy will apply: Birth 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 NEXT STEPS Approval of the attached resolution makes all non-union staff eligible for paid parenting leave for births occurring on or after January 1, 2015. Human Resources will meet and confer with each union group to determine if they wish to approve this policy in their bargaining agreements. Non-birthing parent/Fire 3 weeks Paid at 100% by City Non-birthing parents and Fire Union – 9 weeks must use accrued or unpaid leave. Birthing parent 3 week STD waiting period Paid at 100% by City Birthing parent STD leave Typically add’l 3 weeks Paid at 67% non-exempt Paid at 100% exempt Birthing parent additional FMLA/Parental leave available Up to 12 weeks total Must use accrued leave or unpaid leave. City Council Meeting of December 15, 2014 (Item No. 8e) Page 5 Title: Paid Parenting Leave Policy RESOLUTION NO. 14-____ RESOLUTION ADDING PAID PARENTING LEAVE POLICY TO THE PERSONNEL MANUAL WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to adopt policies for City employees and has conferred upon the City Manager the power to establish and administer additional administrative policies and rules as may be appropriate for the employment practices of the City; and NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park approves adding the following language to the Personnel Manual: 11.12 Parenting Leave It is the policy of the City of St. Louis Park to provide paid and unpaid parental leave benefits to employees due to the birth of an employee’s child or the placement within an employee’s home of an adopted child. To be eligible for parental leave, an employee must have been employed by the City, working at least 20 hours per week for a minimum of one continuous year (12 months). Paid parental leave will be provided to regular benefit-earning employees (regardless of gender) who meet eligibility requirements as described above, who become biological or adoptive parents in conjunction with childbirth or adoptions occurring on or after January 1, 2015. Surrogate mothers and sperm or egg donors are excluded from coverage. The paid parental leave benefit is 100% of the employee’s regular base wage (does not include overtime, supplemental pay, and/or other additional pay), for regularly scheduled work hours for up to 21 calendar days and must begin on the date of the birth or placement for adoption. Multiple births or adoptions (i.e., twins, triplets), medical conditions, and/or other circumstances will not increase length of paid leave granted. For the purpose of this benefit, holidays will be counted as a regular scheduled work day and will be included in the 21 calendar day count. Employer benefit contribution and leave accrual continue during paid parenting leave. For birthing parents, paid parental leave will run concurrently with short term disability coverage (Section 10) and FMLA. Unpaid parental leave will also be provided to eligible employees in accordance with the MN Parental Leave Act. Unpaid parental leave must be taken within 12 months of the birth or adoption and eligible employees can choose when the leave will begin. The maximum amount of parental leave (including both paid and unpaid leave) is twelve weeks. Eligible employees anticipating paid or unpaid parenting leave must submit a written request to Human Resources before the anticipated birth or adoption of the child whenever possible. Parental leave (both paid and unpaid) and FMLA will run concurrently. In no event will the combination of FMLA and parental leave exceed twelve weeks duration. The employee shall be returned to the position that the employee vacated at the commencement of leave or to a position of like status and pay. For leaves requiring more than twelve weeks for pregnancy, delivery and postpartum recuperation, an additional leave of absence without pay may be granted in accordance with Section 11.1 on the basis that such action is taken in the best interest of the City. City Council Meeting of December 15, 2014 (Item No. 8e) Page 6 Title: Paid Parenting Leave Policy Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council December 15, 2014 City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk Meeting: Special Study Session Meeting Date: December 15, 2014 Discussion Item: 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: Comcast Franchise Transfer RECOMMENDED ACTION: No action at this time. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Brian Grogan from Moss and Barnett will be in attendance to brief the Council on the legal review of the proposed Comcast franchise transfer and the process to approve or deny the transfer. Members of the Telecommunications Advisory Commission will also be in attendance to hear Mr. Grogan’s report. Council will be asked to take action on the franchise transfer in January. SUMMARY: On June 18, 2014, the City received formal notice from Comcast that they plan a series of transactions that affect the St. Louis Park Cable TV franchise. A cable TV franchise transfer is guided by state and federal law, and the City has the authority to evaluate the legal, technical and financial capability of the proposed new franchisee. With the approval of the Telecommunications Advisory Commission and City Council, the city is partnering with MACTA (state Cable TV administrators professional group) for a detailed financial review of the newly created franchisee, GreatLand Communications, Inc. Separately, Front Range Consulting is conducting a franchise fee review of Comcast for 2011, 2012 and 2013 for just the City of St. Louis Park. Like many other cities, St. Louis Park had many questions for Comcast regarding its proposed transfer. Comcast and GreatLand didn’t reply to each question but provided thirty pages of information on October 3, a detailed filing to the Securities and Exchange Commission about November 1, and a copy of the Service Agreement between Charter, Comcast and GreatLand in mid-November. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Financial and legal reviews are underway and expected to cost $13,500 to $14,500. The City is partnering with numerous other cities to reduce the cost of these reviews, especially since these costs were unknown and unbudgeted by all local franchising authorities. A previously approved and budgeted franchise fee compliance audit for 2011, 2012 and 2013 is also underway and will cost $8,500. The source of funding for both activities will be the Cable TV Fund. VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged community. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion Prepared by: Reg Dunlap, Civic TV Coordinator Reviewed by: Jamie Zwilling, Communications & Marketing Coordinator Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Special Study Session Meeting of December 15, 2014 (Item No. 2) Page 2 Title: Comcast Franchise Transfer DISCUSSION BACKGROUND: What’s the City’s role in the Comcast franchise transfer? Evaluate the legal, technical and financial capability of franchisee/transferee, GreatLand Connections, Inc., formerly known as SpinCo or Midwest Cable. If we take any actions, when must we act? Comcast has provided all Minnesota cities an extension to January 15, 2015 to act. What will be the impact on customers if the franchise transfer is approved? • The company name would change and, over time, policies would change • Customer email addresses would change • Login credentials to check billing statements online or check email remotely would change (new user name and password) • Customers might have to reapply for direct bill pay • Telephone numbers would not change • The customer equipment to receive cable channels would not change immediately, but could be switched later Financial Review Update: MACTA’s financial review of GreatLand is conducted by Ashpaugh and Sculco and Front Range Consulting. The final report is expected in early December. Legal Review Update: Moss & Barnett attorney Brian Grogan has collaborated with the several other attorneys in the Twin Cities that specialize in telecommunications law, and met with Keith Hall, the GreatLand Director for Government Relations, who visited several franchise authorities in October. Mr. Hall said there would be a six to 12 month transition of services provided by Comcast to minimize disruption to customers. After the transition, customer service will be provided by Charter’s domestic call centers; they have no off-shore call centers. He said that customers will be happy to change to GreatLand for better customer service. GreatLand will have 2.5 million subscribers in eleven states, and the two largest markets will be Detroit with 1.2 million subscribers, and the Twin Cities, with 550,000 subscribers. GreatLand will be responsible for customer service (through contracts with Charter) and franchising, and Charter will be responsible for technology, programming and content. GreatLand executives have ties to the former Insight Communications, which was the ninth largest cable company in the United States until purchased by Time Warner Cable in 2011. Insight had a history of partnering with vendors to run their franchises. Franchise Fee Audit: Front Range Inc., the City’s franchise fee audit firm, has completed a draft report and provided it to City Attorney Joel Jamnik. The draft report has been forwarded to Comcast for any corrections before being finalized for the Telecommunications Advisory Commission and City Council review. NEXT STEPS: The Council can expect to consider the franchise transfer at the January 5, 2015 meeting to comply with the January 15 deadline for action. Mr. Grogan says that the transfer can be approved or denied via a Council resolution, instead of as an ordinance.