HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013/05/06 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - RegularAGENDA
MAY 6, 2013
(Mayor Jacobs & Councilmember Ross Out)
6:30 p.m. SPECIAL STUDY SESSION – Council Chambers
Discussion Items
1. 6:30 p.m. HR Update
7:10 p.m. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY -- Council Chambers
1. Call to Order
2. Roll Call
3. Approval of Minutes
3a. Economic Development Authority Minutes March 18, 2013
4. Approval of Agenda
5. Reports
5a. EDA Vendor Claims
6. Old Business -- None
7. New Business
7a. Establishment of the Eliot Park Tax Increment Financing District
Recommended Action: Motion to Adopt EDA Resolution approving the establishment
of the Eliot Park Tax Increment Financing District within Redevelopment Project No. 1
(a redevelopment district).
7b. Authorization to Submit Contamination Cleanup Grant Application Related to Eliot
Park Project
Recommended Action: Motion to Adopt EDA Resolution authorizing the Executive
Director and President to submit a grant application to the Metropolitan Council Tax
Base Revitalization Grant Program on behalf of Eliot Park Apartments, LLC.
8. Communications
9. Adjournment
7:30 p.m. CITY COUNCIL MEETING – Council Chambers
1. Call to Order
1a. Pledge of Allegiance
1b. Roll Call
2. Presentations
2a. Recognition of Boards and Commissions Members
2b. Sheriff’s Office Update
Meeting of May 6, 2013
City Council Agenda
3. Approval of Minutes
3a. City Council Meeting Minutes April 1, 2013
3b. Study Session Meeting Minutes April 8, 2013
3c. City Council Meeting Minutes April 15, 2013
4. Approval of Agenda and Items on Consent Calendar
NOTE: The Consent Calendar lists those items of business which are considered to be routine and/or which
need no discussion. Consent items are acted upon by one motion. If discussion is desired by either a
Councilmember or a member of the audience, that item may be moved to an appropriate section of the regular
agenda for discussion. The items for the Consent Calendar are listed on the last page of the Agenda.
Recommended Action: Motion to approve the Agenda as presented and items listed on the Consent Calendar; and to waive
reading of all resolutions and ordinances. (Alternatively: Motion to add or remove items from the agenda,
or move items from Consent Calendar to regular agenda for discussion.)
5. Boards and Commissions -- None
6. Public Hearings
6a. Establishment of the Eliot Park Tax Increment Financing District and Related TIF Plan
Recommended Action: Conduct Public Hearing and Adopt Resolution establishing the
Eliot Park Tax Increment Financing District within Redevelopment Project No. 1 and
approving the related TIF Plan.
7. Requests, Petitions, and Communications from the Public -- None
8. Resolutions, Ordinances, Motions and Discussion Items
8a. First Reading of Background Checks Ordinance Amendment
Recommended Action: Motion to Approve First Reading of an Ordinance amending
the St. Louis Park Code of Ordinances Chapter 16 relating to criminal history
background checks.
8b. Healthy Eating and Active Living Policy
Recommended Action: Motion to Adopt Resolution and the Healthy Eating and Active
Living Policy.
8c. Conditional Use Permit - Educational Facility w/ Student Housing (3115 Ottawa Ave. S.)
Recommended Action: Motion to Adopt Resolution approving the Conditional Use
Permit (CUP) for Yeshiva of Minneapolis, with conditions recommended by staff.
8d. Approval of 2013-2018 Solid Waste Collection Contracts
Recommended Action: Motion to Adopt Resolution which designates Waste
Management for residential garbage and recycling collection services and Advanced
Disposal for residential yard waste and organic waste collection services and authorizes
the Mayor and City Manager to execute contracts with the respective companies for
those services.
9. Communication
Auxiliary aids for individuals with disabilities are available upon request. To make arrangements, please call
the Administration Department at 952/924-2525 (TDD 952/924-2518) at least 96 hours in advance of meeting.
Meeting of May 6, 2013
City Council Agenda
CONSENT CALENDAR
4a. Designate Black and Dew the lowest responsible bidder and authorize execution of a
contract with the firm in the amount of $1,493,000 for the base bid and Bid Alternates
1, 2, and 3 for a total contract amount of $1,620,100 for City Hall Renovation Project
No. 2900-1600
4b. Approve Second Reading and Adopt Ordinance amending Chapter 8, Subdivisions IV
– Food and Beverage, V – Public Sanitary Facilities, and VII – Lodging and Chapter
12, Article 1 – Environmental and Public Health and approve summary ordinance for
publication on May 16, 2013
4c. Adopt Resolution approving acceptance of a monetary donation from Paul Weinreis
through the United States Tennis Association (“USTA”) in the amount of $600 to
purchase equipment for the City’s youth tennis program
4d. Adopt Resolution approving acceptance of a $2,200 donation from Walt Wayne for the
purchase and installation of a memorial bench at the Westwood Hills Nature Center in
memory of Sandra Kay Wayne
4e. Adopt Resolution authorizing final payment in the amount of $4,226.50 and accepting
work for Fire Stations No. 1 and No. 2 Work Scope 16 (Carpet and Resilient Flooring)
for Project Nos. 2008-3001 and 2008-3002, City Contract No. 56-11
4f. Approve temporary on-sale intoxicating liquor license for the St. Louis Park Sunrise
Rotary, P.O. Box 16678, St. Louis Park, for an event to be held on May 16, 2013 at
Excelsior & Grand Apartment Club Room, located at 3820 Grand Way in St. Louis Park
4g. Adopt Resolution accepting work and authorizing final payment in the amount of
$14,225.33 for the 2012 Beltline Boulevard mill and overlay project with Hardrives,
Inc. – Project No. 2014-1102, Contract No. 137-12
4h. Approve the 2013/2014 Neighborhood Grants
4i. Adopt Resolution authorizing the elimination of the permit parking restriction in front
of 3112 Edgewood Avenue South
4j. Approve right of way purchase in the total amount of $24,000 for Parcel 4 (7201 Lake
Street – 7201 Lake Street LLC), and authorize the City Attorney to execute stipulation
of settlement
4k. Designate Valley Paving, Inc. the lowest responsible bidder and authorize execution of
a contract with the firm in the amount of $129,114.95 for the 2013 MSA Street Rehab
(Parkdale Drive) Project - Project #2013-1101
4l. Adopt Resolution accepting work and authorizing final payment in the amount of
$22,445.44 for the 2012 MSA Street Rehab (Louisiana Avenue) project with
Bituminous Roadways, Inc. – Project No. 2011-1100, Contract No. 89-12
4m. Approve for filing Planning Commission Meeting Minutes March 20, 2013
4n. Approve for filing Fire Civil Service Commission Meeting Minutes March 12, 2013
4o. Approve for filing Fire Civil Service Commission Meeting Minutes April 10, 2013
4p. Approve for filing Vendor Claims
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: May 6, 2013
Discussion Item 1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Human Resources Update
RECOMMENDED ACTION: No action needed. This discussion is to provide an update to
Council on current and upcoming Human Resources activities.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: None at this time.
SUMMARY: From time to time the City Manager has scheduled time to update Council on
activities related to Human Resources as needed. Some of the areas we have discussed with
Council include staffing, organizational changes, employee/labor relations, etc.
On Monday, the purpose of this discussion is to update Council on the following:
• New Department Structure: Dept. of Operations and Recreation, Dept. of Engineering
• Fire Chief Recruitment
• Community Development Staff Assignments
• Labor Negotiations 2014
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Operations & Recreation Department Organizational Chart
Engineering Department Organizational Chart
Prepared by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Operations and Recreation2013Operations and Recreation Director (1)Parks and Recreation Advisory CommissionPark Superintendent (1)Rec Center Manager (1)Recreation Superintendent (1)Nature Center Manager (1)Environmental Coordinator (1)Administrative Secretary (1)Naturalist (2.25)Secretary/Program Aide (1)Field Supervisor (1)Public Service Worker (9)Recreation Supervisor (2)Office Assistant (1)Public Service Worker (6)Equipment Supt (1)Public Service Worker (1)Mechanic (4)Recreation Coordinator (1)Environment and Sustainability CommissionPublic Works Superintendent (1)Utilities Manager (1)Infrastructure Manager (1)Operations Manager (1)Field Supervisor (2)Public Service Worker (8)Mechanic (3)Field Supervisor (2)Public Service Worker (11)Admin Spec (1)Info Spec (2)SW Field Inspector (1)Secretary (3)Special Study Session Meeting of May 6, 2013 (Item No. 1) Title: Human Resources UpdatePage 2
Engineering2013Engineering Director (1)City Engineer (1)Engineering Program Coordinator (1)Engineering Technician III (4)Senior Engineering Project Manager (2)Engineering Technician II (1)Water Resources Manager (1)Environment and Sustainability CommissionDepartment Secretary (1)Special Study Session Meeting of May 6, 2013 (Item No. 1) Title: Human Resources UpdatePage 3
Meeting: Economic Development Authority
Meeting Date: May 6, 2013
Minutes: 3a
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
MARCH 18, 2013
1. Call to Order
President Santa called the meeting to order at 7:20 p.m.
Commissioners present: President Sue Santa, Steve Hallfin, Jeff Jacobs, Anne Mavity, Julia
Ross, Susan Sanger, and Jake Spano.
Commissioners absent: None.
Staff present: Executive Director (Mr. Harmening) and Recording Secretary (Ms. Hughes).
2. Roll Call
3. Approval of Minutes
3a. Economic Development Authority Minutes January 7, 2013
The minutes were approved as presented.
4. Approval of Agenda
The agenda was approved as presented.
5. Reports
5a. EDA Vendor Claims
It was moved by Commissioner Ross, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs, to accept for
filing Vendor Claims for the period December 29, 2012, through March 8, 2013.
The motion passed 7-0.
6. Old Business - None
7. New Business
7a. Request the City Council to Call a Public Hearing to Consider Establishment
of the Eliot Park Tax Increment Financing District.
EDA Resolution No. 13-01
Mr. Harmening presented the staff report and explained that the developer of the Eliot
Park project has requested Tax Increment Financing (TIF) assistance for the
redevelopment of the former Eliot School site. He stated the City Council previously
Economic Development Authority Meeting of May 6, 2013 (Item No. 3a) Page 2
Title: EDA Meeting Minutes of March 18, 2013
reviewed the TIF request at its February 25th study session and the request was favorably
received. He indicated the next step is for the City Council to hold a public hearing on
the creation of a TIF district, which is proposed for May 6, 2013.
It was moved by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Ross, to adopt EDA
Resolution No. 13-01 Requesting a City Public Hearing on a Modification to the
Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project No. 1 and the Establishment of the Eliot
Park Tax Increment Financing District (A Redevelopment District).
The motion passed 7-0.
8. Communications - None
9. Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 7:22 p.m.
______________________________________ ______________________________________
Secretary President
Meeting: Economic Development Authority
Meeting Date: May 6, 2013
Agenda Item: 5a
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: EDA Vendor Claims
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to accept for filing EDA Vendor Claims for the period
March 9 through April 26, 2013.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
SUMMARY: The Finance Department prepares this report on a monthly basis for Council’s
review.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: EDA Vendor Claims
Prepared by: Connie Neubeck, Account Clerk
4/30/2013CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 12:50:10R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
1Page -Council Check Summary
4/26/2013 -3/9/2013
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
463.00DEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPSAMERICAN PLANNING ASSOC
463.00
249.00DEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPSCITIZENS INDEPENDENT BANK
249.00
1,297.00WEST END TIF DIST G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESEHLERS & ASSOCIATES INC
1,395.00ELLIPSE ON EXC TIF DIST G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
100.00ELLIPSE II G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
1,297.00HSTI G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
1,297.00VICTORIA PONDS G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
1,297.00PARK CENTER HOUSING G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
1,297.00CSM TIF DIST G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
1,297.00MILL CITY G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
2,097.00PARK COMMONS G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
1,297.00EDGEWOOD TIF DIST G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
5,797.00ELMWOOD VILLAGE G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
1,297.00WOLFE LAKE COMMERCIAL TIF G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
1,297.00AQUILA COMMONS G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
1,297.00HWY 7 BUSINESS CENTER G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
1,291.00HARD COAT G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
23,650.00
5,000.00PUBLIC ART OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESFORECAST PUBLIC ART
5,000.00
10,000.00HRA LEVY G&A LEGAL SERVICESFRANZEN & ASSOCIATES LLC
10,000.00
12,275.72DEVELOPMENT - EDA BALANCE SHEE DUE TO OTHER GOVTSHENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER
4,542.60DEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A PAYMENT IN LIEU OF TAXES
16,818.32
60.00PARK CENTER HOUSING G&A LEGAL SERVICESKENNEDY & GRAVEN
495.00HARD COAT G & A LEGAL SERVICES
555.00
600.00DEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A TRAININGLEARNING JOURNEYS
600.00
5,000.00DEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESMCCD
5,000.00
Economic Development Authority Meeting of May 6, 2013 (Item No. 5a)
Title: EDA Vendor Claims Page 2
4/30/2013CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 12:50:10R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
2Page -Council Check Summary
4/26/2013 -3/9/2013
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
225.00DEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPSMNCAR EXCHANGE
225.00
400.16DEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A TELEPHONENEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS
400.16
41.34DEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A OFFICE SUPPLIESOFFICE DEPOT
41.34
2,500.00CONVENTION & VISITORS BUREAU MISC EXPENSEPARKTACULAR
2,500.00
6,303.62DEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESSEH
6,303.62
38.73DEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A MEETING EXPENSESELLS, NANCY
38.73
1,797.62DEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESSRF CONSULTING GROUP INC
1,797.62
91,299.53CONVENTION & VISITORS BUREAU COST REIMBURSEMENT-VISIONST LOUIS PARK CONV & VISITORS
91,299.53
225.00DEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPSULI-THE URBRAN LAND INSTITUTE
225.00
31.55HWY 7 & LOUISIANA ELECTRIC SERVICEXCEL ENERGY
31.55
Report Totals 165,197.87
Economic Development Authority Meeting of May 6, 2013 (Item No. 5a)
Title: EDA Vendor Claims
Page 3
Meeting: Economic Development Authority
Meeting Date: May 6, 2013
Action Agenda Item: 7a
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Establishment of the Eliot Park Tax Increment Financing District
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to Adopt EDA Resolution approving the establishment
of the Eliot Park Tax Increment Financing District within Redevelopment Project No. 1 (a
redevelopment district).
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the EDA support the establishment of the Eliot Park Tax
Increment Financing District to facilitate the construction of a multi-family residential project at
6800 and 6720 Cedar Lake Rd?
Does the EDA support authorizing an Interfund Loan for advance of certain costs in connection
with the administration of the Eliot Park TIF District?
SUMMARY: Hunt Associates’ application for Tax Increment Financing (TIF) assistance in
connection with the redevelopment of 6800 and 6720 Cedar Lake Road (former Eliot School
property) was reviewed at the February 25th Study Session where it received consensus support.
Constructing the proposed Eliot Park project is not economically feasible without some financial
assistance. At its March 18th meeting, the City Council set a public hearing date of May 6, 2013
for consideration of the proposed Eliot Park Redevelopment TIF District. It is now time to take
the final step in the TIF process which is to formally authorize the creation of the TIF district.
Such authorization enables the EDA to use tax increment generated from the proposed Eliot Park
project to Hunt Associates as reimbursement for qualified costs incurred in the construction of
the proposed project.
Establishment of TIF districts also requires a public hearing and the approval of the City
Council. Thus, during its meeting Monday evening the City Council will hold a public hearing
on this topic, after which it will be asked to approve the establishment of the Eliot Park TIF District.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Authorizing the establishment of the Eliot
Park TIF District does not, in itself, commit the EDA to any specific level of financial assistance
for the proposed project. Procedurally, it simply creates the funding vehicle to reimburse the
Redeveloper for a portion of its qualified project costs. The terms and amount of TIF assistance
are specified within the Redevelopment Contract with Eliot Park Apartments, LLC which is
scheduled for consideration May 20th.
VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to providing a well-maintained and
diverse housing stock.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion
Resolutions
Overview
Eliot Park TIF Plan
Prepared by: Greg Hunt, Economic Development Coordinator
Reviewed by: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Nancy Deno, EDA Deputy Executive Director/Deputy City Manager
Economic Development Authority Meeting of May 6, 2013 (Item No. 7a) Page 2
Title: Establishment of the Eliot Park Tax Increment Financing District
DISCUSSION
BACKGROUND: Hunt Associates has a purchase agreement with Independent School District
283 to acquire the former Eliot School property (located at 6800 & 6720 Cedar Lake Road) for
$2,075,000. The firm proposes to raze the existing school building and construct a $25 million
residential development on the site consisting of 138 market rate apartment units (distributed
between two buildings) and two single family homes. Both apartment buildings would be
staggered in height with two and three stories so as to blend into the surrounding single family
neighborhood and would feature structured underground parking. The proposed single family
home lots at the north end of the site would be sold to a different development group. The
proposed site plan includes areas for a stormwater pond; sidewalks; landscaping; and small
children’s play area.
Request for Tax Increment Assistance
In order to pursue this project Hunt Associates applied for tax increment assistance from the
EDA to offset a portion of the extraordinary costs of redeveloping the site such as hazardous
waste abatement within the former school building, demolition and constructing Eliot Park in
conformance with the Eliot Community Center Site Reuse Study / Design Guidelines.
Hunt Associates’ preliminary sources and uses statements, cash flow projections, and investor
rate of return (ROR) related to Eliot Park were reviewed by Staff and Ehlers & Associates. The
estimates were found to be reasonable and within industry standards for this type of
redevelopment. It was also concluded that constructing Eliot Park inclusive of the extraordinary
site and building costs noted above was not economically feasible without some financial
assistance from the EDA.
Upon analysis by Ehlers and Staff, and discussion with Hunt Associates, it was determined that
$1.1 million in tax increment assistance would allow the project to move forward. Providing
assistance makes it possible to construct a high quality housing development on a former tax
exempt property. This proposed amount is consistent with other similar sized multi-family
residential developments the EDA has previously assisted.
The EDA’s participation would leverage approximately $25 million in new investment. The
ratio of private to public investment in the project is $23 to $1. As a percentage of total project
cost the requested amount of financial assistance is approximately 4%.
Upon project completion, tax increment generated from the increased value of the property
would be provided to Hunt Associates on a "pay-as-you -go" basis, which is the preferred
financing method under the City's TIF Policy. Eliot Park meets the requirements of a
Redevelopment TIF District (25 year TIF District). Under such a TIF district, the proposed
project would generate the requested $1.1 million in approximately 6.5 years.
TIF District Approvals
The EDA/City Council reviewed Hunt Associates’ TIF application at the February 25th Study
Session. Following discussion there was consensus support for favorably considering the project
and the Redeveloper’s request for financial assistance. As a result, staff was directed to call for a
public hearing on the proposed TIF district and to begin drafting a formal redevelopment
contract with Hunt Associates.
Economic Development Authority Meeting of May 6, 2013 (Item No. 7a) Page 3
Title: Establishment of the Eliot Park Tax Increment Financing District
At its March 18th meeting, the City Council set a public hearing date of May 6, 2013 for
consideration of the proposed Eliot Park Redevelopment TIF District.
The Planning Commission reviewed the Eliot Park Tax Increment Financing Plan on April 17th, as
required by the TIF Act, and determined it was in conformance with the City’s Comprehensive Plan.
A report on the potential business terms that would serve as the basis for a development contract
with Hunt Associates was submitted at the April 22nd Study Session.
Synopsis of the Proposed TIF District
In order to provide the Redeveloper with the proposed financial assistance a new redevelopment
TIF district must be established. The proposed Eliot Park TIF District consists of two parcels:
6800 and 6720 Cedar Lake Road. Attached is an Overview which summarizes the basic
elements of the proposed TIF District. Details of the proposed TIF District may be found in the
attached Eliot Park TIF District Plan. Both the Overview and TIF Plan were prepared by the
EDA’s TIF consultant, Ehlers & Associates. In a general sense, TIF plans may be viewed as
enabling legislation. They establish the proposed TIF district’s classification, geographic
boundaries, maximum duration, maximum budget authority for tax increment revenues and
expenditures, fiscal disparities election as well as estimated impact on various taxing
jurisdictions along with findings which statutorily qualify the district. The specific mutual
obligations between the EDA and the Redeveloper as well as the precise terms of the financial
assistance are contained in the separate Contract for Private Redevelopment between the parties
(to be considered May 20th). Both the TIF Plan and the Redevelopment Contract need to be
approved in order for economic development or redevelopment projects involving tax increment
to proceed.
The proposed Eliot Park TIF District is within the City’s Redevelopment Project Area as is
statutorily required. Inclusion of the proposed project within a designated Redevelopment
Project Area gives the EDA/Council the authority to assist with all the redevelopment actions
necessary to implement the Eliot Park project.
Duration of the District
Under the TIF Act, the duration of redevelopment districts is up to 25 years after receipt of the
first increment by the City (a total of 26 years of tax increment). The date of receipt by the City
of the first tax increment is expected to be either 2015 or 2016. Thus, the full term of the district
is estimated to terminate in 2040 or 2041. The EDA and City have the right to decertify the
District prior to the legally required date. As previously indicated, the City’s expressed
obligations to the Redeveloper will likely be satisfied in less than 6.5 years. Soon thereafter, the
City would likely terminate the district.
TIF District Budget
It should be noted that the financing uses and project costs reflected within the Uses of Funds
(Section 2-10) of the proposed TIF Plan is a not-to-exceed budget and not the actual expected
project budget.
Fiscal Disparities Election
The proposed development will not contain any commercial or industrial property therefore the
TIF District is exempt from the fiscal disparities calculation. However, because it is a
redevelopment TIF district the City/EDA is required to make a fiscal disparities election within
the TIF Plan. Thus, the TIF Plan states that the Eliot Park TIF District will contribute to fiscal
Economic Development Authority Meeting of May 6, 2013 (Item No. 7a) Page 4
Title: Establishment of the Eliot Park Tax Increment Financing District
disparities (as opposed to the tax base of the City making the contribution). This is consistent
with the City’s TIF Policy and past practice.
Feasibility of the Eliot Park TIF District
Last fall, LHB, Inc. was retained to conduct a state-required inspection to determine if the
proposed project site qualified as a redevelopment TIF district. LHB’s Report of Inspection
Procedures and Results for Determining Qualifications Of A Tax Increment Financing
District As A Redevelopment District: Eliot Park District, St. Louis Park, MN dated October
29, 2012 concluded that the proposed site met both the “Coverage Test” and the “Condition of
Buildings Test” and thus qualified under Minnesota Statutes Section 479.174, Subdivision 10 as
a redevelopment TIF district.
PRESENT CONSIDERATIONS: None
NEXT STEPS: The Redevelopment Contract with Eliot Park Apartments, LLC which specifies
the terms and amount of TIF assistance is scheduled for EDA consideration May 20th.
Economic Development Authority Meeting of May 6, 2013 (Item No. 7a) Page 5
Title: Establishment of the Eliot Park Tax Increment Financing District
ST. LOUIS PARK ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
HENNEPIN COUNTY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 13-____
RESOLUTION ADOPTING A MODIFICATION TO THE
REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 1,
ESTABLISHING ELIOT PARK TAX INCREMENT FINANCING
DISTRICT THEREIN AND ADOPTING A TAX INCREMENT
FINANCING PLAN THEREFOR
WHEREAS, it has been proposed by the Board of Commissioners (the "Board") of the
St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority (the "EDA") and the City of St. Louis Park
(the "City") that the EDA adopt a Modification to the Redevelopment Plan (the "Redevelopment
Plan Modification") for Redevelopment Project No. 1 (the "Project Area") and establish the Eliot
Park Tax Increment Financing District (the "District") and adopt a Tax Increment Financing Plan
(the "TIF Plan") therefor (the Redevelopment Plan Modification and the TIF Plan are referred to
collectively herein as the "Plans"), all pursuant to and in conformity with applicable law,
including Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.090 to 469.1082, and Sections 469.174 to 469.1799,
inclusive, as amended (the "Act"), all as reflected in the Plans and presented for the Board's
consideration; and
WHEREAS, the EDA has investigated the facts relating to the Plans and has caused the
Plans to be prepared; and
WHEREAS, the EDA has performed all actions required by law to be performed prior to
the adoption of the Plans, including without limitation requesting that the City Planning
Commission provide for review of and written comment on the Plans and that the Council
schedule a public hearing on the Plans upon published notice as required by law.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board as follows:
1. The EDA hereby finds that the District is in the public interest and is a "redevelopment
district" under Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subd. 10 (a)(1), and finds that the
adoption of the proposed Plans conform in all respects to the requirements of the Act and
will help fulfill a need to develop an area of the State of Minnesota which is already built
up, and that the adoption of the proposed Plans will help provide employment
opportunities in the State and will preserve and enhance the tax base of the City and the
State because it will discourage commerce and industry from moving their operations to
another state or municipality, and thereby serves a public purpose.
2. The EDA further finds that the Plans will afford maximum opportunity, consistent with
the sound needs for the City as a whole, for the development or redevelopment of the
Project Area by private enterprise, in that the intent is to provide only that public
assistance necessary to make the private developments financially feasible.
Economic Development Authority Meeting of May 6, 2013 (Item No. 7a) Page 6
Title: Establishment of the Eliot Park Tax Increment Financing District
3. The boundaries of the Project Area are not being expanded.
4. The reasons and facts supporting the findings in this resolution are described in the Plans.
5. The EDA elects to calculate fiscal disparities for the District in accordance with
Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.177, Subd. 3, clause b, which means any fiscal
disparities contribution will be taken from inside the District.
6. Subject to approval thereof by the City Council following its public hearing thereon, the
Plans, as presented to the EDA on this date, are hereby approved, established and adopted
and shall be placed on file in the office of the Executive Director of the EDA.
7. Upon approval of the Plans by the City Council, the staff, the EDA's advisors and legal
counsel are authorized and directed to proceed with the implementation of the Plans and
for this purpose to negotiate, draft, prepare and present to this Board for its consideration
all further plans, resolutions, documents and contracts necessary for this purpose.
Approval of the Plans does not constitute approval of any project or a Development
Agreement with any developer.
8. Upon approval of the Plans by the City Council, the Executive Director of the EDA is
authorized and directed to forward a copy of the Plans to the Minnesota Department of
Revenue and the Office of the State Auditor pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 469.175,
Subd. 4a.
9. The Executive Director of the EDA is authorized and directed to forward a copy of the
Plans to the Hennepin County Auditor and request that the Auditor certify the original tax
capacity of the District as described in the Plans, all in accordance with Minnesota
Statutes 469.177.
Reviewed for Administration:
Adopted by the Economic Development
Authority May 6, 2013
Executive Director President
Attest
Secretary
Economic Development Authority Meeting of May 6, 2013 (Item No. 7a) Page 7
Title: Establishment of the Eliot Park Tax Increment Financing District
ST. LOUIS PARK ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
HENNEPIN COUNTY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 13-____
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AN INTERFUND LOAN FOR ADVANCE
OF CERTAIN COSTS IN CONNECTION WITH THE ELIOT PARK TAX
INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Commissioners (the "Board") of the St. Louis Park
Economic Authority (the "EDA") of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, as follows:
WHEREAS, the City Council for the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota (the "City"),
intends to establish the Eliot Park Tax Increment Financing District (the "TIF District") within
Redevelopment Project No. 1 (the "Project"), and will adopt a Tax Increment Financing Plan (the
"TIF Plan") for the purpose of financing certain improvements within the Project.
WHEREAS, the EDA has determined to use tax increments from the TIF District to pay
for certain costs identified in the TIF Plan, which may include land/building acquisition, site
improvements/preparation, utilities, other qualifying improvements, interest and administrative
costs (collectively, the "Qualified Costs"), which costs may be financed on a temporary basis
from EDA funds available for such purposes.
WHEREAS, under Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.178, Subd. 7, the EDA is authorized
to advance or loan money from the EDA's general fund or any other fund from which such
advances may be legally authorized, in order to finance the Qualified Costs.
WHEREAS, the EDA intends to reimburse itself for the Qualified Costs from tax
increments derived from the TIF District in accordance with the terms of this resolution (which
terms are referred to collectively as the "Interfund Loan").
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Board as follows:
1. The EDA hereby authorizes the advance of up to $50,000 from any legally authorized
EDA fund or so much thereof as may be paid as Qualified Costs. The EDA shall
reimburse itself for such advances together with interest at the rate stated below.
Interest accrues on the principal amount from the date of each advance. The maximum
rate of interest permitted to be charged is limited to the greater of the rates specified
under Minnesota Statutes, Section 270C.40 or Section 549.09 as of the date the loan or
advance is authorized, unless the written agreement states that the maximum interest rate
will fluctuate as the interest rates specified under Minnesota Statutes, Section 270C.40
or Section 549.09 are from time to time adjusted. The interest rate shall be 4% and will
not fluctuate.
2. Principal and interest ("Payments") on the Interfund Loan shall be paid semi-annually on
each August 1 and February 1 (each a "Payment Date"), commencing on the first
Payment Date on which the EDA has Available Tax Increment (defined below), or on
Economic Development Authority Meeting of May 6, 2013 (Item No. 7a) Page 8
Title: Establishment of the Eliot Park Tax Increment Financing District
any other dates determined by the Executive Director of the EDA, through the date of
last receipt of tax increment from the TIF District.
3. Payments on this Interfund Loan are payable solely from "Available Tax Increment,"
which shall mean, on each Payment Date, tax increment available after other obligations
have been paid, or as determined by the Executive Director of the EDA, generated in the
preceding six (6) months with respect to the property within the TIF District and
remitted to the City by Hennepin County, all in accordance with Minnesota Statutes,
Sections 469.174 to 469.1799, all inclusive, as amended. Payments on this Interfund
Loan may be subordinated to any outstanding or future bonds, notes or contracts secured
in whole or in part with Available Tax Increment, and are on parity with any other
outstanding or future interfund loans secured in whole or in part with Available Tax
Increment.
4. The principal sum and all accrued interest payable under this Interfund Loan are pre-
payable in whole or in part at any time by the EDA 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 Interfund Loan.
5. This Interfund Loan is evidence of an internal borrowing by the EDA in accordance with
Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.178, Subd. 7, and is a limited obligation payable solely
from Available Tax Increment pledged to the payment hereof under this resolution. This
Interfund Loan 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 EDA. Neither the State of Minnesota, nor any political
subdivision thereof shall be obligated to pay the principal of or interest on this Interfund
Loan 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
Interfund Loan or other costs incident hereto. The EDA shall have no obligation to pay
any principal amount of the Interfund Loan or accrued interest thereon, which may
remain unpaid after the final Payment Date.
6. The EDA may amend the terms of this Interfund Loan at any time by resolution of the
Board, including a determination to forgive the outstanding principal amount and
accrued interest to the extent permissible under law.
Reviewed for Administration:
Adopted by the Economic Development
Authority May 6, 2013
Executive Director President
Attest
Secretary
Tax Increment Financing District Overview
City of St. Louis Park
Eliot Park Tax Increment Financing District
The following summary contains an overview of the basic elements of the Tax Increment Financing Plan
for the Eliot Park Tax Increment Financing District. More detailed information on each of these topics can
be found in the complete TIF Plan.
Proposed action: Establishment of the Eliot Park Tax Increment Financing District ("District")
and the adoption of a Tax Increment Financing Plan. ("TIF Plan")
Modification of the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project No. 1,
which includes the establishment of the Eliot Park TIF District.
Type of TIF District: a redevelopment district
Parcel Numbers: 08-117-21-11-0079
18-117-21-12-0028
Proposed
Development:
The District is being created to facilitate the redevelopment of the Eliot Park
School Property by Hunt Associates into a residential development consisting
of 138 market rate apartment units and 2 single family homes in the City.
Please see Appendix A of the TIF Plan for a more detailed project
description.
Maximum duration: Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. 1, and Section 469.176, Subd. 1, the
duration and first year of tax increment of the District must be indicated within
the TIF Plan. Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 1b., the duration of the
District will be 25 years after receipt of the first increment by the EDA or City
(a total of 26 years of tax increment). The EDA or City elects to receive the
first tax increment in 2015, which is no later than four years following the year
of approval of the District. Thus, it is estimated that the District, including any
modifications of the TIF Plan for subsequent phases or other changes, would
terminate after 2040, or when the TIF Plan is satisfied. The EDA or City
reserves the right to decertify the District prior to the legally required date.
Estimated annual tax
increment:
Up to $557,566
Economic Development Authority Meeting of May 6, 2013 (Item No. 7a)
Title: Establishment of the Eliot Park Tax Increment Financing District Page 9
Page 2
Authorized uses:
The TIF Plan contains a budget that authorizes the maximum amount that
may be expended:
Land/Building Acquisition ........................................................ $1,000,000
Site Improvements/Preparation ................................................. $2,000,000
Utilities ......................................................................................... $500,000
Other Qualifying Improvements ............................................... $1,904,624
Administrative Costs (up to 10%) ................................................ $982,537
PROJECT COSTS TOTAL ......................................................... $472,585
Interest ...................................................................................... $4,420,741
PROJECT COST AND INTEREST COST TOTAL ........ $10,807,902
See Subsection 2-10, page 2-6 of the TIF Plan for the full budget
authorization.
Form of financing: The project is proposed to be financed by a pay-as-you-go note.
Administrative fee: Up to 10% of annual increment, if costs are justified. It is estimated that the
City will only utilize 5% of annual increment.
Interfund Loan
Requirement:
If the City wants to pay for administrative expenditures from a tax increment
fund, it is recommended that a resolution authorizing a loan from another
fund be passed PRIOR to the issuance of the check.
4 Year Activity Rule
(§ 469.176 Subd. 6)
After four years from the date of certification of the District one of the
following activities must have been commenced on each parcel in the District:
• Demolition
• Rehabilitation
• Renovation
• Other site preparation (not including utility services such as sewer and
water)
If the activity has not been started by approximately May 2017, no additional
tax increment may be taken from that parcel until the commencement of a
qualifying activity.
5 Year Rule
(§ 469.1763 Subd. 3)
Within 5 years of certification revenues derived from tax increments must be
expended or obligated to be expended.
Any obligations in the District made after approximately May 2018, will not
be eligible for repayment from tax increments.
The reasons and facts supporting the findings for the adoption of the TIF Plan for the District, as required
pursuant to M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. 3, are included in Exhibit F of the TIF Plan
Economic Development Authority Meeting of May 6, 2013 (Item No. 7a)
Title: Establishment of the Eliot Park Tax Increment Financing District Page 10
Page 3
MAPS OF REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 1 AND
THE ELIOT PARK TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT
Economic Development Authority Meeting of May 6, 2013 (Item No. 7a)
Title: Establishment of the Eliot Park Tax Increment Financing District Page 11
Page 4
Economic Development Authority Meeting of May 6, 2013 (Item No. 7a)
Title: Establishment of the Eliot Park Tax Increment Financing District Page 12
As of April 23, 2013
Draft for Public Hearing
Modification to the Redevelopment Plan
for Redevelopment Project No. 1
and the
Tax Increment Financing Plan
for the establishment of
the Eliot Park Tax Increment Financing District
(a redevelopment district)
within
Redevelopment Project No. 1
St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority
City of St. Louis Park
Hennepin County
State of Minnesota
Public Hearing: May 6, 2013
Adopted:
Prepared by: EHLERS & ASSOCIATES, INC.
3060 Centre Pointe Drive, Roseville, Minnesota 55113-1105
651-697-8500 fax: 651-697-8555 www.ehlers-inc.com
Economic Development Authority Meeting of May 6, 2013 (Item No. 7a)
Title: Establishment of the Eliot Park Tax Increment Financing District Page 13
Table of Contents
(for reference purposes only)
Section 1 - Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project No. 1
Foreword ............................................................. 1-1
Section 2 - Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Eliot Park Tax Increment Financing District
Subsection 2-1. Foreword............................................... 2-1
Subsection 2-2. Statutory Authority........................................ 2-1
Subsection 2-3. Statement of Objectives ................................... 2-1
Subsection 2-4. Redevelopment Plan Overview .............................. 2-1
Subsection 2-5. Description of Property in the District and Property To Be Acquired . 2-2
Subsection 2-6. Classification of the District................................. 2-2
Subsection 2-7. Duration and First Year of Tax Increment of the District ........... 2-4
Subsection 2-8. Original Tax Capacity, Tax Rate and Estimated Captured Net Tax Capacity
Value/Increment and Notification of Prior Planned Improvements ................ 2-4
Subsection 2-9. Sources of Revenue/Bonds to be Issued ...................... 2-5
Subsection 2-10. Uses of Funds ........................................... 2-6
Subsection 2-11. Fiscal Disparities Election.................................. 2-6
Subsection 2-12. Business Subsidies....................................... 2-7
Subsection 2-13. County Road Costs ....................................... 2-8
Subsection 2-14. Estimated Impact on Other Taxing Jurisdictions................. 2-8
Subsection 2-15. Supporting Documentation ................................ 2-10
Subsection 2-16. Definition of Tax Increment Revenues ....................... 2-10
Subsection 2-17. Modifications to the District................................ 2-10
Subsection 2-18. Administrative Expenses .................................. 2-11
Subsection 2-19. Limitation of Increment ................................... 2-12
Subsection 2-20. Use of Tax Increment .................................... 2-13
Subsection 2-21. Excess Increments ...................................... 2-13
Subsection 2-22. Requirements for Agreements with the Developer .............. 2-13
Subsection 2-23. Assessment Agreements ................................. 2-14
Subsection 2-24. Administration of the District ............................... 2-14
Subsection 2-25. Annual Disclosure Requirements ........................... 2-14
Subsection 2-26. Reasonable Expectations ................................. 2-14
Subsection 2-27. Other Limitations on the Use of Tax Increment................. 2-15
Subsection 2-28. Summary.............................................. 2-15
Appendix A
Project Description ...................................................... A-1
Appendix B
Maps of Redevelopment Project No. 1 and the District .......................... B-1
Appendix C
Description of Property to be Included in the District ............................ C-1
Appendix D
Estimated Cash Flow for the District ........................................ D-1
Appendix E
Minnesota Business Assistance Form ....................................... E-1
Economic Development Authority Meeting of May 6, 2013 (Item No. 7a)
Title: Establishment of the Eliot Park Tax Increment Financing District Page 14
Appendix F
Redevelopment Qualifications for the District .................................. F-1
Appendix G
Findings Including But/For Qualifications..................................... G-1
Economic Development Authority Meeting of May 6, 2013 (Item No. 7a)
Title: Establishment of the Eliot Park Tax Increment Financing District Page 15
St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority
Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project No. 1 1-1
Section 1 - Modification to the Redevelopment Plan
for Redevelopment Project No. 1
Foreword
The following text represents a Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project No. 1.
This modification represents a continuation of the goals and objectives set forth in the Redevelopment Plan
for Redevelopment Project No. 1. Generally, the substantive changes include the establishment of the Eliot
Park Tax Increment Financing District.
For further information, a review of the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project No. 1 is
recommended. It is available from the City Clerk at the City of St. Louis Park. Other relevant information
is contained in the Tax Increment Financing Plans for the Tax Increment Financing Districts located within
Redevelopment Project No. 1.
Economic Development Authority Meeting of May 6, 2013 (Item No. 7a)
Title: Establishment of the Eliot Park Tax Increment Financing District Page 16
St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority
Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Eliot Park Tax Increment Financing District 2-1
Section 2 - Tax Increment Financing Plan
for the Eliot Park Tax Increment Financing District
Subsection 2-1. Foreword
The St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority (the "EDA"), the City of St. Louis Park (the "City"),
staff and consultants have prepared the following information to expedite the establishment of the Eliot Park
Tax Increment Financing District (the "District"), a redevelopment tax increment financing district, located
in Redevelopment Project No. 1.
Subsection 2-2. Statutory Authority
Within the City, there exist areas where public involvement is necessary to cause development or
redevelopment to occur. To this end, the EDA and City have certain statutory powers pursuant to Minnesota
Statutes ("M.S."), Sections 469.090 to 469.1082, inclusive, as amended, and M.S., Sections 469.174 to
469.1799, inclusive, as amended (the "Tax Increment Financing Act" or "TIF Act"), to assist in financing
public costs related to this project.
This section contains the Tax Increment Financing Plan (the "TIF Plan") for the District. Other relevant
information is contained in the Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project No. 1.
Subsection 2-3. Statement of Objectives
The District currently consists of 2 parcels of land and adjacent and internal rights-of-way. The District is
being created to facilitate the redevelopment of the former site of Eliot School by Hunt Associates into a
residential development consisting of 138 market rate apartment units and 2 single family homes. Please see
Appendix A for further District information. The EDA will be entering into an agreement with Hunt
Associates to redevelop the site. Construction is expected to occur in 2013. This TIF Plan is expected to
achieve many of the objectives outlined in the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project No. 1.
The activities contemplated in the Modification to the Redevelopment Plan and the TIF Plan do not preclude
the undertaking of other qualified development or redevelopment activities. These activities are anticipated
to occur over the life of Redevelopment Project No. 1 and the District.
Subsection 2-4. Redevelopment Plan Overview
1. Property to be Acquired - Selected property located within the District may be acquired by
the EDA or City and is further described in this TIF Plan.
2. Relocation - Relocation services, to the extent required by law, are available pursuant to
M.S., Chapter 117 and other relevant state and federal laws.
3. Upon approval of a developer's plan relating to the project and completion of the necessary
legal requirements, the EDA or City may sell to a developer selected properties that it may
acquire within the District or may lease land or facilities to a developer.
4. The EDA or City may perform or provide for some or all necessary acquisition, construction,
relocation, demolition, and required utilities and public street work within the District.
Economic Development Authority Meeting of May 6, 2013 (Item No. 7a)
Title: Establishment of the Eliot Park Tax Increment Financing District Page 17
St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority
Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Eliot Park Tax Increment Financing District 2-2
Subsection 2-5. Description of Property in the District and Property To Be Acquired
The District encompasses all property and adjacent rights-of-way and abutting roadways identified by the
parcels listed in Appendix C of this TIF Plan. Please also see the map in Appendix B for further information
on the location of the District.
The EDA or City may acquire any parcel within the District including interior and adjacent street rights of
way. Any properties identified for acquisition will be acquired by the EDA or City only in order to
accomplish one or more of the following: storm sewer improvements; provide land for needed public streets,
utilities and facilities; carry out land acquisition, site improvements, clearance and/or development to
accomplish the uses and objectives set forth in this plan. The EDA or City may acquire property by gift,
dedication, condemnation or direct purchase from willing sellers in order to achieve the objectives of this TIF
Plan. Such acquisitions will be undertaken only when there is assurance of funding to finance the acquisition
and related costs.
Subsection 2-6. Classification of the District
The EDA and City, in determining the need to create a tax increment financing district in accordance with
M.S., Sections 469.174 to 469.1799, as amended, inclusive, find that the District, to be established, is a
redevelopment district pursuant to M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 10(a)(1) as defined below:
(a) "Redevelopment district" means a type of tax increment financing district consisting of a project,
or portions of a project, within which the authority finds by resolution that one or more of the
following conditions, reasonably distributed throughout the district, exists:
(1) parcels consisting of 70 percent of the area in the district are occupied by buildings, streets,
utilities, paved or gravel parking lots or other similar structures and more than 50 percent
of the buildings, not including outbuildings, are structurally substandard to a degree
requiring substantial renovation or clearance;
(2) The property consists of vacant, unused, underused, inappropriately used, or infrequently
used rail yards, rail storage facilities or excessive or vacated railroad rights-of-way;
(3) tank facilities, or property whose immediately previous use was for tank facilities, as defined
in Section 115C, Subd. 15, if the tank facility:
(i) have or had a capacity of more than one million gallons;
(ii) are located adjacent to rail facilities; or
(iii) have been removed, or are unused, underused, inappropriately used or infrequently
used; or
(4) a qualifying disaster area, as defined in Subd. 10b.
(b) For purposes of this subdivision, "structurally substandard" shall mean containing defects in
structural elements or a combination of deficiencies in essential utilities and facilities, light and
ventilation, fire protection including adequate egress, layout and condition of interior partitions,
or similar factors, which defects or deficiencies are of sufficient total significance to justify
substantial renovation or clearance.
(c) A building is not structurally substandard if it is in compliance with the building code applicable
Economic Development Authority Meeting of May 6, 2013 (Item No. 7a)
Title: Establishment of the Eliot Park Tax Increment Financing District Page 18
St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority
Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Eliot Park Tax Increment Financing District 2-3
to new buildings or could be modified to satisfy the building code at a cost of less than 15
percent of the cost of constructing a new structure of the same square footage and type on the
site. The municipality may find that a building is not disqualified as structurally substandard
under the preceding sentence on the basis of reasonably available evidence, such as the size,
type, and age of the building, the average cost of plumbing, electrical, or structural repairs or
other similar reliable evidence. The municipality may not make such a determination without
an interior inspection of the property, but need not have an independent, expert appraisal
prepared of the cost of repair and rehabilitation of the building. An interior inspection of the
property is not required, if the municipality finds that (1) the municipality or authority is unable
to gain access to the property after using its best efforts to obtain permission from the party that
owns or controls the property; and (2) the evidence otherwise supports a reasonable conclusion
that the building is structurally substandard.
(d) A parcel is deemed to be occupied by a structurally substandard building for purposes of the
finding under paragraph (a) or by the improvement described in paragraph (e) if all of the
following conditions are met:
(1) the parcel was occupied by a substandard building or met the requirements of paragraph
(e), as the case may be, within three years of the filing of the request for certification of the
parcel as part of the district with the county auditor;
(2) the substandard building or the improvements described in paragraph (e) were demolished
or removed by the authority or the demolition or removal was financed by the authority or
was done by a developer under a development agreement with the authority;
(3) the authority found by resolution before the demolition or removal that the parcel was
occupied by a structurally substandard building or met the requirement of paragraph (e) and
that after demolition and clearance the authority intended to include the parcel within a
district; and
(4) upon filing the request for certification of the tax capacity of the parcel as part of a district,
the authority notifies the county auditor that the original tax capacity of the parcel must be
adjusted as provided by § 469.177, subdivision 1, paragraph (f).
(e) For purposes of this subdivision, a parcel is not occupied by buildings, streets, utilities, paved
or gravel parking lots or other similar structures unless 15 percent of the area of the parcel
contains buildings, streets, utilities, paved or gravel parking lots or other similar structures.
(f) For districts consisting of two or more noncontiguous areas, each area must qualify as a
redevelopment district under paragraph (a) to be included in the district, and the entire area of
the district must satisfy paragraph (a).
In meeting the statutory criteria the EDA and City rely on the following facts and findings:
• The District is a redevelopment district consisting of 2 parcels.
• An inventory shows that parcels consisting of more than 70 percent of the area in the District are
occupied by buildings, streets, utilities, paved or gravel parking lots or other similar structures.
• An inspection of the buildings located within the District finds that more than 50 percent of the buildings
are structurally substandard as defined in the TIF Act. (See Appendix F).
Economic Development Authority Meeting of May 6, 2013 (Item No. 7a)
Title: Establishment of the Eliot Park Tax Increment Financing District Page 19
St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority
Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Eliot Park Tax Increment Financing District 2-4
Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 7, the District does not contain any parcel or part of a parcel that
qualified under the provisions of M.S., Sections 273.111 or 273.112 or Chapter 473H for taxes payable in
any of the five calendar years before the filing of the request for certification of the District.
Subsection 2-7. Duration and First Year of Tax Increment of the District
Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. 1, and Section 469.176, Subd. 1, the duration and first year of tax
increment of the District must be indicated within the TIF Plan. Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 1b.,
the duration of the District will be 25 years after receipt of the first increment by the EDA or City (a total of
26 years of tax increment). The EDA or City elects to receive the first tax increment in 2015, which is no
later than four years following the year of approval of the District. Thus, it is estimated that the District,
including any modifications of the TIF Plan for subsequent phases or other changes, would terminate after
2040, or when the TIF Plan is satisfied. The EDA or City reserves the right to decertify the District prior to
the legally required date.
Subsection 2-8. Original Tax Capacity, Tax Rate and Estimated Captured Net Tax Capacity
Value/Increment and Notification of Prior Planned Improvements
Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 7 and M.S., Section 469.177, Subd. 1, the Original Net Tax Capacity
(ONTC) as certified for the District will be based on the market values placed on the property by the assessor
in 2012 for taxes payable 2013.
Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.177, Subds. 1 and 2, the County Auditor shall certify in each year (beginning
in the payment year 2015) the amount by which the original value has increased or decreased as a result of:
1. Change in tax exempt status of property;
2. Reduction or enlargement of the geographic boundaries of the district;
3. Change due to adjustments, negotiated or court-ordered abatements;
4. Change in the use of the property and classification;
5. Change in state law governing class rates; or
6. Change in previously issued building permits.
In any year in which the current Net Tax Capacity (NTC) value of the District declines below the ONTC, no
value will be captured and no tax increment will be payable to the EDA or City.
The original local tax rate for the District will be the local tax rate for taxes payable 2013, assuming the
request for certification is made before June 30, 2013. The ONTC and the Original Local Tax Rate for the
District appear in the table below.
Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.174 Subd. 4 and M.S., Section 469.177, Subd. 1, 2, and 4, the estimated
Captured Net Tax Capacity (CTC) of the District, within Redevelopment Project No. 1, upon completion of
the projects within the District, will annually approximate tax increment revenues as shown in the table
below. The EDA and City request 100 percent of the available increase in tax capacity for repayment of its
obligations and current expenditures, beginning in the tax year payable 2015. The Project Tax Capacity
(PTC) listed is an estimate of values when the projects within the District are completed.
Economic Development Authority Meeting of May 6, 2013 (Item No. 7a)
Title: Establishment of the Eliot Park Tax Increment Financing District Page 20
St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority
Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Eliot Park Tax Increment Financing District 2-5
Project Estimated Tax Capacity upon Completion (PTC)$447,607
Original Estimated Net Tax Capacity (ONTC)$25,876
Estimated Captured Tax Capacity (CTC)$421,731
Original Local Tax Rate 1.32209 Pay 2013
Estimated Annual Tax Increment (CTC x Local Tax Rate) $557,566
Percent Retained by the EDA 100%
Tax capacity includes a 3% inflation factor for the duration of the District. The tax capacity included in thischart is the estimated tax capacity of the District in year 25. The tax capacity of the District in year one isestimated to be $107,813.
Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.177, Subd. 4, the EDA shall, after a due and diligent search, accompany its
request for certification to the County Auditor or its notice of the District enlargement pursuant to M.S.,
Section 469.175, Subd. 4, with a listing of all properties within the District or area of enlargement for which
building permits have been issued during the eighteen (18) months immediately preceding approval of the
TIF Plan by the municipality pursuant to M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. 3. The County Auditor shall increase
the original net tax capacity of the District by the net tax capacity of improvements for which a building
permit was issued.
The City is reviewing the area to be included in the District to determine if any building permits have
been issued during the 18 months immediately preceding approval of the TIF Plan by the City.
Subsection 2-9. Sources of Revenue/Bonds to be Issued
The costs outlined in the Uses of Funds will be financed primarily through the annual collection of tax
increments. The EDA or City reserves the right to incur bonds or other indebtedness as a result of the TIF
Plan. As presently proposed, the projects within the District will be financed by a pay-as-you-go note. Any
refunding amounts will be deemed a budgeted cost without a formal TIF Plan Modification. This provision
does not obligate the EDA or City to incur debt. The EDA or City will issue bonds or incur other debt only
upon the determination that such action is in the best interest of the City.
The total estimated tax increment revenues for the District are shown in the table below:
SOURCES OF FUNDS TOTAL
Tax Increment $9,825,365
Interest $982,537
TOTAL $10,807,902
The EDA or City may issue bonds (as defined in the TIF Act) secured in whole or in part with tax increments
from the District in a maximum principal amount of $6,387,161. Such bonds may be in the form of pay-as-
you-go notes, revenue bonds or notes, general obligation bonds, or interfund loans. This estimate of total
bonded indebtedness is a cumulative statement of authority under this TIF Plan as of the date of approval.
Economic Development Authority Meeting of May 6, 2013 (Item No. 7a)
Title: Establishment of the Eliot Park Tax Increment Financing District Page 21
St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority
Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Eliot Park Tax Increment Financing District 2-6
Subsection 2-10. Uses of Funds
Currently under consideration for the District is a proposal to facilitate the redevelopment of the former site
of Eliot School by Hunt Associates into a residential development consisting of 138 market rate apartment
units and 2 single family homes. The EDA and City have determined that it will be necessary to provide
assistance to the project(s) for certain District costs, as described. The EDA has studied the feasibility of the
development or redevelopment of property in and around the District. To facilitate the establishment and
development or redevelopment of the District, this TIF Plan authorizes the use of tax increment financing to
pay for the cost of certain eligible expenses. The estimate of public costs and uses of funds associated with
the District is outlined in the following table.
USES OF TAX INCREMENT FUNDS TOTAL
Land/Building Acquisition $1,000,000
Site Improvements/Preparation $2,000,000
Utilities $500,000
Other Qualifying Improvements $1,904,624
Administrative Costs (up to 10%)$982,537
PROJECT COST TOTAL $6,387,161
Interest $4,420,741
PROJECT AND INTEREST COSTS TOTAL $10,807,902
The total project cost, including financing costs (interest) listed in the table above does not exceed the total
projected tax increments for the District as shown in Subsection 2-9.
Estimated costs associated with the District are subject to change among categories without a modification
to this TIF Plan. The cost of all activities to be considered for tax increment financing will not exceed,
without formal modification, the budget above pursuant to the applicable statutory requirements. Pursuant
to M.S., Section 469.1763, Subd. 2, no more than 25 percent of the tax increment paid by property within the
District will be spent on activities related to development or redevelopment outside of the District but within
the boundaries of Redevelopment Project No. 1, (including administrative costs, which are considered to be
spent outside of the District) subject to the limitations as described in this TIF Plan.
Subsection 2-11. Fiscal Disparities Election
Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.177, Subd. 3, the EDA or City may elect one of two methods to calculate fiscal
disparities. If the calculations pursuant to M.S., Section 469.177, Subd. 3, clause b, (within the District) are
followed, the following method of computation shall apply:
(1) The original net tax capacity shall be determined before the application of the fiscal disparity
provisions of Chapter 276A or 473F. The current net tax capacity shall exclude any fiscal
disparity commercial-industrial net tax capacity increase between the original year and the
current year multiplied by the fiscal disparity ratio determined pursuant to M.S., Section
276A.06, subdivision 7 or M.S., Section 473F.08, subdivision 6. Where the original net tax
capacity is equal to or greater than the current net tax capacity, there is no captured tax capacity
Economic Development Authority Meeting of May 6, 2013 (Item No. 7a)
Title: Establishment of the Eliot Park Tax Increment Financing District Page 22
St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority
Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Eliot Park Tax Increment Financing District 2-7
and no tax increment determination. Where the original tax capacity is less than the current tax
capacity, the difference between the original net tax capacity and the current net tax capacity
is the captured net tax capacity. This amount less any portion thereof which the authority has
designated, in its tax increment financing plan, to share with the local taxing districts is the
retained captured net tax capacity of the authority.
(2) The county auditor shall exclude the retained captured net tax capacity of the authority from the
net tax capacity of the local taxing districts in determining local taxing district tax rates. The
local tax rates so determined are to be extended against the retained captured net tax capacity
of the authority as well as the net tax capacity of the local taxing districts. The tax generated by
the extension of the less of (A) the local taxing district tax rates or (B) the original local tax rate
to the retained captured net tax capacity of the authority is the tax increment of the authority.
The EDA or City shall submit to the County Auditor at the time of the request for certification which method
of computation of fiscal disparities the EDA or City elected.
The EDA will choose to calculate fiscal disparities by clause b.
According to M.S., Section 469.177, Subd. 3:
(c) The method of computation of tax increment applied to a district pursuant to paragraph (a) or
(b) shall remain the same for the duration of the district, except that the governing body may
elect to change its election from the method of computation in paragraph (a) to the method in
paragraph (b).
Subsection 2-12. Business Subsidies
Pursuant to M.S., Section 116J.993, Subd. 3, the following forms of financial assistance are not considered
a business subsidy:
(1) A business subsidy of less than $150,000;
(2) Assistance that is generally available to all businesses or to a general class of similar businesses,
such as a line of business, size, location, or similar general criteria;
(3) Public improvements to buildings or lands owned by the state or local government that serve a
public purpose and do not principally benefit a single business or defined group of businesses at
the time the improvements are made;
(4) Redevelopment property polluted by contaminants as defined in M.S., Section 116J.552, Subd. 3;
(5) Assistance provided for the sole purpose of renovating old or decaying building stock or bringing
it up to code and assistance provided for designated historic preservation districts, provided that
the assistance is equal to or less than 50% of the total cost;
(6) Assistance to provide job readiness and training services if the sole purpose of the assistance is to
provide those services;
(7) Assistance for housing;
(8) Assistance for pollution control or abatement, including assistance for a tax increment financing
hazardous substance subdistrict as defined under M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 23;
(9) Assistance for energy conservation;
(10) Tax reductions resulting from conformity with federal tax law;
(11) Workers' compensation and unemployment compensation;
(12) Benefits derived from regulation;
(13) Indirect benefits derived from assistance to educational institutions;
Economic Development Authority Meeting of May 6, 2013 (Item No. 7a)
Title: Establishment of the Eliot Park Tax Increment Financing District Page 23
St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority
Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Eliot Park Tax Increment Financing District 2-8
(14) Funds from bonds allocated under chapter 474A, bonds issued to refund outstanding bonds, and
bonds issued for the benefit of an organization described in section 501 (c) (3) of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986, as amended through December 31, 1999;
(15) Assistance for a collaboration between a Minnesota higher education institution and a business;
(16) Assistance for a tax increment financing soils condition district as defined under M.S., Section
469.174, Subd. 19;
(17) Redevelopment when the recipient's investment in the purchase of the site and in site preparation
is 70 percent or more of the assessor's current year's estimated market value;
(18) General changes in tax increment financing law and other general tax law changes of a principally
technical nature;
(19) Federal assistance until the assistance has been repaid to, and reinvested by, the state or local
government agency;
(20) Funds from dock and wharf bonds issued by a seaway port authority;
(21) Business loans and loan guarantees of $150,000 or less;
(22) Federal loan funds provided through the United States Department of Commerce, Economic
Development Administration; and
(23) Property tax abatements granted under M.S., Section 469.1813 to property that is subject to
valuation under Minnesota Rules, chapter 8100.
The EDA will comply with M.S., Sections 116J.993 to 116J.995 to the extent the tax increment assistance
under this TIF Plan does not fall under any of the above exemptions.
Subsection 2-13. County Road Costs
Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. 1a, the county board may require the EDA or City to pay for all or
part of the cost of county road improvements if the proposed development to be assisted by tax increment
will, in the judgment of the county, substantially increase the use of county roads requiring construction of
road improvements or other road costs and if the road improvements are not scheduled within the next five
years under a capital improvement plan or within five years under another county plan.
If the county elects to use increments to improve county roads, it must notify the EDA or City within forty-
five days of receipt of this TIF Plan. In the opinion of the EDA and City and consultants, the proposed
development outlined in this TIF Plan will have little or no impact upon county roads, therefore the TIF Plan
was not forwarded to the county 45 days prior to the public hearing. The EDA and City are aware that the
county could claim that tax increment should be used for county roads, even after the public hearing.
Subsection 2-14. Estimated Impact on Other Taxing Jurisdictions
The estimated impact on other taxing jurisdictions assumes that the redevelopment contemplated by the TIF
Plan would occur without the creation of the District. However, the EDA or City has determined that such
development or redevelopment would not occur "but for" tax increment financing and that, therefore, the
fiscal impact on other taxing jurisdictions is $0. The estimated fiscal impact of the District would be as
follows if the "but for" test was not met:
Economic Development Authority Meeting of May 6, 2013 (Item No. 7a)
Title: Establishment of the Eliot Park Tax Increment Financing District Page 24
St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority
Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Eliot Park Tax Increment Financing District 2-9
IMPACT ON TAX BASE
2012/Pay 2013
Total Net
Tax Capacity
Estimated Captured
Tax Capacity (CTC)
Upon Completion
Percent of CTC
to Entity Total
Hennepin County 1,230,976,652 421,731 0.0343%
City of St. Louis Park 48,328,153 421,731 0.8726%
St. Louis Park ISD No. 283 45,677,332 421,731 0.9233%
IMPACT ON TAX RATES
Pay 2013
Extension Rates
Percent
of Total CTC
Potential
Taxes
Hennepin County 0.494610 37.41% 421,731 208,592
City of St. Louis Park 0.482280 36.48% 421,731 203,392
St. Louis Park ISD No. 283 0.235870 17.84% 421,731 99,474
Other 0.109330 8.27%421,731 46,108
Total 1.322090 100.00%557,566
The estimates listed above display the captured tax capacity when all construction is completed. The tax rate
used for calculations is the Pay 2013 rate. The total net capacity for the entities listed above are based on Pay
2013 figures. The District will be certified under the actual Pay 2013 rates.
Pursuant to M.S. Section 469.175 Subd. 2(b):
(1) Estimate of total tax increment. It is estimated that the total amount of tax increment that will be
generated over the life of the District is $9,825,365;
(2) Probable impact of the District on city provided services and ability to issue debt. An impact of the
District on police protection is expected. With any addition of new residents, police calls for service
will be increased. New developments add an increase in traffic, and additional overall demands to
the call load. The City does not expect that the proposed development, in and of itself, will
necessitate new capital investment in vehicles or require that the City expand its staff.
The probable impact of the District on fire protection is not expected to be significant. Typically new
buildings generate few calls, if any, and are of superior construction and are sprinklered.
The impact of the District on public infrastructure is expected to be minimal.
There is no probable impact of borrowing costs since no general obligation debt will be issued in
relation to this project.
(3) Estimated amount of tax increment attributable to school district levies. It is estimated that the
amount of tax increments over the life of the District that would be attributable to school district
levies, assuming the school district's share of the total local tax rate for all taxing jurisdictions
Economic Development Authority Meeting of May 6, 2013 (Item No. 7a)
Title: Establishment of the Eliot Park Tax Increment Financing District Page 25
St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority
Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Eliot Park Tax Increment Financing District 2-10
remained the same, is $1,752,845;
(4) Estimated amount of tax increment attributable to county levies. It is estimated that the amount of
tax increments over the life of the District that would be attributable to county levies, assuming the
county's share of the total local tax rate for all taxing jurisdictions remained the same, is $3,675,559;
(5) Additional information requested by the county or school district. The City is not aware of any
standard questions in a county or school district written policy regarding tax increment districts and
impact on county or school district services. The county or school district must request additional
information pursuant to M.S. Section 469.175 Subd. 2(b) within 15 days after receipt of the tax
increment financing plan.
No requests for additional information from the county or school district regarding the proposed
development for the District have been received.
Subsection 2-15. Supporting Documentation
Pursuant to M.S. Section 469.175, Subd. 1 (a), clause 7 the TIF Plan must contain identification and
description of studies and analyses used to make the determination set forth in M.S. Section 469.175, Subd.
3, clause (b)(2) and the findings are required in the resolution approving the District. Following is a list of
reports and studies on file at the City that support the EDA and City's findings:
• Report of Inspection Procedures and Results for Determing Qualifications of a Tax Increment
Financing District As a Redevelopment District, LHB, Inc., October 29, 2012.
• Application for Tax Increment Financing Assistance, Eliot Park Apartments, LLC, January 2, 2013.
Subsection 2-16. Definition of Tax Increment Revenues
Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 25, tax increment revenues derived from a tax increment financing
district include all of the following potential revenue sources:
1. Taxes paid by the captured net tax capacity, but excluding any excess taxes, as computed under M.S.,
Section 469.177;
2. The proceeds from the sale or lease of property, tangible or intangible, to the extent the property was
purchased by the Authority with tax increments;
3. Principal and interest received on loans or other advances made by the Authority with tax increments;
4. Interest or other investment earnings on or from tax increments;
5. Repayments or return of tax increments made to the Authority under agreements for districts for
which the request for certification was made after August 1, 1993; and
6. The market value homestead credit paid to the Authority under M.S., Section 273.1384.
Subsection 2-17. Modifications to the District
In accordance with M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. 4, any:
1. Reduction or enlargement of the geographic area of the District, if the reduction does not meet the
requirements of M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. 4(e);
2. Increase in amount of bonded indebtedness to be incurred;
3. A determination to capitalize interest on debt if that determination was not a part of the original TIF
Plan;
Economic Development Authority Meeting of May 6, 2013 (Item No. 7a)
Title: Establishment of the Eliot Park Tax Increment Financing District Page 26
St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority
Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Eliot Park Tax Increment Financing District 2-11
4. Increase in the portion of the captured net tax capacity to be retained by the EDA or City;
5. Increase in the estimate of the cost of the District, including administrative expenses, that will be paid
or financed with tax increment from the District; or
6. Designation of additional property to be acquired by the EDA or City,
shall be approved upon the notice and after the discussion, public hearing and findings required for approval
of the original TIF Plan.
Pursuant to M.S. Section 469.175 Subd. 4(f), the geographic area of the District may be reduced, but shall not
be enlarged after five years following the date of certification of the original net tax capacity by the county
auditor. If a redevelopment district is enlarged, the reasons and supporting facts for the determination that
the addition to the district meets the criteria of M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 10, must be documented in
writing and retained. The requirements of this paragraph do not apply if (1) the only modification is
elimination of parcel(s) from the District and (2)(A) the current net tax capacity of the parcel(s) eliminated
from the District equals or exceeds the net tax capacity of those parcel(s) in the District's original net tax
capacity or (B) the EDA agrees that, notwithstanding M.S., Section 469.177, Subd. 1, the original net tax
capacity will be reduced by no more than the current net tax capacity of the parcel(s) eliminated from the
District.
The EDA or City must notify the County Auditor of any modification to the District. Modifications to the
District in the form of a budget modification or an expansion of the boundaries will be recorded in the TIF
Plan.
Subsection 2-18. Administrative Expenses
In accordance with M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 14, administrative expenses means all expenditures of the
EDA or City, other than:
1. Amounts paid for the purchase of land;
2. Amounts paid to contractors or others providing materials and services, including architectural and
engineering services, directly connected with the physical development of the real property in the
District;
3. Relocation benefits paid to or services provided for persons residing or businesses located in the
District; or
4. Amounts used to pay principal or interest on, fund a reserve for, or sell at a discount bonds issued
pursuant to M.S., Section 469.178; or
5. Amounts used to pay other financial obligations to the extent those obligations were used to finance
costs described in clauses (1) to (3).
For districts for which the request for certification were made before August 1, 1979, or after June 30, 1982,
and before August 1, 2001, administrative expenses also include amounts paid for services provided by bond
counsel, fiscal consultants, and planning or economic development consultants. Pursuant to M.S., Section
469.176, Subd. 3, tax increment may be used to pay any authorized and documented administrative
expenses for the District up to but not to exceed 10 percent of the total estimated tax increment expenditures
authorized by the TIF Plan or the total tax increments, as defined by M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 25, clause
(1), from the District, whichever is less.
For districts for which certification was requested after July 31, 2001, no tax increment may be used to pay
any administrative expenses for District costs which exceed ten percent of total estimated tax increment
expenditures authorized by the TIF Plan or the total tax increments, as defined in M.S., Section 469.174, Subd.
Economic Development Authority Meeting of May 6, 2013 (Item No. 7a)
Title: Establishment of the Eliot Park Tax Increment Financing District Page 27
St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority
Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Eliot Park Tax Increment Financing District 2-12
25, clause (1), from the District, whichever is less.
Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 4h, tax increments may be used to pay for the County's actual
administrative expenses incurred in connection with the District and are not subject to the percentage limits
of M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 3. The county may require payment of those expenses by February 15 of the
year following the year the expenses were incurred.
Pursuant to M.S., Section 469. 177, Subd. 11, the County Treasurer shall deduct an amount (currently .36
percent) of any increment distributed to the EDA or City and the County Treasurer shall pay the amount
deducted to the State Commissioner of Management and Budget for deposit in the state general fund to be
appropriated to the State Auditor for the cost of financial reporting of tax increment financing information
and the cost of examining and auditing authorities' use of tax increment financing. This amount may be
adjusted annually by the Commissioner of Revenue.
Subsection 2-19. Limitation of Increment
The tax increment pledged to the payment of bonds and interest thereon may be discharged and the District
may be terminated if sufficient funds have been irrevocably deposited in the debt service fund or other escrow
account held in trust for all outstanding bonds to provide for the payment of the bonds at maturity or
redemption date.
Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 6:
if, after four years from the date of certification of the original net tax capacity of the tax
increment financing district pursuant to M.S., Section 469.177, no demolition, rehabilitation
or renovation of property or other site preparation, including qualified improvement of a
street adjacent to a parcel but not installation of utility service including sewer or water
systems, has been commenced on a parcel located within a tax increment financing district
by the authority or by the owner of the parcel in accordance with the tax increment financing
plan, no additional tax increment may be taken from that parcel and the original net tax
capacity of that parcel shall be excluded from the original net tax capacity of the tax
increment financing district. If the authority or the owner of the parcel subsequently
commences demolition, rehabilitation or renovation or other site preparation on that parcel
including qualified improvement of a street adjacent to that parcel, in accordance with the
tax increment financing plan, the authority shall certify to the county auditor that the activity
has commenced and the county auditor shall certify the net tax capacity thereof as most
recently certified by the commissioner of revenue and add it to the original net tax capacity
of the tax increment financing district. The county auditor must enforce the provisions of this
subdivision. The authority must submit to the county auditor evidence that the required
activity has taken place for each parcel in the district. The evidence for a parcel must be
submitted by February 1 of the fifth year following the year in which the parcel was certified
as included in the district. For purposes of this subdivision, qualified improvements of a
street are limited to (1) construction or opening of a new street, (2) relocation of a street,
and (3) substantial reconstruction or rebuilding of an existing street.
The EDA or City or a property owner must improve parcels within the District by approximately May 2016
and report such actions to the County Auditor.
Economic Development Authority Meeting of May 6, 2013 (Item No. 7a)
Title: Establishment of the Eliot Park Tax Increment Financing District Page 28
St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority
Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Eliot Park Tax Increment Financing District 2-13
Subsection 2-20. Use of Tax Increment
The EDA or City hereby determines that it will use 100 percent of the captured net tax capacity of taxable
property located in the District for the following purposes:
1. To pay the principal of and interest on bonds issued to finance a project;
2. To finance, or otherwise pay the cost of redevelopment of the Redevelopment Project No. 1 pursuant
to M.S., Sections 469.090 to 469.1082;
3. To pay for project costs as identified in the budget set forth in the TIF Plan;
4. To finance, or otherwise pay for other purposes as provided in M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 4;
5. To pay principal and interest on any loans, advances or other payments made to or on behalf of the
EDA or City or for the benefit of Redevelopment Project No. 1 by a developer;
6. To finance or otherwise pay premiums and other costs for insurance or other security guaranteeing
the payment when due of principal of and interest on bonds pursuant to the TIF Plan or pursuant to
M.S., Chapter 462C. M.S., Sections 469.152 through 469.165, and/or M.S., Sections 469.178; and
7. To accumulate or maintain a reserve securing the payment when due of the principal and interest on
the tax increment bonds or bonds issued pursuant to M.S., Chapter 462C, M.S., Sections 469.152
through 469.165, and/or M.S., Sections 469.178.
These revenues shall not be used to circumvent any levy limitations applicable to the City nor for other
purposes prohibited by M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 4.
Tax increments generated in the District will be paid by Hennepin County to the EDA for the Tax Increment
Fund of said District. The EDA or City will pay to the developer(s) annually an amount not to exceed an
amount as specified in a developer's agreement to reimburse the costs of land acquisition, public
improvements, demolition and relocation, site preparation, and administration. Remaining increment funds
will be used for EDA or City administration (up to 10 percent) and for the costs of public improvement
activities outside the District.
Subsection 2-21. Excess Increments
Excess increments, as defined in M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 2, shall be used only to do one or more of the
following:
1. Prepay any outstanding bonds;
2. Discharge the pledge of tax increment for any outstanding bonds;
3. Pay into an escrow account dedicated to the payment of any outstanding bonds; or
4. Return the excess to the County Auditor for redistribution to the respective taxing jurisdictions in
proportion to their local tax rates.
The EDA or City must spend or return the excess increments under paragraph (c) within nine months after
the end of the year. In addition, the EDA or City may, subject to the limitations set forth herein, choose to
modify the TIF Plan in order to finance additional public costs in Redevelopment Project No. 1 or the District.
Subsection 2-22. Requirements for Agreements with the Developer
The EDA or City will review any proposal for private development to determine its conformance with the
Redevelopment Plan and with applicable municipal ordinances and codes. To facilitate this effort, the
following documents may be requested for review and approval: site plan, construction, mechanical, and
Economic Development Authority Meeting of May 6, 2013 (Item No. 7a)
Title: Establishment of the Eliot Park Tax Increment Financing District Page 29
St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority
Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Eliot Park Tax Increment Financing District 2-14
electrical system drawings, landscaping plan, grading and storm drainage plan, signage system plan, and any
other drawings or narrative deemed necessary by the EDA or City to demonstrate the conformance of the
development with City plans and ordinances. The EDA or City may also use the Agreements to address other
issues related to the development.
Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 5, no more than 25 percent, by acreage, of the property to be
acquired in the District as set forth in the TIF Plan shall at any time be owned by the EDA or City as a result
of acquisition with the proceeds of bonds issued pursuant to M.S., Section 469.178 to which tax increments
from property acquired is pledged, unless prior to acquisition in excess of 25 percent of the acreage, the EDA
or City concluded an agreement for the development or redevelopment of the property acquired and which
provides recourse for the EDA or City should the development or redevelopment not be completed.
Subsection 2-23. Assessment Agreements
As authorized under M.S., Section 469.177, Subd. 8, the EDA intends to enter into a written assessment
agreement in recordable form with the developer of property within the District which establishes a minimum
market value of the land and completed improvements for the duration of the District. The assessment
agreement shall be presented to the City Assessor who shall review the plans and specifications for the
improvements to be constructed, review the market value previously assigned to the land upon which the
improvements are to be constructed and, so long as the minimum market value contained in the assessment
agreement appears, in the judgment of the assessor, to be a reasonable estimate, the City Assessor shall also
certify the minimum market value agreement.
Subsection 2-24. Administration of the District
Administration of the District will be handled by the City Clerk.
Subsection 2-25. Annual Disclosure Requirements
Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.175, Subds. 5, 6, and 6b the EDA or City must undertake financial reporting
for all tax increment financing districts to the Office of the State Auditor, County Board and County Auditor
on or before August 1 of each year. M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. 5 also provides that an annual statement
shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation in the City on or before August 15.
If the City fails to make a disclosure or submit a report containing the information required by M.S., Section
469.175 Subd. 5 and Subd. 6, the OSA will direct the County Auditor to withhold the distribution of tax
increment from the District.
Subsection 2-26. Reasonable Expectations
As required by the TIF Act, in establishing the District, the determination has been made that the anticipated
development would not reasonably be expected to occur solely through private investment within the
reasonably foreseeable future and that the increased market value of the site that could reasonably be expected
to occur without the use of tax increment financing would be less than the increase in the market value
estimated to result from the proposed development after subtracting the present value of the projected tax
increments for the maximum duration of the District permitted by the TIF Plan. In making said determination,
reliance has been placed upon written representation made by the developer to such effects and upon EDA
and City staff awareness of the feasibility of developing the project site(s) within the District. A comparative
analysis of estimated market values both with and without establishment of the District and the use of tax
increments has been performed as described above. Such analysis is included with the cashflow in Appendix
Economic Development Authority Meeting of May 6, 2013 (Item No. 7a)
Title: Establishment of the Eliot Park Tax Increment Financing District Page 30
St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority
Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Eliot Park Tax Increment Financing District 2-15
D, and indicates that the increase in estimated market value of the proposed development (less the indicated
subtractions) exceeds the estimated market value of the site absent the establishment of the District and the
use of tax increments.
Subsection 2-27. Other Limitations on the Use of Tax Increment
1. General Limitations. All revenue derived from tax increment shall be used in accordance with the TIF
Plan. The revenues shall be used to finance, or otherwise pay the cost of redevelopment of the
Redevelopment Project No. 1 pursuant to M.S., Sections 469.090 to 469.1082. Tax increments may not
be used to circumvent existing levy limit law. No tax increment may be used for the acquisition,
construction, renovation, operation, or maintenance of a building to be used primarily and regularly for
conducting the business of a municipality, county, school district, or any other local unit of government
or the state or federal government. This provision does not prohibit the use of revenues derived from tax
increments for the construction or renovation of a parking structure.
2. Pooling Limitations. At least 75 percent of tax increments from the District must be expended on
activities in the District or to pay bonds, to the extent that the proceeds of the bonds were used to finance
activities within said district or to pay, or secure payment of, debt service on credit enhanced bonds. Not
more than 25 percent of said tax increments may be expended, through a development fund or otherwise,
on activities outside of the District except to pay, or secure payment of, debt service on credit enhanced
bonds. For purposes of applying this restriction, all administrative expenses must be treated as if they
were solely for activities outside of the District.
3. Five Year Limitation on Commitment of Tax Increments. Tax increments derived from the District shall
be deemed to have satisfied the 75 percent test set forth in paragraph (2) above only if the five year rule
set forth in M.S., Section 469.1763, Subd. 3, has been satisfied; and beginning with the sixth year
following certification of the District, 75 percent of said tax increments that remain after expenditures
permitted under said five year rule must be used only to pay previously committed expenditures or credit
enhanced bonds as more fully set forth in M.S., Section 469.1763, Subd. 5.
4. Redevelopment District. At least 90 percent of the revenues derived from tax increment from a
redevelopment district must be used to finance the cost of correcting conditions that allow designation
of redevelopment and renewal and renovation districts under M.S., Section 469.176 Subd. 4j. These costs
include, but are not limited to, acquiring properties containing structurally substandard buildings or
improvements or hazardous substances, pollution, or contaminants, acquiring adjacent parcels necessary
to provide a site of sufficient size to permit development, demolition and rehabilitation of structures,
clearing of the land, the removal of hazardous substances or remediation necessary for development of
the land, and installation of utilities, roads, sidewalks, and parking facilities for the site. The allocated
administrative expenses of the EDA or City, including the cost of preparation of the development action
response plan, may be included in the qualifying costs.
Subsection 2-28. Summary
The St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority is establishing the District to preserve and enhance the
tax base, redevelop substandard areas, and provide diverse housing options in the City. The TIF Plan for the
District was prepared by Ehlers & Associates, Inc., 3060 Centre Pointe Drive, Roseville, Minnesota 55113,
telephone (651) 697-8500.
Economic Development Authority Meeting of May 6, 2013 (Item No. 7a)
Title: Establishment of the Eliot Park Tax Increment Financing District Page 31
Appendix A-1
Appendix A
Project Description
The District is being created to facilitate the redevelopment of the former site of Eliot School by Hunt
Associates into a residential development consisting of 138 market rate apartment units and 2 single family
homes. Construction is expected to commence in 2013, with the apartments being completed in 2014.
Construction of the single-family homes will likely occur after construction of the apartments is completed
in 2014.
The City’s Economic Development Authority (EDA) will be entering into a development agreement with the
developer and will be providing TIF on a pay-as-you-go basis, for a six and a half year term.
Economic Development Authority Meeting of May 6, 2013 (Item No. 7a)
Title: Establishment of the Eliot Park Tax Increment Financing District Page 32
Appendix B-1
Appendix B
Maps of Redevelopment Project No. 1 and the District
Economic Development Authority Meeting of May 6, 2013 (Item No. 7a)
Title: Establishment of the Eliot Park Tax Increment Financing District Page 33
Appendix C-1
Appendix C
Description of Property to be Included in the District
The District encompasses all property and adjacent rights-of-way and abutting roadways identified by the
parcels listed below.
Parcel Numbers Address Owner
0811721110079 6720 Cedar Lk Rd St. Louis Park ISD 283
0811721120028 6800 Cedar Lk Rd St. Louis Park ISD 283
Economic Development Authority Meeting of May 6, 2013 (Item No. 7a)
Title: Establishment of the Eliot Park Tax Increment Financing District Page 34
Appendix D-1
Appendix D
Estimated Cash Flow for the District
Economic Development Authority Meeting of May 6, 2013 (Item No. 7a)
Title: Establishment of the Eliot Park Tax Increment Financing District Page 35
Appendix E-1
Appendix E
Minnesota Business Assistance Form
(Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development)
A Minnesota Business Assistance Form (MBAF) should be used to report and/or update each calendar year's
activity by April 1 of the following year.
Please see the Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development (DEED) website at
http://www.deed.state.mn.us/Community/subsidies/MBAFForm.htm for information and forms.
Economic Development Authority Meeting of May 6, 2013 (Item No. 7a)
Title: Establishment of the Eliot Park Tax Increment Financing District Page 36
Appendix F-1
Appendix F
Redevelopment Qualifications for the District
Economic Development Authority Meeting of May 6, 2013 (Item No. 7a)
Title: Establishment of the Eliot Park Tax Increment Financing District Page 37
REPORT OF
INSPECTION PROCEDURES AND RESULTS
FOR
DETERMINING QUALIFICATIONS OF A
TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT
AS A REDEVELOPMENT DISTRICT
Eliot Park TIF District
St. Louis Park, Minnesota
LHB Project No. 120453
October 29, 2012
Prepared For The
City of St. Louis Park
Prepared by
LHB, Inc.
250 Third Avenue North, Suite 450
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401
Economic Development Authority Meeting of May 6, 2013 (Item No. 7a)
Title: Establishment of the Eliot Park Tax Increment Financing District Page 38
Page 2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
PART 1 Executive Summary ...............................................................................3
Purpose of Evaluation ................................................................3
Scope of Work ...........................................................................4
Conclusion .................................................................................4
PART 2 Minnesota Statute 469.174, Subdivision 10 Requirements ...................4
PART 3 Procedures Followed ..............................................................................6
PART 4 Findings..................................................................................................6
A. Coverage Test ............................................................................6
B. Condition of Building Test ........................................................8
1. Building Inspection ..............................................................8
2. Replacement Cost ................................................................8
3. Code Deficiencies ................................................................8
4. System Condition Deficiencies ............................................9
C. Distribution of Substandard Structures ....................................10
PART 5 Team Credentials .................................................................................11
APPENDIX A Property Condition Assessment Summary Sheet
APPENDIX B Building Code and Condition Deficiencies Reports
APPENDIX C Building Replacement Cost Reports
Code Deficiency Cost Reports
Photographs
Economic Development Authority Meeting of May 6, 2013 (Item No. 7a)
Title: Establishment of the Eliot Park Tax Increment Financing District Page 39
Page 3
PART 1 – EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
PURPOSE OF EVALUATION
LHB was hired by the City of St. Louis Park to inspect and evaluate the properties within a Tax
Increment Financing Redevelopment District (“TIF District”) proposed to be established by the
City. The proposed TIF District is bordered on the West by Idaho Avenue and on the South by
Cedar Lake Road. The two parcels in the District are bisected by Hampshire Avenue (Diagram
1). The purpose of LHB’s work is to determine whether the proposed TIF District meets the
statutory requirements for coverage, and whether one building on two parcels, located within the
proposed TIF District, meets the qualifications required for a Redevelopment District.
Diagram 1 – Proposed TIF District
Economic Development Authority Meeting of May 6, 2013 (Item No. 7a)
Title: Establishment of the Eliot Park Tax Increment Financing District Page 40
Page 4
SCOPE OF WORK
The proposed TIF District consists of two (2) parcels with one (1) structure. In addition,
portions of three adjoining streets are located in the proposed District.
One building received an on-site interior and exterior inspection on August 30, 2012. Building
code and Condition Deficiency reports are located in Appendix B.
CONCLUSION
After inspecting and evaluating the properties within the proposed TIF District and applying
current statutory criteria for a Redevelopment District under Minnesota Statutes, Section
469.174, Subdivision 10, it is our professional opinion that the proposed TIF District qualifies as
a Redevelopment District because:
• The proposed TIF District has a coverage calculation of 100 percent which is above the
70 percent requirement.
• 100 percent of the buildings are structurally substandard which is above the 50 percent
requirement.
• The substandard buildings are reasonably distributed throughout the geographic area of
the proposed TIF District.
The remainder of this report describes our process and findings in detail.
PART 2 – MINNESOTA STATUTE 469.174, SUBDIVISION 10 REQUIREMENTS
The properties were inspected in accordance with the following requirements under Minnesota
Statutes, Section 469.174, Subdivision 10(c), which states:
Interior Inspection
“The municipality may not make such determination [that the building is structurally
substandard] without an interior inspection of the property...”
Exterior Inspection and Other Means
“An interior inspection of the property is not required, if the municipality finds that
(1) the municipality or authority is unable to gain access to the property after using its best
efforts to obtain permission from the party that owns or controls the property; and
(2) the evidence otherwise supports a reasonable conclusion that the building is structurally
substandard.”
Documentation
“Written documentation of the findings and reasons why an interior inspection was not
conducted must be made and retained under section 469.175, subdivision 3(1).”
Economic Development Authority Meeting of May 6, 2013 (Item No. 7a)
Title: Establishment of the Eliot Park Tax Increment Financing District Page 41
Page 5
Qualification Requirements
Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subdivision 10 (a) (1) requires two tests for occupied
parcels:
A. Coverage Test
…“parcels consisting of 70 percent of the area of the district are occupied by buildings,
streets, utilities, or paved or gravel parking lots”
The coverage required by the parcel to be considered occupied is defined under
Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subdivision 10(e), which states: “For purposes of
this subdivision, a parcel is not occupied by buildings, streets, utilities, or paved or gravel
parking lots unless 15 percent of the area of the parcel contains building, streets, utilities,
or paved or gravel parking lots.”
B. Condition of Buildings Test
…“and more than 50 percent of the buildings, not including outbuildings, are structurally
substandard to a degree requiring substantial renovation or clearance;”
1. Structurally substandard is defined under Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174,
Subdivision 10(b), which states: “For purposes of this subdivision, ‘structurally
substandard’ shall mean containing defects in structural elements or a combination of
deficiencies in essential utilities and facilities, light and ventilation, fire protection
including adequate egress, layout and condition of interior partitions, or similar
factors, which defects or deficiencies are of sufficient total significance to justify
substantial renovation or clearance.”
a. We do not count energy code deficiencies toward the thresholds required by
Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subdivision 10(b)) defined as “structurally
substandard”, due to concerns expressed by the State of Minnesota Court of
Appeals in the Walser Auto Sales, Inc. vs. City of Richfield case filed November
13, 2001.
2. Buildings are not eligible to be considered structurally substandard unless they meet
certain additional criteria, as set forth in Subdivision 10(c) which states:
“A building is not structurally substandard if it is in compliance with the building
code applicable to new buildings or could be modified to satisfy the building code at a
cost of less than 15 percent of the cost of constructing a new structure of the same
square footage and type on the site. The municipality may find that a building is not
disqualified as structurally substandard under the preceding sentence on the basis of
reasonably available evidence, such as the size, type, and age of the building, the
average cost of plumbing, electrical, or structural repairs, or other similar reliable
evidence.”
Economic Development Authority Meeting of May 6, 2013 (Item No. 7a)
Title: Establishment of the Eliot Park Tax Increment Financing District Page 42
Page 6
“Items of evidence that support such a conclusion [that the building is not
disqualified] include recent fire or police inspections, on-site property appraisals or
housing inspections, exterior evidence of deterioration, or other similar reliable
evidence.”
LHB counts energy code deficiencies toward the 15 percent code threshold required
by Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subdivision 10(c)) for the following reasons:
• The Minnesota energy code is one of ten building code areas highlighted by
the Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry website where minimum
construction standards are required by law.
• The index page of the 2007 Minnesota Building Code lists the Minnesota
Energy Code as a “Required Enforcement” area compared to an additional
list of “Optional Enforcement” chapters.
• The Senior Building Code Representative for the Construction Codes and
Licensing Division of the Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry
confirmed that the Minnesota Energy Code is being enforced throughout the
State of Minnesota.
• In a January 2002 report to the Minnesota Legislature, the Management
Analysis Division of the Minnesota Department of Administration confirmed
that the construction cost of new buildings complying with the Minnesota
Energy Code is higher than buildings built prior to the enactment of the code.
• Proper TIF analysis requires a comparison between the replacement value of
a new building built under current code standards with the repairs that would
be necessary to bring the existing building up to current code standards. In
order for an equal comparison to be made, all applicable code chapters should
be applied to both scenarios. Since current construction estimating software
automatically applies the construction cost of complying with the Minnesota
Energy Code, energy code deficiencies should also be identified in the
existing structures.
PART 3 – PROCEDURES FOLLOWED
LHB inspected the building on August 30, 2012 and reviewed GIS documents and aerial photos
to determine the amount of coverage on each parcel.
PART 4 – FINDINGS
A. Coverage Test
1. The total square foot area of each parcel in the proposed TIF District was obtained
from City records, GIS mapping and site verification.
Economic Development Authority Meeting of May 6, 2013 (Item No. 7a)
Title: Establishment of the Eliot Park Tax Increment Financing District Page 43
Page 7
2. The total square foot area of buildings and site improvements on the parcels in the
proposed TIF District was obtained from City records, GIS mapping and site
verification.
3. The percentage of coverage for each parcel in the proposed TIF District was
computed to determine if the 15 percent minimum requirement was met. The total
square footage of parcels meeting the 15 percent requirement was divided into the
total square footage of the entire district to determine if the 70 percent requirement
was met.
Finding:
The proposed TIF District met the coverage test under Minnesota Statutes, Section
469.174, Subdivision 10(e), which resulted in parcels consisting of 100 percent of the
area of the proposed TIF District being occupied by buildings, streets, utilities, paved
or gravel parking lots, or other similar structures (Diagram 2). This exceeds the 70
percent area coverage requirement for the proposed TIF District under Minnesota
Statutes, Section 469.174, Subdivision (a) (1).
Diagram 2 – Coverage Diagram
Shaded area depicts a parcel more than 15 percent occupied by buildings, streets, utilities,
Paved or gravel parking lots or other similar structures
Economic Development Authority Meeting of May 6, 2013 (Item No. 7a)
Title: Establishment of the Eliot Park Tax Increment Financing District Page 44
Page 8
B. Condition of Building Test
1. Building Inspection
The first step in the evaluation process is the building inspection. After an initial
walk-thru, the inspector makes a judgment whether or not a building “appears” to
have enough defects or deficiencies of sufficient total significance to justify
substantial renovation or clearance. If it does, the inspector documents with notes and
photographs code and non-code deficiencies in the building.
2. Replacement Cost
The second step in evaluating a building to determine if it is substandard to a degree
requiring substantial renovation or clearance is to determine its replacement cost.
This is the cost of constructing a new structure of the same square footage and type on
site. Replacement costs were researched using R.S. Means Cost Works square foot
models for 2012.
A replacement cost was calculated by first establishing building use (office, retail,
residential, etc.), building construction type (wood, concrete, masonry, etc.), and
building size to obtain the appropriate median replacement cost, which factors in the
costs of construction in St. Louis Park, Minnesota.
Replacement cost includes labor, materials, and the contractor’s overhead and profit.
Replacement costs do not include architectural fees, legal fees or other “soft” costs
not directly related to construction activities. Replacement cost for each building is
tabulated in Appendix A.
3. Code Deficiencies
The next step in evaluating a building is to determine what code deficiencies exist
with respect to such building. Code deficiencies are those conditions for a building
which are not in compliance with current building codes applicable to new buildings
in the State of Minnesota.
Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subdivision 10(c), specifically provides that a
building cannot be considered structurally substandard if its code deficiencies are not
at least 15 percent of the replacement cost of the building. As a result, it was
necessary to determine the extent of code deficiencies for each building in the
proposed TIF District.
The evaluation was made by reviewing all available information with respect to such
buildings contained in City Building Inspection records and making interior and
exterior inspections of the buildings. LHB utilizes the current Minnesota State
Building Code as the official code for our evaluations. The Minnesota State Building
Code is actually a series of provisional codes written specifically for Minnesota only
Economic Development Authority Meeting of May 6, 2013 (Item No. 7a)
Title: Establishment of the Eliot Park Tax Increment Financing District Page 45
Page 9
requirements, adoption of several international codes, and amendments to the adopted
international codes.
After identifying the code deficiencies in each building, we used R.S. Means Cost
Works 2012; Unit and Assembly Costs to determine the cost of correcting the
identified deficiencies. We were than able to compare the correction costs with the
replacement cost of each building to determine if the costs for correcting code
deficiencies meet the required 15 percent threshold.
Finding:
One (1) out of one (1) buildings (100 percent) in the proposed TIF District contained
code deficiencies exceeding the 15 percent threshold required by Minnesota Statutes,
Section 469.174, Subdivision 10(c). A complete Building Code and Condition
Deficiency report for each building in the proposed TIF District can be found in
Appendix B of this report.
4. System Condition Deficiencies
If a building meets the minimum code deficiency threshold under Minnesota Statutes,
Section 469.174, Subdivision 10(c), then in order for such building to be “structurally
substandard” under Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subdivision 10(b), the
building’s defects or deficiencies should be of sufficient total significance to justify
“substantial renovation or clearance.” Based on this definition, LHB re-evaluated
each of the buildings that met the code deficiency threshold under Minnesota Statutes,
Section 469.174, Subdivision 10(c), to determine if the total deficiencies warranted
“substantial renovation or clearance” based on the criteria we outlined above.
System condition deficiencies are a measurement of defects or substantial
deterioration in site elements, structure, exterior envelope, mechanical and electrical
components, fire protection and emergency systems, interior partitions, ceilings,
floors and doors.
The evaluation of system condition deficiencies was made by reviewing all available
information contained in City records, and making interior and exterior inspections of
the buildings. LHB only identified system condition deficiencies that were visible
upon our inspection of the building or contained in City records. We did not consider
the amount of “service life” used up for a particular component unless it was an
obvious part of that component’s deficiencies.
After identifying the system condition deficiencies in each building, we used our
professional judgment to determine if the list of defects or deficiencies are of
sufficient total significance to justify “substantial renovation or clearance.”
Finding:
In our professional opinion, one (1) out of one (1) buildings (100 percent) in the
proposed TIF District are structurally substandard to a degree requiring substantial
Economic Development Authority Meeting of May 6, 2013 (Item No. 7a)
Title: Establishment of the Eliot Park Tax Increment Financing District Page 46
Page 10
renovation or clearance, because of defects in structural elements or a combination of
deficiencies in essential utilities and facilities, light and ventilation, fire protection
including adequate egress, layout and condition of interior partitions, or similar
factors which defects or deficiencies are of sufficient total significance to justify
substantial renovation or clearance. This exceeds the 50 percent requirement of
Subdivision 10a(1).
C. Distribution of substandard structures
Much of this report has focused on the condition of individual buildings as they relate
to requirements identified by Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subdivision 10. It
is also important to look at the distribution of substandard buildings throughout the
geographic area of the proposed TIF District (Diagram 3).
Finding:
The substandard buildings are reasonably distributed throughout the geographic area
of the proposed TIF District.
Diagram 3 – Substandard Buildings
Shaded area depicts parcels with substandard buildings
Economic Development Authority Meeting of May 6, 2013 (Item No. 7a)
Title: Establishment of the Eliot Park Tax Increment Financing District Page 47
Page 11
PART 5 - TEAM CREDENTIALS
Michael A. Fischer, AIA LEED AP - Project Principal/TIF Analyst
Michael has twenty-four years of architectural experience as project principal, project manager,
project designer and project architect on municipal planning, educational, commercial and
governmental projects. He is a Senior Vice President at LHB and currently leads the
Minneapolis office. Michael completed a two-year Bush Fellowship at the Massachusetts
Institute of Technology in 1999, earning Masters Degrees in City Planning and Real Estate
Development. Michael has served on over 35 committees, boards and community task forces,
including a term as City Council President and Chair of the Duluth/Superior Metropolitan
Planning organization. He is currently a member of the Planning Commission in Edina,
Minnesota. He was one of four architects in the country to receive the National "Young
Architects Citation" from the American Institute of Architects in 1997.
Ben Trousdale, AIA - Project Manager/Inspector
Ben is a project architect in LHB’s Minneapolis office with 20 years of experience working on a
variety of multi-family housing and commercial projects. He has extensive skills in creating
quality construction documents that convey a building’s fundamentals and unique design
details. His responsibilities include project management, code analysis, and overseeing
document production. Ben is a licensed architect in Minnesota and is involved with AIA
activities including Search for Shelter charrettes.
Lydia Major, MLA, ASLA – GIS/Mapping
Lydia brings a passion for design that benefits the client, the community, and the environment.
Her experience includes designing and drafting commercial and residential properties at a
variety of scales. Lydia integrates her skills with AutoCAD, ArcGIS, and the Adobe Creative
Suite to produce plans, color renderings, booklets, and other presentation materials.
Communication is a critical component in all projects, and Lydia’s uses her education as a
writer to create compelling project documents, including proposals, requests for variance, and
other public-relations materials.
M:\12Proj\120453\400 Design\406 Reports\TIF\Final Report\Eliot Park TIF Final Report 10-29-12.doc
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A Property Condition Assessment Summary Sheet
APPENDIX B Building Code and Condition Deficiencies Reports
APPENDIX C Building Replacement Cost Reports
Code Deficiency Cost Reports
Photographs
Economic Development Authority Meeting of May 6, 2013 (Item No. 7a)
Title: Establishment of the Eliot Park Tax Increment Financing District Page 48
APPENDIX A
Property Condition Assessment Summary Sheet
Economic Development Authority Meeting of May 6, 2013 (Item No. 7a)
Title: Establishment of the Eliot Park Tax Increment Financing District Page 49
10/29/12
Eliot Park Redevelopment TIF Analysis
SUMMARY SPREADSHEET
Page 1 of 1
TIF
Map No.Property Address and Name Improved or
Vacant
Survey Method
Used
Site Area
(S.F.)
Coverage Area of
Improvements
(S.F.)
Coverage Percent
of Improvements
Coverage
Quantity
(S.F.)
No. of
Buildings
Building
Replacement
Cost
15% of
Replacement
Cost
Building Code
Deficiencies
No. of Buildings
Exceeding 15%
Criteria
No. of
buildings
determined
substandard
1 6800 Cedar Lake Road Improved Interior/Exterior 186,122 89,145 47.9%186,122 1 $14,016,401 $2,102,460 $3,962,716 1 1
2 6720 Cedar Lake Road Vacant N/A 5,278 2,760 52.3%5,278 0
3 Idaho, Hampshire and Cedar Lake Road ROW Vacant N/A 110,875 110,875 100.0%110,875 0
TOTALS 302,275 302,275 1 1 1
100.0%
100.0%
M:\12Proj\120453\400 Design\406 Reports\TIF\Final Report\[Eliot Park TIF Summary Spreadsheet 10-29-12.xls]Property Info 100.0%
Total Coverage Percent:
Percent of buildings exceeding 15 percent code deficiency threshold:
Percent of buildings determined substandard:
Economic Development Authority Meeting of May 6, 2013 (Item No. 7a)
Title: Establishment of the Eliot Park Tax Increment Financing District Page 50
APPENDIX B
Building Code and Condition Deficiencies Reports
Economic Development Authority Meeting of May 6, 2013 (Item No. 7a)
Title: Establishment of the Eliot Park Tax Increment Financing District Page 51
ELIOT PARK TIF DISTRICT
CODE/CONDITION DEFICIENCY REPORT
October 29, 2012
Map No. & Building Name: Map No. 1 - 6800 Cedar Lake Road, St. Louis Park
Inspection Date(s) & Time(s): August 30, 2012
Inspection Type: Interior/Exterior
Summary of Deficiencies: It is our professional opinion that this building is Substandard because:
- Building Code deficiencies total more than 15% of replacement cost.
- Substantial renovation is required to correct Conditions found.
Estimated Replacement Cost: $ 14,016,401
Estimated Cost to Correct Building Code Deficiencies: $ 3,962,716
Percentage of Replacement Cost: 28%
Description of Condition Deficiencies
Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subdivision 10, states that a building is Structurally Substandard if it
contains “defects in structural elements or a combination of deficiencies in essential utilities and facilities, light
and ventilation, fire protection including adequate egress, layout and condition of interior partitions, or similar
factors, which defects or deficiencies are of sufficient total significance to justify substantial renovation or
clearance.”
A. Defects in Structural Elements
1. Exterior walls and winodows are unchanged from original 1951 construction. Windows are drafty,
leaky and have no insulation in their steel frames and single pane glazing. Wall insulation could not be
determined.
B. Combination of Deficiencies
1. Essential Utilities and Facilities
a. The building has been mothballed resulting in the decommissioning and disconnection of several
building services and systems.
b. The heating plant and plumbing system has been partially dismantled in order to winterize for
unheated conditions.
c. Classroom window AC and through-wall ventilators have been removed from windows and placed
on the floor and dismantled respectively.
d. The electrical system is outdated; there are still operational circuit fuse boxes with screw-in fuses.
e. Plumbing fixtures such as urinals, toilets and sinks have been vandalized in some bathrooms.
f. WCs in classroom offices are child or toddler sized.
g. Water-stained acoustic ceiling tiles in some classrooms.
h. Holes punched in some plaster walls.
2. Light and Ventilation
a. Most light fixtures are from the original 1951 construction. They do not meet current efficiency
standards.
b. Classroom window AC and through-wall ventilators have been removed and dismantled respectively.
c. Except for some post-occupancy HVAC at top floor classrooms, the building ventilation is
unchanged from original construction.
d. Vandalized light fixtures in some rooms.
3. Fire Protection/Adequate Egress
a. All exterior doors except one have been boarded up.
Economic Development Authority Meeting of May 6, 2013 (Item No. 7a)
Title: Establishment of the Eliot Park Tax Increment Financing District Page 52
b. All egress stairs do not meet code. Stair rise/run do not meet current code requirements. Handrails
and guards are too low.
c. The fire sprinkler system is not operational.
4. Layout and Condition of Interior Partitions/Materials
a. Door knobs have been removed from classroom doors.
b. Classroom door vision panels have been broken in many locations.
c. Drinking fountains have been removed.
d. Some defacement of interior finishes including walls, windows and vision panels.
e. Cracks in plaster at exterior walls.
f. Worn, faded and dated finishes and built-ins throughout.
g. Damaged gypsum board walls in an office area.
h. Hardware has been removed from classroom cabinets.
i. Mold on walls in a lower level room.
j. Gym floor has been partially burned and there is ash and smoke stain throughout the gym and stage.
5. Exterior Construction
a. Crumbling concrete at southeast corner.
b. Rusting window frames and sashes.
c. Failing putty at glass and sashes.
d. Peeling paint at steel window lintels. Lintels are rusted.
e. Peeling paint at seeel window sills. Sills are rusted.
f. Unpainted and rusted steel channels projecting from cross member separating windows from glass
block above. It appears some sort of architectural feature was removed.
g. Rusting security grates at southeast corner.
h. Peeling paint at wood window casings, frames and sashes.
i. Peeling paint and weathered wood panels above top floor windows.
j. A significant percentage of windows have broken glass.
k. Failing sealant around ventilator grills.
l. Isolated broken glass block above the windows.
m. Unpainted and rotting plywood filler panels at mechanical goose necks.
n. Minor graffiti.
o. Hairline cracks in stone sills at lower level windows in courtyard.
p. Sand-filled area well with stair to lower level. There is no information on how building was prepared
to be covered with and buried in sand.
q. Crumbling concrete steps at the southeast entrance.
r. Peeling paint at southeast entrance canopy.
Overview of Condition Deficiencies
The Eliot School was built in 1951 and has been little altered since then. The windows, doors, flooring, ceiling,
plaster finishes, heating plant, plumbing fixtures and lighting mostly date from initial construction. The
windows are original steel frame with single pane lights with no insulation value. Much of the flooring is
original vinyl tile that may contain asbestos. Most of the light fixtures are fluorescent and original vintage and
there are electrical panel boards that are of the screw-in fuse type.
The building’s heating and plumbing components have been moth-balled and winterized. Water service is
disconnected, the sprinkler system is disconnected, plumbing fixtures have been disconnected from supply and
drainage pipes and radiators have been disconnected from the hotwater heating system. Door hardware has been
removed in order to prevent accidental ‘locking-in’ by intruders and windows have been boarded. In addition
the building has has been vandalized. Plumbing fixtures have been smashed and most classroom door vision
panels have been shattered.
Economic Development Authority Meeting of May 6, 2013 (Item No. 7a)
Title: Establishment of the Eliot Park Tax Increment Financing District Page 53
Description of Code Deficiencies
1. Drinking fountains have been removed.
2. Some exit signs have been destroyed.
3. Exterior exit doors have all been boarded except one.
4. Three floors are open to each other when only two floors may be open to each other.
5. There is no accessible route from the outside to any floors of the building. An elevator is required.
6. Ramp at third floor does not have handrails.
7. Sanitary piping is located above electrical service entrance switch gear.
8. Theater room is not accessible.
9. Kitchen does not have NSF approved counters and storage.
10. Gym stage is not on an accessible route.
11. Exterior door on the west side without a stoop.
12. The automatic sprinkler system is not operational.
13. Building heating plant is not operational.
14. Building ventilation systems are not operational and likely inadequate if they were.
15. All bathrooms are non-functional.
16. No accessible features in any bathrooms even if they were functional.
Energy Code
In addition to the building code deficiencies listed above, the existing building does not comply with the current
energy code. These deficiencies are not included in the estimated costs to correct code deficiencies and are not
considered in determining whether or not the building is substandard:
- Building’s light fixtures are not energy efficient per code – T-12 fixtures.
- Building’s heating and cooling is not as efficient as current energy code would require.
M:\12Proj\120453\400 Design\406 Reports\TIF\Eliot School Redevelopment District Substandard Building Report.doc
Economic Development Authority Meeting of May 6, 2013 (Item No. 7a)
Title: Establishment of the Eliot Park Tax Increment Financing District
Page 54
APPENDIX C
Building Replacement Cost Reports
Code Deficiency Cost Reports
Photographs
Economic Development Authority Meeting of May 6, 2013 (Item No. 7a)
Title: Establishment of the Eliot Park Tax Increment Financing District Page 55
Square Foot Cost Estimate Report
Eliot School
City of St Louis Park
6800 Cedar Lake Road , St Louis Park , MN
Building Type:
School, Jr High, 2‐3 Story with Face Brick with
Concrete Block Back‐up / Steel Frame
Location:MINNEAPOLIS, MN
Story Count:3
Story Height (L.F.):14
Floor Area (S.F.):66,856
Labor Type:Union
Basement Included:No
Data Release:Year 2012 Quarter 3
Cost Per Square Foot:$209.65
Building Cost:$14,016,401
% of Total Cost Per S.F. Cost
3.60%$6.30 $421,193
A1010 Standard Foundations $1.88 $125,689
A1030 Slab on Grade $1.97 $131,706
A2010 Basement Excavation $0.07 $4,680
A2020 Basement Walls $2.38 $159,117
43.70% $77.70 $5,194,711
B1010 Floor Construction $20.84 $1,393,279
B1020 Roof Construction $4.26 $284,807
B2010 Exterior Walls $30.84 $2,061,839
B2020 Exterior Windows $16.19 $1,082,399
B2030 Exterior Doors $0.69 $46,131
B3010 Roof Coverings $4.85 $324,252
KSF, 5' ‐ 6" square x 18" deep
Estimate Name:
Costs are derived from a building model with basic components.
Scope differences and market conditions can cause costs to vary significantly.
A Substructure
KSF, 12" deep x 24" wide
opening, no intermediate horizontals
KSF, 7' ‐ 6" square x 25" deep
Slab on grade, 4" thick, non industrial, reinforced
site storage
thick
B Shell
column, 35'x35' bay, 38" deep, 100 PSF superimposed load, 148 PSF total
column, 35'x35' bay, 38" deep, 100 PSF superimposed load, 148 PSF total
3 hour rating, 17 PLF
28" deep, 40 PSF superimposed load, 62 PSF total load
28" deep, 40 PSF superimposed load, 62 PSF total load, add for column
thick, perlite core fill
Glazing panel, insulating, 1/2" thick, 2 lites 1/8" float glass, tinted
hardware, 6'‐0" x 7'‐0" opening
0" opening
opening
Roofing, single ply membrane, EPDM, 60 mils, fully adhered
The linked image cannot be displayed. The file may have been moved, renamed, or deleted. Verify that the link points to the correct file and location.
Economic Development Authority Meeting of May 6, 2013 (Item No. 7a)
Title: Establishment of the Eliot Park Tax Increment Financing District Page 56
B3020 Roof Openings $0.03 $2,006
21.70% $38.47 $2,571,950
C1010 Partitions $6.72 $449,272
C1020 Interior Doors $1.74 $116,329
C1030 Fittings $1.41 $94,267
C2010 Stair Construction $0.81 $54,153
C3010 Wall Finishes $7.91 $528,831
C3020 Floor Finishes $11.55 $772,187
C3030 Ceiling Finishes $8.33 $556,910
29.10% $51.75 $3,459,798
D1010 Elevators and Lifts $0.83 $55,490
D2010 Plumbing Fixtures $6.00 $401,136
D2020 Domestic Water Distribution $1.07 $71,536
steel, 165 lbs
thick, 0.87 PSF
Insulation, rigid, roof deck, polyisocyanurate, 2#/CF, 2" thick
Insulation, rigid, roof deck, polyisocyanurate, tapered for drainage
reglet, .032" counter flashing
Roof edges, aluminum, duranodic, .050" thick, 6" face
Flashing, aluminum, no backing sides, .019"
Ceramic tile, thin set, 4‐1/4" x 4‐1/4"
operator
C Interiors
Concrete block (CMU) partition, light weight, hollow, 6" thick, no finish
3'‐0" x 7'‐0" x 1‐3/8"
Toilet partitions, cubicles, ceiling hung, stainless steel
Chalkboards, liquid chalk type, aluminum frame & chalktrough
Stairs, steel, cement filled metal pan & picket rail, 16 risers, with landing
2 coats paint on masonry with block filler
Painting, masonry or concrete, latex, brushwork, primer & 2 coats
Painting, masonry or concrete, latex, brushwork, addition for block filler
Wall coatings, acrylic glazed coatings, maximum
Lab sink w/trim, polyethylene, single bowl, flanged, 23‐1/2" x 20‐1/2" OD
Carpet, tufted, nylon, roll goods, 12' wide, 36 oz
Carpet, padding, add to above, minimum
Terrazzo, maximum
Vinyl, composition tile, maximum
channel grid, suspended support
D Services
Hydraulic passenger elevator, 2500 lb., 2 floor, 125 FPM
Water closet, vitreous china, bowl only with flush valve, floor mount
Urinal, vitreous china, wall hung
Lavatory w/trim, wall hung, PE on CI, 20" x 18"
Kitchen sink w/trim, countertop, stainless steel, 44" x 22" triple bowl
Service sink w/trim, PE on CI, corner floor, 28" x 28", w/rim guard
Service sink w/trim, PE on CI,wall hung w/rim guard, 24" x 20"
Group wash fountain, stainless steel, circular, 54" diam
Shower, stall, baked enamel, terrazzo receptor, 36" square
Water cooler, electric, wall hung, wheelchair type, 7.5 GPH
Gas fired water heater, commercial, 100< F rise, 300 MBH input, 278 GPH
Economic Development Authority Meeting of May 6, 2013 (Item No. 7a)
Title: Establishment of the Eliot Park Tax Increment Financing District Page 57
D2040 Rain Water Drainage $1.23 $82,233
D3050 Terminal & Package Units $21.88 $1,462,809
D4010 Sprinklers $3.04 $203,242
D4020 Standpipes $0.41 $27,411
D5010 Electrical Service/Distribution $1.46 $97,610
D5020 Lighting and Branch Wiring $10.79 $721,376
D5030 Communications and Security $4.60 $307,538
D5090 Other Electrical Systems $0.44 $29,417
1.90% $3.45 $230,653
E1020 Institutional Equipment $2.27 $151,763
E1090 Other Equipment $1.18 $78,890
0.00% $0.00 $0
0.00% $0.00 $0
100% $177.67 $11,878,306
Wet standpipe risers, class III, steel, black, sch 40, 6" diam pipe, 1 floor
Roof drain, CI, soil,single hub, 5" diam, 10' high
Roof drain, CI, soil,single hub, 5" diam, for each additional foot add
95.83 ton
Wet pipe sprinkler systems, steel, light hazard, 1 floor, 50,000 SF
50,000 SF
wire, sound systems, 100 outlets
additional floors
phase, 4 wire, 120/208 V, 1600 A
Feeder installation 600 V, including RGS conduit and XHHW wire, 1600 A
Switchgear installation, incl switchboard, panels & circuit breaker, 1600 A
transformer
Wall switches, 2.0 per 1000 SF
Miscellaneous power, 1.2 watts
Central air conditioning power, 4 watts
Motor installation, three phase, 460 V, 15 HP motor size
460 V 15 HP, 575 V 20 HP
fixtures @32watt per 1000 SF
suspended type, electrically operated
detectors, includes outlets, boxes, conduit and wire
Fire alarm command center, addressable with voice, excl. wire & conduit
wire, intercom systems, 100 stations
wire, master clock systems, 30 rooms
Internet wiring, 2 data/voice outlets per 1000 S.F.
engine with fuel tank, 100 kW
E Equipment & Furnishings
economy
steel
Architectural equipment, laboratory equipment, cabinets, wall, open
units
manual operation, 15 tier, economy (per seat)
economy
side, economy
F Special Construction
G Building Sitework
SubTotal
Economic Development Authority Meeting of May 6, 2013 (Item No. 7a)
Title: Establishment of the Eliot Park Tax Increment Financing District Page 58
12.00% $21.32 $1,425,397
6.00% $10.66 $712,698
0.00% $0.00 $0
$209.65 $14,016,401
Contractor Fees (General Conditions,Overhead,Profit)
Architectural Fees
User Fees
Total Building Cost
Economic Development Authority Meeting of May 6, 2013 (Item No. 7a)
Title: Establishment of the Eliot Park Tax Increment Financing District Page 59
St. Louis Park, Minnesota Proposed Eliot Park TIF District
Project No. 120453
Eliot School
PID 0811721120028 - 6800 Cedar Lake Road
Code Related Cost Items Unit Cost Units
Unit
Quantity Total
Handicap Items
Replace toilets to provide handicap access for each sex
Build (2) new acccessible toilet rooms W/ compliant number of accessories and fixtures
Remove exisitng toilet rooms 2,250.00$ Lump 2 4,500.00$
7 water closets 2,500.00$ each 7 17,500.00$
10 lavs 1,750.00$ each 10 17,500.00$
4 Urinal 1,750.00$ each 4 7,000.00$
2 sets of grab bars 400.00$ each 2 800.00$
2 sets toilet room accessories 800.00$ each 2 1,600.00$
Interior room reconstruction (doors, partitions,finishes)60.00$ SF 625 37,500.00$
Reinstall toilet Room Ventilation System 500.00$ each 2 1,000.00$
Provide 1 handicapped parking space
Add striping at main entry door and existing bituminous parking area 50.00$ lump 2.00 100.00$
Parking requires signage MN 1341.0428 150.00$ lump 2.00 300.00$
Interior configuration does not provide for accessible route. Interior handicap access route not
provided through out building. MN 1341.0405, Item E
Add Elevator
Elevator Pit and footings 8,000.00$ Lump 1 8,000.00$
12" CMU Elevator Shaft walls 13.00$ SF 2,608 33,904.00$
Elevator Equipment (4 stop)76,850.00$ Lump 1 76,850.00$
Elevator Equipment Room (Assume 64 SF)30.00$ SF 64 1,920.00$
Power 100 amp 3 phase
Safety Switch 520.00$ Lump 1 520.00$
Circuit Breaker 795.00$ Lump 1 795.00$
Motor Starter 450.00$ Lump 1 450.00$
Wire and Conduit Feeder (150 feet assumed)31.00$ LF 150 4,650.00$
Fire Alarm Connections 1,000.00$ lump 1 1,000.00$
Emergency Phone Connection 12.00$ LF 150 1,800.00$
MN 1341.0458 Subpart 2 - Provide adequate access to shower unit at Mens and Womens locker rooms
Install new shower enclosure in locker area
Sawcut floor for new drain and waste.65.00$ HR 12.00 780.00$
Provide piping for hot and cold water 65.00$ HR 24.00 1,560.00$
Provide 8" CMU for wall enclosure at 2 sides of shower unit 12.00$ SF 96.00 1,152.00$
Furnish install new shower 36" x 36" enclosure with seat and bars 670.00$ Each 2.00 1,340.00$
Shower valve, head 350.00$ Each 2.00 700.00$
Grab Bars 205.00$ Each 2.00 410.00$
Patch flooring 7.00$ SF 12.00 84.00$
Fire Seperation Items
IBC - 3 Floors open to each other through stairs. Only two floors can be
open to each other
Separate 2nd floor from 3rd floor with 1 hour rated walls and doors
3 Stairways, 3 pair of doors in 3 walls
New gypsum board walls 4.85$ SF 300 1,455.00$
3 pairs of doors 2,550.00$ EA 3 7,650.00$
3 pairs of hold-opens 200.00$ EA 6.00 1,200.00$
Exiting
Add panic exit devices at 5 door locations 500.00$ Each 12 6,000.00$
Non-compliant exit stairs at all locations
Stair riser and/or run exceeds maximum allowed rise of 7and/or exceeds
minimum allowed run of 11" in all locations. IBC 1009.3
Coon Rapids TIF
LHB Project # 060283
Page 1 of 2
Parcel #
Economic Development Authority Meeting of May 6, 2013 (Item No. 7a)
Title: Establishment of the Eliot Park Tax Increment Financing District Page 60
St. Louis Park, Minnesota Proposed Eliot Park TIF District
Project No. 120453
Eliot School
PID 0811721120028 - 6800 Cedar Lake Road
Code Related Cost Items Unit Cost Units
Unit
Quantity Total
3 stairs connecting 3 stories & 1 stair connecting 2 stories
Remove existing steel and concrete stairs. 7,500.00$ Each 3 22,500.00$
Remove existing steel and concrete stairs.5,000.00$ Each 1 5,000.00$
Provide new stairs at each location (assume 24 risers/stair/floor)350.00$ Riser 264 92,400.00$
Provide new railings at each location 50 feet per stair 50.00$ Foot 265 13,250.00$
Provide new stair tread coverings 56.00$ Riser 264 14,784.00$
Fire Protection
IBC Chapter 9 - Provide Fire Alarm System
New upgraded system to work with sprinkler system 0.75$ SF 66,856 50,142.00$
Provide upgraded sprinkler system throughout to comply with 903.2.2
Sprinkler piping and heads for building 2.25$ SF 66,856 150,426.00$
Provide 6" water line from public right of way, include cut and patch 250.00$ LF 40 10,000.00$
Mechanical- Electrical
Heating system was moth-balled. System is completely drained and all radiant
heat devices have been disconnected and detached from the heating circulation
pipes. Disconnected radiators are original. Boilers are original with replacement
gas-fired burners.
Window airconditioners have been removed and placed on floor.
Replace heating and AC units with new energy efficient HVAC
New HVAC from replacement cost estimate (doesn't include demo to
install new system) 16.19$ SF 66,856 1,082,398.64$
Existing windows are original steel frame with single pane glass. Windows and
frames are non-insulated
Install new windows to allow for properly sized HVAC system and to meet 21.88$ SF 66,856 1,462,809.28$
energy code for mechanical and building envelope. Window cost from
replacement cost estimate (doesn't include demolition of existing
Electrical system still has operational fuse boxes with screw-in fuses. System
has not been substantially updated since construction
New electrical service from replacement cost eistimate (doesn't include 1.46$ SF 66,856 97,609.76$
demo to install new system.
Electrical light fixtures and branch circuits are from original construction
- old T-12 flourescent fixtures wired to out-dated distribution system
New lighting package from replacement cost eistimate (doesn't include 10.79$ SF 66,856 721,376.24$
demo to install new system.
Total Code Improvements 3,962,715.92$
Coon Rapids TIF
LHB Project # 060283
Page 2 of 2
Parcel #
Economic Development Authority Meeting of May 6, 2013 (Item No. 7a)
Title: Establishment of the Eliot Park Tax Increment Financing District Page 61
120453 St Louis Park Eliot Center TIF Report - Photos
1 of 6
Economic Development Authority Meeting of May 6, 2013 (Item No. 7a)
Title: Establishment of the Eliot Park Tax Increment Financing District Page 62
120453 St Louis Park Eliot Center TIF Report - Photos
2 of 6
Economic Development Authority Meeting of May 6, 2013 (Item No. 7a)
Title: Establishment of the Eliot Park Tax Increment Financing District Page 63
120453 St Louis Park Eliot Center TIF Report - Photos
3 of 6
Economic Development Authority Meeting of May 6, 2013 (Item No. 7a)
Title: Establishment of the Eliot Park Tax Increment Financing District Page 64
120453 St Louis Park Eliot Center TIF Report - Photos
4 of 6
Economic Development Authority Meeting of May 6, 2013 (Item No. 7a)
Title: Establishment of the Eliot Park Tax Increment Financing District Page 65
120453 St Louis Park Eliot Center TIF Report - Photos
5 of 6
Economic Development Authority Meeting of May 6, 2013 (Item No. 7a)
Title: Establishment of the Eliot Park Tax Increment Financing District Page 66
120453 St Louis Park Eliot Center TIF Report - Photos
6 of 6
Economic Development Authority Meeting of May 6, 2013 (Item No. 7a)
Title: Establishment of the Eliot Park Tax Increment Financing District Page 67
Appendix G-1
Appendix G
Findings Including But/For Qualifications
The reasons and facts supporting the findings for the adoption of the Tax Increment Financing Plan (TIF
Plan) for the Eliot Park Tax Increment Financing District (District), as required pursuant to Minnesota
Statutes, Section 469.175, Subdivision 3 are as follows:
1. Finding that the District is a redevelopment district as defined in M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 10(a)(1).
The District consists of 2 parcels, with plans to redevelop the area for residential purposes. At least 70
percent of the area of the parcels in the District are occupied by buildings, streets, utilities, paved or
gravel parking lots or other similar structures and more than 50 percent of the buildings in the District,
not including outbuildings, are structurally substandard to a degree requiring substantial renovation or
clearance. (See Appendix F of the TIF Plan.)
2. Finding that the proposed development, in the opinion of the City Council, would not reasonably be
expected to occur solely through private investment within the reasonably foreseeable future and that the
increased market value of the site that could reasonably be expected to occur without the use of tax
increment financing would be less than the increase in the market value estimated to result from the
proposed development after subtracting the present value of the projected tax increments for the
maximum duration of the District permitted by the TIF Plan.
The proposed development, in the opinion of the City, would not reasonably be expected to occur solely
through private investment within the reasonably foreseeable future: The site is occupied by a former
school building. The proposed development, 138 units of apartments, will require demolition and
clearance of the site, including costly hazardous waste abatement within the school building. Further,
based on analysis of the developer's pro forma, the City has determined that a gap needs to be filled
through tax increment in order to make the proposed development financially feasible. The City therefore
does not believe the proposed housing facility is likely to occur without the assistance described in this
TIF Plan.
While the property could be sold to another developer for some other use, other development scenarios
are not feasible in the market due to various constraints. First, adaptive reuse of the building would
produce far less market value than the proposed 138-unit housing facility. Second, commercial
development is not feasible due to inadequate market location and it is unlikely that spot zoning would
be supported (changing the zoning to commercial for only one parcel) due to the surrounding land use,
which is predominately residential and consists of single-family homes.
The City has required the developer to abide by a "look back" provision, which measures the actual
development costs versus the project revenues and costs. If the developer achieves a higher than market
rate return, the amount of TIF assistance will be reduced.
The increased market value of the site that could reasonably be expected to occur without the use of tax
increment financing would be less than the increase in market value estimated to result from the proposed
development after subtracting the present value of the projected tax increments for the maximum duration
of the District permitted by the TIF Plan: This finding is justified on the grounds that the cost of site and
public improvements add to the total redevelopment cost. It should be noted that any alternative
redevelopment scenario faces the same high land cost, demolition/clearance costs and structured parking
costs faced by the proposed developer, and in the City's experience, properties with challenges similar
to those posed by this property have not been redeveloped in St. Louis Park without significant public
assistance. The City reasonably determines that no other redevelopment of similar scope is anticipated
Economic Development Authority Meeting of May 6, 2013 (Item No. 7a)
Title: Establishment of the Eliot Park Tax Increment Financing District Page 68
Appendix G-2
on this site without substantially similar assistance being provided to the development.
Therefore, the City concludes as follows:
a. The City's estimate of the amount by which the market value of the entire District will
increase without the use of tax increment financing is $0.
b. If the proposed development occurs, the total increase in market value will be $15,650,420
(see Appendix D and the table below)
c. The present value of tax increments from the District for the maximum duration of the
district permitted by the TIF Plan is estimated to be $4,931,183 (see Appendix D and the
table below).
d. Even if some development other than the proposed development were to occur, the Council
finds that no alternative would occur that would produce a market value increase greater than
$10,719,237 (the amount in clause b less the amount in clause c) without tax increment
assistance.
But-For Analysis
Current Market Value 2,070,100
New Market Value - Estimate 17,720,520
Difference 15,650,420
Present Value of Tax Increment 4,931,183
Difference 10,719,237
Value Likely to Occur Without TIF is Less Than: 10,719,237
3. Finding that the TIF Plan for the District conforms to the general plan for the development or
redevelopment of the municipality as a whole.
The Planning Commission reviewed the TIF Plan and found that the TIF Plan conforms to the
general development plan of the City.
4. Finding that the TIF Plan for the District will afford maximum opportunity, consistent with the sound
needs of the City as a whole, for the development or redevelopment of Redevelopment Project No.
1 by private enterprise.
The project to be assisted by the District will result in increased employment in the City and the State
of Minnesota, the renovation of substandard properties, increased tax base of the State and add a high
quality development to the City.
Through the implementation of the TIF Plan, the EDA or City will increase the availability of safe
and decent life-cycle housing in the City.
Economic Development Authority Meeting of May 6, 2013 (Item No. 7a)
Title: Establishment of the Eliot Park Tax Increment Financing District Page 69
Meeting: Economic Development Authority
Meeting Date: May 6, 2013
Action Agenda Item: 7b
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Authorization to Submit Contamination Cleanup Grant Application Related to Eliot Park
Project
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to Adopt EDA Resolution authorizing the Executive
Director and President to submit a grant application to the Metropolitan Council Tax Base
Revitalization Grant Program on behalf of Eliot Park Apartments, LLC.
POLICY CONSIDERATIONS: Does the EDA approve the submittal of a contamination
cleanup grant application to the Metropolitan Council Tax Base Revitalization Grant Program on
behalf of Eliot Park Apartments, LLC?
SUMMARY: Hunt Associates’ submitted an application for Tax Increment Financing (TIF)
assistance in connection with the redevelopment of 6800 and 6720 Cedar Lake Road (former
Eliot School property) that was reviewed at the February 25th Study Session where it received
consensus support. Constructing the proposed Eliot Park project in conformance with the Eliot
Design Guidelines is not economically feasible without some financial assistance. Hunt
Associates is seeking financial assistance specifically to offset the extraordinary costs of
redeveloping the former school property and meeting the Eliot Design Guidelines. The TBRA
grant would be used to offset the asbestos and lead-based paint abatement as well as soil
investigation.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: The EDA is being requested to authorize
the submission of a contamination cleanup grant application in the amount of approximately
$325,000 to the Metropolitan Council Tax Base Revitalization Grant Program on behalf of Eliot
Park Apartments, LLC. There is no local matching fund requirement for TBRA contamination
cleanup grants. If such a grant were awarded the maximum principal amount of the
Redeveloper’s TIF Note would be decreased by the amount of the grant.
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: Greg Hunt, Economic Development Coordinator
Reviewed by: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Nancy Deno, EDA Deputy Executive Director/Deputy City Manager
Economic Development Authority Meeting of May 6, 2013 (Item No. 7b) Page 2
Title: Authorization to Submit Contamination Cleanup Grant Application Related to Eliot Park Project
DISCUSSION
BACKGROUND: Hunt Associates has a purchase agreement with Independent School District
283 to acquire 6800 and 6720 Cedar Lake Road (the former Eliot School property). The firm
proposes to raze the existing school building and construct a $25 million residential development
($17.7 estimated assessed value) on the site consisting of 138 market rate apartment units
(distributed between two buildings) and two single family homes. Both apartment buildings
would be staggered in height with two and three stories so as to blend into the surrounding single
family neighborhood and would feature structured underground parking. The proposed site plan
also includes a private road with parking spaces; a stormwater pond; landscaping; sidewalks; and
toddler play area. Hunt Associates hopes to begin construction on Eliot Park this year and
obtain a certificate of occupancy by December 2014. However, if the firm decides to pursue
HUD financing it may be next summer before it is able to commence construction.
Request for Financial Assistance
In order to pursue the above project Hunt Associates applied for tax increment assistance from
the EDA to offset a portion of the extraordinary costs associated with redeveloping the site.
These include hazardous waste abatement within the former school building, demolition and
constructing Eliot Park in conformance with the Eliot Community Center Site Reuse Study /
Design Guidelines.
The EDA/City Council reviewed Hunt Associates’ TIF application at the February 25th Study
Session. Following discussion there was consensus support for favorably considering the
provision of $1.1 million in PAYGO TIF assistance to the Redeveloper to make the Eliot Park
project financially feasible. As a result, staff was directed to draft a formal Redevelopment
Contract with Hunt Associates. Such a Contract is scheduled for consideration May 20th by both
the EDA and City Council.
Subsequent to the above Study Session, Staff determined that the estimated $325,000 cost of
abating the asbestos and lead-based paint within the former school building may qualify for a
Contamination Cleanup Grant through the Livable Communities Tax Base Revitalization Account
(“TBRA”) Program administered by the Metropolitan Council. Submitting such an application
would be of mutual benefit to both the Redeveloper and the EDA. If such a grant were awarded
the Redeveloper could be reimbursed soon after incurring the expense thus saving both principal
and interest on its construction financing. The benefit to the EDA is that the maximum principal
amount of the TIF Note would be decreased by the amount of the grant thus shortening the TIF
payback period.
The TBRA program provides funds to investigate and clean up polluted land, ground water or
hazardous materials in existing buildings (i.e., brownfields) for economic redevelopment projects
that enhance the tax base of a municipality while promoting job retention or job growth and/or
the production of housing. Contamination cleanup grants are intended for applicants that are
seeking public funding to assist with the cost of implementing a cleanup plan and begin
redevelopment. TBRA Contamination Cleanup funds are awarded on a competitive basis to
redevelopment projects that will start within 3 years of receiving the grant award.
Once awarded, the EDA submits draw requests to the agency verifying that specific qualified
costs were incurred by the Redeveloper. Upon approval, the agency disburses the requested
funds to the EDA who then disburses them to the redeveloper.
The Metropolitan Council requires an authorizing resolution from the governing body of the city
where the project site is located indicating that the city is committed to the project. Grant awards
are typically announced in July.
Economic Development Authority Meeting of May 6, 2013 (Item No. 7b) Page 3
Title: Authorization to Submit Contamination Cleanup Grant Application Related to Eliot Park Project
ST. LOUIS PARK
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
EDA RESOLUTION NO. 13-____
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING APPLICATION FOR THE
METROPOLITAN COUNCIL TAX BASE REVITALIZATION ACCOUNT
ON BEHALF OF ELIOT PARK APARTMENTS, LLC
WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park is a participant in the Metropolitan Livable
Communities Act Local Housing Incentives Program for 2013 as determined by the Metropolitan
Council, and is therefore eligible to apply for Tax Base Revitalization Account funds; and
WHEREAS, the City has identified a contamination cleanup project within the City that
meets the Tax Base Revitalization Account’s purposes and criteria; and are consistent with and
promote the purposes of the Metropolitan Livable Communities Act and the policies of the
Metropolitan Council’s adopted metropolitan development guide; and
WHEREAS, the City has the institutional, managerial and financial capability ensure
adequate project administration; and
WHEREAS, the City certifies that it will comply with all applicable laws and regulations
as stated in the grant agreement; and
WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority agrees to act as
legal sponsor for the project contained in the Tax Base Revitalization Account grant application
submitted on May 1, 2013;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the President and Executive Director are
hereby authorized to apply to the Metropolitan Council for a Tax Base Revitalization Account
grant on behalf of the St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority and to execute such
agreements as are necessary to implement the project on behalf of the applicant.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the Economic Development
Authority , May 6, 2013
Executive Director President
Attest
Secretary
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: May 6, 2013
Presentation: 2a
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Recognition of Boards and Commissions Members
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
1. The Mayor is asked to read the attached Proclamation honoring all volunteer commissioners.
2. The Mayor is asked to recognize and present Certificates of Appreciation to the following
outgoing Boards and Commissions members who are in attendance.
• Marjorie Douville – Fire Civil Service Commission (August 2004-December 2012)
• Renee DuFour – Housing Authority (January 2008-January 2013)
3. The Mayor is asked to read the names of the following outgoing Boards and Commissions
members who are not in attendance.
• Ryan Burt – Board of Zoning Appeals – (October 2001-September 2012
• Kimberly Mayes – Police Advisory Commission – (March 2010-December 2012)
• Nathan Prosser – Charter Commission – (December 2008-December 2012)
• Patrick Skinner – Charter Commission – (October 2006-November 2012)
• Mary Tomback – Human Rights Commission – School Rep. (January 2010-December 2012)
• Asa Goldstein – Police Advisory Commission – Youth (October 2011-August 2012)
• Emily Goldstein – Human Rights Commission – Youth (September 2011-August 2012)
• Duncan McIntyre – Police Advisory Commission – Youth (October 2011-August 2012)
POLICY CONSIDERATION: None at this time.
SUMMARY: The City of St. Louis Park has had a long-standing tradition of citizen
involvement in all aspects of city government. Citizen involvement improves the quality and
responsiveness of public decision making. An opportunity to do that is by serving as a
commissioner on one of the City’s boards and commissions.
It is because of the commitment of citizen representatives on the various boards and
commissions that staff requests the City Council honor these individuals for their past service to
the community and recognize the contributions they have made.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged
community.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Proclamation
Prepared by: Kay Midura, Office Assistant
Reviewed by: Nancy Stroth, City Clerk
Approved by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
City Council Meeting of May 6, 2013 (Item No. 2a) Page 2
Title: Recognition of Boards and Commissions Members
PROCLAMATION
Honoring Boards and Commissions Volunteers
WHEREAS, various Boards and Commissions serve in an advisory capacity to
the City of St. Louis Park City Council and are conferred various degrees of decision
making power of the City; and
WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park welcomes its citizens to share their talents
and perspectives by serving on an advisory Board or Commission;
WHEREAS, citizen involvement enhances the quality and responsiveness of
public decision making and the progress of the community; and
WHEREAS, Board and Commission volunteers are an essential part of St. Louis
Park, vital to our future as a caring and productive community; and integral to our vision
of becoming a connected and engaged community; and
WHEREAS, Board and Commission volunteers continue to selflessly give their
compassion, time, and commitment to better their community and the lives of others; and
WHEREAS, Board and Commission volunteers continue to make a difference
through their hard work, dedication and outstanding contributions to the City of St. Louis
Park; and
NOW THEREFORE, let it be known that the Mayor and City Council of the
City of St. Louis Park do hereby commend volunteer members of St. Louis Park Boards
and Commissions for their dedicated service and outstanding contributions to improving
the quality of lives of others, and supporting our community and its people.
WHEREFORE, I set my hand and cause the
Great Seal of the City of St. Louis Park to be
affixed this 6th day of May, 2013.
______________________________________
Jeff Jacobs, Mayor
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: May 6, 2013
Presentation: 2b
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Hennepin County Sheriff’s Office Update
RECOMMENDED ACTION: None
POLICY CONSIDERATION: None at this time.
SUMMARY: Hennepin County Sheriff Rich Stanek will update the City Council on the
activities of the Hennepin County Sheriff’s Office. Council will have time at the end of the
presentation to ask questions of Sheriff Stanek.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: None
Prepared by: Debbie Fischer, Office Assistant
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: May 6, 2013
Minutes: 3a
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
APRIL 1, 2013
1. Call to Order
Mayor Jacobs called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
Councilmembers present: Mayor Jeff Jacobs, Steve Hallfin, Anne Mavity, Julia Ross, Susan
Sanger, Sue Santa, and Jake Spano.
Councilmembers absent: None.
Staff present: Deputy City Manager/Director of Human Resources (Ms. Deno), Director of
Community Development (Mr. Locke), Planning/Zoning Supervisor (Ms. McMonigal), Senior
Planner (Mr. Walther), Assistant Zoning Administrator (Mr. Morrison), Communications
Coordinator (Mr. Zwilling), and Recording Secretary (Ms. Hughes).
1a. Pledge of Allegiance
1b. Roll Call
2. Presentations
2a. Caring Youth Recognition Proclamation
Mayor Jacobs recited the Proclamation for Caring Youth Day on April 23, 2013.
Mr. Bob Ramsey appeared before the City Council and stated that Caring Youth Day is
an inspiring event and represents a chance to celebrate these special young people. He
stated this year’s event takes place at the Doubletree Hotel on April 23rd at 6:45 p.m.
3. Approval of Minutes
3a. Study Session Meeting Minutes March 11, 2013
Councilmember Ross requested that the eighth paragraph on page 3 be revised to state
“Councilmember Ross requested clarification regarding the report and the need for
additional sidewalks on the east side of Virginia the addition of a sidewalk on Virginia
from Cedar Lake Road to access the trail.”
Councilmember Mavity requested that the last sentence of the eleventh paragraph on
page 2 be revised to state “She stated she was having a hard time determining which
direction to give to staff when Council should be addressing the broader questions related
to water quality management because it does not feel balanced in terms of the competing
goals for each water body.”
The minutes were approved as amended.
City Council Meeting of May 6, 2013 (Item No. 3a) Page 2
Title: City Council Meeting Minutes of April 1, 2013
3b. City Council Meeting Minutes March 18, 2013
The minutes were approved as presented.
4. Approval of Agenda and Items on Consent Calendar
NOTE: The Consent Calendar lists those items of business which are considered to be routine
and/or which need no discussion. Consent items are acted upon by one motion. If discussion is
desired by either a Councilmember or a member of the audience, that item may be moved to an
appropriate section of the regular agenda for discussion.
4a. Approve Second Reading and Adopt Ordinance No. 2437-13 of the rezoning from
C-2, General Commercial to O, Office, for the property at 3700 State Highway 100
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and to approve the summary ordinance for
publication.
4b. Moved to Item 8c.
4c. Approve an Encroachment Agreement at 1600 West End Boulevard for
Temporary Private Use of Public Land for outdoor dining and to authorize the
Mayor and City Manager to execute the agreement.
4d. Adopt Resolution No. 13-049 authorizing final payment in the amount of
$2,514.77 and accepting work for Fire Stations No. 1 and No. 2 Work Scope 19
(Miscellaneous Specialties) for Project Nos. 2008-3001 and 2008-3002, City
Contract No. 77-11.
4e. Approve Second Reading and Adopt Ordinance No. 2438-13 amending the St.
Louis Park Code of Ordinances Chapter 2 Establishing the Environment and
Sustainability Commission: Sustainable SLP, and approve summary ordinance for
publication on April 11, 2013.
4f. Adopt Resolution No. 13-050 accepting the project report, establishing
Improvement Project No. 2013-1101, approving plans and specifications, and
authorizing advertisement for bids for these improvements.
4g. Designate Classic Protective Coatings, Inc., as the lowest responsible bidder and
authorize execution of a contract with the firm in the amount of $824,150 for
Elevated Storage Tank No. 3 Rehabilitation and Recoating Project No. 2012-
1500.
4h. Adopt Resolution No. 13-051 authorizing installation of permit parking restrictions
at 3112 Edgewood Avenue South.
4i. Approve for filing Police Advisory Commission Meeting Minutes January 2,
2013.
4j. Approve for filing Housing Authority Meeting Minutes January 9, 2013.
4k. Approve for filing Planning Commission Meeting Minutes March 6, 2012.
4l. Approve for filing Vendor Claims.
Councilmember Spano requested that Consent Calendar item 4b be removed and placed
on the Regular Agenda.
It was moved by Councilmember Spano, seconded by Councilmember Santa, to approve
the Agenda and items listed on the Consent Calendar as amended to move Consent
Calendar item 4b to the regular agenda as item 8c; and to waive reading of all
resolutions and ordinances.
The motion passed 7-0.
City Council Meeting of May 6, 2013 (Item No. 3a) Page 3
Title: City Council Meeting Minutes of April 1, 2013
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. Conditional Use Permit – Calhoun Apartment Homes (4013 31st St W).
Resolution No. 13-052.
Mr. Morrison presented the staff report and presented an elevation drawing of the
proposed seven-unit apartment building, noting that the slight grade change will
accommodate underground parking with the next two floors consisting of two-story
apartment units. He indicated each unit has direct access to the exterior of the building so
the building will not have a common hallway. He advised the proposed building meets
all required setbacks and 13 underground parking spaces are provided which meets all
City requirements. He explained that all storm water requirements are met and the
applicant intends to replace some of the soils with pervious soils conducive to infiltration
and will also install a perforated tile system to collect water and encourage infiltration.
He pointed out that all rooftop drainage will go directly into the infiltration basins that
will allow runoff to infiltrate directly into the ground. He recited the DORA definition
and stated the amenities include a sidewalk system extending around the entire building
that connects with the regional trail. He stated there are eight outdoor patio areas on the
site with seven patio areas designated to each unit and the eighth patio area available to
all residents. He explained that staff concluded that the sidewalk, common patio area,
and all other patios count toward meeting the DORA requirements noting that the DORA
definition does not state that amenities have to be open and available to all and the
definition is intentionally vague so as to give tenants the ability to enjoy additional
recreation not otherwise available if held in common. He explained the proposal has
approximately 3,800 square feet of DORA, which represents 31% of the property; the
DORA requirement for the site is 12% or 1,743 square feet. He added if the designated
patio areas were removed from the DORA calculation, the site would still meet the
DORA requirement with 1,751 square feet or 14% of the property. He advised the
Planning Commission recommended approval of the CUP subject to compliance with the
City’s noise ordinance and limiting hours of construction to 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.
Monday through Friday and 9:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Saturday and Sunday. He then
introduced Mr. Andrew Brenner.
Councilmember Sanger expressed support for the project and felt the proposed use was
appropriate. She expressed concern regarding availability of guest parking.
Mr. Morrison advised there is no on-site guest parking provided and overflow parking is
provided on the north side of 31st Street.
Councilmember Sanger requested that the resolution be revised to require no construction
after 6:00 p.m. versus 10:00 p.m., stating she did not feel it was appropriate to allow
construction until 10:00 p.m. in this residential neighborhood. She stated she did not
share staff’s opinion that the private patios designated for each unit can be included in the
DORA calculation and felt that the examples provided in the DORA definition suggest
they are all to be spaces that anyone who lives there can make use of, whereas the private
City Council Meeting of May 6, 2013 (Item No. 3a) Page 4
Title: City Council Meeting Minutes of April 1, 2013
patios are designated for each unit; however, given that the City does not need to count
the private patios to meet the DORA requirement, she would support the CUP request but
requested that the private patios be excluded from the DORA calculation. She also
requested that Council have a study session discussion regarding DORA requirements.
It was moved by Councilmember Sanger, seconded by Councilmember Ross, to adopt
Resolution No. 13-052 Granting Conditional Use Permit Under Section 36-166(d)(1) of
the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code Relating to Zoning to Permit Construction of an
Apartment Building for Property Zoned R-4 Multiple-Family Residential District located
at 4013 31st Street West, as amended to prohibit construction activity between the hours
of 6:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m.
Councilmember Ross requested a friendly amendment to prohibit construction activity
after 8:00 p.m. rather than 6:00 p.m.
Mr. Andrew Brenner appeared before the City Council and stated they need flexibility
with construction due to factors that delay construction such as rain. He stated his
agreement with an 8:00 p.m. construction deadline and noted there would be very few
days where they are working until 8:00 p.m. He stated there would also be a four-day
time period during cement pouring where they would like to start around 7:00 a.m.
Councilmember Ross stated her agreement with Mr. Brenner’s request for a limited 7:00
a.m. construction start time during cement pouring and requested an additional friendly
amendment to allow construction activity to begin at 7:00 a.m. during the four day time
period when concrete is being poured.
Councilmember Sanger stated she was okay with allowing construction until 8:00 p.m.
but did not agree with allowing construction activity before 8:00 a.m.
Councilmember Ross withdrew her second to the motion.
The motion failed for lack of a second.
Councilmember Mavity requested information regarding typical hours for construction
contained in the City’s Ordinance.
Ms. McMonigal replied the Ordinance allows construction between the hours of 7:00
a.m. and 10:00 p.m. and the hours can be adjusted with a CUP as needed.
It was moved by Councilmember Sanger, seconded by Councilmember Hallfin, to adopt
Resolution No. 13-052 Granting Conditional Use Permit Under Section 36-166(d)(1) of
the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code Relating to Zoning to Permit Construction of an
Apartment Building for Property Zoned R-4 Multiple-Family Residential District located
at 4013 31st Street West, as amended to prohibit construction activity between the hours
of 8:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m., with the exception of allowing construction activity to begin
at 7:00 a.m. for up to four days after notification to the neighbors.
Councilmember Mavity expressed concern about being this specific on a project in which
unpredictable things occur and did not think it was good policy to get this detailed.
City Council Meeting of May 6, 2013 (Item No. 3a) Page 5
Title: City Council Meeting Minutes of April 1, 2013
Councilmember Ross agreed and requested that the neighborhood be given a rough
estimate of the scheduled 7:00 a.m. start time. She agreed with Councilmember Sanger’s
concerns regarding parking for guests.
Ms. McMonigal stated that guest parking is calculated at 10% of the overall required
parking and a typical day would require 1.3 parking spaces on the street.
The motion passed 7-0.
8b. Preliminary/Final Plat & PUD - 3555 Hwy 100 (LA Fitness and Goodwill
Store). Resolution Nos. 13-053 and 13-054.
Mr. Morrison presented the staff report and Preliminary/Final Plat and PUD for the
property at 3555 Highway 100, which includes an existing LA Fitness facility. He
advised the PUD includes the addition of a new 17,600 square foot Goodwill store on the
south side with a drop off area on the west side. He indicated the PUD provides shared
access and shared parking with access on 36th Street and two access points on 35th Street.
He indicated that LA Fitness is required to provide 266 parking spaces and there are 317
parking spaces provided on Lot 2 and the Goodwill store is required to have 71 parking
spaces and there are 45 parking spaces provided on Lot 1. He stated as part of the PUD’s
shared parking, 327 parking spaces are required and there are 362 total parking spaces
provided. He advised the parking lot will be improved with landscape islands as well as
trees planted along Highway 100 and 36th Street. He explained that pedestrian access
includes the public sidewalk along 36th Street and a pedestrian walkway has been added
to the sidewalk along the Goodwill store as well as a new sidewalk on 35th Street. He
then introduced Mr. Jay Moore (Oppidan Holdings) and Mr. Brian Pellowski (PBK
Investments representing the property owner).
Councilmember Mavity questioned how pedestrians would safely get to the Goodwill
store that are coming from the south and felt this area might need better access. She also
requested that the City make sure there is adequate parking available at the LA Fitness
facility particularly given the parking issues at the LA Fitness on Cedar Lake Road.
Mr. Morrison stated the City has had conversations with LA Fitness about parking needs,
and LA Fitness has indicated that the amount of parking provided exceeds their own
calculations and LA Fitness is comfortable with the proposal presented to Council.
Councilmember Ross requested information about cars stacking up in the drop off area
for the Goodwill store and how that may or may not impede the flow of traffic.
Mr. Jay Moore appeared before the City Council and stated the drop off donation line is
on the west side and the stacking line has room for 15 cars. He noted they intentionally
did not include parking stalls in this area.
It was moved by Councilmember Mavity, seconded by Councilmember Ross, to adopt
Resolution No. 13-053 Giving Approval for Preliminary and Final Plat of Belt Line
Industrial Park 3rd Addition.
The motion passed 7-0.
City Council Meeting of May 6, 2013 (Item No. 3a) Page 6
Title: City Council Meeting Minutes of April 1, 2013
It was moved by Councilmember Mavity, seconded by Councilmember Ross, to adopt
Resolution No. 13-054 Approving a Preliminary and Final Planned Unit Development
(PUD) of Boardwalk Center under Section 36-367 of the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code
Relating to Zoning for Property Located at 3555 State Highway 100 South.
The motion passed 7-0.
8c. Second Reading and Adopt Ordinance Amending Chapter 36 of the City
Code Pertaining to Educational Facilities in the R-3 Two-Family Residential
District and to Signage in the Park and Open Space District. Ordinance No.
2439-13.
Councilmember Spano requested clarification regarding the provision contained in
section e.3. that states housing must be supervised 24 hours a day, seven days a week by
responsible adults living on-site and he asked how the term “responsible” is defined.
Ms. McMonigal advised the City is not in the business of policing responsibility and
suggested that the word “responsible” be deleted adding the City will not be approving
anyone hired by the school and will not be performing background checks.
Councilmember Santa indicated it was likely that State law addresses adults living on-site
who are supervising children and the school will have to conform to the State’s
guidelines in this area.
Councilmember Sanger stated the school would have to comply with State law and felt it
was pointless for the City to define the requirements relative to adult supervision and
should be left to the School’s Board to figure out.
It was moved by Councilmember Spano, seconded by Councilmember Mavity, to approve
Second Reading and Adopt Ordinance No. 2439-13 Amending the St. Louis Park
Ordinance Code Relating to Zoning by Amending Sections 36-165(d)(8) and Table 36-
362A, as amended to delete the word “responsible” in section e.3.
The motion passed 7-0.
Communications
None.
10. Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m.
______________________________________ ______________________________________
Nancy Stroth, City Clerk Jeff Jacobs, Mayor
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: May 6, 2013
Minutes: 3b
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
APRIL 8, 2013
The meeting convened at 6:38 p.m.
Councilmembers present: Mayor Pro Tem Susan Sanger, Steve Hallfin, Anne Mavity, Julia Ross
(arrived at 6:41 p.m.), Sue Santa, and Jake Spano.
Councilmembers absent: Mayor Jeff Jacobs.
Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), Director of Public Works (Mr. Rardin), City
Engineer (Mr. Brink), Director of Parks and Recreation (Ms. Walsh), Director of Community
Development (Mr. Locke), Planning/Zoning Supervisor (Ms. McMonigal), Senior Planner (Mr.
Walther), Community Liaison (Ms. Olson), Communications Coordinator (Mr. Zwilling), and
Recording Secretary (Ms. Hughes).
Guests: April Crockett (Mn/DOT Project Engineer), Michael Schroeder (LHB Corp.), Mark
Fuhrmann (Met Council Program Director - Twin Cities LRT), Jim Alexander (Met Council SW
LRT Director of Design & Engineering), Chris Weyer (Met Council SW LRT Project Director),
Sophia Ginis (Community Outreach Coordinator for St. Louis Park & Minneapolis), Sam
O’Connell (Community Outreach Manager), and Jeff Miller (HKGi).
1. Future Study Session Agenda Planning – April 22, 2013
Mr. Harmening presented the proposed special study session agenda for April 22nd.
2. Highway 100 Project Update
Mr. Brink presented the staff report and introduced Mr. Michael Schroeder, LHB Corp., and Ms.
April Crockett, Mn/DOT Project Engineer.
Mr. Schroeder explained the process undertaken regarding Visual Quality stating the goal is to
produce ideas that tie together the Highway 100 corridor and pull together ideas shared by
members of the Visual Quality Advisory Committee (VQAC). He stated the VQAC divided the
visual quality elements for this project into three categories, including major mainline structures,
local features, and supporting elements, and the VQAC is interested in public art that is reflective
of the community and is innovative, visionary, vibrant, welcoming, and embracing, and should
also include branding specific to St. Louis Park. He stated the VQAC envisions a corridor that
respects the environment and reflects a commitment to the environment and social stewardship,
adding it was important to the VQAC to incorporate art as integrated pieces of a well-planned
whole. He then presented several drawings developed through the VQAC process intended to be
innovative and unique and that establishes a signature along the corridor. He discussed the noise
walls and retaining walls and stated the VQAC worked to find ways that the noise walls on the
northern end of the corridor act as gateway elements for St. Louis Park by clearly marking
beginning and end points and that break up the verticality of tall walls. He then presented
several drawings of possible noise walls indicating that native materials would be used in the
foundation. He advised the VQAC recently finished its discussion on local features that support
City Council Meeting of May 6, 2013 (Item No. 3b) Page 2
Title: Study Session Minutes of April 8, 2013
the major mainline structures and identified a series of locations that could typify local character,
including a streetscape feature along Utica Avenue and an alleyscape on the east side of Utica
Avenue that incorporates natural lighting; other potential locations include the Minnetonka
Boulevard bridge railing and bridge lighting and the Highway 7 interchange. He stated the
VQAC also defined parameters for where public art should be incorporated in conjunction with
Mn/DOT requirements, e.g., Monkey Island and the Holiday right-of-way remnant area. He
indicated that supporting elements include earthwork and grading, drainage and ponding, signs
and sign bridges, highway lighting, and landscape design concept and will be discussed by the
VQAC at an upcoming meeting. He advised that an open house focused on visual quality will
occur during June and the Visual Quality Manual will be done by the end of June.
Councilmember Spano requested further information regarding lighting related to the bridge
structure.
Mr. Schroeder advised the VQAC has been considering the use of a small reveal with a strip of
LED lights in order to highlight a portion of the bridge and at the ends of walls as a way to make
sure they stand out as architecture pieces.
Councilmember Mavity suggested using down lighting on the pedestrian areas of the bridges that
would be set into the wall itself and that would not be distractive to drivers.
Councilmember Ross suggested using some type of low-maintenance groundcover. She also
suggested the VQAC give consideration to possible alternatives to standard Mn/DOT signage as
a way to create another public art opportunity.
Mayor Pro Tem Sanger suggested having the name of the community or name of the road set
into stone.
Ms. Olson advised that staff proposes to contract with Andrea Myklebust and Stan Sears of
Myklebust+Sears on the public art for this corridor and noted that Myklebust+Sears was selected
to work on the Highway 7 and Louisiana Avenue public art project.
Ms. Walsh indicated that Ms. Myklebust and Mr. Sears are familiar with Mn/DOT guidelines
and are comfortable working with Mn/DOT on these types of projects. She stated that given the
short timeframe and Mn/DOT restrictions, staff feels that Myklebust+Sears represents the best
choice for the City.
It was the consensus of the City Council to proceed with contracting with Myklebust+Sears on
public art opportunities along the Highway 100 corridor.
Councilmember Santa urged the City to incorporate innovative landscaping into this project
particularly given the City’s sustainability program. She also urged the City to incorporate
stronger branding into the project.
Mayor Pro Tem Sanger thanked Mr. Schroeder and Ms. Crockett and the VQAC for all their
work on this project.
3. SW LRT Update
Mr. Locke presented the staff report.
City Council Meeting of May 6, 2013 (Item No. 3b) Page 3
Title: Study Session Minutes of April 8, 2013
Mr. Fuhrmann stated he is the Program Director for light rail in the Twin Cities and introduced
Mr. Chris Weyer, Met Council SWLRT Project Director; Mr. Jim Alexander, SWLRT Director
of Design & Engineering; Ms. Sam O’Connell, Community Outreach Manage; and Ms. Sophia
Ginis, Community Outreach Coordinator for St. Louis Park and Minneapolis. He advised that
the SW LRT project includes five partner cities and will include 17 light rail stations with three
stations located in St. Louis Park. He reviewed the SW LRT development timeline indicating
that final design will be completed during 2014 and 2015 with construction taking place through
2017 and final testing and operations beginning in 2018. He stated that Preliminary Engineering
(PE) plans will be submitted to cities to begin the municipal consent process in the third quarter
of 2013. It will be followed by a public hearing process with the goal of receiving municipal
consent the end of 2013.
Mr. Alexander presented the SW LRT PE technical issues stating that technical issues #13, #14,
#15, and #16 relate to light rail stations specific to the City of St. Louis Park, technical issue #21
relates to freight rail, and technical issue #23 relates to the Operation and Maintenance Facility
(OMF) site. He discussed the municipal consent elements and major scoping decisions that
serve as guiding principles for issue resolution. He reviewed the SW LRT Advisory Committee
process that includes public involvement of business and community representatives and stated
there has also been an ongoing extensive public outreach process. He presented information
regarding the Hiawatha OMF and advised that the OMF site that will be needed for SWLRT line
will be approximately 15 acres in size and house approximately 150 to 180 employees. He
stated that four potential OMF sites have been identified in St. Louis Park. He advised that as
part of its due diligence, Met Council developed evaluation criteria to identify potential OMF
sites. These criteria will be used to assist in narrowing the number of candidate sites from 18 to
five or six sites. He then presented aerial drawings of the OMF candidate sites in the City.
Councilmember Mavity stated there are existing uses in the OMF candidate sites that would
result in jobs or businesses being removed.
Mr. Alexander stated that economic development considerations are included in the OMF
evaluation criteria adding that relocation costs will need to be factored into these considerations.
He acknowledged that SW LRT will exist in an urban environment and there are existing uses in
a lot of these sites.
Mr. Locke indicated that the number of potential OMF sites was expanded from what was
contained in the DEIS, and the City submitted a letter to Mr. Alexander indicating the City was
not in support of the use of any of these sites as an OMF.
Mayor Pro Tem Sanger asked what weight would be given to a local community’s land use plans
for a potential OMF site.
Mr. Alexander stated that Met Council will consider the evaluation criteria as well as a
community’s future land use plans when making its decision regarding the OMF site.
Councilmember Mavity asked what kind of noise and light would be generated outside or within
an OMF facility.
Mr. Fuhrmann advised that an OMF operation is much quieter than a rail yard and the Hiawatha
OMF has much of its activity confined indoors. He acknowledged there is some operational
City Council Meeting of May 6, 2013 (Item No. 3b) Page 4
Title: Study Session Minutes of April 8, 2013
track noise from trains leaving the yard to get back onto the mainline. He advised that an OMF
facility is a 24/7 operation and the site is lit for security, adding they will work closely with the
host community on lighting, including down lighting on the building to restrict ambient light
from migrating into the neighborhood.
Mr. Alexander stated the Business Advisory Committee and Community Advisory Committee
discussed the potential OMF sites at their respective meetings March 27th and March 28th, noting
that the Community Advisory Committee suggested the OMF presented an opportunity to serve
multiple purposes on one site, e.g., OMF and park and ride. He reviewed next steps stating that
an open house will be held in each of the potential OMF host cities and Met Council anticipates
selecting the OMF site by June or July.
Councilmember Spano stated the OMF locations are situated directly adjacent to light rail
stations and Council has previously talked about the economic development that will be
generated by these light rail stations, and pointed out that the potential OMF locations flies
directly in the face of that economic development.
Mr. Alexander discussed technical issue #21 regarding freight rail stating that the FTA has
tasked the Met Council with developing designs for both relocation and co-location of freight
rail. He presented a map of the co-location and relocation options as shown in the SW LRT
DEIS and pointed out there will always be some form of co-location in the vicinity of Highway
169 and in Minneapolis at the east end of the SW LRT line, no matter which option is chosen.
He stated that TC&W has indicated if they are relocated, it will need to be on some configuration
that is no worse than the Kenilworth corridor, adding that TC&W raised concerns regarding the
DEIS proposed relocation route; and, TC&W is assisting Met Council with the design of both the
co-location and relocation alternatives. He presented an aerial drawing of the west portion of the
preliminary co-location scenario (Co-lo-1), noting that this has a relatively confined right-of-way
and is tight as the trains move north of the Midtown Greenway. He presented an aerial drawing
of the middle and eastern portions of the co-location scenario (Co-lo-2 and Co-lo-3) stating that
the maximum horizontal curve is six degrees and the maximum compensated grade is 1.18. He
presented an aerial drawing of the western section of the relocation scenario (Re-Lo-1) and stated
that one of the concerns raised by TC&W is the eight degree curve from the Bass Lake Spur to
MN&S and the maximum compensated grade of 1.86%. He presented an aerial drawing of the
next portion of the relocation scenario moving east (Re-Lo-2) and stated that TC&W raised
concern about the “S” curves in this area near SLP High School. He indicated there are three
curves along the DEIS proposed route that have a maximum compensated grade in excess of
1.18, causing TC&W to question whether they can operate on that configuration. He also
presented aerial drawings of the rest of the relocation scenarios (Re-Lo-4 and Re-Lo -5). He
stated they are currently defining existing conditions and anticipate completion of the design
options in May for both relocation and co-location scenarios.
Councilmember Santa indicated that comments have been made about how narrow and tight the
Kenilworth segment is and asked if Met Council has considered the close proximity of houses
along the reroute in the City, along with the close proximity to the high school and Peter Hobart
as well as the number of street crossings. She added she wanted to make sure the City’s
concerns are being given the same consideration as the concerns raised regarding Kenilworth.
Mr. Alexander replied in the affirmative, adding that right-of-way has been factored into both the
co-location and relocation options.
City Council Meeting of May 6, 2013 (Item No. 3b) Page 5
Title: Study Session Minutes of April 8, 2013
Councilmember Mavity indicated there has been some discussion about moving the Louisiana
Avenue light rail station further south toward Methodist Hospital and asked how that would
impact the relocation and co-location as well as station area planning.
Mr. Alexander advised they have been working with the City on station locations near Methodist
Hospital, and moving the station could be possible in either a relocation or co-location scenario.
Mayor Pro Tem Sanger asked if the Kenilworth analysis makes the assumption that the light rail
tracks would go through the corridor precisely as defined in the DEIS or whether Met Council is
open to moving them. She also asked if Met Council was open to moving the bike trail in the
Kenilworth corridor in order to create more space for potentially relocated freight rail.
Mr. Alexander replied that they are looking at opportunities for both light rail and freight rail
through that corridor, including potentially relocating or elevating the trail and other options.
Mayor Pro Tem Sanger asked if Met Council would be costing out all of the alternatives.
Mr. Alexander replied in the affirmative and stated they intend to have those numbers as they
develop the designs for both co-location and relocation.
Councilmember Mavity stated that in either scenario one of the issues that St. Louis Park has
dealt with includes the switching yard and storage and indicated that the City has stated on more
than one occasion that removal of the storage and switching yard would be required.
Mr. Alexander acknowledged Councilmember Mavity’s statement and indicated Met Council
has communicated that statement with the railroad. He then reviewed next steps relative to
freight rail and stated that an open house on freight rail will be scheduled in June or July.
Mayor Pro Tem Sanger asked if Met Council expects to have already made a decision regarding
freight rail at the time of the open house.
Mr. Alexander stated that Met Council wants public input before a decision is made regarding
freight rail. He added they will continue to work with the FTA as they move through the design
process.
Mr. Fuhrmann indicated that the FTA wants to know that Met Council has developed a
workable, agreeable solution before taking final action on the preferred option, and Met Council
will continue to develop design details and brief the City and other interested agencies, including
the HCRRA, FTA, and STB.
Mayor Pro Tem Sanger requested further information regarding the criteria used to evaluate the
co-location and relocation options and how Met Council would weight those criteria in making a
decision regarding freight rail.
Mr. Fuhrmann stated they will need to look at environmental impacts of either co-location or
relocation, as well as safety impacts and cost impacts, with the decision ultimately residing with
the Met Council.
City Council Meeting of May 6, 2013 (Item No. 3b) Page 6
Title: Study Session Minutes of April 8, 2013
Mayor Pro Tem Sanger stated that in either a relocation or co-location option, a lot of
environmental mitigation will be required beyond what is currently contained in the DEIS. She
asked if they are analyzing those mitigation needs and costing them out. She also asked if this
mitigation would have a bearing on the freight route selected.
Mr. Fuhrmann felt there was no perfect alignment, and Met Council acknowledges that it will
have environmental impacts to address in either option. He stated that they will identify those
items that cannot be remedied through design and identify mitigation measures required to
address those items, adding that they will have to generate a cost estimate as to what those
mitigation measures entail.
Councilmember Mavity stated that the officially required mitigation falls far short compared to
the mitigation identified in writing as needed by the City. She assumed that the officially
required mitigation measures would be part of the SW LRT project budget but that the robust
mitigation identified by the City will not be included in this budget, stating that this will be a
problem for the City if it is facing making a decision on municipal consent by the end of the
year. Councilmember Mavity was concerned that there will not be enough time to sort out the
mitigation issues before a Municipal Consent decision is needed.
Mr. Fuhrmann stated that the issues faced here are not unlike other rail projects in other host
cities and indicated that Councilmember Mavity’s characterization was fair. He stated there will
be FRA and FTA accepted mitigation measures along with Met Council justified mitigation
measures that the FTA will participate in financially. He agreed there may be other mitigation
measures beyond the FTA authorized mitigation measures, adding that in other projects they
have gone back to the host city or host county to negotiate the mitigation measures whereby
some combination of city, county, and Met Council funding was identified to fund some portion
of the additional mitigation measures.
Mayor Pro Tem Sanger stated that it appears there will be significant design changes compared
to what was contained in the DEIS, and she asked if there will be another public comment period
to weigh in on the revised plans.
Mr. Fuhrmann explained that the environmental process allows for projects to make adjustments
to what has been previously published and stated. If freight rail is moved to a completely
different corridor, then they would have to create a new environmental disclosure step to
articulate and disclose to the public for comment. He added that the Final EIS will be published
in 2014 and this document provides a comment period to the public, noting that the FEIS occurs
only after the municipal consent process.
Mayor Pro Tem Sanger stated that it was her understanding that when Hennepin County handed
over the DEIS to the Met Council, the Met Council would be taking an independent look at the
DEIS analysis and options. She requested Met Council’s assurance regarding this independent
analysis.
Mr. Fuhrmann stated his commitment to the City as the officially designated lead project sponsor
and added it is incumbent upon Met Council and the Southwest Project Office to
comprehensively, thoughtfully, and creatively review all issues discussed with the City Council
this evening. He added that the FTA has a significant stake in this project, and Met Council will
continue working on all issues to find the best solutions for the project and the host cities. He
City Council Meeting of May 6, 2013 (Item No. 3b) Page 7
Title: Study Session Minutes of April 8, 2013
expressed his appreciation to the City for its willingness and openness to engage in the technical
evaluation and indicated that earlier comments made publicly by the City of Minneapolis do not
influence the technical evaluation and design being generated by the Southwest Project Office.
Mr. Alexander stated that information is available online at www.SWLRT.org or residents can
contact Ms. Ginis at 612-373-3895 or sophia.ginis@metrotransit.org.
Mayor Pro Tem Sanger thanked Mr. Fuhrmann and Mr. Alexander for the update.
Transitional Station Area Action Plans (TSAAP) Discussion:
Mr. Locke introduced Mr. Jeff Miller of HKGi.
Mr. Miller provided an update on the TSAAP process and stated that this process is intended to
promote opening day readiness by bridging the gap between current conditions and future needs
by addressing station platform locations, park and ride, future development potential, access and
circulation, infrastructure, and creative storm water solutions. He advised that the TSAAP
process is working collaboratively with and parallel to the Southwest Project Office/Preliminary
Engineering teams. He discussed the technical charrette meetings and presented a concept
drawing for the Beltline station, which depicts a possible rerouting of the Cedar Lake trail along
Park Glen Road, as well as improved pedestrian crossings at Highway 25 and at Beltline. He
presented a concept drawing for the Wooddale station that includes a transit plaza. Other
considerations included developing public space around the station and improving walk/bike
crossings in the highway interchange areas and a bus/vehicle drop-off on 36th Street. He noted
that this station is probably the most traditional transit oriented development area along the
corridor, with a lot of focus on this area being mixed use. He also presented a concept drawing
for the Louisiana Avenue station, stating this is one of the most challenging stations with
consideration being given to alternative station locations and alternative rail lines, reorienting the
entrance of the hospital toward Cambridge Street, and increasing walk/bike connections.
Councilmember Ross asked if consideration had been given to using a shuttle system in these
areas.
Ms. McMonigal replied that the use of a shuttle system has been raised several times and stated
that the City is working with Metro Transit on potential rerouting of some of the bus routes to go
to the station areas.
Mr. Miller stated that next steps include expanded stakeholder input on the concepts and moving
toward development of action plans. He advised that an open house is scheduled for April 18th
from 5:30-7:30 p.m. at the Rec Center that will include information on light rail as well as the
TSAAP process and is meant to be an interactive format where attendees can provide input. He
noted that all materials are posted on the SW LRT website for additional review and comment.
Mayor Pro Tem Sanger thanked Mr. Miller for the update.
Councilmember Mavity requested that the Met Council presentation, as well as Mr. Miller’s
presentation, be posted on the website.
Communications/Meeting Check-In (Verbal)
City Council Meeting of May 6, 2013 (Item No. 3b) Page 8
Title: Study Session Minutes of April 8, 2013
Mayor Pro Tem Sanger asked if Council was interested in having a discussion regarding
potential amendments to the Zoning Ordinance as it relates to mixed use, noting that the City has
seen an increase in commercial uses on the first floor of a building with housing above and
suggested that the City might need stronger codes requiring insulation so that residents living
above a commercial use are not subjected to noise and/or odors.
Councilmembers Santa, Mavity, and Ross supported further discussion of the Zoning Ordinance.
Councilmember Mavity indicated that Council has been exploring the Business Park zoning
classification and stated that during the station area process some pushback was received related
to the Business Park zoning classification around station areas. She requested that Council take
another look at this zoning classification based on the feedback received.
Ms. McMonigal stated the Business Park zoning classification is intended to be a step away from
industrial toward more mixed use. She indicated the City held public hearings on all properties
affected by the Business Park zoning and has been talking with the City Attorney about changing
the PUD Ordinance to allow residential in the Business Park zoning area adding that the City
would like to do an overlay zone in the station areas.
The meeting adjourned at 9:32 p.m.
Written Reports provided and documented for recording purposes only:
4. February 2013 Monthly Financial Report
5. Wood Waste Facility Contract
6. Zoning Ordinance Amendment – Mobile Medical Uses
______________________________________ ______________________________________
Nancy Stroth, City Clerk Susan Sanger, Mayor Pro Tem
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: May 6, 2013
Minutes: 3c
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
APRIL 15, 2013
1. Call to Order
Mayor Jacobs called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
Councilmembers present: Mayor Jeff Jacobs, Steve Hallfin, Anne Mavity, Susan Sanger, Sue
Santa, and Jake Spano.
Councilmembers absent: Julia Ross.
Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), City Attorney (Mr. Knetsch), City Engineer (Mr.
Brink), Director of Inspections (Mr. Hoffman), Planning/Zoning Supervisor (Ms. McMonigal),
Inspection Services Manager (Ms. Boettcher), Engineering Project Manager (Mr. Sullivan),
Associate Planner (Mr. Kelley), and Recording Secretary (Ms. Hughes).
1a. Pledge of Allegiance
1b. Roll Call
2. Presentations - None
3. Approval of Minutes
3a. Special Study Session Minutes April 1, 2013
The minutes were approved as presented.
4. Approval of Agenda and Items on Consent Calendar
NOTE: The Consent Calendar lists those items of business which are considered to be routine
and/or which need no discussion. Consent items are acted upon by one motion. If discussion is
desired by either a Councilmember or a member of the audience, that item may be moved to an
appropriate section of the regular agenda for discussion.
4a. Adopt Resolution Nos. 13-055 and 13-056 to recognize Robert Baumgartner (24
years) & Thomas Wasmund (30 years) for their service to the City of St. Louis Park.
4b. Approve a soccer/football field lighting project at Louisiana Oaks Park.
4c. Adopt Resolution No. 13-057 authorizing entering into Cooperative Agreement
No. 03162 with the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) for the
Highway 7 / Louisiana Avenue Interchange Project – Project No. 2012-0100.
4d. Approve a Contract with Short Elliot Hendrickson, (SEH) Inc. which provides for
engineering consulting services related to the construction of the Highway 7 /
Louisiana Avenue Interchange Project – Project No. 2012-0100.
4e. Approve a Cooperative Agreement with the MCES for the Highway 7 / Louisiana
Avenue Interchange Project – Project No. 2012-0100 and authorizing the Mayor
and City Manager to execute the Agreement.
City Council Meeting of May 6, 2013 (Item No. 3c) Page 2
Title: City Council Meeting Minutes of April 15, 2013
4f. Designate Allied Blacktop Company the lowest responsible bidder and authorize
execution of a contract with the firm in the amount of $289,609.91 for Street
Maintenance Project (Sealcoat Streets - Area 5 – Project No. 2013-0001).
4g. Designate Thomas & Sons Construction, Inc. the lowest responsible bidder and
authorize execution of a contract with the firm in the amount of $126,109.75 for the
2013 Random Concrete Repair Project – Project No. 2013-0003, 0004, and 0006.
4h. Designate ASTECH Corporation the lowest responsible bidder and authorize
execution of a contract with the firm in the amount of $1,357,961.60 for the 2013
Local Street Rehabilitation Project (Area 1) - Project Nos. 2012-1000 & 2013-1400.
4i. Adopt Resolution No. 13-058 authorizing the elimination of the permit parking
restriction in front of 3128 Idaho Avenue South.
4j. Approve for filing Parks & Rec Advisory Commission Minutes October 24, 2012.
4k. Approve for filing Parks & Rec Advisory Commission Minutes December 5, 2012.
4l. Approve for filing Vendor Claims.
Mr. Harmening advised that Consent Calendar item 4e related to the Cooperative
Agreement with Met Council contains the City’s agreement to oversee construction of a
sanitary sewer main that Met Council wants installed as part of this project. He explained
that the City is charging Met Council $153,000 for its cost to administer this project and
noted the formula for calculating the City’s cost is in the process of being refined but the
amount the City will receive from Met Council will not change.
It was moved by Councilmember Mavity, seconded by Councilmember Sanger, to
approve the Agenda and items listed on the Consent Calendar; and to waive reading of
all resolutions and ordinances.
The motion passed 6-0 (Councilmember Ross absent).
5. Boards and Commissions
It was moved by Councilmember Santa, seconded by Councilmember Mavity, to appoint
Jeff Huebner to the Police Advisory Commission for a term expiring on 12/31/15.
The motion passed 6-0 (Councilmember Ross absent).
6. Public Hearings - None
7. Requests, Petitions, and Communications from the Public – None
8. Resolutions, Ordinances, Motions and Discussion Items
8a. Amendment of City Code Chapter 8, Subdivisions IV, V & VII, and Chapter
12, Article 1
Mr. Hoffman presented the staff report and stated this is a housekeeping item to reflect
the City’s delegation agreements with Hennepin County and the Minnesota Department
of Agriculture related to food, lodging, and public facilities. He noted that the City
would be maintaining responsibility for licensing and inspection of tanning facilities.
City Council Meeting of May 6, 2013 (Item No. 3c) Page 3
Title: City Council Meeting Minutes of April 15, 2013
It was moved by Councilmember Mavity, seconded by Councilmember Spano, to approve
First Reading of Ordinance Amending Chapter 8, Subdivisions IV – Food and Beverage,
V – Public Sanitary Facilities, and VII – Lodging, and Chapter 12, Article 1 –
Environmental and Public Health and to set Second Reading for May 6, 2013.
The motion passed 6-0 (Councilmember Ross absent).
8b. Conditional Use Permit – Luther Fiat (1820 Quentin Avenue South).
Resolution No. 13-059
Ms. McMonigal introduced Associate Planner Ryan Kelley.
Mr. Kelley presented the staff report and explained that Luther Fiat has applied for a
Conditional Use Permit for an automotive dealership at 1820 Quentin Avenue South. He
stated the property is zoned C-2 Commercial and was previously a Volkswagen
dealership and then a Suzuki dealership that closed in 2008. He indicated the previous
use provided auto body repair and painting in a portion of the building that will not be
provided as part of the Fiat dealership and that portion of the building will be demolished.
He stated that 74 parking stalls are required and the applicant has provided 61 surface
stalls and 13 service bays. He stated the remaining building exceeds all setback
requirements including parking setback requirements. He stated a new freestanding sign
would be located on the southeast portion of the property and noted that because the site
is adjacent to Highway 100, special provisions must be met and the applicant has
submitted an exhibit showing all requirements will be met, adding the new sign is the
same height as the existing sign. He advised the landscape plan provides over 200 shrubs
and 30 trees including a hedge perimeter and trees planted in the landscape islands in the
parking lot. He presented a drawing of the proposed building that exceeds all building
materials requirements except for the west façade, which is exempt from the
requirements as it is not visible from offsite. He added the applicant will be screening the
rooftop unit to bring it into conformance.
Councilmember Sanger pointed out condition (g) that states no test driving shall be
permitted on local residential streets and stated the City had a lot of issues with this
during the past dealerships where persons were test driving at high speeds which was not
well received by the residents. She encouraged the managers of the Fiat dealership to
adhere to this condition and require their patrons to test drive vehicles elsewhere.
It was moved by Councilmember Sanger, seconded by Councilmember Hallfin, to adopt
Resolution No. 13-059 Granting a Conditional Use Permit to Permit Motor Vehicle
Sales for Property Located at 1820 Quentin Avenue South.
Councilmember Mavity requested further information regarding potential impacts to the
site as a result of the pedestrian bridge connection over the railroad tracks on either side
of Highway 100.
Mr. Kelley advised there has been no design work completed and it is not known what
the impacts would be or whether it would impact the Luther site, adding that Public
Works staff requested this item be included in the report as a potential issue.
The motion passed 6-0 (Councilmember Ross absent).
City Council Meeting of May 6, 2013 (Item No. 3c) Page 4
Title: City Council Meeting Minutes of April 15, 2013
8c. Project Report: Street Project – France Avenue Improvements – Project No.
2010-0005. Resolution Nos. 13-060 and 13-061
Mr. Sullivan presented the staff report and explained that a portion of France Avenue was
turned back to the City in 2006 and Hennepin County compensated the City as part of the
turn back in the amount of $320,000. He stated at that time, Council requested that
engineering staff look at how to modify the roadway, including installation of a sidewalk
on the west side of the road from 22nd Street to 26th Street, modifications to the
intersection at 26th Street, street narrowing, and/or traffic calming. He explained the City
held public information meetings with residents to discuss three design options with
Design Option #1 providing installation of a 6’ concrete boulevard sidewalk on the west
side of France Avenue. He stated this option results in a high level of impacts to several
properties as a result of installation of a sidewalk 12’ behind the curb line where several
residents have landscaped within the right-of-way and residents felt the City could do
more to alleviate those impacts. He explained that Design Option #2 provides
improvements to the west side of France Avenue only and includes a 6’ concrete
boulevard sidewalk that would narrow the shoulder to provide an 11’ travel lane and a
striped shoulder for bicycles. He stated this option would pull the impacts away from the
residential properties; however, the estimated cost of this option is $352,300 and ignores
the northbound side of the roadway. He explained that Design Option #3 provides new
concrete curb and gutter, a dedicated shoulder for a bike lane, and lane narrowing for
traffic calming. He stated the estimated cost for Design Option #3 is $499,000. He
presented a drawing of the roadway design widths stating that Design Option #3 reduces
the hard surface, narrows traffic lanes to provide traffic calming, and achieves a
boulevard style sidewalk that creates separation of pedestrians from vehicles. He noted
the City would be responsible for snow removal and long-term maintenance of the
proposed sidewalk. He stated Design Option #3 achieves the Complete Street principles,
achieves the goals set by Council by providing a sidewalk on the west side, provides
street narrowing and traffic calming, and also includes buy-in from residents as the least
impactful option. He advised that construction will begin in early June and the road will
remain open during construction with access to all properties, adding there will be
parking restrictions during shoulder work on both sides of the roadway. He indicated the
project would be funded by the Hennepin County turn back funds, as well as sidewalk,
trail, and bikeway funds, utility maintenance funds, and Capital Replacement funds. He
added that the City will work with the Information Resources Department to extend the
City’s fiber network during this project.
Councilmember Sanger expressed thanks to City staff for their work on this project and
for working with the neighborhood to address their concerns. She indicated there have
been complaints about drivers perceived to be exceeding the speed limit and was hopeful
that the lane narrowing would lead to traffic calming and reduced speeds.
It was moved by Councilmember Sanger, seconded by Councilmember Spano, to adopt
Resolution No. 13-060 Accepting the Project Report, Establishing Improvement Project
No. 2010-0005, Approving Plans and Specifications and Authorizing Advertisement for
Bids for Improvement Project No. 2010-0005 and to adopt Resolution No. 13-061
Authorizing Installation of “No Parking” Signs on Both Sides of France Avenue from
22nd Street W. to 26th Street W.
The motion passed 6-0 (Councilmember Ross absent).
City Council Meeting of May 6, 2013 (Item No. 3c) Page 5
Title: City Council Meeting Minutes of April 15, 2013
9. Communications
Mayor Jacobs reminded residents of the Caring Youth Day event on Tuesday, April 23rd,
at 6:45 p.m.
Mr. Harmening reminded residents the City will be flushing water mains through the end
of this week. He also reminded residents of the Arbor Day events on Saturday, April
20th, from 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon at the Nature Center. He stated that a Minnehaha
Creek cleanup event with the Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission will be held on
Saturday, April 27th, from 9:00-11:00 a.m. at the Knollwood canoe landing by Target.
Councilmember Spano stated the City is thinking about the people in Boston after today’s
tragic events.
10. Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m.
______________________________________ ______________________________________
Nancy Stroth, City Clerk Jeff Jacobs, Mayor
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: May 6, 2013
Consent Agenda Item: 4a
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Bid Tabulation: City Hall Renovation Update Project No. 2009-1600
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to designate Black and Dew the lowest responsible
bidder and authorize execution of a contract with the firm in the amount of $1,493,000 for the
base bid and Bid Alternates 1, 2, and 3 for a total contract amount of $1,620,100 for City Hall
Renovation Project No. 2900-1600.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does Council wish to:
• Accept the bids and enter into a contract for renovation of the 1st floor of City Hall?
• Include Bid Alternates 1-3 as part of the project?
SUMMARY: A total of four (4) bids were received on April 18, 2013 for this project. A
summary of the bid results is as follows:
Contractor Bid Amount Bid Alternate 1 Bid Alternate 2 Bid Alternate 3
Black and Dew $1,493,000 $ 98,200 $ 9,500 $19,400
Jorgenson
Construction
$1,574,517
$ 97,000
$ 9,500
$46,000
Morton
Construction
$1,714,000
$104,200
$12,600
$57,900
Ebert
Construction
$1,882,134
$100,000
$10,200
$35,900
Review of submitted bid documents verified Black and Dew submitted the lowest base bid and
total when including all bid alternates. The total bid package is $52,000 below the project
architects estimate.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: This project has been planned and included
in the City’s adopted Capital Improvement Program with an estimated total budget of
$2,290,000. Project costs will be paid from the City’s Capital Replacement Fund where a
funding source of $2,430,000 is dedicated.
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
Prepared by: Brian Hoffman, Director of Inspections
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of May 6, 2013 (Item No. 4a)
Title: Bid Tabulation: City Hall Renovation Update Project No. 2009-1600 Page 2
DISCUSSION
BACKGROUND: An advertisement for bids was published in the St. Louis Park Sun-Sailor on
March 21, 28 and April 4, 2013 and in Finance & Commerce March 21 and 28, 2013. Email
notification was provided to five minority associations and final printed plans were made
available for viewing through the project architect and engineering firm of Krech, O’Brien,
Mueller, and Associates (KOMA).
PRESENT CONSIDERATIONS: Three bid alternates were developed in the plans to allow
flexibility in total cost if bids were higher than expected and to determine if the City could add
these items in the future at better value.
Bid Alternate #1 ($98,200) - Installing audio/video equipment and control electronics in the
Community Room and both first floor conference rooms. A Smart Board, large flat screen
monitor, and video conferencing equipment will provide the Community Room with modern
equipment allowing various training and presentations to occur, including Council meetings.
This type of work could be completed by city staff or a vendor after the General Contractors
construction. However, including the equipment specified in Alternate #1 in the project is a
good value and provides a complete turn-key project.
Bid Alternate #2 ($9,500) – An electric vehicle charging station mounted outside along the
garage wall. This added feature would provide an opportunity for electric car owners to perform
a quick charge while visiting City Hall. The equipment would allow for either free charging or a
credit card to be used. A charging station provides a positive statement on the City’s
environmental stewardship value.
Bid Alternate # 3 ($19,400) – Modify the two car parking garage into a delivery and storage
room. The current garage was originally built as the Police Sally-Port. This conversion would
include removing the garage doors and installing a brick veneer wall (salvaged from the
community room wall demolition) with a single four foot wide delivery door. The inside floor
drain would be relocated and a new concrete floor would be poured inside. These changes
would provide substantially improved usability at a good value, helping to eliminate receiving
deliveries through the front door.
Financial Details
The resulting low bid with all alternates is about $52,000 below the amount estimated by the
architect and presented to Council in the March 11, 2013 report authorizing the project and
advertising for bids. Staff is recommending this amount be added to the contingency and
maintaining the overall project budget at $2,290,000. Based on the bid received, total project
cost and funding details are revised as follows:
Expenditures
Construction Cost $1,620,100
Design Fees $ 190,000
Workspaces and Furnishings $ 267,500
Contingency $ 212,400
Total Budget $2,290,000
Revenue
Capital Replacement Fund Allocation $2,430,000
City Council Meeting of May 6, 2013 (Item No. 4a)
Title: Bid Tabulation: City Hall Renovation Update Project No. 2009-1600 Page 3
NEXT STEPS: The contractor has provided a schedule indicating demolition work would begin
June 3rd and continue for three weeks. Construction would begin late in June and be
substantially completed by October 7th.
First floor reception and public service functions will be relocated to the second floor in City
Hall. Exterior signage will be installed around the site to direct primary public parking to the
East lot, with an accessible route into the building at the North side second floor door under the
bridge. Most of the South side parking lot will remain available for employee parking and Police
Department use.
Other than reception staff remaining in City Hall, Information Resources staff will have
temporary workstations built in office spaces in the Police Department, MSC, and Fire Station
#1. Facilities Maintenance staff will temporarily move to office space on the second floor within
the Inspections area. Except for the boiler and records storage room, all staff and items of value
will be moved out and ready for the contractor to start by the end of May.
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: May 6, 2013
Consent Agenda Item: 4b
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Second Reading Amending City Code Chapter 8, Subdivisions IV, V & VII and
Chapter 12, Article 1
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to Approve Second Reading and Adopt Ordinance
amending Chapter 8, Subdivisions IV – Food and Beverage, V – Public Sanitary Facilities, and
VII – Lodging and Chapter 12, Article 1 – Environmental and Public Health and approve
summary ordinance for publication on May 16, 2013.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the City Council support proceeding with amending
Chapter 8, Subdivisions IV, V and VII of the City Code to reflect current Environmental Health
business licensing delegation and create provisions to continue with licensing of Tanning
facilities and amend Chapter 12, Article 1 – Environmental and Public Health Regulations
Adopted by Reference.
SUMMARY: The proposed ordinance is intended as a simple housekeeping item, reflecting
service changes which have occurred. Effective January 2013, the City ended delegation
agreements with the Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) and Minnesota Department of
Agriculture (MDA) for providing Environmental Health services.
Amendments include deleting the following Subdivisions from Chapter 8 Businesses and
Licenses and the regulations adopted by reference for these license types in Chapter 12: IV -
Food and Beverage; V – Public Sanitary Facilities; and VII – Lodging.
Tanning Facilities is the only type of licensed business currently integrated into Subdivision V -
Public Sanitary Facilities which was not delegated. The Subdivision will be deleted and
proposed to be replaced with provisions specifically for licensing and inspection of Tanning
Facilities.
First reading was of this ordinance was approved by Council on April 22, 2013 with no changes.
If second reading is approved, the ordinance changes would become effective May 31, 2013.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not applicable
VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Ordinance
Summary Ordinance for Publication
Prepared by: Ann Boettcher, Inspection Services Manager
Reviewed by: Brian Hoffman, Director of Inspections
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of May 6, 2013 (Item No. 4b) Page 2
Title: Second Reading Amending City Code Chapter 8, Subdivisions IV, V & VII and Chapter 12, Article 1
ORDINANCE NO. ____-13
AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO BUSINESS LICENSES, AMENDING
REQUIREMENTS RELATING TO FOOD AND BEVERAGE ESTABLISHMENTS,
LODGING ESTABLISHMENTS AND PUBLIC SANITARY FACILTIES; AND
ENVIRONMENTAL AND PUBLIC HEALTH
THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK DOES ORDAIN:
Section 1. Chapter 8-1 of the St. Louis Park Code of Ordinances is amended to ready by
adding the underlined language and deleting the strikethrough language:
ARTICLE I. IN GENERAL
Sec. 8-1. Definitions.
The following words, terms and phrases, when used in this chapter, shall have the meanings
ascribed to them in this section, except where the context clearly indicates a different meaning:
Air contaminant means any gaseous matter or particulate matter which, when present in the
outdoor atmosphere, contributes to a condition of air pollution, including, but not limited to,
gases, vapors, mists, dust, soot, smoke, fumes, fly ash, cinders and odors.
Air pollution means the presence in the atmosphere of one or more air contaminants, or
combinations thereof, which is or may tend to be injurious to human health or welfare, or
injurious to human, plant or animal life or property, or that interferes with the comfortable
enjoyment of life or property or the conduct of business.
Amusement arcade means a business at one location devoted primarily to the operation of
mechanical or electrical amusement devices and open for public use and participation.
Amusement device means a mechanical or electrical machine which, upon the insertion of a
coin, token or slug, operates or may be operated for use as a game, contest or amusement of any
description, or which may be used for any such game, contest or amusement, and which contains
no automatic pay-off device for the return of money, coins, checks, tokens or merchandise, or
which provides for no such devices, and shall include pinball machines, mechanical miniature
pool tables, bowling machines, shuffleboards, electric rifle or gun ranges, miniature mechanical
devices and games or amusements patterned after baseball, basketball, hockey, tennis, soccer,
jukeboxes and similar games, which may be used solely for amusement and not as gambling
devices.
Atmosphere means the air that envelopes or surrounds the earth.
Billboard means a sign which is used for the primary purpose of selling space advertising a
product, service, business or event which is not offered for sale or rent or does not take place on
the premises on which the sign is located.
City Council Meeting of May 6, 2013 (Item No. 4b) Page 3
Title: Second Reading Amending City Code Chapter 8, Subdivisions IV, V & VII and Chapter 12, Article 1
Boardinghouse means a food and beverage service establishment where food or beverages,
or both, are furnished to five or more regular boarders, whether with or without sleeping
accommodations, for periods of one week or more.
City property means any property owned by the city, including, but not limited to, municipal
buildings, parks or city rights-of-way.
Commercial entertainment establishment means an amusement arcade, when the arcade is
the principal operation of the business establishment, a roller skating rink or a movie theater.
Construction debris container means any roll-off four-sided steel container for temporary
storage of construction and demolition materials.
Construction demolition materials means any waste building materials, packaging and rubble
resulting from the construction, repair and demolition of buildings.
Courtesy bench means any bench or seat located on any public sidewalk along a street or
thoroughfare or on any public right-of-way along a street or thoroughfare or on private property
dedicated to public use or authorized for public use by the owner of such bench.
Dog kennel means any place where four or more dogs over the age of nine weeks are kept for
a period longer than 24 hours, or any business engaged in the breeding, health care, boarding or
sale of dogs.
Emission means the discharging, releasing, circulating, letting off, raising, liberating, freeing
or sending forth into the atmosphere any air contaminant or combinations thereof.
Enclosed parking facility means an enclosed building or structure, or part of a building or
structure, used for parking, storage or maintenance of motor vehicles.
Food or beverage establishment means any building, room, stand, enclosure, vehicle, space,
area or other place where food or beverages are manufactured, prepared, stored, distributed,
served, sold or offered for sale to the public at retail, regardless of whether there is a charge for
the article, or otherwise provides foods or beverages, or both, for human consumption.
Food vending machine means food vending machines as defined in M.S.A. § 28A.09.
Garbage means animal and vegetable wastes resulting from the handling, preparation,
cooking and consumption of food.
Health authority means the duly appointed health officials of the city.
Health department, health officer, state board of health and board mean, if used at any place
in this chapter and in the requirements adopted by reference, the health authority of the city.
Health/sports establishment means a business, the primary purpose of which is health and
fitness, of which massage therapy may be a subsidiary and for which the financial records of the
establishment are at all times available to the city for inspection.
City Council Meeting of May 6, 2013 (Item No. 4b) Page 4
Title: Second Reading Amending City Code Chapter 8, Subdivisions IV, V & VII and Chapter 12, Article 1
High impact sexually-oriented business means any business with materials or entertainment
provided to the public which are principally related to sexual stimulation or gratification other
than a limited impact sexually-oriented business. Examples of a high impact sexually-oriented
business include the following:
(1) A business where sexually-oriented materials are sold, bartered, distributed, leased,
furnished, exhibited or otherwise provided for use or entertainment on business
premises;
(2) A business where specified sexual activities are explicitly, verbally described or shown;
(3) A business where specified anatomical areas are explicitly, verbally described or
shown;
(4) A business providing sexually-oriented materials for off-site use or entertainment,
which has a separate area but does not meet the size of other restrictions to qualify as a
limited impact sexually-oriented business; and
(5) A business providing sexually-oriented materials for off-site use or entertainment
where the sexually-oriented materials are dispersed within the business rather than
isolated in a separate area.
Hotel and motel mean a building, structure, enclosure, or any part of such building, structure
or enclosure used as, maintained as, advertised as, or held out to be a place where sleeping
accommodations are furnished to the public and furnishing accommodations for periods of less
than one week.
Limited impact sexually-oriented business means a business where sexually-oriented
materials are sold, bartered, distributed, leased, furnished or otherwise provided to the public and
which meets the following restrictions:
(1) All sexually-oriented materials must be provided for use or entertainment off the
business premises only;
(2) All sexually-oriented materials must be provided from a separate area to which persons
under the age of 18 years are prohibited access;
(3) The separate area may not exceed a maximum of 20 percent of the retail floor area of
the establishment, or 300 square feet, whichever is less;
(4) No person outside the separate area shall be able to perceive or observe and sexually-
oriented materials at any time, including when someone is entering or exiting the
separate area, shopping or purchasing sexually-oriented materials;
(5) A sign must be displayed on the entrance to the separate area which shall read: "No
person under the age of 18 is allowed in this area." The sign letters shall be a minimum
of two inches high; and
(6) The entry into the separate area shall be visible to an employee of the business at ll
times.
Lodging means the furnishing for consideration of lodging at a hotel, motel, rooming house,
tourist court, or resort, other than the renting or leasing of it for a continuous period of thirty (30)
calendar days or more. (Ord. No. 2396-10- 3-1-11)
City Council Meeting of May 6, 2013 (Item No. 4b) Page 5
Title: Second Reading Amending City Code Chapter 8, Subdivisions IV, V & VII and Chapter 12, Article 1
Lodging establishment means a building, structure, enclosure, or any part of such building,
structure or enclosure used as, maintained as, advertised as, or held out to be a place where
sleeping accommodations are furnished to the public as regular roomers, for periods of one week
or more, and having five or more beds to let to the public.
Massage means the rubbing, stroking, kneading, tapping or rolling of the body of another
with the hands or objects for the exclusive purpose of physical fitness, health care referral,
relaxation, beautification and for no other purpose.
Massage therapist means a person who practices or administers massage therapy.
(Ord. No. 2381-10, 7-01-10)
Massage therapy establishment means a place providing to the public at large massage
services, other than a hospital, sanatorium, rest home, nursing home, boarding home, or other
institution licensed under the provisions of M.S.A. §§ 144.50--144.69. The definition does not
include the practice of medicine, surgery, osteopathy, chiropractic, physical therapy or podiatry;
and persons duly licensed in this state to practice medicine, surgery, osteopathy, chiropractic,
physical therapy or podiatry, licensed nurses and athletic directors and trainers.
Multilevel parking facility means a building or structure, or part thereof, in which a structural
level other than a slab on grade is used for parking, storage, or maintenance of motor vehicles.
Off-site consumption means any limited impact sexually-oriented business or any high
impact sexually-oriented business where sexually-oriented materials are sold, bartered,
distributed, leased, furnished or otherwise provided for use or entertainment off the business
premises only.
On-site consumption means any high impact sexually-oriented business where sexually-
oriented materials or entertainment, which are principally related to sexual stimulation or
gratification, are offered on the business premises.
Operator means a person who provides lodging to others, or any office, agent or employee of
such person. (Ord. No. 2396-10, 3-1-11)
Pawnbroker means a person who loans money on deposit or pledge of personal property or
other valuable thing; who deals in the purchasing of personal property or other valuable thing on
condition of selling such personal property or other valuable thing back again at a stipulated
price; or who loans money secured by chattel mortgage or on personal property, taking
possession of the property or any part thereof so mortgaged. To the extent that a pawnbroker
business includes buying personal property previously used, rented, or leased, the provisions of
this chapter shall be applicable. Any bank, savings and loan association, or credit union shall not
be deemed a pawnbroker for purposes of this chapter.
Peddler means any person with no fixed place of business who goes from house to house
carrying or transporting goods, wares or merchandise and offering or exposing such goods,
wares or merchandise for sale, or making sales and deliveries to purchasers of such goods, wares
or merchandise.
City Council Meeting of May 6, 2013 (Item No. 4b) Page 6
Title: Second Reading Amending City Code Chapter 8, Subdivisions IV, V & VII and Chapter 12, Article 1
Person means an individual, proprietorship, partnership, corporation, association, or other
legal entity.
Pool means any structure, chamber, or tank containing an artificial body of water for
swimming, diving, relaxation, or recreational use including special purpose pools and wading
pools.
Private residential pool means a pool connected with a single-family residence or owner-
occupied duplex, located on private property under the control of the homeowner, the use of
which is limited to family members or the family's invited guests. A private residential pool is
not a pool used as part of a business.
Process means any action or operation which:
(1) By physical action results in a change in location, form, or physical properties of a
material;
(2) By chemical action results in a change in chemical composition, chemical properties, or
physical properties of a material; or
(3) Creates or establishes a condition or situation which produces air contaminants.
Public sanitary facility means a pool, whirlpool, sauna (dry or steam), public bath or shower,
tanning beds or similar facility.
Public swimming pool means any pool, other than a private residential pool, intended to be
used collectively by numbers of persons for swimming and bathing, operated by any person,
whether that person is the owner, lessee, operator, licensee, or concessionaire, regardless of
whether a fee is charged for such use. A public swimming pool includes, but is not limited to,
pools operated by a person in a park, school, licensed child care facility, group home, motel,
camp, resort, apartment building, club, condominium, hotel, manufactured home park, or
political subdivision.
Refuse means all wastes (except body wastes) including, but not limited to, rubbish, tin cans,
papers, Christmas trees, cardboard, grass clippings, ashes, glass jars and bottles, and wood
normally resulting from the operation of households or business establishments, but not
including garbage, sod, dirt, rocks, cement, trees, leaves, hedge or tree trimmings, or anything
one person could not lift easily.
Residential garbage/yard sale means any sale conducted at a residential premises where the
property sold consists only of items owned by the owner or renter of the premises at which the
sale takes place or by friends of such owner or renter, and where the sale is conducted by the
owner of the premises or friends, not by an agent or any other person to whom a commission or
fee is paid.
Right-of-way means the property owned by the city for the construction and maintenance of
the roadway and the improvements of the roadside.
Roller skating rink means any room, place, or space open to public patronage where facilities
are available for roller skating, wherein the public may participate, and at which admission may
City Council Meeting of May 6, 2013 (Item No. 4b) Page 7
Title: Second Reading Amending City Code Chapter 8, Subdivisions IV, V & VII and Chapter 12, Article 1
be had by the public by payment, directly or indirectly, of any admission fee or price, including a
fee for membership in a club, the price of food, or payment for any other form of amusement
offered in or from licensed premises.
Safety manual means the current edition of the Temporary Traffic Control Zone Layouts
Field Manual being part of the Minnesota Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices
(MnMUTCD).
Sauna means any public facility used for the purpose of bathing, reducing or relaxing,
utilizing steam or heat as a cleaning, reducing or relaxing agent.
Self-service merchandising means open displays of tobacco, tobacco products, or tobacco
related devices where any person shall have access to the product without the assistance or
intervention of an employee of the premises maintaining the merchandising. Self-service
merchandising shall not include vending machines.
Sexually-oriented business means any limited impact sexually-oriented business or any high
impact sexually-oriented business.
Sexually-oriented materials means visual, printed or aural materials and other objects or
devices which:
(1) Contain, depict or describe specified sexual activities or specified anatomical areas;
(2) Are marked for use in conjunction with, or are primarily used only with or during the
specified sexual activities described in subsections (2), (3) or (6) of the definition of
Specialized sexual activities or as part of the binding, fettering, or other physical
restraint described in subsection (5) of the definition.
Solicitor means any person who goes from house to house, business to business, or any kind
of place to place movement for the purpose of soliciting or taking or attempting to take orders for
the purchase of any goods, wares, or merchandise, including magazines, books, periodicals or
personal property of any nature whatsoever for delivery in the future, or orders for the
performance of maintenance or repair services in or about the home or place of business, such as
furnace cleaning, roof repair or blacktopping. It also means any person, except for a city resident
canvassing his or her neighborhood, who canvasses, solicits or calls from house to house for
contributions or support for any charitable, religious, civic, educational, philanthropic, social
service, welfare, or organization.
(Ord. No. 2381-10, 4-30-10)
Solid waste means garbage, refuse, sludge from a water supply treatment plant or air
contaminant treatment facility, and other discarded waste materials and sludges, in solid,
semisolid, liquid, or contained gaseous form, resulting from industrial, commercial, mining, and
agricultural operations, and from community activities, but does not include hazardous waste;
animal waste used as fertilizer; earthen fill, boulders and rock; sewage sludge; solid or dissolved
material in domestic sewage or other common pollutants in water resources, such as silt,
dissolved or suspended solids in industrial wastewater effluents or discharges which are point
sources subject to permits under section 402 of the federal Water Pollution Control Act, as
amended, dissolved materials in irrigation return flows; or source, special nuclear, or byproduct
material as defined by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended.
City Council Meeting of May 6, 2013 (Item No. 4b) Page 8
Title: Second Reading Amending City Code Chapter 8, Subdivisions IV, V & VII and Chapter 12, Article 1
Solid waste collector means any person who shall offer to, or engage in the collection of
solid waste from any public or private institution, commercial establishment, or residential
dwelling located within the city.
Specified anatomical areas means:
(1) Less than completely and opaquely covered human genitals, pubic area, buttock, anus
or female breast below a point immediately above the top of the areola; and
(2) Human male genitals in a state of sexual arousal, whether or not completely or
opaquely covered.
Specified sexual activities means:
(1) Actual or simulated sexual intercourse of any kind involving two humans, or one
human and an animal or object;
(2) Actual or simulated masturbation;
(3) Actual or simulated sadism or masochism;
(4) Actual or simulated sexual stimulation of any kind;
(5) Situations involving a person who is nude, clad in undergarments, or in a revealing
costume, and who is engaged in activities involving binding, fettering or other physical
restraint of that or another person; and
(6) Sexually-oriented touching of an animal by a human.
Special purpose pool means a pool intended to accommodate a use other than normal
swimming, diving, or wading. The term "special purpose pool" includes, but is not limited to, spa
pools, pools used for water therapy, dedicated plunge pools, flume water slides and wave pools.
Tanning equipment means ultraviolet or other lamps and equipment containing these lamps
intended to induce skin tanning through the irradiation of any part of the living human body with
ultraviolet radiation.
Tanning facility means a location, place, area, structure, or business or a part thereof which
provides consumers access to tanning equipment. The term "tanning facility" includes, but is not
limited to, tanning, salons, health clubs, apartments, or condominiums regardless of whether a
fee is charged for access to the tanning equipment.
Temporary outdoor retail sales means the outdoor sale of goods or merchandise to the
general public for personal or household consumption at a single location for less than 180 days,
excluding residential garage/yard sales.
Tobacco and tobacco products mean any substance or item containing tobacco leaf,
including but not limited to, cigarettes, cigars, pipe tobacco or chewing tobacco and other forms
of tobacco leaf prepared in such a manner as to be suitable for chewing, sniffing, or smoking.
Tobacco related devices means any tobacco product as well as any pipe, rolling papers, or
other devices used in a manner which enables the chewing, sniffing, or smoking of tobacco or
tobacco products.
City Council Meeting of May 6, 2013 (Item No. 4b) Page 9
Title: Second Reading Amending City Code Chapter 8, Subdivisions IV, V & VII and Chapter 12, Article 1
Tobacco vending machine means any type of device which dispenses tobacco, tobacco
products, or tobacco related devices upon the insertion of money, tokens, or other form of
payment directly into the machine.
Transient merchant means any person who engages in, does, or transacts any temporary and
transient business in this state, either in one locality, or in traveling from place to place in this
state, selling goods, wares and merchandise; and who, for the purpose of carrying on such
business, hires, leases, occupies, or uses a building, structure, vacant lot, or railroad car for the
exhibition and sale of such goods, wares and merchandise. The term "transient merchant" does
not include a seller or exhibitor in a firearms collector show involving two or more sellers or
exhibitors.
Ultraviolet radiation means electromagnetic radiation with wavelengths in air between 200
nanometers and 4oo nanometers.
Wading pools means any pool used or designed to be used exclusively for wading or bathing
and having a maximum depth of 24 inches.
(Ord. No. 2181-00, § 4(16-102), 11-6-2000; Ord. No. 2198-01, § 1, 5-21-2001; Ord. No. 2381-
10, 4-30-2010; 2396-10, 3-1-2011)
Cross reference(s)--Definitions generally, § 1-2.
Secs. 8-2--8-30. Reserved.
Section 2. Section 8-231 of the St. Louis Park Code of Ordinances is amended to ready by
adding the underlined and deleting the strikethrough language:
Subdivision III. Environmental Emissions
Sec. 8-231. License required.
No person shall own, operate or maintain any of the following equipment or perform any of
the following processes, which discharges a smoke, particulate, chemical or odor into the
atmosphere, without first obtaining an environmental emissions license from the city:
(1) Paint spray booths;
(2) Drycleaning;
(3) Smelters;
(4) Dip tanks; or
(5) Material processing and manufacturing operations.
(Ord. No. 2181-00, § 4(16-303A.), 11-6-2000)
Sec. 8-232. Regulations adopted.
All environmental emissions licensees shall comply with environmental emissions standards
as set forth in section 12-1 of this Code.
(Ord. No. 2181-00, § 4(16-303B.), 11-6-2000)
City Council Meeting of May 6, 2013 (Item No. 4b) Page 10
Title: Second Reading Amending City Code Chapter 8, Subdivisions IV, V & VII and Chapter 12, Article 1
Sec. 8-233. Inspections.
The city shall inspect potential air pollution control equipment as frequently as may be
necessary to ensure compliance with this subdivision, whether such equipment is licensed or not.
(Ord. No. 2181-00, § 4(16-303C.), 11-6-2000)
Sec. 8-234. Access to premises and records.
The person in charge of operating air pollution control equipment on the licensed premises,
or allowing or causing the emission of air contaminants shall, upon request of the city's health
authority city, permit access to all parts of the area, at any reasonable time, for the purpose of
inspection of such equipment, and shall exhibit and allow copying of any records relating to
air pollution control which are necessary to determine compliance with this subdivision. If access
to such areas or records shall be denied, the health authority city shall obtain a search warrant
before continuing such inspection.
(Ord. No. 2181-00, § 4(16-303D.), 11-6-2000)
Sec. 8-235. Removal and correction of violations.
(a) All environmental emissions licensees receiving a report from the city notifying the
licensee of one or more violations of this subdivision shall correct or remove each such violation
within the length of time set by the city's health authority city. The length of time for the
correction or removal of each such violation shall be stated on the inspection report. The failure
to remove or correct each such violation within the time period noted on the inspection report
shall constitute a separate violation of this subdivision.
(b) The city's health authority city may require installation of auxiliary combustion facilities
in order to meet the requirements of this subdivision relating to emission of air contaminants.
(c) If the environmental emissions licensee fails to make corrections of violations noted in
the health authority's city’s inspection report within the time specified in the inspection report,
the city's health authority city may prevent further operation of any equipment required to be
licensed under this subdivision by affixing a seal to such equipment. No person shall operate
equipment sealed by the city's health authority city, and no person shall remove such seal from
any equipment, except under the direction of the city's health authority city.
(Ord. No. 2181-00, § 4(16-303E.), 11-6-2000)
Sec. 8-236. Temporary suspension of license.
The city's health authority city, with the approval of the city manager, may immediately
suspend the environmental emissions license of any person for the violation of any terms of this
subdivision involving an immediate and serious public health hazard. Upon notification by the
health authority city of a temporary suspension of an environmental emissions license by posting
of the inspection report at the licensed facility, the licensee shall immediately cease operation of
the licensed facility. The licensee may appeal from the order of temporary suspension in writing
to the city council as provided under this chapter. On the date of suspension of the environmental
emissions license, the city's health authority city shall send by certified mail to the licensee
City Council Meeting of May 6, 2013 (Item No. 4b) Page 11
Title: Second Reading Amending City Code Chapter 8, Subdivisions IV, V & VII and Chapter 12, Article 1
named in the environmental emissions license a notice that such license has been temporarily
suspended and shall advise the licensee of his right to appeal.
(Ord. No. 2181-00, § 4(16-303F.), 11-6-2000)
Sec. 8-237. Interference with or hindrance of city's health authority city.
No person shall interfere with or hinder the city's health authority city in the performance of
the city health authority's city’s duties under this subdivision or the laws of the state, nor prevent
the performance of the health authority's duties.
(Ord. No. 2181-00, § 4(16-303G.), 11-6-2000)
Secs. 8-238--8-255. Reserved.
Section 3. Section 8, Subdivision IV of the St. Louis Park Code of Ordinances is amended to
read by deleting the strikethrough language:
Subdivision IV. Food and Beverage Establishments
Sec. 8-256. License required.
(a) It shall be unlawful for any person to operate a food or beverage establishment, mobile
food vehicle or food vending machine without obtaining a license from the city.
(b) One license may be issued to a single applicant for multiple food establishments within a
single building or establishment when the owner of all food establishments is the same or
multiple mobile food vehicles.
(c) Each food vending machine must have a valid city-issued license decal affixed in a
visible location.
(Ord. No. 2181-00, § 4(16-304A.), 11-6-2000; Ord. No. 2198-01, § 2, 5-21-2001; Ord. No. 2381,
04-30-2010)
Sec. 8-257. Classification of food and beverage establishments and food vending machines.
The city will classify each food and beverage establishment, mobile food vehicle, and food
vending machine based on the use occurring, in accordance with the food code, into one of the
following categories before a license is issued:
(1) Class H plus--Multiple use license permitting three or more uses of any risk class to
operate.
(2) Class H--High risk use license permitting up to two high risk uses or a single high risk
use with a single low or medium risk use.
(3) Class M--Medium risk use license permitting a single medium risk use.
(4) Class L--Low risk use license permitting a single low risk use.
(5) Class V--Food vending machines.
City Council Meeting of May 6, 2013 (Item No. 4b) Page 12
Title: Second Reading Amending City Code Chapter 8, Subdivisions IV, V & VII and Chapter 12, Article 1
(6) Class S--Seasonal concession with low or medium risk.
(7) Class E--Multi-site educational facilities -- Educational facility with multiple locations
within the city.
(8) Mobile Food Vehicle -- Each vehicle used to transport food from a licensed food facility
must have a valid city issued decal. Exception – A mobile food vehicle license shall not
be required for any mobile food vehicle operated by a food and beverage establishment
licensed by the City or that has a valid state issued commissary or catering food license.
(Ord. No. 2181-00, § 4 (16-304B.), 11-6-2000; Ord. No. 2198-01, § 2, 5-21-2001 Ord. No. 2332-
07, 07-13-2007; Ord. No. 2361-08, 1-1-2009; Ord. No. 2381-10, 04-30-2010)
Sec. 8-258. Regulations and standards.
All food and beverage establishments, and food vending machines licensed under this
subdivision shall comply with the city's food code as set forth in section 12-1 of this Code.
(Ord. No. 2181-00, § 4(16-304C.), 11-6-2000; Ord. No. 2198-01, § 2, 5-21-2001)
(a) All food and beverage establishments, mobile food vehicle, and food vending machines
licensed under this subdivision shall comply with the city’s food code as set forth in section 12-1
of this Code.
(Ord. No. 2181-00, § 4(16-304C.), 11-6-2000; Ord. No. 2198-01, § 2, 5-21-2001; Ord. No. 2246-
03, 8-18-03; Ord. No. 2346-07, 12-28-07; Ord. No. 2381-10, 04-30-2010 )
Secs. 8-259--8-275. Reserved.
Section 4. Section 8, Subdivision V of the St. Louis Park Code of Ordinances is amended to
read by adding the underlined language deleting the strikethrough language:
Subdivision V. Public Sanitary Facilities Tanning Facilities
Sec. 8-276. License required.
(a) No person shall own, operate, maintain, lease or be responsible for any public sanitary
tanning facility without a public sanitary tanning facility license issued by the city. No license is
required for private residential swimming pools.
(b) One public sanitary facility license may be issued to a single applicant for multiple public
sanitary facilities which are regulated under this subdivision which are located within a single
building or single tract of land when the owner of all of the facilities is the same.
(Ord. No. 2181-00, § 4(16-305A.), 11-6-2000)
Sec. 8-277. Classification of public sanitary facilities.
The city will classify each public sanitary facility based on one of the following categories:
(1) Class I--A pool plus two or more additional public sanitary facilities.
City Council Meeting of May 6, 2013 (Item No. 4b) Page 13
Title: Second Reading Amending City Code Chapter 8, Subdivisions IV, V & VII and Chapter 12, Article 1
(2) Class II--A pool and up to one additional public sanitary facility.
(3) Class III--Any one of the following or similar public sanitary facilities:
a. Sauna, dry or steam;
b. Tanning beds;
c. Public bathing and showers.
(Ord. No. 2181-00, § 4(16-305B.), 11-6-2000)
Sec. 8-278. Public swimming pools.
All public swimming pools licensed under this subdivision shall comply with the public
swimming pool rules adopted in section 12-1 of this Code.
(Ord. No. 2181-00, § 4(16-305C.), 11-6-2000)
Sec. 8-279. Tanning facilities.
Licensees under this subdivision operating tanning facilities must comply with health, safety
and building regulations of the city and the requirements set forth in M.S.A. §§
325H.01--325H.09.
(Ord. No. 2181-00, § 4(16-305D.), 11-6-2000)
Secs. 8-280--8-295. Reserved.
Section 5. Section 8, Subdivision VII of the St. Louis Park Code of Ordinances is amended
to read by deleting the strikethrough language:
Subdivision VII. Lodging
Sec. 8-316. License required.
Any person operating a hotel, lodginghouse or boardinghouse within the city must obtain a
license for such operation from the city.
(Ord. No. 2181-00, § 4(16-308A.), 11-6-2000)
Sec. 8-317. Regulations adopted.
All lodging hotels, lodginghouses and boardinghouses licensed under this subdivision shall
comply with the lodging establishment rules adopted in section 12-1 of this Code.
(Ord. No. 2181-00, § 4(16-308B.), 11-6-2000)
Secs. 8-318--8-325. Reserved.
City Council Meeting of May 6, 2013 (Item No. 4b) Page 14
Title: Second Reading Amending City Code Chapter 8, Subdivisions IV, V & VII and Chapter 12, Article 1
Section 6. Section 8, Division 4. Temporary Uses, Subdivision II of the St. Louis Park Code
of Ordinances is amended to read by deleting the strikethrough language:
Subdivision II. Food Service
Sec. 8-511. Permit required.
(a) No person shall operate a food stand or mobile food service without obtaining a permit
from the city.
(b) A temporary food service permit may authorize temporary food service on multiple days,
consecutively, for multiple occasions. The multiple occasions must be at the same location with
identical setup and service as approved.
(Ord. No. 2181-00, § 4(16-402A.), 11-6-2000; Ord. No. 2198-01, § 3, 5-21-2001)
Sec. 8-512. Application.
(a) The application for a temporary food service permit must be submitted a minimum of
seven business days before the scheduled event, and the applicant must provide all information
required by the health authority.
(b) The temporary food service permit application must identify all dates and locations at
which temporary food service shall be conducted.
(Ord. No. 2181-00, § 4(16-402B.), 11-6-2000; Ord. No. 2198-01, § 3, 5-21-2001)
Sec. 8-513. Inspection.
Prior to issuance of a temporary food service permit, and following each setup and removal
of the food service to be provided under the permit, an applicant for a temporary food service
permit must be inspected by the city's health authority for compliance with the city's food code.
(Ord. No. 2181-00, § 4(16-402C.), 11-6-2000; Ord. No. 2198-01, § 3, 5-21-2001)
Sec. 8-514. Fees.
Temporary food service permit fees shall be based on single or multiple setup, and shall be
set from time to time by the city and a schedule of such fees are listed in appendix A to this
Code.
(Ord. No. 2181-00, § 4(16-402D.), 11-6-2000; Ord. No. 2198-01, § 3, 5-21-2001)
Secs. 8-515--8-530. Reserved.
Section 7. Section 12, Article I. of the St. Louis Park Code of Ordinances is amended to read
by adding the underlined language deleting the strikethrough language:
City Council Meeting of May 6, 2013 (Item No. 4b) Page 15
Title: Second Reading Amending City Code Chapter 8, Subdivisions IV, V & VII and Chapter 12, Article 1
Chapter 12
ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC HEALTH*
Article I. In General
Sec. 12-1. Environmental and public health regulations adopted by reference.
Definitions.
Sec. 12-2. Environmental and public health regulations adopted by reference.
Sec. 12-3 Private residential pools.
Secs. 12-34--12-30. Reserved.
Sec.12-1. Environmental and public health regulations adopted by reference. Definition
Private residential pool means a pool connected with a single-family residence or owner-
occupied duplex, located on private property under the control of the homeowner, the use of
which is limited to family members or the family's invited guests. A private residential pool is
not a pool used as part of a business.
Sec. 12-2. Private residential pools Environmental and public health regulations adopted
by reference.
(a) Air quality environmental emissions. The city adopts and incorporates by reference the
air emissions standards adopted by the air quality division of the state pollution control agency as
Minnesota Rules Chapters 7011 and 7023, as amended. A copy of the regulations, together with
any applicable amendments, shall be marked "St. Louis Park--Official Copy" and shall be kept
on file in the office of the city clerk and open to inspection and use by the public.
(b) Food code. The city adopts and incorporates by reference the food code adopted by the
state department of health and set forth in Minnesota Statutes Chapters 157 and 327 and
Minnesota Rules Chapter 4626 for Food, Beverage, Lodging and Food Manager Certification, as
amended. A copy of the regulations, together with any applicable amendments, shall be marked
"St. Louis Park--Official Copy" and shall be kept on file in the office of the city clerk and open
to inspection by the public.
(1) Permit required. A permit is required for installation of food and beverage equipment
regulated within the food code. The applicant shall complete an application and submit
detailed plans and specifications of proposed equipment for review by the city.
(2) Fees. Permit fees shall be according to the official city fee schedule, set forth in
appendix A, as approved and revised by the city council resolution. Fees must be paid
prior to a permit being issued.
(3) Permit term. Permits will expire if the work is not completed and approved within 180
days of issuance.
(4) Grease traps. Each food establishment with potential for grease to enter building
plumbing and city sanitary sewer systems must install and maintain grease trap(s) in
accordance with Minnesota Plumbing Code.
City Council Meeting of May 6, 2013 (Item No. 4b) Page 16
Title: Second Reading Amending City Code Chapter 8, Subdivisions IV, V & VII and Chapter 12, Article 1
(c) Public swimming pools. The city adopts and incorporates by reference the rules
establishing operation and maintenance, design, installation and construction standards for public
pools and facilities related to them adopted by the state department of health as Minnesota
Statutes Section 144.1222 and Minnesota Rules Chapter 4717.0150 to 4717.3970, as amended. A
copy of the regulations, together with any applicable amendments, shall be marked "St. Louis
Park--Official Copy" and shall be kept on file in the office of the city clerk and open to
inspection by the public.
(1) Permit required. A permit is required for installation of swimming pools, hot tubs and
spas. The applicant shall complete an application and submit detailed plans and
specifications of the proposed pool and related equipment for review by the city.
(2) Fees. Permit fees shall be according to the official city fee schedule, set forth in
appendix A, as approved and revised by city council resolution. Fees must be paid prior
to a permit being issued.
(3) Permit term. Permits will expire if the work is not completed and approved within 180
days of issuance.
(d) Lodging establishments. The city adopts and incorporates by reference the rules
regulating lodging establishments adopted by the state department of health as Minnesota Rules
4625.0100 to 4625.2300, as amended. One copy of the regulations shall be marked "St. Louis
Park--Official Copy" and shall be kept on file in the office of the city clerk and open to
inspection by the public.
(Ord. No. 2179-00, §§ 1(11.1200--11.1203), 11-6-2000; Ord. No. 2381-10, 04-30-2010)
Sec. 12-2 3. Private residential pools.
(a) Scope. The requirements of this section shall apply to all private residential swimming
pools, wading pools, hot tubs, or spas having a potential water depth greater than 24 inches at
any point, and either a surface area exceeding 250 square feet or a potential water volume of over
3,250 gallons.
(b) Permit required. No person may install, construct, move, or alter a private residential
swimming pool, wading pool, hot tub, or spa without first obtaining a permit.
(c) Fees. The applicant for a pool permit must pay the appropriate fee for the type of pool
installation or construction requested. Such fee shall be set from time to time by the city and a
schedule of such fees is listed in appendix A to this Code.
(d) Requirements.
(1) All new equipment purchased or installed on any swimming pool shall comply with the
National Sanitation Foundation Listings for Swimming Pools, Spas, and Hot Tubs,
when applicable. Equipment not covered by the standard must be preapproved by the
city.
(2) Pool use is limited to swimming or bathing by the family or their invited guests.
City Council Meeting of May 6, 2013 (Item No. 4b) Page 17
Title: Second Reading Amending City Code Chapter 8, Subdivisions IV, V & VII and Chapter 12, Article 1
(3) Fencing a minimum of four feet high from grade or other acceptable barrier, including
but not limited to walls or buildings, providing equivalent restriction of access shall be
provided to positively control all access to private swimming pools. Fencing shall be
without handholds or footholds that would enable a child to climb over it and shall
include gates at least four feet in height equipped with self-closing and self-latching
apparatus capable of being locked. Openings in the gates or fence shall not allow a
four-inch sphere to pass through. Maximum openings under gate and fences shall not
exceed two inches.
(4) Water depth shall be plainly marked at or above the water surface on the vertical pool
wall or on the edge of the deck or walk next to inground pools. Depth markings shall be
located at the minimum and maximum points, at the points of change of slope between
the deep and shallow portions of the pool, and at intermediate increments of depth
spaced not more than 25 feet between markers.
(5) Decking at least three feet wide, measured from the pool water's edge, shall be
provided and shall extend completely around inground pools. Aboveground pools may
be provided with decking a minimum of four feet by four feet at the pool entry points
provided the decking complies with the building code. A self-closing and self-latching
gate shall be installed at the top or bottom of the stairs. Openings in the gate or fence
shall not allow a four-inch sphere to pass through. Maximum openings under gates and
fences shall not exceed two inches.
(6) All residential private pools with a depth greater than five feet shall be provided with
an outlet at the deepest point to permit the pool to be completely emptied and to
provide adequate circulation. The outlet opening shall be covered by grating which is
securely fastened and not readily removable by bathers. Outlet openings in the floor of
the pool shall be at least four times the area of the discharge pipe or provide sufficient
area so the maximum velocity of water passing through the grate will not exceed 1 1/2
feet per second. The maximum width of the grate openings shall be one-half inch. An
antivortex type drain may be used in lieu of grating.
(7) No person shall operate, maintain, or permit any swimming pool that creates a nuisance
by annoying, injuring, or endangering the safety, health, comfort or repose of the
public. The city shall have access to inspect all pools and equipment as deemed
necessary to enforce the provisions of this Code. When a private swimming pool is
deemed to be in such condition that endangers the health, safety or welfare of the
public, the health authority may immediately close the pool and post a placard stating
the closure. No one may remove the placard except the health authority.
Secs. 12-3 4--12-30. Reserved.
SECTION 9. This Ordinance shall take effect May 31, 2013.
First Reading April 15, 2013
Second Reading May 6, 2013
Date of Publication May 16, 2013
Date Ordinance takes effect May 31, 2013
City Council Meeting of May 6, 2013 (Item No. 4b) Page 18
Title: Second Reading Amending City Code Chapter 8, Subdivisions IV, V & VII and Chapter 12, Article 1
Reviewed for Administration Adopted by the City Council May 6, 2013
City Manager Mayor
Attest: Approved as to Form and Execution:
City Clerk City Attorney
City Council Meeting of May 6, 2013 (Item No. 4b) Page 19
Title: Second Reading Amending City Code Chapter 8, Subdivisions IV, V & VII and Chapter 12, Article 1
SUMMARY
ORDINANCE NO. _____ -13
AN ORDINANCE AMEDNING THE ST. LOUIS PARK CODE OF ORDINANCES
CHAPTERS 8, SUBDIVISIONS IV, V, AND VII; AND CHAPTER 12, ARTICLE 1.
The ordinance amends the St. Louis Park Code of Ordinances relating to food and beverage
establishments, lodging establishments, public sanitary facilities, and environmental and public
health. This ordinance shall take effect 15 days after publication.
Adopted by the City Council May 6, 2013
Jeffrey W. Jacobs /s/
Mayor
A copy of the full text of this ordinance is available for inspection with the City Clerk
Published in St. Louis Park Sailor: May 16, 2013
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: May 6, 2013
Consent Agenda Item: 4c
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Monetary Donation from Paul Weinreis through USTA for a Total Amount of $600
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to Adopt Resolution approving acceptance of a
monetary donation from Paul Weinreis through the United States Tennis Association (“USTA”)
in the amount of $600 to purchase equipment for the City’s youth tennis program.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the City Council wish to accept the gift with restrictions
on its use?
SUMMARY: State statute requires City Council’s acceptance of donations. This requirement is
necessary in order to make sure the City Council has knowledge of any restrictions placed on the
use of each donation prior to it being expended.
St. Louis Park resident, Paul Weinreis passed away and designated $300 to USTA with the
direction to allocate the funds to the cities’ youth tennis program to purchase equipment. Mr.
Weinreis was a St. Louis Park resident and was very passionate about introducing the game of
tennis to youth in the community. USTA matched his donation and submitted a total donation in
the amount of $600 to be designated for equipment purchased for the youth tennis program.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: This donation will be used to purchase
equipment for the youth tennis program.
VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged
community.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Resolution
Prepared by: Stacy M. Voelker, Administrative Secretary
Lisa Abernathy, Recreation Coordinator
Reviewed by: Cindy Walsh, Director of Parks & Recreation
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of May 6, 2013 (Item No. 4c) Page 2
Title: Monetary Donation from Paul Weinreis through USTA for a Total Amount of $600
RESOLUTION NO. 13-____
RESOLUTION APPROVING ACCEPTANCE OF DONATION
IN THE AMOUNT OF $600 TO BE USED TO PURCHASE
EQUIPMENT FOR THE YOUTH TENNIS PROGRAM
WHEREAS, The City of St. Louis Park is required by State statute to authorize
acceptance of any donations; and
WHEREAS, the City Council must also ratify any restrictions placed on the donation by
the donor; and
WHEREAS, Paul Weinreis and USTA donated $600 for the youth tennis program; and
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park that the gift is hereby accepted with thanks to Paul Weinreis and USTA with the
understanding that it must be used to purchase equipment for the youth tennis program.
Reviewed for Administration Adopted by the City Council May 6, 2013
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: May 6, 2013
Consent Agenda Item: 4d
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Acceptance of Donation for Purchase of Memorial Bench in Memory of Sandra Kay Wayne
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to Adopt Resolution approving acceptance of a $2,200
donation from Walt Wayne for the purchase and installation of a memorial bench at the
Westwood Hills Nature Center in memory of Sandra Kay Wayne.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the City Council wish to accept the gift with restrictions
on its use?
SUMMARY: State statute requires City Council’s acceptance of donations. This requirement is
necessary in order to make sure the City Council has knowledge of any restrictions placed on the
use of each donation prior to it being expended.
Walt Wayne is graciously donating an amount of $2,200 to honor Sandra Kay Wayne. The
donation is given with the restriction that it be used to purchase and install a bench in Westwood
Hills Nature Center.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: This donation will be used to purchase and
install a memorial bench at Westwood Hills Nature Center.
VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged
community.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Resolution
Prepared by: Stacy M. Voelker, Administrative Secretary
Rick Beane, Park Superintendent
Reviewed by: Cindy Walsh, Director of Parks & Recreation
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of May 6, 2013 (Item No. 4d) Page 2
Title: Acceptance of Donation for Purchase of Memorial Bench in Memory of Sandra Kay Wayne
RESOLUTION NO. 13-____
RESOLUTION APPROVING ACCEPTANCE OF DONATION
IN MEMORY OF SANDRA KAY WAYNE
IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,200 FOR THE PURCHASE
AND INSTALLATION OF A MEMORIAL BENCH
AT WESTWOOD HILLS NATURE CENTER
WHEREAS, The City of St. Louis Park is required by State statute to authorize
acceptance of any donations; and
WHEREAS, the City Council must also ratify any restrictions placed on the donation by
the donor; and
WHEREAS, Walt Wayne desires to purchase a memorial bench for Sandra Kay Wayne
to be installed at Westwood Hills Nature Center with a donation of $2,200; and
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park that the gift is hereby accepted with thanks to Walt Wayne with the understanding that it
must be used to purchase and install a memorial bench for Sandra Kay Wayne at Westwood Hills
Nature Center.
Reviewed for Administration Adopted by the City Council May 6, 2013
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: May 6, 2013
Consent Agenda Item: 4e
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Final Payment Resolution - Contract 56-11 - St. Paul Linoleum & Carpet - Projects 2008-
3001 & 3002
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to Adopt Resolution authorizing final payment in the
amount of $4,226.50 and accepting work for Fire Stations No. 1 and No. 2 Work Scope 16
(Carpet and Resilient Flooring) for Project Nos. 2008-3001 and 2008-3002, City Contract No.
56-11.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: None.
SUMMARY: Bids were received on March 31, 2011 for Two New Fire Stations – Project Nos.
2008-3001 and 2008-3002. The projects included construction of Fire Station No. 1 at 3750
Wooddale Avenue and Fire Station No. 2 at 2262 Louisiana Avenue.
The City used an agency construction manager (CM) delivery method for both fire stations,
rather than a general contractor (GM). With this approach, the City is the owner and general
contractor for the project. The construction manager acts as the city’s advisor and representative
throughout planning, design and construction of the stations. There are 31 different contracts
related to the construction of the two stations.
City Council awarded the contract for Work Scope 16 (Carpet and Resilient Flooring) for Fire
Stations No. 1 and No. 2 to St. Paul Linoleum and Carpet Co. on April 11, 2011, in the amount
of $79,995.00. The contractor completed this work within the contract time allowed at a final
contract cost of $84,530.00. The additional costs related to owner directed changes to work
scope and floor finishes.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: The Fire Stations Project was programmed
in the Capital Improvement Program for construction in 2011/12 at a total projected cost of
$15,500,000. The final project costs are expected to be approximately $15,100,000.
$12.5 million of this project cost will be paid from bond proceeds issued in December 2010. The
remaining portion will be paid from the Fire portion of the Police and Fire Pension Fund.
VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Resolution
Prepared by: Sean Walther, Senior Planner
Reviewed by: Luke Stemmer, Fire Chief
Approved by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
City Council Meeting of May 6, 2013 (Item No. 4e) Page 2
Title: Final Payment Resolution - Contract 56-11 - St. Paul Linoleum & Carpet - Projs 2008-3001 & 3002
RESOLUTION NO. 13 -____
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING FINAL PAYMENT IN THE
AMOUNT OF $4,226.50 AND ACCEPTING THE WORK FOR THE
CARPET AND RESILIENT FLOORING FOR FIRE STATIONS NO. 1 AND NO. 2
WITH ST. PAUL LINOLEUM AND CARPET CO.
CITY PROJECT NO. 2008-3001 & 2008-3002
CONTRACT NO. 56-11
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park, Minnesota, as follows:
1. Pursuant to a written contract with the City dated April 12, 2011, St. Paul Linoleum and Carpet
Co. satisfactorily completed Work Scope 16 (Carpet and Resilient Flooring) for Fire Stations
No. 1 and No. 2, as per Contract No. 56-11.
2. The Construction Manager Kraus-Anderson Construction Company recommends final
acceptance of the work.
3. The work completed under this contract is accepted and approved. The City Manager is
directed to make final payment on the contract, taking the contractor's receipt in full.
Original Contract Price $79,995.00
Change Order #1 $4,535.00
Final Contract Amount $84,530.00
Previous Payments ($80,303.50)
Balance Due $4,226.50
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council May 6, 2013
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: May 6, 2013
Consent Agenda Item: 4f
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Temporary On-Sale Intoxicating Liquor License for St. Louis Park Sunrise Rotary
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to approve a temporary on-sale intoxicating liquor
license for the St. Louis Park Sunrise Rotary, P.O. Box 16678, St. Louis Park, for an event to be
held on May 16, 2013 at the Excelsior & Grand Apartment Club Room, located at 3820 Grand
Way in St. Louis Park.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does Council wish to approve a temporary on-sale intoxicating
liquor license for the St. Louis Park Sunrise Rotary for their event to be held on May 16, 2013?
SUMMARY: The St. Louis Park Sunrise Rotary has made an application for a temporary on-
sale intoxicating liquor license for their upcoming Wine Tasting Fundraiser. City Ordinance 3-
57(8) allows temporary liquor licenses to clubs, charitable, religious or other nonprofit
organizations in existence for at least three years. A temporary liquor license approved by the
City Council is not valid until it is approved by the commissioner of public safety.
MN Statutes 340A.418 allows the conduct of wine tasting for no more than 4 hours. The Wine
Tasting Event will be held from 5:30 pm – 8:00 pm.
The St. Louis Park Sunrise Rotary was founded in 1985 and the organization focuses on several
areas of service including community service, international service, club service, and vocational
service that directly impact residents and/or serve the needs of youth in St. Louis Park.
The Police Department has completed the background investigation on the main principals and
has found no reason to deny the temporary license. The applicant has met all requirements for
issuance of the license, and staff is recommending approval.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: The fee for a temporary liquor license is
$100.00 per day of the event.
VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: None
Prepared by: Kay Midura, Assistant – City Clerk’s Office
Reviewed by: Nancy Stroth, City Clerk
Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: May 6, 2013
Consent Agenda Item: 4g
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Final Payment Resolution - Contract No. 137-12 w/ Hardrives, Inc. - Project No. 2014-1102
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to Adopt Resolution accepting work and authorizing
final payment in the amount of $14,225.33 for the 2012 Beltline Boulevard mill and overlay
project with Hardrives, Inc. – Project No. 2014-1102, Contract No. 137-12.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the Council wish to approve this final contract payment?
SUMMARY: On October 17, 2012, the City Manager awarded a contract in the amount of
$98,986.32 to Hardrives, Inc. for the Beltline Boulevard Project – Project 2014-1102. The
project included asphalt pavement mill and overlay work on Beltline Boulevard from W. 36th
Street north to the Railroad Crossing.
The Contractor completed the work within the contract time allowed at a final contract cost of
$108,262.33. Council approved one change order on December 17, 2012 in the amount of
$9,276.01. Approval of a Final Payment Resolution by Council is required for reimbursement of
project costs through MnDOT State Aid.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Final Contract Cost
The cost of the work performed by the Contractor under Contract No. 137-12 has been calculated
as follows:
Original Contract $ 98,986.32
Change Order No. 1 9,276.01
Total $108,262.33
Funding Sources
This project, originally programmed in the Capital Improvement Plan (C.I.P.) for 2014
construction, was accelerated to 2012 construction due to excessive pavement deterioration
during the spring of 2012. This project is being funded by State Aid funds raised through the gas
tax.
VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Resolution
Prepared by: Jim Olson, Sr. Engineering Project Manager
Reviewed by: Michael P. Rardin, Director of Engineering
Scott Brink, City Engineer
Approved by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
City Council Meeting of May 6, 2013 (Item No. 4g) Page 2
Title: Final Payment Resolution - Contract No. 137-12 w/ Hardrives, Inc. - Project No. 2014-1102
RESOLUTION NO. 13-___
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING WORK ON
THE BELTLINE BOULEVARD MILL AND OVERLAY PROJECT
CITY PROJECT NO. 2014-1102
CONTRACT NO. 137-12
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park, Minnesota, as follows:
1. Pursuant to a written contract with the City dated October 17, 2012, Hardrives, Inc.
has satisfactorily completed the mill and overlay work on Beltline Boulevard per Contract
No. 137-12.
2. The Director of Engineering has filed his recommendations for final acceptance of the work.
3. The work completed under this contract is accepted and approved. The City Manager is
directed to make final payment on this contract, taking the contractor's receipt in full.
Original Contract Price $ 98,986.32
Change Order No. 1 9,276.01
Contract Amount $108,262.33
Previous Payments $ 94,037.00
Balance Due $ 14,225.33
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council May 6, 2013
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: May 6, 2013
Consent Agenda Item: 4h
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: 2013/2014 Neighborhood Grants
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to approve the 2013/2014 Neighborhood Grants.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does Council wish to approve the recommended allocation of
neighborhood grants for 2013/2014?
SUMMARY: Each year grant funding is made available to neighborhood associations to
promote strong neighborhoods and enhance community connections by bringing neighbors
together. Grant applications from 24 neighborhoods were received in April. On April 15th
Marney Olson facilitated the grant review process with Grant Review Committee Members Erica
Bagstad (Pennsylvania Park), Gregg Lindberg (Texa Tonka) and Brian Johnson (Minikahda
Oaks). The Grant Review Committee met to review the grant applications and make funding
recommendations to the City Council. Attached is a worksheet that provides specific detail on
the recommendations made by the Grant Review Committee.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: The Grant Review Committee recommends
approval of $31,000 to fund the following 24 neighborhood grants ($31,000 budgeted):
$1300 Aquila $1800 Birchwood $1800 Blackstone
$1420 Bronx Park $810 Brooklawns $800 Brookside
$1800 Browndale $980 Cobblecrest $965 Creekside
$615 Crestview $1400 Eliot View $1675 Elmwood
$1375 Fern Hill $1400 Kilmer Pond $1050 Lake Forest
$1400 Lenox $1600 Minikahda Oaks $1225 Minikahda Vista
$1375 Minnehaha $50 Oak Hill $1630 Sorensen
$1030 South Oak Hill $1700 Triangle $1800 Westwood Hills
Fifteen neighborhoods applied for the Environmental Grant totaling $1,395 ($2,000 budgeted).
Transfers from the neighborhood grant to the environmental grant component were made where
appropriate (see attached worksheet). As a result the Grant Review Committee recommends
approval of $1,980 to fund the environmental grants for twenty neighborhoods.
The Grant Review Committee recommends approval of $4,390 to fund insurance purchases for
twelve neighborhoods ($15,000 budgeted).
VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged
community.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion
Neighborhood Grant Worksheet
Prepared by: Marney Olson, Housing Programs Coordinator
Reviewed by: John Luse, Chief of Police
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of May 6, 2013 (Item No. 4h) Page 2
Title: 2013/2014 Neighborhood Grants
DISCUSSION
BACKGROUND: Each year grant funding is made available to neighborhood associations to
promote strong neighborhoods and enhance community connections by bringing neighbors
together. The City Council appropriated $31,000 in grant funds for the 2013/14 neighborhood
grant program, $2,000 for environmental initiatives, and $15,000 for insurance. Organized St.
Louis Park neighborhood associations may apply for up to $2,000 annually to support activities,
operations and community building activities and up to $100 for environmental related activities.
Neighborhood Associations are responsible for providing insurance when planning
neighborhood events in parks that bring outside equipment into the park such as, but not limited
to, moonwalks, petting zoos, etc. Neighborhood associations can apply for a maximum of $500
in addition to the standard grant to assist with purchasing insurance.
Grant applications from 24 neighborhoods were received in April. The total grant request for
2013/2014 was $36,205. Twelve of these neighborhoods also applied for additional insurance
reimbursements and fifteen neighborhoods applied for the environmental funding. The Grant
Review Committee that met April 15th evaluated each grant application and made funding
recommendations to meet the $31,000 budget for the neighborhood grants. Grant applications
came in $5,205 over budget so the committee was forced to make reductions to most
neighborhoods. For 2013/2014 the committee chose not to fund garage sales since this is a
revenue generating activity for participants. Additional cuts were necessary including reducing
money spent on prizes or drawings, reducing the maximum grant awarded in 2013/2014 to
$1800 and other reductions as outlined in the attached worksheet. The committee made up of
three residents did a great job evaluating each grant against the grant guidelines and making cuts
to stay within budget and meet the goal of the grants which is to support neighborhoods and
enhance community connections by bringing neighbors together.
City Council Meeting of May 6, 2013 (Item No. 4h) Page 3
Title: 2013/2014 Neighborhood Grants
2013/2014 Neighborhood Grant Worksheet
The 2013/14 grant period begins May 1, 2013 and ends April 30, 2014.
Requested
Amount
Recommended Amount
$1,450 Aquila $1,300
$700 Picnic/Annual Meeting
Cut $50 from Picnic/Annual
Meeting for Prizes. No funding
for garage sales.
$500 Postage/Newsletter
$150 End of Summer/Back to School
$100 Garage Sale
$50 Insurance Request $50
$2,000 Birchwood $1,800
$550 Summer Party
$1800 grant cap this year $400 Newsletter
$700 Winter Party
$350 New Signage
$500 Insurance Request $500
Sandwich Boards/Signs $100
$1,945 Blackstone $1,800
$270 Porta Potty
$1800 grant cap this year
$160 Blackstone Park Lawn & Trees
$190 2012 Kick Off Party
$170 Summer Gathering
$75 Ice Cream Float Social
$445 National Night Out
$215 Pizza Night
$260 Election/Winter Gathering
$160 Operating Support
$90 Insurance Request $90
$100 Flowers for Blackstone Park $100
City Council Meeting of May 6, 2013 (Item No. 4h) Page 4
Title: 2013/2014 Neighborhood Grants
Requested
Amount
Recommended Amount
$1,630 Bronx Park $1,420
$750 Annual Neighborhood Picnic
Cut $60 for prizes,no
garage sale funding this
year.
$150 Garage Sale
$160 General Meeting Expenses
$200 Neighborhood Newsletter
$370 Children & Family Social Activities
$200 Insurance Request $200
$910 Brooklawns $810
$300 Kid's Halloween Party
Move Planter Swap to
Environmental Grant
$200 Little Free Library
$100 Fall Garden Planter Swap
$50 Egg Hunt
$260 National Night Out
$0 Fall Garden Planter Swap $100
$900 Brookside $800
$500 National Night Out Move $100 of Porta Potty
to Environment $250 Annual Meeting
$150 Porta Potty at Jackley (shared with Creekside)
$150 Insurance Request $150
$0 Porta Potty at Jackley (shared w/ Creekside) $100
$2,000 Browndale $1,800
$400 Newsletter
$1800 grant cap this year
$600 Fall Bonfire & Bluegrass
$500 Family Camp Outs
$100 Winterfest
$150 Spring Egg Hunt
$125 Earth Day Children's Event
$125 July 4th Kiddie Parade
$500 Insurance Request $500
$100 Earth Day Clean Up $100
City Council Meeting of May 6, 2013 (Item No. 4h) Page 5
Title: 2013/2014 Neighborhood Grants
Requested
Amount
Recommended Amount
$980 Cobblecrest $980
$800 Hayride $180 National Night Out
$400 Insurance Request $400
$1,015 Creekside $965
$15 Plant Exchange
Cut funding for NNO
because it is individual
blocks, not neighborhood
wide.
$50 Neighborhood Flower Urn
$600 Block party
$150 Porta Potty at Jackley (shared with Brookside)
$40 Administrative Costs and Annual Meeting
$40 Winter Activity
$70 Creek Clean Up
$50 National Night Out
$100 Buckthorn Cleanup $100
$500 Insurance Request $500
$695 Crestview $615
$200 Crestview Picnic Move $80 to environment for
reusable tent $120 Little Free Library
$375 Tent for Picnic/Rental
$20 Crestview Planter Flowers $100
$500 Insurance Request $500
$2,150 Eliot View $1,400
$650 Annual Picnic & Election Reduce $200 for Garden
Party (suggest use of SLP
Staff Speaker). Cut $200
Mkda Vista Rental, Cut
$100 website, Cut $250 for
prizes across multiple
activities
$400 Garden Party w/ Ice Cream Social
$550 Night at the Movies
$450 Youth Activity/Fitness
$100 Website Development
$100 Garden Party $100
City Council Meeting of May 6, 2013 (Item No. 4h) Page 6
Title: 2013/2014 Neighborhood Grants
Requested
Amount
Recommended Amount
$1,875 Elmwood $1,675
$175 Garage Sale
Cut Garage Sale and $25 child
care
$700 Summer Picnic
$450 Kids Halloween and Pumpkin Carving Party
$50 Child Care at Meetings
$500 Year Round Porta Potty at Central Park
$100 Porta Potty Rental $100
$1,975 Fern Hill $1,375
$390 End of School Potluck and Movie Cut $100 x 2 advertising
$800 Welcome to Neighborhood Kits Reduce welcome kits to
$400
$305 Halloween Party
$250 Orthodox Jewish Community Meet and Greet
$230 Egg Hunt
$100 Welcome Kits - Plant for Yard $100
$1,400 Kilmer Pond $1,400
$100 Flower Garden
$200 Landscaping
$400 Spring Fling
$700 Hayride - Bunker Hills Stable
$500 Insurance Request $500
$100 Buckthorn Removal $100
$1,170 Lake Forest $1,050
$600 Neighborhood Annual Summer Party
Cut deer damage
reduction and education
funding.
$260 National Night Out Block parties
$55 General Association Supplies
$105 Deer damage reduction and education
$150 Sign and Fence Repair
$95 Summer Picnic $100
City Council Meeting of May 6, 2013 (Item No. 4h) Page 7
Title: 2013/2014 Neighborhood Grants
Requested
Amount
Recommended Amount
$1,850 Lenox $1,400
$800 Neighborhood Newsletter
cut $450 - reduce
number of mailings
$300 Movie Night
$450 Winter Social
$300 Fall Picnic
$100 Roxbury tree replacement $100
$1,600 Minikahda Oaks $1,600
$350 Spring Social
$250 Summer Fall Social/National Night Out
$100 Neighborhood Family Bike Tour
$200 Winter Social
$700 Minikahda Oaks Neighborhood Sign Project
$500 Insurance Request $500
$100 Friends of Bass Lake $100
$1,695 Minikahda Vista $1,225
$150 Neighborhood Plant Swap
Cut Garage Sale, Reduce
Plant Swap to $100 and move
to Environment
$320 Neighborhood Garage Sale
$95 Newsletter Postage
$935 National Night Out
$195 Fall Event
$0 Plant Swap $100
$1,805 Minnehaha $1,375
$800 National Night Out
Cut garage sale and $200 of
Children's Playtime
$550 Children's Play Time
$230 Garage Sale
$225 Neighborhood BBQ
$80 Neighborhood Clean Up $80
$50 Oak Hill $50
$50 Neighborhood Association Awareness $50
City Council Meeting of May 6, 2013 (Item No. 4h) Page 8
Title: 2013/2014 Neighborhood Grants
Requested
Amount
Recommended Amount
$1,830 Sorensen $1,630
$670 Neighborhood Newsletters
Cut $200 from grant. Look at
alternatives to spending so
much on postage and mail
prep.
$655 Annual Fall Social
$190 Annual Sorensen Business Meeting
$240 Webster Park Porta Potty
$75 Wine and Cheese Fundraiser
$100 Environmental Experiential Education $100
$1,280 South Oak Hill $1,030
$680 Neighborhood BBQ and Potluck
cut $150 raffle at event
and move $100 for signs
to environment
$240 Neighborhood Meetings
$145 Summer Ice Cream Social
$65 Newsletter
$150 Signs
$0 Signs $100
$2,000 Triangle $1,700
$800 Halloween Event
Cut $200 from halloween and an
additional $100 from movie nights
or summer social.
$800 Movie Nights (June - Oct)
$400 Summer Social
$100 Halloween Event $100
$2,000 Westwood Hills $1,800
$700 Winter Hayride
$1800 grant cap this year $400 Ice Cream Social
$200 Ladies Night
$700 Fall party
$500 Insurance Request $500
$100 Solar Panels on WHNA Signs $100
$36,205 Total Requested by All Neighborhoods $31,000
$4,390 Total Insurance Request $4,390
$1,395 Total Environmental Request $1,980
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: May 6, 2013
Consent Agenda Item: 4i
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Traffic Study Number 637: Authorize the Removal of Permit Parking Area
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to Adopt Resolution authorizing the elimination of the
permit parking restriction in front of 3112 Edgewood Avenue South.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the City Council wish to remove the permit parking
restriction located in front of the subject property?
The proposed action is consistent with City policy.
SUMMARY: The City has a program for authorizing permit parking for residents who have a
medical need for parking adjacent to their homes. Once authorized and installed, permit parking
is maintained indefinitely. However, each year staff contacts residents who currently have
permit parking to ensure that it is still required.
We have been informed the permit parking for this property is no longer needed. Aside from
removing the sign, the final step is to rescind the original resolution authorizing the permit
parking.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: The cost of removing these controls is
minimal and will come out of the general operating budget.
VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Resolution
Prepared by: Scott A. Brink, City Engineer
Reviewed by: Michael P. Rardin, Director of Engineering
Approved by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
City Council Meeting of May 6, 2013 (Item No. 4i) Page 2
Title: Traffic Study Number 637: Authorize the Removal of Permit Parking Area
RESOLUTION NO. 13-___
RESOLUTION RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. 13-051
ELIMINATING PERMIT PARKING
AT 3112 EDGEWOOD AVENUE SOUTH
WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota has been requested, has studied, and
has determined that traffic controls are no longer necessary at this location.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park, Minnesota, that:
1. Resolution No. 13-051 is hereby rescinded; and
2. The Director of Engineering is hereby authorized to remove permit parking at 3112
Edgewood Avenue South
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council May 6, 2013
City Manager
Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: May 6, 2013
Consent Agenda Item: 4j
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Approve Right of Way Purchase - Highway 7 / Louisiana Interchange Project No. 2012-
0100
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to approve right of way purchase in the total amount of
$24,000 for Parcel 4 (7201 Lake Street – 7201 Lake Street LLC), and authorize the City
Attorney to execute stipulation of settlement.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: This action is consistent with previous direction given by
Council as part of the Highway 7 / Louisiana Avenue Interchange Project.
SUMMARY: At the July 16, 2012 City Council meeting, Council approved a resolution
Authorizing Condemnation of Land for Public Purposes for the Highway 7 / Louisiana Avenue
Interchange Project. Prior to that action, specific right of way needs were determined and
appraisals for seven identified properties were conducted. As a result, the City Attorney
commenced eminent domain proceedings pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 117 to acquire
the necessary land over the seven properties identified. Pursuant to the “quick take” provisions
of Minnesota Statutes, the City Attorney has since negotiated a settlement with the legal
representatives of Parcel 4 in the total amount of $24,000. The City’s initial appraisal was in the
amount of $10,100. The additional amount was negotiated to settle damages related to access
obstruction during construction. The City Attorney recommends approval of this settlement.
The Parcel 4 property is located along the southwest corner of the Louisiana Avenue and Lake
Street, and the acquisition attained from this property was needed to accommodate the new
roundabout at this intersection. This acquisition settlement is the second settlement purchase of
the condemnation proceedings. Negotiations and condemnation settlements are still proceeding
on the other five properties. These properties include Sam’s Club, two Clear Channel Billboard
parcels, Louisiana Oaks Apartments and the Oak Hill Office complex. As negotiations are
finalized on these remaining properties, similar purchase authorizations will be presented to
Council.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: The City is responsible for all right of way
acquisition on the project. The project budget as previously presented anticipates right of way
acquisition costs and potential cost increases during settlement. Funding for right of way
acquisition will be provided through the HRA Levy.
VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged
community.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Exhibit A – Parcel 4 Location
Exhibit B – Stipulation of Settlement
Prepared by: Jim Olson, Engineering Project Manager
Reviewed by: Michael P. Rardin, Director of Engineering
Tom Scott, City Attorney
Approved by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
Evergreen Land Services
Page 30
DESCRIPTION & EFFECTS OF PROPOSED ACQUISITION
New Right
of Way
Temporary
Easement
City Council Meeting of May 6, 2013 (Item No. 4j)
Title: Approve Right of Way Purchase - Highway 7 / Louisiana Interchange Project No. 2012-0100 Page 2
City Council Meeting of May 6, 2013 (Item No. 4j)
Title: Approve Right of Way Purchase - Highway 7 / Louisiana Interchange Project No. 2012-0100 Page 3
City Council Meeting of May 6, 2013 (Item No. 4j)
Title: Approve Right of Way Purchase - Highway 7 / Louisiana Interchange Project No. 2012-0100 Page 4
City Council Meeting of May 6, 2013 (Item No. 4j)
Title: Approve Right of Way Purchase - Highway 7 / Louisiana Interchange Project No. 2012-0100 Page 5
City Council Meeting of May 6, 2013 (Item No. 4j)
Title: Approve Right of Way Purchase - Highway 7 / Louisiana Interchange Project No. 2012-0100 Page 6
City Council Meeting of May 6, 2013 (Item No. 4j)
Title: Approve Right of Way Purchase - Highway 7 / Louisiana Interchange Project No. 2012-0100 Page 7
City Council Meeting of May 6, 2013 (Item No. 4j)
Title: Approve Right of Way Purchase - Highway 7 / Louisiana Interchange Project No. 2012-0100 Page 8
City Council Meeting of May 6, 2013 (Item No. 4j)
Title: Approve Right of Way Purchase - Highway 7 / Louisiana Interchange Project No. 2012-0100 Page 9
City Council Meeting of May 6, 2013 (Item No. 4j)
Title: Approve Right of Way Purchase - Highway 7 / Louisiana Interchange Project No. 2012-0100 Page 10
City Council Meeting of May 6, 2013 (Item No. 4j)
Title: Approve Right of Way Purchase - Highway 7 / Louisiana Interchange Project No. 2012-0100 Page 11
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: May 6, 2013
Consent Agenda Item: 4k
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Bid Tabulation: Street Project - 2013 MSA Street Rehab (Parkdale Drive) - Project #2013-1101
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to designate Valley Paving, Inc. the lowest responsible
bidder and authorize execution of a contract with the firm in the amount of $129,114.95 for the
2013 MSA Street Rehab (Parkdale Drive) Project - Project #2013-1101.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the City Council wish to take the final step to allow this
project to move forward?
SUMMARY: A total of six (6) bids were received for this project. A summary of the bid results
is as follows:
CONTRACTOR BID AMOUNT
Valley Paving, Inc. **$129,114.95
Norhwest Asphalt, Inc. $134,765.99
Hardrives, Inc. $144,478.94
Omann Brothers Paving, Inc. $145,866.44
Bituminous Roadways, Inc. $167,396.20
ASTECH Corporation $174,104.75
Engineer’s Estimate $139,435.50
**Denotes corrected amount
A review of the bids indicates Valley Paving, Inc. submitted the lowest bid. Valley Paving is a
reputable contractor that has successfully completed worked for the City before. Staff
recommends that a contract be awarded to the firm in the amount of $129,114.95.
Construction is tentatively planned to begin in mid-summer.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
This project was planned for and included in the City’s adopted Capital Improvement Program
(C.I.P.) with an estimated total project budget of $160,000. Based on the low bid, the total
project cost is currently estimated at $151,165.35. The project will be funded by Municipal State
Aid funds (gas tax monies).
VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion
Prepared by: Jim Olson, Engineering Project Manager
Reviewed by: Michael P. Rardin, Director of Engineering
Scott Brink, City Engineer
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of May 6, 2013 (Item No. 4k) Page 2
Title: Bid Tabulation: Street Project – 2013 MSA Street Rehab (Parkdale Drive) - Project #2013-1101
DISCUSSION
BACKGROUND: Bids were received on April 25, 2013 for the 2013 MSA Street
Rehabilitation Project – Parkdale Drive. The Parkdale Drive project involves pavement
resurfacing by a mill and overlay process where the top two (2) inches of pavement is ground off
and then a new asphalt surface is paved. The project also includes minor repairs to the concrete
curb and sidewalk along with minor storm sewer repairs. The project construction is anticipated
to last about two to three weeks. The project will be constructed under traffic. Motorists will be
guided through the work zone during periods of temporary lane closures.
An advertisement for bids was published in the St. Louis Park Sun-Sailor and in Finance &
Commerce on April 4, 11, and 18, 2013. In addition, plans and specifications are noticed on the
City Website and are made available electronically via the internet by our vendor Quest
CDN.com. Email notification was provided to five minority associations and final printed plans
were made available for viewing at the AGC of Minnesota Planroom and at City Hall.
Twenty-four contractors/vendors purchased plan sets with three Disadvantaged Business
Enterprises (DBE) identifying themselves as subcontractors.
Financial Details
Based on the low bid received, cost and funding details are revised as follows:
Expenditures
Construction Cost $129,114.95
Contingencies (5%) $ 6,500.00
Engineering & Administration (12%) $ 15,500.00
Total $151,114.95
Revenues
Municipal State Aid Funds $151,114.95
Total $151,114.95
This project was planned for and included in the City’s adopted Capital Improvement Program
with an estimated total project budget of $160,000.
Construction Timeline
Construction is tentatively planned to begin in mid-summer.
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: May 6, 2013
Consent Agenda Item: 4l
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Final Payment Resolution - Contract # 89-12 w/ Bituminous Roadways - Project # 2011-1100
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to Adopt Resolution accepting work and authorizing
final payment in the amount of $22,445.44 for the 2012 MSA Street Rehab (Louisiana Avenue)
project with Bituminous Roadways, Inc. – Project No. 2011-1100, Contract No. 89-12.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the Council wish to approve this final contract payment?
SUMMARY: On June 18, 2012, the City Council awarded a contract in the amount of
$337,515.00 to Bituminous Roadways, Inc. for the Louisiana Avenue Project – Project 2011-
1100. The project involved pavement resurfacing by a mill and overlay process in which the top
2 inches of pavement was ground off and replaced with new asphalt. The project also includes
minor repairs to the concrete pavement beneath the asphalt surface, concrete curb, sidewalk,
storm sewer, and pedestrian curb ramps to meet current ADA standards.
The Contractor completed the work within the contract time allowed (30 working days) at a final
contract cost of $354,254.61. The contract had project overruns amounting to $16,739.61. The
overruns can be attributed to additional concrete pavement repairs and storm sewer manhole
repairs requested by the city. These additional repairs were necessary and were paid at original
bid item unit costs.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Final Contract Cost
The cost of the work performed by the Contractor under Contract No. 89-12 has been calculated
as follows:
Original Contract $337,515.00
Overruns 16,739.61
Total $354,254.61
Funding Sources
This project was programmed in the Capital Improvement Program (C.I.P.) for construction in
2012. This project is being funded by State Aid funds (gas tax monies).
VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Resolution
Prepared by: Jim Olson, Sr. Engineering Project Manager
Reviewed by: Michael P. Rardin, Director of Engineering
Scott Brink, City Engineer
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of May 6, 2013 (Item No. 4l) Page 2
Title: Final Payment Resolution – Contract No. 89-12 with Bituminous Roadways, Inc. – Project No. 2011-1100
RESOLUTION NO. 13-___
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING WORK ON
MSA STREET REHAB – LOUISIANA AVENUE
CITY PROJECT NO. 2011-1100
CONTRACT NO. 89-12
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park, Minnesota, as follows:
1. Pursuant to a written contract with the City dated June 18, 2012, Bituminous
Roadways, Inc. has satisfactorily completed the street rehabilitation work on Louisiana
Avenue per Contract No. 89-12.
2. The Director of Engineering has filed his recommendations for final acceptance of the work.
3. The work completed under this contract is accepted and approved. The City Manager is
directed to make final payment on the contract, taking the contractor's receipt in full.
Original Contract Price $ 337,515.00
Overrun 16,739.61
Contract Amount $ 354,254.61
Previous Payments $ 331,809.17
Balance Due $ 22,445.44
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council May 6, 2013
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: May 6, 2013
Minutes: 4m
OFFICIAL MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
MARCH 20, 2013 – 6:00 p.m.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MEMBERS PRESENT: Claudia Johnston-Madison, Robert Kramer, Dennis Morris, Carl Robertson
MEMBERS ABSENT: Lynne Carper, Rick Person, Larry Shapiro
STAFF PRESENT: Ryan Kelley, Meg McMonigal, Nancy Sells
1. Call to Order – Roll Call
2. Approval of Minutes of March 6, 2013
Commissioner Kramer moved approval of the minutes of March 6, 2013. Commissioner
Morris seconded the motion, and the motion passed on a vote of 4-0.
3. Public Hearings
A. Conditional Use Permit for Reestablishment of Auto Dealership
Location: 1820 Quentin Avenue South
Applicant: The Luther Company, LLLP
Case No.: 13-14-CUP
Ryan Kelley, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. He stated that the applicant is
requesting approval of a conditional use permit to establish a Fiat dealership.
Linda McGinty, The Luther Company, thanked Mr. Kelley for his assistance through the
process. She stated that the company is very pleased to be developing the parcel and to
be bringing Fiat to the community. She added that Fiat will be bringing more product to
the U.S. in the fall so the timing is very good.
Commissioner Kramer asked if The Luther Company is intending to complete work on
the parcel this time.
Ms. McGinty replied that Luther has the manufacturer’s approval and Luther will be
completing the reestablishment of a dealership at the site.
Commissioner Johnston-Madison said she’s very glad to see this happen and she believes
it will really be an improvement.
Chair Robertson opened the public hearing. As no one was present wishing to speak, he
closed the public hearing.
City Council Meeting of May 6, 2013 (Item No. 4m) Page 2
Title: Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of March 20, 2013
Commissioner Morris commented that the area is poorly lacking in pedestrian
accessibility. He asked if a study was done, or consideration made on how to link some
of the frontage road sidewalks under the bridge or into the neighborhood.
Ms. McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor, responded that Mr. Kelley reviewed
the Sidewalk and Trails Plan as part of the application process. She added that sidewalk
isn’t required with a conditional use permit.
Mr. Kelley stated that the Sidewalk and Trails Plan indicates that sidewalk on the south
side of Cedar Lake Rd. and on the east side of Quentin Ave. is a future project. He
explained for this site specifically, the City Engineer and planning staff didn’t pursue
sidewalks on the site, particularly because of the existing conditions for traffic flow off of
the frontage road and how that wraps around the site. Pedestrian improvements that
might best take place would be on the south side of Cedar Lk. Rd. and the east side of
Quentin Ave., as planned for the future.
Commissioner Morris made a motion to recommend approval of the Conditional Use
Permit. Commissioner Kramer seconded the motion, and the motion passed on a vote of
4-0.
4. Other Business
Commissioner Morris spoke about having a study session item regarding the current
Designed Outdoor Recreational Area (DORA) concept. He said he could send his
thoughts and notes on the subject to staff prior to a study session.
Commissioner Kramer said he’d like to have further discussion on the poor bicycle and
pedestrian access in the area of the Luther Company site.
Ms. McMonigal responded that the Engineering Dept. is undertaking a Connect the Park
initiative. The Sidewalk and Trails Plan is going forward. She said the Planning
Commission could have a discussion about it. She said the idea of crossing the railroad
track with some sort of bridge is shown in the Sidewalk and Trails Plan in the Luther site
area.
Commissioner Kramer commented he would like to have further discussion as the whole
area is in need of bicycle access, especially to access The West End.
5. Communications: None
6. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 6:17 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Nancy Sells
Administrative Secretary
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: May 6, 2013
Minutes: 4n
FIRE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION MINUTES
March 12, 2013 – 8:30 a.m.
FIRE STATION 1 CONFERENCE ROOM
1) The meeting was called to order at 8:33 a.m. by Commissioner Lee.
2) In attendance were Commission President David Lee and Commissioners Bill
MacMillan and Jim Rhodes. Also present were Ali Fosse, Human Resources
Coordinator/Staff Liaison; Eric Curran-Bakken, Local 993 Union President; Luke
Stemmer, Fire Chief; and Mark Windschitl and Cary Smith, Assistant Chiefs.
3) President Lee welcomed new Commissioner Rhodes on behalf of the Commission.
4) The minutes of the February 4, 2013 meeting were approved by consent.
5) Assistant Chief Windschitl explained that due to a vacancy in the Department (FF
Chandler) another name needed to be certified from the Firefighter eligibility register in
order to have three from which to choose. A motion was made by Commissioner
MacMillan, seconded by Commissioner Rhodes, to certify the next name on the
Firefighter eligibility register: Tim Smith. Motion carried unanimously.
6) In other business, Staff Liaison Fosse asked if the Commission would be open to seeing
recommended housekeeping changes to the Commission Rules and Regulations
document, as there may be opportunities to streamline some administrative practices.
After discussion, the Commission approved and asked Staff Liaison Fosse to do some
research and bring any recommended updates to a future meeting.
7) The Commissioners asked questions about how to fill a Fire Chief vacancy in the event
one should occur. General consensus was that the position is very important and that the
City should not leave such a position vacant for very long. Staff will notify the
Commission if a vacancy occurs and will bring to the Commission a recommended
hiring process in accordance with state statute.
8) The Commission adjourned at 9:03 a.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Ali Fosse
City Staff Liaison to the Fire Civil Service Commission
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: May 6, 2013
Minutes: 4o
FIRE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION MINUTES
April 10, 2013 – 7:30 a.m.
FIRE STATION 1 CONFERENCE ROOM
1) The meeting was called to order at 7:34 a.m. by Commissioner Lee.
2) In attendance were Commission President David Lee and Commissioners Bill
MacMillan and Jim Rhodes. Also present were Ali Fosse, Human Resources
Coordinator/Staff Liaison; Eric Curran-Bakken, Local 993 Union President; Luke
Stemmer, Fire Chief; Mark Windschitl and Rodger Coppa, Assistant Chiefs; and Nancy
Stroth, City Clerk.
3) A motion was made by Commissioner MacMillan, seconded by Commissioner Rhodes,
to approve the minutes of the March 12, 2013 meeting. Motion carried unanimously.
4) City Clerk Nancy Stroth administered the oath of office to the commissioners.
5) Assistant Chief Rodger Coppa presented the Firefighter recruitment process. There are 2
changes recommended to the process: Providing 2 points per year of service (to a max
of 10) for SLP POC service, and adding a pass/fail interview into the process.
Commissioner Rhodes asked that the process be amended to change “first cut” to “first
step” in numbers IV and V. A motion was made by Commissioner MacMillan, seconded
by Commissioner Rhodes, to approve the Firefighter recruitment process as amended.
Motion carried unanimously.
6) AC Coppa presented the Fire Captain promotional process. One change recommended is
to eliminate the 5 points given for “resume review” and add those points to the panel oral
interview weight. A motion was made by Commissioner Rhodes, seconded by
Commissioner MacMillan to approve the Fire Captain recruitment process. Discussion
followed regarding the timing of the process. Union President Bakken noted that the
union prefers that the process get started soon so that the list doesn’t expire. Other
considerations were to wait in case a new Chief wanted to change the process. The
intent of Fire Management is to begin the process as soon as administratively feasible.
Motion carried unanimously.
7) The next meeting will be held April 30 at 8:30 am at Fire Station 1, with City Manager
Tom Harmening bringing a recommended recruitment process for the position of Fire
Chief.
8) The Commission adjourned at 8:16 a.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Ali Fosse
City Staff Liaison to the Fire Civil Service Commission
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: May 6, 2013
Consent Agenda Item: 4p
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Vendor Claims
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to accept for filing Vendor Claims for the period April
6, 2013 through April 26, 2013.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
SUMMARY: The Finance Department prepares this report on a monthly basis for Council’s
review.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Vendor Claims
Prepared by: Connie Neubeck, Account Clerk
4/30/2013CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 12:48:30R55CKSUMLOG23000VO
1Page -Council Check Summary
4/26/2013 -4/6/2013
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
136.00SKATEBOARD PROGRAMS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES3RD LAIR SKATEPARK
136.00
101.90TREE MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIESA-1 OUTDOOR POWER INC
101.90
41.39HOUSING REHAB BALANCE SHEET CONTRACTS PAYABLEABELSON, SHARON
41.39
15.36WATER UTILITY G&A BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIESACE SUPPLY CO
15.36
304.00VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPSAEMP
304.00
143.00OPERATIONSOPERATIONAL SUPPLIESAIRGAS NORTH CENTRAL
143.00
950.00FACILITIES MCTE G & A WATER SERVICEALLIANCE MECH SRVCS INC
950.00
78.46POLICE G & A TELEPHONEAMERICAN MESSAGING
78.46
268.94PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYAMERICAN STATE EQUIPMENT CO
17.30-PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH DUE TO OTHER GOVTS
251.64
297.50OPERATIONSRADIO COMMUNICATIONSANCOM TECHNICAL CENTER
297.50
1,910.60INSTALLATIONOTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESANDERSEN INC, EARL
1,910.60
285.00COMM DEV PLANNING G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPSAPA
285.00
972.97GENERAL CUSTODIAL DUTIES OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESARAMARK UNIFORM CORP ACCTS
71.70ENTERPRISE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
1,044.67
120.36IT G & A OFFICE SUPPLIESARC
City Council Meeting of May 6, 2013 (Item No. 4p)
Title: Vendor Claims Page 2
4/30/2013CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 12:48:30R55CKSUMLOG23000VO
2Page -Council Check Summary
4/26/2013 -4/6/2013
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
548.49IT G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
668.85
85.60PRE-SCHOOL PROGRAMS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESART SPARK LLC
85.60
188.24PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYASPEN EQUIPMENT CO
188.24
1,145.18OPERATIONSOPERATIONAL SUPPLIESASPEN MILLS
1,145.18
40.00SOLID WASTE G&A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPSASSOC RECYCLING MANAGERS INC
40.00
216.51CELLPHONES, IPADS, ETC.OFFICE EQUIPMENTAT&T MOBILITY
216.51
152.50GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE BUILDING MTCE SERVICEATIR ELECTRIC CORPORATION
152.50
1,500.00ESCROWSPMC ESCROWATKINS, JOSHUA
1,500.00
64.33PUBLIC WORKS OPS G & A CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICEATOMIC RECYCLING
64.33VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICE
64.34SEWER UTILITY G&A CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICE
193.00
43.64PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYAUTO PLUS
43.64
20,291.29SEWER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICEAUTOMATIC SYSTEMS INC
20,291.29
539.53GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICEAUTOMOBILE SERVICE
539.53
11.75POLICE G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESBATTERIES PLUS
11.75
510.00COMMUNICATIONS/GV REIMBURSEABL TELEPHONEBCA MNJIS SECTION
City Council Meeting of May 6, 2013 (Item No. 4p)
Title: Vendor Claims Page 3
4/30/2013CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 12:48:30R55CKSUMLOG23000VO
3Page -Council Check Summary
4/26/2013 -4/6/2013
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
510.00
126.22-PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH DUE TO OTHER GOVTSBEACON ATHLETICS
936.22PARK GROUNDS MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES
1,026.00PARK GROUNDS MAINTENANCE OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
1,836.00
32.05PATCHING-PERMANENT EQUIPMENT PARTSBLUE TARP FINANCIAL INC
32.05
12,965.00PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESBOBS WOOD SPECIALTIES
12,965.00
53.44PARK EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESBOHN WELDING INC
53.44
204.92PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYBOYER TRUCK PARTS
204.92
251.78UNINSURED LOSS G&A UNINSURED LOSSBRIN NORTHWESTERN GLASS CO
251.78
640.00SUPERVISORYTRAININGBROOKLYN PARK POLICE DEPT
640.00
70.00INSPECTIONS G & A MECHANICALBURGESS, JOHN
70.00
500.00PERFORMING ARTS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESBURTIS, ROBERT
500.00
22,081.00OPERATIONSCLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SUPPLYCALGON CARBON CORP
22,081.00
83.88TREE MAINTENANCE OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESCAMDEN INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY
83.88
7,915.98ADMINISTRATION G & A LEGAL SERVICESCAMPBELL KNUTSON PROF ASSOC
304.00CABLE TV G & A LEGAL SERVICES
16.00EXCESS PUBLIC LAND LEGAL SERVICES
906.86STREET CAPITAL PROJ G & A LEGAL SERVICES
1,776.00REILLY G & A LEGAL SERVICES
City Council Meeting of May 6, 2013 (Item No. 4p)
Title: Vendor Claims Page 4
4/30/2013CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 12:48:30R55CKSUMLOG23000VO
4Page -Council Check Summary
4/26/2013 -4/6/2013
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
208.00SEWER UTILITY G&A LEGAL SERVICES
1,264.00SOLID WASTE G&A LEGAL SERVICES
12,390.84
386.88IT G & A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICECARTRIDGE CARE
386.88
294.34EMPLOYEE FLEX SPEND G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESCBIZ FINANCIAL SOLUTIONS INC
294.34
211.68ASSESSING G & A GENERAL SUPPLIESCDW GOVERNMENT INC
3,239.43TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT OFFICE EQUIPMENT
3,451.11
840.00CES Resid Energy Conservation OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESCENTER ENERGY & ENVIRONMENT
840.00
3,057.91FACILITY OPERATIONS HEATING GASCENTERPOINT ENERGY
1,050.43PARK MAINTENANCE G & A HEATING GAS
131.45WESTWOOD G & A HEATING GAS
219.99NATURALIST PROGRAMMER HEATING GAS
5,525.73WATER UTILITY G&A HEATING GAS
191.89REILLY G & A HEATING GAS
234.89SEWER UTILITY G&A ELECTRIC SERVICE
91.79SEWER UTILITY G&A HEATING GAS
10,504.08
7,055.61FACILITY OPERATIONS HEATING GASCENTERPOINT ENERGY SERVICES IN
5,253.49ENTERPRISE G & A HEATING GAS
12,309.10
10,200.00EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S OTHER RETIREMENTCENTRAL PENSION FUND
10,200.00
45.63E-911 PROGRAM TELEPHONECENTURY LINK
280.85CELLPHONES, IPADS, ETC.TELEPHONE
326.48
558.82WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICECERTIFIED PLUMBING INC
558.82
262.50GREEN REMODELING PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESCHAN, JOSEPH
City Council Meeting of May 6, 2013 (Item No. 4p)
Title: Vendor Claims Page 5
4/30/2013CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 12:48:30R55CKSUMLOG23000VO
5Page -Council Check Summary
4/26/2013 -4/6/2013
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
262.50
129.29FACILITIES MCTE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIESCINTAS CORPORATION
110.69FACILITIES MCTE G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
348.44VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES
588.42
116.87-GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET DUE TO OTHER GOVTSCITIZENS INDEPENDENT BANK
59.98GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET CLEARING ACCOUNT
135.00ADMINISTRATION G & A TRAINING
501.41ADMINISTRATION G & A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT
202.68ADMINISTRATION G & A MEETING EXPENSE
150.00HUMAN RESOURCES RECOGNITION
95.00HUMAN RESOURCES SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS
85.62HUMAN RESOURCES MEETING EXPENSE
903.00ASSESSING G & A TRAINING
255.00FINANCE G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS
120.00FINANCE G & A TRAVEL/MEETINGS
120.36FINANCE G & A MEETING EXPENSE
525.00COMM DEV PLANNING G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS
81.78COMM DEV PLANNING G & A TRAINING
12.81GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES
30.63OPERATIONSOFFICE SUPPLIES
402.10OPERATIONSGENERAL SUPPLIES
220.14OPERATIONSFIRE PREVENTION SUPPLIES
335.81OPERATIONSOPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
1,630.53OPERATIONSTRAINING
221.93-PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH DUE TO OTHER GOVTS
998.12SOCCERGENERAL SUPPLIES
998.12PARK MAINTENANCE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
94.70PARK MAINTENANCE G & A TRAINING
3.22REC CENTER BUILDING GENERAL SUPPLIES
40.55REC CENTER BUILDING EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE
1,373.93CONCESSIONSGENERAL SUPPLIES
14.00-CABLE TV BALANCE SHEET DUE TO OTHER GOVTS
217.69TV PRODUCTION GENERAL SUPPLIES
130.00TV PRODUCTION SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS
98.09PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT BUILDINGS & STRUCTURES
9,468.47
11.37-PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH DUE TO OTHER GOVTSCIVIC ENTERPRISES INC
176.72BEAUTIFICATION / FLOWERS GENERAL SUPPLIES
City Council Meeting of May 6, 2013 (Item No. 4p)
Title: Vendor Claims Page 6
4/30/2013CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 12:48:30R55CKSUMLOG23000VO
6Page -Council Check Summary
4/26/2013 -4/6/2013
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
165.35
19,019.15ADMINISTRATION G & A LEGAL SERVICESCOLICH & ASSOCIATES
19,019.15
166.95IT G & A DATACOMMUNICATIONSCOMCAST
4.52BUILDING MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE
163.80WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
82.41SEWER UTILITY G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
417.68
4,400.00COMMUNITY OUTREACH G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESCOMMUNITY MEDIATION SERVICES I
4,400.00
221.57MUNICIPAL BLDG IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDICONNEY SAFETY PRODUCTS
221.57
8,962.75GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESCOVERALL OF THE TWIN CITIES
8,962.75
4,771.97WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESDAKOTA SUPPLY GROUP
4,771.97
91.57GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIESDALCO ENTERPRISES INC
391.98REC CENTER BUILDING GENERAL SUPPLIES
483.55
46.64WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERSDAVIS, TIM
46.64
374.37WESTWOOD G & A CONCESSION SUPPLIESDELI DOUBLE
374.37
10,623.93EMPLOYEE FLEX SPEND G&A UNEMPLOYMENTDEPT EMPLOYMENT & ECONOMIC DEV
10,623.93
45.00GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE LICENSESDEPT LABOR & INDUSTRY
3,250.23INSPECTIONS G & A DUE TO OTHER GOVTS
3,295.23
1,500.00ESCROWSPMC ESCROWDESROCHERS, DANIEL & JULIE
1,500.00
City Council Meeting of May 6, 2013 (Item No. 4p)
Title: Vendor Claims Page 7
4/30/2013CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 12:48:30R55CKSUMLOG23000VO
7Page -Council Check Summary
4/26/2013 -4/6/2013
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
301.60ENTERPRISE G & A ADVERTISINGDEX MEDIA EAST LLC
301.60
217.61PARK GROUNDS MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIESDH ATHLETICS LLC
7,192.78PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
7,410.39
8,787.00REC CENTER BUILDING BUILDING MTCE SERVICEDJ ELECTRIC SERVICES INC
935.00ARENA MAINTENANCE BUILDING MTCE SERVICE
9,722.00
211.00HUMAN RESOURCES MEETING EXPENSEEDMAN, PERRY
211.00
338.51SEWER UTILITY G&A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICEELECTRIC PUMP INC
338.51
58.32PUBLIC WORKS G & A MEETING EXPENSEELLINGSON, JUDY
58.32
450.00ADMINISTRATION G & A TRAININGEMPLOYEE STRATEGIES INC
450.00
350.00IT G & A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICEENCORE BROKERS
350.00
7,326.32PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYENVIRONMENTAL EQUIPMENT & SERV
7,326.32
668.00PARK BUILDING MAINTENANCE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESEPIC SECURITY PROFESSIONALS IN
668.00
500.00PERFORMING ARTS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESEVERHART, GLEN
500.00
225.73PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYFACTORY MOTOR PARTS CO
225.73
257.09GENERAL REPAIR GENERAL SUPPLIESFASTENAL COMPANY
257.09
City Council Meeting of May 6, 2013 (Item No. 4p)
Title: Vendor Claims Page 8
4/30/2013CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 12:48:30R55CKSUMLOG23000VO
8Page -Council Check Summary
4/26/2013 -4/6/2013
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
162.45HUMAN RESOURCES RECRUITMENTFEDEX
162.45
32.16WESTWOOD G & A OFFICE SUPPLIESFEINBERG, GREG
32.16
259.56ICE RESURFACER MOTOR FUELSFERRELLGAS
259.56
7.30WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERSFINK, ANDREW
7.30
657.87OPERATIONSOPERATIONAL SUPPLIESFIRE EQUIPMENT SPECIALTIES INC
657.87
78.00INSPECTIONS G & A MECHANICALFIRESIDE HEARTH & HOME
78.00
425.00COMMUNICATIONS/GV REIMBURSEABL OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESFISCHLER & ASSOCIATES PA
425.00
1,138.22PARK EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESFLAGSHIP RECREATION LLC
1,138.22
71.36HUMAN RESOURCES MEETING EXPENSEFOSSE, ALI
71.36
471.00WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESFOTH INFRASTRUCTURE & ENVIRONM
6,840.00PE DESIGN IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
7,311.00
300.00PARK PAVILIONS REFUNDS & REIMBURSEMENTSFRICKE, RACHEL
300.00
329.96WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERSFRISHMAN, ARNIE
329.96
257.00WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERSGLOBAL CLOSING & TITLE SERVICE
257.00
4,034.21EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S LONG TERM CARE INSURGLTC PREMIUM PAYMENTS
4,034.21
City Council Meeting of May 6, 2013 (Item No. 4p)
Title: Vendor Claims Page 9
4/30/2013CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 12:48:30R55CKSUMLOG23000VO
9Page -Council Check Summary
4/26/2013 -4/6/2013
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
230.75WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICEGOPHER STATE ONE-CALL INC
230.75
41.35PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYGRAFIX SHOPPE
41.35
314.28GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIESGRAINGER INC, WW
133.81PUBLIC WORKS G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES
174.14PUBLIC WORKS OPS G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
33.94SWEEPINGEQUIPMENT PARTS
131.03ROUTINE MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT PARTS
206.58VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES
174.13WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES
1,167.91
428.13GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIESGRAYBAR ELECTRIC CO
428.13
170.00INSPECTIONS G & A CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCEGUSTAFSON, LISA
170.00
250.00PERFORMING ARTS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESHALL, MARY
250.00
3,500.00PERFORMING ARTS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESHALLQUIST, WILLIAM
3,500.00
10,955.28WATER UTILITY G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIESHAWKINS INC
10,955.28
2,273.70POLICE G & A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICEHENNEPIN COUNTY INFO TECH
803.90OPERATIONSRADIO COMMUNICATIONS
277.30OPERATIONSEMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS
3,354.90
534.38IT G & A COMPUTER SERVICESHENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER
860.55POLICE G & A SUBSISTENCE SERVICE
8,894.08PARK MAINTENANCE G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
2,700.00PARK IMPROVEMENT G & A PAYMENT IN LIEU OF TAXES
2,223.52WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
2,223.52SEWER UTILITY G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
City Council Meeting of May 6, 2013 (Item No. 4p)
Title: Vendor Claims Page 10
4/30/2013CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 12:48:30R55CKSUMLOG23000VO
10Page -Council Check Summary
4/26/2013 -4/6/2013
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
4,447.04STORM WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
21,883.09
1,730.84MUNICIPAL BLDG OTHERHENRICKSEN PSG
1,730.84
1,500.00IT G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESHEYER SOLUTIONS
1,500.00
1,366.73WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICEHIGHVIEW PLUMBING INC
1,995.00SEWER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE
3,361.73
175.00PERFORMING ARTS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESHINDING, CHRIS
175.00
244.20PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT BUILDINGS & STRUCTURESHOLDAHL COMPANY
244.20
1,100.00-PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH DUE TO OTHER GOVTSHOLLYWOOD PYROTECHNICS INC
17,100.00HOLIDAY PROGRAMS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
16,000.00
741.22GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIESHOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES
136.74DAMAGE REPAIR SMALL TOOLS
40.83PARK EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES
49.53PARK EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
149.03TREE MAINTENANCE LANDSCAPING MATERIALS
53.76GENERAL REPAIR GENERAL SUPPLIES
951.56PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT BUILDINGS & STRUCTURES
45.78WATER UTILITY G&A BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES
2,168.45
17.13WESTWOOD G & A SMALL TOOLSHOME DEPOT CREDIT SRVCS
165.12PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
182.25
3,966.88UNINSURED LOSS G&A UNINSURED LOSSHOPKINS AUTO BODY INC
3,966.88
150.00VOLLEYBALLOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESHOWES, JENNIFER
150.00
City Council Meeting of May 6, 2013 (Item No. 4p)
Title: Vendor Claims Page 11
4/30/2013CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 12:48:30R55CKSUMLOG23000VO
11Page -Council Check Summary
4/26/2013 -4/6/2013
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
1,450.00PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDIHRGREEN
600.00TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT POLICE EQUIPMENT
2,050.00
1,652.60EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S UNION DUESI.U.O.E. LOCAL NO 49
1,652.60
2,748.00HUMAN RESOURCES RECRUITMENTI/O SOLUTIONS INC
2,748.00
475.00HUMAN RESOURCES RECRUITMENTIFP TEST SERVICES
475.00
558.59WATER UTILITY G&A POSTAGEIMPACT PROVEN SOLUTIONS
558.59SEWER UTILITY G&A POSTAGE
558.59SOLID WASTE COLLECTIONS POSTAGE
558.59STORM WATER UTILITY G&A POSTAGE
2,234.36
116.71PARK EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIESINDELCO
28.26REC CENTER BUILDING GENERAL SUPPLIES
144.97
2,486.18IT G & A TELEPHONEINTEGRA TELECOM
2,486.18
224.44POLICE G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIESINTOXIMETERS INC
224.44
315.04PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYINVER GROVE FORD
315.04
717.11PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYI-STATE TRUCK CENTER
717.11
150.00GREEN REMODELING PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESJACOBSON, RICHARD
150.00
13.26PARK MAINTENANCE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIESJERRY'S HARDWARE
6.69IRRIGATION MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES
10.56PARK EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES
City Council Meeting of May 6, 2013 (Item No. 4p)
Title: Vendor Claims Page 12
4/30/2013CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 12:48:30R55CKSUMLOG23000VO
12Page -Council Check Summary
4/26/2013 -4/6/2013
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
7.67GENERAL REPAIR GENERAL SUPPLIES
240.72PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT BUILDINGS & STRUCTURES
134.64SEWER UTILITY G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES
413.54
2,300.00HUMAN RESOURCES RECRUITMENTJOBSINMINNEAPOLIS.COM
2,300.00
4,900.22PARK GROUNDS MAINTENANCE OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESJRK SEED & SURG SUPPLY
4,900.22
400.00GREEN REMODELING PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESKAMP, KENDALL
400.00
276.92EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S WAGE GARNISHMENTSKELLER, JASMINE Z
276.92
198.00ESCROWSDuke Realty - West EndKENNEDY & GRAVEN
1,371.20ESCROWS
60.00ADMINISTRATION G & A LEGAL SERVICES
1,629.20
338.50WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERSKERR, MICHAEL
338.50
450.00PERFORMING ARTS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESKJELLSEN, MARY
450.00
56.64WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERSKOPISCHKE, BRENT
56.64
21,929.89MUNICIPAL BLDG IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDIKRECH, O'BRIEN, MUELLER & WASS
21,929.89
1,416.56ARENA MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIESKRISS PREMIUM PRODUCTS INC
1,416.56
500.00PERFORMING ARTS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESKROOG, RACHAEL
500.00
265.87HOUSING REHAB BALANCE SHEET CONTRACTS PAYABLEKRUSE, JENNIFER
265.87
City Council Meeting of May 6, 2013 (Item No. 4p)
Title: Vendor Claims Page 13
4/30/2013CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 12:48:30R55CKSUMLOG23000VO
13Page -Council Check Summary
4/26/2013 -4/6/2013
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
74.81WATER UTILITY G&A EQUIPMENT PARTSLARSCO INC
74.81
47.33SYSTEM REPAIR OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESLARSON, JH CO
47.33
2,295.00EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S UNION DUESLAW ENFORCEMENT LABOR SERVICES
2,295.00
208.15GENERAL REPAIR GENERAL SUPPLIESLAWSON PRODUCTS INC
208.15
590.00ADMINISTRATION G & A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTATLEAGUE OF MN CITIES
99.00INSPECTIONS G & A TRAINING
689.00
7,152.00EMPLOYEE FLEX SPEND G&A League of MN Cities dept'l expLEAGUE OF MN CITIES INSURANCE
7,152.00
200.00GREEN REMODELING PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESLEWIS, URIEL
200.00
52.55WESTWOOD G & A GENERAL SUPPLIESLINDOR, CJ
52.55
1,225.05PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYLITTLE FALLS MACHINE INC
1,225.05
41,078.03IT G & A COMPUTER SERVICESLOGIS
32,355.81TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT OFFICE EQUIPMENT
73,433.84
850.00ERUTRAININGLOUKA LLC
850.00
625.00PERFORMING ARTS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESM B MUSIC INC
625.00
129.85PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYMACQUEEN EQUIP CO
129.85
City Council Meeting of May 6, 2013 (Item No. 4p)
Title: Vendor Claims Page 14
4/30/2013CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 12:48:30R55CKSUMLOG23000VO
14Page -Council Check Summary
4/26/2013 -4/6/2013
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
381.20ATHLETIC CAMPS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESMALONE, DANIEL
381.20
269.68GRANTSGENERAL SUPPLIESMARS CO, W P & R S
269.68
350.00PERFORMING ARTS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESMARSHALL, ADAM
350.00
37.52TV PRODUCTION GENERAL SUPPLIESMCHUGH, JOHN T
340.09TV PRODUCTION NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT
377.61
228.52IRRIGATION MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIESMENARDS
39.55BRICK HOUSE (1324)OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
83.43WW RENTAL HOUSE (1322)OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
51.24REFORESTATIONOTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
301.19WESTWOOD G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
8.00SCHOOL GROUPS GENERAL SUPPLIES
243.41PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT BUILDINGS & STRUCTURES
42.73SEWER UTILITY G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES
998.07
1,088.48POLICE G & A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICEMETRO SALES INC
1,088.48
456.00VOLLEYBALLOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESMETRO VOLLEYBALL OFFICIALS
456.00
14,063.20REILLY BUDGET CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICEMETROPOLITAN COUNCIL
316,652.43OPERATIONSCLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICE
330,715.63
276.81POLICE G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESMID AMERICA BUSINESS SYSTEMS
276.81
878.12STORM WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICEMIDWEST ASPHALT CORP
878.12
555.82OPERATIONSOPERATIONAL SUPPLIESMIDWEST BADGE & NOVELTY CO
555.82
City Council Meeting of May 6, 2013 (Item No. 4p)
Title: Vendor Claims Page 15
4/30/2013CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 12:48:30R55CKSUMLOG23000VO
15Page -Council Check Summary
4/26/2013 -4/6/2013
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
56.30INSPECTIONS G & A ELECTRICALMIDWEST MAINTENANCE & MECH INC
56.30
2,204.50WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESMIDWEST TESTING LLC
2,204.50
1,000.00ESCROWSPMC ESCROWMIESEN, JACOB & RACHEL
1,000.00
555.30PAWN FEES OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESMINNEAPOLIS FINANCE DEPT
555.30
48.00FACILITIES MCTE G & A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICEMINNEAPOLIS WINDOW SHADE CO
48.00
49.74OPERATIONSGENERAL SUPPLIESMINNESOTA CONWAY
49.74
50.00REILLY BUDGET LICENSESMINNESOTA DEPT HEALTH
50.00
200.00GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESMINNESOTA DEPT LABOR & INDUSTR
200.00
150.00PE INVES/REVIEW/PERMITS IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDIMINNESOTA DEPT OF HEALTH
150.00
430.00ASSESSING G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPSMINNESOTA STATE BOARD OF ASSES
430.00
299.38SUPPORT SERVICES G&A OFFICE SUPPLIESMINUTEMAN PRESS
299.38
1,562.50PE INVEST/REVIEW/PER GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESMPCA
125.00CE INSPECTION GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
1,687.50
2,181.11FABRICATIONOTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESM-R SIGN CO INC
2,181.11
1,295.00HUMAN RESOURCES SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPSMRA-THE MANAGEMENT ASSOC
1,295.00
City Council Meeting of May 6, 2013 (Item No. 4p)
Title: Vendor Claims Page 16
4/30/2013CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 12:48:30R55CKSUMLOG23000VO
16Page -Council Check Summary
4/26/2013 -4/6/2013
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
265.00REILLY BUDGET OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESMVTL LABORATORIES
265.00
63.45OPERATIONSGENERAL SUPPLIESNAPA (GENUINE PARTS CO)
189.60DAMAGE REPAIR SMALL TOOLS
605.39PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORY
9.60PARK MAINTENANCE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
74.79PARK GROUNDS MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES
183.17GRANTSGENERAL SUPPLIES
117.82ARENA MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES
302.13GENERAL REPAIR GENERAL SUPPLIES
15.00WATER UTILITY G&A EQUIPMENT PARTS
1,560.95
1,733.00SSD 1 G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESNATURAL REFLECTIONS VII LLC
1,850.00SSD 2 G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
525.00SSD 3 G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
645.75SSD #5 G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
4,753.75
65,801.00TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT MACHINERY & AUTO EQUIPMENTNEXGEN UTILITY MANAGEMENT
65,801.00
7,231.14CELLPHONES, IPADS, ETC.OFFICE EQUIPMENTNEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS
7,231.14
28,763.47SANDING/SALTING OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESNORTH AMERICAN SALT CO
28,763.47
289.16REFORESTATIONLANDSCAPING MATERIALSNORTH CENTRAL REFORESTATION IN
289.16
45.00HUMAN RESOURCES TRAININGNORTHSTAR CHAPTER APA
45.00
500.00POLICE G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESOAK KNOLL ANIMAL HOSPITAL
500.00
69.50WESTWOOD G & A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAROESTREICH, MARK
69.50
City Council Meeting of May 6, 2013 (Item No. 4p)
Title: Vendor Claims Page 17
4/30/2013CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 12:48:30R55CKSUMLOG23000VO
17Page -Council Check Summary
4/26/2013 -4/6/2013
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
65.67GENERAL INFORMATION OFFICE SUPPLIESOFFICE DEPOT
155.01POLICE G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES
109.98POLICE G & A COMPUTER SUPPLIES
159.82INSPECTIONS G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
69.95PUBLIC WORKS G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES
79.65ORGANIZED REC G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES
54.13WESTWOOD G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES
7.93HOUSING REHAB G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES
702.14
2,613.55INSPECTIONS G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESOFFICE TEAM
2,613.55
1,150.00PERFORMING ARTS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESOKEE DOKEE BROTHERS
1,150.00
94.71PATCHING-PERMANENT EQUIPMENT PARTSOLSEN CHAIN & CABLE CO INC
94.71
327.50EMPLOYEE FLEX SPEND G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESOPTUM HEALTH
327.50
2,500.00ESCROWSDEMO / BROOKSIDE TRAFFICOTTING HOUSE MOVERS
2,500.00
41.14WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERSPAPAS, JOHN
41.14
405.90PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYPARK JEEP
405.90
400.00PERFORMING ARTS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESPARK THEATER COMPANY
400.00
7,000.00COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIPS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESPARKTACULAR
7,000.00
45.63HALLOWEEN PARTY GENERAL SUPPLIESPATRICK, MICHEAL
45.63
230.93WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERSPAULSON, CAROLYN
230.93
City Council Meeting of May 6, 2013 (Item No. 4p)
Title: Vendor Claims Page 18
4/30/2013CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 12:48:30R55CKSUMLOG23000VO
18Page -Council Check Summary
4/26/2013 -4/6/2013
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
39.17ENGINEERING G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIESPECCHIA, TOM
39.17
21.18COMMUNITY OUTREACH G & A MEETING EXPENSEPETTY CASH
7.00POLICE G & A TRAVEL/MEETINGS
11.00VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A LICENSES
39.18
706.90PARK GROUNDS MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIESPIONEER MANUFACTURING CO
706.90
94.26PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYPIONEER RIM & WHEEL CO
94.26
350.00PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT BUILDINGS & STRUCTURESPLYMOUTH DRYWALL
350.00
119.59PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYPOMP'S TIRE SERVICE INC
119.59
362.00PARK MAINTENANCE G & A TELEPHONEPOPP.COM INC
362.00
1,080.00POLICE G & A LICENSESPOST BOARD
1,080.00
40.43-GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET DUE TO OTHER GOVTSPOTTERS INDUSTRIES INC
628.43PAINTINGOTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
588.00
791.94TREE DISEASE PUBLIC CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICEPRECISION LANDSCAPE & TREE
791.94
144.00ARENA MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICEPRINTERS SERVICE INC
144.00
1,056.00DIAL-A-RIDE PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESPRISM EXPRESS MANAGER
1,056.00
66.40PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYQUEST ENGINEERING INC
66.40
City Council Meeting of May 6, 2013 (Item No. 4p)
Title: Vendor Claims Page 19
4/30/2013CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 12:48:30R55CKSUMLOG23000VO
19Page -Council Check Summary
4/26/2013 -4/6/2013
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
120.00FAMILY PROGRAMS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESRAINBOW PARTY ARTS
120.00
629.65PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT BUILDINGS & STRUCTURESRANDY'S SANITATION INC
629.65
17.36PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYRDO EQUIPMENT CO
17.36
5,096.25COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIPS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESREACH FOR RESOURCES INC
5,096.25
424.85WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERSREAL FIC REALTY INC
424.85
129.21POLICE G & A OFFICE SUPPLIESREGENCY OFFICE PRODUCTS LLC
26.70POLICE G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
51.50POLICE G & A COMPUTER SUPPLIES
207.41
80.00PARK PAVILIONS REFUNDS & REIMBURSEMENTSREITZEL, KELLI
80.00
340.00PERFORMING ARTS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESREOPELLE, PETER
340.00
191.52GENERAL REPAIR GENERAL SUPPLIESRHOMAR INDUSTRIES INC
191.52
27.09PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYRIGID HITCH INC
27.09
1,913.06WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICEROBARGE ENTERPRISES INC
1,913.06
18.24WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERSROBILLIARD, KATHY
18.24
2,500.00HUMAN RESOURCES ORGANIZATIONAL DEVELOPMENTROG, MARGARET
2,500.00
City Council Meeting of May 6, 2013 (Item No. 4p)
Title: Vendor Claims Page 20
4/30/2013CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 12:48:30R55CKSUMLOG23000VO
20Page -Council Check Summary
4/26/2013 -4/6/2013
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
199.45ORGANIZED REC G & A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CARROSA, NATE
199.45
136,219.00PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYROSENBAUER SOUTH DAKOTA LLC
136,219.00
39.77WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERSROSENBLUM, IRVING
39.77
254.00ADMINISTRATION G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPSROTARY CLUB OF SLP
85.00POLICE G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS
181.00POLICE G & A MEETING EXPENSE
520.00
2,000.00NEIGHBORHOOD PUBLIC ART OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESSABES JEWISH COMMUNITY CENTER
2,000.00
315.00POLICE G & A TRAININGSAFARILAND TRAINING GROUP
315.00
225.00MOVE-UP PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESSALA ARCHITECTS INC
225.00
63.86OPERATIONSGENERAL SUPPLIESSAM'S CLUB
414.47HOLIDAY PROGRAMS GENERAL SUPPLIES
478.33
540.57REC CENTER BUILDING GENERAL SUPPLIESSCAN AIR FILTER INC
540.57
132.06HUMAN RESOURCES RECOGNITIONSCHAAKE COMPANY, AJ
132.06
80.00POLICE G & A LICENSESSECRETARY OF STATE
80.00
1,481.48SEWER UTILITY G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESSEH
1,481.48
55.99PARK GROUNDS MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIESSHERWIN WILLIAMS
55.99
City Council Meeting of May 6, 2013 (Item No. 4p)
Title: Vendor Claims Page 21
4/30/2013CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 12:48:30R55CKSUMLOG23000VO
21Page -Council Check Summary
4/26/2013 -4/6/2013
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
52,512.19TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT OFFICE EQUIPMENTSHI INTERNATIONAL CORP
52,512.19
10.00ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESSHRED-IT USA MINNEAPOLIS
10.00FINANCE G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
50.00POLICE G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
10.00INSPECTIONS G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
10.00WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
90.00
2,413.24GO BONDS-FIRE STATIONS G&A BUILDINGS & STRUCTURESSIGN PRODUCERS INC
2,413.24
418.00REC CENTER BUILDING BUILDING MTCE SERVICESIGNATURE MECHANICAL INC
8,189.00PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT BUILDINGS & STRUCTURES
8,607.00
1,372.80EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S UNION DUESSLP FF ASSOC IAFF LOCAL #993
1,372.80
900.00PERFORMING ARTS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESSMITHSON, EVERETT
900.00
580.98VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A SMALL TOOLSSNAP-ON INDUSTRIAL
580.98
2,070.00WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESSOURCE WATER SOLUTIONS LLC
2,070.00
1,661.00OPERATIONSTRAININGSPRING LAKE PARK FIRE DEPARTME
1,661.00
1,399.92IT G & A DATACOMMUNICATIONSSPRINT
1,399.92
1,890.62PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDIST CROIX REC CO
1,890.62
300.00PERFORMING ARTS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESST LOUIS PARK COMMUNITY BAND
300.00
28,314.58ICE RENTAL NON-TAXABLE RENT REVENUEST LOUIS PARK HOCKEY ASSOCIATI
City Council Meeting of May 6, 2013 (Item No. 4p)
Title: Vendor Claims Page 22
4/30/2013CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 12:48:30R55CKSUMLOG23000VO
22Page -Council Check Summary
4/26/2013 -4/6/2013
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
28,314.58
516.00PATROLTRAININGST PAUL POLICE PROF DEV INSTIT
516.00
216.00HUMAN RESOURCES CITEST PAUL SAINTS
216.00
248.29PATCHING-PERMANENT OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESST PAUL, CITY OF
248.29
188.73FACILITIES MCTE G & A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICESTANLEY ACCESS TECH LLC
188.73
177.52PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYSTONEBROOKE EQUIPMENT INC
177.52
37.40PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYSTREICHER'S
128.24SEWER UTILITY G&A SMALL TOOLS
165.64
36.00INSPECTIONS G & A ELECTRICALSUBURBAN ELECTRIC INC
36.00
27.98PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYSUBURBAN GM PARTS
27.98
95.67ADMINISTRATION G & A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTATSULLIVAN, JACK
95.67
8,920.00REILLY BUDGET GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESSUMMIT ENVIROSOLUTIONS INC
8,920.00
2,002.23PARK GROUNDS MAINTENANCE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESSUMMIT FIRE PROTECTION
2,002.23
409.20ADMINISTRATION G & A LEGAL NOTICESSUN NEWSPAPERS
438.42PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT G&A LEGAL NOTICES
222.50MUNICIPAL BLDG IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
1,070.12
4,200.00PERFORMING ARTS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESSWENSON, STEVEN
City Council Meeting of May 6, 2013 (Item No. 4p)
Title: Vendor Claims Page 23
4/30/2013CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 12:48:30R55CKSUMLOG23000VO
23Page -Council Check Summary
4/26/2013 -4/6/2013
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
4,200.00
27.04PARK EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIESTARPS INC
27.04
5,750.41SEWER UTILITY G&A OTHERTECH SALES COMPANY
5,750.41
25.00FACILITY ROOM RENTAL RENT REVENUETECHNICAL TOOL PRODUCTS
25.00
95.46ADMINISTRATION G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESTELELANGUAGE INC
95.46
2,979.15EMPLOYEE FLEX SPEND G&A LONG TERM DISABILITYTHE HARTFORD - PRIORITY ACCOUN
2,979.15
200.00GREEN REMODELING PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESTHOMPSON, JOHN
200.00
126.00POLICE G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESTHOMSON REUTERS WEST PAYMENT C
126.00
418.22WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERSTHORUD, LOWELL
418.22
768.03REC CENTER BUILDING BUILDING MTCE SERVICETHYSSENKRUPP ELEVATOR
768.03
680.58ADMINISTRATION G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESTIMESAVER OFF SITE SECRETARIAL
680.58
5,000.00ESCROWSPMC ESCROWTINDALL, JAMES
5,000.00
120.39PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYTRI STATE BOBCAT
120.39
47.29PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYTRUCK UTILITIES MFG CO
47.29
25.65PARK MAINTENANCE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIESTWIN CITY HARDWARE
City Council Meeting of May 6, 2013 (Item No. 4p)
Title: Vendor Claims Page 24
4/30/2013CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 12:48:30R55CKSUMLOG23000VO
24Page -Council Check Summary
4/26/2013 -4/6/2013
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
25.65
2,521.76SNOW PLOWING OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESTWIN CITY OUTDOOR SERVICES INC
9,360.00SSD 1 G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
3,334.00SSD 3 G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
15,215.76
386.19FACILITIES MCTE G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESUHL CO INC
386.19
748.60SUPERVISORYOPERATIONAL SUPPLIESUNIFORMS UNLIMITED (PD)
261.99PATROLOPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
1,010.59
150.00EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S WAGE GARNISHMENTSUNITED STATES TREASURY
150.00
234.00EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S UNITED WAYUNITED WAY OF MINNEAPOLIS AREA
234.00
691.00HUMAN RESOURCES RECRUITMENTUS HEALTH WORKS MEDICAL GROUP
691.00
257.90HUMAN RESOURCES RECOGNITIONVAIL, LORI
257.90
14,340.44WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICEVALLEY-RICH CO INC
14,340.44
850.00HUMAN RESOURCES GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESVAN IWAARDEN ASSOCIATES
850.00
74.18COMMUNICATIONS/GV REIMBURSEABL TELEPHONEVERIZON WIRELESS
74.18
96.06SWEEPINGEQUIPMENT PARTSVIKING INDUSTRIAL CTR
359.51WATER UTILITY G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
455.57
17.57WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERSVORACEK, GRACE
17.57
City Council Meeting of May 6, 2013 (Item No. 4p)
Title: Vendor Claims Page 25
4/30/2013CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 12:48:30R55CKSUMLOG23000VO
25Page -Council Check Summary
4/26/2013 -4/6/2013
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
215.42COMM DEV PLANNING G & A TRAININGWALTHER, SEAN
215.42
590.83PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDIWASTE MANAGEMENT OF WI-MN
6,144.56SOLID WASTE COLLECTIONS MOTOR FUELS
61,919.10SOLID WASTE COLLECTIONS GARBAGE/REFUSE SERVICE
25,860.33SOLID WASTE COLLECTIONS YARD WASTE SERVICE
26,532.44SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL GARBAGE/REFUSE SERVICE
121,047.26
203.88INSTALLATIONOTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESWAYTEK
25.52PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORY
35.24GENERAL REPAIR GENERAL SUPPLIES
264.64
4,304.33WATER UTILITY G&A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICEWEBER ELECTRIC
4,304.33
800.50OPERATIONSTRAININGWENCK ASSOCIATES INC
800.50
193.57PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYWERNER ELECTRIC SUPPLY
193.57
707.34GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIESWHEELER HARDWARE
3,138.56REC CENTER BUILDING BUILDING MTCE SERVICE
1,360.00AQUATIC PARK MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE
1,698.28UNINSURED LOSS G&A UNINSURED LOSS
6,904.18
1,800.00SEWER UTILITY G&A TRAININGWHITE ROCK CONSULTANTS
1,800.00
14,932.94GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE ELECTRIC SERVICEXCEL ENERGY
24.87OPERATIONSEMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS
29,157.60PUBLIC WORKS OPS G & A ELECTRIC SERVICE
3,396.00PARK MAINTENANCE G & A ELECTRIC SERVICE
31.21BRICK HOUSE (1324)ELECTRIC SERVICE
60.27WW RENTAL HOUSE (1322)ELECTRIC SERVICE
425.46WESTWOOD G & A ELECTRIC SERVICE
13,675.67ENTERPRISE G & A ELECTRIC SERVICE
24,245.44WATER UTILITY G&A ELECTRIC SERVICE
City Council Meeting of May 6, 2013 (Item No. 4p)
Title: Vendor Claims Page 26
4/30/2013CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 12:48:30R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
26Page -Council Check Summary
4/26/2013 -4/6/2013
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
1,932.50REILLY BUDGET ELECTRIC SERVICE
3,656.72SEWER UTILITY G&A ELECTRIC SERVICE
1,884.05STORM WATER UTILITY G&A ELECTRIC SERVICE
248.80OPERATIONSELECTRIC SERVICE
93,671.53
29,798.44PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYYOCUM OIL CO INC
29,798.44
32.02WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERSYOUNG, BARBARA
32.02
147.82NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION GRANT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESZANDER, LOIS
147.82
443.42PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYZIEGLER INC
1,240.53GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE
1,683.95
185.66ORGANIZED REC G & A PRINTING & PUBLISHINGZIP PRINTING
185.66
Report Totals 1,496,734.83
City Council Meeting of May 6, 2013 (Item No. 4p)
Title: Vendor Claims Page 27
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: May 6, 2013
Public Hearing Agenda Item: 6a
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Establishment of the Eliot Park Tax Increment Financing District and Related TIF Plan
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Conduct Public Hearing and Adopt Resolution establishing the
Eliot Park Tax Increment Financing District within Redevelopment Project No. 1 and approving
the related TIF Plan.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the City Council support the establishment of the Eliot
Park Tax Increment Financing District to facilitate the construction of a housing development at
6800 and 6720 Cedar Lake Road?
(The EDA will have considered the above action earlier in the evening.)
SUMMARY: Hunt Associates’ application for Tax Increment Financing (TIF) assistance in
connection with the redevelopment of 6800 and 6720 Cedar Lake Road (former Eliot School
property) was reviewed at the February 25th Study Session where it received consensus support.
Constructing the proposed Eliot Park project is not economically feasible without some financial
assistance. At its March 18th meeting, the City Council set a public hearing date of May 6, 2013
for consideration of the proposed Eliot Park Redevelopment TIF District. It is now time to take
the final step in the TIF process which is to formally authorize the creation of the TIF district.
Such authorization enables the EDA to use tax increment generated from the proposed Eliot Park
project to Hunt Associates as reimbursement for qualified costs incurred in the construction of
the proposed project.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Authorizing the establishment of the Eliot
Park TIF District does not, in itself, commit the City to any specific level of financial assistance
for the proposed project. Procedurally, it simply creates the funding vehicle to reimburse the
Redeveloper for a portion of its qualified project costs. The terms and amount of TIF assistance
are specified within the Redevelopment Contract with Eliot Park Apartments, LLC which is
scheduled for consideration May 20th.
VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to providing a well-maintained and
diverse housing stock.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion
Resolution
Hennepin County Memo - Redevelopment TIF District -
Eliot Park
Overview & Eliot Park TIF Plan (see EDA staff report)
Prepared by: Greg Hunt, Economic Development Coordinator
Reviewed by: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Nancy Deno, EDA Deputy Executive Director/Deputy City Manager
City Council Meeting of May 6, 2013 (Item No. 6a) Page 2
Title: Establishment of the Eliot Park Tax Increment Financing District and Related TIF Plan
DISCUSSION
BACKGROUND: Hunt Associates has a purchase agreement with Independent School District
283 to acquire the former Eliot School property (located at 6800 and 6720 Cedar Lake Road) for
$2,075,000. The firm proposes to raze the existing school building and construct a $25 million
residential development on the site consisting of 138 market rate apartment units (distributed
between two buildings) and two single family homes. Both apartment buildings would be
staggered in height with two and three stories so as to blend into the surrounding single family
neighborhood and would feature structured underground parking. The proposed single family
home lots at the north end of the site would be sold to a different development group. The
proposed site plan includes areas for a stormwater pond; sidewalks; landscaping; and small
children’s play area.
Request for Tax Increment Assistance
In order to pursue this project Hunt Associates applied for tax increment assistance from the
EDA to offset a portion of the extraordinary costs of redeveloping the site such as hazardous
waste abatement within the former school building, demolition and constructing Eliot Park in
conformance with the Eliot Community Center Site Reuse Study / Design Guidelines.
Hunt Associates’ preliminary sources and uses statements, cash flow projections, and investor
rate of return (ROR) related to Eliot Park were reviewed by Staff and Ehlers & Associates. The
estimates were found to be reasonable and within industry standards for this type of
redevelopment. It was also concluded that constructing Eliot Park inclusive of the extraordinary
site and building costs noted above was not economically feasible without some financial
assistance from the EDA.
Upon analysis by Ehlers and Staff, and discussion with Hunt Associates, it was determined that
$1.1 million in tax increment assistance would allow the project to move forward. Providing
assistance makes it possible to construct a high quality housing development on a former tax
exempt property. This proposed amount is consistent with other similar sized multi-family
residential developments the EDA has previously assisted.
The EDA’s participation would leverage approximately $25 million in new investment. The
ratio of private to public investment in the project is $23 to $1. As a percentage of total project
cost the requested amount of financial assistance is approximately 4%.
Upon project completion, tax increment generated from the increased value of the property
would be provided to Hunt Associates on a "pay-as-you -go" basis, which is the preferred
financing method under the City's TIF Policy. Eliot Park meets the requirements of a
Redevelopment TIF District (25 year TIF District). Under such a TIF district, the proposed
project would generate the requested $1.1 million in approximately 6.5 years.
TIF District Approvals
The EDA/City Council reviewed Hunt Associates’ TIF application at the February 25th Study
Session. Following discussion there was consensus support for favorably considering the project
and the Redeveloper’s request for financial assistance. As a result, staff was directed to call for a
public hearing on the proposed TIF district and to begin drafting a formal redevelopment
contract with Hunt Associates.
City Council Meeting of May 6, 2013 (Item No. 6a) Page 3
Title: Establishment of the Eliot Park Tax Increment Financing District and Related TIF Plan
At its March 18th meeting, the City Council set a public hearing date of May 6, 2013 for
consideration of the proposed Eliot Park Redevelopment TIF District.
The Planning Commission reviewed the Eliot Park Tax Increment Financing Plan on April 17th, as
required by the TIF Act, and determined it was in conformance with the City’s Comprehensive Plan.
A report on the potential business terms that would serve as the basis for a development contract
with Hunt Associates was submitted at the April 22nd Study Session.
Synopsis of the Proposed TIF District
In order to provide the Redeveloper with the proposed financial assistance a new redevelopment
TIF district must be established. The proposed Eliot Park TIF District consists of two parcels:
6800 and 6720 Cedar Lake Road. Attached is an Overview which summarizes the basic
elements of the proposed TIF District. Details of the proposed TIF District may be found in the
attached Eliot Park TIF District Plan. Both the Overview and TIF Plan were prepared by the
EDA’s TIF consultant, Ehlers & Associates. In a general sense, TIF plans may be viewed as
enabling legislation. They establish the proposed TIF district’s classification, geographic
boundaries, maximum duration, maximum budget authority for tax increment revenues and
expenditures, fiscal disparities election as well as estimated impact on various taxing
jurisdictions along with findings which statutorily qualify the district. The specific mutual
obligations between the EDA and the Redeveloper as well as the precise terms of the financial
assistance are contained in the separate Contract for Private Redevelopment between the parties
(to be considered May 20th). Both the TIF Plan and the Redevelopment Contract need to be
approved in order for economic development or redevelopment projects involving tax increment
to proceed.
The proposed Eliot Park TIF District is within the city’s Redevelopment Project Area as is
statutorily required. Inclusion of the proposed project within a designated Redevelopment
Project Area gives the EDA/Council the authority to assist with all the redevelopment actions
necessary to implement the Eliot Park project.
Duration of the District
Under the TIF Act, the duration of redevelopment districts is up to 25 years after receipt of the
first increment by the City (a total of 26 years of tax increment). The date of receipt by the City
of the first tax increment is expected to be either 2015 or 2016. Thus, the full term of the district
is estimated to terminate in 2040 or 2041. The EDA and City have the right to decertify the
District prior to the legally required date. As previously indicated, the City’s expressed
obligations to the Redeveloper will likely be satisfied in less than 6.5 years. Soon thereafter, the
City would likely terminate the district.
TIF District Budget
It should be noted that the financing uses and project costs reflected within the Uses of Funds
(Section 2-10) of the proposed TIF Plan is a not-to-exceed budget and not the actual expected
project budget.
Fiscal Disparities Election
The proposed development will not contain any commercial or industrial property therefore the
TIF District is exempt from the fiscal disparities calculation. However, because it is a
redevelopment TIF district the City/EDA is required to make a fiscal disparities election within
City Council Meeting of May 6, 2013 (Item No. 6a) Page 4
Title: Establishment of the Eliot Park Tax Increment Financing District and Related TIF Plan
the TIF Plan. Thus, the TIF Plan states that the Eliot Park TIF District will contribute to fiscal
disparities (as opposed to the tax base of the City making the contribution). This is consistent
with the City’s TIF Policy and past practice.
Feasibility of the Eliot Park TIF District
Last fall, LHB, Inc. was retained to conduct a state-required inspection to determine if the
proposed project site qualified as a redevelopment TIF district. LHB’s Report of Inspection
Procedures and Results for Determining Qualifications Of A Tax Increment Financing
District As A Redevelopment District: Eliot Park District, St. Louis Park, MN dated October
29, 2012 concluded that the proposed site met both the “Coverage Test” and the “Condition of
Buildings Test” and thus qualified under Minnesota Statutes Section 479.174, Subdivision 10 as
a redevelopment TIF district.
PRESENT CONSIDERATIONS: None
NEXT STEPS: The Redevelopment Contract with Eliot Park Apartments, LLC which specifies
the terms and amount of TIF assistance is scheduled for EDA consideration May 20th.
City Council Meeting of May 6, 2013 (Item No. 6a) Page 5
Title: Establishment of the Eliot Park Tax Increment Financing District and Related TIF Plan
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
HENNEPIN COUNTY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 13-____
RESOLUTION ADOPTING A MODIFICATION TO THE
REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 1,
ESTABLISHING THE ELIOT PARK TAX INCREMENT FINANCING
DISTRICT THEREIN AND ADOPTING A TAX INCREMENT
FINANCING PLAN THEREFOR
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council (the "Council") of the City of St. Louis Park,
Minnesota (the "City"), as follows:
Section 1. Recitals
1.01. The Board of Commissioners of the St. Louis Park Economic Development
Authority (the "EDA") has heretofore established Redevelopment Project No. 1 and adopted the
Redevelopment Plan therefor. It has been proposed by the EDA and the City that the City adopt a
Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project No. 1 (the "Redevelopment
Plan Modification") and establish the Eliot Park Tax Increment Financing District (the "District")
therein and adopt a Tax Increment Financing Plan (the "TIF Plan") therefor (the Redevelopment
Plan Modification and the TIF Plan are referred to collectively herein as the "Plans"); all
pursuant to and in conformity with applicable law, including Minnesota Statutes, Sections
469.090 to 469.1082 and Sections 469.174 to 469.1799, all inclusive, as amended (the "Act"), all
as reflected in the Plans and presented for the Council's consideration.
1.02. The City has investigated the facts relating to the Plans and has caused the Plans
to be prepared.
1.03. The City has performed all actions required by law to be performed prior to the
establishment of the District and the adoption and approval of the proposed Plans, including, but
not limited to, notification of Hennepin County and Independent School District No. 283 having
taxing jurisdiction over the property to be included in the District, a review of and written
comment on the Plans by the City Planning Commission on April 17, 2013, approval of the
Plans by the EDA on May 6, 2013, and the holding of a public hearing upon published notice as
required by law.
1.04. Certain written reports (the ''Reports") relating to the Plans and to the activities
contemplated therein have heretofore been prepared by staff and consultants and submitted to the
Council and/or made a part of the City files and proceedings on the Plans. The Reports,
including the redevelopment qualifications reports and planning documents, include data,
information and/or substantiation constituting or relating to the basis for the other findings and
determinations made in this resolution. The Council hereby confirms, ratifies and adopts the
Reports, which are hereby incorporated into and made as fully a part of this resolution to the
same extent as if set forth in full herein.
1.05. The City is not modifying the boundaries of Redevelopment Project No. 1, but is
modifying the Redevelopment Plan therefor.
City Council Meeting of May 6, 2013 (Item No. 6a) Page 6
Title: Establishment of the Eliot Park Tax Increment Financing District and Related TIF Plan
Section 2. Findings for the Adoption and Approval of the Redevelopment Plan Modification.
2.01. The Council approves the Redevelopment Plan Modification, and specifically
finds that: (a) the land within the Project area would not be available for redevelopment without
the financial aid to be sought under the Redevelopment Plan Modification; (b) the
Redevelopment Plan, as modified, will afford maximum opportunity, consistent with the needs
of the City as a whole, for the development of the Project by private enterprise; and (c) that the
Redevelopment Plan, as modified, conforms to the general plan for the development of the City
as a whole.
Section 3. Findings for the Establishment of Eliot Park Tax Increment Financing District
3.01. The Council hereby finds that the District is in the public interest and is a
"redevelopment district" under Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subd. 10(a)(1) of the Act.
3.02. The Council further finds that the proposed redevelopment would not occur solely
through private investment within the reasonably foreseeable future and that the increased
market value of the site that could reasonably be expected to occur without the use of tax
increment financing would be less than the increase in the market value estimated to result from
the proposed development after subtracting the present value of the projected tax increments for
the maximum duration of the District permitted by the Tax Increment Financing Plan, that the
Plans conforms to the general plan for the development or redevelopment of the City as a whole;
and that the Plans will afford maximum opportunity consistent with the sound needs of the City
as a whole, for the development or redevelopment of the District by private enterprise.
3.03. The Council further finds, declares and determines that the City made the above
findings stated in this Section and has set forth the reasons and supporting facts for each
determination in writing, attached hereto as Exhibit A.
3.04. The Council further finds that the EDA has elected to calculate fiscal disparities
for the District in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.177, Subd. 3, clause b, which
means any fiscal disparities contribution would be taken from inside the District.
Section 4. Public Purpose
4.01. The adoption of the Plans conforms in all respects to the requirements of the Act
and will help fulfill a need to develop an area of the City which is already built up, to provide
employment opportunities, to improve the tax base and to improve the general economy of the
State and thereby serves a public purpose. For the reasons described in Exhibit A, the City
believes these benefits directly derive from the tax increment assistance provided under the TIF
Plan. A private developer will receive only the assistance needed to make this development
financially feasible. As such, any private benefits received by a developer are incidental and do
not outweigh the primary public benefits.
Section 5. Approval and Adoption of the Plans
5.01. The Plans, as presented to the Council on this date, including without limitation
the findings and statements of objectives contained therein, are hereby approved, ratified,
established, and adopted and shall be placed on file in the office of the Economic Development
Director.
City Council Meeting of May 6, 2013 (Item No. 6a) Page 7
Title: Establishment of the Eliot Park Tax Increment Financing District and Related TIF Plan
5.02. The staff of the City, the City's advisors and legal counsel are authorized and
directed to proceed with the implementation of the Plans and to negotiate, draft, prepare and
present to this Council for its consideration all further plans, resolutions, documents and
contracts necessary for this purpose.
5.03 The Auditor of Hennepin County is requested to certify the original net tax
capacity of the District, as described in the Plans, and to certify in each year thereafter the
amount by which the original net tax capacity has increased or decreased; and the St. Louis Park
Economic Development Authority is authorized and directed to forthwith transmit this request to
the County Auditor in such form and content as the Auditor may specify, together with a list of
all properties within the District, for which building permits have been issued during the 18
months immediately preceding the adoption of this resolution.
5.04. The Economic Development Director is further authorized and directed to file a
copy of the Plans with the Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Revenue and the
Office of the State Auditor pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 469.175, Subd. 4a.
Reviewed for Administration Adopted by the City Council May 6, 2013
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
City Council Meeting of May 6, 2013 (Item No. 6a) Page 8
Title: Establishment of the Eliot Park Tax Increment Financing District and Related TIF Plan
EXHIBIT A
RESOLUTION NO. 13-____
The reasons and facts supporting the findings for the adoption of the Tax Increment Financing
Plan (TIF Plan) for the Eliot Park Tax Increment Financing District (District), as required
pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.175, Subdivision 3, are as follows:
1. Finding that the District is a redevelopment district as defined in M.S., Section 469.174,
Subd. 10(a)(1).
The District consists of 2 parcels, with plans to redevelop the area for residential purposes.
At least 70 percent of the area of the parcels in the District is occupied by buildings, streets,
utilities, paved or gravel parking lots or other similar structures, and more than 50 percent of
the buildings in the District, not including outbuildings, are structurally substandard to a
degree requiring substantial renovation or clearance. (See Appendix F of the TIF Plan.)
2. Finding that the proposed development, in the opinion of the City Council, would not
reasonably be expected to occur solely through private investment within the reasonably
foreseeable future and that the increased market value of the site that could reasonably be
expected to occur without the use of tax increment financing would be less than the increase
in the market value estimated to result from the proposed development after subtracting the
present value of the projected tax increments for the maximum duration of the District
permitted by the TIF Plan.
The proposed development, in the opinion of the City, would not reasonably be expected to
occur solely through private investment within the reasonably foreseeable future: The site is
occupied by a former school building. The proposed development—138 units of
apartments—will require demolition and clearance of the site, including costly hazardous
waste abatement within the school building. Further, based on analysis of the developer's
pro forma, the City has determined that a gap needs to be filled through tax increment in
order to make the proposed development financially feasible. The City therefore does not
believe the proposed housing facility is likely to occur without the assistance described in
this TIF Plan.
While the property could be sold to another developer for some other use, other
development scenarios are not feasible in the market due to various constraints. First,
adaptive reuse of the building would produce far less market value than the proposed 138-
unit housing facility. Second, commercial development is not feasible due to inadequate
market location and it is unlikely that spot zoning would be supported (changing the zoning
to commercial for only one parcel) due to the surrounding land use, which is predominately
residential and consists of single-family homes.
The City has required the developer to abide by a "look back" provision, which measures
the actual development costs versus the project revenues and costs. If the developer
achieves a higher than market rate return, the amount of TIF assistance will be reduced.
City Council Meeting of May 6, 2013 (Item No. 6a) Page 9
Title: Establishment of the Eliot Park Tax Increment Financing District and Related TIF Plan
The increased market value of the site that could reasonably be expected to occur without
the use of tax increment financing would be less than the increase in market value estimated
to result from the proposed development after subtracting the present value of the projected
tax increments for the maximum duration of the District permitted by the TIF Plan: This
finding is justified on the grounds that the cost of site and public improvements add to the
total redevelopment cost. It should be noted that any alternative redevelopment scenario
faces the same high land cost, demolition/clearance costs and structured parking costs faced
by the proposed developer, and in the City's experience, properties with challenges similar
to those posed by this property have not been redeveloped in St. Louis Park without
significant public assistance. The City reasonably determines that no other redevelopment
of similar scope is anticipated on this site without substantially similar assistance being
provided to the development.
Therefore, the City concludes as follows:
a. The City's estimate of the amount by which the market value of the entire District will
increase without the use of tax increment financing is $0.
b. If the proposed development occurs, the total increase in market value will be
$15,650,420 (see Appendix D and G of the TIF Plan)
c. The present value of tax increments from the District for the maximum duration of the
district permitted by the TIF Plan is estimated to be $4,931,183 (see Appendix D and
G of the TIF Plan).
d. Even if some development other than the proposed development were to occur, the
Council finds that no alternative would occur that would produce a market value
increase greater than $10,719,237 (the amount in clause b less the amount in clause
c) without tax increment assistance.
3. Finding that the TIF Plan for the District conforms to the general plan for the development
or redevelopment of the municipality as a whole.
The Planning Commission reviewed the TIF Plan and found that the TIF Plan conforms to
the general development plan of the City.
4. Finding that the TIF Plan for the District will afford maximum opportunity, consistent with
the sound needs of the City as a whole, for the development or redevelopment of
Redevelopment Project No. 1 by private enterprise.
The project to be assisted by the District will result in increased and diversified housing
stock in the City and the State of Minnesota, the renovation of substandard properties,
increased tax base of the City and State, and the addition of a high-quality development in
the City.
Through the implementation of the TIF Plan, the EDA or City will increase the availability
of safe and decent life-cycle housing in the City.
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: May 6, 2013
Action Agenda Item: 8a
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: First Reading of Background Checks Ordinance Amendment
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to Approve First Reading of an Ordinance amending
the St. Louis Park Code of Ordinances Chapter 16 relating to criminal history background
checks.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the Council wish to amend the City code regarding
criminal history background checks?
SUMMARY: A background check ordinance that was revised earlier this year requires all City
employees and volunteers to have a background check. It has come to our attention that this is a
significant change to our City’s volunteer program and could result in discouraging our residents
from participating in volunteer activities with the City.
There are a number of volunteer opportunities that do not deal in any safety sensitive area and
where a background check may be unnecessary. One example is volunteers who sign up for the
Beautify the Park cleanup work. We coordinate hundreds of volunteers to pick up litter in parks,
roadways, trails and sidewalks in our City, and a number show up on the day of the events. We
arrange for groups of school children and companies such as Target and General Mills to send
big groups of employees to volunteer to pick up trash in our parks and lakes. It appears
administratively impractical and unnecessary to require backgrounds for these types of volunteer
activities, and in fact may discourage these organizations from volunteering in our City.
We believe there are a number of other instances where background investigation would not be
needed and ask that the City Council consider adding back the underlined language as follows:
(b) Criminal History Employment and Volunteer Background Investigations. The St. Louis Park
Police Department is hereby required, as the exclusive entity within the City, to do a criminal
history background investigation on the applicants for all part-time or full-time employment and
volunteer positions. This amendment had the following language removed, based on Council
direction: with the City unless the City Manager concludes that a background investigation is
not necessary, such as in one-time volunteer and election judge examples.
Further, we ask that Council gives the City Manager the administrative authority to waive a
background if it is deemed not necessary during the time from the first reading through formal
adoption. Second reading is scheduled for May 20, 2013.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion
Proposed Ordinance
Prepared by: Ali Fosse, HR Coordinator and Nancy Deno
Approved by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
City Council Meeting of May 6, 2013 (Item No. 8a) Page 2
Title: First Reading of Background Checks Ordinance Amendment
DISCUSSION
BACKGROUND: Since 2008, law enforcement agencies have been permitted to conduct
Minnesota criminal history background checks for employment and licensing purposes if an
ordinance has been enacted requiring that the background check be conducted.
On March 4 and March 18, 2013, the City Council held the first and second reading updating the
Background Checks Ordinance amendment. In the past, the language was as follows and
included the underlined information:
Criminal History Employment and Volunteer Background Investigations. The St. Louis Park
Police Department is hereby required, as the exclusive entity within the city, to do a criminal
history background investigation on the applicants for all part-time or full-time employment and
volunteer positions with the City, unless the City Manager concludes that a background
investigation is not necessary.
After discussion, the underlined statement above was removed and the ordinance was approved.
The effect of this change was that ALL volunteer positions are now subject to criminal history
background checks.
This language change has caused a significant change and added administrative red tape for
hundreds of volunteers. In the past, the City Manager had been able to waive a criminal history
background for many of these volunteers. The following is a partial list of volunteer activities
that are affected by this change.
Examples of volunteer work that had not required background checks in the past:
• One time volunteer events where participants are not directly in contact with children
or operate motorized vehicles. Examples include:
Pick-up the Park – Beautify the Park activities
Special Event Volunteers: Directing traffic, handing out water at 5k, maintenance
and clean up, shrub/tree planting on Earth Day
• Ongoing volunteer events that do not include working directly with City staff or
children, or operate motorized vehicles. Examples include:
Garden Planting
Adopt-a-Park, Adopt-a-Garden
Nature Center Maintenance
These are a few examples where, in our opinion, background checks are not needed. Another
area where we have not required this in the past is with our election judges. As we move ahead
and continue to grow the volunteer program and/or fill one time requests, we anticipate there will
be more instances where the City Manager could reasonably determine there is no need for a
background for specific types of volunteering.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: We ask that this policy question return to the Council and
revise Criminal History Employment and Volunteer Background Investigations and add the
language: with the City unless the City Manager concludes that a background investigation is
not necessary, such as in one-time volunteer and election judge examples. This request is based
on business needs with our volunteer program.
City Council Meeting of May 6, 2013 (Item No. 8a) Page 3
Title: First Reading of Background Checks Ordinance Amendment
ORDINANCE NO. ____-13
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ST. LOUIS PARK
CODE OF ORDINANCES SECTION 16-33
RELATING TO CRIMINAL BACKGROUND CHECKS
THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK DOES ORDAIN:
SECTION 1. That Section 16-33 (b) of the Code of Ordinances of St. Louis Park,
Minnesota, is hereby amended to read as follows:
Sec. 16-33. Applicants for City Employment and Volunteer Positions.
(b) Criminal History Employment and Volunteer Background Investigations. The St.
Louis Park Police Department is hereby required, as the exclusive entity within the City, to do a
criminal history background investigation on the applicants for all part-time or full-time
employment and volunteer positions with the City, unless the City Manager concludes that a
background investigation is not necessary, such as in one-time volunteer and election judge
examples.
SECTION 2. This Ordinance shall take effect fifteen days after its publication.
First Reading May 6, 2013
Second Reading May 20, 2013
Date of Publication May 30, 2013
Date Ordinance takes effect June 14, 2013
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council May 20, 2013
City Manager Mayor
Attest: Approved as to Form and Execution:
City Clerk City Attorney
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: May 6, 2013
Action Agenda Item: 8b
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Healthy Eating and Active Living Policy
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to Adopt Resolution and the Healthy Eating and Active
Living Policy.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the City Council support the proposed policies identified
by city staff in the attached resolution and Healthy Eating and Active Living policy?
SUMMARY: Last year the City Council adopted Resolution 12-077 authorizing the City of St.
Louis Park to participate in the Minnesota GreenStep Cities Program and directing city staff to
identify best practices for further development and promotion, including adoption of an Active
Living Policy.
Active Living is a way of life that integrates physical activity into daily routines and destinations,
through activities such as walking and bicycling. The Minnesota GreenStep Cities Program
recognizes that Active Living supports efficient and healthy development patterns.
Also, the City has partnered with Active Living Hennepin County since 2006. City of St. Louis
Park understands the connections between health and the environment. It is clearly reflected in
the Vision St. Louis Park, Comprehensive Plan goals, the City’s support for transit, the Connect
the Park! (pedestrian and bicycling improvements) initiative, partnerships with Park Nicollet and
other local employers and community organizations, and the City’s employee wellness program.
The proposed policy has incorporated Healthy Eating, as well as Active Living policies, to more
holistically address community health.
The E-Group, an interdepartmental group tasked with advancing environmental initiatives,
recommends the attached Healthy Eating and Active Living Policy. This item was previously
submitted for City Council review as a written report in the March 11, 2013 study session
agenda.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: There are no new direct costs associated
with policy. Individual policies, programs or strategies identified in the policy that do entail
costs had previous review and support from the City Council (i.e. Employee Wellness Program).
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: Resolution & Policy
Prepared by: Sean Walther, Senior Planner
Reviewed by: Michele Schnitker, Housing Supervisor
Approved by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
City Council Meeting of May 6, 2013 (Item No. 8b) Page 2
Title: Healthy Eating and Active Living Policy
RESOLUTION NO. 13-____
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
APPROVING A HEALTHY EATING AND ACTIVE LIVING POLICY
WHEREAS, the strategic directions from Vision St. Louis Park state that “St. Louis Park
is a connected and engaged community,” and “is committed to being a leader in environmental
stewardship. We will increase environmental consciousness and responsibility in all areas of city
business;” and
WHEREAS, in 2012, the City of St. Louis Park adopted a Resolution 12-077 authorizing
the City of St. Louis Park to participate in the Minnesota GreenStep Cities Program and directing
city staff to identify a best practices for further development and promotion, including adoption
of an Active Living Policy; and
WHEREAS, the City’s Environmental Group (E Group), an internal interdepartmental
workgroup, supports the Vision in being good stewards of the environment, is actively involved
in environmental activities and best practices outlined in the Minnesota GreenStep Cities
Program, and recommends the Healthy Eating Active Living Policy.
WHEREAS, Active Living Hennepin County is a partnership of cities, businesses and
nonprofits working together to increase opportunities for active living through policy change and
infrastructure planning. The group was launched in 2006 with funding from Blue Cross Blue
Shield of Minnesota and Hennepin County; and
WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park has been partner in Active Living Hennepin
County since 2006; and
WHEREAS, in 2008, the City of St. Louis Park adopted Resolution 08-046 in support of
the mission, vision and goals of Active Living Hennepin County; and
WHEREAS, physical inactivity and poor nutrition are leading causes contributing to
increasing rates of obesity and other chronic diseases; and
WHEREAS, obesity is recognized by the United States Center for Disease Control and
Prevention as a public health epidemic that calls for preventative actions by local communities to
reduce this threat to community health, well-being, and prosperity; and
WHEREAS, more than half of Hennepin County adults are overweight or obese and
therefore at risk for many chronic conditions including diabetes, heart disease, cancer, arthritis,
stroke, and, hypertension; and
WHEREAS, health problems associated with physical inactivity and poor nutrition
affect Hennepin County through reduced quality of life and higher medical costs (over $1 billion
in Hennepin County per year); and
WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park has an interest to preserve, promote, and improve
the health of its citizens by taking action to increase healthy eating and active living within its
jurisdiction;
City Council Meeting of May 6, 2013 (Item No. 8b) Page 3
Title: Healthy Eating and Active Living Policy
NOW, THEREFORE, BE RESOLVED, that the City Council hereby declares that the
City of St. Louis Park will seek opportunities and establish mechanisms to support individual,
community, and environmental efforts to improve the public’s health by encouraging the
development and implementation of policies and practices that support and promote healthy
eating and active living among citizens of the City of St. Louis Park, as set forth herein; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council hereby adopts the following
Healthy Eating Active Living Policy:
City of St. Louis Park Healthy Eating and Active Living Policy
May 6, 2013
Guiding Principles
1. Daily physical activity improves health and can reduce levels of obesity or chronic diseases,
such as type 2 Diabetes or heart disease.
2. Built environments with accessible destinations, integrated transportation networks and
inviting design promote physically active and safe options.
3. Programs and policies inclusive of all cultures and abilities can help reduce health disparities.
4. Public participation and awareness of the benefits and opportunities related to healthy eating
and active living are increased through effective communication strategies.
Acknowledgement of Current Practices
The City Council acknowledges that the City of St. Louis Park has established a high quality of
life for its citizens in the community and currently provides a variety of resources and services
(i.e. facilities, parks, trails, sidewalks, programs, services, events, etc.) for people of all ages and
abilities to lead a healthy lifestyle. The intent of this policy is for the City Council to advocate
for the continued sustainability of existing offerings while recognizing opportunities to add or
improve policies and practices.
Policies
I. Built Environment
The City of St. Louis Park recognizes that the built environment influences active living
opportunities, and that the City of St. Louis Park influences the built environment at many scales
through infrastructure investments, land use policies and regulations, and City financial
assistance. The City will:
1. Prioritize access to multiple modes of transportation when selecting sites for City
facilities and buildings.
2. Integrate active living elements into the design of City buildings and interior spaces (i.e.
highly visible stairways, orientation to streets and sidewalks, bicycle facilities, and transit
stops near main building entries, etc.).
3. Plan and construct a built environment that encourages walking, biking and other forms
of physical activity.
4. Increase walking and biking connectivity between residential neighborhoods and schools,
parks, recreational resources, transit service, retail and employment.
5. Support a safe and efficient regional public transit system, including dial-a-ride, bus, light
rail, and commuter rail services.
City Council Meeting of May 6, 2013 (Item No. 8b) Page 4
Title: Healthy Eating and Active Living Policy
6. Utilize Complete Streets principles to design and maintain streets in a manner that is
appropriate to the community context and safe for all users, including pedestrians,
bicyclists and transit passengers of all ages and abilities, as well as trucks, buses and
automobiles.
II. Natural Environment
City of St. Louis Park recognizes that nature plays a vital role in human health and well-being,
and that the City’s parks and open spaces provide access to nature for individuals in St. Louis
Park.
1. Maintain Westwood Hills Nature Center as the focal point of the City’s park system,
providing and preserving all of the inherent healthy benefits of a natural experience
within its woods, marsh and prairie environs, while promoting and supporting, through
programs and leisure, varied levels of activities aimed at diverse physical abilities and
ages.
2. Support efforts to improve the water quality of Minnehaha Creek and to provide access
for passive and active enjoyment of this natural resource.
III. Services and Programs
City of St. Louis Park provides training, programs and services to the community and its
employees in an effort to promote healthy lifestyles. The City will (continue to):
1. Evaluate and provide programs and community events that are inclusive to people of all
ages and abilities, and eliminate as many participation barriers (i.e. disability, financial,
etc.) as possible for the delivery of outstanding service.
2. Seek opportunities to incorporate physical activity and information at community events.
3. Offer athletics, fitness and other active living and recreation programs.
4. Manage several community gardens. Also, mentor, advise, assist and collaborate with
businesses and neighborhoods in development, maintenance and management of
privately-owned and operated community gardens.
5. Provide an array of volunteer opportunities that emphasize outdoors, physical activity,
nature, and community (i.e. Adopt-a-Park, Citizen Assisted Lake Monitoring Program,
Adopt-a-Garden, Beautify the Park, Parktacular, etc.).
IV. Promotion and Partnerships
City of St. Louis Park will promote healthy eating and active living through its publications and
develop/maintain community partnerships to encourage healthy eating and active living
opportunities. The City will (continue to):
1. Expand community access to indoor and outdoor facilities through joint use agreements
with schools and/or other partners.
2. Help promote local events and programs that encourage healthy eating and active living.
V. Employee Wellness
City of St. Louis Park recognizes that employees that practice healthy eating and active living
help to contain health care, transportation, and other costs, in addition to preventing adverse
health and environmental outcomes. In order to promote wellness within City of St. Louis Park,
and to set an example for other employers, the City has adopted and implemented an employee
wellness program as follows:
City Council Meeting of May 6, 2013 (Item No. 8b) Page 5
Title: Healthy Eating and Active Living Policy
1. Healthy eating encouragement and opportunities including staff events, vending machine
contracts, lunch and learn seminars, and other events.
2. Physical activity encouragement and opportunities such as stand up desks, stability ball
chairs, mapped out walking routes near city hall, encouraged use of walking meetings
and stairways, fitness equipment available for checkout, onsite fitness facility, staff
events that encourage wellness, and other events.
3. Ongoing support and encouragement for healthy lifestyles through promotion of events,
communication and “spotlights” in city newsletter.
4. Wellness incentive policy, which provides financial rewards for completing certain
wellness activities.
5. On-site screening for biometric results and flu shots.
6. Online wellness resources through city Intranet and partner with health insurer and other
consultants/vendors.
7. Ongoing innovation and exploration of new well-being opportunities such as the
possibility of offering an onsite clinic.
V. Healthy Food Access
City of St. Louis Park recognizes that good nutrition, in addition to physical activity, is needed to
combat obesity. Therefore, the City will (continue to):
1. Periodically evaluate land use policies for health impacts, including access to healthy
food (i.e. 2011 Health Impact Assessment of the Comprehensive Plan).
2. Allow, manage, or support in other ways local community gardens and farmer’s markets
in order to increase access to healthy food, including fresh fruits and vegetables;
3. Set required percentages for healthy choice options for vending machines located in city
owned or leased locations;
4. Encourage nutritional food options at city events, city sponsored meetings, served at city
facilities and city concessions, and city programs.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council May 6, 2013
City Manager
Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: May 6, 2013
Action Agenda Item: 8c
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Conditional Use Permit - Educational Facility with Student Housing (3115 Ottawa Ave. S.)
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to Adopt Resolution approving the Conditional Use
Permit (CUP) for Yeshiva of Minneapolis, with conditions recommended by staff.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Is the proposed CUP consistent with the zoning ordinance and
the Comprehensive Plan?
SUMMARY: The Yeshiva of Minneapolis is a Jewish High School for boys. It opened in
August of 2012.
The Yeshiva is requesting a CUP to operate a school with housing for up to 40 students. The
housing will be constructed within the existing walls of the building, so an addition to the
building is not proposed, and the existing site plan will not be changed other than what is
required to bring the parking lot and landscaping into compliance with City Codes.
The subject property is in the Triangle neighborhood, and consists of two parcels. Both parcels
are zoned R-3 Two-Family Residence. Parcel 1 is located at the corner of Ottawa Ave S and
County Road 25. It is 88,145 square feet. It contains the school building and a single family
house. The school building was last used as the B’nai Emet Synagogue. Parcel 2 is 10,800
square feet in area. It is located at the corner of Natchez Ave S and County Road 25. It is
improved with a 22 space parking lot that was used as overflow parking for the Synagogue.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion
Aerial Photo
Draft Resolution
Excerpt of Planning Commission Minutes
Development Plans
Prepared by: Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator
Reviewed by: Sean Walther, Senior Planner
Michele Schnitker, Housing Supervisor
Approved by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
City Council Meeting of May 6, 2013 (Item No. 8c) Page 2
Title: Conditional Use Permit - Educational Facility with Student Housing (3115 Ottawa Ave. S.)
DISCUSSION
BACKGROUND:
Location:
The subject property is located at 3115 Ottawa Ave S.
Existing Conditions:
The property is the former B’Nai Emet Synagogue. The building is approximately 28,000 square
feet in area. There is a small single family home located in the northeast corner of the property.
The school has a parking lot that wraps around the south, east and north side of the building.
The parking lot is accessed from Ottawa Ave and Natchez Ave.
The Yeshiva of Minneapolis purchased the site in 2012, and began operating the school in
August of 2012.
ZONING ANALYSIS:
Proposed Use:
The Yeshiva of Minneapolis is proposing to add student housing for up to 40 boys. The students
will live on-site during the school year, and will be supervised by an adult that also lives on-site.
The student housing will be constructed during the summer of 2013. It will be located within the
existing building, so the site plan and exterior of the building will not change from what exists
today.
The applicant has had several meetings with the Zoning, Building and Fire Departments. They
are confident that the interior of the building can be remodeled to accommodate the housing.
City Council Meeting of May 6, 2013 (Item No. 8c) Page 3
Title: Conditional Use Permit - Educational Facility with Student Housing (3115 Ottawa Ave. S.)
Modifications to the building, such as fire sprinklers, separation walls and additional exits will
have to be constructed.
Student housing and educational uses are further regulated by Hennepin County and the State of
Minnesota, so the plans will also be reviewed by those agencies.
Zoning Regulations:
Conditional Use Permit-Conditions of Approval:
Schools (Educational facilities) are allowed in the R-3 zoning district by CUP. The City Council
approved a zoning text amendment on April 1, 2013 to allow student housing at educational
facilities located in the R-3 zoning district with conditions. A review of the conditions follows:
1. Buildings shall be located at least 50 feet from a lot in an R district.
The main school building is located approximately 133 feet from a residential lot to the east,
85 feet from a residential property to the west, and 148 feet from a residential lot to the north.
The property to the south, located on the south side of County Road 25, is zoned Industrial.
The caretaker’s residence on the Northeast corner of the subject property is located
approximately 69 feet from the nearest residential lot. The property meets this requirement.
2. An off-street passenger loading area shall be provided in order to maintain vehicular and
pedestrian safety.
There is an existing driveway and parking lot that runs along the south, east and north side of
the building. The parking lot is sufficient in size to handle all of the schools parking and
loading/unloading needs.
3. Outdoor recreational and play areas shall be located at least 25 feet from any lot in an R
district.
The outdoor recreation area is located on the west side of the building. It is located 85 feet
from a residential property (Park Towers). The property meets this requirement.
4. Access shall be to a roadway identified in the comprehensive plan as a collector or arterial
or shall be otherwise located so that access can be provided without generating significant
traffic on local residential streets.
The property is located on the corner of Ottawa Ave S and County Road 25. The main
access to this property is located 100 feet from the County Road, and satisfies this
requirement.
5. Student housing. At a minimum, the student housing must meet the following conditions:
a. No more than 50 students may live on-site.
The Yeshiva plans to construct housing for 40 students.
b. An outdoor recreation area shall be provided that contains at least 40 square feet per
student living at the school.
An outdoor recreation area exists on the west side of the building. It is 4,900 square feet
in area. The school will have a maximum of 40 students, which requires 1,600 square
feet of recreation area. In addition to the on-site recreation area, Skippy Field is also
located 600 feet away. The property meets this requirement.
City Council Meeting of May 6, 2013 (Item No. 8c) Page 4
Title: Conditional Use Permit - Educational Facility with Student Housing (3115 Ottawa Ave. S.)
c. The housing must be supervised 24 hours a day, seven days a week by an adult living on-
site.
The Yeshiva will comply with this requirement. An adult hired by the Yeshiva will live
on-site. It is also listed in the resolution as a condition of approval.
d. The students living on-site must be actively enrolled in the school as a full-time student.
The Yeshiva will comply with this requirement. It is also listed in the resolution as a
condition of approval.
e. The student housing must be located on the same parcel as the school.
The housing and school are to be located within the existing building.
Parking
City Code requires at least one parking space per four students based on building capacity, plus
one space for each two classrooms. The four classrooms have a total capacity of 140 students.
A breakdown of the required and proposed parking is as follows:
Use Required Provided Met?
Educational Facility 39 spaces 74 on-site
7 on-street
Yes
The site meets the City parking requirements for the current number of classrooms (4). There is
sufficient excess parking for special events and significant growth in student enrollment.
Landscaping
There are eight existing trees on the site. The landscaping ordinance requires at least 23 trees.
Therefore, the applicant needs to plant an additional 15 trees on-site.
City Code also requires parking lots located within 30 feet of a public right-of-way to be
screened from view with a barrier at least 2.5 feet high. This screening needs to be provided
along the south and east parking lots.
A landscaping plan is attached. It shows the required 23 trees and parking lot screening.
Additional landscaping will be provided at the Natchez Ave parking lot, along Natchez Ave S
and County Road 25 as requested by the Planning Commission.
PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW:
A public hearing was conducted at the Planning Commission on April 17, 2013. No comments
were received. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the Conditional Use Permit
to allow student housing at Yeshiva of Minneapolis subject to conditions included by staff as
well as a recommendation from the Planning Commission to investigate and try to remedy the
discrepancy in the 50 ft. setback with the residential lot; and as a suggestion to staff to bring up a
discussion of the feasibility of doing landscaping on the accessory parking lot on the east side of
the street. (6-0 vote). Meeting minutes are attached.
Setback from lot in an R district:
The first condition for an Educational Facility located in the R-3 Zoning District is that the
buildings must be located at least 50 feet from a lot in an R district.
City Council Meeting of May 6, 2013 (Item No. 8c) Page 5
Title: Conditional Use Permit - Educational Facility with Student Housing (3115 Ottawa Ave. S.)
Staff reviewed the 50 foot setback discrepancy as recommended by the Planning Commission.
The original special permit for this site was approved in 1972 for the synagogue. At that time,
the single family home was noted as being on the same parcel as the synagogue, and was
intended to be used as the residence for the synagogue caretaker.
The Special Permit was amended in 1980, and it was noted that the synagogue and home
continued to be on the same parcel.
The Alta Survey that was provided by the Applicant shows this condition to continue, the
synagogue and the house are noted to be on the same parcel (Parcel 1).
Staff finds the caretaker’s house is an accessory use, and part of the campus. Therefore, the
shortest distance from a building associated with the Yeshiva of Minneapolis to a lot line in an R
district is 69 feet measured between the house and the lot line to the north, which is located on
the north side of 31st Street.
Landscaping along Natchez parking lot:
The Applicant agreed to install landscaping along the Highway 7 and Natchez Ave property
lines.
City Council Meeting of May 6, 2013 (Item No. 8c) Page 6
Title: Conditional Use Permit - Educational Facility with Student Housing (3115 Ottawa Ave. S.)
Aerial Photo
City Council Meeting of May 6, 2013 (Item No. 8c) Page 7
Title: Conditional Use Permit - Educational Facility with Student Housing (3115 Ottawa Ave. S.)
RESOLUTION NO. 13-____
A RESOLUTION RESCINDING RESOLUTIONS 6695 AND 4747 AND
GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AN EDUCATIONAL
FACILITY WITH STUDENT HOUSING FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT
3115 OTTAWA AVENUE SOUTH
BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park:
Findings
1. Yeshiva of Minneapolis has made application to the City Council for a Conditional Use
Permit under Section 36-165(d)(5) of the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code for the purpose of
permitting student housing at an educational facility within the R-3 Two-Family Residential
District located at 3115 Ottawa Avenue South for the legal description as follows, to-wit:
Parcel 1:
Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6;
That part of Lots 7 and 8 lying Northerly of State Highway Number 7, except the
South five feet of said Lot 8; that part of Lot 21 lying Northerly of a line drawn
from a point in a line 15 feet East of and parallel to the West line of Block 2, and
five feet North of the South line of said Lot 21, thence Southeasterly a distance of
15.81 feet to the South line of said Lot 21 and there terminating; except the West
15 feet of said Lot 21; and Lots 22, 23, 24, 25, 25, 27, and 29, except the West 15
feet of said Lots 22 through 28; all in Block 2 Mazey & Langan’s Addition to St.
Louis Park, vacated by Ordinance No. 1245 adopted September 24, 1973, filed
October 4, 1973, as Document No. 4045994 (Abstract), and filed October 9, 1973,
as Document No. 1088035 (Torrens), lying Northerly of State Highway 7 and
Southerly of the Westerly extension of the North line of Lot 1, said Block 2.
Hennepin County, Minnesota
Abstract Property
Torrens Property
Torrens Certificate No. 663535
Parcel 2
Lots 24 and 25, Block 2, Oakenwald Addition, St. Louis Park, Minnesota
Hennepin County, Minnesota
Abstract Property
2. The City Council considered the advice and recommendation of the Planning Commission
(Case No. 13-16-CUP) and the effect of the proposed educational facility with student housing
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 Council determined that the educational facility with student housing will not be
detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of the community nor will it cause serious
traffic congestion nor hazards, nor will it seriously depreciate surrounding property values, and
the proposed student housing is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the Zoning
Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan.
City Council Meeting of May 6, 2013 (Item No. 8c) Page 8
Title: Conditional Use Permit - Educational Facility with Student Housing (3115 Ottawa Ave. S.)
4. The contents of Planning Case File 13-16-CUP are hereby entered into and made part of
the public hearing record and the record of decision for this case.
Conclusion
The Conditional Use Permit to allow an Educational Facility with student housing at the
location described is granted based on the findings set forth above and subject to the following
conditions:
1. The site shall be developed, used and maintained in accordance with Exhibits A-Site Plan
and Exhibit B-Landscaping Plan. Both are incorporated by reference herein.
2. Additional landscaping required to screen the parking lot, shall be provided along the
County Road 25 and Natchez Ave S
3. All student drop-off and pick-up areas, including stacking lines, must be located on-site.
4. No more than 50 students may live on-site.
5. The student housing must be supervised by an adult that lives on-site 24 hours a day,
seven days a week.
6. All residents, except the adult supervisors, must be students that are actively enrolled as a
full-time student at the Yeshiva of Minneapolis.
7. The student housing must be located on the same parcel as the school.
8. Residents’ cars must be parked overnight in a garage.
9. The single family home located in the northeast corner of Parcel 1 may be used only for
staff housing, classes or storage. It cannot be rented to any persons not employed by
Yeshiva to work at this site.
10. Prior to issuing the building permit, the following conditions shall be met:
a. Applicant shall submit a financial security in the form of cash escrow or letter of
credit in the amount of 125% of the costs of landscaping.
b. Assent form and official exhibits must be signed by the applicant and owner.
11. All new utilities shall be buried.
12. 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.
13. Under the Zoning Ordinance Code, this permit shall be revoked and cancelled if the
building or structure for which the conditional use permit is granted is removed.
14. Approval of all other required permits, which may impose additional requirements.
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 May 6, 2013
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
City Council Meeting of May 6, 2013 (Item No. 8c) Page 9
Title: Conditional Use Permit - Educational Facility with Student Housing (3115 Ottawa Ave. S.)
EXCERPT OF UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
APRIL 17, 2013 – 6:00 p.m.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MEMBERS PRESENT: Lynne Carper, Charlie Dixon (youth member), Claudia Johnston-
Madison, Robert Kramer, Dennis Morris, Richard Person, Carl
Robertson
MEMBERS ABSENT: Larry Shapiro
STAFF PRESENT: Greg Hunt, Ryan Kelley, Sean Walther, Nancy Sells
1. Call to Order – Roll Call
Chair Robertson introduced Charlie Dixon, the recently appointed Youth Member of the
Planning Commission.
2. Approval of Minutes of March 20, 2013
Commissioner Carper moved approval of the minutes of March 20, 2013. Commissioner
Johnston-Madison seconded the motion, and the motion passed on a vote of 6-0.
4. Public Hearings
A. Conditional Use Permit for Dormitory
Location: 3115 Ottawa Ave. S.
Applicant: Yeshiva of Minneapolis
Case No.: 13-16-CUP
Ryan Kelley, Associate Planner, presented the staff report which was prepared by Gary
Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator.
Commissioner Kramer asked where the dormitory will be located in the building.
Rabbi Kutoff stated the dormitory will be located on the south side of the building. The
entrance area and stage will be removed to accommodate the dormitory area.
Commissioner Morris inquired about the separate parcel which is an accessory parking
lot opposite the site. He said although the lot is not included in the request for the
conditional use permit, the Commission can make conditions. He asked if staff had
considered having that parking lot upgraded to the landscaping standards of the school site.
Mr. Kelley responded that he did not believe that had been discussed. He said he would
ask Mr. Morrison about that.
Commissioner Morris asked that it be a consideration that the accessory parking lot be
included, saying if the site is being upgraded it would be useful to consider the accessory
parking lot also.
City Council Meeting of May 6, 2013 (Item No. 8c) Page 10
Title: Conditional Use Permit - Educational Facility with Student Housing (3115 Ottawa Ave. S.)
Commissioner Morris spoke about condition of approval No. 1 which references that
buildings shall be located at least 50 ft. from a lot in an R district, noting that the single
family home, owned by Yeshiva, is located approximately five feet from the lot. He said
as no remedy is offered it is clearly not in conformance.
Rabbi Shlomo Kutoff, director of the school, said the caretaker of the property lives in
the single family home.
Commissioner Morris replied that the future use was unknown and if it was sold it would
still be non-conforming.
As regards parking lot landscaping, Rabbi Kutoff said the lot is raised about 6-8 ft. off the
street. He added that the caretaker uses the lot.
Chair Robertson said the survey exhibit reads as a single lot. He said perhaps it has been
replatted and the single family home is included.
Commissioner Morris remarked that looking at the outlines it appears that both parcels
are part of the conditional use permit request. But actually, the permit is only for the
school parcel.
Chair Robertson said he agreed this should be looked at.
Chair Robertson opened the public hearing. The Chair closed the hearing as no one was
present wishing to speak.
Commissioner Morris asked if a variance would be an appropriate remedy for the 50 ft.
setback.
Sean Walther, Senior Planner, responded that is one possibility. He said Mr. Morrison
probably approached the property as one campus.
Commissioner Morris said he’d like to see the Commission recognize and correct
deviations as part of a request. He doesn’t want to set a precedent. He said he could see
administrative remedies such as a variance being a condition of the permit, a division of
the lot, or a condition on the sale of the lot to include a review of the conditional use
permit. He added that the city attorney might make a ruling that it is identified and made
a condition of irregularity.
Commissioner Person pointed out that the new built out section of the building would be
more than 50 feet from the lot line as it is at the south end of the building, making the
conditional use portion of the building in compliance.
Commissioner Morris made a motion to recommend approval of the Conditional Use
Permit to allow student housing at Yeshiva of Minneapolis subject to conditions included
by staff as well as a recommendation from the Planning Commission to investigate and
try to remedy the discrepancy in the 50 ft. setback with the residential lot; and as a
suggestion to staff to bring up a discussion of the feasibility of doing landscaping on the
accessory parking lot on the east side of the street.
Commissioner Johnston-Madison seconded the motion, and the motion passed on a vote
of 6-0.
City Council Meeting of May 6, 2013 (Item No. 8c) Title: Conditional Use Permit - Educational Facility with Student Housing (3115 Ottawa Ave. S.)Page 11
City Council Meeting of May 6, 2013 (Item No. 8c) Title: Conditional Use Permit - Educational Facility with Student Housing (3115 Ottawa Ave. S.)Page 12
City Council Meeting of May 6, 2013 (Item No. 8c) Title: Conditional Use Permit - Educational Facility with Student Housing (3115 Ottawa Ave. S.)Page 13
City Council Meeting of May 6, 2013 (Item No. 8c) Title: Conditional Use Permit - Educational Facility with Student Housing (3115 Ottawa Ave. S.)Page 14
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: May 6, 2013
Action Agenda Item: 8d
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Approval of 2013-2018 Solid Waste Collection Contracts
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to Adopt Resolution which designates Waste
Management for residential garbage and recycling collection services and Advanced Disposal for
residential yard waste and organic waste collection services and authorizes the Mayor and City
Manager to execute contracts with the respective companies for those services.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Staff seeks input on the following policy questions:
1. Does Council wish to approve these contracts at this time?
SUMMARY: Staff recommends that Council adopt the attached Resolution, reviewed by the
City Attorney, which reaffirms the Residential Solid Waste Organized Collection System,
designates two service providers (Waste Management for garbage and recycling collection
services and Advanced Disposal for yard waste and organic collection services), and authorizes
execution of the two Agreements for Residential Solid Waste Collection and Disposal Services.
Staff recommends selecting Waste Management based on cost, their commitment to expand
recycling, and their past satisfactory delivery of services in the City. Staff recommends selecting
Advanced Disposal based on cost and their proposed collection method combining both yard
waste and organic waste materials in the same truck.
The projected five-year cost for the garbage / recycling and yard waste / organic waste contracts
is as follows:
1. Waste Management providing residential garbage / recycling collection services at an
estimated 5-year projected cost of $5,851,000.
2. Advanced Disposal providing residential yard waste / organic waste collection services
at an estimated 5-year projected cost of $3,331,000.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: There will be no cost implications to the
General Fund resulting from any program changes or new hauler contracts, as the Solid Waste
Enterprise Fund and related utility rates cover all these costs. However, utility rates will need to
be increased in the future to provide for increased costs associated with organics collection.
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: Scott Merkley, Infrastructure Manager
Reviewed by: Michael P. Rardin, Director of Engineering
Approved by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
City Council Meeting of May 6, 2013 (Item No. 8d) Page 2
Title: Approval of 2013-2018 Solid Waste Collection Contracts
DISCUSSION
History
The February 11, 2013 Study Session report included a history / summary of the 9 Study Session
meetings for the 2013-2018 Solid Waste Program that occurred in 2012.
At the February 11, 2013 meeting, staff presented Council with several policy questions to assist
staff in completing the proposal analysis and preparing hauler recommendations. The direction
Council provided was as follows:
1. Council understands there is some risk in starting an organics collection service and
desires it be included in the proposed 2013-2018 program.
2. Council feels organic waste collection is the right thing to do and is willing to consider
rate increases to implement that service.
3. Council sees cart storage as a concern and desires services that minimize cart usage.
At the February 19, 2013 study session, staff presented Council with a detailed report outlining
the final collection proposals submitted by Advanced Disposal, Allied Waste, Randy’s
Sanitation, and Waste Management. The report included an overview of the RFP process,
proposal comparisons, cost summaries, evaluation proposals options, policy questions, and staff
recommendations. Council agreed with the staff recommendations presented in the February 19th
report and directed staff to negotiate contracts for their consideration and approval.
At the April 22, 2013 Study Session, staff presented Council with a brief program update and
discussing the following:
1. All 12,300 residential customers will receive one 95 gallon recycling cart; cart to be
owned by the City. Customers will have the option of changing to a smaller size cart if
they desire.
2. Residential customers will be required to sign-up (enroll) for organic waste collection. By
doing this, it provides the best opportunity for program success.
3. Residential customers who sign-up for the organic waste collection program will receive
one 95 gallon cart; cart to be owned by the City. Customers will have the option of
changing to a smaller size cart if they desire. Customers will also receive free 2-gallon
and 13-gallon compostable bags from the City.
4. Residential customers will be required to pay a nominal fee to participate in the organic
waste collection program.
5. Residential customers who don’t participate in the organic waste collection program will
not receive a cart; their yard waste will continue to be collected as it is currently, using
their own container or in compostable bags.
At the April 22, 2013 study session, staff also presented Council with revenue sharing options.
After discussion, Council supported staff’s recommendation and chose Alternate 1, which
provides for the City to receive 80% of the net revenues earned. Council expressed concern over
revenue calculations and projected revenues and requested staff to obtain actual revenue earnings
from other respective cities. Council also requested staff to verify contract audit requirements so
contractor information/records could be obtained should future revenue questions or concerns
arise.
City Council Meeting of May 6, 2013 (Item No. 8d) Page 3
Title: Approval of 2013-2018 Solid Waste Collection Contracts
Hennepin County provided us the following revenue sharing revenues and tonnages for the
following cities which have revenue sharing with Waste Management using the Alternate 1
methodology:
Revenue Sharing Revenues (Curbside)
City 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Brooklyn Park N/A N/A $173,799 $444,600 $244,137
Brooklyn Center, New Hope, Crystal N/A N/A N/A $232,795 $190,507
Hopkins $14,257 $0 $ 17,761 $ 62,192 $ 26,940
• Brooklyn Park started revenue sharing with Waste Management in 2010.
• Hennepin Recycling Group (HRG - Brooklyn Center, New Hope, and Crystal) started
revenue sharing with Waste Management in 2011. In 2011 HRG signed a contract
extension (2012-2016) to have Waste Management continue to collect recycling using
the Alternate 1 revenue sharing methodology.
• Hopkins staff stated that the 2009 invoices did not have any revenue sharing information
listed on the invoices. The new staff member at Hopkins couldn’t provide any reason
why.
Tons of Recyclables (Curbside)
City 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Brooklyn Park 5,713 5,639 5,627 5,667 4,526
Brooklyn Center, New Hope, Crystal 4,925 4,781 4,393 4,529 4,427
Hopkins 828 807 880 927 803
Our contract requires the Contractor to provide access to the City, Hennepin County, or any of
their duly authorized representatives to review any contractor books, documents, papers, or
records that are directly pertinent to this Agreement for the purpose of making an audit.
Contract Terms and Conditions – Garbage and Recycling
The major terms of the contract are as follows:
• Contract length is five years from October 1, 2013 to September 30, 2018
• Garbage collection will remain weekly with days / routes staying the same as currently
exist
• Recycling collection will change to single-sort with every-other week collection with
days staying the same as currently exist
• Recycling is to be collected in City provided recycling carts
• Contractor will use CNG (compressed natural gas) trucks for garbage and recycling
collection
• Garbage will be disposed of at the HERC or other City approved facility
• Garbage disposal costs paid to the contractor will be the actual costs the contractor is
charged by the disposal facility
• Recycling materials will be processed at the Waste Management’s Minneapolis MRF
• Recycling materials collected include all materials currently collected and additional
materials addressed in the proposal
• Contractor will provide recycling end market material processing information
• City has right to audit contractor records pertinent to the contract
City Council Meeting of May 6, 2013 (Item No. 8d) Page 4
Title: Approval of 2013-2018 Solid Waste Collection Contracts
• Recycling revenue sharing per Alternate 1 above
• Contractor will provide residents with educational tags for improper set outs
• Contractor will host 2 city-wide cleanup days annually
• Contractor will provide walk-up service as an optional service to residents
• Contractor will provide weekly bulk waste, appliance and electronic collection as an
optional service to residents
• Contractor will provide a customer service staff to handle collection issues
• Contractor will use the City’s electronic database for tracking customer issues
• Contractor will provide the City with a variety of required reports
• Contractor will assist with public education and participate in City events
• Contractor will provide additional services during a disaster
• Penalties will be assessed to the Contractor for contract non-compliance
• City may terminate the contract upon 30 days written notice for failure to perform
• Contractor will indemnify and hold harmless the City against claims, losses, expenses,
etc.
• Contractor will submit certificates of insurance, as required by the City
• Contractor will provide a financial guarantee, as required by the City
Contract Terms and Conditions – Yard Waste & Organic Waste
The major terms of the contract are as follows:
• Contract length is five years from October 1, 2013 to September 30, 2018
• Yard waste collection will remain weekly with days / routes staying the same as currently
exist and be collected from April through November
• Yard waste and organic waste are to be collected in the City provided organic waste /
yard waste cart
• Yard waste may be placed in the cart without being bagged, however organics must
bagged using city provided compostable bags
• Organic waste collection will be weekly and collected year round with days / routes
staying the same as currently exist
• Yard waste and organic waste will be processed at the SET facility in Empire (southern
Dakota Co.) or other City approved facility
• Yard waste / organic waste disposal costs paid to the contractor will be the actual costs
the contractor is charged by the processing facility
• City agrees to pay a fuel surcharge
• City has right to audit contractor records pertinent to the contract
• Contractor will provide residents with educational tags for improper set outs
• Contractor will provide a customer service staff to handle collection issues
• Contractor will use the City’s electronic database for tracking customer issues
• Contractor will provide the City with a variety of required reports
• Contractor will assist with public education and participate in City events
• Penalties will be assessed to the Contractor for contract non-compliance
• City may terminate the contract upon 30 days written notice for failure to perform
• Contractor will indemnify and hold harmless the City against claims, losses, expenses,
etc.
• Contractor will submit certificates of insurance, as required by the City
• Contractor will provide a financial guarantee, as required by the City
City Council Meeting of May 6, 2013 (Item No. 8d) Page 5
Title: Approval of 2013-2018 Solid Waste Collection Contracts
Public Outreach Program
Staff is working with the Communications Coordinator to develop a comprehensive public
outreach program to inform customers of the program changes and to sign-up customers for the
new organic waste collection program. Information will be provided in a variety of ways
including: direct mailings; open house meetings; information booths at city events; staff
presentations to neighborhood groups; Park Perspective articles; website articles; social media;
videos on Park Update; utility billing stuffers; and articles in the Sun Sailor and Patch.
Next Steps / Timeline
Below are the major steps needed for implementing the new contracts:
Item Completion Date
Staff prepares a comprehensive education outreach program Apr 2013
Staff conducts public education outreach with customers May - Sept 2013
Staff signs up customers for organic waste service May – Sept 2013
Contractor procures equipment May - Sept 2013
Study Session update on public outreach and organic sign-up Jul – Aug 2013
Solid Waste Ordinance changes Jun – Aug 2013
Review cart storage requirements Jun – Jul 2013
Review / revise Solid Waste Utility Rates Jul – Oct 2013
Carts and compostable bags are delivered to customers Sept 24, 2013
New collection contract(s) begins Oct 1, 2013
New Utility Rates become effective Jan 1, 2014
City Council Meeting of May 6, 2013 (Item No. 8d) Page 6
Title: Approval of 2013-2018 Solid Waste Collection Contracts
RESOLUTION NO. 13-____
RESOLUTION DESIGNATING SERVICE PROVIDERS
AND AUTHORIZING CONTRACT
WHEREAS, the City reviewed, studied, and discussed desired solid waste collection
services over the past year; and
WHEREAS, based on various criteria, the City identified Advanced Disposal, Allied
Waste, Randy’s Sanitation, and Waste Management as providers they deemed acceptable to
respond to the City’s residential garbage, recycling, yard waste, and organic waste collection
services Request for Proposals (RFP); and
WHEREAS, on November 2, 2012, the City issued a Request for Proposals for the
City’s residential garbage, recycling, yard waste, and organic waste collection services to
Advanced Disposal, Allied Waste, Randy’s Sanitation, and Waste Management; and
WHEREAS, on November 29, 2012, the City reviewed the proposals received from
Advanced Disposal, Allied Waste, Randy’s Sanitation, and Waste Management for residential
garbage, recycling, yard waste, and organic waste collection services; and
WHEREAS, the Council has determined that the proposal received from Waste
Management is in the best interests of the City for garbage and recycling collection services
considering cost, commitment to expand recycling, and their past delivery of services in the City;
and
WHEREAS, the Council has determined that the proposal received from Advanced
Disposal is in the best interests of the City for yard waste and organic waste collection services
considering cost and their co-collection of the two materials.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park, Minnesota, that:
1) The City reaffirms that its method of organizing residential solid waste collection shall be by
ordinance and by contract using two collectors.
2) The City designates Waste Management as the service provider for residential garbage and
recycling collection services in the City of St Louis Park, subject to the execution of a
contract.
3) The City designates Advanced Disposal as the service provider for residential yard waste and
organic waste collection services in the City of St Louis Park, subject to the execution of a
contract.
4) The Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized, on behalf of the City Council, to
execute a five-year agreement with Waste Management for residential garbage and recycling
collection services in the City commencing on October 1, 2013 in conformance with the
provisions developed and established in the proposal by Waste Management and the general
terms and conditions considered by Council.
City Council Meeting of May 6, 2013 (Item No. 8d) Page 7
Title: Approval of 2013-2018 Solid Waste Collection Contracts
5) The Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized, on behalf of the City Council, to
execute a five-year agreement with Advanced Disposal for residential yard waste and organic
waste collection services in the City commencing on October 1, 2013 in conformance with
the provisions developed and established in the proposal by Advanced Disposal and the
general terms and conditions considered by Council.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council May 6, 2013
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk