HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013/04/22 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - Study SessionAGENDA
APRIL 22, 2013
(Councilmembers Ross & Hallfin Out)
6:00 p.m.
RECONVENE LOCAL BOARD OF APPEAL & EQUALIZATION – Council Chambers
Immediately following LBAE
CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION – Council Chambers
Discussion Items
1. 5 min. Future Study Session Agenda Planning – May 6 & May 13, 2013
2. 45 min. Metropolitan Airport Commission Update
3. 30 min. 2013-2018 Solid Waste Collection Program and Contracts Update
4. 30 min. Southwest LRT Update
8:50 p.m. Communications/Meeting Check-In (Verbal)
Written Reports
5. March 2013 Monthly Financial Report
6. First Quarter Investment Report (January – March 2013)
7. Business Terms for Redevelopment Contract with Hunt Associates Related to Eliot
Park Project
8. Redevelopment Project and EDA Contract Status Report: April 2013
Auxiliary aids for individuals with disabilities are available upon request.
To make arrangements, please call the Administration Department at
952/924-2525 (TDD 952/924-2518) at least 96 hours in advance of meeting.
Meeting: Study Session
Meeting Date: April 22, 2013
Discussion Item: 1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Future Study Session Agenda Planning – May 6 & May 13, 2013
RECOMMENDED ACTION: The City Council and the City Manager to set the agenda for
the Special Study Session scheduled for May 6, 2013 and the regularly scheduled Study Session
on May 13, 2013.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the Council agree with the agendas as proposed?
SUMMARY: At each study session approximately five minutes are set aside to discuss the next
study session agenda. For this purpose, attached please find the proposed discussion items for
the Special Study Session scheduled for May 6, 2013 and the regularly scheduled Study Session
on May 13, 2013.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Future Study Session Agenda Planning – May 6 & 13, 2013
Prepared by: Debbie Fischer, Office Assistant
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of April 22, 2013 (Item No. 1) Page 2
Title: Future Study Session Agenda Planning – May 6 & May 13, 2013
Special Study Session, May 6, 2013 – 6:45 p.m.
Tentative Discussion Items
1. HR Update – Administrative Services (25 minutes)
The City Manager and HR Director will provide an update to the Council on some HR
activities including the reorganization of the Public Works and Parks operations, the Fire
Chief’s retirement and recruitment, and 2014 labor negotiations. This discussion is for
informational purposes.
Study Session, May 13, 2013 – 6:30 p.m.
Tentative Discussion Items
1. Future Study Session Agenda Planning – Administrative Services (5 minutes)
2. Annual TIF Management Report with Ehlers – Administrative Services/Community
Development (45 minutes)
Review of development/redevelopment projects taking place in the City and overview of TIF
Districts.
3. SWLRT Update – Community Development (60 minutes)
Current update and continued discussion of the Southwest Light Rail Transit Project.
4. Community Center Planning Check-In – Operations & Recreation (30 minutes)
Staff and representatives from HGA (City’s consultant) will present an update on the next
phase of Community Center planning.
5. Communications/Meeting Check-In – Administrative Services (5 minutes)
Time for communications between staff and Council will be set aside on every study session
agenda for the purposes of information sharing.
End of Meeting: 8:55 p.m.
Meeting: Study Session
Meeting Date: April 22, 2013
Discussion Item: 2
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Metropolitan Airport Commission Update
RECOMMENDED ACTION: No action required at this time.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
• Does Council have any further questions on how potential FAA directed changes at MSP
may affect city residents?
• Does Council wish to adopt a formal policy position or direct staff to take other action
regarding this matter?
SUMMARY: The FAA consideration last year to utilize Performance Based Navigation at
Minneapolis St. Paul International Airport (MSP) generated public concern that changing flight
paths may increase noise over the area located northwest of the airport, including St. Louis Park.
Information on the Noise Oversight Committee, runways and flight paths, noise contours, and
the PBN system is provided to Council in this report as background for a presentation by MAC
Director of Environment Chad Laqve, MAC Commissioner Lisa Peilen, and NOC At Large
Representation John Bergman.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not Applicable
VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion
Attachments 1-4
Prepared by: Brian Hoffman, Director of Inspections
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of April 22, 2013 (Item No. 2) Page 2
Title: Metropolitan Airport Commission Update
DISCUSSION
BACKGROUND: The Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) was created
in 1969. Some of MASAC’s efforts resulted in the elimination of training flights at MSP, the
addition of a noise abatement specialist to the MAC staff, and the establishment of a noise
complaint hotline to handle noise complaint calls and to provide information to residents around
MSP.
MASAC disbanded in 2000 and the MAC established a panel to develop a new framework for an
aircraft noise advisory committee. The MSP Noise Oversight Committee (NOC) was established
in 2002. The MAC Noise Program Office works closely with the NOC and is dedicated to
collecting, analyzing and reporting aircraft operations data for the purpose of working with the
communities surrounding the MAC's system of airports on aircraft noise issues.
St. Louis Park was included on the MASAC before becoming a member of NOC. Communities
which border MSP have individual seats on the NOC along with a balanced number of industry
members. Geographically located second tier cities including Apple Valley, Burnsville, Inver
Grove Heights, St. Paul, Sunfish Lake, St. Louis Park, and recently included Edina, share an At-
Large seat. A member is elected by the at-large cities designees (either staff or elected officials)
to serve as a representative for a two year term. The current appointed At-Large Community
Representative is Council Member John Bergman from Apple Valley.
As part of the Inspections Department responsibilities to respond to noise concerns, and as the
designated representative on NOC, several residents share their concerns with staff each year
regarding airline flight noise. Generally complaints arise over the frequency and concentration
of aircraft on approach for the North and South Parallel Runways (12L and 12R). Attachment #1
provides a map of MSP airport and runway labeling.
Even with evident aircraft noise, St. Louis Park is completely outside of the MSP Noise
Contours as indicated on Attachment #2 by the extent of the 60 DNL contour extending only to
the southeast corner of Lake Harriet. This is the reason none of the home insulation projects
have ever included the city.
PRESENT CONSIDERATIONS: The FAA proposal to implement Performance Based
Navigation (PBN) at MSP, and an abbreviated public comment period during November of
2012, raised many questions and concerns from residents located to the northwest of MSP. PBN
is intended to provide improvements in flight control and safety as described in the Attachment
#3 FAA brochure. PBN would shift departure paths and concentrate airplane noise on more
defined tracks. Attachment #4 compares the current flight paths in density for departures and
arrivals (highest flight density identified in orange) to the proposed PBN defined tracks in black.
The very south area of the city bordering Edina is modeled to experience some additional
departure flights if PBN is fully implemented.
Implementation of PBN has not yet occurred. However, some residents have complained of
increased noise due to perceived flight path changes. Some recent media reporting may have
caused this misunderstanding since only normal flight path distributions based on weather
conditions and airport traffic have occurred.
Study Session Meeting of April 22, 2013 (Item No. 2) Page 3
Title: Metropolitan Airport Commission Update
To provide Council with an update on PBN, implementation timing, and possible effects, MAC
Director of Environment Chad Laqve will join MAC Commissioner Lisa Peilen and NOC At
Large Representation John Bergman for discussion.
A brief presentation by MAC will include:
• MAC/NOC overview and Introduction
• Explanation of Performance Based Navigation (PBN)
• Process through November 2012
• Tracks Considered over St. Louis Park
• What is Next?
• Answering of questions
NEXT STEPS: Staff is planning to provide residents with an update on airport noise during the
next Park Perspective and though other communication tools. Staff also plans to provide
clarification to the community of PBN implementation and use of the MACNOISE website to
track flights or submit noise complaints.
Study Session Meeting of April 22, 2013 (Item No. 2) Title: Metropolitan Airport Commission UpdatePage 4
Study Session Meeting of April 22, 2013 (Item No. 2) Title: Metropolitan Airport Commission UpdatePage 5
Study Session Meeting of April 22, 2013 (Item No. 2) Title: Metropolitan Airport Commission UpdatePage 6
Study Session Meeting of April 22, 2013 (Item No. 2) Title: Metropolitan Airport Commission UpdatePage 7
Study Session Meeting of April 22, 2013 (Item No. 2) Title: Metropolitan Airport Commission UpdatePage 8
Study Session Meeting of April 22, 2013 (Item No. 2) Title: Metropolitan Airport Commission UpdatePage 9
Meeting: Study Session
Meeting Date: April 22, 2013
Discussion Item: 3
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: 2013-2018 Solid Waste Collection Program and Contracts Update
RECOMMENDED ACTION: No formal action requested. The purpose of this discussion is to
update Council on where things stand on the City’s next 5 year Solid Waste Collection
Program/Contracts and to obtain input on revenue sharing options associated with the proposed
contracts.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does Council have any concerns regarding the proposed solid
waste collection program? Does Council support the staff recommended revenue sharing option?
SUMMARY: Based on previous Council direction, staff is finalizing negotiations and
agreements with two service providers, the first for garbage and recycling collection services and
the second for yard waste and organic collection services. At the May 6, 2013 Council meeting
staff is planning to request Council to designate service providers and approve contracts for
2013-2018 residential curbside collection services.
Customers will receive one 95 gallon recycling cart, owned by the City. Customers will have the
option of changing to a smaller size cart (35 gallon or 65 gallon), if they desire. Customers
participating in the new organics collection program customers will receive one 95 gallon
organic / yard waste cart. The cart will be used for both yard waste and organic waste. Customers
will have the option of changing to a smaller size cart (65 gallon), if they desire. Residents 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 done currently using their own container or in compostable bags.
The Contractor has proposed 2 revenue sharing options for the City to decide upon. Staff is
recommending Alternate 1 which provides for the City to receive 80% of the revenues earned in
excess of the contractor’s actual processing costs.
Staff is also proposing the City to utilize an enrollment program and to charge a nominal fee for
organic waste collection services (about $40 per year).
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: There will be no cost implications to the
General Fund resulting from these contracts, as the Solid Waste Enterprise Fund covers 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
Exhibit 1 - Revenue Sharing Projections
Prepared by: Scott Merkley, Infrastructure Manager
Reviewed by: Michael P. Rardin, Director of Engineering
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of April 22, 2013 (Item No. 3) Page 2
Title: 2013-2018 Solid Waste Collection Program and Contracts Update
DISCUSSION
History
The February 11, 2013 Study Session report included a history / summary of the Study Session
meetings for the 2013-2018 Solid Waste Program that occurred in 2012. In addition, staff
presented Council with several policy questions to obtain direction 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 proposal 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.
Cart Size, Ownership, and Cost
Recycling Carts - as part of the new single-sort recycling collection program all 12,300
residential customers will receive one 95 gallon recycling cart, owned by the City. Customers
will have the option of changing to a smaller size cart (35 gallon or 65 gallon), if they desire.
Customers may get a second recycling cart, if needed. Customers who currently have 2 recycling
bins have a 72 gallon capacity (based on every other week collection). City purchased carts and
distribution will cost about $550,000. This capital expenditure has been planned for, is in the
current 5-year CIP, and the Solid Waste Fund has adequate funds available for this expenditure.
Organic / Yard Waste Carts – customers participating in the new organics collection program
customers will receive one 95 gallon organic / yard waste cart. The cart will be used for both
yard waste and organic waste. Customers will have the option of changing to a smaller size cart
(65 gallon), if they desire. Since organic waste collection is proposed as optional for residents,
the number of carts needed is unknown. Staff estimates approximately 15-20% (possibly 2,000)
of our residents will sign-up initially and the program is expected to continue to grow over time.
Based on the above, the City’s initial cart expenditure and distribution costs could be
approximately $110,000. The Solid Waste Fund has adequate funds available to cover this
expenditure also.
Residents 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.
Revenue Sharing
The Contractor has proposed 2 revenue sharing options for the City to decide upon.
Alternate 1 – this alternate provides for the City to receive 80% of the revenues earned less the
contractor’s actual processing costs. However, should revenues drop below Contractor’s
processing costs, the City would be required to pay the Contractor the difference (i.e., City pays
Contractor processing costs in either situation and receives 80% of earned revenues or could
suffer losses during poor markets). The City has a greater potential for higher revenues under
this option but also shares the risk of financial loss during poor markets.
Study Session Meeting of April 22, 2013 (Item No. 3) Page 3
Title: 2013-2018 Solid Waste Collection Program and Contracts Update
Alternate 2 – this alternate provides for the City to receive 100% of the revenues earned less a
higher processing fee. Under this alternate, the City does not pay for any losses (processing
costs less revenues) incurred by the Contractor during poor markets. The City has less potential
for revenue share earnings since the Contractor absorbs all the risk during poor markets.
Recommendation - Staff is recommending Alternate 1. Over the past 5 years there have only
been about 10 months (in 2008-9) where markets were down and revenue shares would have
been negative.
Attached Exhibit 1 (Revenue Sharing Projections) shows what revenue sharing earnings and
losses would have been for St. Louis Park during the past 5 years for Alternate 1 and Alternate 2.
The cities of Brooklyn Park, Crystal, and New Hope are currently using the revenue sharing
method described above in Alternate 1 and it appears that Alternate 1 is also the revenue sharing
method the City of Minneapolis will be using in their new contract.
Organic Waste - Enrollment and Nominal Fee
Being organics collection is not a mature industry there are risks associated with providing this
service. Of all the possible risks, proper organics disposal by residents seems to be the largest.
If residents discard improper wastes as organics, contaminated organic materials will be rejected
at organic disposal facilities and then transferred to / disposed of at the HERC. If significant
contamination occurs (and continues to occur) organics processing facilities will cease to accept
our materials, thus forcing an end to our organics collection program. For our organics collection
program to be successful, it will be necessary for residents to understand and to dispose of
acceptable organics materials only. Disposal of non-organic materials (as organics) will be
unacceptable and lead to program failure. Based on their experience in delivering limited
organics collection services, Contractors are recommending that only interested residents should
be sought for participation in this program. They recommend, and staff concurs, this be done by
requiring residents to sign up (enroll) for this service along with paying a nominal fee for the
service. Staff feels the cost to provide the compostable bags ($36/year) and the yard waste /
organics cart ($4/year) should be charged for this service ($10/quarter); this is about 50% the
going rate for a subscription organics collection service
In summary, the staff recommendation for organic waste collection is to require resident
enrollment and payment of a nominal fee to ensure participation by interested and
environmentally oriented residents only.
Other Program Considerations
As discussed during the February 19th Study Session, expanding our collection program to cover
organics collection services has increased overall program costs approximately $270,000 per
year. As a result, 2014 program costs were projected to exceed revenues by about $30,000 per
year. Assumed recycling revenue sharing earnings of approximately $150,000 per year were
used when calculating this overall program cost last February. As can be seen in Exhibit 1, a
more conservative figure of $100,000 in annual revenue share earnings should probably be used
in projecting our future costs and revenues. This will mean our total program costs are projected
to exceed our total revenues in 2014 by about $80,000 for the year. This should not cause an
immediate fund balance issue, but will over the long term if utility rates are not adjusted
accordingly.
Study Session Meeting of April 22, 2013 (Item No. 3) Page 4
Title: 2013-2018 Solid Waste Collection Program and Contracts Update
Based on the above, staff recommends that solid waste utility rates be reviewed later in 2013 not
only to ensure fund viability but also to acknowledge and promote appropriate organics
collection participation by residents (establishment of a nominal organics collection fee as
described above).
Finally, staff has identified several ordinance changes that need to be made to allow for organics
collection in the City. These should be noncontroversial and easy to make. These changes
should be completed prior to organics collection beginning in October 1, 2013.
Public Outreach Program
Staff is working with the Communications Coordinator to develop a comprehensive public
outreach program to inform residents of the program changes and to sign-up residents 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 residents May - Sept 2013
Staff signs up residents 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
Solid Waste Utility Rates review Jul – Oct 2013
Carts and compostable bags are delivered to residents Sept 24, 2013
New collection contract(s) begin Oct 1, 2013
EXHIBIT 1
REVENUE SHARING PROJECTIONS
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Total Risk
Alternate No. 1
Actual Annual Revenue ($/ton)115.28$ 101.06$ 51.98$ 87.64$ 133.24$ 89.92$
Processing Fee ($/ton)47.00$ 48.00$ 49.00$ 50.00$ 51.00$ 52.00$
Annual Revenue to City 180,353$ 130,998$ (29,575)$ 80,207$ 221,701$ 79,505$ 663,189$ yes - some
Altenate No. 2
Actual Annual Revenue ($/ton)115.28$ 101.06$ 51.98$ 87.64$ 133.24$ 89.92$
Processing Fee ($/ton)80.00$ 80.00$ 80.00$ 80.00$ 80.00$ 80.00$
Annual Revenue to City 140,697$ 83,987$ -$ 30,468$ 212,321$ 39,561$ 507,034$ no - none
156,155$
Notes:
1 - 2007 projections are based on partial year information
2 - Projections based on average 3,988 tons of recyclables per year
3 - Alternate No. 1 - revenues earned by city can be negative (potential cost implications)
4 - Alternate No. 2 - revenues earned by the city do not drop below $0 (no cost implications)
Revenue Sharing Projections
2007 thru 2012
Difference
Study Session Meeting of April 22, 2013 (Item No. 3)
Title: 2013-2018 Solid Waste Collection Program and Contracts Update Page 5
Meeting: Study Session
Meeting Date: April 22, 2013
Discussion Item: 4
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Southwest LRT Update
RECOMMENDED ACTION: No action at this time. The purpose of the meeting is to update
the Council on various items that are currently being discussed related to SW LRT.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: None at this specific time.
SUMMARY:
There are a myriad of issues on SW LRT that are currently being discussed through the
Preliminary Engineering (PE) and Transitional Station Area Action Plans (TSAAP) process.
Currently these items appear as disparate pieces, however they will eventually come together in
the overall plan for the whole project. Staff will continue to bring items forward for discussion
as they arise, and when direction and decisions are needed.
Discussion at the meeting will include the following items:
1. A recap of the TSAAP Open House (attached charrette drawings)
2. Wooddale Station Area options (presented at meeting)
3. Park and Ride Demand Estimates and Site Selection and Design Criteria (tables attached)
4. Update on the Operations and Maintenance Facility (OMF) site selection and evaluation
process (attached)
5. CSAH 25 conversion to an urban boulevard (shown at meeting)
6. Key decisions timetable (handout at meeting)
7. Other issues
Staff will continue to update the City Council at least monthly for the foreseeable future; the next
update is tentatively scheduled for May 13th.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not applicable at this time.
VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged
community.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Summary of Current Activities
OMF Maps and Evaluation Criteria
Park & Ride Estimates
Park & Ride Site Selection Criteria
TSAAP Charrette Drawings
Prepared by: Meg J. McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor
Reviewed by: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of April 22, 2013 (Item No. 4) Page 2
Title: Southwest LRT Update
SW LRT Summary of Current Activities April 17, 2013
1. Preliminary Engineering (PE) – Met Council Southwest Project Office (SPO)
• PE consultants are testing alternate layouts and alignments, modeling
traffic and park and ride, working on alternatives for the immediate
station areas. Issues Resolutions Group (IRG) staff meetings continue:
i. St. Louis Park general
ii. Freight Rail issues
iii. Operations and Maintenance Facilities (OMF)
2. Transitional Station Area Action Plans (TSAAP) – Hennepin County
Community Works
• TSAAP Community Open Houses are scheduled: Thursday, April 18, 2013
in St. Louis Park at the Rec Center, 5:30-7:30
3. Station Areas – St. Louis Park
• Beltline Station Area – Advisory Committee wrapped up report on
access and circulation; report to Council in May.
• Louisiana Station Area – Hiring consultant and creating Advisory
Committee for Design Guidelines, stormwater planning using Met
Council Pre-development grant.
• Wooddale – Will create an Advisory Committee/public process to review
and provide input on PE and TSAAP plans.
Study Session Meeting of April 22, 2013 (Item No. 4) Title: Southwest LRT UpdatePage 3
Study Session Meeting of April 22, 2013 (Item No. 4) Title: Southwest LRT UpdatePage 4
Study Session Meeting of April 22, 2013 (Item No. 4) Title: Southwest LRT UpdatePage 5
P&R Scenario Demand Estimates (2030)
March 14_rev.1
Station 15 P&Rs 9 P&Rs 7 P&Rs 6 P&Rs
Mitchell 900 950 1210 1210
SouthWest 340 430
Eden Prairie Town Center 160
Golden Triangle 290 320 360 360
City West 125 140 185 190
Opus 60 60
Shady Oak 400 475 500 525
Hopkins 200
Blake 235 340 395 445
Louisiana 130 225 230
Wooddale 135
Beltline 280 545 545 670
West Lake 160
21st St. 20
Penn 130
Corridor Total 3,570 3,480 3,410 3,400
Study Session Meeting of April 22, 2013 (Item No. 4)
Title: Southwest LRT Update Page 6
P&R Site Selection and Design Criteria
(Source: 2030 Transportation Policy Plan, Appendix H, Ch. 5, Sec. 4)
Land Provision
1 Public Rights-of-Way or Publicly Held Property
2 Joint-Use Opportunity
3 Private Land
Essential Criteria
1 Located on a Major Travel Corridor to a Major Regional Activity Center
2 Convenient Access to Regional Highway System
3 Convenient Vehicle Access
4 Community or Land Use Compatibility (Local Area Factor)
5 Environmental Constraints (Local Area Factor)
6 Economic Implications (Local Area Factor)
7 Serving Lower-Density Areas with Less than Full Transit Service Coverage
Preferred Criteria
1 Congested Travel Corridor
2 Upstream of Major Traffic Congestion
3 Good Visibility from Primary Roadway(s)
4 Located on Inbound Side of Primary Roadway Access
5 Future Expansion Potential
6 Surface (Preferred) or Structured
7 Transit Center Synergy
Study Session Meeting of April 22, 2013 (Item No. 4)
Title: Southwest LRT Update Page 7
Methodist
Hospital
Align LRT south
along R&R Siding
Hwy 7 & Louisiana Ave
Intersection Improvements
Meadowbrook
Golf Course
Creekside Park
Mi
n
n
e
h
a
h
a
C
r
e
e
k
Sams Club
Louisiana StationTransit
Stop
Transit
Stop
Residential
Neighborhood
Residential
Neighborhood
Residential
Neighborhood
Louisiana
Station
2.19.2013
DRAFT - For Discussion Purposes Only 1” = 200’
Park node
Civic node
Employment
node
Legend
SW LRT
Station
Residential
Neighborhood
Transit Stop
SW LRT
Alignment
Pedestrian
Improvements
Improved
Intersection
Study Session Meeting of April 22, 2013 (Item No. 4)
Title: Southwest LRT Update Page 8
SectionS/GraphicS/precedentS
Park node
Destination
node
Civic node
Employment
node
Legend
SW LRT
Station
Residential
Neighborhood
Transit Stop
SW LRT
Alignment
Improved
Intersection
Pedestrian
Improvements
ENGINEERING CoNsIdERatIoNs
opENING day CoNsIdERatIoNs
dIRECtIoNs & oppoRtuNItIEs
»Eastbound ramp to Highway 100, extend pedestrian refuge south, increase light levels for walkers, raised crosswalks/differentiate by materials (concrete, scoring, etc.)
»Implement complete street strategies to 36th Street and Wooddale Boulevard
»Improve pedestrian crossing at 36th Street and Wooddale Boulevard
»Create station plaza on south side of platform (city/county parcels)
»Kiss & Ride dropoff
»Bus dropoff on 36th Street
»Improved pedestrian crossings/markings on the Wooddale Boulevard Bridge
»Improved pedestrian crossings/markings at the Wooddale Avenue/36th Street intersection
»Transit plaza at the LRT station
»Signage and wayfinding.
»Public safety/lighting/CPTED facilities
»Bike parking facilities at station plaza
»Kiss & Ride dropoff
»Bus dropoff on 36th Street
»Strengthen connections from schools, northern residential neighborhood, and recreation center to station area along Wooddale and 36th Street
»36th Street streetscape public art improvements, brand as an art corridor
»Potential to claim space around station for plaza/art space and better pedestrian environment
»Redevelopment opportunity at the Burlington Coat Factory/Micro Center site
»Mixed use redevelopment of existing light industrial near station site
»Opportunity to introduce greenery along LRT corridor, create a green seam
Park node
Destination
node
Civic node
Employment
node
Legend
SW LRT
Station
Residential
Neighborhood
Transit Stop
SW LRT
Alignment
Improved
Intersection
Pedestrian
ImprovementsLouisiana AveHwy 7Hwy 100Methodist
Hospital
Park Nicollet
Clinic
Public Art, Transit
Plaza, & Streetscape
Improved Ped
Crossing
Complete Street
Improvements
Potential Auto Bridge
over Hwy 100
Improve Pedestrian Highway
Crossings & Refuge
Improve Pedestrian Highway
Crossings & Refuge
Potential Ped Bridge
Over Hwy 100
St Louis Park
High School
Park Spanish
Immersion
School
Target
36th St
Camerata Way
35th St W
Hamilton St
34th St WLake St W
Goodrich Ave
Oxford St
Alabama Ave SYosemite Ave SZanthan Ave SCambridge St
39th St W
Park Center BlvdWooddal
e
B
lvd
Sam’s Club
Wooddale
Station
Residential
Neighborhood
Residential
Neighborhood
Transit Stop
Recreation
Center
dRaFt-FoR dIsCussIoN puRposEs oNly
WooddalE MINNEapolIsst louIs paRkHopkINsEdEN pRaIRIE MINNEtoNka st louIs paRk
Urban Village + SchoolS/learning + health/WellneSS + recreation/enVironmental center + employment center + cUltUral center + tranSit/trail FeederUrban Village SchoolS/learning health/WellneSS recreation/enVironmental center employment center cUltUral center tranSit/trail Feeder
Study Session Meeting of April 22, 2013 (Item No. 4)
Title: Southwest LRT Update Page 9
Excelsior
& Grand
Improve Wetland quality & utilize as
recreation/aesthetic amenity
Improve Ped connections from
housing to station area
Utilize park surface parking for
Potential Park-n-Ride Location
Add Civic & Aesthetic Amenities from
station to Excelsior & Grand
Community
Center
Mont
e
r
e
y
D
rBelt Line BlvdW 36th St
France AveBeltline Station
Transit Stop
Residential
Neighborhood
Residential
Neighborhood
Beltline
Station
2.19.2013
DRAFT - For Discussion Purposes Only 1” = 200’
Park node
Civic node
Employment
node
Legend
SW LRT
Station
Residential
Neighborhood
Transit Stop
SW LRT
Alignment
Pedestrian
Improvements
Improved
Intersection
Target
Study Session Meeting of April 22, 2013 (Item No. 4)
Title: Southwest LRT Update Page 10
Meeting: Study Session
Meeting Date: April 22, 2013
Written Report: 5
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: March 2013 Monthly Financial Report
RECOMMENDED ACTION: No action required at this time.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: None at this time.
SUMMARY: The Monthly Financial Report provides summary information for the General
Fund and the Park & Recreation Fund of revenues and departmental expenditures and a
comparison of budget to actual throughout the year.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Actual expenditures should generally run
about 25% of the annual budget in March. Currently, the General Fund has expenditures totaling
23.2% of the adopted budget and the Park and Recreation Fund expenditures are at 21.6%.
Revenues tend to be harder to gauge in this same way due to the timing of when they are
received, examples of which include property taxes and State aid payments (Police & Fire,
DOT/Highway, PERA Aid, etc.).
There continue to be no significant expenditure variances in either fund through the first quarter.
A brief comment regarding the status of license and permit revenue is noted below.
General Fund
Revenues:
• Through March, 43% of the license and permit revenues have been received in the
General Fund. As in prior years, this is because most 2013 liquor and business license
payments have already been received. In the Administration Department, nearly 95% or
$235,000 of the budgeted liquor license revenues have been received. In the Inspections
Department, 92% or approximately $367,000 of the business license revenues for the
year have been recorded, with most of the payments coming in late 2012 and deferred to
2013 to accurately reflect the year that the license revenue is earned. Building permit
revenues are at 23.8% of budget or $405,000 through March.
VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Summary of Revenues & Expenditures
Prepared by: Darla Monson, Senior Accountant
Reviewed by: Brian A. Swanson, Controller
Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Summary of Revenues - General Fund and Park & Recreation As of March 31, 2013 20132013201120112012201220132013 Balance YTD Budget BudgetActual Budget Unaudited Budget Mar YTD Remaining to Actual %General Fund Revenues: General Property Taxes15,426,072$ 15,372,076$ 15,998,292$ 16,038,098$ 16,314,802$ -$ 16,314,802$ 0.00% Licenses and Permits2,345,910 2,797,588 2,368,799 3,241,372 2,481,603 1,063,259 1,418,344 42.85% Fines & Forfeits328,200 281,047 328,150 341,356 335,150 56,511 278,639 16.86% Intergovernmental1,136,187 1,243,494 1,163,677 1,275,279 1,203,289 273,894 929,395 22.76% Charges for Services1,152,643 1,077,137 1,270,354 1,095,909 1,401,797 104,353 1,297,444 7.44% Miscellaneous Revenue100,150 129,142 111,650 103,029 114,200 36,535 77,665 31.99% Transfers In2,589,876 2,553,665 2,023,003 2,066,136 1,816,563 447,378 1,369,185 24.63% Investment Earnings200,000 203,282 125,000 136,415 150,000 150,000 0.00% Other Income4,750 22,686 3,450 10,871 4,700 3,855 845 82.02%Total General Fund Revenues23,283,788$ 23,680,117$ 23,392,375$ 24,308,465$ 23,822,104$ 1,985,785$ 21,836,319$ 8.34%Park & Recreation Revenues: General Property Taxes4,000,561$ 4,000,561$ 4,171,506$ 4,171,506$ 4,342,922$ -$ 4,342,922$ 0.00% Licenses and Permits6,600 110 6,600 440 - 139 (139) 0.00% Intergovernmental77,652 208,536 68,902 89,744 96,902 2,062 94,840 2.13% Charges for Services1,095,250 1,082,163 1,070,750 1,073,722 1,073,400 124,665 948,735 11.61% Miscellaneous Revenue937,400 1,035,310 967,900 989,204 978,181 166,398 811,783 17.01% Other Income15,000 78,902 42,150 265,402 31,950 1,050 30,900 3.29%Total Park & Recreation Revenues6,132,463$ 6,405,582$ 6,327,808$ 6,590,018$ 6,523,355$ 294,314$ 6,229,041$ 4.51%Study Session Meeting of April 22, 2013 (Item No. 5) Title: March 2013 Monthly Financial ReportPage 2
20132013201120112012201220132013 Balance BudgetBudgetActual Budget Unaudited Budget Mar YTD Remaining to Actual %General Government: Administration889,798$ 825,168$ 1,012,554$ 977,392$ 877,099$ 217,847$ 659,252$ 24.84% Accounting612,964 624,573 641,691 639,999 657,592 151,340 506,252 23.01% Assessing500,141 506,426 517,840 518,271 543,855 136,812 407,043 25.16% Human Resources652,770 629,734 667,612 645,357 678,988 161,109 517,879 23.73% Community Development1,094,186 1,082,461 1,076,376 1,052,186 1,094,517 257,574 836,943 23.53% Facilities Maintenance1,114,551 955,880 1,083,128 972,481 1,074,920 228,498 846,422 21.26% Information Resources1,394,226 1,421,858 1,507,579 1,363,266 1,770,877 328,193 1,442,684 18.53% Communications & Marketing294,470 256,558 265,426 244,392 201,322 48,371 152,951 24.03% Community Outreach88,515 84,300 8,185 5,341 8,185 - 8,185 0.00%Total General Government6,641,621$ 6,386,958$ 6,780,391$ 6,418,686$ 6,907,355$ 1,529,744$ 5,377,611$ 22.15%Public Safety: Police7,208,512$ 6,943,375$ 7,273,723$ 7,124,784$ 7,443,637$ 1,813,858$ 5,629,779$ 24.37% Fire Protection3,164,344 3,061,962 3,346,931 3,291,655 3,330,263 769,665 2,560,598 23.11% Inspectional Services1,863,296 1,818,212 1,889,340 1,869,616 1,928,446 473,857 1,454,589 24.57%Total Public Safety12,236,152$ 11,823,549$ 12,509,994$ 12,286,055$ 12,702,346$ 3,057,380$ 9,644,966$ 24.07%Public Works: Public Works Administration829,698$ 803,259$ 389,783$ 378,852$ 393,054$ 86,039$ 307,015$ 21.89% Public Works Engineering846,032 816,280 927,337 939,425 940,479 204,649 735,830 21.76% Public Works Operations2,550,285 2,461,099 2,604,870 2,521,463 2,698,870 636,929 2,061,941 23.60%Total Public Works4,226,015$ 4,080,638$ 3,921,990$ 3,839,739$ 4,032,403$ 927,618$ 3,104,785$ 23.00%Non-Departmental: General 81,287$ -$ 65,292$ -$ -$ 0.00% Transfers Out900,000 - 1,160,000 - - 0.00% Tax Court Petitions180,000 - 180,000 - 180,000 - 180,000 0.00%Total Non-Departmental180,000$ 981,287$ 180,000$ 1,225,292$ 180,000$ -$ 180,000$ 0.00%Total General Fund Expenditures23,283,788$ 23,272,432$ 23,392,375$ 23,769,772$ 23,822,104$ 5,514,742$ 18,307,362$ 23.15%Park & Recreation:Organized Recreation1,239,230$ 1,266,774$ 1,305,747$ 1,352,273$ 1,317,526$ 255,183$ 1,062,343$ 19.37%Recreation Center1,442,447 1,424,076 1,466,246 1,516,121 1,463,224 279,439 1,183,785 19.10%Park Maintenance1,435,374 1,462,866 1,461,645 1,444,448 1,483,576 323,067 1,160,509 21.78%Westwood502,366 488,579 515,456 506,404 533,565 118,835 414,730 22.27%Environment371,324 396,664 390,009 382,378 430,876 88,202 342,674 20.47%Vehicle Maintenance1,141,722 1,300,708 1,188,705 1,326,153 1,294,588 341,604 952,984 26.39%Total Park & Recreation Expenditures6,132,463$ 6,339,666$ 6,327,808$ 6,527,777$ 6,523,355$ 1,406,330$ 5,117,025$ 21.56%Summary of Expenditures - General Fund and Park & RecreationAs of March 31, 2013 Study Session Meeting of April 22, 2013 (Item No. 5) Title: March 2013 Monthly Financial ReportPage 3
Meeting: Study Session
Meeting Date: April 22, 2013
Written Report: 6
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: First Quarter Investment Report (January – March 2013)
RECOMMENDED ACTION: No action required at this time.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: None at this time.
SUMMARY: The Quarterly Investment Report provides an overview of the City’s investment
portfolio, including the types of investments held, length of maturity, and yield.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: None at this time.
VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion
Investment Portfolio Summary
Prepared by: Darla Monson, Senior Accountant
Reviewed by: Brian A. Swanson, Controller
Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of April 22, 2013 (Item No. 6) Page 2
Title: First Quarter Investment Report (January – March 2013)
DISCUSSION
BACKGROUND: The City’s investment portfolio is focused on short term cash flow needs and
investment in longer term securities. This is done in accordance with Minnesota Statute 118A
and the City’s Investment Policy objectives of: 1) Preservation of capital; 2) Liquidity; and 3)
Return on investment.
PRESENT CONSIDERATIONS: The total portfolio value decreased by approximately $11.1
million in the first quarter from $67.3 million at 12/31/2012 to $56.2 million at 3/31/2013. This
is normal and typical of prior years, as a large amount of cash is received in December from the
second half property tax and TIF settlement. Much of this cash is then needed in the first quarter
to pay the February 1 debt service payments and Pay As You Go TIF note payments, as well as
the normal payroll and general operating expenses.
The overall yield of the portfolio remains consistent at 1.12% in the first quarter compared to
1.15% at 12/31/2012, and 1.12% at 12/31/2011. Cities generally use a benchmark such as the
two year Treasury (.25% at 3/31/2013) or some similar measure for yield comparison of their
overall portfolio. Several securities matured or were called during the quarter, and much of the
cash from these redemptions was used to fund the debt service and TIF note payments mentioned
previously. Four new securities were also purchased, all with rates of right around 1%.
Interest rates continue to be at or near record lows. The City has been able to maintain a fairly
consistent yield over the past 12 to 15 months by balancing cash flow needs with short and long
term investment options. However, it is important to note that there are several older
investments in the portfolio nearing their final maturity within the next twelve months. Most of
these are municipal debt securities that were purchased at a time when yields to maturity were in
the 2% to 4% range. It is likely that new investment purchases will have much lower yields,
which means that the overall portfolio yield may decline slightly over the coming year if interest
rates don’t improve.
Approximately 24% of the portfolio is currently invested in money markets. It is necessary to
keep cash available between property tax settlements for on-going cash flow needs for capital
project payments, payroll, and operating expenses. The next property tax payment is the 70%
advance settlement, which will be received on June 20, 2013, with the remainder on July 5,
2013. Money market rates are very low and range from just .08% at UBS to .21% at Citizens
Independent Bank. This does unfortunately keep the total portfolio yield down, but there are
very few options for investing cash short term.
Another 8% of the portfolio is invested in fixed rate certificates of deposit at rates ranging from
.5% for two years to 1.75% for five years. With rates on bonds continuing to be very low,
purchasing these fixed rate CD’s has helped to keep the portfolio yield stable. There are 18 CD’s
in the portfolio, each with a face value of $200,000 to $240,000, which guarantees that each CD
is insured by the FDIC up to $250,000.
The remaining 68% or approximately $38 million of the portfolio is invested in other long term
securities, including municipal debt ($23 million) and agency bonds ($15 million). Municipal
debt instruments are bonds issued by States, local governments, or school districts to finance
special projects. Agency bonds are issued by government agencies such as the Federal Home
Loan Bank or Fannie Mae, and are typically callable. These callable agency bonds will usually
have higher interest rates to the final maturity date in five years, but the issuers have the right to
Study Session Meeting of April 22, 2013 (Item No. 6) Page 3
Title: First Quarter Investment Report (January – March 2013)
call the bonds at specific intervals prior to maturity if interest rates decline. This has happened
quite frequently in the market conditions of the past few years.
Available cash will continue to be used to purchase longer term securities whenever possible to
help keep the overall portfolio yield stable
Here is a summary of the City’s portfolio at March 31, 2013:
NEXT STEPS: None at this time.
12/31/12 3/31/13
<1 Year 46% 40%
1-2 Years 10% 11%
2-3 Years 11% 16%
3-4 Years 13% 9%
>4 Years 20% 24%
12/31/12 3/31/13
Money Markets $18,468,141 $13,681,146
Commercial Paper $0 $0
Certificates of Deposit $4,539,049 $4,316,614
Municipal Debt $27,161,601 $23,115,051
Agency Bonds $17,113,169 $15,084,419
City of St. Louis Park
Investment Portfolio Summary
March 31, 2013
Institution/Broker Investment Type CUSIP Maturity Date
Yield to
Maturity Par Value
Market Value at
3/31/2013
Estimated Avg
Annual Income
Citizens Indep Bank Money Market 0.21%5,035,606 5,035,606 10,575
4M Fund Money Market 0.02%3,038,082 3,038,082 608
Citigroup/Smith Barney GNMA 36217C4W3 6.24% 18,705 21,539 1,344
Wells Fargo Advisors FHLB Step Up 313380B63 08/16/2017 1.031% 1,000,000 1,000,320 10,310
UBS Muni Debt - Illinois State 452152FD8 04/01/2013 1.84% 1,000,000 1,000,210 18,350
UBS Muni Debt - Dist of Columbia 25476FLE6 06/01/2015 1.33% 1,000,000 1,058,630 13,310
UBS Muni Debt - Calif State 13063A7E8 10/01/2013 0.78% 2,000,000 2,033,880 15,680
UBS Muni Debt - Gilroy, CA 376087CZ3 04/01/2015 1.81% 1,125,000 1,185,514 20,363
UBS Muni Debt - Calif State 13063BNR9 10/01/2015 2.00% 1,000,000 1,049,970 20,000
UBS Muni Debt - Atl City, NJ 048339RR8 12/15/2015 2.70% 470,000 480,937 12,690
UBS FNMA Step Up 3136FTXU8 12/29/2016 1.25% 1,000,000 1,009,650 12,500
UBS CD - Barclays Bank DE 06740KFS1 01/11/2016 1.60% 240,000 245,203 3,840
UBS Muni Debt - Amer Munic Pwr Ohio 02765UER1 02/15/2015 1.54% 1,000,000 1,058,950 15,400
UBS Freddie Mac 3134G3PE4 02/24/2016 0.85% 1,000,000 1,004,470 8,500
UBS CD - Bank of China NY 06425HN85 05/02/2014 0.60% 240,000 240,859 1,440
UBS CD - Discover Bank DE 254671AG5 05/02/2017 1.75% 240,000 244,094 4,200
UBS CD - GE Cap Retail Bank UT 36160NJZ3 05/04/2017 1.75% 240,000 244,183 4,200
UBS CD - Medallion Bank UT 58403BXU5 05/07/2014 0.60% 240,000 240,859 1,440
UBS CD - Apple Bank NY 037830KP0 05/09/2014 0.50% 240,000 240,859 1,200
UBS FHLMC 3134G3WV8 06/06/2017 1.01% 1,000,000 1,008,940 10,140
UBS FHLMC 3134G3MZ0 02/24/2017 0.89% 1,000,000 1,007,340 8,930
UBS FNMA step up 3136G0ZV6 08/28/2017 1.17% 1,000,000 1,001,960 11,740
UBS CD - Sallie Mae Bnk UT 79545OPE9 08/29/2017 1.70% 240,000 243,744 4,080
UBS FHLMC 3134G3NN6 02/27/2017 0.72% 1,000,000 1,010,240 7,220
UBS CD - First Bank PR Sant 33764JNF8 10/27/2014 0.80% 240,000 240,725 1,920
UBS CD - Doral Bank PR 25811L2L2 12/08/2014 0.85% 240,000 240,845 2,040
UBS CD - Amer Exp Cent UT 02587DLS5 01/26/2015 0.85% 240,000 240,535 2,040
UBS CD - BMW Bank UT 05568PZ59 10/26/2015 1.05% 240,000 240,876 2,520
UBS CD - Sun Natl Bank NJ 86682ABV2 10/03/2017 1.00% 240,000 243,154 2,400
UBS CD - Everbank Jacksonvl FL 29976DPB0 10/31/2017 1.00% 240,000 241,949 2,400
UBS CD - Comenity Bank DE 981996AX9 12/05/2017 1.25% 200,000 197,004 2,500
UBS CD - Banco Popular PR 05967ESG5 12/05/2017 1.10% 240,000 241,774 2,640
UBS Muni Debt - N. Orange Cty CA 661334DR0 08/01/2017 1.01% 1,000,000 1,013,370 10,110
UBS FNMA 3136G1AJ8 01/30/2018 1.06% 1,000,000 998,820 10,630
UBS Money Market 0.08% 5,607,458 5,607,458 4,486
25,117,002
Sterne, Agee Muni Debt - Van Buren, MI Sch 920729GQ7 05/01/2013 3.12% 300,000 300,747 9,360
Sterne, Agee Muni Debt - Milan, MI Sch 598801HF8 05/01/2013 3.16% 580,000 581,972 18,328
Sterne, Agee Muni Debt - Illinois State 452152FD8 04/01/2013 1.75% 1,000,000 1,000,210 17,500
Sterne, Agee Muni Debt - Waukegan, IL 942860MT1 12/30/2013 2.95% 1,500,000 1,536,240 44,250
Sterne, Agee Muni Debt - Outagamie Cnty WI 689900TH1 04/01/2014 2.53% 810,000 825,568 20,493
Sterne, Agee Muni Debt - Van Buren, MI Sch 920729GR5 05/01/2014 3.52% 705,000 725,304 24,816
Sterne, Agee Muni Debt - Union Co NJ 906347SC4 06/01/2014 4.04% 555,000 347,529 22,422
Sterne, Agee Muni Debt - Illinois State 4521518U0 01/01/2014 3.25% 1,225,000 1,252,207 39,813
Sterne, Agee Muni Debt - Milwuakee Co, WI 602245WW8 10/01/2013 1.50% 1,000,000 1,005,910 15,000
Sterne, Agee Muni Debt - Smithfield, RI 832322NN7 01/15/2014 1.35% 275,000 278,410 3,713
Sterne, Agee Muni Debt - Smithfield, RI 832322NP2 01/15/2015 1.90% 275,000 281,372 5,225
Sterne, Agee Muni Deb - Smithfield, RI 832322NQ0 01/15/2016 2.40% 275,000 286,539 6,600
Sterne, Agee Muni Debt - Racine, WI 750046GB4 04/01/2014 0.70% 1,010,000 1,054,874 7,070
Sterne, Agee Muni Debt - New York, NY 64966HJS0 04/01/2017 1.20% 500,000 582,645 6,000
Sterne, Agee Muni Debt - Elmore Cnty AL 28976PAS4 02/01/2016 0.85% 1,050,000 1,082,204 8,925
Sterne, Agee Muni Debt - Elmore Cnty AL 28976PAT2 02/01/2017 1.15% 1,000,000 1,033,950 11,500
12,175,681
Wells Fargo Muni Debt - State of WA 93974CLV0 08/01/2014 1.33% 1,000,000 1,038,820 13,300
Wells Fargo CD - GE Capital UT 36160XC62 01/06/2016 1.70% 240,000 244,198 4,080
Wells Fargo CD - Goldman Sachs Bank NY 38143AGR0 01/12/2015 1.50% 240,000 242,921 3,600
Wells Fargo CD - Ally Bank UT 0200SQYM9 01/26/2015 1.15% 240,000 242,832 2,760
Wells Fargo FHLMC 3134G3HP8 01/27/2016 1.00% 1,000,000 1,006,070 10,000
Wells Fargo Freddie Mac 3134G3MP2 08/24/2016 1.00% 1,000,000 1,006,350 10,000
Wells Fargo Muni Debt - Fond Du Lac WI Schl 344496JQ8 04/01/2017 1.05% 1,000,000 1,019,090 10,500
Wells Fargo Fannie Mae 3136G04A6 11/21/2017 1.00% 1,000,000 1,003,090 10,000
Wells Fargo FHLMC 3134G3T91 11/21/2017 1.02% 1,000,000 1,001,330 10,200
Wells Fargo FNMA 3135G0NH2 08/23/2017 0.95% 1,000,000 1,002,320 9,500
Wells Fargo FNMA 3135G0TM5 01/30/2018 1.020% 1,000,000 1,000,670 10,200
Wells Fargo Fannie Mae 3136G1AZ2 01/30/2018 1.000% 1,000,000 1,001,310 10,000
9,809,000
GRAND TOTAL 56,197,230 626,899
Portfolio Yield 1.12%
Study Session Meeting of April 22, 2013 (Item No. 6)
Title: First Quarter Investment Report (January – March 2013)Page 4
Meeting: Study Session
Meeting Date: April 22, 2013
Written Report: 7
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Business Terms for Redevelopment Contract w/ Hunt Assoc. Related to Eliot Park Project
RECOMMENDED ACTION: This report presents the proposed business terms that will serve
as the basis for a Redevelopment Contract with Eliot Park Apartments, LLC (Hunt Associates)
related to its proposed Eliot Park project. The terms are consistent with the discussion held at
the February 25th Study Session. Staff would like to receive feedback on these terms as soon as
possible. If generally acceptable, staff will have the EDA’s attorney incorporate these terms into
a formal Redevelopment Contract with the Redeveloper which will be presented for formal
consideration at the May 6th EDA meeting.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Are the draft business terms for providing financial assistance
to the Eliot Park project consistent with the direction provided at the February 25, 2013 Study
Session and does the EDA/City Council continue to support the project as it has been refined? As
this is a written report, please let staff know of any questions or concerns that you might
have with the proposed business terms.
SUMMARY: Hunt Associates’ application for Tax Increment Financing (TIF) assistance in
connection with the redevelopment of 6800 Cedar Lake Road (former Eliot School property) was
reviewed at the February 25th Study Session where it was favorably received. 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 site and meeting the
Design Guidelines.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: The proposed Eliot Park project is
conservatively estimated to add $17.7 million to the City’s tax base following completion. As a
result, the project would generate roughly $250,000 in tax increment annually. In order for Eliot
Park to move forward, it is proposed that the EDA consider the provision of $1.1 million in pay-
as-you-go tax increment from a newly formed redevelopment TIF district. Once the TIF Note is
paid off the property taxes from Eliot Park would accrue to the local taxing jurisdictions.
VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to providing a well-maintained and
diverse housing stock.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion
Prepared by: Greg Hunt, Economic Development Coordinator
Reviewed by: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, EDA Executive Director and City Manager
Study Session Meeting of April 22, 2013 (Item No. 7) Page 2
Title: Business Terms for Redevelopment Contract w/ Hunt Assoc. Related to Eliot Park Project
DISCUSSION
BACKGROUND: Hunt Associates has a purchase agreement with Independent School District
283 to acquire 6800 Cedar Lake Road (the former Eliot School property) for $2,075,000. 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 single family home lots at the north end of the site would be sold to a different
development group. The proposed site plan also includes a private road with parking spaces; a
stormwater pond; landscaping; sidewalks; and toddler play area.
In order to pursue this project Hunt Associates applied for tax increment assistance from the
Economic Development Authority (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.
Request for TIF Assistance
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 call for a public hearing on the
proposed Redevelopment TIF District and to begin drafting a formal redevelopment contract
with Hunt Associates.
Proposed Business Terms
The following are proposed Business Terms between the St. Louis Park Economic Development
Authority (“EDA”) and Eliot Park Apartments, LLC (“Redeveloper”) are consistent with EDA
Policy, past practices and previous discussions with the EDA/City Council. Upon mutual agreement,
these terms will be incorporated into a Redevelopment Contract (“Redevelopment Contract”) for the
Eliot Park multi-family residential development to be constructed at the 6800 Cedar Lake Rd, St.
Louis Park (“Redevelopment Property”).
1. Redeveloper agrees to close on the acquisition of the Redevelopment Property within 60
days of obtaining financing for the project.
2. Redeveloper agrees to abate the hazardous materials within the former Eliot School building
and raze the building on the Redevelopment Property in conformance with MDH
requirements.
3. The EDA has determined that, in order to make development of the Minimum
Improvements financially feasible, it is necessary to reimburse Redeveloper for a portion of
the cost of the environmental remediation, building demolition, site preparation and
structured parking (the “Public Redevelopment Costs”). The tax increment from the Eliot
Park Redevelopment TIF District will be payable to Redeveloper in the form of one or
more “TIF Notes”, which would be structured on the following basis:
Study Session Meeting of April 22, 2013 (Item No. 7) Page 3
Title: Business Terms for Redevelopment Contract w/ Hunt Assoc. Related to Eliot Park Project
Issue total: $1,100,000
Type: Pay-as-you-go
Term: Approximately 6.5 years
Interest Rate: 5.5%
Admin Fee: 5%
Fiscal Disparities: Paid from within the district
4. The EDA will perform a “lookback” calculation on the earliest of (i) the date when 93% of
the Apartments are leased; (ii) the date of any Transfer in whole or in part of the
Apartments; or (iii) three years after the date of issuance of the Certificate of Completion
for the project. The Redeveloper must submit evidence of its actual annualized
cumulative internal rate of return (the “IRR”) from the Apartments, calculated as of the
applicable Lookback Date, along with the estimated annualized cumulative IRR from the
Apartments assuming a sale in the tenth year after the date of issuance of the Certificate
of Completion for the Apartments. The amount by which the IRR exceeds eighteen
percent (18%) is considered Excess Income. If the EDA determines that there is Excess
Income, it will apply fifty percent (50%) of that amount toward prepayment of the
outstanding principal amount of the Notes.
5. To finance a portion of the environmental remediation costs related to developing the
Redevelopment Property, the EDA agrees to apply for a $300,000 Contamination Cleanup
Grant (the “Grant”) through the Livable Communities Tax Base Revitalization Account
(“TBRA”) Program administered by the Metropolitan Council. Redeveloper acknowledges
that if such a Grant is awarded, the maximum principal amount of the TIF Note will be
decreased by the amount of the Grant to reflect the benefit of the Grant to the Redeveloper.
6. Both parties agree that any assistance provided to the Redeveloper under the Contract is not
a “business subsidy” under Minnesota Statutes because the assistance is for redevelopment.
7. Redeveloper agrees that it will pay the reasonable costs of consultants and attorneys retained
by the EDA in connection with the creation of the TIF Plan for the TIF District, and the
negotiation and preparation of the Redevelopment Contract and other incidental agreements
and documents.
8. Before commencing such construction, the Redeveloper must submit plans and
specifications regarding the Redeveloper Public Improvements for approval by the City.
All work on the Redeveloper Public Improvements shall be in accordance with the
approved construction plans and shall comply with all City requirements regarding such
improvements. The parties agree and understand that the City will accept the
Improvements in accordance with City procedures.
9. Redeveloper agrees to undertake the “Minimum Improvements” as shown in the Master
Site Plan. In summary, the Redeveloper agrees to raze the existing school building and
construct two multi-family residential buildings on the site (consisting of a total of 138
market rate apartment units) and two single family homes. Both apartment buildings are
to be staggered in height with two and three stories. Approximately 178 underground
structured parking stalls, as well as a private road with parking spaces are to be provided
within the redevelopment. The proposed single family home lots may be sold to a
different development group; however Redeveloper is ultimately responsible for the
Study Session Meeting of April 22, 2013 (Item No. 7) Page 4
Title: Business Terms for Redevelopment Contract w/ Hunt Assoc. Related to Eliot Park Project
construction of a single family house on each lot. Redeveloper also agrees to construct a
stormwater management pond; sidewalks; landscaping; and toddler play area including
play equipment all in conformance with the PUD. Redeveloper agrees to execute a
sidewalk easement (along Cedar Lake Road) and a public access easement (over the
toddler play area) with the City to be recorded with Hennepin County.
10. If the Redeveloper desires to make any material change in the Construction Plans after their
approval by the EDA, the Redeveloper shall submit the proposed change to the EDA for its
approval. The term “material” means changes that increase or decrease construction costs
by $500,000 or more.
11. Subject to Unavoidable Delays, Redeveloper agrees to commence construction of the
apartment buildings and single family homes by July 1, 2014 and substantially complete
them by December 31, 2015.
12. The Redeveloper agrees to comply with the City’s Green Building Policy. As a condition to
issuance of a Certificate of Completion for the Minimum Improvements, Redeveloper will
submit to the EDA a detailed list of the specific energy-efficient/sustainable features or
components implemented in the construction of the Minimum Improvements.
13. Promptly after completion of the Minimum Improvements, the EDA will deliver to the
Redeveloper a Certificate of Completion. The construction of the Minimum Improvements
will be deemed to be substantially complete upon issuance of a certificate of occupancy for
the Minimum Improvements, and upon determination by the EDA that all related site
improvements on the Redevelopment Property have been substantially completed in
accordance with approved Construction Plans, subject to landscaping that cannot be
completed until seasonal conditions permit.
14. Upon completion and through the Termination Date, the Minimum Improvements shall be
managed by a professional property management company with a significant track record of
successfully managing multifamily developments.
15. By no later than December 31, 2015, the Redeveloper agrees to submit to the City for
review and approval a plan for maintenance and operation of the children’s play area
(“tot lot”) on the Redevelopment Property (the “Maintenance Plan”).
16. Upon execution of the Contract, the Redeveloper and EDA will execute an Assessment
Agreement specifying an assessor's minimum Market Value for the Redevelopment
Property and Minimum Improvements constructed thereon. The amount of the minimum
market value will be negotiated by the EDA and Redeveloper with input from the City
Assessor. Based on current assumptions of the construction timeline, the Assessment
Agreement will most likely reflect a minimum market value based on final completion of
the Minimum Improvements by January 2, 2016.
17. If Redeveloper requires mortgage financing for the development of the Project, the EDA
agrees to subordinate its rights under the Contract to the Holder of any Mortgage securing
construction or permanent financing, in accordance with the terms of a mutually-approved
subordination agreement.
Study Session Meeting of April 22, 2013 (Item No. 7) Page 5
Title: Business Terms for Redevelopment Contract w/ Hunt Assoc. Related to Eliot Park Project
18. Redeveloper agrees not to transfer the Redevelopment Contract or the Redevelopment
Property (except to an affiliate) prior to receiving a Certificate of Completion without the
prior written consent of the EDA, except for construction mortgage financing and/or
permanent financing.
The above terms will serve as the basis for and be incorporated into a Redevelopment Contract
with Hunt Associates.
PRESENT CONSIDERATIONS: None
NEXT STEPS:
Staff will work with legal counsel to prepare a formal Redevelopment Contract with Eliot Park
Apartments, LLC based on the proposed business terms and any input provided by the EDA.
Such a contract will be brought to the EDA for formal consideration on May 6th; the same
evening as the public hearing for the proposed Eliot Park TIF District.
Meeting: Study Session
Meeting Date: April 22, 2013
Written Report: 8
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Redevelopment Project and EDA Contract Status Report: April 2013
RECOMMENDED ACTION: This report summarizes the current status of various
redevelopment projects in the city to which the EDA is a party.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
SUMMARY: The attached report is meant to keep the EDA and City Council informed as to
the status of various redevelopment projects in the city to which the EDA is a party. It is also
meant to apprise city officials of any anticipated actions or issues relative to corresponding
redevelopment contracts.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Redevelopment Project & EDA Contract Status Report April 2013
Prepared by: Julie Grove, Economic Development & Planning Assistant
Greg Hunt, Economic Development Coordinator
Reviewed by: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, EDA Executive Director and City Manager
Study Session Meeting of April 22, 2013 (Item No. 8) Page 2
Title: Redevelopment Project and EDA Contract Status Report: April 2013
Study Session Meeting of April 22, 2013 (Item No. 8) Page 3
Title: Redevelopment Project and EDA Contract Status Report: April 2013
Study Session Meeting of April 22, 2013 (Item No. 8) Page 4
Title: Redevelopment Project and EDA Contract Status Report: April 2013
Study Session Meeting of April 22, 2013 (Item No. 8) Page 5
Title: Redevelopment Project and EDA Contract Status Report: April 2013
Study Session Meeting of April 22, 2013 (Item No. 8) Page 6
Title: Redevelopment Project and EDA Contract Status Report: April 2013
Study Session Meeting of April 22, 2013 (Item No. 8) Page 7
Title: Redevelopment Project and EDA Contract Status Report: April 2013
Study Session Meeting of April 22, 2013 (Item No. 8) Page 8
Title: Redevelopment Project and EDA Contract Status Report: April 2013