HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012/10/15 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - RegularAGENDA
OCTOBER 15, 2012
6:00 p.m. SPECIAL STUDY SESSION – Council Chambers
Discussion Items
1. 6:00 p.m. Fiscal Disparities Overview and Information
2. 6:30 p.m. 2013 Budget Discussion
Written Reports
3. Minnehaha Creek Remeander and Trail – Progress Update
7:30 p.m. Adjourn
7:30 p.m. CITY COUNCIL MEETING – Council Chambers
1. Call to Order
1a. Pledge of Allegiance
1b. Roll Call
2. Presentations -- None
3. Approval of Minutes
3a. Special Study Session Meeting Minutes August 6, 2012
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. Public Hearing for Assessment of Delinquent Utilities, Tree Removal/Injection, Mowing,
False Alarms, and Other Miscellaneous Charges
Recommended Action: Mayor to open the public hearing, solicit comments, and close
the public hearing. Motion to Adopt Resolution to assess delinquent water, sewer, storm
water, refuse, abating grass/weed cutting, tree removal/injection, false alarm fees and
other miscellaneous charges.
6b. Consolidated Public Hearing
(1) 2013 Budget and Property Owner Service Charges for Special Service District No. 1
Recommended Action: Mayor to close public hearing. Motion to Adopt Resolution
setting the 2013 Budget and Property Owner Service Charge for Special Service
District No. 1 and directing staff to certify the annual service charges to Hennepin
County.
(2) 2013 Budget and Property Owner Service Charges for Special Service District No. 2
Recommended Action: Mayor to close public hearing. Motion to Adopt Resolution
setting the 2013 Budget and Property Owner Service Charge for Special Service
District No. 2 and directing staff to certify the annual service charges to Hennepin
County.
Meeting of October 15, 2012
City Council Agenda
(3) 2013 Budget and Property Owner Service Charges for Special Service District No. 3
and extension of Special Service District through 2022
Recommended Action: Mayor to close public hearing. Motion to Adopt Resolution
setting the 2013 Budget and Property Owner Service Charge for Special Service
District No. 3 and directing staff to certify the annual service charges to Hennepin
County.
(4) 2013 Budget and Property Owner Service Charges for Special Service District No. 4
Recommended Action: Mayor to close public hearing. Motion to Adopt Resolution
setting the 2013 Budget and Property Owner Service Charge for Special Service
District No. 4 and directing staff to certify the annual service charges to Hennepin
County.
(5) 2013 Budget and Property Owner Service Charges for Special Service District No. 5
Recommended Action: Mayor to close public hearing. Motion to Adopt Resolution
setting the 2013 Budget and Property Owner Service Charge for Special Service
District No. 5 and directing staff to certify the annual service charges to Hennepin
County.
(6) 2013 Budget and Property Owner Service Charges for Special Service District No. 6
Recommended Action: Mayor to close public hearing. Motion to Adopt Resolution
setting the 2013 Budget and Property Owner Service Charge for Special Service
District No. 6 and directing staff to certify the annual service charges to Hennepin
County.
7. Requests, Petitions, and Communications from the Public – None
8. Resolutions, Ordinances, Motions and Discussion Items
8a. Eliot Park Apartments – Comprehensive Plan Amendment from Civic to High Density
and Low Density Residential
Recommended Action:
• Motion to Adopt Resolution amending the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map to
allow for High Density Residential (RH) and Low Density Residential (RL) on the
Eliot School site and authorize publication of summary resolution.
• Alternatively, the Council may wish to direct the Staff to prepare a resolution
consistent with the Planning Commission’s recommendation to designate the site for
Medium (RM) and Low Density Residential (RL).
8b. Resolution to Amended Fee Resolution for the Greensboro Condominium Improvement
Area (HIA)
Recommended Action: Motion to Adopt Resolution amending Resolution No 11-134
approving a housing improvement fee for the Greensboro Condominium Association
Housing Improvement Area.
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 October 15, 2012
City Council Agenda
CONSENT CALENDAR
4a. Approve Second Reading and Adopt Ordinance adopting fees for 2013 as outlined in
Appendix A of the City Code of Ordinances, approve summary, and authorize publication
4b. Adopt Resolution approving a Registered Land Survey for Solomon Real Estate Group
at Hwy 7 and Blake Road
4c. Reaffirm the final plat of Gateway Plaza, and approve a six-month extension for the filing of
the plat, and for a variance pertaining to the rear yard setback
4d. Continue Second Reading of Ordinances Relating to Xcel and CenterPoint Energy
Franchises until November 5, 2012
4e. Approve Amendment No. 2 to Contract 38-08 with Eureka Recycling modifying the plastics
materials being collected and the financial terms relating to revenue sharing
4f. Adopt Resolution authorizing the special assessment for the repair of the sewer service line
at 3043 Cavell Avenue South, St. Louis Park, MN – P.I.D. 18-117-21-21-0027
4g. Adopt Resolution authorizing the special assessment for the repair of the water service line
at 4261 Utica Avenue South, St. Louis Park, MN - P.I.D. 07-028-24-32-0182
4h. Adopt Resolution authorizing the special assessment for the repair of the water service line
at 3329 Xenwood Avenue South, St. Louis Park, MN - P.I.D. 16-117-21-24-0057
4i. Adopt Resolution authorizing the special assessment for the repair of the water service line
at 7025 W. 24th Street, St. Louis Park, MN - P.I.D. 08-117-21-13-0101
4j. Adopt Resolution approving the Minnesota Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force
Joint Powers Agreement and authorize the Mayor and City Manager to execute attached
resolution
4k. Approve for Filing Fire Civil Service Commission Minutes August 17, 2012
4l. Approve for Filing Vendor Claims
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.
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 Date: October 15, 2012
Agenda Item #: 1
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Fiscal Disparities Overview and Information
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
No formal action is required. Staff has prepared a summary report to update the City Council on
Fiscal Disparities and recent trending of St. Louis Park implications. Staff will present
information and be available for questions on this topic.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable. This report is intended to assist the Council to more thoroughly understand
Fiscal Disparities and their relationship to the community’s tax capacity (which in turn relate to
the tax implications for property owners).
BACKGROUND:
The “Charles R. Weaver Metropolitan Revenue Distribution Act” (commonly known as Fiscal
Disparities) was enacted in 1971 to address fiscal equity concerns within the seven-county
Minneapolis-St. Paul region. The objectives of the original act boil down as two main goals:
• Promote more orderly regional development.
• Improve equity in the distribution of fiscal resources.
The law, after surviving two court challenges, requires all communities in the seven county
metro area to contribute 40% of the growth in their commercial-industrial tax base (from a base
year of 1971) to a regional pool. Notable in this pooling process is that all local units of
government (cities, counties, school districts, special districts, etc.) are effectively participants in
the program as tax capacity is adjusted by contribution and distribution of the pool.
Property taxes are calculated as each jurisdiction determines its levy needs with the tax rate
being based on the levy and net tax capacity of the jurisdiction’s tax area. The fiscal disparity
program adjusts the net tax capacity for the various jurisdictions via pool distributions which are
based on fiscal capacity in the program design by equalizing market value per capita. Essentially
it works like this:
• If the municipality’s fiscal capacity is similar to the metro average, the distribution share
of the pool will be similar to their respective share of the area’s population.
• If the fiscal capacity is above the metro average, the distribution share will be smaller.
These communities are commonly referred to as “net contributors”.
• If the fiscal capacity is below the metro average, the distribution share will be larger.
These communities are commonly referred to as “net recipients”.
Special Study Session of October 15, 2012 (Item No. 1)
Subject: Fiscal Disparities Overview and Information Page 2
While the above are simplifications of the program’s complexity, several factors are noted as
being important in why Fiscal Disparities are being briefly reviewed for the Council:
• The Minnesota property tax system is relatively simple in that assessed market valuations
and classifications (use) are annually set for each parcel in the community. The system,
however, is greatly complicated by 50+ classifications and tiers which translate the
assessed value into tax capacity. Additional layers of tax capacity adjustment can be
found in various exclusions and exemptions that are extended to various property types
such as homestead (formerly a state paid credit which is now a value exclusion at the local
level), open space preservation, veteran exclusions, etc. while maintaining the market
valuation without translation to tax capacity for the purpose of referendum levies.
• Other features of the property tax system that interact with fiscal disparities include local
aid payments (city and county), and economic development programs such as tax
increment financing (TIF) which may have been within or outside of the fiscal disparity
figures. An excellent example of this factor would be the pre-1979 TIF districts coming
back on line for tax capacity development – and therefore for fiscal disparity calculations
– which was a significant issue for St. Louis Park from the “Pay 2010” to “Pay 2011” time
periods as our “net” fiscal disparity contribution increased by 125%.
• The complexity of the property tax system also results in problematic timing issues for the
calculation of – and complete publication of – the fiscal disparity figures from partial
preliminary data into the finalized numbers for the purposes of property tax rate
development. For example, the fiscal disparity figures for “Pay 2013” are based on
historic assessed values but the collection of the data from all jurisdictions essentially
delayed the publication of final figures until approximately September of 2012… which is
relatively late in the budgeting cycle as the state requires a preliminary levy figure about
the same time.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
The shift of net tax capacity within the program requires review in budgeting and tax rate
calculations. On a county level, Hennepin is the sole net contributor to the program while the
other six counties are net recipients. This relationship shifts considerably at the city level with
some Hennepin cities being significant contributors (notably Bloomington) while others are
among the highest net recipients (e.g. Brooklyn Park).
Of the 192 municipalities and townships in the Pay 2012 tax period, St. Louis Park was ranked
as the 10th highest net contributor of tax capacity in actual dollars. In 2010 this ranking was the
21st highest in the metro which equates to a -74% change in actual tax capacity value
contributed. As such, the relative change of the net tax capacity contribution is monitored
annually by both the Assessor and the Controller. Further reference can be found on the
following attachment and will be discussed at the study session.
Attachments: Pay 2009 through Pay 2013 Fiscal Disparity Figures – Comparative Cities
Prepared by: Cory Bultema, City Assessor
Approved by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
Total Fiscal Disparity Fiscal Disparity Adjusted NET Fiscal Disparity As % of
Jurisdiction Time Tax Capacity Contribution Distribution Tax Capacity NET FLOW Total TC
Bloomington Pay 09 159,593,712 32,538,530 10,246,112 126,856,768 -22,292,418 -14.0%
Pay 10 150,231,185 33,777,922 10,507,211 118,121,893 -23,270,711 -15.5%
Pay 11 139,341,646 31,669,275 10,053,727 109,366,378 -21,615,548 -15.5%
Pay 12 132,180,216 28,332,489 9,097,027 104,189,657 -19,235,462 -14.6%
Pay 13 132,435,250 27,314,801 8,704,411 103,923,564 -18,610,390 -14.1%
Brooklyn Park Pay 09 78,345,673 9,009,666 11,830,617 72,672,395 2,820,951 3.6%
Pay 10 74,001,405 9,355,138 13,467,937 69,403,757 4,112,799 5.6%
Pay 11 66,913,602 9,415,583 13,962,741 63,316,947 4,547,158 6.8%
Pay 12 59,069,246 8,840,650 13,967,570 62,241,164 5,126,920 8.7%
Pay 13 56,272,724 7,935,446 13,710,589 60,393,175 5,775,143 10.3%
Eden Prairie Pay 09 125,506,614 16,186,185 5,949,015 112,029,731 -10,237,170 -8.2%
Pay 10 120,483,124 16,806,832 6,221,580 106,623,679 -10,585,252 -8.8%
Pay 11 112,177,380 16,432,584 5,975,662 98,669,200 -10,456,922 -9.3%
Pay 12 106,738,619 15,040,117 5,391,346 94,174,268 -9,648,771 -9.0%
Pay 13 103,995,111 14,637,037 5,075,675 91,418,835 -9,561,362 -9.2%
Edina Pay 09 122,532,149 10,393,526 3,298,549 105,129,977 -7,094,977 -5.8%
Pay 10 120,816,822 10,942,782 3,537,906 108,451,609 -7,404,876 -6.1%
Pay 11 114,223,774 11,039,952 3,421,345 102,561,308 -7,618,607 -6.7%
Pay 12 110,477,501 10,283,433 3,068,256 99,116,291 -7,215,177 -6.5%
Pay 13 106,972,851 8,831,694 2,615,313 96,244,030 -6,216,381 -5.8%
Maple Grove Pay 09 101,320,462 12,447,903 6,557,270 92,120,678 -5,890,633 -5.8%
Pay 10 96,857,952 13,610,788 6,970,398 87,882,753 -6,640,390 -6.9%
Pay 11 92,300,266 12,608,124 7,177,298 84,542,484 -5,430,826 -5.9%
Pay 12 86,716,276 12,341,699 6,314,700 79,709,654 -6,026,999 -7.0%
Pay 13 81,048,281 11,533,910 6,371,247 75,567,072 -5,162,663 -6.4%
Minnetonka Pay 09 106,048,317 13,214,472 4,826,598 95,940,407 -8,387,874 -7.9%
Pay 10 102,853,324 13,913,123 4,989,253 92,237,576 -8,923,870 -8.7%
Pay 11 98,116,164 13,809,178 4,696,084 87,355,765 -9,113,094 -9.3%
Pay 12 94,606,508 13,658,073 4,155,034 83,446,067 -9,503,039 -10.0%
Pay 13 93,193,356 13,238,280 3,613,241 81,730,332 -9,625,039 -10.3%
Plymouth Pay 09 123,048,441 15,262,955 7,666,539 113,950,384 -7,596,416 -6.2%
Pay 10 117,131,563 16,078,643 8,185,794 108,165,712 -7,892,849 -6.7%
Pay 11 110,316,572 15,020,806 7,814,131 102,094,803 -7,206,675 -6.5%
Pay 12 105,349,150 13,962,017 6,972,273 97,389,841 -6,989,744 -6.6%
Pay 13 105,065,252 13,715,078 6,263,938 96,686,096 -7,451,140 -7.1%
St. Louis Park Pay 09 69,704,858 7,277,969 5,642,245 59,792,141 -1,635,724 -2.3%
Pay 10 68,815,028 7,372,500 6,141,018 60,606,755 -1,231,482 -1.8%
Pay 11 66,637,082 8,310,106 5,534,623 56,518,009 -2,775,483 -4.2%
Pay 12 63,474,730 8,174,012 4,953,131 54,733,726 -3,220,881 -5.1%
Pay 13 62,097,196 7,992,532 5,051,854 53,561,938 -2,940,678 -4.7%
Review of Historic Trending -- Fiscal Disparity (Contribution/Distribution)
Special Study Session Meeting of October 15, 2012 (Item No. 1)
Subject: Fiscal Disparities Overview and Information Page 3
Meeting Date: October 15, 2012
Agenda Item #: 2
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
2013 Budget Discussion
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
No formal action required. This report is to assist with the Special Study Session discussion
regarding the 2013 Budget and to provide information for determining the 2013 Final Property
Tax Levy to be considered in December.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
• Is there other information that Council would like to review in more detail?
• Are there any other service delivery changes Council would like to consider?
• Does the City Council desire to set the 2013 Final Property Tax Levy at $24,712,941,
which is an increase of $950,190 or approximately 4.00% over the 2012 Final Property Tax
Levy based on the tax and utility rate implications identified in this report? Or, does the City
Council desire to certify a lesser percentage change as its 2013 Final Property Tax Levy?
• Does Council have any comments on communication plans outlined regarding the 2013
budget?
BACKGROUND:
On June 11, 2012, staff met with the City Council to discuss the 2013 Budget process. Council
agreed that staff should follow recommendations from the “2013 Budget Production Guidelines”,
when preparing the 2013 Budget. Assumptions for the 2013 Budget included a pattern similar to
past years; a levy increase, modest increase in other fees and charges where appropriate to fit
with business costs, maintain service delivery at current levels, hold expenditures flat if possible
with adjustments for some modest growth based on essential business needs, funding for a wage
and benefit contribution increase, utility rate increases, and continued long range financial
planning.
Based on current budget assumptions, debt service obligations, and information from the CIP
and LRFMP outlined on June 11th, Accounting staff anticipated a levy increase in the 2.5-5%
range. For 2013, the State of Minnesota has not imposed levy limits.
At the August 13, 2012 City Council Study Session, the City Council reviewed information from
the staff report and subsequently directed staff to prepare a 2013 Preliminary Property Tax Levy
increase of 4% when compared to the 2012 Final Property Tax Levy. In addition, the City
Council directed staff to proceed with preparing the 2013 Preliminary HRA Levy at the
maximum allowed by state statute, due to the significant infrastructure projects scheduled in the
upcoming years per the 2013 – 2017 Capital Improvement Plan. Both of these preliminary levies
were adopted on September 4, 2012 at the Regular City Council and EDA meetings.
Special Study Session Meeting of October 15, 2012 (Item No. 2) Page 2
Subject: 2013 Budget Discussion
For 2013, the combined balanced preliminary General and Park and Recreation Fund budget is
$30,345,459, compared to $29,720,184 in 2012, or an increase of $625,275, or approximately
2.10%.
PROPERTY TAX LEVY
2013 Preliminary Property Tax Levy
For the 2013 Final Property Tax Levy for the City Council to consider in December, there are
some important key items to keep in mind:
• Economic climate
• No state mandated levy limits for 2013
In addition, as in past years, the 2013 Preliminary Property Tax Levy adopted by the City
Council on September 4, 2012 can be decreased, but cannot be increased.
2012 Final Levy and 2013 Preliminary Levy
A synopsis of prior year levy information and the 2013 Proposed Preliminary Levy is shown
below:
1. The 2012 Final Levy was $23,762,751, which was 4.70% or $1,066,823 more than 2011.
2. The 2013 Preliminary Levy amount is proposed to be at $24,712,941, which is
approximately 4.00% or $950,190 more than the 2012 Final Levy.
3. Property tax levy dollars were added to the Employee Administration Fund in the amount
of $99,976 for a total of $200,000 to address sustainability issues.
4. The current levy amount provides Council with $265,432 in available levy dollars for
utilization in other areas, for other opportunities, or to decrease the levy. It also allows a
buffer for unforeseen issues between now and the final levy adoption in December.
At the September 4, 2012 Regular City Council meeting, the City Council adopted a 2013
Preliminary Property Tax Levy of $24,712,941 which is an increase of $950,190, or an
approximate 4.00% increase from the 2012 Final Property Tax Levy. This levy is utilized to
support the operations of the General Fund, Park and Recreation Fund, Capital Replacement
Fund, Park Improvement Fund, and the Employee Administration Fund. In addition, the levy
will provide for the pay down of principal and interest payments for the Debt Service Funds.
Based on the 2011 – 2013 Budget Analysis Snapshot – Attachment 1, the proposed property tax
levy increase to balance the General and Park and Recreation Funds would need to be
approximately 2.42%. Factoring in changes in Debt Service and the Employee Administration
Fund, if Council chose to fund those areas as proposed and not utilize any of the remaining
discretionary funds of $265,432, the 2013 Final Property Tax Levy increase would be set at
2.88%.
Discretionary Levy Amount – Options to Consider
As noted earlier, in order to balance the budget for 2013 and meet the budget objectives
previously identified, a 2.88% levy increase is needed. The City Council has over $265,000 in
discretionary levy dollars available to it (difference between 4% and 2.88% levy increase).
Options for the Council to consider include setting the levy with a 2.88% levy increase which is
perfectly fine based on our needs in 2013. However, the City Council is also actively considering
Special Study Session Meeting of October 15, 2012 (Item No. 2) Page 3
Subject: 2013 Budget Discussion
the construction of a civic facility and the implementation of an ambitious sidewalk and trails
plan which will likely increase the City’s debt service obligations and operational costs beyond
2013. As a result, if the Council desires to look beyond 2013 it may want to consider utilizing
some or all of the discretionary property tax levy capacity and for the time being place it in the
Capital Replacement Fund. This would allow the City to begin preparing for the possible debt
service and operational cost implications for these projects and allow the City Council to “feather
in” any future levy increases that might be required.
FISCAL DISPARITIES
The City’s net fiscal disparities contribution has increased significantly from 2010 to 2012,
increasing from approximately $1.2 million in 2010 to over $3.2 million in 2012, or
approximately $2.0 million. This increase translates to approximately 3.15% of the City’s total
2012 tax capacity. Overall in 2012, the City contributes approximately 5.1% of its total tax
capacity to the fiscal disparities pool. For 2013, the City’s net contribution decreased by
approximately $280,000, to a total net contribution of approximately $2.94 million. This change
equates to approximately a 0.55% decrease in the City’s 2013 proposed tax rate before factoring
in the 4% increase in the preliminary property tax levy.
The breakdown of the 2013 Proposed Property Tax Levy by fund is shown in the following chart:
2012 2013 Dollar Change Percent Change
Final Proposed From 2012 From 2012
TAX CAPACITY BASED TAX LEVY
General Fund and Park & Recreation Fund $20,169,798 $20,657,724 487,926$ 2.42%
Park Improvement Fund 810,000 810,000 - 0.00%
Capital Replacement Fund 438,300 842,700 404,400 92.27%
Pavement Management Fund 315,000 - (315,000) -100.00%
Debt Service 1,929,629 1,937,085 7,456 0.39%
Employee Administration Fund 100,024 200,000 99,976 99.95%
Council Discretion*- 265,432 265,432 N/A
TOTAL TAX LEVIES $23,762,751 $24,712,941 $950,190 4.00%
* This amount can be utilized for other opportunities, or to decrease the levy.
HRA LEVY
This levy was originally implemented in St. Louis Park due to legislative changes in 2001 which
significantly reduced future tax increment revenues. The City Council elected at that time to use
the levy proceeds for future infrastructure improvements in redevelopment areas. Thus far, some
of the HRA Levy proceeds have been used to fund infrastructure studies and analyses for future
improvement projects. By law, these funds could also be used for other housing and
redevelopment purposes. Given the significant infrastructure needs facing the City in the future,
particularly transportation infrastructure such as Highway 7 and Louisiana, which currently the
City’s share is budgeted at $10,784,000 and is to be paid from the HRA Levy Fund, Council
approved on September 4, 2012, that the HRA Levy continue at the maximum allowed by law
for the 2013 budget year. By state statute, the HRA Levy cannot exceed 0.0185% of the taxable
market value of the City. Therefore, Staff has calculated the maximum Preliminary HRA Levy
for 2013 to be $900,933 based on data from Hennepin County. This is an $82,641 decrease from
the 2012 Final HRA Levy of $983,574.
Special Study Session Meeting of October 15, 2012 (Item No. 2) Page 4
Subject: 2013 Budget Discussion
2013 UTILITY RATES
Utility Rates for 2013 were discussed with the City Council on August 13, 2012. Based on
analyses from information in the CIP and the plan approved by Council, the continued phased in
increase in the fixed fee for the Water Fund will occur. The intent is to reduce some of the
seasonal volatility, and as such, changes in utility rates are being recommended. The changes are
consistent with information Council received in the past and are in line with the goals of
achieving long-term sustainability in the funds. For 2013, the approximate cumulative effect on
a typical residential property for all the utility rate adjustments would be an increase of $36.24,
or 4.09% for the year, or approximately $3.02 per month. This calculation is based on a family
of four using 30 units of water per quarter (22,500 gallons), and 60 gallon solid waste service.
The recommended rates will be in place for consumption or services provided beginning on
January 1, 2013 if Council agrees to move forward. The information shown below depicts what
a sample customer’s utility bill is in 2012 and proposed for 2013.
Estimated Quarterly Utility Bill
Actual 2012 and Proposed 2013
Household Size 4
Units per quarter 30
Solid Waste Service 60-gallon
Meter size 3/4 inch
Actual Proposed Dollar Percent
Service Type 2012 2013 Change Change Notes
Water
Per unit rate - Tier 1 1.39$ 1.44$ 0.05$ 3.60%
Service charge 12.59$ 15.03$ 2.44$ 19.38%
State testing fee 1.59$ 1.59$ -$ 0.00%
Consumption 41.70$ 43.20$ 1.50$ 3.60%
Sewer
Service charge 13.04$ 13.43$ 0.39$ 2.99%
Per unit 2.53$ 2.61$ 0.08$ 3.16%
Consumption 75.90$ 78.30$ 2.40$ 3.16%
Storm Drainage
Service charge 15.50$ 16.00$ 0.50$ 3.23%
Bassett Creek Fee*1.60$ 1.93$ 0.33$ 20.63%Bassett Creek fee
Solid Waste (includes tax)61.14$ 62.97$ 1.83$ 2.99%
Total Bill without Bassett*221.46$ 230.52$ 9.06$ 4.09%Not including BCWMC
Increase per quarter (dollars)9.06$
Increase per year (dollars)36.24$
* Since not all property owners would be charged this fee, it is not included in the dollar or percentage change in total bill.
Special Study Session Meeting of October 15, 2012 (Item No. 2) Page 5
Subject: 2013 Budget Discussion
WATER AVAILABILITY CHARGE (WAC) IMPLEMENTATION BEGINNING IN 2013
A WAC is used by cities as a “buy-in” charge for new development into the existing water
infrastructure. St. Louis Park’s existing customers have paid for the current infrastructure and
capacity through rates. This creates a potential fairness issue when new development comes and
adds to the needed capacity, as the current customers are subsidizing new developments. If the
needed capacity continues to increase, staff estimates that approximately $3,000,000 in
additional infrastructure would be needed based on the current Comprehensive Plan the City
adopted. The City has a Sewer Availability Charge (SAC), however, it is a charge from Met
Council and the City acts as the pass-through. The charge is $2,365 per SAC unit for 2012, and
is set by Met Council annually.
The proposed WAC charge is $750, and is based on the additional future infrastructure projected
to be needed along with the estimated number of additional WAC units generated over the next
20 years, which is estimated to be 4,000. Attachment 2 provides comparative data to other cities.
The calculation of the WAC unit would be tied to the SAC unit calculation. This is common
practice amongst cities. One SAC unit is essentially equal to a single family home.
Developments are given credit for the SAC units on the property prior to redevelopment.
Implementing a WAC charge adds predictability to the rate structure, as additional infrastructure
needed to increase capacity would be covered by those customers creating the need. This also
reduces the potential for bonding for water infrastructure. Adding a WAC charge would increase
costs for developers though and possibly increase the need for TIF assistance if the
redevelopment was located in a TIF district. Attachment 3 provides examples of some recent
developments, and what the additional costs would have been if the proposed WAC charge was
in place. Most developments would have seen an increase less than 0.5% of the permit
valuation.
If Council chooses to move forward with the WAC charge, it will be brought back in December
for approval. It would go in effect as of January 1, 2013 for any projects that haven’t been
issued building permits. The charge would be collected with the building permit fee. Several
known potential developments have been made aware that this is a possibility for 2013.
ESTIMATED IMPACTS OF CITY CHANGES
Estimated City Share of 4% Preliminary Property Tax Levy Increase for the 2013 Budget
As noted in the information in Attachment 4, the impact on the estimated City share of property
taxes, based on a 4% levy increase, differs widely based on the value of a residential homestead
property owner’s home. For example, some property owners would see a decrease of about $67
per year, or approximately 11.6%, while other homeowners could see an increase of about $140
per year, or approximately 4.1%. The City’s share of the estimated 2013 preliminary property tax
decrease would occur in more affordable residential homesteaded properties below
approximately $212,000, while the increase in the estimated City share of the 2013 preliminary
property taxes would occur in residential homesteaded properties over approximately $212,000.
These figures are only for the estimated City share and do not factor in any change in other
taxing jurisdictions.
Implications of Other Potential Property Tax Levy Adjustments
Also included in Attachment 5 for the City Council’s reference, is what the estimated City share
of property taxes would look like with a 2.88% levy increase, which currently is what is needed
to meet budgetary outcomes illustrated on page 2. The implications for a 2.88% levy increase
Special Study Session Meeting of October 15, 2012 (Item No. 2) Page 6
Subject: 2013 Budget Discussion
would mean the estimated City share of property taxes would see a decrease of approximately
$72, or 12.5%, to an increase of about $103, or 3.0%, depending on the value of a residential
homestead property owner’s home. The implications of a 2.88% levy increase means the levy
amount would balance the 2013 Budget, but not leave any discretionary revenue for the City
Council to consider other options without first reducing another expenditure, or enhancing other
revenue sources on a dollar for dollar basis.
Estimated City Impact on Residential Homestead Property for 2013 for Taxes and Utilities
4.00% Levy Increase - Based on a 4.00% levy increase, and realizing that there are many
variables in estimating the City impact on a residential homestead property, a “typical” property
in St. Louis Park valued at approximately $211,400 for taxes payable in 2013 and having typical
utilities as shown in the table on the previous page, would experience an overall increase of
approximately $2.87 per month or approximately $34.44 for the entire year. Of this estimated
$34.44 increase, approximately $36.24 would be attributed to utility rate adjustments and
approximately -$1.80 would be attributed to the decreased City’s share of property taxes.
2.88% Levy Increase – Based on a 2.88% levy increase the same typical property would
experience an overall increase of approximately $2.07 per month or approximately $24.84 for
the entire year. Of this estimated $24.84 increase, approximately $36.24 would be attributed to
utility rate adjustments and approximately -11.40 would be attributed to the decreased City’s
share property taxes.
NEXT STEPS:
As the 2013 Budget process continues, the following preliminary schedule snapshot has been
developed for Council:
October 15 Review and discussion of 2013 Budget, tax levies and utility rates.
November 13 (Tues) Will schedule if needed: Continued discussion on 2013 Budget discussion
prior to Truth in Taxation public hearing.
December 3 Truth in Taxation public hearing and 2013 Budget presentation.
December 17 Council adopts 2013 Budget, final property tax levies, CIP and utility rates.
The City Council has the option of decreasing the 2013 Preliminary Property Tax Levies for the
City and HRA after the initial certification; however it cannot be increased.
BUDGET COMMUNICATION MEASURES:
Staff plans to communicate about the budget through various sources included but not limited to:
Park Perspective, web site, social media, cable, and a possibly a guest column from the City
Manager in the Sun Sailor and Patch.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Details provided in this report and in the attachments which will support necessary city services
proposed to be provided in 2013.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Vision is considered throughout the budgeting process and kept at the foreground of budgeting
decisions.
Special Study Session Meeting of October 15, 2012 (Item No. 2) Page 7
Subject: 2013 Budget Discussion
Attachments: 1. 2011 – 2013 Budget Analysis Snapshot
2. WAC Survey
3. WAC – Example of Recent Projects
4. Residential Estimated City Share of Property Taxes – 4.00%
5. Residential Estimated City Share of Property Taxes – 2.88%
Prepared by: Brian A. Swanson, Controller
Steven Heintz – Finance Supervisor
Approved by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
BUDGET ANALYSIS SNAPSHOT
FOR YEARS 2011 - 2013
2011 2012 2013
Final Budget Adopted
Requested
(updated)
General Fund Revenues:
Property Taxes 16,093,611 15,998,293 16,314,802
MVHC Loss (667,539) -
All Other Revenues 7,857,715 7,394,083 7,507,302
Total General Revenues 23,283,787$ 23,392,376$ 23,822,104$
General Fund Expenditures:
General Government:
Total Admininstration/Legislative 889,799$ 1,012,554$ 877,099$
Total Human Resources 652,769$ 667,612$ 678,988$
Total Communications 294,470$ 265,426$ 201,322$
Total Community Outreach 88,515$ 8,185$ 8,185$
Total Information Resources 1,394,226$ 1,507,579$ 1,770,877$
Total Accounting 612,965$ 641,692$ 657,592$
Total Assessing 500,141$ 517,840$ 543,855$
Total Community Development 1,094,186$ 1,076,376$ 1,094,517$
Total Facilities Maintenance 1,114,550$ 1,083,128$ 1,074,920$
Total General Government 6,641,621$ 6,780,392$ 6,907,355$
Public Safety:
Total Police 7,208,512$ 7,273,723$ 7,443,637$
Total Fire 3,164,344$ 3,346,931$ 3,330,263$
Total Inspectional Services 1,863,296$ 1,889,340$ 1,928,446$
Total Public Safety 12,236,152$ 12,509,994$ 12,702,346$
Public Works:
Total Public Works Administration 829,698$ 389,783$ 393,054$
Total Engineering 846,031$ 927,337$ 940,479$
Total Operations 2,550,285$ 2,604,870$ 2,698,870$
Total Public Works 4,226,014$ 3,921,990$ 4,032,403$
Total Non-Departmental 180,000$ 180,000$ 180,000$
Total General Fund Expenditures 23,283,787$ 23,392,376$ 23,822,104$
General Fund Gap -$ -$ -$
Park & Recreation Revenues:
Property Taxes 4,000,561$ 4,171,506$ 4,342,922$
Subtotal: All Other Revenues 2,131,902 2,156,302 2,180,433
Total Park & Recreation Revenues 6,132,463$ 6,327,808$ 6,523,355$
Park & Recreation Expenditures:
Total Organized Recreation 1,239,230$ 1,305,747$ 1,317,526$
Total Recreation Center 1,442,447$ 1,466,246$ 1,463,224$
Total Park Maintenance 1,435,374$ 1,461,645$ 1,483,576$
Total Westwood Nature Center 502,366$ 515,456$ 533,565$
Total Environment 371,325$ 390,009$ 430,876$
Total Vehicle Maintenance 1,141,721$ 1,188,705$ 1,294,588$
Total Park & Recreation Expenditures 6,132,463$ 6,327,808$ 6,523,355$
Park & Recreation Gap -$ -$ -$
Total Gap General and P&R Before Adjustments:-$ -$ -$
Proposed Property Tax Levy Adjustment:-$ -$
- -$
Projected Total Budget Gap for Gen. and Park and Rec. Funds:-$ -$ -$
2013 ASSUMPTIONS:
Assumes 2% salary and step increases for all employees.
Benefit Increases- $30/month ($20/month Employer, $10/month Wellness)
No use of fund balance in 2013.
Elimination of transfer from Housing Rehab to General Fund of $99,000 per year
Final unwinding of Police and Fire Pension Transfer of $134,000
Beginning of unwinding of Cable TV Transfer of $25,000 per year
Transfers agree to LRFMP
$25,000 increase in Investment Income
Community Survey included in Development Fund LRFMP
Any additonal expenditures for environmental programs will be funded from Solid Waste
Special Study Session Meeting of October 15, 2012 (Item No. 2) Subject: 2013 Budget Discussion Page 8
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
Water Availability Charge Comparison
10/15/2012
City Charge/ SAC Unit Basis
Arden Hills $500 SAC
Apple Valley $766 SAC
Baxter $3,100 SAC
Bemidji $845 - $11,950 Meter size
Brainerd $1,400 REU =Residential Equivalency Unit
Brooklyn Park $1,725 SAC
Delano $2,304 SAC
Eagan $1,260 water supply and storage fee per SAC
$748 water treatment plant fee per SAC
$55 water permit - per connection
Res- $2,510 SAC
Eden Prairie Ind- $3,280 SAC
Comm- $3,920 SAC
Edina $800 SAC
Elk River $3,060 SAC
Hutchinson $1,750
Minnetonka $1,600 SAC
Plymouth $3,798 acre
Rosemount $2175 - $44,150 Meter Size
St. Anthony $450 SAC
Zumbrota $1,750 acre
St. Louis Park (proposed)$750 SAC
Cities not charging WAC
Golden Valley
Hopkins
New Hope
Special Study Session Meeting of October 15, 2012 (Item No. 2)
Subject: 2013 Budget Discussion Page 9
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
Examples of Water Availability Charges on Recent Projects
10/15/2012
Name Address Type Units/Sq. Ft.SAC Units Project Cost Permit Valuation
WAC Charge (if it
was implemented
prior to project)
WAC as % of
Permit
Valuation
Ellipse on Excelsior 3900 Excelsior Blvd Mixed-Use 132; 16,394 130 $26,805,177 $18,668,834 97,500$ 0.52%
TowerLight 3601 Wooddale Ave S Mixed-Use 115; 26,000 76 $17,000,000 57,000$ 0.34%
Lake Street Office Center 7102 Lake St W Office 4,000 1 $533,000 750$ 0.14%
Melrose Institute 3525 Monterey Dr Office 27 $18,000,000 20,250$ 0.11%
36 Park 3601 Park Center Blvd Res-Apts 192 183 $27,969,000 137,250$ 0.49%
Ellipse 2 3924 Exceslior Blvd Res-Apts 58 41 $13,539,861 $9,750,000 30,750$ 0.32%
Flats at West End 5310 16th St W Res-Apts 119 94 $21,000,000 $16,660,000 70,500$ 0.42%
Mill Valley Kitchen 3906 Excelsior Blvd Restaurant 5,050 19 $700,000 14,250$ 2.04%
Raku Japanese Restaurant 5371 16th St W Restaurant 12 $250,000 9,000$ 3.60%
Special Study Session Meeting of October 15, 2012 (Item No. 2) Subject: 2013 Budget Discussion Page 10
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
RESIDENTIAL ESTIMATED CITY SHARE OF PROPERTY TAXES
4.00% PRELIMINARY LEVY INCREASE
FOR THE 2013 PROPOSED BUDGET
As of 10-15-12
* These are estimated figures at particular price points. Homes at the price points will not experience these exact change
Property Value Mkt. Value Mkt. Value Taxable Taxable Tax Capacity Estimated City Tax Dollar Percent
2012 2013 Total Home.Total Home.Market Market 2012 2013 2012 2013 Change Change
Exclusion Exclusion Value 2012 Value 2013
150,000 132,000 (23,740.00) (25,360.00) 126,260.00 106,640.00 1,263 1,066 576.65 509.97 -66.68 -11.6%
200,000 184,000 (19,240.00) (20,680.00) 180,760.00 163,320.00 1,808 1,633 825.57 781.03 -44.54 -5.4%
220,100 211,400 (17,431.00) (18,214.00) 202,669.00 193,186.00 2,027 1,932 925.63 923.85 -1.78 -0.2%
300,000 294,000 (10,240.00) (10,780.00) 289,760.00 283,220.00 2,898 2,832 1,323.39 1,354.41 31.02 2.3%
350,000 348,250 (5,740.00) (5,897.50) 344,260.00 342,352.50 3,443 3,424 1,572.30 1,637.20 64.89 4.1%
400,000 398,000 (1,240.00) (1,420.00) 398,760.00 396,580.00 3,988 3,966 1,821.22 1,896.52 75.31 4.1%
500,000 497,500 - - 500,000.00 497,500.00 5,000 4,975 2,283.60 2,379.14 95.54 4.2%
600,000 597,000 - - 600,000.00 597,000.00 6,250 6,213 2,854.50 2,970.94 116.44 4.1%
700,000 696,500 - - 700,000.00 696,500.00 7,500 7,456 3,425.40 3,565.73 140.33 4.1%
Assumptions:
2012 and 2013 tax capacity rate based on Hennepin County information.
Tax capacity rates increase from 1% to 1.25% for values over $500,000.
Special Study Session Meeting of October 15, 2012 (Item No. 2) Subject: 2013 Budget Discussion Page 11
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
RESIDENTIAL ESTIMATED CITY SHARE OF PROPERTY TAXES
2.88% PRELIMINARY LEVY INCREASE
FOR THE 2013 PROPOSED BUDGET
As of 10-15-12
* These are estimated figures at particular price points. Homes at the price points will not experience these exact change
Property Value Mkt. Value Mkt. Value Taxable Taxable Tax Capacity Estimated City Tax Dollar Percent
2012 2013 Total Home.Total Home.Market Market 2012 2013 2012 2013 Change Change
Exclusion Exclusion Value 2012 Value 2013
150,000 132,000 (23,740.00) (25,360.00) 126,260.00 106,640.00 1,263 1,066 576.65 504.67 -71.98 -12.5%
200,000 184,000 (19,240.00) (20,680.00) 180,760.00 163,320.00 1,808 1,633 825.57 772.91 -52.66 -6.4%
220,100 211,400 (17,431.00) (18,214.00) 202,669.00 193,186.00 2,027 1,932 925.63 914.25 -11.38 -1.2%
300,000 294,000 (10,240.00) (10,780.00) 289,760.00 283,220.00 2,898 2,832 1,323.39 1,340.34 16.95 1.3%
350,000 348,250 (5,740.00) (5,897.50) 344,260.00 342,352.50 3,443 3,424 1,572.30 1,620.18 47.88 3.0%
400,000 398,000 (1,240.00) (1,420.00) 398,760.00 396,580.00 3,988 3,966 1,821.22 1,876.81 55.60 3.1%
500,000 497,500 - - 500,000.00 497,500.00 5,000 4,975 2,283.60 2,354.42 70.82 3.1%
600,000 597,000 - - 600,000.00 597,000.00 6,250 6,213 2,854.50 2,940.07 85.57 3.0%
700,000 696,500 - - 700,000.00 696,500.00 7,500 7,456 3,425.40 3,528.67 103.27 3.0%
Assumptions:
2012 and 2013 tax capacity rate based on Hennepin County information.
Tax capacity rates increase from 1% to 1.25% for values over $500,000.
Special Study Session Meeting of October 15, 2012 (Item No. 2) Subject: 2013 Budget Discussion Page 12
Meeting Date: October 15, 2012
Agenda Item #: 3
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Minnehaha Creek Remeander and Trail – Progress Update
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
No action is needed at this time.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the City Council wish to continue pursuing construction of a trail to proceed concurrently
with the creek remeander project?
BACKGROUND:
The City has been partnering with the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) since 2009
to complete the steps needed to allow the MCWD to move forward with the reconstruction of a
portion of Minnehaha Creek between Louisiana Avenue South and Meadowbrook Road. The
project design also includes the potential to add a trail along the creek, extending over the entire
length of the project. The channel reconstruction, also called a “remeander,” extends to the west
similar work completed in 2007-2008 at Methodist Hospital.
Figure 1.
Special Study Session Meeting of October 15, 2012 (Item No. 3) Page 2
Subject: Minnehaha Creek Remeander and Trail – Progress Update
Trail Construction
There are two segments to the proposed trails, depicted in Figure 1:
• A proposed paved segment (shown and labeled in green) that travels the length of the
creek remeander. The paved segment starts on the south side of the creek at Louisiana
Avenue, and proceeds west until it reaches the City’s Municipal Service Center, where it
passes over the creek on a new bridge. From that point, the paved trail would follow the
north side of the creek to Meadowbrook Road.
The paved segment of trail would be paid for, owned, operated, and maintained by the
City.
• A boardwalk segment (shown and labeled in red) that would begin at the new bridge and
travel south and west through wetland areas on the south side of the creek, until it reaches
a point near Meadowbrook Road. There, the boardwalk would meet another segment of
paved trail on the south side of the creek until it connects to Meadowbrook Road. The
boardwalk would bring trail users close to the creek and provide educational and
recreational opportunities for residents.
The boardwalk segment of the trail would be paid for, owned, operated, and maintained
by MCWD.
The proposed Minnehaha Creek trail is consistent with the future Pedestrian and Bicycle plan in
Comprehensive Plan and the current sidewalks and trails implementation planning.
Funding
In a collaborative effort, the City and MCWD have worked to find a funding source that would
allow the trail to be constructed concurrently with the creek remeander. No outside funding
sources have been identified; while at one time or another there have been sources that appeared
promising, funds have not materialized. It is for this reason that the City and MCWD have
discussed other internal options for funding the trail.
The construction estimate for building the trail is approximately $1 million. The City’s portion
of the trail, the paved segment and bridge, makes up approximately half the total cost, or
$500,000.
An option under consideration for funding the trail would allow MCWD to fund and construct all
portions of the trail, including the paved segment, bridge, and boardwalk segment. The City
would review all plans and specifications to ensure the paved segment and bridge meet the City’s
engineering standards. Once the project is complete, MCWD would turn ownership of the paved
trail and bridge to the City. The City would reimburse MCWD for the costs to construct the
paved trail and bridge over a period of time, up to approximately $500,000.
The City’s Accounting Division has considered potential City sources for financing the trail and
bridge portion of the project. One short-term option would be to make annual payments from the
Parks Improvement Fund and reimburse that fund at a later date. It appears the City intends to
finance the planned construction of the citywide sidewalk and trail system by issuing general
obligation bonds. That could also be used to reimburse Minnehaha Creek Watershed District for
the initial construction costs for the trail and bridge.
Special Study Session Meeting of October 15, 2012 (Item No. 3) Page 3
Subject: Minnehaha Creek Remeander and Trail – Progress Update
Project Schedule
The project is currently out for bids with a bid opening scheduled for October 31, 2012. The
project is expected to be awarded soon afterward. The trail and bridge portion of the project is
included as a bid alternate, and the bid specifications give Minnehaha Creek Watershed District
up to 6 months to decide whether or not to award the bid alternate. However, the bids will be
evaluated based on the channel reconstruction and trail work combined.
Easement
The City Council approved temporary and permanent access easements for the proposed creek
remeander earlier this year. One of the City-owned parcels was inadvertently left out of the
easement, so a resolution extending the easement to include that parcel will be brought to the
City Council at a future City Council meeting.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Further details regarding financial considerations will be provided at a future City Council
meeting. If there are concerns about the general direction staff is going with Minnehaha Creek,
please share those with City Manager Tom Harmening.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Adding a trail along Minnehaha Creek relates to the Vision direction to enhance the City’s
network of safe sidewalks and trails for use by community members of all ages and physical
abilities.
Attachments: None
Prepared by: Adam Fulton, Planner
Sean Walther, Senior Planner
Reviewed by: Meg McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor
Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
Meeting Date: October 15, 2012
Agenda Item #: 3a
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL STUDY SESSION
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
AUGUST 6, 2012
The meeting convened at 7:00 p.m.
Councilmembers present: Mayor Jeff Jacobs, Steve Hallfin, Anne Mavity, Susan Sanger, Sue
Santa, and Jake Spano (arrived at 7:13 p.m.).
Councilmembers absent: Julia Ross.
Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), Planning/Zoning Supervisor (Ms. McMonigal),
Communications Coordinator (Mr. Zwilling), and Recording Secretary (Ms. Hughes).
Guests: Planning Commissioners Rick Person, Carl Robertson, and Lynne Carper.
1. Planning Commission 2011 Annual Report and 2012 Work Plan
Ms. McMonigal presented the staff report and the Planning Commission’s 2011 Annual Report
and 2012 Work Plan. She then introduced Planning Commissioners Rick Person, Carl
Robertson, and Lynne Carper. She reported that the Planning Commission has been working on
updating the City’s Ordinances, has implemented several sections of the Comprehensive Plan,
and is currently working with staff on SWLRT. She advised that Ms. Johnston-Madison and Mr.
Robertson have participated on the Beltline Station Area task force and the Planning
Commission will be asked to participate in the Louisiana Station Area task force this fall.
Mr. Robertson requested feedback from Council regarding issues that Council wants the
Planning Commission to address. He stated the Planning Commission has been tracking the
housing study completed a number of years ago and one of the issues that came up was the
shortage of move-up housing in the City. He indicated the Planning Commission identified the
potential to increase density in the areas surrounding light rail, e.g., Louisiana Avenue, and
whether there was any way to increase density not just in number but in sizes of homes. He
stated the Planning Commission talked about townhomes or row homes and what the City can do
in those areas to encourage larger homes and whether consideration should be given to changing
the City’s ordinances regarding lot lines to accommodate larger homes in these areas. He
suggested the City focus on arterials in the City near the light rail stations to revitalize some of
the passageways that are more tired.
Councilmember Mavity indicated the City has strived for move-up housing in the City and has
had success with its low interest loan programs and the excess land program. She stated one of
the challenges has been the availability of space in the City and agreed with the concept of
adding townhomes or cluster homes to achieve more density with a single-family feel.
Councilmember Sanger stated the City has move-up housing available via modifications to
existing homes and questioned whether the City should consider a program similar to what was
done in the Blackstone neighborhood that focused rehab money on existing homes and providing
incentives to homeowners and combining this with the idea presented by Mr. Robertson.
City Council Meeting of October 15, 2012 (Item No. 3a) Page 2
Subject: Special Study Session Minutes of August 6, 2012
Councilmember Mavity stated she would be interested in seeing some guidelines developed by
the Planning Commission that address the concept raised by Mr. Robertson.
Councilmember Santa stated she felt the City has made efforts to break out of the mold by
utilizing programs such as the Land Trust and added she felt this program was being under-
utilized. She stated the City has a lot of homes that are tired as well as homes that have been
condemned or are in the process of foreclosure and innovative programs like the Land Trust can
turn an area around.
Councilmember Mavity stated the City has been a leader in green development and indicated she
would be interested in the Planning Commission’s thoughts about how the City can continue to
stay ahead of the curve as it relates to future green development trends.
Mr. Person stated he will be serving on the City’s new environmental task force which will
identify some issues regarding green development, e.g., recycling, that will be sent to the City
Council for consideration.
Councilmember Santa expressed her appreciation to the Planning Commission for all of its work
on the Zoning Code in making the Code more understandable.
Councilmember Sanger thanked the Planning Commission for all of its work and requested that
the Planning Commission review the City’s front yard, back yard, and side yard setback
requirements to see what can be done to make the rules better determine what the front yard is.
Mr. Carper requested that the Planning Commission and Council hold a joint meeting and tour of
the City.
Mr. Harmening stated that a joint meeting with the Planning Commission and Housing Authority
is scheduled for September 10, 2012, that will include a presentation by the Urban Land Institute
on the “New Normal” which will provide an opportunity for conversation among the Planning
Commission and City Council.
Mayor Jacobs expressed the City Council’s thanks to the Planning Commission for all of its
work.
The meeting adjourned at 7:23 p.m.
______________________________________ ______________________________________
Nancy Stroth, City Clerk Jeff Jacobs, Mayor
Meeting Date: October 15, 2012
Agenda Item: 4a
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Special Meeting Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Special Session Other:
TITLE:
Second Reading of Ordinance Adopting 2013 Fees Schedule
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to Approve Second Reading and Adopt Ordinance adopting fees for 2013 as outlined in
Appendix A of the City Code of Ordinances, approve summary, and authorize publication.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the Council agree with the proposed revisions to the fee schedule to reflect adjustments to
fees charged for programs and services called for by ordinance?
BACKGROUND:
Each year our fees are reviewed by departments prior to renewal and as part of our budget
process. Some fees must be set and adjusted in accordance with our ordinance; other fees are
allowed to be set administratively. All fees are reviewed each year based on comparison to other
cities in the metro area, changes in regulations and to make sure our business costs are covered
for such service.
Sec. 1-19 of the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code states that fees called for within individual
provisions of the Code are to be set by ordinance and listed as Appendix A of the Code. Fees
must also be reviewed and reestablished annually. The Administrative Services Department has
worked with individual departments to complete this review and their recommendations are
included in the attached ordinance.
On October 1, 2012, Council approved first reading of the fee schedule and set second reading
for October 15, 2012. If approved, the fee increases will be effective January 1, 2013. Fees, rates
and charges called for by resolution or set by a department are not required by law to be included
in the Appendix A City Code fee schedule. Staff will be presenting proposed 2013 liquor fees for
approval by resolution at the November 19, 2012 City Council Meeting. Utility fees for 2013
water, sewer, storm water, and solid waste rates are scheduled for approval later this year.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
The Fire, Police, and Information Resources Departments are recommending no increases in
their fees for 2013. The Inspections and Community Development Departments have each
proposed fee increases, additions, or removals that are the shown in Appendix A (attached).
Administrative Penalties
A new section was added and titled “Administrative Penalties” to reflect its use among all
departments. The Administrative Penalties fees were included in Ordinance 2420-12 adopted
August 20, 2012.
City Council Meeting of October 15, 2012 (Item No. 4a) Page 2
Title: Second Reading of Ordinance Adopting 2013 Fees Schedule
Finance Department/Assessing
This section is retitled to more appropriately reflect the character of the fee under the heading.
The recording fee was duplicated under the Public Works Department and is now only listed
under Assessing.
Community Development Department
Community Development is proposing to separate the driveway and parking lot installation
permits, creating a more affordable driveway permit.
Inspections Department
Permit and license fees proposed by the Inspections Department were increased to reflect
business costs and remain consistent with the “fee for service” program philosophy. In some
cases fee amounts were rounded to the nearest $5 for ease in calculation.
A few new fees were developed in the interest to simplify and better serve our customers.
Proposed changes will create flat fees for residential reroofs and residing projects on homes and
garages from the current value calculated fee amounts. Implementing flat fees will allow these
types of Building Permits to be issued as an E-Permit through LOGIS, expanding our internet
self-service permit choices. These fees were discussed in the report for first reading but
inadvertently left out of the attachment. The proposed ordinance attachment has been updated to
reflect these additional fees.
Fees associated with Environmental Health licensing for: Food and Beverage Establishments;
Lodging; and Public Sanitary Facilities are removed from the 2013 Fees since these functions
will be handled by the MN Department of Health and the MN Department of Agriculture in
2013. Another fee change associated with the change in the delegation agreement with the state
is to establish a new fee category for Tanning facilities/beds. This is one of the several business
license types that was not delegated and will remain as part of the city licensing/inspection
program.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
Attachments: Proposed Ordinance
Summary Publication
Prepared by: Ray French, Administrative Services Intern
Approved by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
City Council Meeting of October 15, 2012 (Item No. 4a) Page 3
Title: Second Reading of Ordinance Adopting 2013 Fees Schedule
ORDINANCE NO. ____-12
ORDINANCE ADOPTING FEES FOR CALENDAR YEAR 2013
THE CITY COUNCIL OF ST. LOUIS PARK ORDAINS:
Section 1. Fees called for within individual provisions of the City Code are hereby
set by this ordinance for calendar year 2013.
Section 2. The Fee Schedule as listed below shall be included as Appendix A of the
City Code and shall replace those fees adopted October 3, 2011 by Ordinance No. 2404-11 for
the calendar year 2012 which is hereby rescinded.
ADMINISTRATIVE PENALTIES
Chapter 4 – Animal Regulations $50
Chapter 6 – Buildings & Building Regulations
Chapter 6, Article V – Property Maintenance Code $100
Chapter 8 – Business and Business Licenses $100
Chapter 12 – Environment $50
Chapter 12, Section 1 – Environment & Public Health
Regulations Adopted by Reference
$100
Chapter 12, Section 157 – Illicit Discharge and
Connection
$100
Chapter 12, Section 159 – Wetland Protection $100
Chapter 14 – Fire and Fire Prevention $50
Chapter 14, Section 75 – Open burning without permit $100
Chapter 20 – Parks and Recreation $50
Chapter 22 – Solid Waste Management $50
Chapter 22, Section 35b – Contagious Disease Refuse $200
Chapter 24 – Streets, Sidewalks & Public Places $50
Chapter 24, Section 24-43 – Household Trash &
Recycling Containers blocking public way
$25
Chapter 24, Section 50 – Public Property: Defacing or
injuring
$150
Chapter 24, Section 51 – Sweeping leaves into street
prohibited
$100
Chapter 24, Section 151 – Work in public right-of-way
without a permit
$100
Chapter 26 – Subdivision $100
Violation of a condition associated with a Subdivision
approval.
$750
Chapter 32 – Utilities $50
Chapter 36 – Zoning $50
Chapter 36, Section 37 – Conducting a Land Use not
permitted in the zoning district
$100
Violation of a condition associated with a Conditional
Use Permit, Planned Unit Development, or Special
Permit approval
$750
Repeat Violations within 24 Months
Double the amount of the fine imposed for the previous
violation, up to a maximum of $2,000. For example, if
there were four occurrences of a violation that carried a
$50 fine, the fine for the fourth occurrence would be
$400 (first: $50; second: $100; third: $200; fourth: $400).
City Council Meeting of October 15, 2012 (Item No. 4a) Page 4
Title: Second Reading of Ordinance Adopting 2013 Fees Schedule
Fines in addition to abatement and licensing inspections
Fines listed above may be in addition to fees associated
with abatement and licensing inspections.
ASSESSING
Record Deed Transfer with Hennepin County $120 + Recording cost
CITY CLERK’S OFFICE
Administrative Penalties
First Violation $25
Each Subsequent in Same Calendar Year add $10 to previous fine
Domestic Partnership
Registration Application Fee $50
Amendment to Application Fee $25
Termination of Registration Fee $25
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
Comprehensive Plan Amendments $2,000
Conditional Use Permit $2,000
Major Amendment $2,000
Minor Amendment $1,000
Fence Permit
Installation $15
Numbering of Buildings (New Addresses) $50
Official Map Amendment $500
Parking Lot/Driveway Permit
Installation/Reconstruction $75
Driveway Permit $25
Planned Unit Development
Preliminary PUD $2,000
Final PUD $2,000
Prelim/Final PUD Combined $2,250
PUD - Major Amendment $2,000
PUD - Minor Amendment $1,000
Recording Filing Fee
Single Family $50
Other Uses $120
Registration of Land Use $50
Sign Permit
Erection of Temporary Sign $30
Erection of Real Estate, Construction Sign 40+ ft $30
Installation of Permanent Sign without footings $75
Installation of Permanent Sign with footings $100
Special Permits
Major Amendment $2,000
Minor Amendment $1,000
Street, Alley, Utility Vacations $800
Subdivision Dedication
Park Dedication (in lieu of land)
Commercial/Industrial Properties 5 % of current market value of the
unimproved land as determined by city
assessor
Multi-family Dwelling Units $1,500 per dwelling unit
Single-family Dwelling Units $1,500 per dwelling unit
Trails $225 per residential dwelling unit
City Council Meeting of October 15, 2012 (Item No. 4a) Page 5
Title: Second Reading of Ordinance Adopting 2013 Fees Schedule
Subdivisions/Replats
Preliminary Plat $800 plus $90 per lot
Final Plat $500
Combined Process and Replats $900 plus $90 per lot
Exempt and Administrative Subdivisions $300
Temporary Use
Carnival & Festival over 14 days $1,000
Time Extension $150
Traffic Management Plan
Administrative Fee $0.10 per sq ft of gross floor
Tree Replacement
Cash in lieu of replacement trees $115 per caliper inch
Variances
Commercial $500
Residential $300
Zoning Appeal $300
Zoning Letter $50
Zoning Map Amendments $2,000
Zoning Permit
Accessory Structures, 120 ft or less $25
Zoning Text Amendments $2,000
FINANCE DEPARTMENT
Recording Deed transfer with Hennepin County $120 + Recording cost
-
FIRE DEPARTMENT
Fireworks Display Permit Actual costs incurred
Service Fees
Service Fee for fully-equipped & staffed vehicles $500 per hour for a ladder truck
$325 per hour for a full-size fire truck
$255 per hour for a rescue unit
Service Fee of a Chief Officer $100 per hour
After Hours Inspections $65 per hour (minimum 2 hrs.)
Tent Permit
Tent over 200 sq. ft. $75.00
Canopy over 400 sq. ft. $75.00
INSPECTIONS DEPARTMENT
Building Demolition Deposit
1 & 2 Family Residential & Accessory Structures $2,500
All Other Buildings $5,000
Building Demolition Permit
1 & 2 Family Residential & Accessory Structures $150
All Other Buildings $220
Building Moving Permit $500
Business Licenses
Billboards $140 per billboard
Commercial Entertainment $275 $280
Courtesy Bench $45 $50
Dog Kennel $145 $150
Environmental Emissions $310
Lodging (Hotel/Motel)
Building Fee $165
Unit Fee $10
Massage Therapy Establishment $325 $330
City Council Meeting of October 15, 2012 (Item No. 4a) Page 6
Title: Second Reading of Ordinance Adopting 2013 Fees Schedule
Massage Therapy License $95 $100
Therapists holding a Massage Therapy Establishment
License
$25
Pawnbroker
License Fee $2,000
Per Transaction Fee $2
Investigation Fee $1,000
Penalty $50 per day
Sexually Oriented Business
Investigation Fee (High Impact) $500
High Impact $4,500
Limited Impact $125
Tobacco Products & Related Device Sales $485
Vehicle Parking Facilities
Enclosed Parking $210 $215
Parking Ramp $160 $165
Certificate of Occupancy
For each condominium unit completed after building
occupancy
$100
Change of Use (does not apply to 1 & 2 family
dwellings)
Up to 5,000 sq ft $290 $300
5,001 to 25,000 sq ft $440 $450
25,001 to 75,000 sq ft $650 $670
75,001 to 100,000 sq ft $860 $880
100,000 to 200,000 sq ft $1,070 $1,100
above 200,000 sq ft $1,280 $1,310
Temporary Certificate of Occupancy $50 $55
Certificate of Property Maintenance
Certificate of Property Maintenance Extension $50 $55
Change in Ownership
Condominium Unit $135 $140
Duplex (2 Family dwellings) $295 $300
Multi-Family (apartment) Buildings $250 per building + $12 per unit
Single Family Dwellings $215 $220
All Other Buildings:
Up to 5,000 sq ft $290 $300
5,001 to 25,000 sq ft $440 $450
25,001 to 75,000 sq ft $650 $670
75,001 to 100,000 sq ft $860 $880
100,000 to 200,000 sq. ft $1,070 $1,100
above 200,000 sq. ft $1,280 $1,310
Temporary Certificate of Property Maintenance $65 $70
Construction Permits (building, electrical, fire
protection, mechanical, plumbing, pools, utilities)
Building and Fire Protection Permits Valuation
Up to $500 Base Fee $45
$500.01 to $2,000.00 Base Fee $45 + $2 for each additional
(or fraction thereof) $100 over $500.01
$2,000.01 to $25,000.00 Base Fee $75 + $15 for each
additional (or fraction thereof)
$1,000 over $2,000.01
$25,000.01 to $50,000.00 Base Fee $420 + $10 for each
additional (or fraction thereof)
$1,000 over $25,000.01
City Council Meeting of October 15, 2012 (Item No. 4a) Page 7
Title: Second Reading of Ordinance Adopting 2013 Fees Schedule
$50,000.01 to $100,000.00 Base Fee $670 + $7 for each
additional (or fraction thereof)
$1,000 over $50,000.01
$100,000.01 to $500,000.00 Base Fee $1,020 + $5.60 for each
additional (or fraction thereof)
$1,000 over $100.000.01
$500,000.01 to $1,000,000.00 Base Fee $3,260 + $4.75 for each
additional (or fraction thereof)
$1,000 over $500,000.01
$1,000,000.01 and up Base Fee $5,635 + $4.25 for each
additional (or fraction thereof)
$1,000 over $1,000,000.01
Single Family Residential Exceptions:
Reroofing – asphalt shingled, sloped roofs only
House or House and Garage $140
Garage Only $70
Residing
House or House and Garage $140
Garage Only $70
Electrical Permit
Installation, Replacement, Repair $45 + 1.75% of job valuation
Installation of traffic signals per location $150
Single family, one appliance $45
Erosion Control Permit
Application and Review $150
ISTS Permit
(sewage treatment system install or repair) $125
Mechanical Permit
Installation, Replacement, Repair $45 + 1.75% of job valuation
Single Family Exceptions:
Replace furnace, boiler or furnace/AC $62 $65
Install single fuel burning appliance with piping $62 $65
Install, replace or repair single mechanical appliance $45
Plumbing Permit
Installation, Replacement, Repair $45 + 1.75% of job valuation
Single Family Exceptions:
Repair/replace single plumbing fixture $45
Private Swimming Pool Permit Building permit fees apply
Public Swimming Pool Permit Building permit fees apply
Sewer & Water Permit (all underground private utilities)
Installation, Replacement, Repair $45 + 1.75% of job valuation
Single Family Exceptions:
Replace/repair sewer or water service $73 $75
Competency Exams Fees
Mechanical per test $30
Renewal - 3 year Mechanical $30
Contractor Licenses
Mechanical $95 $100
Solid Waste $195 $200
Tree Maintenance $85 $90
Dog Licenses
1 year $25
2 year $37 $40
3 year $50
Potentially Dangerous Dog License – 1 year $100
City Council Meeting of October 15, 2012 (Item No. 4a) Page 8
Title: Second Reading of Ordinance Adopting 2013 Fees Schedule
Dangerous Dog License – 1 year $250
Interim License $15
Off-Leash Dog Area Permit (non-resident) $55
Penalty for no license $40
Food and Beverage Equipment Permit
Installation (used equipment valued as new) $50 + 1.75% permit valuation
Plan Review Fee 35% of permit fee
Food and Beverage Licenses
Class E (multi-site educational facilities) $2,800
High + & large grocery store (25,000 sq ft +) $1,325
High + small grocery store (to 25,000 sq ft) $925
Class H (establishment with on-site preparation of food
and dining service)
$850
Class L - (prepackaged food) $225
Class M - (coffee shop) $580
Class V - (food vending machine) $15
Temporary Food Service
3+ days $150
1 to 3 days $100
Concession - Seasonal (Class S) $180
Prepackaged Food Only $40
Inspections
After Hours Inspections $65 per hour (minimum 2 hrs.)
Installation of permanent sign w/footing inspection Based on valuation using building
permit table
Re-Inspection Fee (after correction notice issued and has
not been corrected within 2 subsequent inspections)
$130
Insurance Requirements A minimum of:
Circus $1,000,000 General Liability
Commercial Entertainment $1,000,000 General Liability
Mechanical Contractors $1,000,000 General Liability
Solid Waste $1,000,000 General Liability
Tree Maintenance & Removal $1,000,000 General Liability
Vehicle Parking Facility $1,000,000 General Liability
ISTS Permit
Sewage treatment system install or repair $125
License Fees - Other
Investigation Fee $300 per establishment requiring a
business license
Late Fee 25% of license fee (minimum $50)
License Reinstatement Fee $250
Transfer of License (new ownership) $75
Plan Review
Building Permits 65% of Permit Fee
Repetitive Building 25% of Permit Fee for Duplicate
Structure
Electrical Permits 35% of Permit Fee
Mechanical Permits 35% of Permit Fee
Plumbing Permits 35% of Permit Fee
Sewer & Water Permits 35% of Permit Fee
Single Family Interior Remodel Permits 35% of Permit Fee
Public Sanitary Facilities - Swimming Pools, Whirlpool,
Sauna (Dry or Steam), Public Bath or Shower,
Tanning Beds or Similar Facilities
Class I $820
City Council Meeting of October 15, 2012 (Item No. 4a) Page 9
Title: Second Reading of Ordinance Adopting 2013 Fees Schedule
Class II $450
Class III $285
Rental Housing License
Condominium/Townhouse/Cooperative $75 per unit $80 per unit
Duplex both sides non-owner occupied $145 per duplex $150 per duplex
Housing Authority owned single family dwelling units $15 per unit
Multiple Family
Per Building $165 $170
Per Unit $11 $12
Single Family Unit $95 per dwelling unit $100 per
dwelling unit
Temporary Noise Permit $60
Temporary Use Permits
Amusement Rides, Carnivals & Circuses $260
Commercial Film Production Application $80
Petting Zoos $60
Vehicle Decals
Catering $75
Solid Waste $20
Tree Maintenance & Removal $8
POLICE DEPARTMENT
Animals
Animal Impound
Initial impoundment $25
2nd offense w/in year $40
3rd offense w/in year $50
4th offense w/in year $75
Boarding Per Day $25
Dangerous Dog Annual Review Hearing $250
Potentially Dangerous Dog Annual Review Hearing $100
Criminal Background Investigation
Volunteers & Employees $5
False Alarm
First $0
Each subsequent in same year $100
Late payment fee 10%
Solicitor/Peddler Registration $150
Lost ID Replacement Fee $25
Vehicle Forfeiture
Administrative fee in certain vehicle forfeiture cases $250
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
Installation/repair of Sidewalk, Curb Cut or Curb and
Gutter Permit
$10 per 10 linear feet
Administrative Fee (all permits) $50
Permit to Exceed Vehicle Weight Limitations (MSC) $30 each
Record Deed Transfer with Hennepin County $120 + Recording Cost
Winter Parking Permit
Caregiver parking $25
No off-street parking available No Charge
Off-street parking available $125
Work in Public Right-of-Way Permit
Administrative Fee (all permits) $50
Hole in Roadway/Blvd (larger than 10" diameter) $50 per hole
City Council Meeting of October 15, 2012 (Item No. 4a) Page 10
Title: Second Reading of Ordinance Adopting 2013 Fees Schedule
Trenching in Boulevard $200 per 100 linear feet
(minimum $200)
Trenching in Roadway $400 per 100 linear feet
(minimum $400)
Section 3. This ordinance shall take effect January 1, 2013.
Public Hearing October 1, 2012
Second Reading October 15, 2012
Date of Publication October 25, 2012
Date Ordinance takes effect January 1, 2013
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council October 15, 2012
City Manager Mayor
Attest: Approved as to form and execution:
City Clerk City Attorney
City Council Meeting of October 15, 2012 (Item No. 4a) Page 11
Title: Second Reading of Ordinance Adopting 2013 Fees Schedule
SUMMARY
ORDINANCE NO. ____-12
AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING FEES CALLED FOR
BY ORDINANCE FOR CALENDAR YEAR 2013
This ordinance sets 2013 fees as outlined in Appendix A of the City Code of Ordinances. The
fee ordinance is modified to reflect the cost of providing services and is completed each year to
determine what, if any, fees require adjustment. This ordinance shall take effect January 1, 2013.
Adopted by the City Council October 15, 2012
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: October 25, 2012
Meeting Date: October 15, 2012
Agenda Item #: 4b
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Solomon Real Estate Group – Registered Land Survey (RLS) Hwy 7/Blake Road
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to Adopt Resolution approving a Registered Land Survey for Solomon Real Estate
Group at Hwy 7 and Blake Road.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Should the City allow the re-conveyance of excess MnDOT land for private use?
BACKGROUND:
The Registered Land Survey (RLS) is proposed to divide property owned by MnDOT into two
Tracts. Tract A is approximately 51,852 square feet and will remain with MnDOT for right-of-
way purposes. Tract B is approximately 7,195 square feet and will be sold to the Solomon Real
Estate Group (Applicant). The Applicant will then combine Tract B with approximately 37,829
square feet of land they own located in Hopkins. The combined land is proposed to be
redeveloped into a 12,000 square foot retail center.
Background:
RLS:
An RLS is required because the
MnDOT land is Torrens properties and
is part of a larger RLS known as RLS
number 1805. As allowed under
Minnesota Statute 508.47, Hennepin
County is requiring the conveyance to
occur by RLS because it is not a simple
fractional part of the Torrens property.
In other words, the legal description
required to split the MnDOT parcel into
two tracts would have been too lengthy.
Tract Sizes
Existing Tract: 59,017 square feet
Tract A: 51,822 square feet
Tract B: 7,195 square feet
City Council Meeting of October 15, 2012 (Item No. 4b) Page 2
Subject: Solomon Real Estate Group – Registered Land Survey (RLS) Hwy 7/Blake Road
Process for Re-conveyance of MnDOT Land:
State law requires the sale of MnDOT land to be re-conveyed through the city first, then the city
sells it to the Applicant. In this case, the MnDOT land is located in both the City of Hopkins and
St. Louis Park, with the majority of it being in Hopkins. Since most of the land is in Hopkins,
MnDOT will re-convey all of the requested land to Hopkins, including that portion in St. Louis
Park. This will simplify the transaction by involving only one city and thereby reducing the
amount of paperwork, deeds and contracts. The transactions are set up to be simultaneous, so the
city of Hopkins will own the land for only a moment.
City Review:
In 2011, the City reviewed and
approved a re-conveyance of a portion
of excess MnDOT land at this corner to
the Carpet King property to the East.
The excess land was re-conveyed to the
property owner to the east so he could
expand his parking lot to provide
needed parking for his retail center.
That parking lot was constructed in
2012. The City did not re-convey the
entire MnDOT excess land at that time
because it had the following concerns:
1. MnDOT or Hennepin County
may need the right-of-way for
future intersection improvements.
2. The City had concerns about how the 2011 proposal would impact the city monument. The
applicant proposed to surround the monument on the south and east side with parking and
very little landscaping. The City determined that the remaining excess land would be kept
to preserve a landscaped area around the monument.
The Applicant for this re-conveyance is a different property owner from the 2011 re-conveyance
application, and owns property to the south. While he is proposing to construct a parking lot
over a portion of the re-conveyed land, he is also proposing to meet the City’s concerns by:
1. Demonstrating to the City that intersection improvements could be completed with the
remaining MnDOT land. This review began with the City Engineering Department
confirming that neither MnDOT nor Hennepin County has plans to improve the
intersection in the foreseeable future. Despite the lack of plans, the Applicant provided
exhibits showing how pedestrian improvements could be made within the remaining
MnDOT land. These exhibits went so far as to show how a pedestrian bridge could be
constructed over State Highway 7 even though a pedestrian bridge is not projected to be
constructed. This review satisfied the City Engineering Department that the requested
MnDOT excess land could be re-conveyed.
2. Agreeing to improve the landscaping around the city monument, and taking over its day-
to-day maintenance and irrigation. The plan shows new plants and sufficient green space
around the monument. The City Parks Department and Public Works Department
reviewed the landscaping plan and are recommending approval of the Applicant’s
landscaping plans and agreement to maintain the corner. The maintenance agreement is
attached for your consideration as part of the RLS approval.
City Council Meeting of October 15, 2012 (Item No. 4b) Page 3
Subject: Solomon Real Estate Group – Registered Land Survey (RLS) Hwy 7/Blake Road
Retail Development Proposal:
The Applicant is proposing to redevelop the BP gas
station site located in Hopkins and build a 12,000
square foot retail center. The proposed retail center
buildings are located entirely in the City of
Hopkins, so the Hopkins Planning Commission and
City Council will process the approvals for the
development.
The land located in the City of St. Louis Park will
be used to construct a portion of the parking lot,
display a sign, and to provide a driveway access to
the service road along State Highway 7. The
parking spaces are required by the City of Hopkins
to meet the required minimum number of parking
spaces for the development.
Landscaping:
As part of the development, the Applicant will re-
landscape the entire MnDOT tract, including that
portion to remain in MnDOT ownership. The new
landscaping will include removing the existing
landscaping around the city monument, and planting new vegetation according to the attached
landscaping plan. This plan was reviewed and approved by the City Parks Department. Once
completed, the Applicant will continue to maintain and irrigate the landscaping on the same
schedule as the retail development is being maintained. While the Applicant will maintain the
landscaping, the City will continue to maintain the monument and lights.
Sidewalk
All required sidewalks are in place. There is a sidewalk along Blake Road and there is a
sidewalk connection from the Highway 7 and Blake Road intersection to the cul-de-sac.
Therefore, no new sidewalks are required.
City Monument:
The city monument is currently in the MnDOT right-of-way, and is protected by an easement in
favor of the city. This arrangement will remain in place, and is unaffected by the proposed RLS.
As noted above, the Applicant will re-landscape the area around the monument. A copy of the
landscaping plan is attached.
PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW:
The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on September 19, 2012. No comments
were received from the public, and the Planning Commission voted (6-0) to approve the RLS. A
copy of the draft Planning Commission minutes are attached.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
The re-conveyance of MnDOT land would place more land in the private sector, and increase the
city tax base at no cost to the city.
City Council Meeting of October 15, 2012 (Item No. 4b) Page 4
Subject: Solomon Real Estate Group – Registered Land Survey (RLS) Hwy 7/Blake Road
VISION CONSIDERATION:
The re-conveyance would enhance the commercial properties at the intersection of Hwy 7 and
Blake Rd.
Attachments: Resolution
Minutes – Planning Commission Meeting of September 19, 2012
Location Map
Registered Land Survey
Proposed Landscaping Plan at the City Monument
License Agreement for Maintaining City Landscaping
Prepared by: Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator
Reviewed by: Meg McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor
Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
City Council Meeting of October 15, 2012 (Item No. 4b) Page 5
Subject: Solomon Real Estate Group – Registered Land Survey (RLS) Hwy 7/Blake Road
RESOLUTION NO. 12-____
RESOLUTION GIVING APPROVAL FOR A REGISTERED LAND SURVEY (RLS)
FOR SOLOMON REAL ESTATE GROUP
AT SOUTHEAST QUADRANT STATE HIGHWAY 7 AND BLAKE ROAD
BE IT RESOLVED BY the City Council of St. Louis Park:
Findings
1. Solomon Real Estate Group, owner and subdivider of the land proposed for a
Registered Land Survey has submitted an application for approval of registered land survey in
the manner required under the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code, and all proceedings have been
duly had thereunder.
2. The proposed Registered Land Survey has been found to be in all respects
consistent with the City Plan and the regulations and requirements of the laws of the State of
Minnesota and the ordinances of the City of St. Louis Park.
3. The proposed Registered Land Survey is situated upon the following described
lands in Hennepin County, Minnesota, to-wit:
Tract B, Registered Land Survey No. 1805
Conclusion
1. The proposed Registered Land Survey is hereby approved and accepted by the
City as being in accord and conformity with all ordinances, City plans and regulations of the City
of St. Louis Park and the laws of the State of Minnesota, provided, however, that this approval is
made subject to the opinion of the City Attorney and Certification by the City Clerk subject to
the following conditions:
a. A landscaping maintenance agreement be signed and recorded against the
development property located in Hopkins.
b. The developer or owner shall pay an administrative fee of $750 per violation of any
condition of this approval.
2. The City Clerk is hereby directed to supply two certified copies of this Resolution
to the above-named owner and subdivider, who is the applicant herein.
3. The Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized to execute all contracts
required herein, and the City Clerk is hereby directed to execute the certificate of approval on
behalf of the City Council upon the said Registered Land Survey when all of the conditions set
forth in Paragraph No. 1 above and the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code have been fulfilled.
City Council Meeting of October 15, 2012 (Item No. 4b) Page 6
Subject: Solomon Real Estate Group – Registered Land Survey (RLS) Hwy 7/Blake Road
4. Such execution of the certificate upon said Registered Land Survey by the City
Clerk, as required under Section 26-123(1)j of the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code, shall be
conclusive showing of proper compliance therewith by the subdivider and City officials charged
with duties above described and shall entitle such Registered Land Survey to be placed on record
forthwith without further formality.
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 October 15, 2012
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
City Council Meeting of October 15, 2012 (Item No. 4b) Page 7
Subject: Solomon Real Estate Group – Registered Land Survey (RLS) Hwy 7/Blake Road
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
SEPTEMBER 19, 2012 – 6:00 p.m.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MEMBERS PRESENT: Lynne Carper, Claudia Johnston-Madison, Robert Kramer,
Dennis Morris, Richard Person, Carl Robertson,
MEMBERS ABSENT: Larry Shapiro
STAFF PRESENT: Adam Fulton, Meg McMonigal, Gary Morrison,
Nancy Sells
3. Public Hearings
A. Registered Land Survey
Location: Southeast quadrant State Hwy. 7 and Blake Road
Applicant: Solomon Real Estate Group
Case No.: 12-26-S
Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator, presented the staff report. He explained
that the Registered Land Survey (RLS) is proposed to divide property owned by MnDOT
into two tracts. Tract A will remain with MnDOT for right-of-way purposes. Tract B
will be sold to the Solomon Real Estate Group. The applicant will combine Tract B with
land they own located in Hopkins. The combined land is proposed to be redeveloped into
a retail center.
Mr. Morrison said the applicant has asked to re-landscape the area around the city
monument. They will also irrigate the area and continue to maintain the property into
the future. The city and the developer will enter into a maintenance agreement.
Commissioner Carper said currently the cul-de-sac partially functions as the south service
road for Hwy. 7. He said with the proposed changes it appears that vehicles could come
through that and use it as a short cut to come through the parking lot in order to approach
Blake Rd.
Mr. Morrison said there will be the ability to drive from Blake Rd. along the driveway
then up along the service road. He said the developer is aware of this and is willing to
accept the cut through traffic on the parking lot. However, it’s anticipated there won’t be
much cut through traffic as it wouldn’t be much of a time saver.
Chair Kramer opened the public hearing. As there was no one present wishing to speak
he closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Morris made a motion recommending approval of the Registered Land
Survey subject to conditions included by staff. Commissioner Person seconded the
motion, and the motion passed on a vote of 6-0.
City Council Meeting of October 15, 2012 (Item No. 4b) Page 8
Subject: Solomon Real Estate Group – Registered Land Survey (RLS) Hwy 7/Blake Road
Location Map
City Council Meeting of October 15, 2012 (Item No. 4b) Subject: Solomon Real Estate Group – Registered Land Survey (RLS) Hwy 7/Blake RoadPage 9
City Council Meeting of October 15, 2012 (Item No. 4b)
Subject: Solomon Real Estate Group – Registered Land Survey (RLS) Hwy 7/Blake Road Page 10
166350v2
1
LICENSE AGREEMENT FOR MAINTENANCE OF
CITY LANDSCAPING LOCATED AT
HIGHWAY 7 AND BLAKE ROAD
This License Agreement for Maintenance (the “License Agreement”) is made and entered
into on the ____ day of ____________, 2012 by and among the City of St. Louis Park, a
Minnesota municipal corporation, (the “City”), and Hopkins Blake Retail, LLC, a Minnesota
limited liability company (the “Developer”).
RECITALS:
WHEREAS, the City approved Registered Land Survey No. ______, consisting of Tract
A and Tract B. Tract A is owned by the Minnesota Department of Transportation (“MnDOT”)
and is being conveyed by MnDOT as part of an assemblage by Developer of property within the
City and in the City of Hopkins, for the construction and operation of a “small shop” retail
development located at the northeast corner of Highway 7 and Blake Road, as generally depicted
on Exhibit A (“Project”);
WHEREAS, the City has a city identification entrance sign, together with related
landscaping (“City Landscaping”) located on Tract B which will continue to be owned by
MnDOT;
WHEREAS, the City sign and related City Landscaping is located on Tract B pursuant
to a permit issued by MnDOT on March 24, 1999, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit
“B” (“MnDOT Permit”);
WHEREAS, Developer believes that its maintenance of the City Landscaping on Tract B
will enhance the Project;
WHEREAS, the City is agreeable to Developer taking over responsibility for the City
Landscaping.
NOW, THEREFORE, subject to the terms and conditions of this License Agreement,
the City and the Developer agree as follows:
ARTICLE 1
MAINTENANCE OF IMPROVEMENTS
1.1 MAINTENANCE. Developer agrees to maintain the City Landscaping at its
own expense for the term of this License Agreement. The Developer agrees to keep the City
Landscaping neatly trimmed and pruned, properly watered, and fertilized and clear of litter and
debris. Developer may remove or replace trees and landscaping with the written approval of the
City Director of Parks and Recreation which approval will not be unreasonably withheld,
conditioned or delayed. The City will continue to maintain the City identification sign and any
associated hardscape. All landscaping maintenance work performed by Developer must be in
accordance with the MnDOT permit.
City Council Meeting of October 15, 2012 (Item No. 4b)
Subject: Solomon Real Estate Group – Registered Land Survey (RLS) Hwy 7/Blake Road Page 11
166350v2
2
ARTICLE 2
CITY LICENSE GRANT
2.1 LICENSE GRANT. The City hereby grants the Developer a license to enter
upon Tract B in accordance with the terms of the MnDOT permit to maintain City Landscaping
pursuant to the terms and conditions of this License Agreement.
2.2 LICENSE. The terms of this License Agreement shall only create a license for
the Developer to maintain the City Landscaping. This License Agreement does not create an
interest in real property such as an easement or any other property right.
2.3 NO TAKING. The termination of this License Agreement by the City shall not
constitute a taking as defined in Minnesota Statutes, §117.025.
2.4 SIGHT DISTANCE AND ACCESS TO UTILITIES. The City reserves the
right to trim or eliminate, as necessary in the opinion of the City Engineer, any grass, trees,
bushes, herbage or other vegetation that threaten the safety of the public by obstructing vehicular
sight distance, interferes with reasonable access to fire hydrants or other utilities or is in violation
of the MnDOT permit.
ARTICLE 3
INDEMNIFICATION OF CITY
3.1 INDEMNIFICATION OF CITY. The Developer hereby agrees to indemnify,
defend and hold the City, its council, agents, employees, attorneys and representatives harmless
against and in respect of any and all claims, demands, actions, suits, proceedings, losses, costs,
expenses, obligations, liabilities, damages, recoveries, and deficiencies, including interest,
penalties and attorneys' fees, that the City incurs or suffers, which arise out of, result from or
relate to:
a) the maintenance of the City Landscaping or installation of new landscaping
pursuant to this License Agreement by the Developer, its contractors, its members
or any party acting under the authorization or direction of the Developer ; and
b) the termination of this License Agreement by the City.
In no event shall the Developer be responsible to indemnify the City for any claim, demands,
actions, suits, proceedings, losses, costs, expenses, obligations, liabilities, damages, recoveries
and deficiencies, including interest, penalties and attorneys’ fees, that are incurred due to the
negligent or intentional misconduct of the City.
3.2 HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES. The Developer agrees that no hazardous
substances, pollutants or contaminants shall be used for any maintenance of the City
Landscaping. The City shall not be responsible for any costs, expenses, damages, demands,
obligations, including penalties and reasonable attorneys’ fees, or losses resulting from any
City Council Meeting of October 15, 2012 (Item No. 4b)
Subject: Solomon Real Estate Group – Registered Land Survey (RLS) Hwy 7/Blake Road Page 12
166350v2
3
claims, actions, suits, or proceedings based upon a release of any hazardous substances,
pollutants, or contaminants, caused by the Developer.
ARTICLE 4
TERMINATION
4.1 CITY TERMINATION FOR LICENSEE FAILURE TO MAINTAIN. If the
Developer fails to maintain the City Landscaping to the reasonable satisfaction of the City, the
City may serve notice of the maintenance deficiency. If the Developer fails to cure the
maintenance deficiency within forty-five (45) days of the notice of maintenance deficiency, the
City may serve a notice that the license is terminated.
4.2. TERMINATION FOR PUBLIC PURPOSE. This License Agreement shall
terminate upon termination of the MnDOT permit for any reason or by the passage of a City
Council resolution finding that all or a portion of Tract B is needed for any alternative public
purpose which may require either a temporary, partial, permanent or total elimination of the City
Landscaping. The termination of this License Agreement shall be effective upon the City’s
service of said resolution upon the Developer pursuant to the notice requirements.
ARTICLE 5
MISCELLANEOUS
5.1 NO THIRD PARTY RECOURSE. Third parties shall have no recourse against
the City or the Developer under this License Agreement. The covenants and conditions of this
License Agreement are intended for the benefit of the parties hereto and are not intended to
create any third party beneficiaries.
5.2 NO ASSIGNMENT. The parties mutually recognize and agree that this License
Agreement shall not be assigned by the Developer unless said assignment is approved by the
City in writing, which approval will not be unreasonably withheld, conditioned or delayed.
5.3 AMENDMENT. The parties hereto may by mutual written agreement amend
this License Agreement in any respect. Any agreement on the part of any party for any such
amendment must be in writing.
5.4 GOVERNING LAW. This License Agreement shall be governed by and
construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Minnesota.
5.5 NOTICE. Any notice required to be given under this License Agreement shall be
sufficiently given by one party to the other if in writing and if and when delivered or tendered
either in person or by depositing it in the United States mail in a sealed envelope, by certified
mail, return receipt requested, with postage and postal charges prepaid, addressed as follows:
City Council Meeting of October 15, 2012 (Item No. 4b)
Subject: Solomon Real Estate Group – Registered Land Survey (RLS) Hwy 7/Blake Road Page 13
166350v2
4
If to City: City of St. Louis Park
Attention: Tom Harmony, City Manager
5005 Minnetonka Boulevard
St. Louis Park, MN 55416
If to Developer: Hopkins Blake Retail, LLC
Attn: Steve Johnson
1508 Welland Avenue
Minnetonka, MN 55305
or to such other address as the party addressed shall have previously designated by notice given
in accordance with this section. Notices shall be deemed to have been duly given on the date of
service if served personally on the party to whom notice is to be given, or on the third day after
mailing if mailed as provided above.
5.6 COUNTERPARTS. This License Agreement may be executed in any number of
counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original but all of which shall constitute one and
the same instrument. The parties hereto agree that a facsimile signature on this License
Agreement shall operate as an original signature and shall be considered as binding on the
parties.
5.7 HEADINGS. The subject headings of the paragraphs and subparagraphs of this
License Agreement are included for purposes of convenience only, and shall not affect the
construction of interpretation of any of its provisions.
5.8 NO ADDITIONAL WAIVER IMPLIED BY ONE WAIVER. In the event
any agreement contained in this License Agreement is breached by the Developer and thereafter
waived in writing by the City, such waiver shall be limited to the particular breach so waived and
shall not be deemed to waive any other concurrent, previous or subsequent breach hereunder.
All waivers by the City must be in writing.
5.9 INSURANCE. The Developer represents that the Developer has general liability
insurance and hereby agrees to provide the City with a copy of a Certificate of Insurance prior to
any removal, installation or maintenance of the City Landscaping or installation of new
landscaping pursuant to this License Agreement. The Developer agrees to keep its general
liability policy active at all times during the term of this License Agreement and the Developer
agrees to give the City written notice of any policy cancellation or changes in the general liability
policy limits.
[Signatures to follow on next page]
City Council Meeting of October 15, 2012 (Item No. 4b)
Subject: Solomon Real Estate Group – Registered Land Survey (RLS) Hwy 7/Blake Road Page 14
166350v2
5
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this License Agreement.
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
By:
Jeffrey W. Jacobs, Mayor
By:
Nancy Stroth, City Clerk
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
)ss.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ____ day of ___________,
2012, by Jeffrey W. Jacobs and Nancy Stroth, the Mayor and City Clerk, respectively, of the
City of St. Louis Park, a municipal corporation under the laws of Minnesota, on behalf of the
municipal corporation.
Notary Public
City Council Meeting of October 15, 2012 (Item No. 4b)
Subject: Solomon Real Estate Group – Registered Land Survey (RLS) Hwy 7/Blake Road Page 15
166350v2
6
DEVELOPER
HOPKINS BLAKE RETAIL, LLC
By:
Steven Johnson
Its: Secretary
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) ss.
COUNTY OF _______________ )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ____day of __________,
2012, by Steven Johnson, the Secretary of Hopkins Blake Retail, LLC, a Minnesota limited
liability company, on behalf of the company.
Notary Public
This Instrument Was Drafted By:
Anthony J. Gleekel
Siegel Brill, P.A.
100 South Washington Avenue North, Suite 1300
Minneapolis, MN 55401
(612) 337-6100
City Council Meeting of October 15, 2012 (Item No. 4b)
Subject: Solomon Real Estate Group – Registered Land Survey (RLS) Hwy 7/Blake Road Page 16
166350v2
EXHIBIT A
SITE PLAN OF PROJECT
City Council Meeting of October 15, 2012 (Item No. 4b)
Subject: Solomon Real Estate Group – Registered Land Survey (RLS) Hwy 7/Blake Road Page 17
166350v1 2
EXHIBIT B
MNDOT PERMIT
City Council Meeting of October 15, 2012 (Item No. 4b)
Subject: Solomon Real Estate Group – Registered Land Survey (RLS) Hwy 7/Blake Road Page 18
Meeting Date: October 15, 2012
Agenda Item #: 4c
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Gateway Assisted Living Development (the “Project”) – Plat and Variance Time Extension
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to reaffirm the final plat of Gateway Plaza, and approve a six-month extension for the
filing of the plat, and for a variance pertaining to the rear yard setback.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the Council support an extension of the time limit for the filing time of the plat of Gateway
Plaza and the rear yard setback for the proposed building?
BACKGROUND:
Requested is a six-month extension to the time limit for the approved variance to the rear yard
and to file a plat associated with the Project proposed at 1324 and 1332 Kentucky Ave S. The
Project also has an approved Planned Unit Development (PUD), which does not expire, and
therefore, does not need an extension.
The extension is requested because it took the property owner, Viren Gori, six months to line up
investors, obtain watershed approval, complete the architectural plans and hire the contractors.
In September of 2012, the property owner submitted plans to the City Inspections Department
for preliminary plan review. This review process is currently underway. The project is expected
to begin in the spring of 2013.
The plat and variance were originally approved by the City Council on February 21, 2012, and
the property owner had six months to record the plat at Hennepin County. The six months
expired in August. The variance expires after one year, so the property owner has until February
21, 2013 to begin the project.
The requested six-month extension would give the property owner until April 15, 2013 to file the
plat, and August 21, 2013 to begin construction. As noted above, they intent to begin
construction in the spring of 2013, so the extended time-frames would meet their needs.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
Attachments: Letter from Property Owner
Prepared by: Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator
Reviewed by: Meg McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor
Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of October 15, 2012 (Item No. 4c)
Subject: Gateway Assisted Living Development (the “Project”) – Plat and Variance Time Extension Page 2
City Council Meeting of October 15, 2012 (Item No. 4c)
Subject: Gateway Assisted Living Development (the “Project”) – Plat and Variance Time Extension Page 3
Meeting Date: October 15, 2012
Agenda Item #: 4d
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Continue Second Reading of Ordinances Relating to Xcel and CenterPoint Energy Franchises
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to Continue Second Reading of Ordinances Relating to Xcel and CenterPoint Energy
Franchises until November 5, 2012.
POLICY CONSIDERATIONS:
Not applicable.
BACKGROUND:
The City currently has franchise agreements with Xcel Energy (agreement expires Feb 21, 2013)
and with CenterPoint Energy (agreement expires June 30, 2013). Staff from these two utilities
approached City staff early this year to begin discussing renewal of their respective franchise
agreements.
The adoption of new franchise ordinances was presented to the City Council at the July 23rd
Study Session, was followed up with a staff / Council discussion at the August 13th Study
Session, and a Public Hearing and first reading of these ordinances was conducted Monday,
October 1st at which time second reading was set for October 15th. Due to several questions by
Xcel and Council during first reading, a study session discussion was held on October 8th.
Ordinance provisions and possible revisions are currently being discussed by Xcel and city staff
and final ordinance provisions will not be ready for second reading which is currently set for
October 15th.
This action would continue second reading until November 5, 2012.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATIONS:
Not applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
Attachments: None
Prepared by: Michael P. Rardin, Public Works Director
Approved by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
Meeting Date: October 15, 2012
Agenda Item #: 4e
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Amend Recycling Contract 38-08 with Eureka Recycling
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to approve Amendment No. 2 to Contract 38-08 with Eureka Recycling modifying the
plastics materials being collected and the financial terms relating to revenue sharing.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the City Council wish to continue to move forward with amending the City’s contract with
Eureka Recycling?
BACKGROUND:
History
On March 3, 2008, Council awarded a contract to Eureka Recycling for residential recycling
collection services. The contract began October 1, 2008, and runs through September 30, 2013.
The contract specified materials to be collected curbside and established terms for revenue
sharing.
On December 21, 2009, Council approved Amendment No. 1 to this contract to modify revenue
sharing between Eureka Recycling and the City to address financial issues Eureka Recycling was
encountering due to economic events affecting recycling commodity markets. The Amendment
provided Eureka Recycling additional financial security by guaranteeing them additional revenue
sharing income and reduced performance bond costs. The net effect of this was reduced revenue
sharing proceeds to the City.
On May 21, 2012, Council adopted the 2012-2015 Hennepin County Residential Recycling
Grant Agreement that requires all cities in the county to collect #1 thru #5 plastic containers and
lids by January 1, 2013.
On October 8, 2012 staff provided a written report to update Council on issues related to
expanding recycling plastics collection to adhere to the Hennepin County Recycling Grant
Agreement requirements described above. Eureka Recycling has agreed to collect #1-5 and #7
plastics containers/lids and clear rigid packaging. The containers/lids are plastic materials that
are typically found in the kitchen, bathroom and laundry room, while the clear rigid packaging is
typically used for toys and electronics. However, the collection of these additional materials will
require modifications to Eureka’s Material Recycling Facility (MRF) along with a staffing
increase thereby increasing Eureka’s operating costs about $60,000 per year (this will calculate
to $50,000 in revenue reduction since 10 months of the contract remain). The report also
identified and provided examples of some plastic materials that would not be collected at the
curb such as disposable plates and cups, foam egg cartons, aspirin bottles, compact disc
containers, styrofoam, and bulky rigid plastics (i.e. carts, crates, laundry baskets, 5-gallon
buckets, kitty litter pails, toys, etc.).
City Council Meeting October 15, 2012 (Item No. 4e) Page 2
Subject: Amend Recycling Contract 38-08 with Eureka Recycling
Proposed Amendment No. 2
In order to cover Eureka’s increased operating costs associated with increased plastics collection,
the proposed contract amendment allows for increased revenues to Eureka by revising the
revenue sharing agreement between the City and Eureka. This revision removes plastic materials
from the revenue sharing formula allowing Eureka to keep those potential revenues which are
expected to offset their increased operating expenses. This change results in an estimated
reduction of about $60,000 per year in revenue sharing proceeds for the City (the actual
reduction is estimated at $50,000 based on a partial year with only 10 months remaining in the
contract).
The amendment also acknowledges a new glass manufacturer (eCullet, Inc.) that Eureka has
been using for some time now. This change does not alter revenue sharing proceeds for the City.
The proposed contract amendment was prepared by City Attorney, Tom Scott.
Next Steps
Following approval by Council:
1. Staff will work with the City’s Communication Coordinator to prepare educational
materials for residents explaining what new plastics materials will be collected and which
will not be collected.
2. Collection of additional plastics is scheduled to begin Monday, November 12, 2012.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
The City currently receives about $150,000 per year in revenue sharing proceeds from Eureka
Recycling. Due to this proposed contract amendment, it is estimated that the amount of actual
lost revenue sharing to the City for the duration of this contract (ten months remain), will be
approximately $50,000.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
The City’s refuse and recycling activities support or complement the following Strategic
Direction adopted by the City Council.
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.
Focus areas:
• Educating staff / public on environmental consciousness, stewardship, and best practices.
• Working in areas such as…environmental innovations.
Attachments: Contract Amendment No. 2
Prepared by: Scott Merkley, Public Works Coordinator
Reviewed by: Michael P. Rardin, Director of Public Works
Approved by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
City Council Meeting October 15, 2012 (Item No. 4e) Page 3
Subject: Amend Recycling Contract 38-08 with Eureka Recycling
SECOND AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT
FOR RECYCLING COLLECTION SERVICES
(CITY CONTRACT NO. 38-08)
THIS SECOND AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT FOR RECYCLING
COLLECTION SERVICES is made this _____ day of _______________, 2012, by and
between the City of St. Louis Park (hereinafter “City”) and The Neighborhood Recycling
Corporation, a Minnesota non-profit corporation, d/b/a Eureka Recycling (hereinafter
“Contractor”).
BACKGROUND
• The Agreement for Recycling Collection Services (City Contract No. 38-08) is
effective from October 1, 2008 through September 30, 2013.
• The parties are agreeing to a modification of the definition of recycling materials to
include plastic containers and lids (that are typically found in the kitchen, bathroom,
and laundry room) and clear rigid packaging (that are typically used for toys and
electronics), that are #1 – Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET, PETE), #2 High Density
Polyethylene (HDPE), #4 – Low Density Polyethylene (LDPE), #5 – Polypropylene
(PP) plastic bottles and #7 Other (a variety of other resins), except those that
previously contained hazardous materials or motor oil.
• The parties are further agreeing to eliminate all plastics from the revenue sharing
formula set forth in Section 10.3 of the Contract.
• The City is accepting Contractor’s proposal to allow it to keep all revenue earned
from the sale of plastics in exchange for Contractor taking on the additional cost of
collecting additional types of plastics. Contractor accepts the risk that revenue from
the sale of plastics will fluctuate.
NOW, THEREFORE,
1. Section 3.23 of the Contract is amended to read as follows:
3.23 "Recyclable materials" means newspaper and inserts, mixed paper, plastic
containers and lids (that are typically found in the kitchen, bathroom, and laundry
room) and clear rigid packaging (that are typically used for toys and electronics), that
are #1 – Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET, PETE), #2 High Density Polyethylene
(HDPE), #4 – Low Density Polyethylene (LDPE), #5 – Polypropylene (PP) and
#7 Other (a variety of other resins), unsorted glass, unsorted aluminum, steel, bi-
metal, and "tin" cans, corrugated cardboard (including pizza boxes), magazines,
telephone books, catalogs, boxboard, milk cartons and juice boxes, wet strength
cardboard, textiles, and other materials as mutually agreed upon by the City and the
Contractor. The Contractor shall make all efforts to include all items designated by
the Hennepin County Department of Environmental Services to be part of an
authorized recycling program and which are intended for transportation, processing
and re-manufacturing or reuse. This list of recyclable materials may be amended
through negotiation between the City and its Contractor at any time within the
City Council Meeting October 15, 2012 (Item No. 4e) Page 4
Subject: Amend Recycling Contract 38-08 with Eureka Recycling
duration of the contract term. Such negotiations must be reduced to a written
amendment to this Agreement and duly executed before it shall go into effect.
2. Section 10.3, Revenue Sharing, is amended to read in its entirety as follows:
The Contractor shall on a monthly basis credit to the City a revenue sharing amount from the
sale of recyclable materials based upon the following formula:
A. Calculate the Total Monthly Revenue by multiplying the monthly tonnage of
collected recycling materials by the monthly published index value for each
recycling material and then summing to calculate the total (see Items 2.1 & 2.2 of
Exhibit “B”, A x C = D).
B. Calculate the Total Monthly Processing Fee by multiplying the monthly tonnage
of collected recycling materials by the processing fee for each recycling material
and then summing to calculate the total (see Items 2.1 & 2.2 of Exhibit “B”, A x E
= F).
C. Calculate the Net Monthly Revenue by subtracting the Total Monthly Processing
Fee from the Total Monthly Revenue (see Items 2.1 & 2.2 of Exhibit “B”, D - F =
G).
D. Calculate the Monthly Revenue Share amount by multiplying the Net Monthly
Revenue by the City’s Revenue Share Percentage. If the Net Monthly Revenue is
positive (“credit”) then the City’s Revenue Share Percentage shall be sixty
percent (60%). If the Net Monthly Revenue is negative (“shortfall”), the City’s
Revenue Share Percentage shall be one hundred percent (100%) of the loss (see
Items 2.1 & 2.2 of Exhibit “B”, G x H = I).
The published index values used to establish total monthly revenue for each recycling
material are as follows:
A. For all paper grades collected from the City, the published index used shall be the
Official Board Markets (OBM) “Yellow Sheet”, Chicago region, high side of
range, using the publication from the first week of the month.
• News Mix – OBM #8
• Cardboard – OBM #11
• Boxboard – OBM #1
• Wetstrength – OBM #1
• Phone Books – OBM #6
B. For all aluminum collected from the City, the published index used shall be the
American Metal Market (AMM), Aluminum, high side nonferrous scrap prices:
scrap metals, domestic aluminum producers, buying prices for processed used
aluminum cans in carload lots, f.o.b shipping point, used beverage can scrap,
using the publication from the first week of the month.
C. For steel (i.e., “tin” or “bi-metal”) cans collected from the City, the published
index used shall be the Waste & Recycling News (WRN),
www.wasterecyclingnews.com, announced recovered materials prices, Chicago
City Council Meeting October 15, 2012 (Item No. 4e) Page 5
Subject: Amend Recycling Contract 38-08 with Eureka Recycling
(Midwest/Central), Metals Steel Cans (sorted, densified), regional high price,
using the publication from the first week of the month.
D. For all plastics collected from the City, the City will not receive any revenues.
E. For all glass collected from the City, the published index shall be the price paid to
the Contractor for delivered materials by eCullet, Inc. or $0 (whichever is
greater). This eCullet price will be documented by the Contractor each month.
The monthly processing fee per ton for each recyclable material is as follows:
Commodity Fee
All paper grades $60
Aluminum $90
Plastic $90
Glass $60
The Contractor shall carry forward the calculated monthly positive revenue share “credit” or
the calculated negative monthly “shortfall” in a cumulative fashion and will be applied
against the previous months’ revenue share balance. This cumulative total revenue share
“fund account” shall be managed according to the following requirements:
A. The running cumulative total shall be carried forward through the end of the
Contract.
B. If the cumulative total balance shown at the end of the Contract is positive,
Contractor shall pay this amount to the City within thirty (30) days.
Alternatively, the City may take this amount as a credit against collection fees
owed Contractor.
C. If at the end of the Contract, the cumulative total is a negative balance, the
Contractor will assume the shortfall with no amount due from the City.
D. Whenever the cumulative total amount owed the City exceeds $30,000, the
Contractor shall pay the excess over the $30,000 to the City monthly.
Attached hereto as Exhibit “B-2.1 & B-2.2” are sample monthly Tonnage and Revenue Share
Reports (revised as of 9/25/12) showing both a positive credit and negative shortfall.
As part of the Contractor’s monthly invoice and Tonnage and Revenue Share Report, the
Contractor shall provide documentation of the total tons of all commodities collected from
the City for that month and the composition analysis as determined by Paragraph 9.3 herein.
Also, with each monthly statement, the Contractor shall provide copies of the referenced
market indexes. These monthly reports shall also include an update to the monthly revenue
share “fund account” showing the past month’s credit or shortfall and the current cumulative
balance.
City Council Meeting October 15, 2012 (Item No. 4e) Page 6
Subject: Amend Recycling Contract 38-08 with Eureka Recycling
1. Exhibit “B” to the Contract (revised as of 12/11/09 as part of the First
Amendment) is replaced in its entirety by Exhibit “B” (revised 9/25/12) attached
hereto.
2. This Second Amendment shall be effective as of January 1, 2013.
3. All other terms and conditions of the Contract shall remain in full force and
effect.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused the execution of this Agreement on
their behalf by the duly authorized representatives.
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK THE NEIGHBORHOOD RECYCLING
CORPORATION,
D/B/A EUREKA RECYCLING
By: By:
Jeffrey W. Jacobs, Mayor
Its:
By:
Thomas K. Harmening, City Manager Date:_______________________________
Attest: Approved as to form and execution:
City Clerk City Attorney
City Council Meeting October 15, 2012 (Item No. 4e) Page 7
Subject: Amend Recycling Contract 38-08 with Eureka Recycling
Exhibit “B”
(Revised 9/25/12)
RECYCLING COLLECTION SERVICES
PROPOSAL PRICING FORM
Company Name: Eureka Recycling
2828 Kennedy St. NE, Minneapolis, 55407
DUAL -STREAM
Every Week Collection & Hauling
(Approximately 12,225 Households)
1.1
Proposed price
per Residential Household per Month
Year 1
$ 2.79 per HH per month
1.2
Proposed price
per Residential Household per Month
Year 2
$ 2.86* per HH per month
1.3
Proposed price
per Residential Household per Month
Year 3
$ 2.93* per HH per month
1.4
Proposed price
per Residential Household per Month
Year 4
$ 3.01* per HH per month
1.5
Proposed price
per Residential Household per Month
Year 5
$ 3.09 * per HH per month
* The price for service will increase each year by the Consumer Price Index (CPI) for the
Upper Midwest as determined by the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis or 3%, whichever
is lower. The average CPI index from 2002-2007 has been 2.6%. The prices above are based
on an estimated annual 2.6% increase. The maximum annual increase for collection costs will
be 3%.
City Council Meeting of October 15, 2012 (Item No. 4e) Subject: Amend Recycling Contract 38-08 with Eureka Recycling Page 8
City Council Meeting October 15, 2012 (Item No. 4e) Page 9
Subject: Amend Recycling Contract 38-08 with Eureka Recycling
RECYCLING BIN DISTRIBUTION
The Hauler will be responsible for distribution of City-owned recycling bins. The distribution
of the recycling bins will be done at the request of the City or by customers when
replacement or additional bins are needed. The bins will be stored at the City’s Municipal
Service Center located at 7305 Oxford St., St. Louis Park.
Service
Year 1
Cost /
Month
Year 2
Cost /
Month
Year 3
Cost /
Month
Year 4
Cost /
Month
Year 5
Cost /
Month
3.1
Distribution
No charge
No charge
No charge
No charge
No charge
SPECIAL PICKUP
The Hauler should specify the cost for special pick-ups of recycling. Hauler may also state any
special service, practice or policy they would follow regarding special pick-ups. Hauler will bill
households directly for any cost of special pickup.
Description
Year 1
Cost/
Pickup
Year 2
Cost/
Pickup
Year 3
Cost/
Pickup
Year 4
Cost/
Pickup
Year 5
Cost/
Pickup
4.1
Special
Pickup
$ 5.00 *
$5.15*
$5.30*
$5.46*
$5.62*
*Special pickups at this rate can only include recyclable material specified within this RFP. Other
materials will be considered on a case by case basis.
WALK-UP SERVICE
The Hauler must provide the amount charged to residents for recycling walk-up services. The amount
shall be per household per month. The Hauler bills these costs directly to residents.
Description
Year 1
HH Cost/
Month
Year 2
HH Cost/
Month
Year 3
HH Cost/
Month
Year 4
HH Cost/
Month
Year 5
HH Cost/
Month
5.1
Walk-up
Service
$3.00
$3.00
$3.00
$3.00
$3.00
Meeting Date: October 15, 2012
Agenda Item #: 4f
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Special Assessment - Sewer Service Line Repair at 3043 Cavell Avenue South
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to Adopt Resolution authorizing the special assessment for the repair of the sewer service
line at 3043 Cavell Avenue South, St. Louis Park, MN – P.I.D. 18-117-21-21-0027.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
The proposed action is consistent with policy previously established by the City Council.
BACKGROUND:
Sidney and Ann Wood, owners of the single family residence at 3043 Cavell Avenue South have
requested the City to authorize the repair of the sewer service line for their home and assess the cost
against the property in accordance with the City’s special assessment policy.
Analysis:
The City requires the repair of service lines to promote the general public health, safety and welfare
within the community. The special assessment policy for the repair or replacement of sewer service
lines for existing homes was adopted by the City Council in 1996. This program was put into place
because sometimes property owners face financial hardships when emergency repairs like this are
unexpectedly required.
Plans and permits for this service line repair work were completed, submitted, and approved by City
staff. The property owners hired a contractor and repaired the sewer service line in compliance with
current codes and regulations. Based on the completed work, this repair qualifies for the City’s
special assessment program. The property owners have petitioned the City to authorize the sewer
service line repair and special assess the cost of the repair. The total eligible cost of the repair has
been determined to be $4,995.00.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
The City has funds in place to finance the cost of this special assessment.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
Attachments: Resolution
Prepared by: Scott Anderson, Utility Superintendent
Through: Mike Rardin, Public Works Director
Brian Swanson, Controller
Approved by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
City Council Meeting of October 15, 2012 (Item No. 4f) Page 2
Subject: Special Assessment – Sewer Service Line Repair at 3043 Cavell Avenue
RESOLUTION NO. 12-____
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE SPECIAL ASSESSMENT
FOR THE REPAIR OF THE SEWER SERVICE LINE AT
3043 CAVELL AVENUE SOUTH, ST. LOUIS PARK, MN
P.I.D. 18-117-21-21-0027
WHEREAS, the Property Owners at 3043 Cavell Avenue South have petitioned the City
of St. Louis Park to authorize a special assessment for the repair of the sewer service line for the
single family residence located at 3043 Cavell Avenue South; and
WHEREAS, the Property Owners have agreed to waive the right to a public hearing,
right of notice and right of appeal pursuant to Minnesota Statute, Chapter 429; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park has received a report from the
Utility Superintendent related to the repair of the sewer service line.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park, Minnesota, that:
1. The petition from the Property Owners requesting the approval and special assessment for
the sewer service line repair is hereby accepted.
2. The sewer service line repair that was done in conformance with the plans and specifications
approved by the Public Works Department and Department of Inspections is hereby
accepted.
3. The total cost for the repair of the sewer service line is accepted at $4,995.00.
4. The Property Owners have agreed to waive the right to a public hearing, notice and appeal
from the special assessment; whether provided by Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429, or by
other statutes, or by ordinance, City Charter, the constitution, or common law.
5. The Property Owners have agreed to pay the City for the total cost of the above
improvements through a special assessment over a ten (10) year period at the interest rate of
5.85%.
6. The Property Owners have executed an agreement with the City and all other documents
necessary to implement the repair of the sewer service line and the special assessment of all
costs associated therewith.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council October 15, 2012
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Meeting Date: October 15, 2012
Agenda Item #: 4g
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Special Assessment - Water Service Line Repair at 4261 Utica Avenue South
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to Adopt Resolution authorizing the special assessment for the repair of the water service
line at 4261 Utica Avenue South, St. Louis Park, MN - P.I.D. 07-028-24-32-0182.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
The proposed action is consistent with policy previously established by the City Council.
BACKGROUND:
Robert Reed, owner of the single family residence at 4261 Utica Avenue South has requested the City
to authorize the repair of the water service line for his home and assess the cost against the property in
accordance with the City’s special assessment policy.
Analysis:
The City requires the repair of service lines to promote the general public health, safety and welfare
within the community. The special assessment policy for the repair or replacement of water or sewer
service lines for existing homes was adopted by the City Council in 1996. This program was put into
place because sometimes property owners face financial hardships when emergency repairs like this
are unexpectedly required.
Plans and permits for this service line repair work were completed, submitted, and approved by City
staff. The property owner hired a contractor and repaired the water service line in compliance with
current codes and regulations. Based on the completed work, this repair qualifies for the City’s
special assessment program. The property owner has petitioned the City to authorize the water service
line repair and special assess the cost of the repair. The total eligible cost of the repair has been
determined to be $4,800.00.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
The City has funds in place to finance the cost of this special assessment.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
Attachments: Resolution
Prepared by: Scott Anderson, Utility Superintendent
Through: Mike Rardin, Public Works Director
Brian Swanson, Controller
Approved by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
City Council Meeting of October 15, 2012 (Item No. 4 g) Page 2
Subject: Special Assessment – Water Service Line Repair at 4261 Utica Avenue South
RESOLUTION NO. 12-____
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE SPECIAL ASSESSMENT
FOR THE REPAIR OF THE WATER SERVICE LINE AT
4261 UTICA AVENUE SOUTH, ST. LOUIS PARK, MN
P.I.D 07-028-24-32-0182
WHEREAS, the Property Owner at 4261 Utica Avenue South has petitioned the City of
St. Louis Park to authorize a special assessment for the repair of the water service line for the
single family residence located at 4261 Utica Avenue South; and
WHEREAS, the Property Owner has agreed to waive the right to a public hearing, right
of notice and right of appeal pursuant to Minnesota Statute, Chapter 429; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park has received a report from the
Utility Superintendent related to the repair of the water service line.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park, Minnesota, that:
1. The petition from the Property Owner requesting the approval and special assessment for the
water service line repair is hereby accepted.
2. The water service line repair that was done in conformance with the plans and specifications
approved by the Public Works Department and Department of Inspections is hereby
accepted.
3. The total cost for the repair of the water service line is accepted at $4,800.00.
4. The Property Owner has agreed to waive the right to a public hearing, notice and appeal from
the special assessment; whether provided by Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429, or by other
statutes, or by ordinance, City Charter, the constitution, or common law.
5. The Property Owner has agreed to pay the City for the total cost of the above improvements
through a special assessment over a ten (10) year period at the interest rate of 5.85%.
6. The Property Owner has executed an agreement with the City and all other documents
necessary to implement the repair of the water service line and the special assessment of all
costs associated therewith.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council October 15, 2012
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Meeting Date: October 15, 2012
Agenda Item #: 4h
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Special Assessment - Water Service Line Repair at 3329 Xenwood Avenue South
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to Adopt Resolution authorizing the special assessment for the repair of the water service
line at 3329 Xenwood Avenue South, St. Louis Park, MN - P.I.D. 16-117-21-24-0057.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
The proposed action is consistent with policy previously established by the City Council.
BACKGROUND:
Matthew Simondet, owner of the single family residence at 3329 Xenwood Avenue South has
requested the City to authorize the repair of the water service line for his home and assess the cost
against the property in accordance with the City’s special assessment policy.
Analysis:
The City requires the repair of service lines to promote the general public health, safety and welfare
within the community. The special assessment policy for the repair or replacement of water or sewer
service lines for existing homes was adopted by the City Council in 1996. This program was put into
place because sometimes property owners face financial hardships when emergency repairs like this
are unexpectedly required.
Plans and permits for this service line repair work were completed, submitted, and approved by City
staff. The property owner hired a contractor and repaired the water service line in compliance with
current codes and regulations. Based on the completed work, this repair qualifies for the City’s
special assessment program. The property owner has petitioned the City to authorize the water service
line repair and special assess the cost of the repair. The total eligible cost of the repair has been
determined to be $5,276.50.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
The City has funds in place to finance the cost of this special assessment.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
Attachments: Resolution
Prepared by: Scott Anderson, Utility Superintendent
Through: Mike Rardin, Public Works Director
Brian Swanson, Controller
Approved by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
City Council Meeting of October 15, 2012 (Item No. 4h) Page 2
Subject: Special Assessment - Water Service Line Repair at 3329 Xenwood Avenue South
RESOLUTION NO. 12-____
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE SPECIAL ASSESSMENT
FOR THE REPAIR OF THE WATER SERVICE LINE AT
3329 XENWOOD AVENUE SOUTH, ST. LOUIS PARK, MN
P.I.D. 16-117-21-24-0057
WHEREAS, the Property Owner at 3329 Xenwood Avenue South has petitioned the
City of St. Louis Park to authorize a special assessment for the repair of the water service line for
the single family residence located at 3329 Xenwood Avenue South; and
WHEREAS, the Property Owner has agreed to waive the right to a public hearing, right
of notice and right of appeal pursuant to Minnesota Statute, Chapter 429; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park has received a report from the
Utility Superintendent related to the repair of the water service line.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park, Minnesota, that:
1. The petition from the Property Owner requesting the approval and special assessment for the
water service line repair is hereby accepted.
2. The water service line repair that was done in conformance with the plans and specifications
approved by the Public Works Department and Department of Inspections is hereby
accepted.
3. The total cost for the repair of the water service line is accepted at $5,276.50.
4. The Property Owner has agreed to waive the right to a public hearing, notice and appeal from
the special assessment; whether provided by Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429, or by other
statutes, or by ordinance, City Charter, the constitution, or common law.
5. The Property Owner has agreed to pay the City for the total cost of the above improvements
through a special assessment over a ten (10) year period at the interest rate of 5.85 %.
6. The Property Owner has executed an agreement with the City and all other documents
necessary to implement the repair of the water service line and the special assessment of all
costs associated therewith.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council October 15, 2012
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Meeting Date: October 15, 2012
Agenda Item #: 4i
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Special Assessment - Water Service Line Repair at 7025 W. 24th Street
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to Adopt Resolution authorizing the special assessment for the repair of the water service
line at 7025 W. 24th Street, St. Louis Park, MN - P.I.D. 08-117-21-13-0101.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
The proposed action is consistent with policy previously established by the City Council.
BACKGROUND:
Patrick Stevens, owner of the single family residence at 7025 W. 24th Street has requested the City to
authorize the repair of the water service line for his home and assess the cost against the property in
accordance with the City’s special assessment policy.
Analysis:
The City requires the repair of service lines to promote the general public health, safety and welfare
within the community. The special assessment policy for the repair or replacement of water or sewer
service lines for existing homes was adopted by the City Council in 1996. This program was put into
place because sometimes property owners face financial hardships when emergency repairs like this
are unexpectedly required.
Plans and permits for this service line repair work were completed, submitted, and approved by City
staff. The property owner hired a contractor and repaired the water service line in compliance with
current codes and regulations. Based on the completed work, this repair qualifies for the City’s
special assessment program. The property owner has petitioned the City to authorize the water service
line repair and special assess the cost of the repair. The total eligible cost of the repair has been
determined to be $5,000.00.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
The City has funds in place to finance the cost of this special assessment.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
Attachments: Resolution
Prepared by: Scott Anderson, Utility Superintendent
Through: Mike Rardin, Public Works Director
Brian Swanson, Controller
Approved by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
City Council Meeting of October 15, 2012 (Item No. 4i) Page 2
Subject: Special Assessment – Water Service Line Repair at 7025 W. 24th Street
RESOLUTION NO. 12-____
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE SPECIAL ASSESSMENT
FOR THE REPAIR OF THE WATER SERVICE LINE AT
7025 W. 24TH STREET, ST. LOUIS PARK, MN
P.I.D. 08-117-21-13-0101
WHEREAS, the Property Owner at 7025 W. 24th Street has petitioned the City of St.
Louis Park to authorize a special assessment for the repair of the water service line for the single
family residence located at 7025 W. 24th Street; and
WHEREAS, the Property Owner has agreed to waive the right to a public hearing, right
of notice and right of appeal pursuant to Minnesota Statute, Chapter 429; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park has received a report from the
Utility Superintendent related to the repair of the water service line.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park, Minnesota, that:
1. The petition from the Property Owner requesting the approval and special assessment for the
water service line repair is hereby accepted.
2. The water service line repair that was done in conformance with the plans and specifications
approved by the Public Works Department and Department of Inspections is hereby
accepted.
3. The total cost for the repair of the water service line is accepted at $5,000.00.
4. The Property Owner has agreed to waive the right to a public hearing, notice and appeal from
the special assessment; whether provided by Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429, or by other
statutes, or by ordinance, City Charter, the constitution, or common law.
5. The Property Owner has agreed to pay the City for the total cost of the above improvements
through a special assessment over a ten (10) year period at the interest rate of 5.85 %.
6. The Property Owner has executed an agreement with the City and all other documents
necessary to implement the repair of the water service line and the special assessment of all
costs associated therewith.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council October 15, 2012
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Meeting Date: October 15th, 2012
Agenda Item #: 4j
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Minnesota Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force Joint Powers Agreement
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to Adopt Resolution approving the Minnesota Internet Crimes Against Children Task
Force Joint Powers Agreement and authorize the Mayor and City Manager to execute attached
resolution.
POLICY CONSIDERATIONS:
Does the City Council wish to approve the Minnesota Internet Crimes Against Children Task
Force Joint Powers Agreement?
BACKGROUND:
The Minnesota Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force (MICAC) is one of 61 task forces
in the United States that works to provide timely and integrated responses to Internet- related
issues that might involve internet crimes against children. This action constitutes the annual
renewal of a partnership our department has been participating in since 2008.
MICAC has six objectives:
1. Identify and rescue children being exploited by sexual predators
2. Reactive investigations regarding technology based exploitation of children
3. Proactive investigative efforts to identify child sexual predators
4. Public outreach and education regarding safe use of technology by our children
5. The analysis of computer related evidence
6. Building capacity through the partnerships with other law enforcement agencies,
prosecuting attorneys, probations, educators, faith base, etc.
A Joint Powers Agreement with MICAC allows the Police Department to work together with
other, local, state, and federal agencies committed to protecting our children from exploitation by
online sexual predators.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged
community. Connecting with others in the area of public safety supports Vision.
Attachments: Resolution
Prepared by: Mike Harcey, Police Lieutenant
Reviewed by: John Luse, Chief of Police
Approved by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
City Council Meeting of October 15, 2012 (Item No. 4j) Page 2
Subject: Minnesota Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force Joint Powers Agreement
RESOLUTION NO. 12-____
MULTI AGENCY AGREEMENT – MINNESOTA INTERNET CRIMES
AGAINST CHILDREN TASK FORCE – BUREAU OF CRIMINAL
APPREHENSION
WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed and considered a Joint Powers Agreement
among the City and other governmental subdivisions relative to the Minnesota Internet Crimes
Against Children Task Force;
IT IS RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, as
follows:
1. That the Multi Agency – Minnesota Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force
Joint Powers Agreement and the transactions contemplated thereby are hereby, in all
things, adopted and approved.
2. That the City Manager and City Clerk are authorized to execute and deliver the Multi
Agency - Minnesota Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force Joint Powers
Agreement in the name and on behalf of the City in the form hereby approved.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council October 15, 2012
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Meeting Date: October 15, 2012
Agenda Item #: 4k
FIRE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION MINUTES
August 17, 2012 – 8:00 a.m.
FIRE STATION 1 CONFERENCE ROOM
1) The meeting was called to order at 8:08 a.m. by President Douville.
2) In attendance were Commissioner David Lee and President Marjorie Douville. Also
present were Ali Fosse, Human Resources Coordinator/Staff Liaison; Eric Bakken,
President Local 993; Cary Smith, Assistant Chief; and Luke Stemmer, Fire Chief.
3) A motion was made by Commissioner Lee, seconded by President Douville, to approve
the minutes from the February 6, 2012 meeting. Motion carried unanimously.
4) Chief Stemmer presented the proposed promotional process for the position of Fire
Lieutenant. There are no vacancies, but the current eligibility list expired on July 14,
2012. No changes from the 2010 process are recommended. A motion was made by
Commissioner Lee, seconded by President Douville, to approve the process as
recommended. Motion carried unanimously.
5) In other business, Chief Stemmer notified the Commission that a promotional process
for Assistant Chief may be forthcoming, and Staff Liaison Ali Fosse thanked the
commissioners for their service and provided a copy of the Council’s proclamation of
thanks and appreciation.
6) The Commission adjourned at 8:21 a.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Ali Fosse
City Staff Liaison to the Fire Civil Service Commission
Meeting Date: October 15, 2012
Agenda Item #: 4l
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Vendor Claims
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to accept for filing Vendor Claims for the period September 15 through October 5, 2012.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
BACKGROUND:
The Finance Department prepares this report on a monthly basis for Council’s review.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
None.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
Attachments: Vendor Claims
Prepared by: Connie Neubeck, Account Clerk
10/10/2012CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:32:48R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
1Page -Council Check Summary
10/5/2012 -9/15/2012
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
10,911.65GO BONDS-FIRE STATIONS BAL S RETAINED PERCENTAGEA.M.E. CONSTRUCTION CORP
10,911.65
48.57PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYA-1 OUTDOOR POWER INC
9.61TREE MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES
58.18
63.50PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYAAA - LICENSE DIVISION
63.50
5,005.73PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYAAA-LICENSE DIVISION
5,005.73
1,991.71PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYABM EQUIPMENT & SUPPLY INC
1,991.71
8,067.01GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESABM JANITORIAL SERVICES
8,067.01
22,087.63TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT OFFICE EQUIPMENTACS FIREHOUSE SOFTWARE
22,087.63
835.00HUMAN RESOURCES RECRUITMENTAD STRATEGIES
835.00
135.60OPERATIONSOPERATIONAL SUPPLIESAIRGAS NORTH CENTRAL
135.60
81.71WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERSAKARE COMPANIES LLC
81.71
2,680.00REC CENTER BUILDING MAINTENANCEALLIANCE MECH SRVCS INC
1,207.00MUNICIPAL BLDG OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
3,887.00
707.63SEALCOAT PREPARATION OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESALLIED BLACKTOP
13,533.44PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT B/S RETAINED PERCENTAGE
4,178.15CONSTRUCTION PAYMENTS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
18,419.22
3,598.49TV PRODUCTION OFFICE EQUIPMENTALPHA VIDEO AND AUDIO INC
3,598.49
City Council Meeting of October 14, 2012 (Item No. 4l)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 2
10/10/2012CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:32:48R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
2Page -Council Check Summary
10/5/2012 -9/15/2012
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
78.74POLICE G & A TELEPHONEAMERICAN MESSAGING
78.74
168.00PARK MAINTENANCE G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIESAMERIPRIDE LINEN & APPAREL SER
18.00VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
75.00WATER UTILITY G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
261.00
14,763.28GO BONDS-FIRE STATIONS G&A IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDIANCOM COMMUNICATIONS INC
14,763.28
24.75-GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET DUE TO OTHER GOVTSANDERBERG INNOVATIVE PRINT SOL
384.75ADMINISTRATION G & A PRINTING & PUBLISHING
360.00
1,652.71FABRICATIONOTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESANDERSEN INC, EARL
1,652.71
1,839.68WATER UTILITY G&A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTATANDERSON, SCOTT
1,839.68
448.23BUILDING MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIESAPACHE GROUP OF MINNESOTA
448.23
1,293.78GENERAL CUSTODIAL DUTIES OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESARAMARK UNIFORM CORP ACCTS
1,293.78
150.11WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERSARB TAKES CHARGE LLC, MRS
150.11
678.68ORGANIZED REC G & A GENERAL SUPPLIESARC
678.68
386.00GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESARROW LIFT
386.00
20.00OPERATIONSOPERATIONAL SUPPLIESASPEN MILLS
20.00
40.00SUPPORT SERVICES OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESAT&T
34.61E-911 PROGRAM TELEPHONE
City Council Meeting of October 14, 2012 (Item No. 4l)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 3
10/10/2012CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:32:48R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
3Page -Council Check Summary
10/5/2012 -9/15/2012
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
74.61
325.68TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT OFFICE EQUIPMENTAT&T MOBILITY
325.68
823.62GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE BUILDING MTCE SERVICEATIR ELECTRIC CORPORATION
197.00ELECTRICAL SYSTEM MTCE BUILDING MTCE SERVICE
254.58MUNICIPAL BLDG IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
1,275.20
1,275.00PATROLTRAININGATOM
1,275.00
865.59WATER UTILITY G&A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICEAUTOMATIC SYSTEMS INC
358.50SEWER UTILITY G&A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE
1,224.09
224.79REFORESTATIONLANDSCAPING MATERIALSBACHMANS
224.79
416.00HUMAN RESOURCES GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESBARNA, GUZY & STEFFEN LTD
416.00
75.00ADMINISTRATION G & A RENTAL BUILDINGSBARRY FAMILY CAMPUS CORP
75.00
200.00REC CENTER BUILDING BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIESBARTLEY SALES CO
200.00
17,303.00STORM WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESBASSETT CREEK WATER MGMT
17,303.00
47.00WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL SUPPLIESBATTERIES PLUS
47.00
150.00HOLIDAY PROGRAMS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESBEALKE INDUSTRIES, ROBERT
150.00
25.21ARENA MAINTENANCE OPERATIONAL SUPPLIESBECKER ARENA PRODUCTS
42.37ARENA MAINTENANCE BUILDING MTCE SERVICE
67.58
City Council Meeting of October 14, 2012 (Item No. 4l)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 4
10/10/2012CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:32:48R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
4Page -Council Check Summary
10/5/2012 -9/15/2012
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
179.82WATER UTILITY G&A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CARBERTHIAUME, BRUCE
179.82
50.00INSPECTIONS G & A ELECTRICALBIRCHWOOD ELECTRIC INC
50.00
152.07ORGANIZED REC G & A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CARBIRNO, RICK
152.07
17,463.64-STREET CAPITAL PROJ BAL SHEET RETAINED PERCENTAGEBITUMINOUS ROADWAYS INC
349,272.81CONSTRUCTION PAYMENTS IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
331,809.17
305.51NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION GRANT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESBLACKSTONE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSN
305.51
264.00INSTRUCTIONAL SKATING LESSONS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESBOBIER, HEIDI
264.00
186.60WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERSBOGNANNO, DON
186.60
686.96POLICE G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIESBOUND TREE MEDICAL, LLC
16.10POLICE G & A POSTAGE
703.06
79.29WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERSBRAEGELMAN, AMY
79.29
1,418.20GO BONDS-FIRE STATIONS G&A BUILDINGS & STRUCTURESBRAUN INTERTEC CORPORATION
654.00CE MATERIALS TESTING IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
2,072.20
81.23OPERATIONSGENERAL SUPPLIESBROADWAY AWARDS
81.23
1,483.16STORM WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICEBRYAN ROCK PRODUCTS INC
1,483.16
11,000.00REILLY BUDGET CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SUPPLYCALGON CARBON CORP
11,000.00
City Council Meeting of October 14, 2012 (Item No. 4l)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 5
10/10/2012CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:32:48R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
5Page -Council Check Summary
10/5/2012 -9/15/2012
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
162.62STORM WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICECAMDEN INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY
162.62
3,692.86STORM WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICECAMERATTA LLC
3,692.86
8,175.52ADMINISTRATION G & A LEGAL SERVICESCAMPBELL KNUTSON PROF ASSOC
193.75EXCESS PUBLIC LAND LEGAL SERVICES
783.00STREET CAPITAL PROJ G & A IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
195.00WATER UTILITY G&A LEGAL SERVICES
150.00SEWER UTILITY G&A LEGAL SERVICES
150.00SOLID WASTE G&A LEGAL SERVICES
330.00UNINSURED LOSS G&A LEGAL SERVICES
9,977.27
127.12WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERSCANTOR, SUSAN
127.12
910.57IT G & A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICECARTRIDGE CARE
910.57
829.27TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT OFFICE EQUIPMENTCDW GOVERNMENT INC
829.27
191.13FACILITY OPERATIONS HEATING GASCENTERPOINT ENERGY
262.82PARK MAINTENANCE G & A HEATING GAS
19.57WESTWOOD G & A HEATING GAS
34.98NATURALIST PROGRAMMER HEATING GAS
1,026.49WATER UTILITY G&A HEATING GAS
23.60REILLY G & A HEATING GAS
34.46SEWER UTILITY G&A ELECTRIC SERVICE
1,593.05
293.06FACILITY OPERATIONS HEATING GASCENTERPOINT ENERGY SERVICES IN
7,979.48ENTERPRISE G & A HEATING GAS
8,272.54
5,491.82GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET PREPAID EXPENSESCENTURY LINK
175.92IT G & A TELEPHONE
44.99E-911 PROGRAM TELEPHONE
7,688.59E-911 PROGRAM EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE
13,401.32
City Council Meeting of October 14, 2012 (Item No. 4l)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 6
10/10/2012CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:32:48R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
6Page -Council Check Summary
10/5/2012 -9/15/2012
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
212.50GREEN REMODELING PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESCHOE, DAEWON
212.50
5,276.50WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICECICHY'S WATER & SEWER
5,276.50
140.43PUBLIC WORKS G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIESCINTAS CORPORATION
18.17AQUATIC PARK MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES
218.49VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
12.77GENERAL REPAIR GENERAL SUPPLIES
389.86
17.41FACILITIES MCTE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIESCINTAS FAS LOCKBOX 636525
17.41
145.30-GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET DUE TO OTHER GOVTSCITIZENS INDEPENDENT BANK
311.92ADMINISTRATION G & A MEETING EXPENSE
28.10HUMAN RESOURCES OFFICE SUPPLIES
100.00HUMAN RESOURCES RECOGNITION
551.60HUMAN RESOURCES TRAINING
95.98HUMAN RESOURCES MEETING EXPENSE
207.81IT G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
1,577.73IT G & A TRAINING
23.58ASSESSING G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES
1,119.68FINANCE G & A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT
1,270.00COMM DEV PLANNING G & A TRAINING
3.98GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES
75.24POLICE G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES
50.00POLICE G & A TRAINING
15.00POLICE G & A TRAVEL/MEETINGS
198.73DARE PROGRAM OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
150.00SUPPORT SERVICES TRAINING
532.07OPERATIONSGENERAL SUPPLIES
2,019.14OPERATIONSOPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
441.98OPERATIONSTRAINING
29.00OPERATIONSSEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT
32.43-PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH DUE TO OTHER GOVTS
55.76ORGANIZED REC G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES
173.50ORGANIZED REC G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
25.00ORGANIZED REC G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS
689.00ORGANIZED REC G & A TRAINING
City Council Meeting of October 14, 2012 (Item No. 4l)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 7
10/10/2012CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:32:48R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
7Page -Council Check Summary
10/5/2012 -9/15/2012
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
25.00ORGANIZED REC G & A MEETING EXPENSE
213.25KICKBALLGENERAL SUPPLIES
313.86SUMMER PLAYGROUNDS GENERAL SUPPLIES
15.64ENVIRONMENTAL G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES
1,341.90ENVIRONMENTAL G & A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT
571.47WESTWOOD G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
35.00WESTWOOD G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS
41.68ARENA MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES
26.70ARENA MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT PARTS
1,281.43VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES
239.00VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A TRAINING
67.74GENERAL REPAIR GENERAL SUPPLIES
100.62-CABLE TV BALANCE SHEET DUE TO OTHER GOVTS
70.53TV PRODUCTION GENERAL SUPPLIES
632.59TV PRODUCTION NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT
878.12TV PRODUCTION OFFICE EQUIPMENT
471.02GO BONDS-FIRE STATIONS G&A IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
1.80-WATER UTILITY BALANCE SHEET DUE TO OTHER GOVTS
27.98WATER UTILITY G&A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS
1,225.00WATER UTILITY G&A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT
12.44-CAPITAL REPLACEMENT B/S DUE TO OTHER GOVTS
193.34TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT OFFICE EQUIPMENT
17,123.46
419.31-GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET DUE TO OTHER GOVTSCLAREY'S SAFETY EQUIPMENT INC
6,518.31OPERATIONSMACHINERY & AUTO EQUIPMENT
6,099.00
166.95IT G & A DATACOMMUNICATIONSCOMCAST
166.95
19,907.75SEALCOAT PREPARATION OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESCOMMERCIAL ASPHALT COMPANY
506.12PATCHING-PERMANENT OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
20,413.87
3,135.00PARK EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESCONCRETE ETC INC
425.00REC CENTER BUILDING BUILDING MTCE SERVICE
1,107.50AQUATIC PARK MAINTENANCE MAINTENANCE
30,477.50PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
35,145.00
2,485.00PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDICOURT SURFACES & REPAIR
City Council Meeting of October 14, 2012 (Item No. 4l)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 8
10/10/2012CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:32:48R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
8Page -Council Check Summary
10/5/2012 -9/15/2012
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
2,485.00
597.95NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION GRANT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESCOX, COLIN
597.95
30.12WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERSCROWE, DANA
30.12
200.00GREEN REMODELING PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESCRUMP, JANINE
200.00
982.61PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYCRYSTEEL TRUCK EQUIP INC
982.61
19,183.75CABLE TV G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESCTC
19,183.75
157.88POLICE G & A SUBSISTENCE SUPPLIESCUB FOODS
23.00POLICE G & A TRAINING
180.88
128.00POLICE G & A REPAIRSCULLIGAN BOTTLED WATER
128.00
497.97GENERAL REPAIR SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPSCUMMINS NPOWER LLC
497.97
1,025.00ORGANIZED REC G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESCUNINGHAM GROUP ARCHITECTURE I
1,025.00
244.74PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYD&D INSTRUMENTS
239.00GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE
483.74
85.30REFORESTATION FUND OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESDAHLIN, TOM
85.30
91.00SUMMER PLAYGROUNDS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESDAIRY QUEEN
91.00
353.98GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SUPPLYDALCO ENTERPRISES INC
262.65REC CENTER BUILDING GENERAL SUPPLIES
City Council Meeting of October 14, 2012 (Item No. 4l)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 9
10/10/2012CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:32:48R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
9Page -Council Check Summary
10/5/2012 -9/15/2012
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
616.63
175.00GREEN REMODELING PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESDALIN, LARRY
175.00
1,206.62PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYDEALER AUTOMOTIVE SERVICES INC
1,206.62
133.00GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE LICENSESDEPT LABOR & INDUSTRY
4,086.98INSPECTIONS G & A DUE TO OTHER GOVTS
4,219.98
251.34REC CENTER BUILDING EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICEDJ ELECTRIC SERVICES INC
4,776.13PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT BUILDINGS & STRUCTURES
5,027.47
22,156.38POSTAL SERVICES POSTAGEDO-GOOD.BIZ INC
22,156.38
62.71REFORESTATION FUND OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESDONAGHUE, ROBERTA
62.71
2,813.89SYSTEM REPAIR OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESEGAN COMPANIES INC
2,813.89
97.50ESCROWSANDERSON BUILDERSEHLERS & ASSOCIATES INC
292.50GREENSBORO HIA OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
195.00WESTWOOD VILLAS HIA OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
585.00
72.00INSPECTIONS G & A ELECTRICALELDER-JONES BUILDING PERMIT SE
72.00
55.27WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERSELDRIDGE, MICHAEL
55.27
993.85SEWER UTILITY G&A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICEELECTRIC PUMP INC
993.85
12,005.17PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYEMERGENCY AUTOMOTIVE TECHNOLOG
12,005.17
City Council Meeting of October 14, 2012 (Item No. 4l)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 10
10/10/2012CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:32:48R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
10Page -Council Check Summary
10/5/2012 -9/15/2012
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
166.54OPERATIONSOPERATIONAL SUPPLIESEMERGENCY MEDICAL PRODUCTS
166.54
450.00ADMINISTRATION G & A TRAININGEMPLOYEE STRATEGIES INC
450.00
79.22REFORESTATION FUND OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESEUBANKS, SANDRA
79.22
71,512.51SOLID WASTE COLLECTIONS RECYCLING SERVICEEUREKA RECYCLING
71,512.51
7,195.00NEIGHBORHOOD PUBLIC ART OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESEVENT SOUND & LIGHTING INC
7,195.00
1,513.88RIGHT-OF-WAY IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDIEVERGREEN LAND SERVICES CO
1,513.88
348.58PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYFACTORY MOTOR PARTS CO
348.58
48.93GENERAL REPAIR GENERAL SUPPLIESFASTENAL COMPANY
48.93
151.51ASSESSING G & A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CARFECHNER, MARTY
151.51
579.84SEWER UTILITY G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESFEDEX
579.84
28.70SCHOOL GROUPS GENERAL SUPPLIESFEINBERG, GREG
28.70
2,044.52PARK EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESFLAGSHIP RECREATION
2,044.52
91.06PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYFORCE AMERICA INC
91.06
15.39WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERSFRIEMANN, BRIAN
15.39
City Council Meeting of October 14, 2012 (Item No. 4l)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 11
10/10/2012CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:32:48R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
11Page -Council Check Summary
10/5/2012 -9/15/2012
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
650.00UNINSURED LOSS G&A UNINSURED LOSSGELLERMAN CONSTRUCTION CO INC
650.00
5,000.00WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICEGENE'S WATER & SEWER INC.
5,000.00
4,282.15EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S LONG TERM CARE INSURGLTC PREMIUM PAYMENTS
4,282.15
2,619.63PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESGOODPOINTE TECHNOLOGY INC
2,619.63
300.00FINANCE G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPSGOVERNMENT FINANCE OFFICERS AS
300.00
25.00HUMAN RESOURCES TRAININGGPRS
25.00
53.44PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYGRAFIX SHOPPE
53.44
130.39FACILITIES MCTE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIESGRAINGER INC, WW
164.13GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES
41.17GENERAL REPAIR GENERAL SUPPLIES
335.69
510.00SYSTEM REPAIR OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESGRANITE LEDGE ELECTRICAL CONTR
510.00
11,004.00PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT BUILDINGS & STRUCTURESGRANT'S PRECISION PAINTING LLC
11,004.00
3,338.50IRRIGATION MAINTENANCE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESGREEN ACRES SPRINKLER CO
232.87MUNICIPAL BLDG IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
3,571.37
750.23WEED CONTROL OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESGREEN HORIZONS
85.50SSD #4 G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
835.73
450.24EMPLOYEE FLEX SPEND G&A HEALTH INSURANCEGROUP HEALTH INC - WORKSITE
450.24
City Council Meeting of October 14, 2012 (Item No. 4l)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 12
10/10/2012CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:32:48R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
12Page -Council Check Summary
10/5/2012 -9/15/2012
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
23.37WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERSGUILI, ADAM
23.37
2,163.79PARK GROUNDS MAINTENANCE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESHAAG COMPANIES INC
2,163.79
478.50SOFTBALLOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESHAMILTON, MIKE
478.50
162.11WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERSHANSON, KARIN
162.11
12,425.41WATER UTILITY G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIESHAWKINS INC
12,425.41
861.41PARK GROUNDS MAINTENANCE OPERATIONAL SUPPLIESHCI CHEMTEC INC
861.41
107.22FINANCE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIESHEINTZ, STEVEN
21.00FINANCE G & A TRAVEL/MEETINGS
138.75FINANCE G & A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR
266.97
275.00SOFTBALLOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESHENDERSON, TRACY
275.00
3,365.00GO BONDS-FIRE STATIONS BAL S RETAINED PERCENTAGEHENKEMEYER PAINTING & FLOOR CO
3,365.00
1,879.12POLICE G & A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICEHENNEPIN COUNTY INFO TECH
703.90OPERATIONSRADIO COMMUNICATIONS
201.86OPERATIONSEMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS
2,784.88
57.50ASSESSING G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPSHENNEPIN COUNTY TAXPAYER SERVI
57.50
2,778.46POLICE G & A SUBSISTENCE SERVICEHENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER
375.77PARK MAINTENANCE G & A GARBAGE/REFUSE SERVICE
3,154.23
City Council Meeting of October 14, 2012 (Item No. 4l)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 13
10/10/2012CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:32:48R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
13Page -Council Check Summary
10/5/2012 -9/15/2012
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
2,950.00OPERATIONSTRAININGHENNEPIN TECHNICAL COLLEGE
2,950.00
903.95GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE OTHERHENRICKSEN PSG
903.95
8,500.00ESCROWSPMC ESCROWHESS, CHAD
8,500.00
420.01GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIESHIRSHFIELDS
420.01
511.60INSPECTIONS G & A TRAININGHOFFMAN, BRIAN
511.60
197.56WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERSHOLY FAMILY CHURCH
197.56
418.70GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIESHOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES
35.63ROUTINE MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES
320.48PARK MAINTENANCE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
11.30IRRIGATION MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES
40.93PARK EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
827.04
2,894.13UNINSURED LOSS G&A UNINSURED LOSSHOPKINS AUTO BODY INC
2,894.13
225.00KICKBALLOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESHOWES, JEFFREY
100.00SOFTBALLOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
325.00
275.00VOLLEYBALLOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESHOWES, JESSICA
525.00KICKBALLOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
800.00
175.00KICKBALLOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESHOWES, KRISTINE
250.00SOFTBALLOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
425.00
45.21IT G & A TRAININGHUBER, JASON
45.21
City Council Meeting of October 14, 2012 (Item No. 4l)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 14
10/10/2012CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:32:48R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
14Page -Council Check Summary
10/5/2012 -9/15/2012
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
129.70WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERSHUPPERT, NICK
129.70
89.11ENVIRONMENTAL G & A OFFICE SUPPLIESHURD, JUDITH
89.11
1,685.10EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S UNION DUESI.U.O.E. LOCAL NO 49
1,685.10
475.00HUMAN RESOURCES RECRUITMENTIFP TEST SERVICES
475.00
655.10WATER UTILITY G&A POSTAGEIMPACT PROVEN SOLUTIONS
655.10SEWER UTILITY G&A POSTAGE
655.10SOLID WASTE COLLECTIONS POSTAGE
655.10STORM WATER UTILITY G&A POSTAGE
2,620.40
295.00FINANCE G & A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTATINSIGHT EDGE
295.00
602.11PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYINVER GROVE FORD
602.11
369.00HUMAN RESOURCES SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPSIPMA-HR
369.00
153.87PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYI-STATE TRUCK CENTER
153.87
53.38ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESJ & F REDDY RENTS
272.69ADMINISTRATION G & A RENTAL EQUIPMENT
326.07
63.87PARK MAINTENANCE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIESJERRY'S HARDWARE
16.34IRRIGATION MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES
8.93PARK BUILDING MAINTENANCE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES
16.50GENERAL REPAIR GENERAL SUPPLIES
26.43SEWER UTILITY G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES
60.39SEWER UTILITY G&A EQUIPMENT PARTS
26.07STORM WATER UTILITY G&A EQUIPMENT PARTS
City Council Meeting of October 14, 2012 (Item No. 4l)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 15
10/10/2012CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:32:48R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
15Page -Council Check Summary
10/5/2012 -9/15/2012
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
218.53
39.18IRRIGATION MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIESJOHN DEERE LANDSCAPES/LESCO
615.34IRRIGATION MAINTENANCE OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
654.52
275.00KICKBALLOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESJOHNSON, SUSAN
275.00
553.84EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S WAGE GARNISHMENTSKELLER, JASMINE Z
553.84
5,449.85ESCROWSKENNEDY & GRAVEN
5,449.85
1,005.17FACILITIES MCTE G & A OTHERKOVAL APPLIANCE CO
1,005.17
6,925.26MUNICIPAL BLDG IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDIKRECH, O'BRIEN, MUELLER & WASS
6,925.26
192.55BLDG/GROUNDS OPS & MAINT BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIESKRUGE-AIR INC
192.55
86.53PATCHING-PERMANENT OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESLAKES GAS CO
76.53PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORY
163.06
30.00WATER UTILITY G&A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTATLAUMANN, JOHN
30.00
150.00TREE REPLACEMENT TREE REPLACEMENTLAUREL TREE FARMS
150.00
2,385.00EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S UNION DUESLAW ENFORCEMENT LABOR SERVICES
2,385.00
105,494.00UNINSURED LOSS B/S PREPAID EXPENSESLEAGUE OF MN CITIES INSURANCE
9,215.36UNINSURED LOSS G&A UNINSURED LOSS
114,709.36
266.48INSTRUCTIONAL SKATING LESSONS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESLENTNER, LAURA
City Council Meeting of October 14, 2012 (Item No. 4l)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 16
10/10/2012CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:32:48R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
16Page -Council Check Summary
10/5/2012 -9/15/2012
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
266.48
9,865.33PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESLIGHTING HOUSE USA INC
9,865.33
192.27PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYLIND ELECTRONICS INC
192.27
42,180.31IT G & A COMPUTER SERVICESLOGIS
13,908.00TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT OFFICE EQUIPMENT
56,088.31
3,174.17HUMAN RESOURCES RECOGNITIONLOOKOUT BAR & GRILL
3,174.17
560.00SOCCEROTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESLORINSER, ANTHONY
560.00
314.28PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYLUPIENT CHEVROLET OF BLOOMINGT
314.28
110.00POLICE G & A TRAVEL/MEETINGSLUSE, JOHN
110.00
298.78INSTRUCTIONAL SKATING LESSONS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESMACGREGOR-HANNAH, MAREN
298.78
1,737.63WATER UTILITY G&A BUILDING MTCE SERVICEMANAGED SERVICES INC
1,737.63
151.50SSD 1 G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESMAPLE CREST LANDSCAPE
153.81SSD 2 G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
305.31
82.03PUBLIC WORKS OPS G & A EQUIPMENT PARTSMARS CO, W P & R S
82.03
47.89WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERSMARSHALL, KRISTA
47.89
170.00INSPECTIONS G & A TRAININGMBPTA
170.00
City Council Meeting of October 14, 2012 (Item No. 4l)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 17
10/10/2012CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:32:48R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
17Page -Council Check Summary
10/5/2012 -9/15/2012
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
68.00INSTRUCTIONAL SKATING LESSONS PROGRAM REVENUEMCGUIRE, VANESSA
68.00
200.00STORM WATER UTILITY G&A TRAININGMECA
200.00
26.71DAMAGE REPAIR OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESMENARDS
13.33PARK MAINTENANCE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
12.77IRRIGATION MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES
17.87BRICK HOUSE (1324)OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
24.52WW RENTAL HOUSE (1322)OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
178.19WESTWOOD G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
134.14WESTWOOD G & A SMALL TOOLS
120.92PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
528.45
4,682.70INSPECTIONS G & A DUE TO OTHER GOVTSMETROPOLITAN COUNCIL
292,430.91OPERATIONSCLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICE
297,113.61
175.00OPERATIONSTRAININGMFSCB
175.00
675.00PATROLTRAININGMHSRC/RANGE
675.00
67.00INSPECTIONS G & A ELECTRICALMIDLAND HEATING & AIR CONDITIO
67.00
3,525.00PARK GROUNDS MAINTENANCE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESMIDSTATE RECLAMATION INC
1,225.00STORM WATER UTILITY G&A BUILDING MTCE SERVICE
4,750.00
230,856.50PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYMIDWAY FORD
230,856.50
1,156.00STORM WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESMIDWEST AQUA CARE
1,156.00
25,446.00PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDIMIDWEST ASPHALT CORP
63.39STORM WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE
City Council Meeting of October 14, 2012 (Item No. 4l)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 18
10/10/2012CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:32:48R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
18Page -Council Check Summary
10/5/2012 -9/15/2012
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
25,509.39
577.38BLDG/GROUNDS OPS & MAINT BUILDING MTCE SERVICEMIDWEST OVERHEAD CRANE CORP
577.38
265.34WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERSMIDWEST REALTY SERVICES
265.34
2,065.00WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESMIDWEST TESTING LLC
2,065.00
58,385.82SYSTEM REPAIR OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESMILLERBERND MFG CO
58,385.82
523.03NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION GRANT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESMINIKAHDA OAKS NEIGHBORHOOD AS
523.03
428.40PAWN FEES OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESMINNEAPOLIS FINANCE DEPT
428.40
153.13EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S ACCRUED OTHER BENEFITSMINNESOTA BENEFIT ASSOC
153.13
25.00HUMAN RESOURCES RECRUITMENTMINNESOTA CHAPTER OF APA
25.00
979.50GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET CLEARING ACCOUNTMINNESOTA DEPT COMMERCE
979.50
150.00ENGINEERING G & A TRAININGMINNESOTA DEPT TRANSPORTATION
150.00
16.00EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S ACCRUED OTHER BENEFITSMINNESOTA NCPERS LIFE INS
16.00
625.00PE INVEST/REVIEW/PER IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDIMINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL AG
625.00
855.00PARK MAINTENANCE G & A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTATMINNESOTA SOCIETY OF ARBORICUL
287.22ENVIRONMENTAL G & A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT
1,142.22
City Council Meeting of October 14, 2012 (Item No. 4l)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 19
10/10/2012CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:32:48R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
19Page -Council Check Summary
10/5/2012 -9/15/2012
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
71.61POLICE G & A OFFICE SUPPLIESMINNESOTA TROPHIES & GIFTS
71.61
168.24ADMINISTRATION G & A LEGAL SERVICESMINUTEMAN PRESS
168.24
275.00TRAININGSEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTATMN FALL MAINTENANCE EXPO
275.00
580.00HUMAN RESOURCES TRAININGMOBIUS INC
580.00
82.84REFORESTATION FUND OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESMOMMSEN, KATHY
82.84
1,635.12COMMUNICATIONS/GV REIMBURSEABL EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICEMOTOROLA
1,635.12
294.00SOFTBALLOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESMRPA
294.00
250.00REILLY BUDGET OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESMVTL LABORATORIES
250.00
1,781.96PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYNAPA (GENUINE PARTS CO)
71.77GENERAL REPAIR GENERAL SUPPLIES
1,853.73
71.04ASSESSING G & A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CARNATHANSON, BRIDGET
71.04
70.76WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERSNATIONS TITLE AGENCY
70.76
229.80PARK MAINTENANCE G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESNEP CORP
50.59GENERAL REPAIR GENERAL SUPPLIES
280.39
1,440.75SOFTBALLOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESNEUMANN, NEAL
1,440.75
219.31-WATER UTILITY BALANCE SHEET DUE TO OTHER GOVTSNEUMANNS ENTERPRISE
City Council Meeting of October 14, 2012 (Item No. 4l)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 20
10/10/2012CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:32:48R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
20Page -Council Check Summary
10/5/2012 -9/15/2012
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
3,409.31WATER UTILITY G&A BUILDING MTCE SERVICE
3,190.00
234.90ADMINISTRATION G & A TELEPHONENEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS
109.69HUMAN RESOURCES TELEPHONE
444.70RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT TELEPHONE
125.96ASSESSING G & A TELEPHONE
160.94FINANCE G & A TELEPHONE
1,254.24POLICE G & A TELEPHONE
400.59OPERATIONSTELEPHONE
1,243.93INSPECTIONS G & A TELEPHONE
479.50ENGINEERING G & A TELEPHONE
386.83PUBLIC WORKS OPS G & A TELEPHONE
231.77PARK AND REC G&A TELEPHONE
559.07ORGANIZED REC G & A TELEPHONE
360.97PARK MAINTENANCE G & A TELEPHONE
108.45ENVIRONMENTAL G & A TELEPHONE
231.45WESTWOOD G & A TELEPHONE
1,148.38VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A TELEPHONE
919.79WATER UTILITY G&A TELEPHONE
223.85SEWER UTILITY G&A TELEPHONE
523.94-TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT TELEPHONE
8,101.07
71.40REFORESTATION FUND OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESNOSOW, EDITH
71.40
300.00HUMAN RESOURCES SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPSNPELRA
300.00
150.00ORGANIZED REC G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPSNRPA
150.00
500.00POLICE G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESOAK KNOLL ANIMAL HOSPITAL
500.00
88.83INSTRUCTIONAL SKATING LESSONS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESOBERSTAR, KATIE
88.83
59.47ADMINISTRATION G & A OFFICE SUPPLIESOFFICE DEPOT
55.97ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
101.39HUMAN RESOURCES OFFICE SUPPLIES
City Council Meeting of October 14, 2012 (Item No. 4l)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 21
10/10/2012CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:32:48R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
21Page -Council Check Summary
10/5/2012 -9/15/2012
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
121.45OPERATIONSOFFICE SUPPLIES
376.93INSPECTIONS G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
67.64PUBLIC WORKS G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES
241.12ORGANIZED REC G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES
9.80ENVIRONMENTAL G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES
45.75WATER UTILITY G&A OFFICE SUPPLIES
1,079.52
2,127.00INSPECTIONS G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESOFFICE TEAM
2,127.00
106.88NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION GRANT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESON SITE SANITATION
106.88
166.75EMPLOYEE FLEX SPEND G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESOPTUM HEALTH
166.75
320.63TREE DISEASE PUBLIC CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICEOSTVIG TREE INC
320.63
10,169.34REC CENTER BUILDING BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIESPBBS EQUIPMENT CORP
10,169.34
422.16ENVIRONMENTAL G & A OFFICE SUPPLIESPERNSTEINER CREATIVE GROUP INC
422.16
962.74-PARK IMPROVE BALANCE SHEET RETAINED PERCENTAGEPETERSON COMPANIES INC
19,254.90PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
18,292.16
25.36ADMINISTRATION G & A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CARPETTY CASH
40.24HUMAN RESOURCES GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
118.00HUMAN RESOURCES RECOGNITION
10.00FINANCE G & A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT
20.00OPERATIONSGENERAL SUPPLIES
9.99OPERATIONSFIRE PREVENTION SUPPLIES
37.80INSPECTIONS G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
25.20INSPECTIONS G & A TRAINING
9.00INSPECTIONS G & A MEETING EXPENSE
23.56CABLE TV G & A OFFICE EQUIPMENT
5.00TV PRODUCTION GENERAL SUPPLIES
324.15
City Council Meeting of October 14, 2012 (Item No. 4l)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 22
10/10/2012CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:32:48R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
22Page -Council Check Summary
10/5/2012 -9/15/2012
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
303.50PARK GROUNDS MAINTENANCE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESPHILIP'S TREE CARE INC
303.50
419.29PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYPIONEER RIM & WHEEL CO
419.29
770.36INSTRUCTIONAL SKATING LESSONS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESPOLK, MARLA
770.36
9,730.98TREE DISEASE PUBLIC CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICEPRECISION LANDSCAPE & TREE
9,730.98
305.00NEIGHBORHOOD PUBLIC ART OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESPUBLIC THEATER OF MINNESOTA
305.00
2,469.00WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICEQ3 CONTRACTING
438.00SEWER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE
600.00STORM WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE
3,507.00
164.03VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A POSTAGEQUICKSILVER EXPRESS COURIER
164.03
123.96IT G & A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICEQUILL CORP
123.96
100.00HALLOWEEN PARTY OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESRAINBOW PARTY ARTS
100.00
2,616.12FACILITY OPERATIONS GARBAGE/REFUSE SERVICERANDY'S SANITATION INC
1,214.85REC CENTER BUILDING GARBAGE/REFUSE SERVICE
1,029.00SOLID WASTE COLLECTIONS GARBAGE/REFUSE SERVICE
4,859.97
5,130.99WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERSRATNER, H B
5,130.99
70.42REFORESTATION FUND OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESRAYNOR, PETER
70.42
5,498.53COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIPS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESREACH FOR RESOURCES INC
City Council Meeting of October 14, 2012 (Item No. 4l)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 23
10/10/2012CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:32:48R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
23Page -Council Check Summary
10/5/2012 -9/15/2012
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
5,498.53
225.00MOVE-UP PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESREHKAMP LARSON ARCHITECTS INC
225.00
97.00WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERSREMAX
97.00
714.00SOFTBALLOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESRITCHIE, TAYLOR
714.00
22.88WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERSROSE, ANDREA
22.88
87.91REFORESTATION FUND OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESROSSITER, COLLEEN
87.91
1,000.00ESCROWSPMC ESCROWRUSSELL, JENNIFER
1,000.00
370.00COMMUNITY OUTREACH G & A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTATSABES JEWISH COMMUNITY CENTER
370.00
14,250.00ROUTINE MAINTENANCE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESSAFE STEP LLC
14,250.00
199.37VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICESAFELITE FULFILLMENT INC
199.37
225.00MOVE-UP PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESSALA ARCHITECTS INC
225.00
217.68OPERATIONSGENERAL SUPPLIESSAM'S CLUB
139.76SUMMER PLAYGROUNDS GENERAL SUPPLIES
64.40INSTRUCTIONAL SKATING LESSONS GENERAL SUPPLIES
3,888.37CONCESSIONSCONCESSION SUPPLIES
4,310.21
712.73REC CENTER BUILDING OPERATIONAL SUPPLIESSCAN AIR FILTER INC
712.73
132.06HUMAN RESOURCES RECOGNITIONSCHAAKE COMPANY, AJ
City Council Meeting of October 14, 2012 (Item No. 4l)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 24
10/10/2012CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:32:48R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
24Page -Council Check Summary
10/5/2012 -9/15/2012
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
132.06
1,002.83-GO BONDS-FIRE STATIONS BAL S RETAINED PERCENTAGESCHIFSKY & SONS INC, TA
20,056.65GO BONDS-FIRE STATIONS G&A BUILDINGS & STRUCTURES
19,053.82
1,569.99PARK BUILDING MAINTENANCE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESSCHOEBEN'S WINDOW CLEANING SER
1,569.99
1,399.00PARK GROUNDS MAINTENANCE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESSEAL KING
1,399.00
50,836.73CE INSPECTION IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDISEH
1,091.94SEWER UTILITY G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
51,928.67
166.25SEWER CAPITAL PROJ G & A IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDISGC HORIZON LLC
166.25
22.00ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESSHRED-IT USA MINNEAPOLIS
20.00FINANCE G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
55.00POLICE G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
11.00INSPECTIONS G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
108.00
761.52PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDISIGNATURE MECHANICAL INC
761.52
391.94REC CENTER BUILDING BUILDING MTCE SERVICESIMPLEXGRINNELL LP
391.94
41.86CLEANING/DEBRIS REMOVAL CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICESKB ENVIRONMENTAL
41.86
1,430.04EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S UNION DUESSLP ASSOC OF FIREFIGHTERS #993
1,430.04
125.00SOFTBALLOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESSMITH, PERRY
125.00
2,566.00WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESSOURCE WATER SOLUTIONS LLC
2,566.00
City Council Meeting of October 14, 2012 (Item No. 4l)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 25
10/10/2012CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:32:48R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
25Page -Council Check Summary
10/5/2012 -9/15/2012
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
1,729.90IT G & A DATACOMMUNICATIONSSPRINT
1,729.90
85.48STORM WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICESPS COMPANIES INC
85.48
643.88ENGINEERING G & A ENGINEERING SERVICESSRF CONSULTING GROUP INC
8,417.45CE INSPECTION IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
9,061.33
1,687.56PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDIST CROIX REC CO
1,687.56
3,785.51TREE DISEASE PRIVATE CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICEST CROIX TREE SERVICE INC
3,785.51
75.00FACILITY ROOM RENTAL RENT REVENUEST LOUIS PARK CROSS COUNTRY
75.00
1,330.00SUMMER GRADE 6-8 OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESST LOUIS PARK TRANSP INC
1,330.00
150.00GREEN REMODELING PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESSTANDKE, JODI
150.00
507.07PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYSTONEBROOKE EQUIPMENT INC
507.07
243.48PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYSTREICHER'S
243.48
80.09REFORESTATION FUND OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESSTROHL, JUDITH
80.09
577.13PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYSUBURBAN TIRE WHOLESALE
577.13
257.80ADMINISTRATION G & A LEGAL NOTICESSUN NEWSPAPERS
122.90STREET CAPITAL PROJ G & A LEGAL NOTICES
191.84PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT G&A LEGAL NOTICES
95.92SEWER CAPITAL PROJ G & A IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
City Council Meeting of October 14, 2012 (Item No. 4l)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 26
10/10/2012CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:32:48R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
26Page -Council Check Summary
10/5/2012 -9/15/2012
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
668.46
6.49-GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET DUE TO OTHER GOVTSSUNDBERG CO, CE
100.90GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES
94.41
270.00WATER UTILITY G&A TRAININGSUSA
270.00
217.14FINANCE G & A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CARSWANSON, BRIAN
217.14
26.97POLICE G & A OFFICE SUPPLIESTARGET BANK
26.97
180.00GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE TRAININGTCALMC
120.00WATER UTILITY G&A TRAINING
120.00SEWER UTILITY G&A TRAINING
60.00STORM WATER UTILITY G&A TRAINING
480.00
352.50WESTWOOD G & A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESTEAM HANDYMAN LLC
352.50
16.77ADMINISTRATION G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESTELELANGUAGE INC
16.77
6.00INSPECTIONS G & A BUILDINGTHD AT-HOME SERVICES INC
6.00
42.66ADMINISTRATION G & A LONG TERM DISABILITYTHE HARTFORD - PRIORITY ACCOUN
51.90HUMAN RESOURCES LONG TERM DISABILITY
15.51COMM & MARKETING G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY
47.44IT G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY
33.10ASSESSING G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY
64.49FINANCE G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY
106.70COMM DEV G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY
113.80POLICE G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY
72.21OPERATIONSLONG TERM DISABILITY
54.34INSPECTIONS G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY
40.99PUBLIC WORKS G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY
70.77ENGINEERING G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY
City Council Meeting of October 14, 2012 (Item No. 4l)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 27
10/10/2012CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:32:48R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
27Page -Council Check Summary
10/5/2012 -9/15/2012
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
19.25PUBLIC WORKS OPS G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY
65.00ORGANIZED REC G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY
19.25PARK MAINTENANCE G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY
16.05ENVIRONMENTAL G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY
16.05WESTWOOD G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY
12.99REC CENTER/AQUATIC PARK SAL LONG TERM DISABILITY
16.51VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A LONG TERM DISABILITY
15.60HOUSING REHAB G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY
19.25WATER UTILITY G&A LONG TERM DISABILITY
1,936.59EMPLOYEE FLEX SPEND G&A LONG TERM DISABILITY
2,850.45
169.58INSTRUCTIONAL SKATING LESSONS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESTHOMPSON, HOLLY
169.58
51.00SOFTBALLOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESTHOMPSON, JAMES
51.00
85.00INSPECTIONS G & A TRAININGTILTON, JOHN
85.00
439.13ADMINISTRATION G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESTIMESAVER OFF SITE SECRETARIAL
439.13
4,579.00PLUMBING MTCE BUILDING MTCE SERVICETODD THE PLUMBER
4,579.00
150.00GREEN REMODELING PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESTOUSIGNANT, STACEY
150.00
196.65RELAMPINGOTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESTRAFFIC CONTROL CORP
196.65
2,388.66TREE MAINTENANCE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESTREE TRUST
1,384.66WESTWOOD G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
3,773.32
269.04PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYTRI STATE BOBCAT
805.65GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE
1,074.69
7,034.48PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT BUILDINGS & STRUCTURESTWIN CITY WINDOW REPLACEMENT C
City Council Meeting of October 14, 2012 (Item No. 4l)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 28
10/10/2012CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:32:48R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
28Page -Council Check Summary
10/5/2012 -9/15/2012
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
7,034.48
75.00ADMINISTRATION G & A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTATTWIN WEST CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
75.00
88.49OPERATIONSOPERATIONAL SUPPLIESUNIFORMS UNLIMITED (FIRE)
88.49
148.55SUPPORT SERVICES OPERATIONAL SUPPLIESUNIFORMS UNLIMITED (PD)
394.83SUPERVISORYOPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
1,084.76PATROLOPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
750.00COMMUNITY SERVICE OFFICER OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
2,378.14
300.00EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S WAGE GARNISHMENTSUNITED STATES TREASURY
300.00
480.00EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S UNITED WAYUNITED WAY OF MINNEAPOLIS AREA
480.00
120.00POLICE G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESUNO DOS TRES COMMUNICATIONS
120.00
178.15GENERAL REPAIR GENERAL SUPPLIESUSA BLUE BOOK
144.72WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
322.87
565.80HUMAN RESOURCES RECOGNITIONVAIL, LORI
565.80
404.00SEWER UTILITY G&A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICEVALLEY-RICH CO INC
404.00
666.11TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT OFFICE EQUIPMENTVERIZON WIRELESS
666.11
76.95SEWER UTILITY G&A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICEVIKING ELECTRIC SUPPLY
4,193.13UNINSURED LOSS G&A UNINSURED LOSS
4,270.08
1,110.38WATER UTILITY G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIESVIKING INDUSTRIAL CTR
1,110.38
City Council Meeting of October 14, 2012 (Item No. 4l)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 29
10/10/2012CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:32:48R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
29Page -Council Check Summary
10/5/2012 -9/15/2012
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
501.60ORGANIZED REC G & A TRAININGWALSH, CINDY S
501.60
5,140.33SOLID WASTE COLLECTIONS MOTOR FUELSWASTE MANAGEMENT OF WI-MN
60,583.80SOLID WASTE COLLECTIONS GARBAGE/REFUSE SERVICE
25,262.28SOLID WASTE COLLECTIONS YARD WASTE SERVICE
34,536.07SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL GARBAGE/REFUSE SERVICE
11,027.13SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL YARD WASTE SERVICE
136,549.61
239.89WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICEWATER CONSERVATION SERVICE INC
239.89
126.00POLICE G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESWEST PAYMENT CENTER
126.00
216,950.09WESTWOOD VILLAS HIA OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESWESTWOOD VILLA ASSN
216,950.09
964.44SKATING RINK MAINTENANCE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIESWHEELER LUMBER LLC
964.44
184.26PUBLIC WORKS G & A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CARWHITE, PERRY
184.26
107.94HUMAN RESOURCES RECOGNITIONWINKLER, TRACI
107.94
70.54ORGANIZED REC G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESWRAP CITY GRAPHICS
69.47HALLOWEEN PARTY GENERAL SUPPLIES
140.01
16,895.18FACILITY OPERATIONS ELECTRIC SERVICEXCEL ENERGY
22.29OPERATIONSELECTRIC SERVICE
24,806.99PUBLIC WORKS OPS G & A ELECTRIC SERVICE
5,377.66PARK MAINTENANCE G & A ELECTRIC SERVICE
27.66BRICK HOUSE (1324)ELECTRIC SERVICE
78.69WW RENTAL HOUSE (1322)ELECTRIC SERVICE
37,151.02WATER UTILITY G&A ELECTRIC SERVICE
1,682.44REILLY BUDGET ELECTRIC SERVICE
3,060.35SEWER UTILITY G&A ELECTRIC SERVICE
City Council Meeting of October 14, 2012 (Item No. 4l)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 30
10/10/2012CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:32:48R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
30Page -Council Check Summary
10/5/2012 -9/15/2012
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
1,370.85STORM WATER UTILITY G&A ELECTRIC SERVICE
90,473.13
2,243.96-UNINSURED LOSS B/S RETAINED PERCENTAGEXTERIOR XPERTS
44,879.25UNINSURED LOSS G&A UNINSURED LOSS
42,635.29
40,485.76PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYYOCUM OIL CO INC
40,485.76
95.80PUBLIC WORKS OPS G & A GENERAL SUPPLIESZEE MEDICAL SERVICE
95.80PARK MAINTENANCE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
95.80VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES
95.81WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES
383.21
193.03GENERAL REPAIR GENERAL SUPPLIESZEP MFG
193.03
73.13REFORESTATION FUND OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESZURN, DENISE
73.13
Report Totals 2,433,648.52
City Council Meeting of October 14, 2012 (Item No. 4l)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 31
Meeting Date: October 15, 2012
Agenda Item #: 6a
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Public Hearing for Assessment of Delinquent Utilities, Tree Removal/Injection, Mowing, False
Alarms, and Other Miscellaneous Charges
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Mayor to open the public hearing, solicit comments, and close the public hearing. Motion to
Adopt Resolution to assess delinquent water, sewer, storm water, refuse, abating grass/weed
cutting, tree removal/injection, false alarm fees and other miscellaneous charges.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the City Council wish to collect outstanding fees and charges through the special
assessment process?
BACKGROUND:
Each of the customers involved in this special assessment process received a City service.
Subsequently, the customers were then billed through our regular billing process. The invoice(s)
is/are now past due, and the recommended method of collecting the past due amounts is through
certification as a special assessment to the property for the next year or years taxes depending on
the delinquency. In advance of the public hearing date, individual letters were mailed to
property owners and tenants, if applicable, advising them of the assessment and their right to be
heard before the City Council. The table below shows comparison data from 2008 - 2012 in
relation to number of letters mailed and value of delinquent amounts.
Year Number of Letters Delinquent Amounts
2012 1803 $816,357
2011 1631 $834,605
2010 1634 $743,023
2009 1687 $753,624
2008 1800 $674,705
Each year there are a number of residents who pay their delinquent amount(s) before the
certification deadline, thereby reducing the final amount certified and sent to Hennepin County.
In addition, during the month of October, there are several hundred property owners who contact
the City with questions about their outstanding balance(s) and the certification process. The
delinquent balance was $668,124 as of the close of business on October 8, 2012. Staff will
provide the delinquent amount balance as of the close of business on October 15, 2012 at the
Council meeting. Customers have until November 2, 2012 at 4:30 p.m. to pay the delinquent
amount. The amounts shown do not include interest or the $30.00 per account administrative
fee. A copy of the assessment roll is on file with the City Clerk’s office for review.
City Council Meeting of October 15, 2012 (Item No. 6a) Page 2
Subject: Public Hearing for Assessment of Delinquent Accounts
NEXT STEPS:
After conducting a public hearing, the City Council is asked to direct the assessment of delinquent
water, sewer, storm water, refuse, abating grass/weed cutting, tree removal/injection, false alarm fees
and other miscellaneous charges against the benefiting property.
Staff will continue to collect payments related to the delinquent accounts and work with residents
to resolve issues related to their delinquent accounts. All delinquent accounts outstanding as of
November 2, 2012 will be certified to Hennepin County for collection as part of the owner’s
property tax bill. Upon certification, the delinquent amounts will become a lien on the individual
properties.
At this time, the Accounting Division has not received notice of anyone wanting to speak at the
Public Hearing.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Collection of these charges is vital to the financial stability of our utility systems and to
reimburse the city for expenses incurred in providing services.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not Applicable
Attachments: Sample Certification Letter
Resolution Levying Assessment
Prepared by: Steven Heintz, Finance Supervisor
Reviewed by: Brian A. Swanson, Controller
Approved by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
City Council Meeting of October 15, 2012 (Item No. 6a) Page 3
Subject: Public Hearing for Assessment of Delinquent Accounts
Date of Notice: October 1, 2012
Customer
Mailing Address
Mailing City, Mailing State, Mailing Zip
RE: Charges Owed:
Service Address :
Delinquent Amount:
Account Number:
Customer Number:
Property I.D. Number:
Dear:
The City of St. Louis Park encourages its customers to remain current in the payment of their utility bills.
When accounts become delinquent, according to Minnesota law, they may be certified to Hennepin
County to be collected with property taxes payable in the next year.
City of St. Louis Park records show this account was delinquent as of September 19, 2012. In an effort to
avoid the account from being certified to the property taxes, the City is requesting that payment in full be
received at City Hall by Friday, November 2, 2012 at 4:30 p.m. If payment in full is not received by that
date and time, the outstanding delinquent amount, plus an administrative charge of $30.00, and interest at
a rate of 5.85% for 13 months will be sent to Hennepin County for collection with the property taxes in
2013.
The City Council will consider final action on all delinquent accounts at a public hearing during the
regular Council meeting on October 15, 2012 at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 5005 Minnetonka
Blvd. A written appeal may be presented to the Council at that time or appeals may be made to Brian
Swanson – Controller, 5005 Minnetonka Blvd., St. Louis Park, MN 55416.
Please feel free to contact our office at (952) 924-2111 if you have questions regarding this notice.
Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter.
Brian Swanson
Controller
City Council Meeting of October 15, 2012 (Item No. 6a) Page 4
Subject: Public Hearing for Assessment of Delinquent Accounts
RESOLUTION NO. 12-____
LEVYING ASSESSMENT FOR DELINQUENT UTILITY ACCOUNTS, TREE
REMOVAL/INJECTION, FALSE ALARM FEES AND OTHER MISCELLANEOUS
CHARGES
WHEREAS, the City Council has heretofore determined by ordinance the rates and
charges for water, sewer, storm water and refuse services of the city and has provided for the
abatement of tree removal/injection, grass/weed cutting and other miscellaneous charges to a
home or business shall be at the expense of the owners of the premises involved; and
WHEREAS, all such sums become delinquent and assessable against the property served
under Section 6-158, Section 6-206, Section 9-103, Section 9-110, Section 11-2004 of the St.
Louis Park Ordinance Code and Minnesota Statutes 18.023, 18.271, 443 and 429; and
WHEREAS, the City Clerk has prepared an assessment roll setting forth an assessment
against each tract or parcel of land served by water, sewer, storm water and refuse services of the
City or charged for the costs of abating grass/weed cutting, tree removal/injection, false alarm fees
and other miscellaneous charges which remain unpaid at the close of business on November 2,
2012; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park that said assessment roll is hereby adopted and approved, and there is hereby levied and
assessed against each and every tract of land described therein an assessment in the amounts
respectively therein abating water, sewer, storm water, refuse, grass/weed cutting, tree
removal/injection, false alarm fees and other miscellaneous charges which remain unpaid at the
close of business on November 2, 2012; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk is hereby authorized to deliver said
assessment roll to the Auditor of Hennepin County for collection of the assessment in the same
manner as other municipal taxes are collected and payment thereof enforced with interest from the
date of this resolution at the rate of five point eight five percent (5.85 %) per annum.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council October 15, 2012
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Meeting Date: October 15, 2012
Agenda Item #: 6b(1)
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
2013 Budget and Property Owner Service Charges for Special Service District No. 1
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Mayor to close public hearing. Motion to Adopt Resolution setting the 2013 Budget and
Property Owner Service Charge for Special Service District No. 1 and directing staff to certify
the annual service charges to Hennepin County.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the City Council wish to approve SSD #1 budget and property owner service charges?
BACKGROUND:
History
On November 6, 2006, the City Council approved a resolution imposing a multi-year service
charge for Special Service District No. 1 (this district is located along Excelsior Boulevard from
Quentin Avenue to Highway 100 and along Park Center Boulevard and Monterey Drive).
Annually, the City Council must set a service charge for the District following a public hearing
on the proposed charge. The Special Service District Advisory Board approved the proposed
2013 budget and service charges. The notice of public hearing was published in the Sun Sailor
on September 27 and October 11, 2012. The public hearing notice was sent to all property
owners within the District.
Special Service District No. 1 Financial Position
Special Service District No. 1 has an anticipated year-end fund balance of approximately
$118,151.
Maximum Budget / Service Charge Restriction Parameters
The budget and service charge/ special assessment do not have to be the same dollar amount
since excess operating reserves may be used in some years. By ordinance, the maximum budget
increase cannot exceed the previous year’s authorized budget amount by more than the
Consumer Price Index (CPI) increase, up to a maximum of 5%. This adjustment is based upon
the applicable CPI percentage increase for the Minneapolis/St. Paul metropolitan area. The
Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) in the Minneapolis-St. Paul area rose
3.0 percent from the first half of 2011 to the first half of 2012.
Proposed 2013 Budget and Service Charges
The Advisory Board recommended approval of the following:
• 2013 budget amount of $126,672; reflects no increase from 2012; and
• 2013 service charge amount of $86,672; a decrease of $40,000 from 2012. Generally,
expenses typically do not reach 100% of budget. The expected unused budget amount
along with the service charges for 2013 is anticipated to allow the district to achieve the
goal of a 50% fund balance which staff and board agreed should be maintained.
City Council Meeting of October 15, 2012 (Item No. 6b(1)) Page 2
Subject: 2013 Budget and Property Owner Service Charges for Special Service District No. 1
The proposed resolution was reviewed by City Attorney, Tom Scott.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
The Public Works Operations Division budget will incur a service charge for the City-owned
property located within this district at 3700 Monterey Drive (Recreation Center/Wolfe Park).
The proposed service charge for 2013 is $22,802.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
Attachments: 2013 Proposed Budget
Resolution w/ 2013 Service Charges, Attachment A
Prepared by: Mark Hanson, Public Works Operations Superintendent
Reviewed by: Michael P. Rardin, Director of Public Works
Approved by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
City Council Meeting of October 15, 2012 (Item No. 6b(1)) Page 3
Subject: 2013 Budget and Property Owner Service Charges for Special Service District No. 1
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
Special Service District No. 1
2013 Budget
No.
Item
2012
Revised
Budget
2013
Proposed
Budget
6212 GENERAL SUPPLIES 1,000 1,000
6223.650 BANNER REPLACEMENT 3,600 3,600
6224 LANDSCAPING MATERIALS 9,000 10,000
6410 GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 0 0
6410.678 SSD Mgmt Services 4,500 4,500
6630.772 SSD – Snow Removal 53,000 53,000
6630.773 SSD - Site Maintenance 6,000 5,000
6630.774 SSD – Banner Install/Removal 2,400 2,400
6630.775 SSD – Irrigation Service 9,000 9,000
6630.776 SSD – Decorative Install 7,000 7,000
6630.777 SSD – Landscape Service 28,500 28,500
6950 LEGAL NOTICES 128 153
7106 PUBLIC LIABILITY INSURANCE 544 519
7207.880 SSD INFRASTRUCTURE REPAIR 0 0
7301.890 SSD ELECTRICAL SERVICE 2,000 2,000
7302 GARBAGE/REFUSE SERVICE 0 0
TOTAL EXPENDITURES 126,672 126,672
City Council Meeting of October 15, 2012 (Item No. 6b(1)) Page 4
Subject: 2013 Budget and Property Owner Service Charges for Special Service District No. 1
RESOLUTION NO. 12-___
RESOLUTION APPROVING 2013 BUDGET
AND SERVICE CHARGES FOR
SPECIAL SERVICE DISTRICT No. 1
WHEREAS, pursuant to Ordinance No. 2067-96, the City Council created Special
Service District No. 1 (the “District”) . The specific properties located within the District are
identified on Attachment “A” attached hereto; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Resolution No. 06-167, the City Council is authorized to
impose service charges within the District on a multi-year basis through and including the year
2016 for taxes payable in said year; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 2.04 of Resolution No. 06-167, the maximum budget to
be imposed in any year will be subject to adjustment calculations based on Consumer Price
Index (CPI) data for the Minneapolis/St. Paul Metropolitan Area; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 3 of Resolution No. 06-167, the Service Charges shall
be payable and collected at the same time and in the same manner as provided for payment and
collection of ad valorem taxes; and
WHEREAS, the City is required by Statute to certify assessments to the County by
November 21, 2012.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park as follows:
1. The 2013 Budget for Special Service District No. 1 of $126,672 is hereby
approved as recommended by the Special Service District No. 1 Advisory Board.
2. The authorized 2013 Service Charge for Special Service District No. 1 is $86,672
in the amounts and against the properties specified on Attachment “A” attached to this
Resolution.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council October 15, 2012
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK Attachment A
Special Service District #1
Estimated Annual Cost Per Parcel
Proposed 2013 Service Charge
PROPOSED ACTUAL
2013 2012
PAR.PID SERVICE SERVICE
NO.Owner NO.CHARGE CHARGE
1 3601 Park Center Boulevard 36 Park LLC 06-028-24-33-0019 $4,317 $6,309
2 3601 State Hwy No 100 South Target Corporation 06-028-24-33-0015 $9,348 $13,662
3 3777 Park Center Boulevard Lund Food Holdings 06-028-24-33-0014 $9,820 $14,352
4 5400 Auto Club Way AAA 07-028-24-22-0004 $4,755 $6,949
5 3900 Park Nicollet Boulevard PNHS 07-028-24-22-0035 $3,687 $5,389
6 5300 Excelsior Boulevard Frauenshuh Co.07-028-24-22-0036 $5,314 $7,767
7 5200 Excelsior Boulevard Frauenshuh Co.07-028-24-22-0037 $1,210 $1,769
8 5100 Excelsior Boulevard PNHS 07-028-24-22-0034 $1,690 $2,469
9 3800 Park Nicollet Boulevard PNHS 07-028-24-22-0031 $5,003 $7,312
10 3900 Park Nicollet Boulevard PNHS 07-028-24-22-0031 $1,111 $1,623
11 5050 Excelsior Boulevard PNHS 07-028-24-22-0033 $3,004 $4,391
12 5000 Excelsior Boulevard PNHS 07-028-24-22-0032 $675 $986
13 4950 Excelsior Boulevard Zip Printing 07-028-24-21-0006 $492 $719
14 4920 Excelsior Boulevard PNHS 07-028-24-21-0005 $407 $595
15 4916 Excelsior Boulevard PNHS 07-028-24-21-0004 $602 $880
16 4951 Excelsior Boulevard PNHS 07-028-24-21-0253 $3,904 $5,705
17 4961 Excelsior Boulevard Miracle Mile 07-028-24-22-0023 $556 $813
18 4995 Excelsior Boulevard Miracle Mile 07-028-24-22-0024 $748 $1,093
19 5001 Excelsior Boulevard Miracle Mile 07-028-24-22-0025 $517 $756
20 5201 Excelsior Boulevard Miracle Mile 07-028-24-22-0026 $6,710 $9,807
21 3700 Monterey Drive Rec Center 06-028-24-34-0017 $22,802 $33,326
TOTALS:$86,672 $126,672
Notes:
1) The proposed 2013 service charge calculations are based upon the same methodology used for the initial service charge collection.
2) The proposed 2013 budget is $126,672, but the service charge is only $86,672 because $40,000 was transferred from reserves
to lower the fund balance.
3) Commercial sidewalk snow removal charges are on a front footage basis.
4) All other services charges are based on the parcel's square foot area basis.
ADDRESS
City Council Meeting of October 15, 2012 (Item No. 6b(1))
Subject: 2013 Budget and Property Owner Service Charges for Special Service District No. 1 Page 5
Meeting Date: October 15, 2012
Agenda Item #: 6b(2)
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
2013 Budget and Property Owner Service Charges for Special Service District No. 2
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Mayor to close public hearing. Motion to Adopt Resolution setting the 2013 Budget and
Property Owner Service Charge for Special Service District No. 2 and directing staff to certify
the annual service charges to Hennepin County.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the City Council wish to approve SSD #2 budget and property owner service charges?
BACKGROUND:
History
On October 20, 2008, the City Council approved a resolution imposing a multi-year service
charge for Special Service District No. 2 (this district is located along Excelsior Boulevard from
Monterey Drive/38th Street to France Avenue). Annually, the City Council must set a service
charge for the District following a public hearing on the proposed charge. The Special Service
District Advisory Board approved the proposed 2013 budget. The notice of public hearing was
published in the Sun Sailor on September 27 and October 11, 2012. The public hearing notice
was sent to all property owners within the District.
Special Service District No. 2 Financial Position
Special Service District No. 2 has an anticipated year-end fund balance of approximately
$28,595.
Maximum Budget / Service Charge Restriction Parameters
The budget and service charge/ special assessment do not have to be the same dollar amount
since excess operating reserves may be used in some years. By ordinance, the maximum budget
increase cannot exceed the previous year’s authorized budget amount by more than the
Consumer Price Index (CPI) increase, up to a maximum of 5%. This adjustment is based upon
the applicable CPI percentage increase for the Minneapolis/St. Paul metropolitan area. The
Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) in the Minneapolis-St. Paul area rose
3.0 percent from the first half of 2011 to the first half of 2012.
Proposed 2013 Budget and Service Charges
The Advisory Board recommended approval of the following:
• 2013 budget amount of $46,534; reflects no increase from 2012
• 2013 service charge amount of $38,534; reflects no change from 2012. Generally,
expenses typically do not reach 100% of budget. This service charge amount is
anticipated to allow the district to achieve the 50% fund balance goal which staff and
board agreed should be maintained.
The proposed resolution was reviewed by City Attorney, Tom Scott.
City Council Meeting of October 15, 2012 (Item No. 6b(2)) Page 2
Subject: 2013 Budget and Property Owner Service Charge for Special Service District No. 2
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
The Public Works Operations Division budget will incur a service charge for the City owned bus
shelter located within this district at 3929 Excelsior Boulevard. The proposed fee for 2013 is
$51.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
Attachments: 2013 Proposed Budget
Resolution w/2013 Service Charges, Attachment A
Prepared by: Mark Hanson, Public Works Operations Superintendent
Reviewed by: Michael P. Rardin, Public Work Director
Approved by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
City Council Meeting of October 15, 2012 (Item No. 6b(2)) Page 3
Subject: 2013 Budget and Property Owner Service Charge for Special Service District No. 2
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
Special Service District No. 2
2013 Budget
No.
Item
2012
Revised
Budget
2013
Proposed
Budget
6212 GENERAL SUPPLIES 200 200
6223.650 BANNER REPLACEMENT 3,000 3,000
6224 LANDSCAPING MATERIALS 4,000 6,000
6410 GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 0 0
6410.678 SSD Mgmt Services 2,000 2,000
6630.772 SSD – Snow Removal 0 0
6630.773 SSD - Site Maintenance 3,000 1,000
6630.774 SSD – Banner Install/Removal 1,000 1,000
6630.775 SSD – Irrigation Service 5,000 4,000
6630.776 SSD – Decorative Install 5,000 7,000
6630.777 SSD – Landscape Service 21,000 20,000
6950 LEGAL NOTICES 136 143
7106 PUBLIC LIABILITY INSURANCE 198 191
7207.880 SSD INFRASTRUCTURE REPAIR 0 0
7301.890 SSD ELECTRICAL SERVICE 2,000 2,000
7302 GARBAGE/REFUSE SERVICE 0 0
TOTAL EXPENDITURES 46,534 46,534
City Council Meeting of October 15, 2012 (Item No. 6b(2)) Page 4
Subject: 2013 Budget and Property Owner Service Charge for Special Service District No. 2
RESOLUTION NO. 12 -___
RESOLUTION APPROVING 2013 BUDGET
AND SERVICE CHARGES FOR
SPECIAL SERVICE DISTRICT No. 2
WHEREAS, pursuant to Ordinance No. 2093-97, the City Council created Special
Service District No. 2 (the “District”) . The specific properties located within the District are
identified on Exhibit “A” attached hereto; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Resolution No. 08-133, the City Council is authorized to
impose service charges within the District on a multi-year basis through and including the year
2018 for taxes payable in said year; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 2.04 of Resolution No. 08-133, the maximum budget to
be imposed in any year will be subject to adjustment calculations based on Consumer Price
Index (CPI) data for the Minneapolis/St. Paul Metropolitan Area; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 3 of Resolution No. 08-133, the Service Charges shall
be payable and collected at the same time and in the same manner as provided for payment and
collection of ad valorem taxes; and
WHEREAS, the City is required by Statute to certify assessments to the County by
November 21, 2012.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park as follows:
1. The 2013 Budget for Special Service District No. 2 of $46,534 is hereby approved
as recommended by the Special Service District No. 2 Advisory Board.
2. The authorized 2013 Service Charge for Special Service District No. 2 is $38,534
in the amounts and against the properties specified on Attachment “A” attached to this
Resolution.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council October 15, 2012
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK Attachment A
Special Service District #2
Estimated Annual Cost Per Parcel
Proposed 2013 Service Charge
PROPOSED PROPOSED
2013 2012
PID SERVICE SERVICE
OWNER NO.CHARGE CHARGE
3924 Excelsior Blvd Ellipse on Excelsior LLC 06-028-24-41-0003 $2,226 $2,226
3542 Minikadha Ct. Sage Company
3551 Huntington Ave. Frank Murray
4100 Excelsior Blvd Sela Roofing & Remodeling 06-028-24-41-0008 $1,292 $1,292
4120 Excelsior Blvd James & Anne Mattson 06-028-24-41-0009 $1,323 $1,323
3921 Excelsior Blvd Alberto Properties LLP 06-028-24-41-0010 $705 $705
3939 Excelsior Blvd Reuben L Anderson-Cherne, Inc. 06-028-24-41-0014 $1,107 $1,107
3500 Glenhurst Ave Gary James
4011 Excelsior Blvd Richard Hogan
4015 Excelsior Blvd Jeffery Miller
4025 Excelsior Blvd Terrance Williams
4031 Excelsior Blvd Joann Armstrong
3601 Huntington Ave. Martin & Alice Fowler
3901 Excelsior Blvd Alberto Properties LLP 06-028-24-41-0047 $1,304 $1,304
3900 Excelsior Blvd Ellipse on Excelsior LLC 06-028-24-41-0053 $3,969 $3,969
3929 Excelsior Blvd City of St. Louis Park 06-028-24-41-0067 $51 $51
3925 Excelsior Blvd A & A Agency Inc.06-028-24-41-0068 $817 $817
3947 Excelsior Blvd KMS Management 06-028-24-41-0070 $1,834 $1,834
4300 Excelsior Blvd Lyndly F Opitz & Assoc 06-028-24-43-0017 $593 $593
4306 Excelsior Blvd Lyndly F Opitz & Assoc 06-028-24-43-0018 $508 $508
4308 Excelsior Blvd Lyndly F Opitz & Assoc 06-028-24-43-0019 $699 $699
4301 Excelsior Blvd S & S Investments 06-028-24-43-0020 $1,325 $1,325
4321 Excelsior Blvd Koval Furniture & Appliance 06-028-24-43-0021 $786 $786
3757 Kipling Ave S Bruce Remmington
4409 Excelsior Blvd Samfar Real Estate Inc 06-028-24-43-0040 $693 $693
4415 Excelsior Blvd LynnJoy Holdings LLC 06-028-24-43-0041 $616 $616
4419 Excelsior Blvd Celine Properties LLC 06-028-24-43-0042 $1,426 $1,426
4424 Excelsior Blvd Bridgewater Bank 06-028-24-43-0064 $1,184 $1,184
4331 Excelsior Blvd Furniture Liquidators 06-028-24-43-0091 $1,147 $1,147
4320 Excelsior Blvd Lyndly F Opitz & Assoc 06-028-24-43-0186 $1,961 $1,961
4400 Excelsior Blvd Kamps & Associates LLC 06-028-24-43-0187 $4,728 $4,728
4140 Excelsior Blvd Larson Enterprises 06-028-24-44-0001 $2,288 $2,288
3600 Huntington Ave. Elmer Nordstrom
4115 Excelsior Blvd Kooros & Grace Rejali
4121 Excelsior Blvd Kooros & Grace Rejali
4131 Excelsior Blvd Roxanna, Kooros & Grace Rejali
4221 Excelsior Blvd Prima Investments LLC 06-028-24-44-0088 $379 $379
4143 Excelsior Blvd Sam & Pearl Bix
4201 Excelsior Blvd AMF Properties LLC 06-028-24-44-0173 $2,226 $2,226
4200 Excelsior Blvd Di-Jo-Mi Family LTD Partnership 06-028-24-44-0175 $1,509 $1,509
4150 Excelsior Blvd 4150 Excelsior Blvd. Partnership 06-028-24-44-0176 $1,838 $1,838
TOTALS:$38,534 $38,534
Notes:
1) For 2013, there were no changes from either the 2012 budget or the 2012 service charges.
2) The proposed 2013 service charge calculations are based upon the same methodology / formulas
used for the initial service charge collection.
3) The proposed 2013 budget is $46,534 but the service charge is only $38,534 because $8,000 was
transferred from reserves to lower the fund balance.
ADDRESS
City Council Meeting of October 15, 2012 (Item No. 6b(2))
Subject: 2013 Budget and Property Owner Service Charge for Special Service District No. 2 Page 5
Meeting Date: October 15, 2012
Agenda Item #: 6b(3)
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
2013 Budget and Property Owner Service Charges for Special Service District No. 3 and
extension of Special Service District through 2022
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Mayor to close public hearing. Motion to Adopt Resolution setting the 2013 Budget and
Property Owner Service Charge for Special Service District No. 3 and directing staff to certify
the annual service charges to Hennepin County.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the City Council wish to approve SSD#3 budget and property owner service charges?
BACKGROUND:
History
On April 15, 2002, the City Council approved a resolution imposing a service charge for Special
Service District No. 3 (located along Excelsior Boulevard from Quentin Avenue to Monterey
Drive/W. 38th Street). Annually, the City Council must set a service charge for the District
following a public hearing on the proposed charge. The Special Service District Advisory Board
approved the proposed 2013 budget and service charges. The notice of public hearing was
published in the Sun Sailor on September 27 and October 11, 2012. The public hearing notice
was sent to all property owners within the District.
Special Service District No. 3 Extension
The District’s 2002 multi-year service charge was for ten years expiring in 2012. Service
District members have shown interest in extending the District beyond 2012. Staff sent a
petition to each property owner to approve service charges commencing 2013 through and
including 2022. As required by law, the City has received signed petitions from the owners of at
least twenty-five percent (25%) or more of the land area of property and at least twenty-five
percent (25%) of the individuals or business organizations subject to the proposed service
charge.
Special Service District No. 3 Financial Position
Special Service District No. 3 has an anticipated year-end fund balance of approximately
$49,321.
Maximum Budget / Service Charge Restriction Parameters
The budget and service charge/ special assessment do not have to be the same dollar amount
since excess operating reserves may be used in some years. By ordinance, the maximum budget
increase cannot exceed the previous year’s authorized budget amount by more than the
Consumer Price Index (CPI) increase, up to a maximum of 5%. This adjustment is based upon
the applicable CPI percentage increase for the Minneapolis/St. Paul metropolitan area. The
Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) in the Minneapolis-St. Paul area rose
3.0 percent from the first half of 2011 to the first half of 2012.
City Council Meeting of October 15, 2012 (Item No. 6b(3)) Page 2
Subject: 2013 Budget and Property Owner Service Charges for SSD No. 3 & Extension of District thru 2022
Proposed 2013 Budget and Service Charges
The Advisory Board recommended approval of the following:
• 2013 budget amount of $63,600; reflects no increase from 2012
• 2013 service charge amount of $49,600; reflects a decrease of $6,000 from 2012. As in
past years, expenses typically do not reach 100% of budget. The expected unused budget
amount along with the service charges for 2013 is anticipated to allow the district to
achieve the goal of a 50% fund balance which staff and the board agree should be
maintained.
The proposed resolution was reviewed by City Attorney, Tom Scott.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
The City incurs a service charge for the property within this district located at 4760 Excelsior
Boulevard, which is undeveloped and owned by the St. Louis Park Economic Development
Authority. The proposed fee for 2013 is $1,081.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
Attachments: 2013 Proposed Budget
Resolution w/ 2013 Service Charges, Attachments A and B
Prepared by: Mark Hanson, Public Works Operations Superintendent
Reviewed by: Michael P. Rardin, Public Work Director
Approved by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
City Council Meeting of October 15, 2012 (Item No. 6b(3)) Page 3
Subject: 2013 Budget and Property Owner Service Charges for SSD No. 3 & Extension of District thru 2022
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
Special Service District No. 3
2013 Budget
No.
Item
2012
Revised
Budget
2013
Proposed
Budget
6212 GENERAL SUPPLIES 500 500
6223.650 BANNER REPLACEMENT 2,400 2,400
6224 LANDSCAPING MATERIALS 4,400 5,400
6410 GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 0 0
6410.678 SSD Mgmt Services 2,500 2,500
6630.772 SSD – Snow Removal 28,500 28,500
6630.773 SSD - Site Maintenance 1,000 1,000
6630.774 SSD – Banner Install/Removal 1,000 1,000
6630.775 SSD – Irrigation Service 6,000 5,000
6630.776 SSD – Decorative Install 2,400 2,400
6630.777 SSD – Landscape Service 12,500 12,500
6950 LEGAL NOTICES 127 139
7106 PUBLIC LIABILITY INSURANCE 273 261
7207.880 SSD INFRASTRUCTURE REPAIR 0 0
7301.890 SSD ELECTRICAL SERVICE 2,000 2,000
7302 GARBAGE/REFUSE SERVICE 0 0
TOTAL EXPENDITURES 63,600 63,600
City Council Meeting of October 15, 2012 (Item No. 6b(3)) Page 4
Subject: 2013 Budget and Property Owner Service Charges for SSD No. 3 & Extension of District thru 2022
RESOLUTION NO. 12 -___
RESOLUTION APPROVING 2013 BUDGET
AND SERVICE CHARGES FOR
SPECIAL SERVICE DISTRICT NO. 3
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, as follows:
Section 1. Recitals: Findings.
1.01 In 2002, pursuant to Ordinance No. 2224-02, the City created a special service
district for certain property located adjacent to Excelsior Boulevard within an area approximately
bounded by Monterey Drive westerly to Quentin Avenue. The specific properties included within
this area are identified on Attachment “A” attached hereto and generally depicted on Attachment
“B” hereto and the right-of-way adjacent thereto (the “District”). The City by Resolution No. 02-
043 also adopted a multi-year service charge through and including the year 2012.
1.02 The City has received a petition to impose a new multi-year service charge for 2013
and through and including the year 2022 from the owners of property within the District (the
"Petition").
1.03 The City Council has determined each of the following:
(a) the owners of at least twenty-five percent (25%) or more of the land area
within the District have signed the Petition;
(b) at least twenty-five percent (25%) of the individuals or business
organizations subject to the proposed service charge have signed the
Petition;
(c) only owners of property located within the District have signed the Petition;
(d) only owners of property classified under Minnesota Statutes, Section 273.13
as commercial, industrial, or public utility purposes, or that is vacant land
zoned or designated on a land use plan for commercial, industrial, or public
utility purposes, have signed the Petition; and
(e) notice of a public hearing has been given and a public hearing has been
held.
Section 2. Adoption of 2013 Budget
2.01 2013 Budget. The 2013 Budget for Special Service District No. 3 of $63,600 is
hereby approved as recommended by the Special Service District No. 3 Advisory Board.
2.02 Authorized 2013 Service Charge. The authorized 2013 Service Charge for Special
Service District No. 3 is $49,600 in the amounts and against the properties specified on Attachment
“A” attached to this Resolution.
City Council Meeting of October 15, 2012 (Item No. 6b(3)) Page 5
Subject: 2013 Budget and Property Owner Service Charges for SSD No. 3 & Extension of District thru 2022
Section 3. Imposition of Service Charge.
3.01 Amount of Service Charge. There is hereby imposed a service charge in the
amounts and against the properties specified on Attachment "A" attached hereto (the "Service
Charge").
3.02 Multi-year Service Charge. The Service Charge imposed by this resolution is a
charge for more than one year. The Service Charge will remain in effect through and including the
year 2022 for taxes payable in said year. Attachment "A" specifies the maximum cost of any
improvement to be paid for in whole or in part by the Service Charge, if any; the maximum cost of
operating and maintaining the improvements during the first year and upon completion of the
improvements; the proposed method and source of financing the improvements; and the maximum
cost of operating and maintaining the improvements. The maximum service charge imposed in
any year wi ll be adjusted as provided in Section 3.04.
3.03 Calculation of Service Charge. The Service Charge for services related to the
removal of snow and ice shall be distributed based upon the front feet of sidewalk for each parcel
in the District. The Service Charge for all other costs shall be distributed based upon the area
(square feet) of each parcel within the District and subject to the Service Charge.
3.04 Inflation Adjuster. The maximum service charge to be imposed in any year (the
"Current Year") will increase from the maximum authorized budgeted amount for the year
immediately preceding the Current Year (the "Prior Year") based upon the following:
The Consumer Price Index (All Items) for the Minneapolis/St. Paul Metropolitan
Area, published by the United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor
Statistics ("Index"), which is published for the date nearest the commencement of
the Current Year (the "Current Year Index"), shall be compared with the Index
published for the date nearest the commencement of the Prior Year (the "Prior Year
Index"). If the Current Year Index has increased over the Prior Year Index, the
Service Charge shall be increased by multiplying the Service Charge by a fraction,
the numerator of which is the Current Year Index and the denominator of which is
the Prior Year Index. If the Index is discontinued or revised, such other
government index or computation with which it is replaced shall be used in order to
obtain substantially the same result as would be obtained if the Index had not been
discontinued or revised. Notwithstanding increases in the Index of greater than five
percent (5%), the Service Charge shall not increase from any Prior Year to any
Current Year by an amount greater than five percent (5%) of the Prior Years’
Service Charge.
3.05 Distribution of Total Service Charge. The distribution of the total Service Charge
among properties within the District and subject to the Service Charge may vary and shall be
recalculated pursuant to the formula specified in Section 3.03 if and to the extent that: (i) the front
footage of sidewalks constructed on such properties increases or decreases; or (ii) a parcel
increases or decreases in size by acquisition or sale.
City Council Meeting of October 15, 2012 (Item No. 6b(3)) Page 6
Subject: 2013 Budget and Property Owner Service Charges for SSD No. 3 & Extension of District thru 2022
Section 4. Collection of Service Charges.
4.01 Collection. The Services Charges shall be payable and collected at the same time
and in the same manner as provided for payment and collection of ad valorem taxes. For purposes
of determining the appropriate tax rate, taxable property or net tax capacity shall be determined
without regard to captured or original net tax capacity under Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.177
or to the distribution or contribution value under Minnesota Statutes, Section 473F.08.
4.02 Penalty and Interest. Service Charges made payable in the same manner as
provided for payment and collection of ad valorem taxes, if not paid on or before the applicable
due date, shall be subject to the same penalty and interest as in the case of ad valorem tax amounts
not paid by the respective date.
4.03 Due Date. The due date for the Service Charge payable in the same manner as ad
valorem taxes is the due date given in law for the real or personal property tax for the property on
which the service charge is imposed. Service Charges imposed on net tax capacity which are to
become payable in the following year must be certified to the County Auditor by the date provided
in Minnesota Statutes, Section 429.061, Subd. 3 for annual certification of special assessment
installments.
Section 5. Revenue Surplus. To the extent that the total of Service Charges collected exceed
the cost of services rendered within the District, at the election of the City, either: (i) such excess
amount shall be held as a reserve to pay the cost of future services provided under this resolution;
or (ii) the next year's levy of taxes and service charges shall be decreased by a corresponding
amount.
Section 6. Recording. The City may record this Resolution against parcels located within the
District and subject to the Service Charge for the purpose of providing notice of the Service Charge
to prospective purchasers of such parcels.
Section 7. Effective Date. This Resolution shall be effective on the forty-fifth (45th) day
following adoption, which effective date shall be November 29, 2012.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council October 15, 2012
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK Attachment A
Special Service District #3
Estimated Annual Cost Per Parcel
Proposed 2013 Service Charge
Proposed Actual
2013 2012
Address Owner PID No.
Service
Charge
Service
Charge
4911 Exc Blvd J & F Reddy Rents Inc 07-028-24-21-0033 $703 $788
4907 Exc Blvd C/O Carol Lindgren 07-028-24-21-0032 $673 $755
4901 Exc Blvd Margolis Law Firm 07-028-24-21-0031 $704 $789
4825 Exc Blvd Donald W Lindall 07-028-24-21-0017 $768 $861
4821 Exc Blvd Donald W Lindall 07-028-24-21-0016 $751 $841
4811 Exc Blvd Robert B Fine 07-028-24-21-0015 $1,399 $1,568
4801 Exc Blvd Gregory Loffhagen 07-028-24-21-0252 $1,555 $1,743
4725 Exc Blvd Excelsior Investments LLC 07-028-24-21-0012 $3,321 $3,723
4701 Exc Blvd J & J Wolfe Properties LLC 07-028-24-21-0011 $2,043 $2,290
4637 Exc Blvd Michael J. Jennings 07-028-24-21-0009 $1,625 $1,822
4617 Exc Blvd Michael J. Jennings 07-028-24-12-0052 $1,569 $1,759
4615 Exc Blvd Judith McGrann 07-028-24-12-0051 $1,174 $1,316
4611 Exc Blvd Diamond Group LLC 07-028-24-12-0050 $1,470 $1,647
4601 Exc Blvd Park Blvd LLP 07-028-24-12-0049 $2,945 $3,301
4509 Exc Blvd Park Blvd LLP 07-028-24-12-0048 $2,081 $2,333
4501 Exc Blvd Chi Won Sohn 07-028-24-12-0047 $1,019 $1,142
4900 Exc Blvd Fitness International LLC 07-028-24-21-0002 $4,006 $4,491
4760 Exc Blvd SLP EDA 07-028-24-21-0258 $1,081 $1,211
4730 Exc Blvd Excelsior & Grand LLC 07-028-24-21-0256 $8,202 $9,195
4630 Exc Blvd Excelsior & Grand LLC 07-028-24-12-0175 $7,056 $7,910
4500 Exc Blvd Blakeley Props & Chalen LP ET 06-028-24-43-0191 $5,455 $6,115
Total $49,600 $55,600
Notes:
1) The proposed 2013 service charge calculations are based upon the same methodology / formulas
used for the initial service charge collection.
A) Commercial sidewalk snow removal charges are on a front footage basis.
B) All other services charges are based on the parcel's square foot area basis.
2) The proposed 2013 budget is $63,600 but the service charge is only $49,600 because $14,000 was
transferred from reserves to lower the fund balance.
City Council Meeting of October 15, 2012 (Item No. 6b(3))
Subject: 2013 Budget and Property Owner Service Charges for SSD No. 3 & Extension of District thru 2022Page 7
EXCEL
SI
O
R
B
L
V
D NATCHEZ AVE
SQUENTIN
AVE
SGRAND WAYMO
N
T
E
R
E
Y
D
R
MERID
IAN
LNPRINCETON
LNPRINCETON
AVE
S
Streetscape area covered by SSD 3
Properties within SSD 3
City Council Meeting of October 15, 2012 (Item No. 6b(3))
Subject: 2013 Budget and Property Owner Service Charges for SSD No. 3 & Extension of District thru 2022 Page 8
Meeting Date: October 15, 2012
Agenda Item #: 6b(4)
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
2013 Budget and Property Owner Service Charges for Special Service District No. 4
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Mayor to close public hearing. Motion to Adopt Resolution setting the 2013 Budget and
Property Owner Service Charges for Special Service District No. 4 and directing staff to certify
the annual service charges to Hennepin County.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the City Council wish to approve SSD #4 budget and property owner service charges?
BACKGROUND:
History
On July 18, 2005, the City Council approved a resolution imposing a service charge for Special
Service District No. 4. (located along Excelsior Boulevard west of Highway 100 to Louisiana
Avenue). Annually, the City Council must set a service charge for the District following a public
hearing on the proposed charge. The Special Service District Advisory Board approved the
proposed 2013 budget and service charges. The notice of public hearing was published in the
Sun Sailor on September 27 and October 11, 2012. The public hearing notice was sent to all
property owners within the District.
Special Service District No. 4 Financial Position
Special Service District No. 4 has an anticipated year-end fund balance of approximately
$65,941.
Maximum Budget / Service Charge Restriction Parameters
The budget and service charge/ special assessment do not have to be the same dollar amount
since excess operating reserves may be used in some years. By ordinance, the maximum budget
increase cannot exceed the previous year’s authorized budget amount by more than the
Consumer Price Index (CPI) increase, up to a maximum of 5%. This adjustment is based upon
the applicable CPI percentage increase for the Minneapolis/St. Paul metropolitan area. The
Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) in the Minneapolis-St. Paul area rose
3.0 percent from the first half of 2011 to the first half of 2012.
Proposed 2013 Budget and Service Charges
The Advisory Board recommended approval of the following:
• 2013 budget amount of $38,664; reflects no increase from 2012.
• 2013 service charge amount of $14,664; reflects no change from 2012. Generally,
expenses typically do not reach 100% of budget. The expected unused budget amount
along with the service charges for 2013 is anticipated to allow the district to achieve the
goal of a 50% fund balance which staff and the board agree should be maintained.
City Council Meeting of October 15, 2012 (Item No. 6b(4)) Page 2
Subject: 2013 Budget and Property Owner Service Charge for Special Service District No. 4
The proposed resolution was reviewed by City Attorney, Tom Scott.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
The Public Works Operations Division budget will incur a service charge for the Municipal
Parking Lot within this district, located on Excelsior Boulevard. The proposed fee for 2013 is
$428.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
Attachments: 2013 Proposed Budget
Resolution w/2013 Service Charges, Attachment A
Prepared by: Mark Hanson, Public Works Operations Superintendent
Reviewed by: Michael P. Rardin, Public Work Director
Approved by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
City Council Meeting of October 15, 2012 (Item No. 6b(4)) Page 3
Subject: 2013 Budget and Property Owner Service Charge for Special Service District No. 4
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
Special Service District No. 4
2013 Budget
No.
Item
2012
Revised
Budget
2013
Proposed
Budget
6212 GENERAL SUPPLIES 1,000 950
6223.650 BANNER REPLACEMENT 600 2,000
6224 LANDSCAPING MATERIALS 4,500 5,000
6410 GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 0 0
6410.678 SSD Mgmt Services 2,500 2,500
6630.772 SSD – Snow Removal 0 0
6630.773 SSD - Site Maintenance 2,000 1,000
6630.774 SSD – Banner Install/Removal 1,500 1,500
6630.775 SSD – Irrigation Service 5,000 5,000
6630.776 SSD – Decorative Install 3,500 4,000
6630.777 SSD – Landscape Service 16,000 16,000
6950 LEGAL NOTICES 50 56
7106 PUBLIC LIABILITY INSURANCE 164 158
7207.880 SSD INFRASTRUCTURE REPAIR 1,850 500
7301.890 SSD ELECTRICAL SERVICE 0 0
7302 GARBAGE/REFUSE SERVICE 0 0
TOTAL EXPENDITURES 38,664 38,664
City Council Meeting of October 15, 2012 (Item No. 6b(4)) Page 4
Subject: 2013 Budget and Property Owner Service Charge for Special Service District No. 4
RESOLUTION NO. 12-___
RESOLUTION APPROVING 2013 BUDGET
AND PROPERTY OWNER SERVICE CHARGES FOR
SPECIAL SERVICE DISTRICT NO. 4
WHEREAS, pursuant to Ordinance No. 2298-05, the City Council created Special
Service District No. 4 (the “District”). The specific properties located within the District are
identified on Attachment “A” attached hereto; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Resolution No. 05-100, the City Council is authorized to
impose service charges within the District on a multi-year basis through and including the year
2015 for taxes payable in said year; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 2.04 of Resolution No. 05-100, the maximum budget to
be imposed in any year will be subject to adjustment calculations based on Consumer Price
Index (CPI) data for the Minneapolis/St. Paul Metropolitan Area; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 3 of Resolution No. 05-100, the Service Charges shall
be payable and collected at the same time and in the same manner as provided for payment and
collection of ad valorem taxes; and
WHEREAS, the City is required by Statute to certify assessments to the County by
November 21, 2012.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park as follows:
1. The 2013 Budget for Special Service District No. 4 of $38,664 is hereby approved
as recommended by the Special Service District No. 4 Advisory Board.
2. The authorized 2013 Service Charge for Special Service District No. 4 is $14,664
in the amounts and against the properties specified on Attachment “A” attached to this
Resolution.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council October 15, 2012
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK Attachment A
Special Service District #4
Estimated Annual Cost Per Parcel
Proposed 2013 Service Charge
Proposed Proposed
2013 2012
PAR Service Service
NO. PID # Owner Charge Charge
1 21-117-21-32-0022 6127 Excelsior Blvd Gregory White $279 $279
2 21-117-21-32-0021 6121 Excelsior Blvd Hung LLC $345 $345
3 21-117-21-32-0006 6111 Excelsior Blvd Full Circle Equities LLC $562 $562
4 21-117-21-23-0100 6011 Excelsior Blvd Ward Properties $554 $554
5 21-117-21-23-0097 6001 Excelsior Blvd Sew What Corporation $268 $268
6 21-117-21-24-0195 5925 Excelsior Blvd Dys Properties $734 $734
7 21-117-21-24-0185 5825 Excelsior Blvd Kil-Ben Excelsior, LLC $704 $704
8 21-117-21-24-0209 5813 Excelsior Blvd Universal Outdoor, Inc. $35 $35
9 21-117-21-24-0208 5809 Excelsior Blvd C.B.S. Real Est Prtnr II LLP $239 $239
10 21-117-21-24-0161 5801 Excelsior Blvd MGV Holdings LLC $276 $276
11 21-117-21-24-0193 5717 Excelsior Blvd LMC, Inc $624 $624
12 21-117-21-24-0141 5707 Excelsior Blvd Len Paul/Gene Pretty Good LLC $475 $475
13 20-117-21-41-0009 6600 Excelsior Blvd Methodist Hospital $2,028 $2,028
14 20-117-21-14-0026 6500 Excelsior Blvd Methodist Hospital $1,074 $1,074
15* 6200 & 6250 Excelsior Blvd $1,541 $1,541
16 21-117-21-23-0130 6112 Excelsior Blvd Snyder Electric Co. $306 $306
17 21-117-21-23-0155 6100 Excelsior Blvd Laurene I Meger $213 $213
18 21-117-21-23-0128 6006 Excelsior Blvd RRK LLC $154 $154
19 21-117-21-23-0127 6002 Excelsior Blvd Firtz Inc $296 $296
20 City Municipal Parking Lot City of St. Louis Park $428 $428
21 21-117-21-23-0011 5930 Excelsior Blvd Leonard C Riley $210 $210
22 21-117-21-23-0010 5922 Excelsior Blvd Muriel B. Frederick $99 $99
23 21-117-21-23-0156 5916 Excelsior Blvd Rackner & Rackner $518 $518
24 21-117-21-24-0083 5900 Excelsior Blvd Realty Income Props 3 LLC $469 $469
25 21-117-21-24-0067 5810 Excelsior Blvd 5812 Excelsior Blvd. Co $396 $396
26 21-117-21-24-0066 5804 Excelsior Blvd 5804 Excelsior Blvd., LLC $338 $338
27 21-117-21-24-0040 5720 Excelsior Blvd Holiday Stationstores Inc. $597 $597
28 21-117-21-24-0202 5608 Excelsior Blvd Helmut Mauer $367 $367
29 21-117-21-24-0019 5600 Excelsior Blvd Payday America Inc. $535 $535
$14,664 $14,664
**6200 & 6250 Excelsior Blvd Charges 2013 2012
21-117-21-32-0133 6200 Excelsior Blvd 101 RE 1 LLC $90 $90
21-117-21-32-0134 6200 Excelsior Blvd 102 Charles and Janice Woodson $94 $94
21-117-21-32-0135 6200 Excelsior Blvd 103 Laurie G Holasek $91 $91
21-117-21-32-0136 6200 Excelsior Blvd 104 Laurie G Holasek $102 $102
21-117-21-32-0137 6200 Excelsior Blvd 201 Dennis and Lois Schlutter $87 $87
21-117-21-32-0138 6200 Excelsior Blvd 202 Dennis and Lois Schlutter $91 $91
21-117-21-32-0139 6200 Excelsior Blvd 203 Unite Rope Holland Dist $119 $119
21-117-21-32-0140 6200 Excelsior Blvd 204 Dennis and Lois Schlutter $105 $105
21-117-21-32-0141 6250 Excelsior Blvd 101 Nemer Fieger & Assoc Inc $96 $96
21-117-21-32-0142 6250 Excelsior Blvd 102 Lgh Properties LLC $89 $89
21-117-21-32-0143 6250 Excelsior Blvd 103 Donald J & Joyce E Borgen $98 $98
21-117-21-32-0144 6250 Excelsior Blvd 104 Lgh Properties LLC $88 $88
21-117-21-32-0145 6250 Excelsior Blvd 201 James V and June M Fieger $94 $94
21-117-21-32-0146 6250 Excelsior Blvd 202 Skads Travel Service Inc $85 $85
21-117-21-32-0147 6250 Excelsior Blvd 203 Lgh Properties LLC $124 $124
21-117-21-32-0148 6250 Excelsior Blvd 204 Joseph Urista $88 $88
$1,541 $1,541
Notes:
* Denotes properties with a single street address but have sub-units that are independently owned.
1) For 2013, there were no changes from either the 2012 budget or the 2012 service charges.
2) The proposed 2013 service charge calculations are based upon the same methodology / formulas
used for the initial service charge collection.
3) The proposed 2013 budget is $38,664 but the service charge is only $14,664 because $24,000 was
transferred from reserves to lower the fund balance.
Address
City Council Meeting of October 15, 2012 (Item No. 6b(4))
Subject: 2013 Budget and Property Owner Service Charge for Special Service District No. 4 Page 5
Meeting Date: October 15, 2012
Agenda Item #: 6b(5)
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
2013 Budget and Property Owner Service Charges for Special Service District No. 5
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Mayor to close public hearing. Motion to Adopt Resolution setting the 2013 Budget and
Property Owner Service Charge for Special Service District No. 5 and directing staff to certify
the annual service charges to Hennepin County.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the City Council wish to approve SSD #5 budget and property owner service charges?
BACKGROUND:
History
On February 2, 2009, the City Council approved a resolution imposing a service charge for
Special Service District No. 5 (located along Park Place Boulevard between I-394 and Cedar
Lake Road). Annually, the City Council must set a service charge for the District following a
public hearing on the proposed charge. The Special Service District Advisory Board approved
the proposed 2013 budget and service charges. The notice of public hearing was published in the
Sun Sailor on September 27 and October 11, 2012. The public hearing notice was sent to all
property owners within the District.
Special Service District No. 5 Financial Position
Special Service District No. 5 has an anticipated year-end fund balance of approximately
$24,037.
Maximum Budget / Service Charge Restriction Parameters
The budget and service charge/ special assessment do not have to be the same dollar amount
since excess operating reserves may be used in some years. By ordinance, the maximum budget
increase cannot exceed the previous year’s authorized budget amount by more than the
Consumer Price Index (CPI) increase, up to a maximum of 5%. This adjustment is based upon
the applicable CPI percentage increase for the Minneapolis/St. Paul metropolitan area. The
Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) in the Minneapolis-St. Paul area rose
3.0 percent from the first half of 2011 to the first half of 2012.
Proposed 2013 Budget and Service Charges
The Advisory Board recommended approval of the following:
• 2013 budget amount of $27,198; an increase of $500 (1.9%) from 2012.
• 2013 service charge amount of $18,698; an increase of $6,000 from 2012. Generally,
expenses typically do not reach 100% of budget. The expected unused budget amount
along with the service charges for 2012 is anticipated to allow the district to achieve the
goal of a 50% fund balance which staff and the board agree should be maintained.
City Council Meeting of October 15, 2012 (Item No. 6b(5)) Page 2
Subject: 2013 Budget and Property Owner Service Charges for Special Service District No. 5
The proposed resolution was reviewed by City Attorney, Tom Scott.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
Attachments: 2013 Proposed Budget
Resolution w/2013 Service Charges, Attachment A
Prepared by: Mark Hanson, Public Works Operations Superintendent
Reviewed by: Michael P. Rardin, Public Work Director
Approved by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
City Council Meeting of October 15, 2012 (Item No. 6b(5)) Page 3
Subject: 2013 Budget and Property Owner Service Charges for Special Service District No. 5
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
Special Service District No. 5
2013 Budget
No.
Item
2012
Revised
Budget
2013
Proposed
Budget
6212 GENERAL SUPPLIES 500 500
6223.650 BANNER REPLACEMENT 0 0
6224 LANDSCAPING MATERIALS 2,000 5,000
6410 GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 0 0
6410.678 SSD Mgmt Services 3,250 3,250
6630.772 SSD – Snow Removal 0 0
6630.773 SSD - Site Maintenance 1,000 500
6630.774 SSD – Banner Install/Removal 1,000 1,000
6630.775 SSD – Irrigation Service 5,000 3,000
6630.776 SSD – Decorative Install 3,000 3,000
6630.777 SSD – Landscape Service 9,000 9,000
6950 LEGAL NOTICES 135 136
7106 PUBLIC LIABILITY INSURANCE 113 112
7207 SSD INFRASTRUCTURE REPAIR 300 300
7301.890 SSD ELECTRICAL SERVICE 1,400 1,400
7302 GARBAGE/REFUSE SERVICE 0 0
TOTAL EXPENDITURES 26,698 27,198
City Council Meeting of October 15, 2012 (Item No. 6b(5)) Page 4
Subject: 2013 Budget and Property Owner Service Charges for Special Service District No. 5
RESOLUTION NO. 12-____
RESOLUTION APPROVING 2013 BUDGET
AND SERVICE CHARGES FOR
SPECIAL SERVICE DISTRICT NO. 5
WHEREAS, pursuant to Ordinance No. 2371-09, the City Council created Special
Service District No. 5 (the “District”). The specific properties located within the District are
identified on Attachment “A” attached hereto; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Resolutions No. 09-021, the City Council is authorized to
impose service charges within the District on a multi-year basis through and including the year
2019 for taxes payable in said year; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 2.04 of Resolution No. 09-021, the maximum budget to
be imposed in any year will be subject to adjustment calculations based on Consumer Price
Index (CPI) data for the Minneapolis/St. Paul Metropolitan Area; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 3 of Resolution No. 09-021, the Service Charges shall
be payable and collected at the same time and in the same manner as provided for payment and
collection of ad valorem taxes; and
WHEREAS, the City is required by Statute to certify assessments to the County by
November 21, 2012.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park as follows:
1. The 2013 Budget for Special Service District No. 5 of $27,198 is hereby approved
as recommended by the Special Service District No. 5 Advisory Board.
2. The authorized 2013 Service Charge for Special Service District No. 5 is $18,698
in the amounts and against the properties specified on Attachment “A” attached to this
Resolution.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council October 15, 2012
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK Attachment A
Special Service District #5
Estimated Annual Cost Per Parcel
Proposed 2013 Service Charge
Proposed Proposed
2013 2012
PID Address Owner
Service
Charge
Service
Charge
04-117-21-31-0018 5611 Wayzata Blvd KK Corporation $721 $490
04-117-21-31-0019 1500 Park Place Blvd Doubletree Hotel $4,234 $2,875
04-117-21-34-0043 5600 Cedar Lake Rd Inland Real Estate Corp $1,515 $1,029
04-117-21-34-0044 1690 Park Place Blvd James & Patricia Oslund $667 $453
04-117-21-34-0045 1650 Park Place Blvd Inland Real Estate Corp $820 $556
04-117-21-34-0046 1620 Park Place Blvd Inland Real Estate Corp $743 $505
04-117-21-34-0047 5699 16th St W Inland Real Estate Corp $746 $507
04-117-21-34-0049 1700 Park Place Blvd Costco Wholesale $584 $397
04-117-21-34-0050 5601 16th St W Inland Ryan LLC $572 $388
30-029-24-32-0026 5353 Wayzata Blvd 5353 Wayzata LLC $1,477 $1,003
30-029-24-33-0011 5401 Gamble Dr Parkdale Property LLC $1,305 $886
30-029-24-33-0015 5402 Parkdale Dr Parkdale Property LLC $2,360 $1,603
30-029-24-32-0022 5370 16th St W Shops at West End $667 $453
30-029-24-33-0031 1600 West End Blvd Shops at West End $2,287 $1,553
$18,698 $12,698
Notes:
1) The proposed 2013 service charge calculations are based upon the same methodology / formulas
used for the initial service charge collection.
2) The 2013 budget is $27,198 but the service charge is only $18,698 because $8,500 was transferred
from reserves to lower the fund balance.
City Council Meeting of October 15, 2012 (Item No. 6b(5))
Subject: 2013 Budget and Property Owner Service Charges for Special Service District No. 5 Page 5
Meeting Date: October 15, 2012
Agenda Item #: 6b(6)
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
2013 Budget and Property Owner Service Charges for Special Service District No. 6
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Mayor to close public hearing. Motion to Adopt Resolution setting the 2013 Budget and
Property Owner Service Charges for Special Service District No. 6 and directing staff to certify
the annual service charges to Hennepin County.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the City Council wish to approve SSD #6 budget and property owner service charges?
BACKGROUND:
History
On June 15, 2009, the City Council approved a resolution imposing a service charge for Special
Service District No. 6 (located along 36th Street W. from Wooddale Avenue to Highway 100).
Annually, the City Council must set a service charge for the District following a public hearing
on the proposed charge. The Special Service District Advisory Board approved the proposed
2013 budget and service charges. The notice of public hearing was published in the Sun Sailor
on September 27 and October 11, 2012. The public hearing notice was sent to all property
owners within the District.
Special Service District No. 6 Financial Position
Special Service District No. 6 has an anticipated year-end fund balance of approximately
$18,257.
Maximum Budget / Service Charge Restriction Parameters
The budget and service charge/ special assessment do not have to be the same dollar amount
since excess operating reserves may be used in some years. By ordinance, the maximum budget
increase cannot exceed the previous year’s authorized budget amount by more than the
Consumer Price Index (CPI) increase, up to a maximum of 5%. This adjustment is based upon
the applicable CPI percentage increase for the Minneapolis/St. Paul metropolitan area. The
Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) in the Minneapolis-St. Paul area rose
3.0 percent from the first half of 2011 to the first half of 2012.
Proposed 2013 Budget and Service Charges
The Advisory Board recommended approval of the following:
• 2013 budget amount of $25,155; an increase of $500 (2.0%) from 2012
• 2013 service charge amount of $19,155; an increase of $2,500 from 2012. Generally,
expenses typically do not reach 100% of budget. The expected unused budget amount
along with the service charges for 2013 is anticipated to allow the district to achieve the
goal of a 50% fund balance which staff and the board agree should be maintained.
City Council Meeting of October 15, 2012 (Item No. 6b(6)) Page 2
Subject: 2013 Budget and Property Owner Service Charges for Special Service District No. 6
The proposed resolution was reviewed by City Attorney, Tom Scott.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
The City incurs service charges within this district for properties located at 3575 Wooddale
Avenue, 5814 36th St W. and 5816 36th St W. The proposed total service charges for 2013 are
$1,755.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
Attachments: 2013 Proposed Budget
Resolution w/2013 Service Charges, Attachment A
Prepared by: Mark Hanson, Public Works Operations Superintendent
Reviewed by: Michael P. Rardin, Public Works Director
Approved by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
City Council Meeting of October 15, 2012 (Item No. 6b(6)) Page 3
Subject: 2013 Budget and Property Owner Service Charges for Special Service District No. 6
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
Special Service District No. 6
2013 Budget
No.
Item
2012
Revised
Budget
2013
Proposed
Budget
6212 GENERAL SUPPLIES 400 200
6223.650 BANNER REPLACEMENT 0 0
6224 LANDSCAPING MATERIALS 3,700 3,700
6410 GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 0 0
6410.678 SSD Mgmt Services 2,500 2,500
6630.772 SSD – Snow Removal 0 0
6630.773 SSD - Site Maintenance 1,000 1,000
6630.774 SSD – Banner Install/Removal 1,000 1,000
6630.775 SSD – Irrigation Service 3,300 3,000
6630.776 SSD – Decorative Install 3,500 3,500
6630.777 SSD – Landscape Service 9,000 9,000
6950 LEGAL NOTICES 150 151
7106 PUBLIC LIABILITY INSURANCE 105 104
7207.880 SSD INFRASTRUCTURE REPAIR 0 1000
7301.890 SSD ELECTRICAL SERVICE 0 0
7302 GARBAGE/REFUSE SERVICE 0 0
TOTAL EXPENDITURES 24,655 25,155
City Council Meeting of October 15, 2012 (Item No. 6b(6)) Page 4
Subject: 2013 Budget and Property Owner Service Charges for Special Service District No. 6
RESOLUTION NO. 12-___
RESOLUTION APPROVING 2013 BUDGET
AND PROPERTY OWNER SERVICE CHARGES FOR
SPECIAL SERVICE DISTRICT NO. 6
WHEREAS, pursuant to Ordinance No. 2374-09, the City Council created Special
Service District No. 6 (the “District”). The specific properties located within the District are
identified on Attachment “A” attached hereto; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Resolution No. 09-078, the City Council is authorized to
impose service charges within the District on a multi-year basis through and including the year
2019 for taxes payable in said year; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 2.04 of Resolution No. 09-078, the maximum budget to
be imposed in any year will be subject to adjustment calculations based on Consumer Price
Index (CPI) data for the Minneapolis/St. Paul Metropolitan Area; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 3 of Resolution No. 09-078, the Service Charges shall
be payable and collected at the same time and in the same manner as provided for payment and
collection of ad valorem taxes; and
WHEREAS, the City is required by Statute to certify assessments to the County by
November 21, 2012.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park as follows:
1. The 2013 Budget for Special Service District No. 6 of $25,155 is hereby approved
as recommended by the Special Service District No. 6 Advisory Board.
2. The authorized 2013 Service Charge for Special Service District No. 6 is $19,155
in the amounts and against the properties specified on Attachment “A” attached to this
Resolution.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council October 15, 2012
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK Attachment A
Special Service District #6
Estimated Annual Cost Per Parcel
Proposed 2013 Service Charge
Proposed Proposed
2013 2012
PID Address Owner Service Charge Service Charge
16-117-21-34-0027 3601 Wooddale Ave Wooddale Catered LVG Owner $3,315 $2,882
16-117-21-34-0355 5600 36th St W Jule Mgmt LLC $3,103 $2,697
16-117-21-34-0073 5605 36th St W 36th Street LLC $2,952 $2,566
16-117-21-34-0068 5800 36th St W Standal Properties Inc $1,755 $1,526
16-117-21-34-0040 5700 36th St W Standal Properties Inc $1,755 $1,526
16-117-21-34-0077 5721 36th St W Arnold R Bloomquist $1,232 $1,071
16-117-21-34-0072 5701 36th St W M A Lerner & S O Lerner $1,108 $963
16-117-21-34-0024 3575 Wooddale Ave City of St. Louis Park $585 $509
16-117-21-34-0042 5814 36th St W City of St. Louis Park $585 $509
16-117-21-34-0041 5816 36th St W City of St. Louis Park $585 $509
16-117-21-34-0038 5724 36th St W LRJ of Minnesota Ltd Partnership $585 $509
16-117-21-34-0071 5718 36th St W M A Lerner & S O Lerner $585 $509
16-117-21-34-0046 5727 36th St W R & SA Investment LLC $585 $509
16-117-21-34-0015 3536 State Hwy No 100 S SLMB LLC $425 $370
16-117-21-34-0001 5810 37th St W Wooddale Catered LVG Owner $0 $0
Total $19,155 $16,655
Notes:
1) The proposed 2013 service charge calculations are based upon the same methodology / formulas
used for the initial service charge collection.
2) The proposed 2013 budget is $25,155 but the service charge is only $19,155 because $6,000 was paid
from reserves to lower the fund balance.
City Council Meeting of October 15, 2012 (Item No. 6b(6))
Subject: 2013 Budget and Property Owner Service Charges for Special Service District No. 6 Page 5
Meeting Date: October 15, 2012
Agenda Item #: 8a
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Eliot Park Apartments – Comprehensive Plan Amendment from Civic to High Density and Low
Density Residential
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
• Motion to Adopt Resolution amending the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map to allow
for High Density Residential (RH) and Low Density Residential (RL) on the Eliot School
site and authorize publication of summary resolution.
• Alternatively, the Council may wish to direct the Staff to prepare a resolution consistent
with the Planning Commission’s recommendation to designate the site for Medium (RM)
and Low Density Residential (RL).
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the City Council support the request to modify the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map to
facilitate rezoning and PUD for the redevelopment of the Eliot School site for a combination of
apartments and single family homes?
REQUEST:
Eliot Park Apartments, LLC (Hunt & Associates) has requested an amendment to the 2030
Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map for 6720 and 6800 Cedar Lake Road. This amendment would:
• Modify the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map from Civic to High Density Residential
(RH) on the majority of the site, and to Low Density Residential (RL) to the north.
• Allow the applicant to request a rezoning of the property, approval of a Planned Unit
Development (PUD) and platting of the property for its development proposal.
The Comprehensive Plan amendment must be approved
prior to review of other applications that would allow the
developer’s proposal to move forward.
The development proposal for the site includes two 72-
unit apartment buildings of two and three stories in
height, and three new single family lots, for a total of
147 new residential units.
A detailed map depicting the Comprehensive Plan map
amendment is attached.
Background:
The St. Louis Park School District listed the Eliot School property for sale in 2011, and Eliot
Park Apartments, LLC (Hunt & Associates) has entered into a purchase agreement with the
School District for the site.
RH – High Density
Residential
City Council Meeting of October 15, 2012 (Item No. 8a) Page 2
Subject: Eliot Park Apartments – Comprehensive Plan Amendment
The developer held a neighborhood meeting on July 17th to obtain input on the proposed
redevelopment. Following the neighborhood meeting, the City Council reviewed the proposal at
a Study Session on July 23rd.
Development Proposal:
The proposed development is for two new market rate apartment buildings with a total of 144
units and underground parking, and three new single family lots. The existing school building
would be razed. Each apartment building would have a total of 72 units. The proposed three
new single family lots would be sold to a different development group, although Hunt &
Associates would be consulted about the homes’ design. Graphics and plans depicting the
proposed apartment buildings are included as attachments.
The proposed buildings are mostly three stories in height, and reduced to two stories in areas
near existing homes. The proposed site plan includes areas for stormwater management, outdoor
recreation, and landscaping.
Parking for residents would be provided underground, with additional guest parking on a private
street between the two buildings. As proposed in the concept plan, the development exceeds the
parking requirements found in the Zoning Ordinance, with a total of 210 spaces; 200 are
required. There is also proof-of-parking available in the adjacent lot to the east of the site, across
Hampshire should a need for even more parking become apparent in the future. All proposed
parking spaces are accommodated on-site; no on-street parking is included in the parking
calculation.
The concept site plan was designed to allow for additional setback area to the north of the site.
There is adequate space to the north of the apartments for the development of three new single
family lots. As proposed, one lot faces Hampshire and two lots face Idaho. Together with the
apartment buildings, a total of 147 new residential units are proposed for the site. The overall
density of the site would be 34.4 units per acre.
Site Conditions:
The site is 4.27 acres in size and features a vacant multi-level school building. There is also a
playground on the northern portion of the site. The school building is not being used and is in
relatively poor condition. It would be razed as part of the development proposal.
Located between Idaho and Hampshire Avenues, and just north of Cedar Lake Road, the
proposed development site is surrounded on all sides by single family homes. The site is located
at a high point in the City; as such, the northern half of the site drains to the north, and the
southern half to the south. As a result, it is located in two separate watersheds, with separate
governing authorities (Bassett Creek Water Management Organization and Minnehaha Creek
Watershed District).
Comprehensive Plan Amendment:
The current request is to change the overall Comprehensive Land Use Plan to allow
redevelopment of this site. City ordinance requires that the Land Use Plan be changed prior to
consideration of the zoning and development review of the site. Detailed site plans would be
analyzed and brought forth with applications for rezoning, PUD, and plats following the
Comprehensive Plan amendment. A summary of the proposed development is provided below;
further detailed analysis will be undertaken with future development applications.
City Council Meeting of October 15, 2012 (Item No. 8a) Page 3
Subject: Eliot Park Apartments – Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Evaluation of Request:
The request is to change the designation on the Comprehensive Plan from “Civic” to “RH – High
Density” and “RL – Low Density” residential.
A request for amending the City’s land use plan and zoning map should be evaluated from the
perspective of land use planning principles and community goals. These reflect the community’s
long range vision and broad goals about what kind of community it wants to be and what makes
strong neighborhoods.
In the case of the Eliot School site, an amendment request has been anticipated since the School
District decided to close the Eliot Community Center in 2010. To help plan for the expected
amendment request, a process to guide development for the site was also completed and adopted
by reference into the Comprehensive Plan, called the “Eliot Community Center Site Reuse Study
/ Design Guidelines.” The guidelines can be found on the City’s website, at:
http://www.stlouispark.org/webfiles/file/Comm_Dev/design_guidelines_report_final.pdf.
General Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan:
The City’s land use plan is built from the broad goals, policies and implementation strategies
incorporated in the Comprehensive Plan. These elements are the basis for evaluating the
requested change.
The proposed change to the Comprehensive Plan map meets many principles found in the Land
Use chapter, including:
- walkable, mixed-use neighborhoods
- accessible to the neighborhood
- human scale development
- unique community and neighborhood identity
Changing the Comprehensive Plan map will allow for a new housing type in the immediate area
surrounding the segment of Cedar Lake Road. At the present time, the area is dominated by
single family houses constructed in the 1950s and 60s. The Comprehensive Plan calls for an
increase in the availability of neighborhood housing choices and a broader range of housing
types. The proposed development would do so, while also providing a buffer between existing
homes and the new apartments both through the use of setback and the creation of three new
single family lots. This buffer / transition area is another strategy discussed in the
Comprehensive Plan to meet goals for residential areas of the City.
Consistency with the Eliot Community Center Design Guidelines:
In anticipation of redevelopment of the site, design guidelines for the Eliot School site were
proactively developed with the neighborhood in 2010. The process of creating the design
guidelines included extensive neighborhood input, including a neighborhood committee that
reviewed and recommended the final design guidelines document to the City Council. The City
Council adopted the design guidelines document by reference into the Comprehensive Plan. The
site reuse principles include:
1. Mix of Medium Density Residential Land Uses
The Guidelines suggest a mix of Medium Density (RM) residential land uses would be
appropriate for the site. The developer is proposing a mix of uses with apartment
buildings and three new single family lots to the north to provide a buffer for the existing
homes. In response to City Council interest in more multi-bedroom units, the Developer
City Council Meeting of October 15, 2012 (Item No. 8a) Page 4
Subject: Eliot Park Apartments – Comprehensive Plan Amendment
has changed four 2-bedroom units to 3-bedroom units further increasing the mix of
housing opportunities provided by the proposed development.
As proposed, the development is slightly over the “RM” units per acre allowances in the
Comprehensive Plan and the Developer therefore applied for High Density (RH)
designation in the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. Medium Density allows up to 30 units per
acre; the proposed development equates to slightly over that amount, at 34.4 units per acre.
Beyond the number of units per acre however, the Developer has proposed a number of
site and building attributes that reduce the overall impact of the buildings on the site. The
maximum height is 3 stories, with several 2 story portions of the buildings. This is in
contrast to the up to 5 stories suggested in the guidelines.
In addition, because the proposal includes a vast amount of underground parking, the site
has a large amount of green space it would not otherwise have with surface parking. The
site plan shows approximately 48% in green space overall. This is a strong attribute of
the proposed plan, because it reduces the overall intensity of development on the site.
While density is often calculated by units per acre, this calculation does not tell the
whole story. Units per acre does not take into account the number of bedrooms per unit,
or the impact that it might have. The Developer could alter the number of units by
changing the mix of one, two and three-bedroom units, however this could result in more
bedrooms overall, which may not result in reduced impacts in the area.
The mix of units in the proposed buildings is guided by information provided to the
Developer by his market research firm.
Summary
The proposal would require the property to be designated a combination of High Density
“RH” and Low Density “RL” in the Comprehensive Plan, resulting in 34.4 units per acre
overall, just slightly over the Medium Density “RM” designation of 30 units per acre.
Density as determined by “units per acre” alone does not include other measures of
project density and intensity of site use, such as height, green space, or impervious
surfaces. A five story building on the development site would have substantially
different impacts to the neighborhood in contrast to the current proposal. The specific
number of units per acre in this development is mitigated by fact that the buildings are
just 2 and 3-stories in height, and the underground parking results in green space on 48%
of the site. Through the combination of these items, the site plan works to limit the
density overall on the site as suggested in the Design Guidelines.
2. Transition Building Heights across the Site from South to North
The guidelines called for building heights of between two and five stories, with the
higher structures to be located near Cedar Lake Road, tapering to a lower height at the
north end of the site. As proposed, the apartment buildings will be three and two stories
in height with a flat roof. The proposed height of the building is approximately 38 feet
for the three story portions. The two story step-down portions of the buildings are located
closest to the north end of the site. The single family lots to the north of the apartments
also allow for a transition between the apartment buildings and the existing neighbors,
and should be scaled appropriately to meet the current standards for new single family
houses. A height diagram from the design guidelines is attached for review.
City Council Meeting of October 15, 2012 (Item No. 8a) Page 5
Subject: Eliot Park Apartments – Comprehensive Plan Amendment
3. Complement Existing Development Scale and Character
The proposed apartment buildings would be three stories with segments at two stories.
Resident parking would be provided underground. Setbacks for the buildings along the
east and west sides of the site would mimic the existing setbacks for nearby single family
homes. The massing of the buildings is sensitive to its surroundings.
4. Neighborhood Open Space
Included in the site plan is a mini-park area to serve neighborhood residents with
children. The mini-park would be located near the south side of the site, in the open area
recommended in the design guidelines. The building setbacks incorporate generous
green spaces that will maintain the neighborhood’s aesthetically pleasing streetscape
areas. A private roadway is also proposed between the two apartment buildings;
neighborhood access through that roadway, particularly for pedestrian access, will be
maintained.
Open space on the site is increased due to the location of parking for apartment residents.
Proposed underground parking will accommodate all resident parking and some guest
parking; by placing the parking below the buildings, the developer made possible the
wide setback areas with more space for Designed Outdoor Recreation Area (DORA) and
additional landscaping. It is expected that the DORA and landscaping proposed for the
site will exceed the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance due to the substantial amount
of space reserved around the buildings for resident and neighborhood use.
5. Community Landmark and Neighborhood Gateway
The developer has provided elevation drawings depicting the proposed materials and
design of the apartment buildings. The intent is that the buildings will respect the
previous presence of Eliot School along Cedar Lake Road, while preserving the green
space in the site’s southwest corner. The developer has stated that the buildings will be
designed at a level of quality and workmanship commensurate with the original school
building.
6. Neighborhood Connectivity
The development proposal includes an east-west connection through the site. It allows
pedestrian access between Hampshire and Idaho, without encouraging cut through
neighborhood vehicular traffic. The area is well-served by existing City streets already.
7. Redevelopment Feasibility
The proposed development is consistent with the terms of the developer’s agreement with
the School District. At the proposed development density, the development is expected
to be feasible. The developer expects to request financial assistance from the City in the
form of Tax-Increment Financing, to fund some of the extraordinary site costs such as
demolition of the school building and the construction of underground parking. Details
regarding the TIF request are not yet available, as the official application has not been
submitted to the City.
8. Owner-Occupied Housing
Based on current market conditions, the developer plans to construct market-rate
apartments that will be offered for lease. Staff concurs with the developer regarding the
feasibility of constructing owner-occupied housing at this time. It is possible that the
apartment buildings could be converted to owner-occupied housing in the future.
City Council Meeting of October 15, 2012 (Item No. 8a) Page 6
Subject: Eliot Park Apartments – Comprehensive Plan Amendment
It is expected that the three new single family lots created as part of the project will result
in three new owner-occupied houses.
9. School Building Reuse
The developer and City Inspection’s Staff have reviewed the condition of the existing
school building. Reuse of the building is not feasible at this time.
10. Interim Property Maintenance
The City continues to work with the School District to ensure the building is maintained
in a safe condition as the development request proceeds.
Impacts to Surrounding Properties and the Physical Character of the Neighborhood
Redevelopment of the Eliot School site has been expected since 2010, when the School District
indicated that the site would be sold. With the removal of the existing school building, there will
be some changes to the character of the neighborhood. The proposed development follows the
height, massing, and articulation recommendations of the design guidelines, and in doing so
minimizes the impacts of redevelopment on surrounding properties.
The greatest change to the physical character of the neighborhood will be the loss of the open
space to the north of the existing school building. The City’s Parks and Recreation Department
has indicated that the area was reviewed and found to have adequate park amenities already in
place; for this reason, the Comprehensive Plan does not call for any additions to the City’s park
system in this area. The developer has retained some of the open space characteristics of the
area, and has shown an interest in adding a mini-park area at the south end of the site to install a
play area for neighborhood use.
Public Process:
To date, the following meetings and communications have occurred:
• July 9 th, 2012: City Council Study Session Report on Development Proposal
• July 18th, 2012: Neighborhood Input Meeting, held at the West End
• July 23rd, 2012: City Council Study Session Discussion
• August 9th, 2012: Housing Authority Summary Review of Development
• August 16th, 2012: Planning Commission Summary Review of Development
• August 21st, 2012: Staff orders Traffic Study
• September 12th, 2012: Neighborhood notice of Planning Commission meeting
• September 19th, 2012: Planning Commission Public Hearing
If the Comprehensive Plan map amendment is approved, the developer intends to apply for the
necessary zoning approvals. The developer is also in the process of preparing their project’s
financial pro-forma. It is anticipated that the developer will seek tax-increment financing (TIF)
assistance.
An additional neighborhood meeting may be held between the approval of the Comprehensive
Plan map amendment and the submittal of additional applications for rezoning, PUD and
preliminary plat. The neighborhood meeting would be another chance for neighbors to review
the proposal in more detail and provide input regarding the development.
City Council Meeting of October 15, 2012 (Item No. 8a) Page 7
Subject: Eliot Park Apartments – Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Availability of Infrastructure:
The City Engineer has reviewed the proposed development and found the underground
infrastructure (water and sewer) in the area to be adequate to serve the proposed development. A
traffic study is currently underway to review the capacity of adjacent roadways. Traffic has been
noted as an important issue for neighbors in the area. The Comprehensive Plan identifies Cedar
Lake Road as an “A Minor Augmentor.” Between now and 2030, there is the possibility that
there may be some capacity issues for Cedar Lake Road, so the traffic study will include analysis
of how the proposed development will impact the overall number of vehicle trips in the area.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION:
On September 19th, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the Comprehensive Plan
Amendment. Several people were present to speak (draft minutes are attached). The
Commission recommended denial of the application as presented, and instead approved a motion
to recommend the Comprehensive Plan be changed to Medium Density residential rather than
High Density residential. The Commission believed that the Medium Density designation was
more consistent with the Design Guidelines dwelling unit per acre standard for the site.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
None at this time.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
St. Louis Park is a connected and engaged community, including keeping its neighborhoods
strong.
Attachments: Resolution
Summary Resolution for Publication
Planning Commission Draft Minutes from 9-19-12
Comprehensive Plan Map – Existing/Proposed – Eliot School Area
Excerpt, Eliot School Design Guidelines
Proposed Development Site Plan and Related Documents
Eliot School Redevelopment Site: Housing Authority Board Comments
Prepared by: Meg McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor
Reviewed by: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
City Council Meeting of October 15, 2012 (Item No. 8a) Page 8
Subject: Eliot Park Apartments – Comprehensive Plan Amendment
RESOLUTION NO. 12-____
A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE 2030
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
UNDER MINNESOTA STATUTES 462.351 TO 462.364
6720 and 6800 CEDAR LAKE ROAD
WHEREAS, the 2030 Comprehensive Plan was adopted by the City Council on
December 21, 2009 and provides the following:
1. An official statement serving as the basic guide in making land use, transportation and
community facilities and service decisions affecting the City.
2. A framework for policies and actions leading to the improvement of the physical,
financial, and social environment of the City, thereby providing a good place to live and work
and a setting conducive for new development.
3. A promotion of the public interest in establishing a more functional, healthful,
interesting, and efficient community by serving the interests of the community at large rather
than the interests of individual or special groups within the community if their interests are at
variance with the public interest.
4. An effective framework for direction and coordination of activities affecting the
development and preservation of the community.
5. Treatment of the entire community as one ecosystem and to inject long range
considerations into determinations affecting short-range action; and
WHEREAS, the use of such Comprehensive Plan will insure a safer, more pleasant, and
more economical environment for residential, commercial, industrial, and public activities and
will promote the public health, safety, and general welfare; and
WHEREAS, said Plan will prepare the community for anticipated desirable change,
thereby bringing about significant savings in both private and public expenditures; and
WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan has taken due cognizance of the planning activities
of adjacent units of government; and
WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan is to be periodically reviewed by the Planning
Commission of the City of St. Louis Park and amendments made, if justified according to
procedures, rules, and laws, and provided such amendments would provide a positive result and
are consistent with other provisions in the Comprehensive Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of St. Louis Park recommended
denial of an amendment to the 2030 Comprehensive Plan for High Density Residential and
recommended approval of an amendment for Medium and Low Density Residential on
September 19, 2012; and
City Council Meeting of October 15, 2012 (Item No. 8a) Page 9
Subject: Eliot Park Apartments – Comprehensive Plan Amendment
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the advice and recommendation of the
Planning Commission (Case No. 12-24-CP); and
WHEREAS, the contents of Planning Case File Case No. 12-24-CP are hereby entered
into and made part of the public hearing record and the record of decision for this case.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of St. Louis Park that
the Comprehensive Plan, as previously adopted by the Planning Commission and City Council,
is hereby amended as follows:
Change the land use designation as shown on the attached map from CIV - Civic to a
combination of RH – High Density Residential and RL – Low Density Residential.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council October 15, 2012
Contingent upon approval of the Metropolitan
Council
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
City Council Meeting of October 15, 2012 (Item No. 8a) Page 10
Subject: Eliot Park Apartments – Comprehensive Plan Amendment
SUMMARY
RESOLUTION NO. 12-____
A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE 2030
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
UNDER MINNESOTA STATUTES 462.351 TO 462.364
6720 and 6800 Cedar Lake Road
This resolution states that the Comprehensive Plan designation of 6720 and 6800 Cedar Lake
Road will be changed from CIV–Civic to a combination of RH – High Density Residential and
RL – Low Density Residential.
Adopted by the City Council October 15, 2012
Contingent upon approval of the Metropolitan Council
Jeffrey W. Jacobs /s/
Mayor
A copy of the full text of this resolution is available for inspection with the City Clerk.
Published in St. Louis Park Sailor: October 25, 2012
City Council Meeting of October 15, 2012 (Item No. 8a) Page 11
Subject: Eliot Park Apartments – Comprehensive Plan Amendment
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
SEPTEMBER 19, 2012 – 6:00 p.m.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MEMBERS PRESENT: Lynne Carper, Claudia Johnston-Madison, Robert Kramer,
Dennis Morris, Richard Person, Carl Robertson,
MEMBERS ABSENT: Larry Shapiro
STAFF PRESENT: Adam Fulton, Meg McMonigal, Gary Morrison,
Nancy Sells
1. Call to Order – Roll Call
B. Eliot School Site – Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Location: 6720 and 6800 Cedar Lake Road
Applicant: Eliot Park Apartments, LLC
Case No.: 12-24-CP
Adam Fulton, Planner, presented the staff report. The request is to modify the
Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map from Civic to High Density Residential and Low
Density Residential. This modification would allow the applicant to request a rezoning
of the property, and, if necessary, a Planned Unit Development, for its development
proposal of two 72-unit apartment buildings and three new single family lots.
Mr. Fulton spoke about the public process for the site, including a traffic study which was
initiated in August. Staff has seen a draft of the traffic study. As soon as details of the
study are available they will be shared with the neighborhood, the developer, the
Commission and City Council.
Mr. Fulton discussed the Eliot Community Center Site Reuse Study/Design Guidelines
which were adopted into the Comprehensive Plan. He commented on the request for
overall density of 34.4 units per acre rather than medium density residential
recommended by the design guidelines. He said density refers not just to number of units
per acre, but the bulk and size of buildings, and overall aspects of the development. He
said the way in which other recommendations of the design guidelines are met exceeds
the issues posed by moderately exceeding the density recommendation.
He summarized by saying the development meets the general standards of the
Comprehensive Plan and, considered as a whole, the proposal exceeds the
recommendations of the design guidelines.
Commissioner Robertson asked why a rezoning isn’t requested at the same time as a
Comprehensive Plan amendment.
Meg McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor, said the zoning ordinance requires
two sets of processes for a major land use change. Once the Comprehensive Plan
amendment is passed the rezoning and development review can be requested.
City Council Meeting of October 15, 2012 (Item No. 8a) Page 12
Subject: Eliot Park Apartments – Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Dana Hunt, president Hunt Associates, said having the design guidelines in place made it
much easier for them to move forward. He said they gave up a lot of height for a little
more density. He said they worked very hard to make the development fit in with the
neighborhood.
Chair Kramer opened the public hearing.
Laura Nolan, 2037 Hampshire Ave. S., asked about studies which indicate if there is a
demand for this size of unit, this size building and this rental amount. She asked if these
buildings might end up half empty.
Ms. McMonigal responded that the developer could address that question. She added the
city has seen a high demand for rental housing.
Mr. Hunt stated that the rental market is very good currently. He added that new product
is a move-up for many people. Many people don’t wish to buy in the current market or
no longer want to own a home. He said it is the lenders and equity partners who
determine whether a project goes forward.
Judy Dvorak, 6636 W. 16th St., stated she is a block captain and she did not receive
notification of the public hearing. She suggested that the city create a place on its
website for community feedback on this project, as has been done with other city issues.
She went door to door and found that some neighbors had received notification of the
public hearing. She and a couple of her next door neighbors did not receive notification.
Ms. Dvorak said she lives on the dead end which has been closed for years. She stated
that 13th and Hampshire is all apartment complexes and the dead end was placed there for
the purpose of keeping residential separate from apartments. The current proposal will
put apartments in an area that is residential on all four sides. She said years ago the city
tried to block the two uses from being together and she asked how things have changed
with the city.
Ms. Dvorak spoke about an apartment complex in her backyard called The Gables at Park
Point. She said noise and traffic comes from those apartment buildings all night long.
She said it should be of concern to put apartment buildings in the middle of a residential
area.
Ms. Dvorak stated that she went to all the apartments on 13th and Hampshire. All of
those apartments except one have vacancies. The building with the lowest rent had no
vacancies. She asked what market rate means, what price range does that mean. She
asked if the proposed buildings would also have high vacancy. She said she was
disappointed with the proposed high density as the design committee favored medium
density. Ms. Dvorak asked about number of parking spaces allowed per apartment unit.
She said there will only be 56 extra spots at the new development. She spoke about
parking which occurs all over the neighborhood already. Traffic will increase. She said
years ago they tried to get a stop sign installed on the corner and the city denied the
request.
Elaine D. Mense, 6712 Cedar Lake Road, said she has lived right next to the school for
over 50 years. She said she conducted a survey three times and has petitions at home.
City Council Meeting of October 15, 2012 (Item No. 8a) Page 13
Subject: Eliot Park Apartments – Comprehensive Plan Amendment
She said everyone she spoke with said they would like a two-story building, not a three
story building. She said all the neighborhood wanted family homes to be built, not
apartment buildings. She said she is also concerned about parking and traffic. Ms.
Mense said she had concerns about rezoning without taking the neighborhood into
consideration. This was a neighborhood. They had a school without any problems. Now
high density apartments are being proposed. She said there are new apartments all over
the city, but not in residential areas. She said old people in the neighborhood do not plan
on renting an apartment. The neighborhood does not want apartments. She said they are
a neighborhood and she asked why the neighborhood doesn’t have a choice.
Commissioner Johnston-Madison recommended that Ms. Mense bring the petitions to
city staff.
Ms. McMonigal said what is being proposed is also residential. She said the suggestion
to be able to make online comments is a very good idea and staff will see if that can be
implemented. She said parking and traffic will be addressed with the zoning and Planned
Unit Development when final plans are available. The traffic study will be reviewed at
the next set of public hearings. She remarked that the proposed density is slightly above
the medium density category in the Comprehensive Plan in terms of units/acre. She said
what is different about the proposal is that there isn’t surface parking taking up the site
and the height is lower than the design guidelines which said 2-5 stories, and the proposal
is topping out at 3 stories in height. She added that underground parking and lots of
green space on the site are also elements that make up density, it isn’t just units/acre. A
lot of apartment complexes are built with a lot of surface parking and very little green
space. She explained what really comes to play in density is the look, feel, and location
of the buildings on the site and the green space. The medium density and multi-story
buildings were recommended by the design guidelines committee. That was part of the
agreement and work of the committee. Ms. McMonigal stated that this proposal, while
slightly outside of the medium density units/acre, really does meet the overall idea of
what was promoted in the design guidelines and that is why the development is under
consideration.
Chair Kramer asked if the dead end between homes and apartments that was mentioned
was to prevent cut through traffic.
Mr. Fulton said there are a number of locations in the city that have those cul-de-sacs. In
many cases they are constructed to avoid cut through traffic.
Mr. Fulton stated that staff did receive Mrs. Mense’s petition at the neighborhood
meeting. The petition is on file and has been provided to the City Council.
Mrs. Mense indicated that she had another petition that could be provided to the city.
Gretchen Garcia, 6630 W. 16th St., said she appreciated the clarification about density.
She said when she was reading about the project in the Sun Sailor in late spring it was her
understanding that the designed use was going to be single family residences. She wasn’t
able to follow the summer meetings and was not able to attend the meeting located at the
West End. She said she wasn’t sure when the single family vision changed. She was
excited by that prospect as it would continue a single family dwelling residential area that
is the Eliot neighborhood. She remarked that the neighborhood is currently bordered by
City Council Meeting of October 15, 2012 (Item No. 8a) Page 14
Subject: Eliot Park Apartments – Comprehensive Plan Amendment
apartments. She said she’s very concerned about adding that degree of density to the
neighborhood. Schools operate five days a week. Apartment buildings will impact the
neighborhood 24 hours/day. There are no sidewalks one block from the school site.
People skateboard and bicycle in the street. Families from the apartment buildings walk
through the neighborhood to a lovely park north of the site. Children walk to the park all
the time. She said the neighborhood can’t afford sidewalks but the increase of traffic is a
significant concern for pedestrians. Ms. Garcia said she doesn’t believe the
neighborhood has had adequate input to prepare for the dramatic change being proposed.
She stated that she is glad there is more opportunity for review with rezoning but said
she’d like to nip this in the bud and take high density off the table, saying it isn’t
appropriate for the neighborhood.
Commissioner Johnston-Madison asked Ms. Garcia if she had ever seen the design
guidelines.
Ms. Garcia responded that she had not seen the guidelines.
Commissioner Johnston-Madison said the guidelines which the neighborhood agreed to
are available on the city’s website.
Ms. McMonigal said the guidelines were finalized in the summer of 2010.
Kristopher Petrie, 2049 Jersey Ave. S., said he attended one of the design guideline
meetings. The overwhelming response was for low density, owner occupied housing.
Guidelines for other design elements were also discussed. Mr. Petrie said the committee
did a tremendous job in incorporating the guidelines discussed for high density, but the
first choice was for single family owner occupied properties. He said he was concerned
if high density is approved that the neighborhood will end up with some other developer
who does not share the same vision and will build 5 stories with no setbacks. Mr. Petrie
said he’s concerned with some of the uncontrolled intersections and high density,
specifically at 18th and Kentucky and 22nd and Kentucky. He said parking issues won’t
become evident until the property is developed.
Jan Agren, 1810 Hampshire, a block captain, said she is not happy about adding 200-300
people to the block. Perspectives has eight projects in St. Louis Park and she doesn’t
think there is need for additional apartments. She said she was concerned about problems
if the proposed building management isn’t able to get higher rents and has to lower the
rent. She said she was also concerned about the three proposed single family homes in
the back. She asked why one of the lots couldn’t be a beautiful playground. Ms. Agren
commented that the only playground in the whole area is Jersey Park. The school had a
beautiful playground. She asked the city to give the neighborhood something, perhaps a
park.
John B. Lang, 6610 Cedar Lake Rd., said he is in construction and from a construction
standpoint he feels that Hunt and Associates has done a nice job with the proposed
apartments. He said they could have done far worse. He said he is concerned about
traffic on Cedar Lake Rd. Mr. Lang stated that throughout the year he cannot get out of
his driveway during rush hour. He said 25 years ago he and another resident tried to get
the city to install a stop light on Edgewood. That request was refused. He said if the city
City Council Meeting of October 15, 2012 (Item No. 8a) Page 15
Subject: Eliot Park Apartments – Comprehensive Plan Amendment
were to address some of the traffic problems, a lot of the neighborhood would be less
antagonistic towards the proposed development.
Angela Lange, 2001 Hampshire Ave. S., said that adding the apartment buildings will
dramatically lower the value of all of the surrounding homes. She said she purchased her
home in 2001. She has been experiencing financial hardship since 2008. Because of the
economy and the state of the housing market she said has been unable to sell her house.
She had an offer on the house in late August 2012. The potential buyers found out the
school site was being zoned for apartment buildings and they backed out of the deal.
She asked the Commission to consider not approving the proposal and to find another
useful way to use the land.
Tammy Nelson, 1849 Hampshire Ave. S., lives at the corner of Franklin and Hampshire.
She said currently there is a problem at that intersection because no one stops at the stop
sign. A trail comes out there which children use all the time. Adding increased volume
to the neighborhood is going to increase the likelihood that someone will get hurt at the
intersection. There are no sidewalks and people walk down the street all the time. Ms.
Nelson said she is also concerned about the value of her house decreasing. She said no
one wants to buy next to a giant apartment complex.
Jamie Calle, 2055 Kentucky Ave. S., said he purchased his home in 2004. He’s very
happy in the neighborhood. He has two children who play in the streets. The family is
very happy in St. Louis Park. He said the city talks about various studies for a
development, but no one does a study about the neighborhood, how the development will
affect the people who live in the neighborhood. He said he came from South America
with a dream to own a house, to live happily, to have safe streets, and a safe
neighborhood. He said he understands the businessman’s perspective. He asked who
will pay the consequences if the development goes badly, if something goes wrong. He
said the neighborhood, his kids, and other kids will pay the consequences. He said he
wants his children to live happily and to go to nice schools. He said he works hard at two
jobs to keep his house. He said all he wants is to raise his kids with the dream he has in
his heart.
Wade Hammer, 2201 Jersey Ave. S., said he wanted to point out changes from the design
guidelines. One of the principles of the study was for medium density residential land
use, not high density. He said the city continues to talk about medium density as 129
units/acre. He said on page 9 of the design guidelines the range of medium density
residential is 6 – 30 units/acre. That is a range of 26 – 129 units on that site. Mr.
Hammer said that while the city continues to talk about medium density being the highest
end of the range, when you start at high density it tends to gravitate to looking at the
higher end of medium density. He said he might suggest the medium range of medium
density is something much less that 129 units on the property. He said he couldn’t speak
to the economic feasibility of that. Mr. Hammer continued by saying he would
recommend that the city continue to look at the entire range of medium density as
opposed to just the high end of medium density.
Mr. Hammer said another principle which has not been mentioned is No. 8, the
preference for owner occupied housing.
Chair Kramer closed the public hearing as no one else was present wishing to speak.
City Council Meeting of October 15, 2012 (Item No. 8a) Page 16
Subject: Eliot Park Apartments – Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Commissioner Morris said he was glad to hear the community’s valuable input. He said
they have a good comprehensive argument for medium density. He said the impact of the
development is a city-wide impact, not just neighborhood impact. He said many
discussions and study sessions on the site have been held but there seems to be a
compelling argument for medium density.
Commissioner Robertson stated that he sat in on the design guidelines meetings. He said
high density was not embraced at all and the neighborhood said with hesitation that
medium density was understandable. He said he didn’t see a big difference between the
high end of medium density and the low end of high density. Medium density is the
buffer between single family low residential and high density. He said this development
has no buffer. Existing home owners at the north end of the school did not buy homes
next to an apartment building. The proposed new single family homes would buffer
those existing homes to the north from apartments. He said he thought the idea of the
new three single family homes on the north end of the site is that the buyers would know
what they were getting into. He said he didn’t see a buffer between single family homes
on one side of the street and high density on the other side of the street. He said he
agreed that medium density at the high end meets the developer’s needs and protects and
respects the neighborhood a little bit more.
Commissioner Person remarked on a comment made that if high density was adopted and
the development did not go ahead, then the upper range of high density would be a
possibility for the next proposal.
Ms. McMonigal said in this case if the Comprehensive Plan was changed and the
development proposal didn’t go through, the city would recommend that the site be
reguided from high density back to Civic or to a lower medium density category.
Commissioner Robertson said that makes him uncomfortable in that reguiding and
rezoning changes should stand alone, not with a particular development in mind.
Chair Robertson said more discussion needs to occur about the traffic impact. He
commented that other new high density developments in the city have been on the edges
of communities, not in the middle of communities. He said he wasn’t even sure about
medium density and traffic impact in that area.
Mr. Fulton said the draft traffic study which has just been received needs substantial
refinement. Generally the traffic study indicates making turns on and off Cedar Lake Rd.
is a concern. He said there is a lot of traffic on Cedar Lake Road and he thinks
substantially more than 192 units would have to be built to make a difference in how that
traffic operates today. There is an impact to Idaho and Hampshire. Details do need to be
analyzed further. As soon as the study is available it will be shared with the
neighborhood and the Planning Commission.
Commissioner Morris added that the school site is a substantial site. It is going to be
residential. No one in the last 10-15 years has proposed single family homes for this
kind of site. It is not an economic feasibility. The city should be guiding this to a
medium or low density type of residential development. He said he got the impression
from comments made by the neighborhood that apartment dwellers are not neighbors,
City Council Meeting of October 15, 2012 (Item No. 8a) Page 17
Subject: Eliot Park Apartments – Comprehensive Plan Amendment
they are second class citizens. He said he is looking at retirement and wants to downsize
and not have yard work and he is considering rental. He said he has bad neighbors living
in single family homes. He has bad neighbors living in rental homes. Traffic will
increase because the site will support multiple families. Something will change unless
the site sits as a vacant lot for the next 10 years. He said he wondered if a condominium
development was being proposed if the sentiment would be the same.
Commissioner Robertson said he would not support high density and he would support
medium density. He said he respected the process of the design guidelines which
recommended medium density.
Commissioner Morris noted that the guidelines and neighborhood would support medium
density, but along with that will come traffic. He commented that children should not be
playing in streets just because there are not sidewalks. The city is trying to get more
sidewalks. He said he applauds the development and thinks it can go forward but not
with as much density as proposed. He said he gives a great deal of weight to the
community’s input.
Commissioner Morris made a motion recommending denial of an amendment to the
Comprehensive Plan for high density residential designation. Commissioner Johnston-
Madison seconded the motion. The motion passed 6-0.
Commissioner Morris made a motion recommending the City Council to amend the
Comprehensive Plan for a medium density residential designation and a low density
residential designation. Commissioner Person seconded the motion. The motion passed
6-0.
Mr. Fulton said the item is tentatively scheduled to go before the City Council on October
15, 2012. He asked anyone who did not receive Planning Commission notification to
leave their addresses with him for future notifications.
Eliot School SiteComprehensive Plan Amendment Request
September 14, 2012Prepared by the St. Louis Park Community Development Department
Existing:
Proposed:
Legend
RL - Low Density Residential
RM - Medium Density Residential
RH - High Density Residential
MX - Mixed Use
COM - Commercial
IND - Industrial
OFC - Office
BP - Business Park
CIV - Civic
PRK - Park and Open Space
ROW - Right of Way
RRR - Railroad Cedar Lake RoadCedar Lake RoadIdaho Ave. S.Idaho Ave. S.Hampshire Ave. S.Hampshire Ave. S.Civic
HD
LD
City Council Meeting of October 15, 2012 (Item No. 8a)
Subject: Eliot Park Apartments – Comprehensive Plan Amendment Page 18
Page 7Eliot Comunity Center Site Reuse Study Design Guidelines
The Site Reuse Principles embody the community’s general desires and intentions for appropriate future
reuses of the Eliot Community Center site. These ten principles provide the community’s big picture view
and a means for guiding and evaluating future proposals for reusing this site. These general principles are
supported by the detailed design guidelines in Section 4.
1. Mix of Medium Density Residential Land Uses
Future land uses should be a mix of at least two medium density residential uses that contribute to the
community’s long-term goal of being a livable community with a variety of lifecycle housing options and
leverage the site’s location and proximity to transit, parks, trails, bike routes, and commercial areas
2. Transition Building Heights across the Site from South to North
Concentrate taller and higher density buildings on southern half of site toward Cedar Lake Road and locate
lower buildings on the northern half of the site
3. Complement Existing Development Scale and Character
Building form, scale, placement and massing should be sensitive to the scale and character of the
surrounding homes
4. Neighborhood Open Space
Reuse of the site should incorporate open space that is located along a public street, visible to the public,
and ideally allows public access
5. Community Landmark and Neighborhood Gateway
Reflect the site’s role as a long-time community landmark and Eliot neighborhood gateway on Cedar Lake
Road by preserving the mature trees and enhancing the triangular open space area fronting on Cedar Lake
Road
6. Neighborhood Connectivity
Support neighborhood connectivity by incorporating an east-west pedestrian connection through the site
3. Site Reuse Principles
City Council Meeting of October 15, 2012 (Item No. 8a)
Subject: Eliot Park Apartments – Comprehensive Plan Amendment Page 19
Page 8 Eliot Comunity Center Site Reuse Study Design Guidelines
7. Redevelopment Feasibility
Reuses of the site should achieve a reasonable financial return for the School District balanced with the
appropriate fit with the City’s goals and these reuse principles
8. Owner-Occupied Housing
Owner occupied housing is preferred, however, assisted living services could be an accessory use to an
owner-occupied senior housing development
9. School Building Reuse
There is neither strong community preference nor opposition to reusing the existing school building;
however, future developers are encouraged to evaluate the condition of the building to determine the
possibilities of reuse for residential units
10. Interim Property Maintenance
It is important for the property owner to keep the site and building properly maintained and in safe condition
prior to and during redevelopment construction
City Council Meeting of October 15, 2012 (Item No. 8a)
Subject: Eliot Park Apartments – Comprehensive Plan Amendment Page 20
Page 9Eliot Comunity Center Site Reuse Study Design Guidelines
The Site Design Guidelines address the following site level considerations:
Land use and development density »
Open space »
Setbacks »
Vehicular access and circulation »
Parking »
Traffic »
Pedestrian circulation »
Stormwater »
Landscaping and buffering »
Regulatory process »
A. Land use and development density
Reuse of the site should be guided for Medium Density Residential development allowing a net residential
density from six (6) to 30 dwelling units per acre or between 26 and 129 dwelling units on the Eliot School
property.
Residential development should include a minimum of two types of residential land uses that expand the
variety of lifecycle housing options in the neighborhood. Potential housing types are single family detached,
attached townhome, and multi-family buildings.
Redevelopment of the site is envisioned as a single complementary development consisting of two housing
areas. The southern area is to be higher density than the northern area of the site reflecting its location on
Cedar Lake Road, which is an arterial and transit street, and the scale and massing of the existing Eliot
Community Center building. The northern area is envisioned as lower density than the southern area
reflecting the local street frontages and surrounding single family residences.
Taller buildings should be located in the southern area and transition down to lower buildings in the
northern area.
Civic or institutional buildings, such as a community center, place of worship, senior activity center, or
educational facility, would also be appropriate in the southern area of the site.
Use of the small remnant piece of the Eliot School property located east of Hampshire Avenue should be
determined in conjunction with redevelopment of the overall site. The remnant land currently contains a
small parking lot. Potential uses include, but are not limited to, guest parking for the future redevelopment,
parking for the church located south of Cedar Lake Road, or sale to the adjoining residential property owner
to the east.
4. Site Design Guidelines
City Council Meeting of October 15, 2012 (Item No. 8a)
Subject: Eliot Park Apartments – Comprehensive Plan Amendment Page 21
Page 10 Eliot Comunity Center Site Reuse Study Design Guidelines
Site Design Diagram
City Council Meeting of October 15, 2012 (Item No. 8a)
Subject: Eliot Park Apartments – Comprehensive Plan Amendment Page 22
Page 11Eliot Comunity Center Site Reuse Study Design Guidelines
B. Open space
The triangular green space along Cedar Lake Road should be preserved and enhanced to reflect the site’s
history as a community landmark and gateway to the Eliot neighborhood. Regardless of whether or not the
existing school building is reused, this green space should continue to be a landmark that remains generally
as open space. This open space should not be used for parking.
It is encouraged that some open space on the site be oriented to the street, rather than enclosed between
the buildings, to enhance the visual character of the site’s redevelopment from adjacent homes and the
street. The development will need to meet the City’s zoning code requirements for Designed Outdoor
Recreation Area as well.
Although public open space is not planned for this sites, recreational open space is encouraged on the site
since this school site has historically had open space that was accessible to the neighborhood. Open space
on the site should be privately owned and operated. Public access to the open space, as appropriate, is
encouraged.
C. Setbacks
Building(s) fronting onto Cedar Lake Road should have a setback from Cedar Lake Road similar to that of the
existing school building and achieving requirements of the City’s zoning code.
Building(s) should generally complement the setbacks of existing houses from Hampshire Ave., Idaho
Ave., and the northern property line.
D. Vehicle access and circulation
Current conditions: Today the site has one access point on Cedar Lake Road, one on Hampshire Ave, and
three on Idaho Ave. Cedar Lake Road is a designated A Minor Arterial (major roadway) and Hampshire Ave.
and Idaho Ave. are local streets. All three streets are under the City’s jurisdiction.Vehicle access points to
the site should be located on Hampshire Ave and/or Idaho Ave rather than Cedar Lake Road. Driveways for
individual housing units should generally be located internally, accessed by shared driveways, to reduce the
impact of and visibility from adjacent homes and the street, with the exception of single-family detached
houses.
Vehicle circulation within the site should not create a direct connection that has the potential for attracting
cut-through traffic.
E. Parking
Adequate parking should be provided on the site for residents and guests to minimize the need for on-street
parking. The provision of parking spaces will meet the requirements for residential land uses as defined by
the City’s zoning code and/or independently commissioned studies.
Parking for residents should be provided in garages or below the building(s).
Guest parking could be provided in the form of on-site surface parking areas. Surface parking spaces for
building(s) fronting onto Cedar Lake Road should be located on the north side of the building(s) so that they
are generally not visible from Cedar Lake Road. On-site surface parking areas should be located convenient
to building entrances to encourage on-site parking over on-street parking.
City Council Meeting of October 15, 2012 (Item No. 8a)
Subject: Eliot Park Apartments – Comprehensive Plan Amendment Page 23
Page 12 Eliot Comunity Center Site Reuse Study Design Guidelines
All off-street surface parking areas should be located internally on the site and visually buffered from public
streets.
Landscaping in surface parking lots must meet the requirements of the City’s zoning code.
F. Traffic
New traffic generated as a result of site redevelopment will be limited by development density restrictions.
Additional traffic analysis may be required, contingent upon land use and density.
G. Pedestrian circulation
Sidewalks should be retained and enhanced on all three streets in conjunction with redevelopment.
A publicly accessible, landscaped mid-block pedestrian connection should be provided to enable an east-
west connection between Hampshire Ave. and Idaho Ave. Design of this pathway is encouraged to be a
meandering route rather than simply a straight east-west route to create an aesthetically pleasing amenity
that integrates well with the new development and the neighborhood. The width of this pedestrian
connection and mid-block open space could be designed to provide a visual break and transition space
between the northern and southern buildable areas if appropriate. Ideally, a mid-block connection would
accommodate walking and biking.
H. Stormwater
Site related stormwater runoff should be managed to meet the City’s and watershed on-site water storage
and water quality requirements using best management practices (BMPs) as identified in the City’s
subdivision code, such as rain gardens, detention/treatment basins, pervious pavements, and green roofs.
I. Landscaping and buffering
Landscape and/or architectural buffering should be incorporated into redevelopment for adjacent properties
to the north.
Appropriate landscaping, including street trees, should be provided along Hampshire Ave. and Idaho Ave.
Existing mature trees should be preserved where feasible.
J. Regulatory process
The rezoning and development approach should be commensurate with the Medium Density Residential
(6 – 30 housing units per acre) land use designation.
Replatting of land at time of development should include dedication of the southeast corner of property as
public right-of-way for Hampshire Ave.
Park dedication should be received as cash in lieu of land since public park land is not planned in this area
of the City.
City Council Meeting of October 15, 2012 (Item No. 8a)
Subject: Eliot Park Apartments – Comprehensive Plan Amendment Page 24
Page 13Eliot Comunity Center Site Reuse Study Design Guidelines
5. Building Design Guidelines
The building design guidelines address the following building level considerations:
Massing and placement »
Height »
Frontage and articulation »
A. Massing and placement
The greatest building mass should be located in the southern area of the site in the general vicinity of the
existing school building. The goal is to allow a greater building mass nearer to Cedar Lake Road since the
existing building is a larger building mass and Cedar Lake Road is an arterial street with higher traffic levels
and transit services.
Placement of buildings should relate to the north-south streets (Hampshire and Idaho Aves.) rather than
the diagonal alignment of Cedar Lake Road. Building(s) in the southern area of the site should not be
located parallel to Cedar Lake Road.
B. Height
Building heights in the southern area of the site should be a minimum of two stories and up to five stories.
The Eliot School Site Reuse Task Force’s preference is for lower building heights, if possible.
Depending upon the actual placement and size of the building(s) in the southern area of the site, stepbacks
for upper floors (above three stories) may be desirable. For example, if a portion of the building is located
further north than the existing school building, stepbacks of the 4th and 5th floors are recommended.
Building heights in the northern area of the site should be one to three stories.
A variety of heights for both the taller and lower buildings is preferable to soften the overall scale of the
new development and prevent a cookie-cutter look. Taller building(s) should be oriented toward Cedar
Lake Road. For the taller building(s), it is preferable to have multiple heights rather than a uniform height.
The existing school building is a mix of two and three stories. This approach also enables building heights
to be concentrated at the appropriate locations while maintaining lower heights at the edges closest to the
existing single-family residences.
C. Frontage and articulation
Building façade “fronts” should face existing public streets, where possible.
Building(s) in the southern area of the site should have a frontage toward Cedar Lake Road, including a
clearly visible pedestrian entrance to the building, since this site has historically had a landmark building
and open space fronting onto Cedar Lake Road.
City Council Meeting of October 15, 2012 (Item No. 8a)
Subject: Eliot Park Apartments – Comprehensive Plan Amendment Page 25
Page 14 Eliot Comunity Center Site Reuse Study Design Guidelines
Building Design Diagram
City Council Meeting of October 15, 2012 (Item No. 8a)
Subject: Eliot Park Apartments – Comprehensive Plan Amendment Page 26
August 17th, 2012ST LOUIS PARK
1
Eliot Park SITE PLAN
144 APARTMENT UNITS
190 PARKING STALLS BELOW
20 PARKING STALLS AT CGRADE
210 STALLS TOTAL (1.46/UNIT)
200 BEDROOMS (88 1BR & 56 2BR UNITS
HAMPSHIRE AVE.CEDAR LAKE
ROAD
IDAHO AVE.
NEW SINGLE
FAMILY LOT
NEW SINGLE
FAMILY LOT
THREE STORIES
TWO STORIES
BALCONIES
City Council Meeting of October 15, 2012 (Item No. 8a)
Subject: Eliot Park Apartments – Comprehensive Plan Amendment Page 27
August 17th, 2012ST LOUIS PARK
2
Eliot Park Apartments GARAGE FLOOR PLAN 1/32” = 1’-0”
City Council Meeting of October 15, 2012 (Item No. 8a)
Subject: Eliot Park Apartments – Comprehensive Plan Amendment Page 28
August 17th, 2012ST LOUIS PARK
3
Eliot Park Apartments FIRST FLOOR PLAN 1/32” = 1’-0”
City Council Meeting of October 15, 2012 (Item No. 8a)
Subject: Eliot Park Apartments – Comprehensive Plan Amendment Page 29
August 17th, 2012ST LOUIS PARK
4
Eliot Park Apartments SECOND FLOOR PLAN 1/32” = 1’-0”
City Council Meeting of October 15, 2012 (Item No. 8a)
Subject: Eliot Park Apartments – Comprehensive Plan Amendment Page 30
August 17th, 2012ST LOUIS PARK
5
Eliot Park Apartments THIRD FLOOR PLAN 1/32” = 1’-0”
City Council Meeting of October 15, 2012 (Item No. 8a)
Subject: Eliot Park Apartments – Comprehensive Plan Amendment Page 31
August 17th, 2012ST LOUIS PARK
6
Eliot Park Apartments ELEVATION
City Council Meeting of October 15, 2012 (Item No. 8a)
Subject: Eliot Park Apartments – Comprehensive Plan Amendment Page 32
August 17th, 2012ST LOUIS PARK
7
Eliot Park Apartments ELEVATION
City Council Meeting of October 15, 2012 (Item No. 8a)
Subject: Eliot Park Apartments – Comprehensive Plan Amendment Page 33
Eliot School Redevelopment Site: Housing Authority Board Comments
Purpose
The purpose of this report is to provide comments from the Housing Authority (HA) Board of
Commissioners regarding the Eliot School Site Redevelopment proposal.
Background
At the August 16 HA Board meeting, developer Dan Hunt of Hunt Associates, LLC, presented
his proposal for the redevelopment of the Eliot School site. Following a review of the proposed
project and concept drawings, Mr. Hunt responded to comments and questions from the HA
Board members. The Board continued their discussion of the project at the September 12 and
October 10 HA Board meetings. Based on the discussion, the Board identified the following HA
comments to be forwarded to the Council and Planning Commission as the proposed
development moves through the planning process.
• The HA Board believes that the proposed project is well designed and will fit well into
the neighborhood.
• HA Board members are supportive of the lower rent structure for the proposed
development although some concern was expressed that the expense of tenant paid
utilities, including heat, could negate some of the value/affordability of the development.
The proposed rent structure for the development, $900 for a one bedroom unit and $1,500
for a two bedroom unit, is at the lower end of the rent structure currently being charged
for new market rate developments being constructed in St. Louis Park.
• Board members supported the projects proposed number of housing units because they
felt lowering the number of housing units could adversely impact the affordability of the
project.
• The development is located in one of the more affordable housing neighborhoods in the
City. As such, the Board does not feel that it is critical to include units that meet a lower
“affordability” level in the development.
• The Board supports the concept proposal and believes that the proposed development will
be an asset to the community.
• The HA Board supports a proactive approach to creating affordable housing with a broad
focus that includes affordable homeownership, mixed-income developments, affordable
rental developments and preserving existing affordable units throughout the community.
City Council Meeting of October 15, 2012 (Item No. 8a)
Subject: Eliot Park Apartments – Comprehensive Plan Amendment Page 34
Meeting Date: October 15, 2012
Agenda Item #: 8b
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Special Meeting Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Special Session Other:
TITLE:
Resolution to Amended Fee Resolution for the Greensboro Condominium Improvement Area
(HIA)
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to Adopt Resolution amending Resolution No 11-134 approving a housing improvement
fee for the Greensboro Condominium Association Housing Improvement Area.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
The Council established the Greensboro Condominium HIA and approved a Fee Resolution for
the Greensboro HIA in December 2011. The Fee Resolution needs to be amended to reflect
actual fees which are lower than estimated fees approved in the original resolution.
BACKGROUND:
Key dates and actions for the Greensboro Condominium HIA project:
• December 5, 2011 the Council adopted Ordinance 2406-11 establishing the Greensboro
Condominium HIA and passed Resolution No. 11-134 imposing fees.
• April 12, 2012 the City entered into a Development Agreement with Greensboro
Condominium Owners Association in which the City agreed to make a loan of funds
available to the Association to finance Housing Improvements.
• May 7, 2012 the EDA approved Internal Loan Fund Resolution No.12-07.
• August 20, 2012 the Council authorized a Call for Sale of General Obligation Bonds for
Greensboro HIA.
• September 24, 2012 the Council authorized sale of G.O. Taxable bond for the Greensboro
Condo HIA project. Based on the total interest cost of the bonds, the interest rate to
owners is 4.26%, almost 2% lower than originally estimated.
In addition to a lower than projected interest rate, the final project costs were also reduced due to
actual lower construction and financing costs. The average per unit fee has been reduced by
$1,925 per unit. The final fees for each unit are included as Exhibit A of the amended resolution.
Owners that had prepaid the higher estimated are being mailed refunds for their lower fee
amount.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
The Greensboro Condominium HIA improvements total cost is $3,315,640. Project costs are
being funded through the sale of bonds ($1,290,000), an Internal EDA loan ($1,104,983) and the
remainder by prepayments from sixty-nine owners.
City Council Meeting of October 15, 2012 (Item No. 8b) Page 2
Title: Resolution to Amended Fee Resolution for the Greensboro Condominium Improvement Area (HIA)
VISION CONSIDERATION:
The Greensboro Condominium HIA improvements are consistent with Vision St. Louis Park and
the Strategic Directions adopted by the City Council: “St. Louis Park is committed to providing
a well-maintained and diverse housing stock”. The HIA tool addresses affordably valued, aging
owner-occupied townhouse and condominium housing stock. The proposed improvements
specifically address the focus of property maintenance to foster quality housing and community
aesthetics.
Attachments: Resolution Amending Resolution No. 11-134, Greensboro Condominium
Fee Resolution
Prepared by: Kathy Larsen, Housing Programs Coordinator
Reviewed by: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
City Council Meeting of October 15, 2012 (Item No. 8b) Page 3
Title: Resolution to Amended Fee Resolution for the Greensboro Condominium Improvement Area (HIA)
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
RESOLUTION NO. 12-____
RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 11-134 APPROVING
A HOUSING IMPROVEMENT FEE FOR THE GREENSBORO CONDOMINIUM
ASSOCIATION HOUSING IMPROVEMENT AREA PURSUANT TO MINNESOTA
STATUTES, SECTIONS 428A.11 to 428A.21
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park as follows:
Section 1. Recitals.
1.01. The City of St. Louis Park ("City") is authorized under Minnesota Statutes, Sections
428A.11 to 428A.21 (the "Act") to establish by ordinance a housing improvement area within which
housing improvements are made or constructed and the costs of the improvements are paid in whole
or in part from fees imposed within the area.
1.02. The St. Louis Park City Council (“Council”) adopted a Housing Improvement Area
policy on July 16, 2001.
1.03. By Ordinance No. 2406-11, effective as of January 19, 2012 (the "Enabling
Ordinance"), the Council established the Greensboro Condominium Association Housing
Improvement Area in order to facilitate certain improvements (the “Housing Improvements”) to
property known as the "Greensboro Condominium Association", all in accordance with the Housing
Improvement Area policy.
1.04. On December 5, 2011, following receipt of a petition requesting a public hearing on
the imposition of a housing improvement fee for the Greensboro Condominium Association
Housing Improvement Area (“Greensboro HIA”) and a duly noticed public hearing regarding
adoption of a resolution imposing such a fee, at which all persons, including owners of property
within the Greensboro HIA, were given an opportunity to be heard, the Council adopted Resolution
No. 11-134 (the “Fee Resolution”), imposing a housing improvement fee (the “Fee”) on the owners
of housing units within the Greensboro HIA.
1.05. Pursuant to the Act, the City mailed notice to the owners of housing units within the
Greensboro HIA, informing such owners of the estimated cost of the Housing Improvements and
informing them that the Fee would not exceed the amounts indicated in the Notice.
1.06. Between the date of adoption of the Fee and the date hereof, the Greensboro
Condominium Association received better-than-anticipated final bids for construction of the
Housing Improvements, and the City received favorable offers to purchase the City’s Taxable
General Obligation Housing Improvement Area Bonds, Series 2012A (the “Bonds”) to finance the
Housing Improvements, both of which resulted in a reduction of the amount needed to finance the
Housing Improvements and pay debt service on the Bonds. In addition, the City has determined
that the interest rate on the Fee should be set at 100 basis points above the interest cost of the Bonds,
resulting in a lower interest rate than the interest rate provided in the Fee Resolution.
City Council Meeting of October 15, 2012 (Item No. 8b) Page 4
Title: Resolution to Amended Fee Resolution for the Greensboro Condominium Improvement Area (HIA)
1.07 On October 12, 2012, the City reimbursed the owners of all housing units who
prepaid the Fee prior to imposition of the Final Fee (as defined in Section 2.01); in the amount of
the pro rata share of the reduction in the Fee amount.
1.08. The Council has determined that it is necessary to amend the Fee Resolution in order
to reflect the final, reduced Fee and interest rate, and to ratify the payment by City staff of a partial
rebate of Fees prepaid by property owners within the Greensboro HIA.
Section 2. Fee Resolution Amended.
2.01. The City hereby approves an amendment to Exhibit A of the Fee Resolution to reflect
a finalized fee for each housing unit within the Greensboro HIA (the “Final Fee”), which Final Fee
is imposed (i) for Common Elements based on the square footage (percentage of undivided
ownership) of each unit, and (ii) for Limited Common Elements based on a pro rata share of the
total cost of the Limited Common Elements divided among those housing units actually benefiting
from improvements to said Limited Common Elements, all as prescribed in the Amended and
Restated Declaration of Greensboro Condominium.
2.02. The Final Fee shall be imposed as an annual fee, in the amount shown under the
heading “Annual Fee” in Exhibit A. The Final Fee shall be imposed in equal installments,
beginning in 2013, for a period no greater than 20 years after the first installment is due and
payable. The Annual Fee shall be deemed to include interest on the unpaid portion of the total Final
Fee. Interest shall begin to accrue on January 1, 2013 at an annual interest rate of 4.26 percent per
annum, which interest rate is 100 basis points above the true interest cost of the Bonds. The Annual
Fee shall be structured such that estimated collection of the Annual Fee will produce at least five
percent in excess of the amount needed to meet, when due, the principal and interest payments on
the Bonds.
2.03. The period authorized for prepayment of the Fee expired on February 16, 2012, and
therefore owners of any housing unit in the Greensboro HIA may no longer prepay any portion of
the Final Fee without interest. Owners may, before November 30 of any year, prepay in whole the
unpaid installment of the Total Cost, with interest thereon at the rate of 4.26 percent accrued to the
end of the calendar year in which the Total Cost is paid. If prepayment is made after November 30,
the amount prepaid must include interest through the end of the following calendar year.
2.04. Exhibit A attached hereto, representing the Final Fee imposed against each housing
unit for which the Final Fee has not been prepaid, shall be mailed to all housing unit owners within
the Greensboro HIA within 30 days after issuance of the Bonds.
2.05. The Final Fee shall be payable at the same time and in the same manner as provided
for payment and collection of ad valorem taxes, as provided in Minnesota Statutes, Sections
428A.15 and 428A.05. As set forth therein, the Final Fee is not included in the calculation of levies
or limits on levies imposed under any law or charter.
2.06. A de minimis fee may be imposed by Hennepin County for services in connection to
administration required in order for the Annual Fee to be made payable at the same time and in the
same manner as provided for payment and collection of ad valorem taxes.
City Council Meeting of October 15, 2012 (Item No. 8b) Page 5
Title: Resolution to Amended Fee Resolution for the Greensboro Condominium Improvement Area (HIA)
Section 3. Effective Date.
3.01. This Resolution shall be effective upon the adoption hereof.
Section 4. Filing of Final Fee.
4.01. The City Clerk shall promptly file a certified copy of this resolution together with
Exhibit A hereto to the Hennepin County Director of Taxation to be recorded on the property tax
lists of the county for taxes payable in 2013 and thereafter.
Approved by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park this 15th day of October, 2012.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council October 15, 2012
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
City of St. Louis ParkHousing Improvement Area - Greensboro Assessment AllocationBuilding TypeUnit #Building Unit #Building #Ownership PercentageTotal Common CostOwnership PercentageTotal Common Cost Garage Locker BalconyTotal Limited Common Cost1,087,690.60$ 465,593.01$ 4,470.95$ 206.45$ 100.00$ 368,246.00$ 1 101 7414 0.0023161092,519.21$ 0.004997702,326.90$ 1206.45$ 5,052.56$ 852.90$ 5,905.45$ 5,905.45$ 466.74$ 9,334.89$ 2 102 7414 0.0023161092,519.21$ 0.004997702,326.90$ 1206.45$ 5,052.56$ 852.90$ 5,905.45$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 6,142.73$ 237.28$ 3 103 7414 0.0034475423,749.86$ 0.007439113,463.60$ 14,470.95$ 11,684.40$ 1,269.54$ 12,953.95$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 15,876.11$ 2,922.17$ 4 104 7414 0.0036472063,967.03$ 0.007869953,664.19$ 14,470.95$ 12,102.17$ 1,343.07$ 13,445.24$ 13,445.24$ 1,062.66$ 21,253.21$ 5 105 7414 0.0024492182,663.99$ 0.005284932,460.63$ 1206.45$ 5,331.07$ 901.91$ 6,232.98$ 6,232.98$ 492.63$ 9,852.62$ 6 106 7414 0.0025823292,808.77$ 0.005572152,594.35$ 14,470.95$ 9,874.08$ 950.93$ 10,825.01$ 10,825.01$ 855.57$ 17,111.35$ 7 107 7414 0.0024492182,663.99$ 0.005284932,460.63$ 1206.45$ 5,331.07$ 901.91$ 6,232.98$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 6,493.68$ 260.70$ 8 108 7414 0.0025823292,808.77$ 0.005572152,594.35$ 14,470.95$ 9,874.08$ 950.93$ 10,825.01$ 10,825.01$ 855.57$ 17,111.35$ 9 109 7414 0.0024492182,663.99$ 0.005284932,460.63$ 1206.45$ 5,331.07$ 901.91$ 6,232.98$ 6,232.98$ 492.63$ 9,852.62$ 10 110 7414 0.0035806523,894.64$ 0.007726333,597.33$ 14,470.95$ 11,962.92$ 1,318.56$ 13,281.48$ 13,281.48$ 1,049.72$ 20,994.34$ 11 111 7414 0.0036472063,967.03$ 0.007869953,664.19$ 14,470.95$ 12,102.17$ 1,343.07$ 13,445.24$ 13,445.24$ 1,062.66$ 21,253.21$ 12 112 7414 0.0023161092,519.21$ 0.004997702,326.90$ 1206.45$ 5,052.56$ 852.90$ 5,905.45$ 5,905.45$ 466.74$ 9,334.89$ 13 114 7414 0.0023161092,519.21$ 0.004997702,326.90$ 1206.45$ 5,052.56$ 852.90$ 5,905.45$ 5,905.45$ 466.74$ 9,334.89$ 14 201 7414 0.0025157732,736.38$ 0.005428542,527.49$ 11306.45$ 5,570.32$ 926.42$ 6,496.75$ 6,496.75$ 513.48$ 10,269.56$ 15 202 7414 0.0026488832,881.17$ 0.005715762,661.22$ 114,570.95$ 10,113.33$ 975.44$ 11,088.77$ 11,088.77$ 876.41$ 17,528.28$ 16 203 7414 0.0036472063,967.03$ 0.007869953,664.19$ 114,570.95$ 12,202.17$ 1,343.07$ 13,545.24$ 13,545.24$ 1,070.56$ 21,411.28$ 17 204 7414 0.003713764,039.42$ 0.008013563,731.06$ 114,570.95$ 12,341.43$ 1,367.58$ 13,709.00$ 13,709.00$ 1,083.51$ 21,670.14$ 18 205 7414 0.0025157732,736.38$ 0.005428542,527.49$ 11306.45$ 5,570.32$ 926.42$ 6,496.75$ 6,496.75$ 513.48$ 10,269.56$ 19 206 7414 0.0026488832,881.17$ 0.005715762,661.22$ 114,570.95$ 10,113.33$ 975.44$ 11,088.77$ 11,088.77$ 876.41$ 17,528.28$ 20 207 7414 0.0025157732,736.38$ 0.005428532,527.49$ 11306.45$ 5,570.32$ 926.42$ 6,496.74$ 6,496.74$ 513.48$ 10,269.56$ 21 208 7414 0.0025157732,736.38$ 0.005428532,527.49$ 11306.45$ 5,570.32$ 926.42$ 6,496.74$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 7,069.15$ 572.41$ 22 209 7414 0.0026488832,881.17$ 0.005715762,661.22$ 114,570.95$ 10,113.33$ 975.44$ 11,088.77$ 11,088.77$ 876.41$ 17,528.28$ 23 210 7414 0.0036472063,967.03$ 0.007869953,664.19$ 114,570.95$ 12,202.17$ 1,343.07$ 13,545.24$ 13,545.24$ 1,070.56$ 21,411.28$ 24 211 7414 0.003713764,039.42$ 0.008013563,731.06$ 114,570.95$ 12,341.43$ 1,367.58$ 13,709.00$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 16,978.01$ 3,269.01$ 25 212 7414 0.0025157732,736.38$ 0.005428542,527.49$ 11306.45$ 5,570.32$ 926.42$ 6,496.75$ 6,496.75$ 513.48$ 10,269.56$ 26 214 7414 0.0025157732,736.38$ 0.005428542,527.49$ 11306.45$ 5,570.32$ 926.42$ 6,496.75$ 6,496.75$ 513.48$ 10,269.56$ 27 215 7414 0.0021164452,302.04$ 0.004566872,126.30$ 11306.45$ 4,734.79$ 779.37$ 5,514.16$ 5,514.16$ 435.82$ 8,716.37$ 28 301 7414 0.0026488832,881.17$ 0.005715762,661.22$ 114,570.95$ 10,113.33$ 975.44$ 11,088.77$ 11,088.77$ 876.41$ 17,528.28$ 29 302 7414 0.0025157732,736.38$ 0.005428542,527.49$ 11306.45$ 5,570.32$ 926.42$ 6,496.75$ 6,496.75$ 513.48$ 10,269.56$ 30 303 7414 0.0036472063,967.03$ 0.007869953,664.19$ 114,570.95$ 12,202.17$ 1,343.07$ 13,545.24$ 13,545.24$ 1,070.56$ 21,411.28$ 31 304 7414 0.003713764,039.42$ 0.008013563,731.06$ 114,570.95$ 12,341.43$ 1,367.58$ 13,709.00$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 16,978.01$ 3,269.01$ 32 305 7414 0.0025157732,736.38$ 0.005428542,527.49$ 11306.45$ 5,570.32$ 926.42$ 6,496.75$ 6,496.75$ 513.48$ 10,269.56$ 33 306 7414 0.0025157732,736.38$ 0.005428542,527.49$ 11306.45$ 5,570.32$ 926.42$ 6,496.75$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 7,069.15$ 572.40$ 34 307 7414 0.0021164452,302.04$ 0.004566872,126.30$ 11306.45$ 4,734.79$ 779.37$ 5,514.16$ 5,514.16$ 435.82$ 8,716.37$ 35 308 7414 0.0026488832,881.17$ 0.005715762,661.22$ 114,570.95$ 10,113.33$ 975.44$ 11,088.77$ 11,088.77$ 876.41$ 17,528.28$ 36 309 7414 0.0025157732,736.38$ 0.005428542,527.49$ 11306.45$ 5,570.32$ 926.42$ 6,496.75$ 6,496.75$ 513.48$ 10,269.56$ 37 310 7414 0.0036472063,967.03$ 0.007869953,664.19$ 114,570.95$ 12,202.17$ 1,343.07$ 13,545.24$ 13,545.24$ 1,070.56$ 21,411.28$ 38 311 7414 0.003713764,039.42$ 0.008013563,731.06$ 114,570.95$ 12,341.43$ 1,367.58$ 13,709.00$ 13,709.00$ 1,083.51$ 21,670.14$ 39 312 7414 0.0025157732,736.38$ 0.005428542,527.49$ 11306.45$ 5,570.32$ 926.42$ 6,496.75$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 7,069.15$ 572.40$ 40 314 7414 0.0026488832,881.17$ 0.005715762,661.22$ 114,570.95$ 10,113.33$ 975.44$ 11,088.77$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 14,170.41$ 3,081.64$ 41 315 7414 0.0025157732,736.38$ 0.005428542,527.49$ 11306.45$ 5,570.32$ 926.42$ 6,496.75$ 6,496.75$ 513.48$ 10,269.56$ 42 101 7412 0.0023161092,519.21$ 0.004997702,326.90$ 1206.45$ 5,052.56$ 852.90$ 5,905.45$ 5,905.45$ 466.74$ 9,334.89$ 43 102 7412 0.0023161092,519.21$ 0.004997702,326.90$ 1206.45$ 5,052.56$ 852.90$ 5,905.45$ 5,905.45$ 466.74$ 9,334.89$ 44 103 7412 0.0034475423,749.86$ 0.007439113,463.60$ 14,470.95$ 11,684.40$ 1,269.54$ 12,953.95$ 12,953.95$ 1,023.83$ 20,476.61$ 45 104 7412 0.0036472063,967.03$ 0.007869953,664.19$ 14,470.95$ 12,102.17$ 1,343.07$ 13,445.24$ 13,445.24$ 1,062.66$ 21,253.21$ 46 105 7412 0.0024492182,663.99$ 0.005284932,460.63$ 1206.45$ 5,331.07$ 901.91$ 6,232.98$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 6,493.68$ 260.70$ 47 106 7412 0.0025823292,808.77$ 0.005572152,594.35$ 14,470.95$ 9,874.08$ 950.93$ 10,825.01$ 10,825.01$ 855.57$ 17,111.35$ 48 107 7412 0.0024492182,663.99$ 0.005284932,460.63$ 1206.45$ 5,331.07$ 901.91$ 6,232.98$ 6,232.98$ 492.63$ 9,852.62$ 49 108 7412 0.0024492182,663.99$ 0.005284932,460.63$ 1206.45$ 5,331.07$ 901.91$ 6,232.98$ 6,232.98$ 492.63$ 9,852.62$ 50 109 7412 0.0025823292,808.77$ 0.005572152,594.35$ 14,470.95$ 9,874.08$ 950.93$ 10,825.01$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 13,594.93$ 2,769.92$ 51 110 7412 0.0035806523,894.64$ 0.007726333,597.33$ 14,470.95$ 11,962.92$ 1,318.56$ 13,281.48$ 13,281.48$ 1,049.72$ 20,994.34$ 52 111 7412 0.0036472063,967.03$ 0.007869953,664.19$ 14,470.95$ 12,102.17$ 1,343.07$ 13,445.24$ 13,445.24$ 1,062.66$ 21,253.21$ 53 112 7412 0.0023161092,519.21$ 0.004997702,326.90$ 1206.45$ 5,052.56$ 852.90$ 5,905.45$ 5,905.45$ 466.74$ 9,334.89$ 54 114 7412 0.0023161092,519.21$ 0.004997702,326.90$ 1206.45$ 5,052.56$ 852.90$ 5,905.45$ 5,905.45$ 466.74$ 9,334.89$ 55 215 7412 0.0021164452,302.04$ 0.004566872,126.30$ 11306.45$ 4,734.79$ 779.37$ 5,514.16$ 5,514.16$ 435.82$ 8,716.37$ 56 201 74120.0026488832,881.17$ 0.005715762,661.22$ 114,570.95$ 10,113.33$ 975.44$ 11,088.77$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 14,170.41$ 3,081.64$ 57 202 74120.0025157732,736.38$ 0.005428542,527.49$ 11306.45$ 5,570.32$ 926.42$ 6,496.75$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 7,069.15$ 572.40$ 58 203 74120.0036472063,967.03$ 0.007869953,664.19$ 114,570.95$ 12,202.17$ 1,343.07$ 13,545.24$ 13,545.24$ 1,070.56$ 21,411.28$ 59 204 74120.003713764,039.42$ 0.008013563,731.06$ 114,570.95$ 12,341.43$ 1,367.58$ 13,709.00$ 13,709.00$ 1,083.51$ 21,670.14$ 60 205 74120.0025157732,736.38$ 0.005428542,527.49$ 11306.45$ 5,570.32$ 926.42$ 6,496.75$ 6,496.75$ 513.48$ 10,269.56$ 61 206 74120.0026488832,881.17$ 0.005715762,661.22$ 114,570.95$ 10,113.33$ 975.44$ 11,088.77$ 11,088.77$ 876.41$ 17,528.28$ 62 207 74120.0025157732,736.38$ 0.005428542,527.49$ 11306.45$ 5,570.32$ 926.42$ 6,496.75$ 6,496.75$ 513.48$ 10,269.56$ 63 208 74120.0025157732,736.38$ 0.005428542,527.49$ 11306.45$ 5,570.32$ 926.42$ 6,496.75$ 6,496.75$ 513.48$ 10,269.56$ 64 209 74120.0025157732,736.38$ 0.005428542,527.49$ 11306.45$ 5,570.32$ 926.42$ 6,496.75$ 6,496.75$ 513.48$ 10,269.56$ 65 210 74120.0036472063,967.03$ 0.007869953,664.19$ 114,570.95$ 12,202.17$ 1,343.07$ 13,545.24$ 13,545.24$ 1,070.56$ 21,411.28$ 66 211 74120.003713764,039.42$ 0.008013563,731.06$ 114,570.95$ 12,341.43$ 1,367.58$ 13,709.00$ 13,709.00$ 1,083.51$ 21,670.14$ 67 212 74120.0025157732,736.38$ 0.005428542,527.49$ 11306.45$ 5,570.32$ 926.42$ 6,496.75$ 6,496.75$ 513.48$ 10,269.56$ Common Common Elements Buidling Common Elements Limited Common ElementsTotal Cost to Owner (Before soft and loan financing costs)Total Financing & Soft CostsTOTAL COSTS (PREPAYMENT AMOUNT)Condos* Annual Fee (105% of Total Costs)Total P & I Paid Per Unit (105%) - Non prepaid onlyTOTAL OUTSTANDING ASSESSMENTS (PREPAYMENT ONLY)Prepaid Rebate AmountEXHIBIT A TO RESOLUTION NO. ____1City Council Meeting of October 15, 2012 (Item No. 8b) Subject: Resolution to Amended Fee Resolution for the Greensboro Condominium Improvement Area (HIA)Page 6
Building TypeUnit #Building Unit #Building #Ownership PercentageTotal Common CostOwnership PercentageTotal Common Cost Garage Locker BalconyTotal Limited Common Cost1,087,690.60$ 465,593.01$ 4,470.95$ 206.45$ 100.00$ 368,246.00$ 68 214 74120.0026488832,881.17$ 0.005715762,661.22$ 114,570.95$ 10,113.33$ 975.44$ 11,088.77$ 11,088.77$ 876.41$ 17,528.28$ 69 315 74120.0021164452,302.04$ 0.004566872,126.30$ 11306.45$ 4,734.79$ 779.37$ 5,514.16$ 5,514.16$ 435.82$ 8,716.37$ 70 301 74120.0026488832,881.17$ 0.005715762,661.22$ 114,570.95$ 10,113.33$ 975.44$ 11,088.77$ 11,088.77$ 876.41$ 17,528.28$ 71 302 7412 0.0025157732,736.38$ 0.005428542,527.49$ 11306.45$ 5,570.32$ 926.42$ 6,496.75$ 6,496.75$ 513.48$ 10,269.56$ 72 303 7412 0.0036472063,967.03$ 0.007869953,664.19$ 114,570.95$ 12,202.17$ 1,343.07$ 13,545.24$ 13,545.24$ 1,070.56$ 21,411.28$ 73 304 7412 0.003713764,039.42$ 0.008013563,731.06$ 114,570.95$ 12,341.43$ 1,367.58$ 13,709.00$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 16,978.01$ 3,269.01$ 74 305 7412 0.0025157732,736.38$ 0.005428542,527.49$ 11306.45$ 5,570.32$ 926.42$ 6,496.75$ 6,496.75$ 513.48$ 10,269.56$ 75 306 7412 0.0026488832,881.17$ 0.005715762,661.22$ 114,570.95$ 10,113.33$ 975.44$ 11,088.77$ 11,088.77$ 876.41$ 17,528.28$ 76 307 7412 0.0025157732,736.38$ 0.005428542,527.49$ 11306.45$ 5,570.32$ 926.42$ 6,496.75$ 6,496.75$ 513.48$ 10,269.56$ 77 308 7412 0.0025157732,736.38$ 0.005428542,527.49$ 11306.45$ 5,570.32$ 926.42$ 6,496.75$ 6,496.75$ 513.48$ 10,269.56$ 78 309 7412 0.0026488832,881.17$ 0.005715762,661.22$ 114,570.95$ 10,113.33$ 975.44$ 11,088.77$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 14,170.41$ 3,081.64$ 79 310 7412 0.0036472063,967.03$ 0.007869953,664.19$ 114,570.95$ 12,202.17$ 1,343.07$ 13,545.24$ 13,545.24$ 1,070.56$ 21,411.28$ 80 311 7412 0.003713764,039.42$ 0.008013563,731.06$ 114,570.95$ 12,341.43$ 1,367.58$ 13,709.00$ 13,709.00$ 1,083.51$ 21,670.14$ 81 312 7412 0.0025157732,736.38$ 0.005428542,527.49$ 11306.45$ 5,570.32$ 926.42$ 6,496.75$ 6,496.75$ 513.48$ 10,269.56$ 82 314 7412 0.0025157732,736.38$ 0.005428542,527.49$ 11306.45$ 5,570.32$ 926.42$ 6,496.75$ 6,496.75$ 513.48$ 10,269.56$ 83 107 7318 0.0024492182,663.99$ 0.005284932,460.63$ 1206.45$ 5,331.07$ 901.91$ 6,232.98$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 6,493.68$ 260.70$ 84 108 7318 0.0024492182,663.99$ 0.005284932,460.63$ 1206.45$ 5,331.07$ 901.91$ 6,232.98$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 6,493.68$ 260.70$ 85 109 7318 0.0025823292,808.77$ 0.005572152,594.35$ 1 4,470.95$ 9,874.08$ 950.93$ 10,825.01$ 10,825.01$ 855.57$ 17,111.35$ 86 110 7318 0.0035806523,894.64$ 0.007726333,597.33$ 1 4,470.95$ 11,962.92$ 1,318.56$ 13,281.48$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 16,227.06$ 2,945.59$ 87 111 7318 0.0036472063,967.03$ 0.007869953,664.19$ 1 4,470.95$ 12,102.17$ 1,343.07$ 13,445.24$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 16,402.54$ 2,957.30$ 88 112 7318 0.0023161092,519.21$ 0.004997702,326.90$ 1206.45$ 5,052.56$ 852.90$ 5,905.45$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 6,142.73$ 237.28$ 89 114 7318 0.0023161092,519.21$ 0.004997702,326.90$ 1206.45$ 5,052.56$ 852.90$ 5,905.45$ 5,905.45$ 466.74$ 9,334.89$ 90 101 7318 0.0023161092,519.21$ 0.004997702,326.90$ 1206.45$ 5,052.56$ 852.90$ 5,905.45$ 5,905.45$ 466.74$ 9,334.89$ 91 102 7318 0.0023161092,519.21$ 0.004997702,326.90$ 1206.45$ 5,052.56$ 852.90$ 5,905.45$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 6,142.73$ 237.28$ 92 103 7318 0.0034475423,749.86$ 0.007439113,463.60$ 1 4,470.95$ 11,684.40$ 1,269.54$ 12,953.95$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 15,876.11$ 2,922.17$ 93 104 7318 0.0036472063,967.03$ 0.007869953,664.19$ 1 4,470.95$ 12,102.17$ 1,343.07$ 13,445.24$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 16,402.54$ 2,957.30$ 94 105 7318 0.0025823292,808.77$ 0.005572152,594.35$ 1 4,470.95$ 9,874.08$ 950.93$ 10,825.01$ 10,825.01$ 855.57$ 17,111.35$ 95 106 7318 0.0024492182,663.99$ 0.005284932,460.63$ 1206.45$ 5,331.07$ 901.91$ 6,232.98$ 6,232.98$ 492.63$ 9,852.62$ 96 207 7318 0.0025157732,736.38$ 0.005428542,527.49$ 11306.45$ 5,570.32$ 926.42$ 6,496.75$ 6,496.75$ 513.48$ 10,269.56$ 97 208 7318 0.0026488832,881.17$ 0.005715762,661.22$ 114,570.95$ 10,113.33$ 975.44$ 11,088.77$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 14,170.41$ 3,081.64$ 98 209 7318 0.0025157732,736.38$ 0.005428532,527.49$ 11306.45$ 5,570.32$ 926.42$ 6,496.74$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 7,069.15$ 572.41$ 99 210 7318 0.0036472063,967.03$ 0.007869953,664.19$ 114,570.95$ 12,202.17$ 1,343.07$ 13,545.24$ 13,545.24$ 1,070.56$ 21,411.28$ 100 211 7318 0.003713764,039.42$ 0.008013563,731.06$ 114,570.95$ 12,341.43$ 1,367.58$ 13,709.00$ 13,709.00$ 1,083.51$ 21,670.14$ 101 212 7318 0.0025157732,736.38$ 0.005428542,527.49$ 11306.45$ 5,570.32$ 926.42$ 6,496.75$ 6,496.75$ 513.48$ 10,269.56$ 102 214 7318 0.0026488832,881.17$ 0.005715762,661.22$ 114,570.95$ 10,113.33$ 975.44$ 11,088.77$ 11,088.77$ 876.41$ 17,528.28$ 103 215 7318 0.0021164452,302.04$ 0.004566872,126.30$ 11306.45$ 4,734.79$ 779.37$ 5,514.16$ 5,514.16$ 435.82$ 8,716.37$ 104 201 7318 0.0025157732,736.38$ 0.005428542,527.49$ 11306.45$ 5,570.32$ 926.42$ 6,496.75$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 7,069.15$ 572.40$ 105 202 7318 0.0025157732,736.38$ 0.005428542,527.49$ 11306.45$ 5,570.32$ 926.42$ 6,496.75$ 6,496.75$ 513.48$ 10,269.56$ 106 203 7318 0.0036472063,967.03$ 0.007869953,664.19$ 114,570.95$ 12,202.17$ 1,343.07$ 13,545.24$ 13,545.24$ 1,070.56$ 21,411.28$ 107 204 7318 0.003713764,039.42$ 0.008013563,731.06$ 114,570.95$ 12,341.43$ 1,367.58$ 13,709.00$ 13,709.00$ 1,083.51$ 21,670.14$ 108 205 7318 0.0025157732,736.38$ 0.005428542,527.49$ 11306.45$ 5,570.32$ 926.42$ 6,496.75$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 7,069.15$ 572.40$ 109 206 7318 0.0026488832,881.17$ 0.005715762,661.22$ 114,570.95$ 10,113.33$ 975.44$ 11,088.77$ 11,088.77$ 876.41$ 17,528.28$ 110 3077318 0.0025157732,736.38$ 0.005428542,527.49$ 11306.45$ 5,570.32$ 926.42$ 6,496.75$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 7,069.15$ 572.40$ 111 3087318 0.0026488832,881.17$ 0.005715772,661.22$ 114,570.95$ 10,113.33$ 975.44$ 11,088.77$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 14,170.41$ 3,081.63$ 112 3097318 0.0025157732,736.38$ 0.005428542,527.49$ 11306.45$ 5,570.32$ 926.42$ 6,496.75$ 6,496.75$ 513.48$ 10,269.56$ 113 310 7318 0.0036472063,967.03$ 0.007869953,664.19$ 114,570.95$ 12,202.17$ 1,343.07$ 13,545.24$ 13,545.24$ 1,070.56$ 21,411.28$ 114 311 7318 0.003713764,039.42$ 0.008013563,731.06$ 114,570.95$ 12,341.43$ 1,367.58$ 13,709.00$ 13,709.00$ 1,083.51$ 21,670.14$ 115 312 7318 0.0025157732,736.38$ 0.005428542,527.49$ 11306.45$ 5,570.32$ 926.42$ 6,496.75$ 6,496.75$ 513.48$ 10,269.56$ 116 314 7318 0.0026488832,881.17$ 0.005715772,661.22$ 114,570.95$ 10,113.33$ 975.44$ 11,088.77$ 11,088.77$ 876.41$ 17,528.29$ 117 315 7318 0.0021164452,302.04$ 0.004566872,126.30$ 11306.45$ 4,734.79$ 779.37$ 5,514.16$ 5,514.16$ 435.82$ 8,716.37$ 118 301 7318 0.0025157732,736.38$ 0.005428542,527.49$ 11306.45$ 5,570.32$ 926.42$ 6,496.75$ 6,496.75$ 513.48$ 10,269.56$ 119 302 7318 0.0025157732,736.38$ 0.005428542,527.49$ 11306.45$ 5,570.32$ 926.42$ 6,496.75$ 6,496.75$ 513.48$ 10,269.56$ 120 303 7318 0.0036472063,967.03$ 0.007869953,664.19$ 114,570.95$ 12,202.17$ 1,343.07$ 13,545.24$ 13,545.24$ 1,070.56$ 21,411.28$ 121 304 7318 0.003713764,039.42$ 0.008013563,731.06$ 114,570.95$ 12,341.43$ 1,367.58$ 13,709.00$ 13,709.00$ 1,083.51$ 21,670.14$ 122 305 7318 0.0026488832,881.17$ 0.005715762,661.22$ 114,570.95$ 10,113.33$ 975.44$ 11,088.77$ 11,088.77$ 876.41$ 17,528.28$ 123 306 7318 0.0025157732,736.38$ 0.005428542,527.49$ 11306.45$ 5,570.32$ 926.42$ 6,496.75$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 7,069.15$ 572.40$ 124 101 7316 0.0023161092,519.21$ 0.004997702,326.90$ 1206.45$ 5,052.56$ 852.90$ 5,905.45$ 5,905.45$ 466.74$ 9,334.89$ 125 114 7316 0.0023161092,519.21$ 0.004997702,326.90$ 1206.45$ 5,052.56$ 852.90$ 5,905.45$ 5,905.45$ 466.74$ 9,334.89$ 126 112 7316 0.0023161092,519.21$ 0.004997702,326.90$ 1206.45$ 5,052.56$ 852.90$ 5,905.45$ 5,905.45$ 466.74$ 9,334.89$ 127 111 7316 0.0036472063,967.03$ 0.007869953,664.19$ 1 4,470.95$ 12,102.17$ 1,343.07$ 13,445.24$ 13,445.24$ 1,062.66$ 21,253.21$ 128 110 7316 0.0035806523,894.64$ 0.007726333,597.33$ 1 4,470.95$ 11,962.92$ 1,318.56$ 13,281.48$ 13,281.48$ 1,049.72$ 20,994.34$ 129 109 7316 0.0025823292,808.77$ 0.005572152,594.35$ 1 4,470.95$ 9,874.08$ 950.93$ 10,825.01$ 10,825.01$ 855.57$ 17,111.35$ 130 108 7316 0.0024492182,663.99$ 0.005284932,460.63$ 1206.45$ 5,331.07$ 901.91$ 6,232.98$ 6,232.98$ 492.63$ 9,852.62$ Common Common Elements Buidling Common Elements Limited Common ElementsTotal Cost to Owner (Before soft and loan financing costs)Total Financing & Soft CostsTOTAL COSTS (PREPAYMENT AMOUNT)* Annual Fee (105% of Total Costs)CondosTotal P & I Paid Per Unit (105%) - Non prepaid onlyPrepaidTOTAL OUTSTANDING ASSESSMENTS (PREPAYMENT ONLY)Rebate AmountEXHIBIT A TO RESOLUTION NO. ____2City Council Meeting of October 15, 2012 (Item No. 8b) Subject: Resolution to Amended Fee Resolution for the Greensboro Condominium Improvement Area (HIA)Page 7
Building TypeUnit #Building Unit #Building #Ownership PercentageTotal Common CostOwnership PercentageTotal Common Cost Garage Locker BalconyTotal Limited Common Cost1,087,690.60$ 465,593.01$ 4,470.95$ 206.45$ 100.00$ 368,246.00$ 131 107 7316 0.0024492182,663.99$ 0.005284932,460.63$ 1206.45$ 5,331.07$ 901.91$ 6,232.98$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 6,493.68$ 260.70$ 132 106 7316 0.0025823292,808.77$ 0.005572152,594.35$ 1 4,470.95$ 9,874.08$ 950.93$ 10,825.01$ 10,825.01$ 855.57$ 17,111.35$ 133 105 7316 0.0024492182,663.99$ 0.005284932,460.63$ 1206.45$ 5,331.07$ 901.91$ 6,232.98$ 6,232.98$ 492.63$ 9,852.62$ 134 104 7316 0.0036472063,967.03$ 0.007869953,664.19$ 1 4,470.95$ 12,102.17$ 1,343.07$ 13,445.24$ 13,445.24$ 1,062.66$ 21,253.21$ 135 103 7316 0.0034475423,749.86$ 0.007439113,463.60$ 1 4,470.95$ 11,684.40$ 1,269.54$ 12,953.95$ 12,953.95$ 1,023.83$ 20,476.61$ 136 102 7316 0.0023161092,519.21$ 0.004997702,326.90$ 11306.45$ 5,152.56$ 852.90$ 6,005.45$ 6,005.45$ 474.65$ 9,492.96$ 137 201 7316 0.0025157732,736.38$ 0.005428542,527.49$ 11306.45$ 5,570.32$ 926.42$ 6,496.75$ 6,496.75$ 513.48$ 10,269.56$ 138 215 7316 0.0021164452,302.04$ 0.004566872,126.30$ 11306.45$ 4,734.79$ 779.37$ 5,514.16$ 5,514.16$ 435.82$ 8,716.37$ 139 214 7316 0.0026488832,881.17$ 0.005715762,661.22$ 114,570.95$ 10,113.33$ 975.44$ 11,088.77$ 11,088.77$ 876.41$ 17,528.28$ 140 212 7316 0.0025157732,736.38$ 0.005428542,527.49$ 11306.45$ 5,570.32$ 926.42$ 6,496.75$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 7,069.15$ 572.40$ 141 211 7316 0.003713764,039.42$ 0.008013563,731.06$ 114,570.95$ 12,341.43$ 1,367.58$ 13,709.00$ 13,709.00$ 1,083.51$ 21,670.14$ 142 210 7316 0.0036472063,967.03$ 0.007869953,664.19$ 114,570.95$ 12,202.17$ 1,343.07$ 13,545.24$ 13,545.24$ 1,070.56$ 21,411.28$ 143 209 7316 0.0025157732,736.38$ 0.005428542,527.49$ 11306.45$ 5,570.32$ 926.42$ 6,496.75$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 7,069.15$ 572.40$ 144 208 7316 0.0025157732,736.38$ 0.005428542,527.49$ 11306.45$ 5,570.32$ 926.42$ 6,496.75$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 7,069.15$ 572.40$ 145 207 7316 0.0026488832,881.17$ 0.005715762,661.22$ 114,570.95$ 10,113.33$ 975.44$ 11,088.77$ 11,088.77$ 876.41$ 17,528.28$ 146 206 7316 0.0025157732,736.38$ 0.005428542,527.49$ 11306.45$ 5,570.32$ 926.42$ 6,496.75$ 6,496.75$ 513.48$ 10,269.56$ 147 205 7316 0.0025157732,736.38$ 0.005428542,527.49$ 11306.45$ 5,570.32$ 926.42$ 6,496.75$ 6,496.75$ 513.48$ 10,269.56$ 148 204 7316 0.003713764,039.42$ 0.008013563,731.06$ 114,570.95$ 12,341.43$ 1,367.58$ 13,709.00$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 16,978.01$ 3,269.01$ 149 203 7316 0.0036472063,967.03$ 0.007869953,664.19$ 114,570.95$ 12,202.17$ 1,343.07$ 13,545.24$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 16,802.54$ 3,257.30$ 150 202 7316 0.0026488832,881.17$ 0.005715762,661.22$ 114,570.95$ 10,113.33$ 975.44$ 11,088.77$ 11,088.77$ 876.41$ 17,528.28$ 151 301 7316 0.0025157732,736.38$ 0.005428542,527.49$ 11306.45$ 5,570.32$ 926.42$ 6,496.75$ 6,496.75$ 513.48$ 10,269.56$ 152 315 7316 0.0021164452,302.04$ 0.004566872,126.30$ 11306.45$ 4,734.79$ 779.37$ 5,514.16$ 5,514.16$ 435.82$ 8,716.37$ 153 314 7316 0.0026488832,881.17$ 0.005715762,661.22$ 114,570.95$ 10,113.33$ 975.44$ 11,088.77$ 11,088.77$ 876.41$ 17,528.28$ 154 312 7316 0.0025157732,736.38$ 0.005428542,527.49$ 11306.45$ 5,570.32$ 926.42$ 6,496.75$ 6,496.75$ 513.48$ 10,269.56$ 155 311 7316 0.003713764,039.42$ 0.008013563,731.06$ 114,570.95$ 12,341.43$ 1,367.58$ 13,709.00$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 16,978.01$ 3,269.01$ 156 310 7316 0.0036472063,967.03$ 0.007869953,664.19$ 114,570.95$ 12,202.17$ 1,343.07$ 13,545.24$ 13,545.24$ 1,070.56$ 21,411.28$ 157 309 7316 0.0025157732,736.38$ 0.005427852,527.17$ 11306.45$ 5,570.00$ 926.42$ 6,496.43$ 6,496.43$ 513.45$ 10,269.06$ 158 308 7316 0.0025157732,736.38$ 0.005427852,527.17$ 11306.45$ 5,570.00$ 926.42$ 6,496.43$ 6,496.43$ 513.45$ 10,269.06$ 159 307 7316 0.0026488832,881.17$ 0.005715762,661.22$ 114,570.95$ 10,113.33$ 975.44$ 11,088.77$ 11,088.77$ 876.41$ 17,528.28$ 160 306 7316 0.0026488832,881.17$ 0.005715762,661.22$ 114,570.95$ 10,113.33$ 975.44$ 11,088.77$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 14,170.41$ 3,081.64$ 161 305 7316 0.0025157732,736.38$ 0.005428542,527.49$ 11306.45$ 5,570.32$ 926.42$ 6,496.75$ 6,496.75$ 513.48$ 10,269.56$ 162 304 7316 0.003713764,039.42$ 0.008013563,731.06$ 114,570.95$ 12,341.43$ 1,367.58$ 13,709.00$ 13,709.00$ 1,083.51$ 21,670.14$ 163 303 7316 0.0036472063,967.03$ 0.007869953,664.19$ 114,570.95$ 12,202.17$ 1,343.07$ 13,545.24$ 13,545.24$ 1,070.56$ 21,411.28$ 164 302 7316 0.0025157732,736.38$ 0.005428542,527.49$ 11306.45$ 5,570.32$ 926.42$ 6,496.75$ 6,496.75$ 513.48$ 10,269.56$ 0.46 504,073.60$ 1.00 465,592.37$ 80 84 113 386,317.70$ 1,355,983.67$ 170,657.98$ 1,526,641.65$ 1,174,271.67$ 92,809.95$ 1,856,199.03$ 416,820.72$ Total Cost to Owner (Before soft and loan financing costs)Total Financing & Soft CostsTOTAL COSTS (PREPAYMENT AMOUNT)* Annual Fee (105% of Total Costs)Total P & I Paid Per Unit (105%) - Non prepaid onlyCondosTOTALCommon Common Elements Buidling Common Elements Limited Common ElementsPrepaidTOTAL OUTSTANDING ASSESSMENTS (PREPAYMENT ONLY)Rebate AmountEXHIBIT A TO RESOLUTION NO. ____3City Council Meeting of October 15, 2012 (Item No. 8b) Subject: Resolution to Amended Fee Resolution for the Greensboro Condominium Improvement Area (HIA)Page 8
Owner TotalBuilding TypeNumber of UnitsUnit # Building #Ownership PercentageTotal Common CostOwnership PercentageTotal Common Cost Garage Locker BalconyTotal Limited Common CostTotal Cost to Owner (Before cost of loan)1,087,690.60$ 266,404.44$ 4,470.95$ -$ -$ 368,246.00$ 165 7453 7453 0.005191285,646.51$ 0.026989627,190.154$ 14,470.95$ 17,307.61$ 1,911.67$ 19,219.28$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 22,046.89$ 2,827.61$ 166 7449 7449 0.005124725,574.11$ 0.026643607,097.973$ 14,470.95$ 17,143.03$ 1,887.16$ 19,030.19$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 21,851.24$ 2,821.05$ 167 7445 7445 0.004991615,429.33$ 0.025951566,913.610$ 14,470.95$ 16,813.89$ 1,838.14$ 18,652.03$ 18,652.03$ 1,474.19$ 29,483.71$ 168 7441 7441 0.004991615,429.33$ 0.025951566,913.610$ 14,470.95$ 16,813.89$ 1,838.14$ 18,652.03$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 21,459.95$ 2,807.92$ 169 7437 7437 0.004991615,429.33$ 0.025951566,913.610$ 14,470.95$ 16,813.89$ 1,838.14$ 18,652.03$ 18,652.03$ 1,474.19$ 29,483.71$ 170 7433 7433 0.004991615,429.33$ 0.025951566,913.610$ 14,470.95$ 16,813.89$ 1,838.14$ 18,652.03$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 21,459.95$ 2,807.92$ 171 7429 7429 0.004991615,429.33$ 0.025951566,913.610$ 14,470.95$ 16,813.89$ 1,838.14$ 18,652.03$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 21,459.95$ 2,807.92$ 172 7425 7425 0.004991615,429.33$ 0.025951566,913.610$ 14,470.95$ 16,813.89$ 1,838.14$ 18,652.03$ 18,652.03$ 1,474.19$ 29,483.71$ 173 7421 7421 0.005124725,574.11$ 0.026643607,097.973$ 14,470.95$ 17,143.03$ 1,887.16$ 19,030.19$ 19,030.19$ 1,504.07$ 30,081.48$ 174 7417 7417 0.005191285,646.51$ 0.026989627,190.154$ 14,470.95$ 17,307.61$ 1,911.67$ 19,219.28$ 19,219.28$ 1,519.02$ 30,380.37$ 175 7413 7413 0.005191285,646.51$ 0.026989627,190.154$ 14,470.95$ 17,307.61$ 1,911.67$ 19,219.28$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 22,046.89$ 2,827.61$ 176 7409 7409 0.005124725,574.11$ 0.026643607,097.973$ 14,470.95$ 17,143.03$ 1,887.16$ 19,030.19$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 21,851.24$ 2,821.05$ 177 7405 7405 0.004991615,429.33$ 0.025951566,913.610$ 14,470.95$ 16,813.89$ 1,838.14$ 18,652.03$ 18,652.03$ 1,474.19$ 29,483.71$ 178 7401 7401 0.004991615,429.33$ 0.025951566,913.610$ 14,470.95$ 16,813.89$ 1,838.14$ 18,652.03$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 21,459.95$ 2,807.92$ 179 7361 7361 0.004991615,429.33$ 0.025951566,913.610$ 14,470.95$ 16,813.89$ 1,838.14$ 18,652.03$ 18,652.03$ 1,474.19$ 29,483.71$ 180 7357 7357 0.004991615,429.33$ 0.025951566,913.610$ 14,470.95$ 16,813.89$ 1,838.14$ 18,652.03$ 18,652.03$ 1,474.19$ 29,483.71$ 181 7353 7353 0.004991615,429.33$ 0.025951566,913.610$ 14,470.95$ 16,813.89$ 1,838.14$ 18,652.03$ 18,652.03$ 1,474.19$ 29,483.71$ 182 7349 7349 0.004991615,429.33$ 0.025951566,913.610$ 14,470.95$ 16,813.89$ 1,838.14$ 18,652.03$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 21,459.95$ 2,807.92$ 183 7345 7345 0.005124725,574.11$ 0.026643607,097.973$ 14,470.95$ 17,143.03$ 1,887.16$ 19,030.19$ 19,030.19$ 1,504.07$ 30,081.48$ 184 7341 7341 0.005191285,646.51$ 0.026989627,190.154$ 14,470.95$ 17,307.61$ 1,911.67$ 19,219.28$ 19,219.28$ 1,519.02$ 30,380.37$ 185 7337 7337 0.005191285,646.51$ 0.026989627,190.154$ 14,470.95$ 17,307.61$ 1,911.67$ 19,219.28$ 19,219.28$ 1,519.02$ 30,380.37$ 186 7333 7333 0.005124725,574.11$ 0.026643607,097.973$ 14,470.95$ 17,143.03$ 1,887.16$ 19,030.19$ 19,030.19$ 1,504.07$ 30,081.48$ 187 7329 7329 0.004991615,429.33$ 0.025951566,913.610$ 14,470.95$ 16,813.89$ 1,838.14$ 18,652.03$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 21,459.95$ 2,807.92$ 188 7325 7325 0.004991615,429.33$ 0.025951566,913.610$ 14,470.95$ 16,813.89$ 1,838.14$ 18,652.03$ 18,652.03$ 1,474.19$ 29,483.71$ 189 7321 7321 0.004991615,429.33$ 0.025951566,913.610$ 14,470.95$ 16,813.89$ 1,838.14$ 18,652.03$ 18,652.03$ 1,474.19$ 29,483.71$ 190 7317 7317 0.004991615,429.33$ 0.025951566,913.610$ 14,470.95$ 16,813.89$ 1,838.14$ 18,652.03$ 18,652.03$ 1,474.19$ 29,483.71$ 191 7313 7313 0.004991615,429.33$ 0.025951566,913.610$ 14,470.95$ 16,813.89$ 1,838.14$ 18,652.03$ 18,652.03$ 1,474.19$ 29,483.71$ 192 7309 7309 0.004991615,429.33$ 0.025951566,913.610$ 14,470.95$ 16,813.89$ 1,838.14$ 18,652.03$ 18,652.03$ 1,474.19$ 29,483.71$ 193 7305 7305 0.005124725,574.11$ 0.026643607,097.973$ 14,470.95$ 17,143.03$ 1,887.16$ 19,030.19$ 19,030.19$ 1,504.07$ 30,081.48$ 194 7301 7301 0.005191285,646.51$ 0.026989627,190.154$ 14,470.95$ 17,307.61$ 1,911.67$ 19,219.28$ 19,219.28$ 1,519.02$ 30,380.37$ 227 7235 7235 0.005191285,646.51$ 0.026989627,190.154$ 14,470.95$ 17,307.61$ 1,911.67$ 19,219.28$ 19,219.28$ 1,519.02$ 30,380.37$ 228 7231 7231 0.005124725,574.11$ 0.026643607,097.973$ 14,470.95$ 17,143.03$ 1,887.16$ 19,030.19$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 21,851.24$ 2,821.05$ 229 7227 7227 0.004991615,429.33$ 0.025951566,913.610$ 14,470.95$ 16,813.89$ 1,838.14$ 18,652.03$ 18,652.03$ 1,474.19$ 29,483.71$ 230 7223 7223 0.004991615,429.33$ 0.025951566,913.610$ 14,470.95$ 16,813.89$ 1,838.14$ 18,652.03$ 18,652.03$ 1,474.19$ 29,483.71$ 231 7219 7219 0.004991615,429.33$ 0.025951566,913.610$ 14,470.95$ 16,813.89$ 1,838.14$ 18,652.03$ 18,652.03$ 1,474.19$ 29,483.71$ 232 7215 7215 0.004991615,429.33$ 0.025951566,913.610$ 14,470.95$ 16,813.89$ 1,838.14$ 18,652.03$ 18,652.03$ 1,474.19$ 29,483.71$ 233 7211 7211 0.005124725,574.11$ 0.026643607,097.973$ 14,470.95$ 17,143.03$ 1,887.16$ 19,030.19$ 19,030.19$ 1,504.07$ 30,081.48$ 234 7207 7207 0.005191285,646.51$ 0.026989627,190.154$ 14,470.95$ 17,307.61$ 1,911.67$ 19,219.28$ 19,219.28$ 1,519.02$ 30,380.37$ 0.19 209,210.27$ 1.00 266,404.44$ 38 0 0 169,896.01$ 645,510.72$ 70,829.74$ 716,340.46$ 508,899.14$ 40,221.45$ 804,428.91$ 238,407.20$ Common Common Elements Buidling Common Elements Limited Common ElementsTOTAL COSTS (PREPAYMENT AMOUNT)* Annual Fee (105% of Total Costs)Total Financing & Soft Costs2-BedroomTOTALTotal P & I Paid Per Unit (105%) - Non prepaid onlyPrepaidTOTAL OUTSTANDING ASSESSMENTS (PREPAYMENT ONLY)Rebate AmountEXHIBIT A TO RESOLUTION NO. ____4City Council Meeting of October 15, 2012 (Item No. 8b) Subject: Resolution to Amended Fee Resolution for the Greensboro Condominium Improvement Area (HIA)Page 9
Owner TotalBuilding TypeNumber of UnitsUnit # Building #Ownership PercentageTotal Common CostOwnership PercentageTotal Common Cost Garage Locker BalconyTotal Limited Common CostTotal Cost to Owner (Before cost of loan)1,087,690.60$ 478,117.52$ -$ -$ 4,914.47$ 368,246.00$ 195 7233 7233 0.006056496,587.59$ 0.017594778,412.37$ 14,914.47$ 19,914.43$ 2,230.28$ 22,144.71$ 22,144.71$ 1,750.23$ 35,004.67$ 196 7229 7229 0.005989946,515.20$ 0.017401398,319.91$ ‐$ 14,835.11$ 2,205.77$ 17,040.88$ 17,040.88$ 1,346.85$ 26,936.92$ 197 7225 7225 0.005790276,298.03$ 0.016821358,042.58$ ‐$ 14,340.61$ 2,132.24$ 16,472.85$ 16,472.85$ 1,301.95$ 26,039.02$ 198 7221 7221 0.005790276,298.03$ 0.016821358,042.58$ ‐$ 14,340.61$ 2,132.24$ 16,472.85$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 17,489.73$ 1,016.88$ 199 7217 7217 0.005790276,298.03$ 0.016821358,042.58$ ‐$ 14,340.61$ 2,132.24$ 16,472.85$ 16,472.85$ 1,301.95$ 26,039.02$ 200 7213 7213 0.005790276,298.03$ 0.016821358,042.58$ ‐$ 14,340.61$ 2,132.24$ 16,472.85$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 17,489.73$ 1,016.88$ 201 7209 7209 0.005989946,515.20$ 0.017401398,319.91$ ‐$ 14,835.11$ 2,205.77$ 17,040.88$ 17,040.88$ 1,346.85$ 26,936.92$ 202 7205 7205 0.006056496,587.59$ 0.017594778,412.37$ ‐$ 14,999.96$ 2,230.28$ 17,230.24$ 17,230.24$ 1,361.81$ 27,236.25$ 203 7451 7451 0.006056496,587.59$ 0.017594748,412.36$ ‐$ 14,999.95$ 2,230.28$ 17,230.23$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 18,293.86$ 1,063.63$ 204 7447 7447 0.005989946,515.20$ 0.017401398,319.91$ 14,914.47$ 19,749.58$ 2,205.77$ 21,955.35$ 21,955.35$ 1,735.27$ 34,705.34$ 205 7439 7439 0.005790276,298.03$ 0.016821358,042.58$ ‐$ 14,340.61$ 2,132.24$ 16,472.85$ 16,472.85$ 1,301.95$ 26,039.02$ 206 7435 7435 0.005923386,442.81$ 0.017208048,227.47$ ‐$ 14,670.27$ 2,181.26$ 16,851.54$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 17,891.80$ 1,040.26$ 207 7431 7431 0.005923386,442.81$ 0.017208048,227.47$ ‐$ 14,670.27$ 2,181.26$ 16,851.54$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 17,891.80$ 1,040.26$ 208 7427 7427 0.005790276,298.03$ 0.016821358,042.58$ ‐$ 14,340.61$ 2,132.24$ 16,472.85$ 16,472.85$ 1,301.95$ 26,039.02$ 209 7423 7423 0.005989946,515.20$ 0.017401398,319.91$ 14,914.47$ 19,749.58$ 2,205.77$ 21,955.35$ 21,955.35$ 1,735.27$ 34,705.34$ 210 7419 7419 0.006056496,587.59$ 0.017594748,412.36$ 14,914.47$ 19,914.42$ 2,230.28$ 22,144.70$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 25,293.86$ 3,149.16$ 211 7411 7411 0.006056496,587.59$ 0.017594748,412.36$ 14,914.47$ 19,914.42$ 2,230.28$ 22,144.70$ 22,144.70$ 1,750.23$ 35,004.64$ 212 7407 7407 0.005989946,515.20$ 0.017401398,319.91$ 14,914.47$ 19,749.58$ 2,205.77$ 21,955.35$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 25,092.82$ 3,137.48$ 213 7403 7403 0.005790276,298.03$ 0.016821358,042.58$ ‐$ 14,340.61$ 2,132.24$ 16,472.85$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 17,489.73$ 1,016.88$ 214 7351 7351 0.005923386,442.81$ 0.017208048,227.47$ ‐$ 14,670.27$ 2,181.26$ 16,851.54$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 17,891.80$ 1,040.26$ 215 7347 7347 0.005923386,442.81$ 0.017208048,227.47$ ‐$ 14,670.27$ 2,181.26$ 16,851.54$ 16,851.54$ 1,331.88$ 26,637.62$ 216 7343 7343 0.005790276,298.03$ 0.016821358,042.58$ ‐$ 14,340.61$ 2,132.24$ 16,472.85$ 16,472.85$ 1,301.95$ 26,039.02$ 217 7339 7339 0.005989946,515.20$ 0.017401398,319.91$ 14,914.47$ 19,749.58$ 2,205.77$ 21,955.35$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 25,092.82$ 3,137.48$ 218 7335 7335 0.006056496,587.59$ 0.017594748,412.36$ ‐$ 14,999.95$ 2,230.28$ 17,230.23$ 17,230.23$ 1,361.81$ 27,236.22$ 219 7331 7331 0.006056496,587.59$ 0.017594748,412.36$ 14,914.47$ 19,914.42$ 2,230.28$ 22,144.70$ 22,144.70$ 1,750.23$ 35,004.64$ 220 7327 7327 0.005989946,515.20$ 0.017401398,319.91$ 14,914.47$ 19,749.58$ 2,205.77$ 21,955.35$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 25,092.82$ 3,137.48$ 221 7323 7323 0.005790276,298.03$ 0.016821358,042.58$ ‐$ 14,340.61$ 2,132.24$ 16,472.85$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 17,489.73$ 1,016.88$ 222 7319 7319 0.005923386,442.81$ 0.017208048,227.47$ ‐$ 14,670.27$ 2,181.26$ 16,851.54$ 16,851.54$ 1,331.88$ 26,637.62$ 223 7315 7315 0.005923386,442.81$ 0.017208048,227.47$ ‐$ 14,670.27$ 2,181.26$ 16,851.54$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 17,891.80$ 1,040.26$ 224 7311 7311 0.005790276,298.03$ 0.016821358,042.58$ ‐$ 14,340.61$ 2,132.24$ 16,472.85$ 16,472.85$ 1,301.95$ 26,039.02$ 225 7307 7307 0.005989946,515.20$ 0.017401398,319.91$ 14,914.47$ 19,749.58$ 2,205.77$ 21,955.35$ 21,955.35$ 1,735.27$ 34,705.34$ 226 7303 7303 0.006056496,587.59$ 0.017594748,412.36$ 14,914.47$ 19,914.42$ 2,230.28$ 22,144.70$ 22,144.70$ 1,750.23$ 35,004.64$ 235 2004 2004 0.005989946,515.20$ 0.017401398,319.91$ ‐$ 14,835.11$ 2,205.77$ 17,040.88$ 17,040.88$ 1,346.85$ 26,936.92$ 236 2006 2006 0.005923386,442.81$ 0.017208048,227.47$ ‐$ 14,670.27$ 2,181.26$ 16,851.54$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 17,891.80$ 1,040.26$ 237 2008 2008 0.005923386,442.81$ 0.017208048,227.47$ ‐$ 14,670.27$ 2,181.26$ 16,851.54$ 16,851.54$ 1,331.88$ 26,637.62$ 238 2010 2010 0.005790276,298.03$ 0.016821358,042.58$ ‐$ 14,340.61$ 2,132.24$ 16,472.85$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 17,489.73$ 1,016.88$ 239 2012 2012 0.005989946,515.20$ 0.017401398,319.91$ 14,914.47$ 19,749.58$ 2,205.77$ 21,955.35$ 21,955.35$ 1,735.27$ 34,705.34$ 240 2014 2014 0.005989946,515.20$ 0.017401398,319.91$ ‐$ 14,835.11$ 2,205.77$ 17,040.88$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 18,092.82$ 1,051.95$ 241 2016 2016 0.005989946,515.20$ 0.017401398,319.91$ ‐$ 14,835.11$ 2,205.77$ 17,040.88$ 17,040.88$ 1,346.85$ 26,936.92$ 242 2018 2018 0.005989946,515.20$ 0.017401398,319.91$ 14,914.47$ 19,749.58$ 2,205.77$ 21,955.35$ 21,955.35$ 1,735.27$ 34,705.34$ 243 2020 2020 0.005790276,298.03$ 0.016821358,042.58$ ‐$ 14,340.61$ 2,132.24$ 16,472.85$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 17,489.73$ 1,016.88$ 244 2022 2022 0.005989946,515.20$ 0.017401398,319.91$ ‐$ 14,835.11$ 2,205.77$ 17,040.88$ 17,040.88$ 1,346.85$ 26,936.92$ 245 2024 2024 0.005989946,515.20$ 0.017401398,319.91$ ‐$ 14,835.11$ 2,205.77$ 17,040.88$ 17,040.88$ 1,346.85$ 26,936.92$ 246 2026 2026 0.005790276,298.03$ 0.016821358,042.58$ ‐$ 14,340.61$ 2,132.24$ 16,472.85$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 17,489.73$ 1,016.88$ 247 2028 2028 0.005989946,515.20$ 0.017401398,319.91$ 14,914.47$ 19,749.58$ 2,205.77$ 21,955.35$ 21,955.35$ 1,735.27$ 34,705.34$ 248 2030 2030 0.005989946,515.20$ 0.017401398,319.91$ 14,914.47$ 19,749.58$ 2,205.77$ 21,955.35$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 25,092.82$ 3,137.48$ 249 2032 2032 0.005989946,515.20$ 0.017401398,319.91$ 14,914.47$ 19,749.58$ 2,205.77$ 21,955.35$ 21,955.35$ 1,735.27$ 34,705.34$ 250 2034 2034 0.005989946,515.20$ 0.017401398,319.91$ 14,914.47$ 19,749.58$ 2,205.77$ 21,955.35$ 21,955.35$ 1,735.27$ 34,705.34$ 251 2036 2036 0.005790276,298.03$ 0.016821358,042.58$ ‐$ 14,340.61$ 2,132.24$ 16,472.85$ 16,472.85$ 1,301.95$ 26,039.02$ 252 2038 2038 0.005989946,515.20$ 0.017401398,319.91$ ‐$ 14,835.11$ 2,205.77$ 17,040.88$ 17,040.88$ 1,346.85$ 26,936.92$ 253 2054 2054 0.005989946,515.20$ 0.017401398,319.91$ ‐$ 14,835.11$ 2,205.77$ 17,040.88$ 17,040.88$ 1,346.85$ 26,936.92$ 254 2052 2052 0.005790276,298.03$ 0.016821358,042.58$ ‐$ 14,340.61$ 2,132.24$ 16,472.85$ 16,472.85$ 1,301.95$ 26,039.02$ 255 2050 2050 0.005989946,515.20$ 0.017401398,319.91$ 14,914.47$ 19,749.58$ 2,205.77$ 21,955.35$ 21,955.35$ 1,735.27$ 34,705.34$ 256 2048 2048 0.005989946,515.20$ 0.017401398,319.91$ ‐$ 14,835.11$ 2,205.77$ 17,040.88$ 17,040.88$ 1,346.85$ 26,936.92$ 257 2046 2046 0.005989946,515.20$ 0.017401398,319.91$ ‐$ 14,835.11$ 2,205.77$ 17,040.88$ 17,040.88$ 1,346.85$ 26,936.92$ 258 2044 2044 0.005989946,515.20$ 0.017401398,319.91$ 14,914.47$ 19,749.58$ 2,205.77$ 21,955.35$ 21,955.35$ 1,735.27$ 34,705.34$ 259 2042 2042 0.005790276,298.03$ 0.016821358,042.58$ ‐$ 14,340.61$ 2,132.24$ 16,472.85$ 16,472.85$ 1,301.95$ 26,039.02$ 260 2040 2040 0.005989946,515.20$ 0.017401398,319.91$ ‐$ 14,835.11$ 2,205.77$ 17,040.88$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 18,092.82$ 1,051.95$ 0.34 374,406.72$ 1.00 478,117.55$ 0 0 19 93,374.93$ 945,899.20$ 126,758.27$ 1,072,657.47$ 711,811.77$ 56,258.89$ 1,125,177.71$ 392,031.76$ 1.00 1,087,690.58 3.00 1,210,114.37 118 84 132 649,588.64 2,947,394.28 368,246.00 3,315,640 2,394,983 189,290.28 3,785,805.65 1,047,259.68 126,602.68$ Common Common Elements Buidling Common Elements Limited Common ElementsTotal Financing & Soft CostsTOTAL COSTS (PREPAYMENT AMOUNT)* Annual Fee (105% of Total Costs)3‐BedroomTOTALGRANDTOTALPrepaidTOTAL OUTSTANDING ASSESSMENTS (PREPAYMENT ONLY)Rebate AmountTotal P & I Paid Per Unit (105%) - Non prepaid onlyEXHIBIT A TO RESOLUTION NO. ____5City Council Meeting of October 15, 2012 (Item No. 8b) Subject: Resolution to Amended Fee Resolution for the Greensboro Condominium Improvement Area (HIA)Page 10