HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012/07/23 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - Study SessionAGENDA
JULY 23, 2012
(Councilmembers Sanger & Spano Out)
6:30 p.m. CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION – Council Chambers
Discussion Items
1. 6:30 p.m. Future Study Session Agenda Planning – August 6 and August 13, 2012
2. 6:35 p.m. Property Acquisition Update – Highway 7 and Louisiana Avenue Grade
Separated Crossing Project
3. 7:05 p.m. City Hall First Floor Reconfiguration/Remodel
4. 8:05 p.m. Eliot School Redevelopment Site
5. 8:50 p.m. Fire and Police Analysis for Future Planning
6. 9:05 p.m. Communications/Meeting Check-In (Verbal)
9:10 p.m. Adjourn
Written Reports
7. June 2012 Monthly Financial Report
8. Second Quarter Investment Report (April - June, 2012)
9. Renewal of Xcel and CenterPoint Energy (CPE) Franchise Agreements
10. Redevelopment Project and EDA Contract Status Report: July 2012
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 Date: July 23, 2012
Agenda Item #:
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:
Future Study Session Agenda Planning – August 6 and August 13, 2012
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
The City Council and the City Manager to set the agenda for a Special Study Session scheduled
for August 6 and the regularly scheduled Study Session on August 13, 2012.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the Council agree with the agendas as proposed?
BACKGROUND:
At each study session approximately five minutes are set aside to discuss the next study session
agenda. For this purpose, attached please find the tentative agenda and proposed discussion
items for a Special Study Session scheduled for August 6 and the regularly scheduled Study
Session on August 13, 2012.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
Attachments: Future Study Session Agenda Planning – August 6 and August 13, 2012
Prepared by: Debbie Fischer, Office Assistant
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of July 23, 2012 (Item No. 1) Page 2
Title: Future Study Session Agenda Planning – August 6 and August 13, 2012
Special City Council Meeting, August 6, 2012 – 6:30 p.m.
Tentative Discussion Item
1. Planning Commission 2011 Annual Report & Work Plan (w/ Commission) – Community
Development (45 minutes)
As requested by Council, Commissioners from the Planning Commission will be present to
discuss their Annual Report and Work Plan with Council.
End of Meeting: 7:15 p.m.
Study Session, August 13, 2012 – 6:30 p.m.
(City Manager Harmening Out)
Tentative Discussion Items
1. Future Study Session Agenda Planning – Administrative Services (5 minutes)
2. 2013 Budget, CIP, Utility Rates/Proposed Levy – Accounting (60 minutes)
Discussion on the overall 2013 Budget and getting Council direction for setting the 2013
Preliminary Levy amount on September 4th.
3. Beltline LRT Station Circulation Plan – Community Development (45 minutes)
Staff and Consultant from SRF will provide Council with an update on the circulation
work around the Beltline LRT Station area.
4. Communications/Meeting Check-In – Administrative Services (5 minutes)
Time for communications between staff and Council will be set aside on every study session
agenda for the purposes of information sharing.
Reports
6. ERRP Funds Update
7. MS4 Annual Report (Storm Water Report)
End of Meeting: 8:25 p.m.
Meeting Date: July 23, 2012
Agenda Item #: 2
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:
Property Acquisition Update – Highway 7 and Louisiana Avenue Grade Separated Crossing Project
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
No formal action required.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Staff desires input and feedback from the Council on a property acquisition question related to
the properties occupied by the two billboards.
BACKGROUND:
As noted previously, staff has begun the acquisition process related to allowing the Highway 7
and Louisiana Avenue Project to proceed. Two billboards are impacted by this project and staff
desires direction on how to approach these acquisitions. Tom Scott will be in attendance to
discuss this matter with the City Council.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable at this time.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
Attachments: None
Prepared & Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting Date:
Meeting Date: July 23, 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:
City Hall First Floor Reconfiguration/Remodel
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
No action at this time. This report is intended to provide background information to assist with
the Study Session discussion. To facilitate the discussion staff proposes to take the Council on a
tour of the entire first floor space.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Is Council in support of proceeding with developing a plan to reconfigure/remodel the first floor
of City Hall?
BACKGROUND:
In 2000 there were various changes made to the layout/floor plan of City Hall including the
location of the City Hall receptionist area. The receptionist used to be located on the third floor
with the main entrance to City Hall off of Minnetonka Boulevard. As a result of the removal of
on-street parking from Minnetonka Blvd, the main entrance to City Hall and receptionist area
were moved to the first floor as part of remodeling efforts that were undertaken at that time.
With the relocation of Fire Admin staff from the first floor of City Hall to Fire Station 1, an
opportunity now exists to take advantage of this space and correct deficiencies with the layout
and the use of the space on the first floor. A specific deficiency that has been of note for some
time now relates to the location of the receptionist area. The receptionist area is located in a
corner on the first floor and not very easily detected by customers and not customer service
friendly.
In September, 2011 a committee made up of employees representing various city departments
was given the charge to review the layout and function of the first floor, identify deficiencies,
and make recommendations for improvement in how we serve our customers. The committee
met for the remainder of 2011 and provided their recommendations to the City Manager. The
recommendations included:
• Relocate the receptionist area on the first floor and improve functionality/customer
service
• Address security issues and better delineate public vs. private spaces.
• Make improvements to the Community Room
• Address the customer experience and deficiencies with the main stairwell.
• Consolidate and improve the office space for Information Resources staff (some staff
are located in former closets and storage areas).
• Improve employee space related to the lunch room and provide employee showers (to
help facilitate the City’s health and wellness initiative).
Study Session Meeting of July 23, 2012 (Item No. 3) Page 2
Subject: City Hall First Floor Reconfiguration/Remodel
DISCUSSION:
Subsequent to the recommendations made by the committee, the Architect/Engineering firm
Krech, O’Brien, Mueller and Associates was retained to meet with the committee and with the
IR Division to develop and evaluate possible design opportunities, taking into account the
recommendations made. The architect took into consideration that the city was not going to add
any new building square footage and to keep the design consistent with the City Hall/Police
Station campus model.
Brady Mueller and Cindy Douthett Nagel from Krech, O’Brien, Mueller and Associates will be
in attendance and will outline a design that has become the recommendation for addressing the
previously identified issues. The entrance and first floor concepts, including a 3-D power-point
presentation, will be provided at the meeting along with paper copies.
NEXT STEPS:
If the Council agrees with the proposed reconfiguration, staff will move forward with retaining
an architect for full design and construction drawings. An open house will be scheduled for all
City Hall employees to review and provide comments on the proposed plan. The design
committee will work with the architect on the many details yet to be determined as plans and
specifications are created. A bid date for early 2013 is expected with construction beginning
spring, 2013. The construction is proposed to last between six and nine months. Many details
on keeping City Hall open and service delivery occurring during the construction will need to be
worked out.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
The project budget based on the proposed design would be established at $1.7 - $1.8 million.
This is based on the architect’s estimates for the proposed work and includes:
• Conceptual Design (nearly completed) $ 30,000
• Full Design and Plans $ 140,000
• Construction $1,220,000
• Design and Construction Contingency (20%) $ 270,000
The funding source for this proposed project will be the Capital Replacement Fund (CRF). The
CRF would accommodate the proposed project. Currently over $2.1 million is allocated in the
CRF for combined City Hall first floor interior, stair tower, canopy and exterior projects.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged community.
Attachment: None
Prepared by: Brian Hoffman, Director of Inspections
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting Date: July 23, 2012
Agenda Item #: 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:
Eliot School Redevelopment Site
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
No formal action at this time. Staff desires feedback from the Council on the proposal.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the City Council support the concept plan for redevelopment of the Eliot School site?
Possible future policy considerations related to the redevelopment are discussed in greater detail
below.
BACKGROUND:
The purpose of this Staff report is to provide the City Council with further details regarding the
development proposal for the Eliot School site and a summary of a neighborhood meeting to
discuss the proposal.
As presented in the Study Session Report on July 9th, the developer is proposing the construction
of two new apartment buildings with a total of 144 units, and the creation of two new single
family lots. The two apartment buildings will cover much of the site. Each three-story building
would have a total of 72 units. Graphics and plans depicting the proposed development are
attached.
The proposed buildings are three stories in height, although the architects reduced the building
height to two stories in areas nearest to existing homes. The proposed site plan includes areas for
stormwater management, outdoor recreation, and landscaping. Parking for residents would be
provided below the buildings, with guest parking between the two buildings.
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 two new single
family lots. As proposed, one lot faces Hampshire and one lot faces Idaho. Together with the
apartment buildings, a total of 146 new residential units are proposed for the site. The overall
density of the site would be 34.7 units per acre.
The developer, Mr. Dan Hunt of Hunt Associates, LLC, held a neighborhood meeting to discuss
the proposal with residents on July 18th. There were 47 residents in attendance at the meeting,
held at the West End Community Room. Both negative and positive comments were provided;
the attendees had a lively discussion with one another and with the developer. Negative
comments included concerns about a future conversion of the new buildings to low-income
apartments, the density of the development, and impacts to neighborhood property values.
Positive comments included the relatively low height of the buildings, the proposed new single
family lots, the proposed walkway between properties, and the setback of the proposed buildings
Study Session Meeting of July 23, 2012 (Item No. 4) Page 2
Subject: Eliot School Redevelopment Site
from the property lines. There was a shared concern by most attendees about traffic. The
developer responded with a shared desire by both he and the City to address this issue, and it was
noted that a traffic study will be completed if the development moves forward to the application
stage. Other questions ranged from the demographics of future residents to specifics about the
buildings’ design.
A petition was submitted to City Staff after the completion of the neighborhood meeting,
attached for review. The residents signing the petition are stating their general opposition to
apartments on the site and have included comments regarding why they believe apartments are
an inappropriate redevelopment type. A total of 65 residents signed the petition.
Design Guidelines:
In anticipation of redevelopment of the site, design guidelines for the Eliot School site were
proactively developed 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 proposed development largely meets
the ten site reuse principles of the design guidelines, including a transition of building heights
across the site, opportunities for green open space and connectivity, complementing the existing
development scale and character of the neighborhood, and redevelopment feasibility.
The guidelines called for construction of a mix of residential housing types, a priority of the
design guidelines. However, the guidelines called for housing to be constructed at up to 30
dwelling units per acre; the proposed development exceeds the guideline’s recommendation at
34.7 units per acre. The developer has indicated that reducing the total number of units may
impact the development’s feasibility.
Next Steps:
After the City Council has the opportunity to discuss the proposal, 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, but nothing specific regarding TIF has been discussed to date.
Should the developer move forward with the proposal, it is anticipated that the following land
use applications would be submitted:
• Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map Amendment
• Rezoning
• Preliminary and Final Plat
• Preliminary and Final Planned Unit Development
If there are not major changes to the design concept requested at the City Council Study Session,
the developer intends to begin work on the detailed site and building plans that will be needed
prior to submitting applications for the development.
Following City Council review of the proposal on July 23rd, the Housing Authority Board will
have an opportunity to review the development at its August 8th meeting.
Study Session Meeting of July 23, 2012 (Item No. 4) Page 3
Subject: Eliot School Redevelopment Site
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
It is anticipated that the developer will be seeking tax-increment financing assistance (TIF). The
developer will provide a general outline of the reasons for the request at the Study Session
meeting.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
The proposed development for the Eliot School site fits within the Strategic Direction adopted by
the Council in 2007 to provide a well-maintained and diverse housing stock.
Attachments: Proposed Site Plan and Perspective Drawing
Excerpt, Eliot School Design Guidelines
Petition from Neighboring Property Owners
Prepared by: Adam Fulton, Planner
Reviewed by: Meg McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor
Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
June 20, 2012CEDAR LAKE ROAD1 a r c h i t e c tsEliot ParkSITE PLAN144 APARTMENT UNITS190 PARKING STALLS BELOW20 PARKING STALLS AT CGRADE210 STALLS TOTAL (1.46/UNIT)200 BEDROOMS (88 1BR & 56 2BR UNITSHAMPSHIRE AVE.VECED
A
R
L
A
K
E
R
O
A
DIDAHO AVE.78’-0”23’-0”
30’-0”
22’+20STALLS23’-0”
44’-0”60’-0”35’-0”50’-0”30’-0”NEW SINGLE FAMILY LOTNEW SINGLE FAMILY LOT222’+22’+5353333333333335333333333333555555555555555533333 THREE STORIES TWO STORIES BALCONIES Study Session Meeting of July 23, 2012 (Item No. 4) Subject: Eliot School Redevelopment SitePage 4
June 20, 2012CEDAR LAKE ROAD2 a r c h i t e c tsEliot ParkAREA PLANHAMPSHIRE AVE.CEDAR LAKE ROADIDAHO AVE.78’-0”23’-0”30’-0”22’+20STALLS23’-0”44’-0”60’-0”35’-0”50’-0”30’-0”NEW SINGLE FAMILY LOTNEW SINGLE FAMILY LOTStudy Session Meeting of July 23, 2012 (Item No. 4) Subject: Eliot School Redevelopment SitePage 5
June 20, 2012CEDAR LAKE ROAD3 a r c h i t e c tsEliot ParkSOUTH WEST AERIAL PERSPECTIVEStudy Session Meeting of July 23, 2012 (Item No. 4) Subject: Eliot School Redevelopment SitePage 6
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
Study Session Meeting of July 23, 2012 (Item No. 4)
Subject: Eliot School Redevelopment Site Page 7
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
Study Session Meeting of July 23, 2012 (Item No. 4)
Subject: Eliot School Redevelopment Site Page 8
Page 10 Eliot Comunity Center Site Reuse Study Design Guidelines
Site Design Diagram
Study Session Meeting of July 23, 2012 (Item No. 4)
Subject: Eliot School Redevelopment Site Page 9
Page 14 Eliot Comunity Center Site Reuse Study Design Guidelines
Building Design Diagram
Study Session Meeting of July 23, 2012 (Item No. 4)
Subject: Eliot School Redevelopment Site Page 10
Study Session Meeting of July 23, 2012 (Item No. 4)
Subject: Eliot School Redevelopment Site Page 11
Study Session Meeting of July 23, 2012 (Item No. 4)
Subject: Eliot School Redevelopment Site Page 12
Study Session Meeting of July 23, 2012 (Item No. 4)
Subject: Eliot School Redevelopment Site Page 13
Study Session Meeting of July 23, 2012 (Item No. 4)
Subject: Eliot School Redevelopment Site Page 14
Study Session Meeting of July 23, 2012 (Item No. 4)
Subject: Eliot School Redevelopment Site Page 15
Study Session Meeting of July 23, 2012 (Item No. 4)
Subject: Eliot School Redevelopment Site Page 16
Study Session Meeting of July 23, 2012 (Item No. 4)
Subject: Eliot School Redevelopment Site Page 17
Study Session Meeting of July 23, 2012 (Item No. 4)
Subject: Eliot School Redevelopment Site Page 18
Study Session Meeting of July 23, 2012 (Item No. 4)
Subject: Eliot School Redevelopment Site Page 19
Study Session Meeting of July 23, 2012 (Item No. 4)
Subject: Eliot School Redevelopment Site Page 20
Meeting Date: July 23, 2012
Agenda Item #: 5
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:
Fire and Police Analysis for Future Planning
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
No action needed at this time. The purpose of this report is to update Council on this initiative.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does Council need any additional information?
BACKGROUND:
As a part of the 2012 budget process the City Council approved setting aside up to $80,000 to
undertake an analysis of the operations of the Police and Fire Departments as a means to
anticipate and plan for possible future resource needs in these departments. Staff has undertaken
a process of requesting proposals from consultants to undertake this analysis and is expected to
select a firm soon. Both Police Chief Luse and Fire Chief Stemmer have been involved in
discussions, reviewed proposals and will continue to be key participants in this project.
The consulting firm selected will study current and future trends in Fire and Police. They will
also review our current police and fire operations, community/metro area trends, population and
diversity, as well as future service needs, wants and opportunities.
The study will help us anticipate, innovate and adapt for changes coming to our community and
service delivery to those who live, work and visit our city. Attention will be given to the fact that:
1. Demographic changes have been and will continue to occur in our community and in the
Twin Cities metro area.
2. Development and redevelopment is strong and continues in St. Louis Park. Police and
Fire operations play a major role in serving this growth.
3. SWLRT is on the horizon and will have impacts on our Police and Fire operations given
the operation of the transportation system itself and the redevelopment that comes with it.
The outcomes of the study should provide information to assist the City Council in
understanding and planning for the future and help the City Manager, Police and Fire Chief in
strategic planning and improving organizational efficiencies.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Funds for this study are included in the 2012 budget.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
This study supports the Vision that St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and
engaged community.
Attachments: None
Prepared by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting Date: July 23, 2012
Agenda Item #: 7
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:
June 2012 Monthly Financial Report
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
No action required at this time.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
None at this time.
BACKGROUND:
This report is designed to provide summary information each month of the overall level of
revenues and expenditures in both the General Fund and the Park and Recreation Fund. These
funds should be a primary concern in analyzing the City’s financial health because they represent
the discretionary use of tax levy dollars.
Actual expenditures should generally run about 50% of the annual budget in June. Currently, the
General Fund has expenditures totaling 46% of the adopted budget and the Park and Recreation
Fund expenditures are at 50.2%. Revenues tend to be harder to gauge in this same way due to
the timing of when they are received, examples of which include property taxes and State aid
payments (Police & Fire, DOT/Highway, PERA Aid, etc.).
Most General Fund and Park and Recreation Departments continue to be running at or below
budget through mid-year. Comments on a few revenue and expenditure variances are noted below.
General Fund
Revenues:
• License and permit revenues in the General Fund continue to exceed budget at 88%
through June. As in prior years, all of the budgeted liquor and business license revenues
were received earlier in the year. Permit revenues are still running well ahead of budget
through June at 82%, compared to 63% in May. June permit activity alone was over
$322,000, or 20% of the total annual budget.
Expenditures:
• The Community Outreach budget remains at 71% because the full 2012 payment for
Mediation Services was made early in the year. This expenditure is a substantial portion
of the Community Outreach General Fund budget.
Parks and Recreation
Expenditures:
• The Organized Recreation Division is at 58.5% of budget because the full annual
Community Education contribution in the amount of $187,400 has been paid to the
School District. The timing of this large expenditure is consistent with prior years and is
only a temporary variance.
Study Session Meeting of July 23, 2012 (Item No. 7) Page 2
Subject: June 2012 Monthly Financial Report
• Expenditures in the Vehicle Maintenance Division are exceeding budget at 54.5%. The
variance is mainly due to parts and tires, motor fuel, and outside repair services. Staff
will continue to monitor these expenditures closely as the year progresses.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
None at this time.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
Attachments: Summary of Revenues & Expenditures
Prepared by: Darla Monson, Senior Accountant
Reviewed by: Brian Swanson, Controller
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
2011 2012 2012 Balance Budget
Actual Budget Jun YTD Remaining to Actual %
General Fund Revenues:
General Property Taxes 15,372,076$ 15,998,292$ -$ 15,998,292$ 0.00%
Licenses and Permits 2,797,588 2,368,799 2,094,087 274,712 88.40%
Fines & Forfeits 281,047 328,150 120,628 207,522 36.76%
Intergovernmental 1,243,494 1,163,677 281,431 882,246 24.18%
Charges for Services 1,077,137 1,270,354 290,556 979,798 22.87%
Miscellaneous Revenue 129,142 111,650 52,429 59,221 46.96%
Transfers In 2,553,665 2,023,003 1,000,501 1,022,502 49.46%
Investment Earnings 203,282 125,000 - 125,000 0.00%
Other Income 22,686 3,450 1,693 1,758 49.06%
Total General Fund Revenues 23,680,117$ 23,392,375$ 3,841,325$ 19,551,050$ 16.42%
Park & Recreation Revenues:
General Property Taxes 4,000,561$ 4,171,506$ -$ 4,171,506$ 0.00%
Licenses and Permits 110 6,600 110 6,490 1.67%
Intergovernmental 208,536 68,902 8,531 60,371 12.38%
Charges for Services 1,082,163 1,070,750 572,366 498,384 53.45%
Miscellaneous Revenue 1,035,310 967,900 415,895 552,005 42.97%
Other Income 78,902 42,150 1,572 40,578 3.73%
Total Park & Recreation Revenues 6,405,582$ 6,327,808$ 998,473$ 5,329,335$ 15.78%
Summary of Revenues - General Fund and Park & Recreation
As of June 30, 2012
Study Session Meeting of July 23, 2012 (Item No. 7)
Subject: June 2012 Monthly Financial Report Page 3
2011 2012 2012 Balance Budget
Actual Budget Jun YTD Remaining to Actual %
General Government:
Administration 825,168$ 1,012,554$ 370,168$ 642,386$ 36.56%
Accounting 624,573 641,691 310,565 331,126 48.40%
Assessing 506,426 517,840 254,608 263,232 49.17%
Human Resources 629,734 667,612 329,861 337,751 49.41%
Community Development 1,082,461 1,076,376 534,256 542,120 49.63%
Facilities Maintenance 955,880 1,083,128 432,332 650,796 39.92%
Information Resources 1,421,858 1,507,579 655,665 851,914 43.49%
Communications & Marketing 256,558 265,426 106,680 158,746 40.19%
Community Outreach 84,300 8,185 5,790 2,395 70.74%
Total General Government 6,386,958$ 6,780,391$ 2,999,924$ 3,780,467$ 44.24%
Public Safety:
Police 6,943,375$ 7,273,723$ 3,550,898$ 3,722,825$ 48.82%
Fire Protection 3,061,962 3,346,931 1,551,133 1,795,798 46.34%
Inspectional Services 1,818,212 1,889,340 914,563 974,777 48.41%
Total Public Safety 11,823,549$ 12,509,994$ 6,016,595$ 6,493,399$ 48.09%
Public Works:
Public Works Administration 803,259$ 389,783$ 186,787$ 202,996$ 47.92%
Public Works Engineering 816,280 927,337 431,789 495,548 46.56%
Public Works Operations 2,461,099 2,604,870 1,116,617 1,488,253 42.87%
Total Public Works 4,080,638$ 3,921,990$ 1,735,193$ 2,186,797$ 44.24%
Non-Departmental:
General 81,287$ -$ 1,509$ (1,509)$ 0.00%
Transfers Out 900,000 - - - 0.00%
Tax Court Petitions - 180,000 - 180,000 0.00%
Total Non-Departmental 981,287$ 180,000$ 1,509$ 178,491$ 0.84%
Total General Fund Expenditures 23,272,432$ 23,392,375$ 10,753,220$ 12,639,155$ 45.97%
Park & Recreation:
Organized Recreation 1,266,774$ 1,305,747$ 763,847$ 541,900$ 58.50%
Recreation Center 1,424,076 1,466,246 669,164 797,082 45.64%
Park Maintenance 1,462,866 1,461,645 700,482 761,163 47.92%
Westwood 488,579 515,456 242,901 272,555 47.12%
Environment 396,664 390,009 152,173 237,836 39.02%
Vehicle Maintenance 1,300,708 1,188,705 647,429 541,276 54.47%
Total Park & Recreation Expenditures 6,339,666$ 6,327,808$ 3,175,996$ 3,151,812$ 50.19%
Summary of Expenditures - General Fund and Park & Recreation
As of June 30, 2012
Study Session Meeting of July 23, 2012 (Item No. 7)
Subject: June 2012 Monthly Financial Report Page 4
Meeting Date: July 23, 2012
Agenda Item #: 8
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:
Second Quarter Investment Report (April - June, 2012)
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
No action required at this time. This report is being provided for information sharing purposes.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
None at this time.
BACKGROUND:
The City’s investment portfolio is focused on short term cash flow needs and investment in
longer term securities. This is done in accordance with Minnesota Statute 118A and the City’s
Investment Policy objectives of: 1) Preservation of capital; 2) Liquidity; and 3) Return on
investment.
The total portfolio value increased by approximately $3.4 million in the second quarter from $59
million to $62.4 million. This increase was primarily in cash on hand due to the receipt of the
70% advance property tax settlement on June 20th from the County.
The overall yield of the portfolio remained fairly constant at 1.27% compared to the first quarter
(1.33%), and is still up slightly from the end of 2011 (1.12%). Cities generally use a benchmark
such as the two year Treasury (.33% at 6/30/2012) or some similar measure for yield comparison
of their overall portfolio. Interest rates continue to be at record lows and are not expected to
improve very much for the remainder of 2012. The City has been able to maintain a fairly
consistent yield by balancing cash flow needs with short and long term investment options.
Approximately 30% of the portfolio is currently invested in money markets. This is necessary as
a large amount of cash will be needed in the third quarter for debt service payments, Pay As You
Go TIF note payments, and summer construction project payments, as well as the normal cash
flow needs for payroll and general operating expenses. Money market rates currently range from
.14% at UBS to .21% at Citizens Independent Bank. Purchasing commercial paper may be
considered in the short term to help increase yields on available cash. These promissory notes
issued by financial institutions and large corporations have short maturity periods typically
ranging from one to nine months. Rates on commercial paper are considerably higher than on
money market accounts, which make it a good option for investing available cash short term.
Commercial paper was previously used for investing the Fire Station bond proceeds.
During the second quarter, $1.4 million of available cash was invested in certificates of deposit
at rates ranging from .5% for two years to 1.75% for five years. With rates on bonds continuing
to be very low, purchasing these fixed rate CD’s has helped to keep the portfolio yield stable.
Overall approximately 5% of the portfolio is invested in fixed rate CD’s.
Study Session Meeting of July 23, 2012 (Item No. 8) Page 2
Subject: Second Quarter Investment Report (April - June, 2012)
The remainder, or approximately $41 million of the portfolio, is invested in other long term
securities including municipal debt and agency bonds. Municipal debt instruments are bonds
issued by States, local governments, or school districts to finance special projects. Agency
bonds are issued by government agencies such as the Federal Home Loan Bank or Fannie Mae,
and are typically callable. These bonds will usually have higher interest rates to the final
maturity date in five years, but the issuers have the right to call the bonds at specific intervals
prior to maturity if interest rates decline. This has happened quite frequently in the market
conditions of the past few years. Available cash will continue to be used to purchase these types
of longer term securities whenever possible.
Here is a summary of the City’s portfolio at June 30, 2012:
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
None at this time.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
Attachments: Quarterly Investment Report
Prepared by: Darla Monson, Senior Accountant
Reviewed by: Brian A. Swanson, Controller
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
3/31/12 6/30/12
<1 Year 41% 45%
1-2 Years 16% 16%
2-3 Years 10% 8%
3-4 Years 18% 14%
>4 Years 15% 17%
3/31/12 6/30/12
Money Markets $15,874,505 $18,712,273
Commercial Paper $1,529,790 $0
Certificates of Deposit $966,161 $2,401,663
Municipal Debt $25,545,348 $25,129,353
Agency Bonds $15,079,239 $16,105,045
City of St. Louis Park
Investment Portfolio
June 30, 2012
Institution Type CUSIP Maturity Date
Yield to
Maturity Par Value
Market Value at
6/30/2012
Estimated Avg
Annual Income
Citizens Indep Bank Money Market 0.21%5,027,910 5,027,910 10,559
4M Fund Money Market 0.02%1,829,156 1,829,156 366
Citigroup/Smith Barney GNMA 7.19% 20,573 22,885 1,645
22,885
Wells Fargo Advisors FHLB Step Up 3133793A5 5/10/2017 1.928% 1,000,000 1,000,350 19,280
1,000,350
UBS Muni Debt-Illinois State 452152FD8 04/01/2013 1.84% 1,000,000 1,006,300 18,350
UBS Muni Debt-NYC 64971MN40 02/01/2016 3.03% 1,000,000 1,085,070 30,250
UBS Muni Debt-NYC 64971MN40 02/01/2016 3.07% 1,000,000 1,085,070 30,700
UBS FNMA Step Up 3136FRYJ6 07/19/2016 2.32% 1,000,000 1,000,490 23,200
UBS Muni Debt -Dist of Columbia 25476FLE6 06/01/2015 1.33% 1,000,000 1,069,700 13,310
UBS FHLMC 3134G2XP2 08/23/2016 1.50% 2,000,000 2,003,600 30,000
UBS Muni Debt -Calif State 13063A7E8 10/01/2013 0.78% 2,000,000 2,069,200 15,680
UBS FNMA 3136FRZ30 09/21/2016 1.32% 1,000,000 1,002,650 13,200
UBS Muni Debt - Gilroy, CA 376087CZ3 04/01/2015 1.81% 1,125,000 1,183,489 20,363
UBS Muni Debt - Calif State 13063BNR9 10/01/2015 2.00% 1,000,000 1,028,080 20,000
UBS Muni Debt - Atl City, NJ 048339RR8 12/15/2015 2.70% 470,000 480,218 12,690
UBS FNMA Step Up 3136FTXU8 12/29/2016 1.25% 1,000,000 1,013,840 12,500
UBS FHLMC 3134G3CB4 12/05/2016 1.45% 1,000,000 1,004,330 14,500
UBS Barclays Bank CD 06740KFS1 01/11/2016 1.60% 240,000 242,410 3,840
UBS Amer Munic Pwr Ohio 02765UER1 02/15/2015 1.54% 1,000,000 1,055,040 15,400
UBS Freddie Mac 3134G3PE4 02/24/2016 0.85% 1,000,000 1,001,590 8,500
UBS Bank of China, NY CD 06425HN85 05/02/2014 0.60% 240,000 239,662 1,440
UBS Discover Bank CD 254671AG5 05/02/2017 1.75% 240,000 238,495 4,200
UBS Safra Nat'l Bank CD 786580J76 05/03/2017 1.50% 240,000 238,507 3,600
UBS GE Cap Retail Bank CD 36160NJZ3 05/04/2017 1.75% 240,000 238,349 4,200
UBS Medallion Bank CD 58403BXU5 05/07/2014 0.60% 240,000 239,616 1,440
UBS Apple Bank CD 037830KP0 05/09/2014 0.50% 240,000 239,597 1,200
UBS FHLMC 3134G3WV8 06/06/2017 1.01% 1,000,000 1,005,400 10,140
UBS Money Market 0.14% 11,681,814 11,681,814 16,355
UBS Money Market (Fire Station Bonds)0.14% 173,392 173,392 243
31,625,908
Sterne, Agee Muni Debt-Waukegan, IL 942860MS3 12/30/2012 2.45% 1,500,000 1,525,080 36,750
Sterne, Agee Muni Debt-Greenwood Cnty Sch 397118EC0 03/01/2013 2.03% 740,000 749,420 15,022
Sterne, Agee FNMA 3136F9BZ5 03/18/2013 3.96% 1,000,000 1,025,900 39,600
Sterne, Agee Muni Debt-Van Buren, MI Sch 920729GQ7 05/01/2013 3.12% 300,000 305,811 9,360
Sterne, Agee Muni Debt-Milan, MI Sch 598801HF8 05/01/2013 3.16% 580,000 591,130 18,328
Sterne, Agee Muni Debt-Illinois State 452152FD8 04/01/2013 1.75% 1,000,000 1,006,300 17,500
Sterne, Agee Muni Debt-Waukegan, IL 942860MT1 12/30/2013 2.95% 1,500,000 1,565,190 44,250
Sterne, Agee Muni Debt-Outagamie Cnty WI 689900TH1 04/01/2014 2.53% 810,000 832,996 20,493
Sterne, Agee Muni Debt-Van Buren, MI Sch 920729GR5 05/01/2014 3.52% 705,000 733,877 24,816
Sterne, Agee Muni Debt-Union Co NJ 906347SC4 06/01/2014 4.04% 555,000 350,348 22,422
Sterne, Agee Muni Debt-Illinois State 4521518U0 01/01/2014 3.25% 1,225,000 1,264,102 39,813
Sterne, Agee Muni Debt-Illinois State 4521518T3 01/01/2013 2.63% 850,000 860,880 22,313
Sterne, Agee Muni Debt-Milwuakee Co, WI 602245WW8 10/01/2013 1.50% 1,000,000 1,010,530 15,000
Sterne, Agee Muni Debt-Smithfield, RI 832322NM9 01/15/2013 0.88% 275,000 276,117 2,406
Sterne, Agee Muni Debt-Smithfield, RI 832322NN7 01/15/2014 1.35% 275,000 280,341 3,713
Sterne, Agee Muni Debt-Smithfield, RI 832322NP2 01/15/2015 1.90% 275,000 281,683 5,225
Sterne, Agee Muni Debt-Smithfield, RI 832322NQ0 01/15/2016 2.40% 275,000 288,973 6,600
Sterne, Agee Muni Debt-Racine, WI 750046GB4 04/01/2014 0.70% 1,010,000 1,082,750 7,070
Sterne, Agee FNMA Step Up 3136FTC98 01/25/2016 0.50% 1,000,000 1,000,200 5,000
Sterne, Agee FNMA Step Up 3136FTV89 02/28/2017 0.65% 1,000,000 1,002,710 6,500
16,034,336
Wells Fargo Muni Debt-New York, NY 64966HXW5 03/01/2013 1.00% 1,000,000 1,012,010 10,000
Wells Fargo Muni Debt-State of WA 93974CLV0 08/01/2014 1.33% 1,000,000 1,049,650 13,300
Wells Fargo FHLB 313372RK2 03/27/2013 1.02% 1,000,000 1,005,440 10,200
Wells Fargo GE Capital CD 3616OXC62 01/06/2016 1.70% 240,000 242,419 4,080
Wells Fargo Goldman Sachs Bank CD 38143AGR0 01/12/2015 1.50% 240,000 241,416 3,600
Wells Fargo Ally Bank CD 0200SQYM9 01/26/2015 1.15% 240,000 241,193 2,760
Wells Fargo FHLMC 3134G3HP8 01/27/2016 1.00% 1,000,000 1,007,160 10,000
Wells Fargo Freddie Mac 3134G3HW3 10/30/2015 1.00% 1,000,000 1,003,610 10,000
Wells Fargo Freddie Mac 3134G3MP2 08/24/2016 1.00% 1,000,000 1,004,890 10,000
6,807,788
GRAND TOTAL 62,348,334 793,269
Portfolio Yield 1.27%
Study Session Meeting of July 23, 2012 (Item No. 8)
Subject: Second Quarter Investment Report (April - June, 2012)Page 3
Meeting Date: July 23, 2012
Agenda Item #: 9
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:
Renewal of Xcel and CenterPoint Energy (CPE) Franchise Agreements
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
None at this time. The purpose of this report is to inform Council of the need and the process
associated with the renewal of these two Franchise Agreements’ along with a proposed increase
in Franchise Fees for 2013.
POLICY CONSIDERATIONS:
None at this time. However, staff would be interested in any concerns or questions Council may
have regarding either of these utilities or renewal of their franchise agreements.
BACKGROUND:
History
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. At that time staff discussed issues / concerns with each respective utility. Since
then each utility has provided us a proposed agreement for consideration. City Attorney Tom
Scott has been involved in most, if not all, renewal discussions and has reviewed and commented
on each of the proposed agreements. The most recent conversations held during the past several
weeks involved discussing the adoption process, schedule, issues, and proposed agreements.
Each utility is currently considering city staff / attorney comments to their proposed agreements.
Xcel Energy (Xcel)
City staff has identified and has been discussing the following issues with Xcel with the
expectation these are satisfactorily addressed either in the new agreement or separately outside
the agreement:
1. Permit violations:
a. occasional lack of notice prior to starting work
b. occasionally performs work without permits
c. occasionally does not remove abandoned infrastructure
d. blocks or takes City infrastructure out of service without approval or mitigation
e. extensive time taken to perform permit work and restore City infrastructure
2. Construction / relocation difficulties (very poor responsiveness associated with utility
coordination and relocation needs - i.e., poor past relocation performance)
a. lack of participation in coordination / planning meetings
b. slow effort or refusal to relocate their utility on city infrastructure projects
3. Difficulty in obtaining an infrastructure map or GIS info for internal planning and
emergency response purposes
4. Need to assess permit fees to Xcel like all others working in the city right of way
5. Reduce term of the agreement from 20 to 10 years
Study Session Meeting of July 23, 2012 (Item No. 9) Page 2
Subject: Renewal of Xcel and CenterPoint Energy (CPE) Franchise Agreements
Staff has been working with Xcel staff to revise their proposed agreement to address the above
issues, to make it consistent with the CPE agreement, and also to increase the current basic
Franchise Fee by $0.50/month.
The current Xcel agreement expires February 20, 2013. Staff is proposing to adopt the new Xcel
Franchise Agreement and Franchise Fee increase at the same time utilizing the process, steps,
and schedule shown below.
CenterPoint Energy (CPE)
City staff has not identified any issues associated with adoption of a new franchise agreement
with CPE. Staff is proposing to revise the CPE agreement to make it consistent with the Xcel
agreement and to increase the current basic Franchise Fee by $0.50/month. CPE generally seems
amenable to these proposals.
The current CPE agreement expires June 30, 2013. For a variety of reasons, staff is proposing to
adopt the new CPE Franchise Agreement and Franchise Fee increase utilizing the same process,
steps, and schedule as that proposed for Xcel.
Adoption Process and Schedule
The following adoption process applies to each of the franchise agreements:
1. Ordinances must contain all the terms and conditions of the franchise
2. These ordinances require a public hearing
3. Hearing notice must be published at least once in the City's official newspaper at least
twenty (20) days prior to the public hearing.
4. At least seven days must pass between first reading (public hearing) and 2nd reading
5. At second reading motion will be “Motion to adopt the ordinance, approve the summary
and authorize summary publication”
6. Ordinance becomes effective 15 days following summary publication OR date certain
specified (must be a minimum of 15 days following summary publication)
7. Utility requires a 90 day review / notice period after Council adoption in order to
implement the ordinance and franchise fees and notify the Minnesota Public Utilities
Commission (MPUC)
Based on the above process, staff has developed the following steps and schedule for adopting
the franchise agreements and franchise fees:
Study Session - Written Report July 23, 2012
Study Session - Discussion Aug 13, 2012
Study Session - Discussion (if needed) Aug 27, 2012
Submit Public Hearing Notice to Sun Sailor Aug 30, 2012
Public Hearing Notice Published Sept 6, 2012
First Reading and Public Hearing Oct 1, 2012
Second Reading (adopt ordinance, approve summary, and authorize summary
publication)
Oct 15, 2012
Submit Summary to Sun Sailor Oct 18, 2012
Summary Publication Oct 25, 2012
First date Ordinance(s) COULD be effective Nov 9, 2102
City submits Ordinance(s) to Utility(s) (90 days required to effective date) Nov 12, 2012
Utility(s) submits Ordinance(s) to MPUC (60 days required to effective date) Dec 12, 2012
Date certain Ordinance(s) needs to become effective Feb 21, 2013
Study Session Meeting of July 23, 2012 (Item No. 9) Page 3
Subject: Renewal of Xcel and CenterPoint Energy (CPE) Franchise Agreements
Summary and Next Steps
Staff expects to obtain feedback from Xcel and CPE on agreement terms this month. Staff
intends to discuss negotiation efforts with Council at the August 13th Study Session.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATIONS:
The city’s pavement management program is currently funded by franchise fee revenues,
collected for us by both Xcel and CPE, along with some general funds. Franchise fees cannot be
collected by either utility unless the city has a franchise agreement providing for this. Thus,
failure to negotiate franchise agreement(s) would result in the loss of franchise fee revenues for
our pavement management program. Alternatively, the City Attorney has determined equivalent
revenues (fees) could be collected by the city as a part of our quarterly utility fee billings.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
Attachments: None
Prepared by: Michael P. Rardin, Public Works Director
Reviewed by: Steve Heintz, Finance Supervisor
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting Date: July 23, 2012
Agenda Item #: 10
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:
Redevelopment Project and EDA Contract Status Report: July 2012
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
This report summarizes the current status of various redevelopment projects in the city to which
the EDA is a party.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
BACKGROUND:
The attached report is meant to keep the EDA and City Council informed as to the status of
various redevelopment projects in the city to which the EDA is a party. It is also meant to
apprise city officials of any anticipated actions or issues relative to corresponding redevelopment
contracts.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
Attachments: Redevelopment Project & EDA Contract Status Report: July 2012
Prepared by: Julie Grove, Economic Development & Planning Assistant
Greg Hunt, Economic Development Coordinator
Reviewed by: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Redevelopment Project and EDA Contract Status Report
July 2012
Project (Developer)
Required
Completion
Date
Percent
Sold &/or
Leased
Current Project Status
6414/6416 W. Lake Rd-Former Home Hardware
(CAR Properties)
Building renovation 12/01/2012 100%
Leased
Renovations underway. A retail
tenant has recently leased the
space.
Pending Contract Actions:
Development Contract Approved 7/4/12.
Status of Lookback:
e2 -“Ellipse on Excelsior II”
(Bader Development)
58 market rate apartments 3/1/2014 0% Construction anticipated late
summer 2012 – required to
commence by 1/31/13.
Pending Contract Actions:
Purchase & Redevelopment Contract approved 2/6/2012. Anticipate closing on the property
in August.
Status of Lookback:
Former Bikemasters Bldg Renovation
(CKJ Properties, LLC)
18,000 SF building renovation 12/01/2011 100%
leased
Building renovation complete.
Pending Contract Actions:
Building renovation per Redevelopment Contract complete. Entirety of CAP loan ($70,000)
disbursed.
Status of Lookback:
Former Flame Bldg Renovation
(Hardcoat Inc)
33,600 SF building renovation 12/31/2012 Seeking
tenant for
10,000 SF
Building renovations nearly
complete. C of O is expected
July 2012
Study Session Meeting of July 23, 2012 (Item No. 10)
Subject: Redevelopment Project and EDA Contract Status Report: July 2012 Page 2
Redevelopment Project and EDA Contract Status Report
July 2012
Project (Developer)
Required
Completion
Date
Percent
Sold &/or
Leased
Current Project Status
Pending Contract Actions:
The 1st amendment to Contract was approved 11/7/2011. Majority of CAP loan has been
disbursed. The remaining portion will be disbursed upon receipt of Certificate of
Occupancy.
Status of Lookback:
Tower Light (Wooddale Catered Living)
(Greco Development)
115 senior assisted living
rentals
12/31/2012 0% leased Construction remains on
schedule. Completion expected
December 2012. 10,000 SF retail space 12/31/2012 0% leased
Pending Contract Actions:
Monitoring contract compliance. Grant disbursements began in fall 2011.
Status of Lookback:
Ellipse on Excelsior
(Bader Development)
132 market rate apartments 03/01/2011 100%
leased
Building completed.
16,394 SF commercial 03/01/2011 100%
leased
Pending Contract Actions:
Status of Lookback:
Given that Bader has achieved its lease up goals, Ehlers is in the process of conducting the
Lookback for the EDA’s provision of TIF.
Melrose Eating Disorders Institute
(Park Nicollet Methodist Hospital)
3-story 67,000 SF medical
bldg 06/30/2009
100%
occupied
by PN
Building completed.
Pending Contract Actions: None.
Study Session Meeting of July 23, 2012 (Item No. 10)
Subject: Redevelopment Project and EDA Contract Status Report: July 2012 Page 3
Redevelopment Project and EDA Contract Status Report
July 2012
Project (Developer)
Required
Completion
Date
Percent
Sold &/or
Leased
Current Project Status
The West End
(Duke Realty)
350,000 SF retail/restaurant 06/01/2010 77%
leased
Buildings completed, seeking
tenants
Parmida Home-home
furnishings, 11,000 SF signed
for south end.
28,00 SF 2nd floor office space 06/01/2010 60%
leased
Baker & Associates leased
20,122 SF of office space.
120 unit apt bldg.
(Flats at West End) 12/31/2016 0% leased
Construction commenced in
June with completion
anticipated in Spring 2013.
1.1 million SF Class A office
space 06/01/2021 0% leased
Construction will likely occur in
the next few years once the
office mkt recovers and
sufficient tenant commitments
are secured.
Pending Contract Actions:
An Amended & Restated Redevelopment Contract and a single TIF Note were approved
5/19/10. TIF Note was issued. Redeveloper will likely request that the Note be reissued as
two separate Notes; this will require EDA action.
Status of Lookback:
Lake St Office Center
(Real Estate Recycling)
4.000 SF medical office
building 12/31/2009 100%
leased
Building completed, Twin Cities
Vein & Laser is the tenant.
Pending Contract Actions:
None. Contamination Cleanup Grant successfully closed out with DEED in September 2011.
Building is currently for sale.
Status of Lookback:
Ehlers is currently in the process of conducting the Lookback.
Study Session Meeting of July 23, 2012 (Item No. 10)
Subject: Redevelopment Project and EDA Contract Status Report: July 2012 Page 4
Redevelopment Project and EDA Contract Status Report
July 2012
Project (Developer)
Required
Completion
Date
Percent
Sold &/or
Leased
Current Project Status
Highway 7 Corporate Center
(Real Estate Recycling)
79,000 SF office/tech bldg 12/31/2007 100%
leased Building completed.
Pending Contract Actions:
None. The long term future of the Purple parking lot is currently subject to SWLRT
planning and the Gold parking lot is subject to Highway 7 & Louisiana Avenue interchange
planning.
Status of Lookback:
Ehlers is currently in the process of conducting the Lookback.
Hoigaard Village
(Union Land II Dunbar Development )
“Harmony Vista” – 78 units, 02/28/2008 98%
leased Building completed.
25,000 SF
retail
70 %
leased
“The Camerata” – 220 units 09/01/2008 97%
leased Building completed.
“The Adagio” – 100 units 12/31/2013 0% leased Construction began June 2012
“Melody Row” – 22
townhomes 12/31/2013 0% leased Construction began June 2012
Pending Contract Actions:
Sixth Amendment to Redevelopment Contract approved 2/6/12.
Status of Lookback:
Brookside Lofts
(Master Dev & Foundation Land)
27-unit loft condo building 12/31/2006 100% sold Building completed
14-unit townhouse building 12/31/2006 100% sold Building completed
5 single family houses 12/31/2006 5 sold 5 houses completed
Pending Contract Actions: None
Study Session Meeting of July 23, 2012 (Item No. 10)
Subject: Redevelopment Project and EDA Contract Status Report: July 2012 Page 5
Redevelopment Project and EDA Contract Status Report
July 2012
Project (Developer)
Required
Completion
Date
Percent
Sold &/or
Leased
Current Project Status
Aquila Commons
(Stonebridge Dev)
106 unit senior housing
cooperative 12/31/2007 85% sold Building completed
Pending Contract Actions:
Third Amendment to Redevelopment Contract approved 11/21/2011. Annually monitoring
Developer compliance with income requirements.
Status of Lookback:
Village In The Park
(Rottlund Homes)
78 Townhomes 06/01/2007 100% sold Building completed
66 loft-style condominiums 06/01/2007 100% sold Building completed
60 senior condominiums 06/01/2007 100% sold Building completed
Pending Contract Actions:
TIF Note paid off February 1, 2010.
Status of Lookback:
Completed; no adjustment in TIF amount.
Edgewood Business Center
(Real Estate Recycling)
79,000 SF office/warehouse 12/04/2004 100%
leased Building completed
Pending Contract Actions:
Contamination Cleanup Grant successfully closed out with DEED on 9/23/10.
Status of Lookback:
Completed; no adjustment in TIF amount.
Study Session Meeting of July 23, 2012 (Item No. 10)
Subject: Redevelopment Project and EDA Contract Status Report: July 2012 Page 6
Redevelopment Project and EDA Contract Status Report
July 2012
Project (Developer)
Required
Completion
Date
Percent
Sold &/or
Leased
Current Project Status
Wolfe Lake Professional Center
(Belt Line Industrial Park, Inc)
2-story, 54,742 SF office bldg 03/31/2004 100%
leased Building completed
1-story, 10,038 SF
commercial “West” bldg 05/31/2005 100 %
leased Building completed
Pending Contract Actions: None
Excelsior & Grand
(TOLD Development)
Phase I – 338 apts, 62,700 SF
retail space 07/01/2003
Apts
96.7%
occupied.
Building completed
Phase NE-124 Condos, 4,500
retail space 04/30/2006
Condos
100%
sold.
Building completed
Phase E – 86 condos & 14,235
SF retail space 04/01/2006
Retail
100%
leased.
Building completed
Phase NW – 96 condos, up to
5,000 SF retail space 06/01/2007 Building completed
Pending Contract Actions: None
Fern Hill
(Park Land Company)
30 condos & 11,200 SF
commercial space 12/01/2001 100% sold
& leased Building completed
Pending Contract Actions: None
Louisiana Oaks
(MSP Real Estate)
200 market rate apartments 06/01/2002 98.5%
occupied Building completed
Pending Contract Actions: None
Study Session Meeting of July 23, 2012 (Item No. 10)
Subject: Redevelopment Project and EDA Contract Status Report: July 2012 Page 7
Redevelopment Project and EDA Contract Status Report
July 2012
Project (Developer)
Required
Completion
Date
Percent
Sold &/or
Leased
Current Project Status
Zarthan & 16th Street
(CSM Hospitality & Rottlund Homes)
Marriott Springhill Suites -
127 units 03/01/2002 Hotel Building completed
Marriott TownePlace Suites -
107 units 08/01/2001 Hotel Building completed
Owner-occupied townhomes -
86 units 01/01/2003 100% sold Building completed
Pending Contract Actions: None
Park Center
(Silver Crest Properties)
45 unit assisted living facility 06/01/2001 100%
occupied Building completed
Pending Contract Actions:
Monitoring Redeveloper’s adherence to renter income restrictions as specified in Contract.
Victoria Ponds
(SVK Development)
72 duplex townhomes 12/01/2002 100% sold Buildings completed
Pending Contract Actions:
TIF district to expire after last TIF payment to developer on 2/1/13.
PNMC – Phase II
(Park Nicollet Health Services)
49,310 SF medical office 05/07/2001 100% Building completed
50,690 SF medical office 12/31/2006 Not built
45,000 SF medical office 12/31/2010
Pending Contract Actions:
Third Amendment to the Redevelopment Contract approved 11/7/11. As a result of financial
settlement, Contract and HSTI Subdistrict will terminate after last TIF payment either 8/1/12
or 2/1/13.
Study Session Meeting of July 23, 2012 (Item No. 10)
Subject: Redevelopment Project and EDA Contract Status Report: July 2012 Page 8
Redevelopment Project and EDA Contract Status Report
July 2012
Study Session Meeting of July 23, 2012 (Item No. 10)
Subject: Redevelopment Project and EDA Contract Status Report: July 2012 Page 9