HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012/09/24 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - Study SessionAGENDA
SEPTEMBER 24, 2012
6:00 p.m. CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION – Council Chambers
Discussion Items
1. 6:00 p.m. Future Study Session Agenda Planning – October 8, 2012
2. 6:05 p.m. Toby Keith’s Liquor License
3. 6:35 p.m. Use of City Portion of Lodging Tax Revenue
4. 7:05 p.m. Council Reports - Executive Summary
7:15 p.m. Communications/Meeting Check-In (Verbal)
7:20 p.m. Adjourn
Written Reports
5. Beltline LRT Station Area Circulation Planning and Advisory Committee Process
6. Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan
7. Project Update - Highway 7 / Louisiana Avenue Interchange Project
8. 2013 – 2018 Solid Waste Collection Program Update
9. August 2012 Monthly Financial Report
7:20 p.m. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY -- Council Chambers
1. Call to Order
2. Roll Call
3. Approval of Minutes -- None
4. Approval of Agenda
5. Reports
5a. EDA Vendor Claims
6. Old Business -- None
7. New Business
7a. Preliminary Development Agreement between the EDA and 9920 Hotels LLC
Recommended Action: Motion to Adopt EDA Resolution approving the Preliminary
Development Agreement between the EDA and 9920 Hotels LLC.
8. Communications
9. Adjournment
Meeting of September 24, 2012
City Council Agenda
7:30 p.m. CITY COUNCIL MEETING – Council Chambers
1. Call to Order
1a. Pledge of Allegiance
1b. Roll Call
2. Presentations
2a. 2012 Evergreen Awards
2b. Recognition for Mike Dobesh’s 14 Years of Service
3. Approval of Minutes
3a. Special City Council Meeting Minutes August 27, 2012
3b. Study Session Meeting Minutes August 27, 2012
3c. City Council Meeting Minutes September 4, 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. Breck School - Public Hearing and Final Bond Resolution - Issuance of Private Activity
Revenue Note, Series 2012A
Recommended Action: Mayor to open the public hearing, solicit comments and close
the public hearing. Motion to Adopt Final Bond Resolution Authorizing the Issuance of
Private Activity Revenue Note, Series 2012A for Breck School.
7. Requests, Petitions, and Communications from the Public -- None
8. Resolutions, Ordinances, Motions and Discussion Items
8a. Authorize and Award Sale of G.O. Taxable Bonds, Series 2012A for Greensboro Square
Recommended Action: Motion to Adopt Resolution awarding the sale of approximately
$1,290,000 taxable G.O. Housing Improvement Area (HIA) Bonds, Series 2012A.
8b. 1st Reading - Zoning Ordinance Amendment Regulating Outdoor Lighting
Recommended Action: Motion to Approve First Reading of an Ordinance amending the
Outdoor Lighting regulations in the Zoning Ordinance, and set the second reading for
October 15, 2012.
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 September 24, 2012
City Council Agenda
CONSENT CALENDAR
4a. Approve Second Reading and Adopt Ordinance renaming 25 ½ Street West to Barry Street
West, and approve summary ordinance for publication on October 4, 2012
4b. Adopt Resolution accepting a donation from the American Legion in the amount of $4,000
for a portable sound system in the Wolfe Park Amphitheater
4c. Adopt a Resolution approving acceptance of monetary donations from Bruce Berry and Sue
Anne Arkenbeck in the amount of $125 for Westwood Hills Nature Center
4d. Adopt Resolution authorizing final payment in the amount of $17,711.59 for the 2012
Sealcoat Project with Allied Blacktop Company - Project No. 2012-0001, City Contract No.
75-12
4e. Establish a Public Hearing date of November 5, 2012 to consider MnDOT’s request for
Municipal Consent for the Highway 100 Improvement Project - State Project 2734-43 (City
Project No. 2005-2000)
4f. Adopt Resolution imposing civil penalty for liquor license violation on May 18, 2012, at
Best of India, 8120 Minnetonka Blvd. according to the recommendation of the City Manager
4g. Approve for Filing Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission Meeting Minutes February
15, 2012
4h. Approve for Filing Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission Meeting Minutes March 21,
2012
4i. Approve for Filing Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission Meeting Minutes April 18,
2012
4j. Approve for Filing Housing Authority Minutes August 9, 2012
4k. 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: September 24, 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:
Future Study Session Agenda Planning – October 8, 2012
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
The City Council and the City Manager to set the agenda for the regularly scheduled Study
Session on October 8, 2012.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the Council agree with the agenda 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 the regularly scheduled Study Session on October 8, 2012.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
None.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
None.
Attachment: Future Study Session Agenda Planning – October 8, 2012
Prepared by: Debbie Fischer, Office Assistant
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of September 24, 2012 (Item No. 1) Page 2
Subject: Future Study Session Agenda Planning – October 8, 2012
Study Session, October 8, 2012 – 6:30 p.m.
(City Manager Harmening Out – at ICMA Conference)
Tentative Discussion Items
1. Future Study Session Agenda Planning – Administrative Services (5 minutes)
2. Beekeeping in St. Louis Park – Inspections (30 minutes)
Discussion of proposed Beekeeping Ordinance and options for regulation.
3. MnDOT Excess Parcels on Wayzata Boulevard – Community Development (15 minutes)
Discuss with City Council moving forward on a process for acquiring and selling the two
excess land parcels on Texas Avenue and Wayzata Boulevard for development.
4. Business Park Rezoning – Community Development (15 minutes)
Update City Council on the process related to rezoning properties for Business Park,
including meeting with property owners and the next steps for moving forward with official
rezoning.
5. Project Update – Hwy 7 / Louisiana Ave. Interchange Project – Public Works (45 minutes)
Update City Council on R/W acquisition activities, Xcel Energy undergrounding costs
(CRFS), staging and traffic detour plans, business owner concerns, project schedule, public
art cost estimate, and RAP activities and estimated costs related to this project – Project No.
2012-0100.
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. 2013 Budget & Property Owner Service Charges – Special Service Districts No. 1-6
7. Amend Recycling Contract 38-08 w/ Eureka Recycling
End of Meeting: 8:25 p.m.
Meeting Date: September 24, 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:
Toby Keith’s Liquor License
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
No formal action at this time. This report has been prepared to provide information to Council
regarding food and liquor sales for Toby Keith’s I Love This Bar in accordance with probation
requirements and determine next steps.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
• Does Council find that the information provided for the establishment Toby Keith’s I Love
This Bar satisfy the requirements of the probation?
• Does Council wish to remove the probationary status?
• Is there any other information needed regarding liquor licenses?
BACKGROUND:
On February 6, 2012 the liquor license renewal applications for licensees who met all required
criteria were approved by City Council. At the February 13 Study Session, Council discussed the
licensees who did not meet the ordinance requirement of at least 50% of the gross receipts
attributable to the sale of food. It was the consensus of the Council to proceed with liquor license
renewal consideration for Toby Keith’s I Love This Bar with the condition that a probationary
status for 6 months would start on March 1, 2012. Council approved a resolution to this effect on
February 21, 2012, which is attached to this report. This action was in addition to a previous
probationary status established for Toby Keith’s.
As required by the probationary status, the gross food and liquor sales information for Toby
Keith’s I Love This Bar at the conclusion of the probationary period ending August 31, 2012 has
been provided. The results show they are within the requirements for food and liquor sales for
this reporting period. The CPA Statement indicating total gross food and liquor sales for the
probationary period is also attached to this report.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
Attachments: CPA Statement
Resolution No. 12 - 0281
Prepared by: Ray French, Administrative Services Intern
Reviewed by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Licensee Name/Address License Type Reported Gross
Food Sales %
Reported Gross
Liquor Sales %
Toby Keith I Love This Bar &
Grill, 1623 Park Place
On-sale Intoxicating
and Sunday 51% 49%
Study Session Meeting of September 24, 2012 (Item No. 2) Page 2
Title: Toby Keith’s Liq uor License
Study Session Meeting of September 24, 2012 (Item No. 2) Page 3
Title: Toby Keith’s Liq uor License
RESOLUTION NO. 12 – 0281
RESOLUTION APPROVING ISSUANCE OF
LIQUOR LICENSE RENEWAL WITH CONDITIONS
FOR CRGE MINNEAPOLIS, LLC
DBA TOBY KEITH’S I LOVE THIS BAR,
1623 PARK PLACE BOULEVARD
FOR MARCH 1, 2012 THROUGH MARCH 1, 2013
WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes Chapter 340A and St. Louis Park Ordinance Code
Chapter 3 provide for liquor licensing in cooperation with the Alcohol and Gambling
Enforcement Division of the Minnesota Department of Public Safety, and
WHEREAS, no license may be issued or renewed if required criteria has not been met,
and
WHEREAS, City Ordinance Section 3-70 (g) allows the city to place the license of any
on-sale intoxicating liquor licensee on probationary status for up to one year, when the sale of
food is reported, or found to be, less than 50 percent of gross receipts for any business year, and
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City of St. Louis Park City Council
that the issuance of the on-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor license for CRGE Minneapolis,
LLC, dba Toby Keith’s I Love This Bar is hereby approved for March 1, 2012 to March 1, 2013
with the following conditions:
1. The licensee will be put on a probationary status for 6 months.
2. The license shall provide a second report of food and liquor sales for the period of
March 1, 2012 through August 31, 2012 by September 15, 2012.
3. The licensee will continue working with city staff to meet liquor license compliance
requirements.
4. Staff will report probationary results to Council in October 2012 and if in non-
compliance, council may take further action during this license period up to and
including revocation of the license.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council February 21, 2012
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Meeting Date: September 24, 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:
Use of City Portion of Lodging Tax Revenue
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
No formal action needed at this time. Staff requests direction from the City Council on how it
may wish to use the portion of the lodging tax that the City is allowed to retain.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
How does the City Council wish to utilize the portion of the lodging tax revenue the City is
allowed to retain?
BACKGROUND:
In December, 2010 the City Council approved an ordinance establishing a 3% lodging tax to
fund a local Convention and Visitor’s Bureau (CVB). The lodging tax went into effect March 1,
2011. The establishment of a lodging tax by a city is authorized and governed by state statute.
Subsequent to the establishment of the lodging tax a local convention and visitor’s bureau called
Discover St. Louis Park was created.
Each month the City collects the lodging tax from the lodging establishments in the community
and, under the terms of our operating agreement with Discover St. Louis Park, remits 95% of the
taxes collected to the visitor’s bureau. As authorized by state statute the City retains 5% of the
taxes collected each month. These funds are available for the city to use as it sees fit. Since the
lodging tax has been put in place the City has retained a total of $48,300. As a general estimate
the City can expect to retain in the future approximately $24,000 to $35,000/yr.
OPTIONS FOR USE:
Given previous discussions with the City Council staff is with the impression the Council is not
interested in simply putting this revenue into the General Fund to be used for basic City services.
As such, the options below are based on using it for special projects or initiatives with some
relationship to Vision SLP.
1. Public Art. We currently rely on developers to pay for new public art in our city or arts
and culture related projects thru the City funded Arts and Culture Grant Program. If we
had a dedicated funding source we could commission pieces to be placed in city facilities
or other public areas. In addition, as we continue to develop more public art pieces, the
cost to maintain those art pieces will increase. We currently pay for the maintenance out
of the Park Maintenance division of the Parks and Recreation Fund budget. We will need
to increase that budget as our art works age or are in need or cleaning, retrofitting or
maintenance.
Study Session Meeting of September 24, 2012 (Item No. 3) Page 2
Subject: Use of City Portion of Lodging Tax Revenue
2. Special City Marketing Initiatives. Staff continues to see more opportunities to market
the city in a way that is not duplicative or in conflict with what Discover St. Louis Park is
doing. As an example, as part of Vision St. Louis Park and the City’s Communications
Plan, staff is developing a comprehensive marketing and branding plan for the Nature
Center. One product expected to be produced as part of that plan is a professional view
book that would be available for visitors or residents in St. Louis Park. The approximate
cost for this overall marketing and branding effort is $20,000. These funds could support
the production of such a project. Other examples include conducting Realtor Forums, or
using the funds to pay for advertising in publications such as the new St. Louis Park
Magazine or in the Visitors Guide that is produced by Discover St. Louis Park. Both of
these publications reach important audiences at times throughout the year that
complement the city’s own publication schedule.
3. Events or Festivals - The money could be used to help fund city festivals and events like
Parktacular, music or theater events that bring people into the city, or City “Open
Houses” or other similar events that are conducted from time to time.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
The City currently has retained approximately $48,300 from the lodging tax fee thus far and can
expect to receive as much as $35,000 per year from the fee as time goes on.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Depending on how the lodging tax revenue is used, it certainly could compliment the goals of
Vision St. Louis Park and the four Strategic Directions adopted by the City Council.
Attachments: None
Prepared by: Cindy Walsh, Director of Parks and Recreation
Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting Date: September 24, 2012
Agenda Item #: 4
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:
Council Reports - Executive Summary
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Staff will discuss the updated “Executive Summary” staff report format and listen to comments
from Council regarding moving forward with updating the report format.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
None at this time.
BACKGROUND:
There has been some interest expressed in adding an executive summary page on reports to
Council to provide ease in there review. Staff has been working to develop a user friendly
“executive summary” page to be included in Council reports. The purpose of the executive
summary page is to provide a snapshot of recommended action on a Council item. Background
information would continue to be included, as needed, on page(s) following the one page
executive summary. Attached is an example of an executive summary template.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged community.
Attachments: Sample Agenda Template
Prepared by: Ray French, Administrative Services Intern
Reviewed by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of September 24, 2012 (Item No. 4) Page 2
Title: Council Reports - Executive Summary
Study Session Meeting of September 24, 2012 (Item No. 4) Page 3
Title: Council Reports - Executive Summary
Meeting Date: September 24, 2012
Agenda Item #: 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:
Beltline LRT Station Area Circulation Planning and Advisory Committee Process
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
The purpose of this agenda item is to provide information on addressing the issues and questions
that arose at the August 13th Study Session on circulation planning in the Beltline LRT Station
area.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
None at this time. The Council gave Staff direction to move forward with the study of the
various circulation options by reconvening the Beltline LRT Station Area Advisory Committee
for a six month process.
BACKGROUND:
In February and August 2012, the Council discussed several concepts and key issues regarding
circulation and possible roadway improvements in the Beltline Station Area. The options were
discussed in August 2012, and the Council asked for additional information prior to the Beltline
LRT Station Area Advisory Committee beginning its work on a draft circulation plan. The
issues identified in this staff report will direct the work of the Advisory Committee.
QUESTIONS FROM STUDY SESSION
Citywide north/south planning issues
One of the key issues raised by the City Council at the August 13th Study Session was how the
Beltline LRT Station Advisory Committee process fits within the broader transportation issues in
the city in general, and the issue of north/south connections in particular. The Beltline Advisory
Committee process will focus on the 1/2 mile radius immediately around the Beltline Station,
however as the Committee works on its circulation planning, it will need to integrate the
circulation plan within the broader context and city transportation plans. In 2008, the City
completed a study on the “north/south” issue in St. Louis Park.
Some of the work undertaken in 2008 was done in the context of a potential underpass under
Hwy 100 near 28th Street, which was subsequently deleted as MnDOT’s plans for Highway 100
evolved. Additional options to connect the street system north of Minnetonka Blvd to the west
of Hwy 100 were looked at as a part of the Highway 100 study. More recently a review of the
Novartis site was undertaken to look at the land area, wetlands, and the potential for a road that
could cross the BNSF railroad tracks. These analyses will provide context for the Advisory
Committee work. Additional work separate from the Committee may be needed to further
address the broader north/south citywide circulation issues.
In the context of the entire city, Beltline LRT Station Area circulation is looking at the more
immediate station area and how to both provide access to neighborhoods in St. Louis Park, and
Study Session Meeting of September 24, 2012 (Item No. 5) Page 2
Subject: Beltline LRT Station Area Circulation Planning and Advisory Committee Process
protect them from excessive traffic trying to get to and from the LRT station (Please see
Contextual Map).
Specific Circulation Issues in Beltline Area
Several specific circulation issues were raised at the August 13th Study Session that will be
addressed by the Advisory Committee and the City’s consultants. Among them are the
following:
Raleigh Avenue Connection
Raleigh Avenue from Minnetonka Boulevard south to 36th Street over the railroad tracks would
be further reviewed as a potential north/south connection. Evaluation of Raleigh entails
evaluating the crossing of CSAH 25 as well as the light rail, trail and Bass Lake Spur.
Ottawa Ave
As the only existing north/south crossing of CSAH 25, and an extension of Beltline Boulevard,
potential improvements to this street should be considered especially if extension of Raleigh
Avenue proves infeasible.
Frontage Roads Option
Council members indicated that the option of a frontage road along the north side of the
SWLRT/regional trail/Bass Lake Spur potentially connecting to Inglewood should be
considered. This was among the potential improvements proposed for consideration at the
August 13th Study Session and will be included among the potential improvements the Beltline
LRT Station Area Advisory Committee will review and consider.
Evaluation of Impact of New Street Crossings Over the Regional Trail
The existing Beltline Blvd crossing of the regional trail has proven to be a difficult
situation. Concern was expressed by the City Council about the potential for creating new
difficult trail crossings with the potential extension of north/south streets over the regional trail.
In particular the impact of extending Inglewood over the regional trail needs to be evaluated.
Potential Traffic Increases on Inglewood.
If Inglewood is extended across the SWLRT/regional trail/Bass Lake Spur and connected to Park
Glen Road concern was expressed that it would turn Inglewood into another France Avenue. The
traffic impacts of potentially making this connection will need to be evaluated. The alternative
of crossing the SWLRT/Regional Trail/Bass Lake Spur from Park Glen Road to a new frontage
road on the north side of the tracks/trail corridor will be explored as an alternative.
If there are other issues, options or concerns that the City Council would like to make sure are
considered as the Beltline LRT Station Area Advisory Committee and the City’s consultants
further analyze circulation plan options, please share them with Meg McMonigal and they will
be added to this list.
RECOMMENDED NEXT STEPS:
The next step is to involve the community in further refinement and evaluation of the alternative
solutions and for the consultants to provide more detailed engineering studies for the
recommended options. The Council gave staff direction to reconvene the Beltline LRT Station
Area Advisory Committee for the circulation improvement planning process. This will allow
Study Session Meeting of September 24, 2012 (Item No. 5) Page 3
Subject: Beltline LRT Station Area Circulation Planning and Advisory Committee Process
surrounding property and business owners to provide input and evaluate the outcomes with the
traffic engineers, prior to the Council making decisions on any new roadway configurations.
Using the same committee that worked on the Beltline Station Land Use planning will help
ensure consistency between the future land use and future circulation plans; and, take advantage
of the in depth knowledge the Beltline LRT Station Area the Advisory Committee already has
from the land use planning discussions. Meetings with individual property owners, residents and
businesses, as well as public meetings will be part of the process as well.
The intent is that the Advisory Committee convene for an approximately 6 month process,
beginning in October, 2012. The Committee would review the work to date, the items specified
above and further concentrate on: Beltline design options, the issue of grade separation of the
tracks and trail at Beltline, options for Ottawa Avenue, the possibility of connecting 32nd Street
and France Avenue to the north.
It is expected that a set of recommendations will come back to the City Council in spring, 2013.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Consulting services are funded by the Development Fund.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged community, including promoting
regional transportation issues including SW LRT and pursuing options for additional north/south
connections in the community.
Attachments: Objectives for Circulation Planning in the Beltline LRT Station Area
Context
Beltline Area Overview Layout
Prepared by: Meg J. McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor
Reviewed by: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of September 24, 2012 (Item No. 5) Page 4
Subject: Beltline LRT Station Area Circulation Planning and Advisory Committee Process
OBJECTIVES FOR CIRCULATION PLANNING IN THE BELTLINE STATION AREA
The area surrounding the future Beltline LRT station is an area with a severely constrained
circulation system today that limits mobility and creates congestion. It will be further impacted
by additional activities in the area, as the LRT becomes operational. There is only one north-
south roadway crossing over the railroad tracks between Highway 100 to the west and Lake
Calhoun to the east. East-west mobility is hampered by long dead end streets such as Park Glen
Road. Among other issues, the lack of circulation infrastructure will limit access to the Beltline
LRT station and future development around the station area.
To that end, the following objectives have been identified for the Beltline Circulation Study
process:
• Improve transportation system in area for station access for users: peds, bikes, transit,
automobiles and trucks
• Minimize the impact on the existing businesses and residential neighbors
• Create legible, direct, safe and comfortable routes – ped, bike, bus, auto
• Prioritize ped, bike and bus access to station area
• Identify new street connections
• Discuss grade separations – LRT, trail, other
• Work to achieve an integrated street network
• Define the short, medium and long term improvements
Beltline LRT Station Area Circulation Planning
St. Louis Park Community Development DepartmentSeptember 19, 2012
BNSF Crossing
N/S Access
Beltline LRT Study Area
0.5 Miles
Minnetonka Blvd.
Excelsior Blvd.
I-394 I-394
Hwy100
Hwy100
Hwy169
Hwy 7 Louisiana Ave.Beltline Blvd.City of MinneapolisContext Map
Future LRT Station Locations
City Council Meeting of September 24, 2012 (Item No. 5)
Subject: Beltline LRT Station Area Circulation Planning and Advisory Committee Process Page 5
City Council Meeting of September 24, 2012 (Item No. 5) Subject: Beltline LRT Station Area Circulation Planning and Advisory Committee ProcessPage 6
Meeting Date: September 24, 2012
Agenda Item #: 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:
Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
The purpose of this report is to update Council on the public process, communication plan, and
anticipated schedule of upcoming activities and steps for the Pedestrian and Bicycle System
Implementation Plan.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
None at this time. Please let staff know of any comments or questions you might have
BACKGROUND:
History
At the June 11th Study Session staff presented the final proposed Pedestrian and Bicycle Plan
and a ten year prioritized Capital Improvement Program (CIP). Council provided input on the
prioritization of the projects in the CIP as well as discussed possible parking restrictions
associated with utilization of bike lanes. Council requested staff to provide an evaluation of the
proposed bike lanes and parking restriction implications, and also requested staff to prepare a
financial and communications plan for consideration at a future Study Session.
Staff returned to Council on July 16, 2012 with a revised Pedestrian and Bicycle Plan and ten
year prioritized Capital Improvement Program (CIP). In addition, staff evaluated bike lane
parking restriction impacts and developed and presented a financial and communications plan for
the proposed Pedestrian and Bicycle Plan. Copies of the revised CIP (Exhibit 4) were provided
and a summary of financial options were provided. Among the options presented, General
Obligation (GO) bonds were recommended by staff as the best option for financing the
improvements.
A Communications Plan (Exhibit 5) was also provided to Council on July 16. The intent of the
plan is to utilize a broader citywide message to begin this effort, and then follow with more
distinct communications aimed at specific project improvements so that every property owner
may assess the entire plan as well as consider personal impacts and concerns. As a part of the
public process, staff anticipates many concerns being raised and questions being asked. Based
on past planning activities, staff prepared Exhibit 9 - Expected Issues and Concerns. To assist in
addressing specific issues and concerns expected to be raised during the public process, staff and
Council earlier developed Guiding Principles (see Exhibit 8).
Recent Activities
After the July 16, 2012 Study Session, staff initiated the communication process of presenting
the proposed program to the public and gathering public input. This effort included the launch
of a website titled “Connect the Park” (http://www.stlouispark.org/connect-the-park.html). This
site provides comprehensive information, including a general description of the purposes and
goals of the program, maps of proposed projects and schedule, estimated costs, FAQ’s and much
Study Session of September 24, 2012 (Item No. 6) Page 2
Subject: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan
more. The site will also be posting notifications of upcoming public information meetings later
this fall. Similar information (including a link to the website) was also published in the most
recent edition of the Park Perspective.
Summary and Next Steps
An initial public informational meeting has been scheduled for Tuesday, October 9. This
meeting is intended to be a city-wide general information open-house style meeting that will
provide a general overview of the plan development (through the visioning process), the
proposed plan improvements, and the anticipated public process and implementation schedule. In
addition to the website and other media outlets, residents and property owners will be notified of
the October 9 meeting by mass mailing of a specially prepared “Connect the Park” brochure
(attached Exhibit 10).
This general City-wide informational meeting will be followed later in October and early
November by more area specific meetings (by ward) that will provide more detailed discussion
with regards to specific improvements. Over the next few months and especially after the public
meetings, it is expected that a wide variety of comments with regards to the proposed plans will
be received. After comments and input have been received, it is expected that additional reports
and/or study session discussions with Council will ensue prior to adopting the final plan for
implementation. We anticipate having the plan adopted by Council late this year or early 2013
in order to begin construction of improvements in the spring of 2013. However, based on the
process associated with the adoption of the last sidewalk / trail plan and CIP several years ago, it
is possible this schedule could be extended for months to a year.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATIONS:
If Council decides to adopt the system of Community sidewalks and trails via a capital program
as proposed, a source of capital ($18 - $25 million dollar range – spread over ten years) and
maintenance funds ($34,000 annually in present day costs) will be needed. As previously
reported the recommended source for the capital costs would be the issuance of GO Bonds. The
likely source for the additional maintenance costs would be the General Fund.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Strategic Direction - The following vision Strategic Direction and focus areas were identified
by Council.
St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged community.
Focus will be on:
• Developing an expanded and organized network of sidewalks and trails.
Attachments: Exhibit 4 - CIP Summary Info
Exhibit 5 - Communications Plan
Exhibit 8 - Guiding Principles
Exhibit 9 - Expected Issues and Concerns
Exhibit 10 - Connect the Park Brochure
Prepared by: Scott Brink, City Engineer
Reviewed by: Mike Rardin, Director of Public Works Sean Walther, Senior Planner
Jamie Zwilling, Communications Coordinator
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session of September 24, 2012 (Item No. 6) Page 3
Subject: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan
Exhibit 4
CIP Summary Information
Sidewalks, Bikeways, and Trails
Constructio
n
Year
Annual
Construction
Cost
Sidewalk
Costs
Bikeway
Costs
Bike
Lane
Costs
Trail
Costs
Bridge
Costs
2013 $587,500 $228,000 $45,000 $101,500
$213,00
0 $0
2014 $300,000 $176,000 $44,000 $0 $80,000 $0
2015 $6,729,900 $187,000 $26,400 $247,000
$369,50
0
$5,900,00
0
2016 $317,000 $304,000 $13,000 $0 $0 $0
2017 $429,000 $422,000 $7,000 $0 $0 $0
2018 $2,255,000 $240,000 $15,000 $0 $0
$2,000,00
0
2019 $456,000 $456,000 $0 $0 $0 $0
2020 $237,000 $148,000 $22,000 $28,000 $39,000 $0
2021 $712,500 $692,500 $20,000 $0 $0 $0
2022 $256,000 $244,000 $12,000 $0 $0 $0
2023 $425,000 $425,000 $0 $0 $0 $0
$12,704,900 $3,522,500 $204,400 $376,500
$701,50
0
$7,900,00
0
Element
Community
Sidewalks
Neighborhood
Sidewalks Bikeways
Bike
Lanes Trails Bridges
Length (ft.)
or # 57,608 21,169 117,599 44,237 15,572 4
Cost of Neighborhood Sidewalks $1,137,500
Cost of Community Sidewalks $2,385,000
Total Sidewalk Construction Costs $3,522,500
Notes:
1. Costs above do not account for inflation, engineering, contingencies, right-of-way
acquisition and other unknown project costs. Public Works feels these factors will
significantly add to the cost shown and project the total cost to build the improvements
proposed in the $18 - $25 million dollar range.
Study Session Meeting of July 16, 2012 (Item No. 6) Page 4
Subject: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan
Exhibit 5
Communications Plan
Sidewalk, Trails, and Bikeways
July 2012
A Branded Initiative
As the Sidewalk, Trails and Bikeways plan is a long-term, multi-faceted initiative, it’s important that the
city establish an identity for it that will be recognizable to community members for years to come. This
will also help the public understand that each smaller project is part of something larger. The
Communications Division is currently developing a logo and taglines that will be consistent with the
city’s overall brand but also give an identity to the multi-year initiative under the “Connect the Park”
name. Taglines will focus on the initiatives roots in Vision St. Louis Park and on the specific components
of the initiative.
Three Phases
There are three phases or components of communication messages/deployment. Some overlap and many
tools will be used across phases, but the essential elements are as follows:
Phase One – Educate the public about the roots of the plan (i.e. Vision), explain the work that has been
done and the Council’s goals for the initiative. This is a citywide effort that will also aim to educate the
community about the various components of the plan, the benefits and answer the “why” question and
show the overall picture about this initiative.
Phase Two – Educate the public about the specific elements contained in the initiative, projected costs
and physical impacts (i.e. loss of right of way, parking, etc.). This communication will be tailored to four
quadrants of the city either based on Ward boundaries or other boundaries deemed appropriate by Public
Works staff.
Phase Three – Educate the public about the specific elements affecting them in their neighborhoods or on
their streets. The most local element of the Communication Plan, this portion will be conducted much like
we conduct communications for any street or utility project with meetings and mailings directed at
affected parties.
Goals
• To remind residents about the city’s Vision, previous work already completed on the sidewalks
and trail plan, and the Council’s commitment to the long-term vision of a connected community
• Educate residents about the components of the proposed plan (Sidewalks, trails, bike lanes &
bikeways)
• To inform residents about new proposed Sidewalk, Trails, and Bikeways in St. Louis Park
• To obtain resident input regarding the proposed Sidewalk, Trails, and Bikeways in St. Louis Park
Communication tools to be utilized in plan
• News release
• Website
• Cable Television
• Social Media
• Neighborhood Newsletters
• Park Perspective
Study Session Meeting of September 24, 2012 (Item No. 6) Page 5
Subject: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan
• Staff Presentations
o Generate list of organizations
• Brochures/Posters
o Mailed to all residents
o Handed out at city events
• Maps
• Open Houses
Strategies
News Release – The news release will be issued to the Sun-Sailor, Patch, Star Tribune and local
television stations to announce that the city is seeking input on a 10-year plan. A map and project list will
be included. PHASE 1
Website – The city will utilize a project website that will include a main article about the initiative (likely
based off of the original press release), upcoming events, maps, pdf documents of publications and
Council reports related to the initiative, and a list of all of the proposed projects with details (as each
project is undertaken). The site will also include a Frequently Asked Questions area that will develop over
time, and ways to provide feedback (email/phone) will include staff contacts. PHASES 1, 2, 3
The city will use a separate domain name for the initiative – www.ConnectThePark.org in its branding
initiative. This won’t be a separate website, but the domain name will be redirected to the project page on
the city’s website allowing for easy access. The city has used other domain names for marketing purposes
such as beautifythepark.org and parkTV.org in the past with success.
Additionally, the proposal will be highlighted on the spotlight of the homepage of stlouispark.org as space
is available (usually for a couple of weeks at a time), especially around major events such as public
meetings.
Cable Television – We’ll highlight the proposed plan in several ways:
• Scripted Public Service Announcement (Commercial) with voiceovers that will run on the Cable
TV system, be embedded to the website and shared on social media. This will be an introduction
to the “Connect the Park” Initiative and explain how the public can learn more. PHASE 1
• Regular promotion through our weekly “Park Update” program which is shared on the Cable TV
system, the website and social media. PHASES 1, 2, 3
• Create a Cable TV Billboard announcement (the informational screens that run on the Cable TV
system in between programming) Phases 2,3
Social Media – Social media has become a powerful tool for the city now with nearly 4,500 people inside
and outside of the community utilizing them. A series of informal messages linked to our main website
article to promote the proposed plan will be utilized. Phases 1, 2, 3
Neighborhood Newsletters – The content of the initial news release, which contains the basic
information about the proposed plan, plus a link to the website, will be provided to neighborhood leaders
for inclusion in their publications and websites. Additional information will be relayed to the Community
Liaison for inclusion in regular communication with neighborhood leaders. Phases 2, 3
Park Perspective – The content of the initial news release, which contains the basic information about
the proposal, plus a link to the website, will be included in the August Park Perspective. Photos will be
included and the content will be reworked into a basic Q & A format. In the November Park Perspective,
a brief update, including any upcoming meetings will be included in the newsletter. After that time, the
Park Perspective will be used as a tool for printed updates and to reference the website. It’s expected that
at least once annually, probably the spring/summer edition each year, the Park Perspective will be utilized
for a more extensive update that outlines the planned projects for each year. Phases 1, 2, 3
Study Session Meeting of September 24, 2012 (Item No. 6) Page 6
Subject: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan
Flyer / Brochure – A full-color educational brochure will be created highlighting the plan elements
proposed for construction, the City’s Vision and overall education about the reasons for creating and
implementing the plan. This brochure will be mailed to all St. Louis Park households and businesses.
Phase 1
Four separate mailings will then be created that deal specifically with projects proposed in the four
separate wards (or other quadrants as determined by staff). These mailings will include maps and specific
project details and timelines in local area. Phase 2
Poster – Staff will create a full-color 11 x 17 poster containing some details of the proposal and
references to ConnectThePark.org and hung in city buildings and other locations throughout the
community. Phase 1
Maps – Staff from the Information Resources and Public Works departments will collaborate on both
printed and interactive online maps for the public to utilize. Phases 1, 2, 3
Staff Presentations – Staff will provide project presentations to neighborhood and community groups as
requested. Phases 1, 2, 3
Open Houses – The city will hold four public meetings (one each in each of the four wards or quadrants
as determined by staff). Phases 2,3
Timeline
July
• Staff prepares communication tools (publications, videos, maps, website, posters etc.)
August
• News release issued
• Park Perspective Article
• Website project page launched
• Initial overview publication sent to neighborhoods
• Posters debut
September
• Public Service Announcement Debuts
• TV Billboard announcements begin (highlight meeting dates, website, maps)
• Information shared with neighborhood leaders
• Ward/Quadrant information sent to residents (prior to Public Meetings)
• Public Meetings Begin
October
• Public meetings continue
November
• Park Perspective article
Ongoing
• Social media
• Cable TV
• Website
• Park Perspective
Study Session Meeting of September 24, 2012 (Item No. 6) Page 7
Subject: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan
Exhibit 8
Guiding Principles
Sidewalks, Bikeways, and Trails
Design & Construction:
1. Current Designs:
• Sidewalk - 6' concrete with 7' grass boulevard
• Trail - 10' bituminous with 7' grass boulevard
2. Design Options (when necessary):
• Narrow grass boulevard up to nothing (eliminate)
• Narrow sidewalks up to 5' in width
• Narrow trails up to 8' in width
3. Minimize parking restrictions associated with Bikeway designations
4. Facilities to be ADA accessible.
5. Narrow existing streets to accepted standards
• Restrict or eliminate parking (when necessary).
6. Curve sidewalks/trails to avoid tree removals.
7. Forester determines tree viability (remove or trim).
8. Leave trees, walks, fences, etc. wherever possible.
9. Relocate or bury utilities in lieu of moving walk or trail.
10. Avoid right of way acquisition whenever possible.
11. Improvements should not decrease public safety.
12. Retaining wall need and ownership to be determined per existing Council policy.
13. Design and construct facilities as adopted by Council unless Council directs otherwise.
Maintenance:
1. Facilities to be maintained to Ordinance requirements or better.
2. All sidewalk and trail repairs are City responsibility and at City cost.
3. Community sidewalk and trail snow removal will be by the City at city cost.
4. Neighborhood sidewalk snow removal will be by residents at resident cost.
Study Session Meeting of September 24, 2012 (Item No. 6) Page 8
Subject: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan
Exhibit 9
Expected Issues and Concerns
Sidewalks, Bikeways, and Trails
Expected issues, concerns, and suggestions related to proposed Sidewalks, Bikeways, and Trails:
1. Sidewalk maintenance (snow removal)
2. Adverse property impacts:
• reduced yard size
• removal of trees
• alterations to walls and fences
• reduced aesthetics
• reduced property values
3. Cost - too costly, do not raise taxes
4. Closeness of walks or trails to homes/buildings
5. Driveways will become too short to park cars
6. Concern over increase in outsiders and crime
7. Necessity - there is no need for walks or trails - walk in the street
8. Safety concerns over:
• additional vehicle/pedestrian conflicts at driveways
• children falling off retaining walls
9. Discourteous or disrespectful use of walks and trails by users
10. Bicycle traffic will cause or increase congestion
11. Adverse impacts to the character or culture of a neighborhood
12. Put walks/trails at the curbline
13. Put walks on just one side of a street
14. Narrow up walks/trails
15. Do more "on street trails"
16. Narrow up streets
17. Consider one-way streets
18. Eliminate or restrict street parking in some areas
19. Some sidewalks should be removed from the proposal
20. Some sidewalks should be added to the Proposal
21. Locate walks/trails elsewhere - where more appropriate
22. Show more importance to major street crossings
23. Let neighborhoods decide what is best in their respective area
24. Do less, this is too much
Tuesday, October 9th
6:00 p.m. - 8:00 p.m.
City Hall Council Chambers
5005 Minnetonka Blvd.
Following the public meeting, residents
will receive notices of ward specific
meetings to be held later this fall. Those
meetings will specifically address projects
in your neighborhood.
Watch your mail or visit
www.ConnectThePark.org
for details on these important meetings.
Connect the Park Map Key
Bikeways
Trails
Sidewalks
Continuation in adjacent City
About This Map:
This map is intended to illustrate current and
proposed future sidewalks, trails and bikeways.
It is not to scale. For detailed maps, please visit
www.ConnectThePark.org or watch for future
city mailings.
Purpose and Goals
To develop a comprehensive, city-wide system of
trails and sidewalks that provides local and regional
connectivity, improves safety and accessibility, and
enhances overall community livability.
Goals and Objectives
• Develop an interconnected network of pedestrian
and bicycle routes throughout the city, links to
transit systems, and provide options to automobile
dependence.
• Establish a city-wide grid system of sidewalks
approximately every ¼-mile
• Establish a city-wide grid system of bicycle facilities
approximately every ½-mile
• Develop safe links to schools, commercial hubs,
employment centers, institutions and transit facilities.
Project Prioritization
In general, the system plan provides sidewalks
approximately every ¼-mile and bikeways every ½-mile
in order to improve pedestrian and bicycle connectivity
throughout the community. Both the system plan
and the set of general criteria for prioritizing the
pedestrian and bike improvements was generated
through community input from a Citizen Advisory
Committee, community meetings, and meetings with
the Planning Commission, Parks and Recreation
Advisory Commission and City Council. In addition,
general support for the goals has been vetted through
the subsequent Plan-By-Neighborhood process, a
Community Survey, and a Community Recreation
Survey. Plan development and prioritization was
tied directly to public health, safety and well-being.
The system plan and goals were adopted in the
Comprehensive Plan in 2009.
Golden Valley
MinnetonkaHopkins
Edina MinneapolisHighway 100Louisiana AvenueTexas AvenueCedar
L
a
k
e
R
o
a
d
I-394
BNSF Rail
r
o
a
dCP RailroadMinnetonka Boulevard
Highway 7
Excelsi
o
r
B
o
ul
e
v
a
r
d
TC&W
R
ail
r
o
a
d
CP RailroadTC&W
R
ail
r
o
a
d
Highway 100CR 25TH 169Texas AvenueHighway 100Minneapolis Golf Club
Westwood Hills Nature Center
Louisiana
Oaks Park
Oak Hill
Park
Bass Lake
Preserve
Rec Center/
Wolfe Park
Aquila
Park
Minnehaha Creek
Texa-Tonka
Park
Cedar
Knoll
Park
Rotary
Park
Nelson
Park
Dakota
Park
Birchwood
Park
Hampshire
ParkJersey
Park
Pennsylvania
Park
Lamplighter
Park
Willow
Park
Ainsworth
Park
Bronx
Park
Keystone
ParkRoxbury
Park
Twin
Lakes
Park
Fern Hill
Park
Carpenter
Park
Browndale
ParkMeadowbrook
Openspace
Minnikahda
Vista
Park
Current and Proposed (2012 - 2023)
Bikeways, Sidewalks and Trails
Study Session Meeting of September 24, 2012 (Item No. 6)
Subject: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan Page 9
5005 Minnetonka Blvd.St. Louis Park, MN 55416(952) 924-2500www.stlouispark.orgPRSRT STDUS POSTAGE PAIDPERMIT 603TWIN CITIES MNGETCONNECTED
Connect the Park! is the
city’s 10-year plan to add additional
sidewalks, trails, and bikeways throughout
the community. In 2007, as part of Vision
St. Louis Park, the city worked with
community members to create an Active
Living Sidewalks and Trails plan.
The Connect the Park! initiative will work
toward implementing many of the elements
of the plan over the next 10 years. This plan
will continue to evolve as the public becomes
more informed, meetings are conducted, and
public comments are considered.
You are encouraged to review related
documents at www.ConnectThePark.org to
learn more about the ambitious and exciting
plan to Connect the Park!
Questions may be directed to:
City Engineer Scott Brink
sbrink@stlouispark.org
(952) 924-2687Tuesday, October 9th
6:00 p.m. - 8:00 p.m.
City Hall Council Chambers
5005 Minnetonka Blvd.
Share Ideas Ask Questions Get Information
Visit www.ConnectThePark.org
for more information regarding this
important initiative and upcoming meeting.Public MeetingTuesday, October 9thCity Hall Council Chambers, 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m.Study Session Meeting of September 24, 2012 (Item No. 6)
Subject: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan Page 10
Meeting Date: September 24, 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:
Project Update - Highway 7 / Louisiana Avenue Interchange Project
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
No formal action required. The purpose of this report is to update the Council on recent project
plan preparation activities, right of way acquisition activities, Xcel Undergrounding costs,
Business owner feedback, project financing, and consultant services related to this project –
Project No. 2012-0100.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
None at this time. Please let staff know of any comments or questions you might have.
BACKGROUND:
History
The City’s Capital Improvement Program (C.I.P.) indentifies the Highway 7/Louisiana Avenue
intersection as a priority improvement project. The proposed project, which provides for the
construction of a grade-separated interchange at Louisiana Avenue and Highway 7, also includes
pedestrian and bicycle friendly improvements along with re-configuration of the frontage roads
in order to improve access, safety, and traffic flow for both the Highway 7 corridor and
Louisiana Avenue. This proposed improvement is essential in meeting long term transportation
and safety needs of both MnDOT and the City as well as quality of life and redevelopment needs
in this area of the city.
Phase 4 Activities (underway)
Phase 4 activities, described as Final Design and Plan Preparation, include detailed engineering
work needed to complete plans and specifications to obtain final MnDOT project approvals and
authorization for bidding. Final plans are nearing completion and will be submitted for agency
review in mid-October. MnDOT plan review will take about 4-6weeks. Final plan revisions,
specification writing, final approval signatures and bidding authorization will completed by early
February, 2013. Advertisement for bids will then begin in mid-February with a bid opening
occurring in mid-March 2012. Contract award is anticipated on April, 1, 2013 with construction
starting in mid-April, 2013.
The right of way activities, which are part of the final design, are also underway. The City’s
consultant, Evergreen Land Services, has met with all the property owners and made offers for
the easements needed to construct the interchange project. As we continue negotiations with the
affected property owners, the City will need to file a condemnation petition by the end of
September to keep the project on schedule. This will ensure that we receive title and possession
of the needed easements by early January 2013 should we not reach settlements on all the
property acquisitions. It is necessary to have title and possession of all the properties before
State and Federal authorization of the project can occur.
Study Session Meeting of September 24, 2012 (Item No. 7) Page 2
Subject: Project Update - Highway 7 / Louisiana Avenue Interchange Project
Acquisition of the billboard sites is proceeding under the assumption that the billboards will be
relocated on the remaining property. It is feasible to relocate the billboards without creating
adverse visual impacts to adjacent properties; however details of the relocation have yet to be
determined. Details of the billboard relocation will develop during the negotiation process with
Clear Channel and will be presented to Council as they become known.
Utility coordination and relocation is ongoing. Metropolitan Council is developing plans for the
relocation of their sanitary sewer interceptor line. Their relocation work will occur in the spring
of 2013. Comcast Cable plans to relocate off of Xcel Energy’s overhead power poles and go
underground within the next month. Xcel Energy has provided the City with an estimate of costs
for undergrounding their power lines. The estimated cost is $428,786. With their estimate, they
have also calculated a possible scenario for a City Requested Special Facilities Surcharge
(CRFS). The surcharge (tariff) would recover the costs for undergrounding the overhead power
lines. Attached is a table of surcharge rates for the various costumer classes that would be
charged against all Excel Energy customers in St. Louis Park for a period of three years
(Attachment 1). Staff plans to further discuss details of the CRFS at the October 8, 2012 Study
Session meeting.
Business Area Outreach
Twin West Chamber of Commerce hosted a business area informational meeting for the project
on August 29th at the Park Tavern. The meeting was well attended by 25 business
owners/representatives. Representing the project was city staff, the city’s consultant (SEH) and
MnDOT staff. Staff presented information on project history, purpose and need, costs and
funding, schedule, construction staging and detour plans, and communications/outreach. A
number of small business owners had concerns about potential impacts to their businesses during
the construction process. There is a general feeling that their businesses will suffer monetarily
due to difficulty of travel within the area during construction. Some business owners wondered
what help the City could provide to offset potential business losses during construction.
Conversation included questions about possible mitigating efforts that could be used during
construction to help promote the business area and about communication efforts to keep the
public and customers informed on the construction progress and detour routes. It was explained
that assistance from the State Department of Economic Development (DEED) is also available
with help on marketing and financial counseling. The meeting was ended with a statement that
the City hears and understands the concerns of the business owners in the area and that follow-up
with specific answers to their questions needs to be researched and presented at future meetings.
Since the August 29th Business Area meeting, a group of staff members along with our
consultant, SEH, MnDOT representatives and a DEED representative have met to discuss plans
for the next business area meeting. A follow up meeting with area business owners is scheduled
for October 29th.
Future Study Session Discussions
Staff will be reporting to Council at their October 8th Study Session meeting to discuss the
following topics:
• Xcel Energy power line undergrounding and customer facilities surcharge
• R/W Acquisition and Billboard relocations
• Public Art Cost Estimate
• Construction Staging Plans and Traffic Impacts
• Business Owner Concerns
Study Session Meeting of September 24, 2012 (Item No. 7) Page 3
Subject: Project Update - Highway 7 / Louisiana Avenue Interchange Project
• RAP activities and estimated costs
• Schedule
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Project Costs
The following summarizes the project development phases and the costs contracted for with
SEH, Inc. to date:
Phase Contract Amount Cost to Date Status
1 & 2 $306,548.00 $296,420.77 Work Completed
3 $535,000.00 $561,231.81 Work Completed
4 $976,565.00 $919,852.88 94% Complete
Total $1,818,113.00 $1,777,505.46
At the October 1, 2012 City Council meeting, staff plans to ask Council to approve an
amendment to the SEH consultant contract to provide for additional services and unforeseen
work. The amount for the additional services is estimated at $383,378. The additional services
include work for right of way acquisition support, additional soils exploration work required by
MnDOT, additional work due to the project schedule extension, design work to incorporate
public art, and other design work revisions and additions needed to complete the final plans and
obtain MnDOT approval.
Presented below are the latest estimated project costs based on current design work. All of the
funding sources are also presented below. The cost estimate noted below is about $324,000
higher than the most recent previous cost estimate provided to the City Council:
Current Estimated Project Costs
Construction $18,090,000
Preliminary and Final Design Engineering $ 2,201,500
Construction Engineering (estimated consultant cost) $ 1,800,000
Undergrounding Power Lines $ 450,000
Right of Way Acquisition Services (appraisals, title work, attorney fees) $ 100,000
Right of Way (Purchasing land and easements, condemnation costs) $ 2,600,000
Total Costs $25,342,500
Funding Sources
Federal (STP) Funds $7,630,000
MnDOT Access Management Funds $1,000,000
MnDOT Municipal Cooperative Agreement Funds $ 594,000
MnDOT (Construction Eng’r - in lieu of funds) $1,800,000
TED Grant (MnDOT & DEED Program) $3,000,000
City Funds (20% construction grant match – source HRA Levies) $2,398,000
City Funds (Preliminary and Final Design Eng’r – source HRA Levies) $2,201,500
City Funds (Right of Way – source HRA Levies) $2,700,000
City Requested Special Facilities Surcharge (CRFS) $ 450,000
City Water and Sewer Utility Funds $ 200,000
City Funds (HRA Levies) $3,369,000
Total Committed Funds $25,342,500
Study Session Meeting of September 24, 2012 (Item No. 7) Page 4
Subject: Project Update - Highway 7 / Louisiana Avenue Interchange Project
VISION CONSIDERATION:
The following Strategic Directions and focus areas have been identified by Council.
St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged community.
Focus will be on:
• Promoting regional transportation issues and related dedicated funding
sources affecting St. Louis Park including but not limited to Hwy. 100 and
SWLRT.
St. Louis Park is committed to promoting and integrating arts, culture and community
aesthetics in all city initiatives, including implementation where appropriate.
Attachments: Attachment 1 – CRFS Table
Prepared by: Jim Olson, Engineering Project Manager
Reviewed by: Michael P. Rardin, Public Works Director
Scott Brink, City Engineer
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of September 24, 2012 (Item No. 7) Page 5
Subject: Project Update - Highway 7 / Louisiana Avenue Interchange Project
ATTACHMENT 1
City Requested Special Facilities Surcharge (CRFS)
City of Saint Louis Park
Excess Expenditures = $428,786
Customer Class Customers Surcharge(1) Months Recovery
Residential 21,892 $0.50 36 $395,420
Res Low Income 600 $0.50 36 $10,837
Small C&I ND 1,369 $0.50 36 $24,727
Small C&I 655 $1.50 36 $35,492
Large C&I 156 $2.00 36 $11,271
Street Lighting 77 $0.50 36 $1,391
Sm Mun Pump ND 21 $0.50 36 $379
Small Mun Pump 13 $1.50 36 $704
Large Mun Pump 4 $2.00 36 $289
Total 24,787 $480,511
Total Carrying Charges included in recovery amount(2) $51,725
Meeting Date: September 24, 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:
2013 – 2018 Solid Waste Collection Program Update
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
The purpose of this report is to update Council on recent activities and next steps in providing for
the proposed 2013-2018 residential curbside collection program and contracts.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
None at this time. Please let staff know of any comments or questions you might have.
BACKGROUND:
History
On January 9, 2012, staff presented Council the 2011 Solid Waste Program Survey report to
gauge resident satisfaction and understanding of the solid waste program, and to solicit
suggestions for program improvements.
On February 13, 2012, staff presented Council the Solid Waste Program documents (History of
the Program, Purpose, Goals & Objectives, Current Program Summary, and 2011 Program
Annual Report) to provide a better understanding of the current program.
On March 12, 2012 staff presented Council a summary of best management practices (BMP)
program elements shared by local governments with high recycling/diversion rates, a matrix
showing which of the BMP elements are being used by 19 leading environmental cities, a matrix
showing materials collected curbside in high-yielding communities, and a list of recommended
BMP's and cutting edge practices that the city should consider for our various waste streams.
On April 9, 2012 staff presented Council a summary of advantages and disadvantages for single
sort recycling, a list of surrounding cities that have single sort and dual sort recycling, a matrix
showing BMP Practices used by St. Louis Park and surrounding cities, a matrix showing
materials collected curbside by St. Louis Park and surrounding cities, a list of BMP that could be
added to the program, a list of materials collected at city recycling / reuse centers in our metro
area, and a list of retail drop-off sites in St. Louis Park and surrounding communities.
On May 14, 2012 staff presented Council a summary of the proposed 2013-2018 residential
collection program, a list of materials proposed to be collected curbside compared to high-
yielding cities in the US, a detailed list of recyclable materials proposed to be collected curbside,
possible Pay-As-You-Throw (PAYT) rate scenarios that provide an economic incentive to
reduce garbage by increasing recycling and collecting organics, and an overview of the
complexities of collecting plastics along with documented health concerns associated with the
manufacture/use/disposal of some plastics.
Study Session Meeting of Sept. 24, 2012 (Item No. 8) Page 2
Subject: 2013 – 2018 Solid Waste Collection Program Update
On June 11, 2012 staff presented Council with a public involvement plan to both inform
residents of the proposed changes and obtain their input on the proposed changes, a detailed list
of what organic materials will be collected with the 2013-2018 residential curbside program, and
what materials can be put in backyard compost bins.
On August 27, 2012 staff brought in industry experts to provide Council information on issues
relating to plastics collection & processing and discuss specific issues with #3 and #6 plastics.
Council requested further information regarding the effectiveness of single sort recycling
collection (i.e., is there a net increase in recycled materials collected this way vs. collected via
the dual or multi-sort method); staff has not received this information from the county yet.
When this information is received it will be provided to Council.
Public Involvement Results
At the June study session meeting Council directed staff to develop a Public Involvement Plan to
inform the public of the proposed 2013-2018 solid waste program changes and gather their input
on the proposed changes.
The Public Involvement effort that was completed consisted of the following: two open house
meetings, Park Perspective articles, brochure mailing to residents, posters placed in prominent
locations around the city, articles and resident survey on the city’s website, use of social media,
and information sent to neighborhood leaders for their newsletters.
Overall, residents have reacted favorably to the proposed changes, especially the collection of
additional plastics and the addition of organics collection. Many thought moving to single-sort
recycling collection was a good idea. A number of residents expressed support for adding a
20-gallon garbage service level. There were some resident concerns, which included: storage of
additional carts (recycling and/or organics); odors associated with organics; additional cost
associated with organics collection; and inquiries about every other week garbage collection.
(See Exhibit A, Public Involvement Resident Summary).
RFP Preparation and Process
Based on favorable public input, staff is currently preparing a Request for Proposals (RFP) based
on the program changes discussed with Council over the past nine months. The major changes
being made to our program are:
Solid Waste
• Adding 20 gallon service level
• Revise rates to provide residents incentives to decrease their garbage, increase
recycling, and separate organics from garbage
Recycling
• Add more plastics for collection
• Add scrap metal for collection (2’ or less)
• Consider both dual sort and single sort collection options
Organics
• Add organics collection
Study Session Meeting of Sept. 24, 2012 (Item No. 8) Page 3
Subject: 2013 – 2018 Solid Waste Collection Program Update
See Exhibit B to view the Proposed Residential Solid Waste Program in its entirety.
Staff expects to request proposals for the new services in October, evaluate them during
November and December, and reports results to Council early in 2013.
Next Steps
Based on Council direction, the following is planned:
1. Staff continues to gather public input from residents on proposed program changes.
2. Staff prepares and sends out RFP’s to selected vendors.
3. Staff reviews with Council vendor recommendations and a draft contract at a future study
session.
Process / Timeline
The current residential refuse/yard waste and recycling collection contracts expire September 30,
2013. New contracts should be awarded before the end of March 2013 to allow contractors time
to adequately prepare for the work. If that deadline cannot be met, extensions of the current
contracts will likely need to be negotiated.
Below is a schedule showing major steps necessary to develop and award new collection contracts.
Item Completion Date
Staff presents Council with public involvement results and final program
changes for 2013-2018 RFP and contracts Aug 2012
Ordinance changes, if any needed, are identified Sep 2012
Ordinance revisions made (if needed) Sep 2012 - Jun 2013
Staff solicits proposals Oct - Nov 2012
Staff vendor recommendations reviewed with Council Jan 2013
Staff negotiates collection contracts with vendors Jan - Feb 2013
Staff prepares contracts Feb 2013
Council approves new collection contracts Feb - Mar 2013
Staff conducts public education outreach with residents Apr - Aug 2013
New collection contracts begin Oct 1, 2013
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
None at this time
VISION CONSIDERATION:
The City’s refuse and recycling activities support or complement the following Strategic
Direction adopted by the City Council.
Study Session Meeting of Sept. 24, 2012 (Item No. 8) Page 4
Subject: 2013 – 2018 Solid Waste Collection Program Update
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: Exhibit A - Public Involvement Resident Summary
Exhibit B - Proposed Residential Solid Waste Program
Prepared by: Scott Merkley, Public Works Coordinator
Reviewed by: Michael P. Rardin, Director of Public Works
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of Sept. 24, 2012 (Item No. 8) Page 5
Subject: 2013 – 2018 Solid Waste Collection Program Update
EXHIBIT A
Public Involvement Resident Summary
on Solid Waste Program Changes
This document includes comments received by staff from residents regarding the proposed solid
waste program changes.
A total of 149 residents provided comments on the proposed solid waste program changes. As of
Friday September 14, a total of 51 residents provided comments via telephone, email, letters and
98 residents provided comments via the online survey. Residents did not provide written
comments during the 2 open house events.
Single Sort vs. Dual Sort Recycling System
22 Favor Dual Sort
3 Favor Dual Sort
3 Concern over contamination of recyclables using a single sort system
2 Either system is okay
Carts, Bins and Storage
12 Have no room to store another cart (inside or outside, any type of cart)
4 60 gallon single sort cart is too big for recycling cart
3 Do not allow outside storage of carts
2 Prefer recycling cart instead of bins
2 Prefer recycling bins instead of carts
1 Do not require residents to store carts inside
1 Do not allow garbage carts to be stored sideways outside
1 Would like to have a yard waste cart with wheels
Additional Plastics and Metal Collection
36 In favor of additional plastics being collected
3 Not in favor of Eureka being the hauler (don’t collect many materials)
3 In favor of metal collection
1 Eureka is fabulous, let’s stay with them
1 In favor of curbside plastic bag collection
1 In favor of producer responsibility for plastics
Organic Waste Recycling
35 In favor of organic waste recycling
13 Concerned about smell
5 Concerned about bugs and animals
3 Questions about organic waste
3 Encourage more backyard composting
2 Not in favor of organic waste recycling
2 Don’t make organic waste collection mandatory
2 Thinks 20 gallon organics cart is too big for weekly collection.
1 Thinks 20 gallon organics cart is too small for yard waste and organic waste
1 Mix organic waste with yard waste
1 Would like to get free compost back
Study Session Meeting of Sept. 24, 2012 (Item No. 8) Page 6
Subject: 2013 – 2018 Solid Waste Collection Program Update
20 Gallon Garbage Cart
16 In favor of 20 gallon cart if recycling increases and organics starts
3 Assume reduction in cost too?
2 In favor of 20 gallon cart with every other week or monthly collection
General Comments
Being Progressive/Leader in Waste Reduction
12 Happy with the proposed changes/ SLP is being progressive/leaders
5 Stop trying to be innovative/don’t make any changes
1 Continue having organized collection/don’t allow open hauling
Enforcement / Education
2 Educate people about reducing waste
2 Use marketing options for residents without a computer or cable tv
1 Stop enforcing cart storage policy, it’s not enforced
1 Stop enforcing the overfilled cart policy, it’s not enforced
1 Marketing materials were too spendy, stick with letters
Open House Events
2 Received the open house invitation too late
1 Cannot attend
Other General Comments
1 Complaint about Eureka not collecting an item that should have been collected
1 Pay more attention to the roads, traffic issues and safety than cart storage
1 Don’t build more condos
1 Mix all the waste streams together in one cart
1 I don't have very much garbage but I do have a lot of recycling
1 Thank you for setting up the clean-up days
Fees and Costs
8 Does not support increased costs
4 Needs more information about new rate structure
4 Increase the cost of larger carts to promote waste reduction/monetary incentives
1 Supports changes as long as they don’t cost more
1 Supports changes even if they cost more
1 Credit residents who don’t fill their cart
1 Cost increase of extra refuse may increase illegal dumping
Yard Waste
1 Don’t ban paper bags for yard waste
1 In favor of extending holiday tree collection
1 Keep the brush drop off site open
Frequency of Collection
4 In favor of every other week recycling collection
4 In favor of less frequent garbage collection (with cost reduction)
2 In favor of year round collection for recycling, organics, and yard waste
2 In favor of weekly recycling collection
2 In favor of weekly garbage collection (against every other week collection)
1 Not in favor of twice a week collection (biweekly confusion)
1 In favor of daily collection
Study Session Meeting of Sept. 24, 2012 (Item No. 8) Page 7
Subject: 2013 – 2018 Solid Waste Collection Program Update
EXHIBIT B
2013-2018 PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL
SOLID WASTE PROGRAM
Residential Services (Single-family to 4-plex)
General (applies to multiple service types)
• All items set out for collection by 7:00 a.m. on collection day
• Collection containers set out for collection can’t be placed in the street, alley, or on
the sidewalk
• Collection containers must be returned to storage location within 24 hours after being
set out
• Educational tags given for improperly prepared material
• Walk-up service available at an extra cost, paid directly to the hauler
• Extra pick-up service available at an extra cost, paid directly to the hauler
• Extended absence credit available if gone for five or more consecutive weeks
• Solid waste collection rates (PAYT) that encourage refuse reduction and increased
recycling / organics collections
Garbage
• Weekly collection using city owned carts
• Service Levels
o Existing twelve garbage service level options: 30-gal (4,136), 60-gal (5,749), 90-
gal (2,075), 120-gal (94), 150-gal (36), 180-gal (168), 210-gal (1), 240-gal (2),
270-gal (18), 360-gal (12), 450-gallon (1), 540-gal (1)
o Add smaller service level option: 20-gal
o Free service level change once per calendar year; fee charged for additional
changes during same year
• Extra Refuse Stickers
o Require use of extra refuse stickers for bagged household
o Increase the cost of refuse stickers to encourage waste reduction
• Carts stored outside need to be behind the building line extended, 4-feet from interior
lot lines, and least visible location to neighbors
Recycling
• Allow for either Single or Dual Sort Collection. Collection method TBD during
proposal process.
o Dual Sort Collection
o 2-sort collection (paper & containers) with 18 gal bins
o Weekly collection
o Free & unlimited number of recycling bins (delivered weekly)
o Free bin wheel kits available upon request
o Indoor storage of bins required
Study Session Meeting of Sept. 24, 2012 (Item No. 8) Page 8
Subject: 2013 – 2018 Solid Waste Collection Program Update
o Single Sort Collection
o Weekly or every other week collection TBD
o Single sort collection (cart size TBD, cart ownership by City or Contractor
TBD)
o Carts provided free to residents (cost built into service)
o Carts will have large colored sticker showing what materials can be recycled
o Outdoor storage of carts allowed
• Cardboard must be cut into 3’x3’ and tied in bundles
• Additional plastic materials to be collected
• Textile material collected (dependent upon Contractor)
• Add metal collection (2’ in length or less)
• Create partnership(s) with outside organizations to expand local recycling efforts
Yard Waste/Organics
• Provide for weekly yard waste collection April through November, and first three
weeks in January (holiday trees)
• Provide a yard waste credit (currently $3/quarter) for not putting grass clippings out
for collection
• Yard Waste Containers/Bags
o Collection placed in properly marked containers or compostable bags
o Containers should not exceed 32-gallon, have handles and a lid, be labeled with
“yard waste only sticker”, and weigh 40 pounds or less
o Compostable bags are either Kraft paper bags or compostable plastic bags
meeting the ASTM D6400 standards
• Provide for collection of twigs/branches that are less than 4” in diameter, 4’ or less in
length, and are tied in bundles
• City Brush Drop-off Site available (seasonal) for disposal of larger diameter trees and
non-bundled brush
Organics
• Provide for weekly year-round organics collection
• Collection method TBD during proposal process
• Materials expected to be collected curbside include:
o Kitchen Waste - Fruits and vegetables (prepared and raw), Egg shells, Tea
bags/loose tea, Coffee grounds and filters, Herbs and Spices, Bread and baked
goods, Cooked grains (rice, pasta, oatmeal), Flour, Brewery wastes, Dairy
products, Meat, fish, bones
o Paper Waste - Paper towels and rolls, Toilet paper rolls, Napkins, Egg cartons
(paper), Tissues, Paper plates & cups, Compostable plates, bowls, cups, utensils,
Cupcake wrappers (paper), Cartons (milk, juice, wine), Pizza boxes, Boxes from
frozen & refrigerated foods, Wax paper, Food-soiled Paper, Non-Recyclable
Paper, Sugar and flour bags
o Household Waste - House plants, Floral trimmings, Floral bouquets, Dryer lint,
Nail clippings, Wool, Wine corks (real cork), Hair (human and pet), Feathers,
Dead insects, Vacuum cleaner bags, Cotton balls
o Yard Waste - Only if co -mingled with yard waste
Study Session Meeting of Sept. 24, 2012 (Item No. 8) Page 9
Subject: 2013 – 2018 Solid Waste Collection Program Update
Other Services
• Citywide Clean-Up-Day events held at the MSC (Spring & Fall)
• Expand materials being accepted at Clean-Up-Day events
• Weekly bulk, appliance, and electronics curbside collection is available upon resident
request at an extra cost, paid to the hauler
• City Drop-off Services / Sites:
o Household batteries
o City Hall, MSC, SLP Library, and Jerry’s Hardware
o Holiday / Seasonal / Decorative lighting / Electrical cords
o Rec Center
o Cell phones, PDA’s, iPods, MP3 players, and print cartridges
o City Hall, Rec Center, Westwood Nature Center, and MSC
• Provide for electronics and appliance collection events in addition to cleanup events
• Expand the availability and use of locally based existing drop-off facilities for
recycling; educate residents about these facilities
Education & Customer Service
• Solid waste customer service phone staff from 6:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Monday
through Friday and some Saturdays by contractor
• Education provided in various media to residents by city staff
• Education provided at events by city staff & contractor
• Program information and Recycling Guides provided in new resident packets and to
residents and businesses upon request
• Educational tags given for improperly prepared material
• Educational letters to residents by city staff
• Educate residents regarding the benefits of separating organics from garbage
• Promote the use of reusable (i.e. canvas) shopping bags at grocery & retail stores
• Develop a waste reduction messaging campaign
Meeting Date: September 24, 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:
August 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 66% of the annual budget in August. Currently,
the General Fund has expenditures totaling 59.3% of the adopted budget and the Park and
Recreation Fund expenditures are at 69.2%. 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.).
All General Fund departments are running under budget through August, with one very minor
exception for Community Outreach, which is explained below. The majority of the current Park
& Recreation Fund budget variance is due to seasonal expenditures. It is quite common and
consistent with prior years to have a temporary variance over the summer months. Comments on
a few specific revenue and expenditure variances are noted below.
General Fund
Revenues:
• License and permit revenues in the General Fund have been running well ahead of budget
all year. As was anticipated, at the end of August license and permit revenues have
exceeded the total annual budget by 7% or $165,000. This additional revenue is due to
several large commercial development projects that started in 2012, which were not able
to be determined at the time the budget was prepared last summer.
Expenditures:
• The Community Outreach budget remains at 71% because the 2012 payment for
Mediation Services was made early in the year. This expenditure is a substantial portion
of the Community Outreach General Fund budget.
Study Session Meeting of September 24, 2012 (Item No. 9) Page 2
Subject: August 2012 Monthly Financial Report
Parks and Recreation
Expenditures:
• The Organized Recreation Division is at 73.5% of budget through August. The primary
reason is that the full annual Community Education contribution in the amount of
$187,400 was paid to the School District earlier in the year. The timing of this large
expenditure is consistent with prior years and is only a temporary variance. Also, some
costs in this Division are seasonal, with larger expenses occurring for recreational
activities over the summer months. When comparing 2012 to prior year through August,
the results are very consistent.
• The Recreation Center Division is at 73.8% because a large portion of the budgets for
temporary employees and supplies are spent over the summer months for the pool and
concessions. This is consistent with prior years.
• Expenditures in the Vehicle Maintenance Division are exceeding budget at 71.1%. The
variance is mainly due to overages in parts and tires, motor fuel, and outside equipment
repair services, all of which are unpredictable and difficult to budget. Staff will continue
to monitor these expenditures as the year progresses. These areas are also being looked
at closely for the 2013 budget.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
None at this time.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Regular and timely reporting of financial information is part of the City’s mission of being
stewards of financial resources.
Attachments: Summary of Revenues & Expenditures
Prepared by: Darla Monson, Senior Accountant
Reviewed by: Brian Swanson, Controller
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
2011 2012 2012 Balance Budget
Actual Budget Aug YTD Remaining to Actual %
General Fund Revenues:
General Property Taxes 15,372,076$ 15,998,292$ 8,294,166$ 7,704,126$ 51.84%
Licenses and Permits 2,797,588 2,368,799 2,533,565 (164,766) 106.96%
Fines & Forfeits 281,047 328,150 186,861 141,289 56.94%
Intergovernmental 1,243,494 1,163,677 630,850 532,827 54.21%
Charges for Services 1,077,137 1,270,354 431,366 838,988 33.96%
Miscellaneous Revenue 129,142 111,650 69,193 42,457 61.97%
Transfers In 2,553,665 2,023,003 1,334,002 689,001 65.94%
Investment Earnings 203,282 125,000 - 125,000 0.00%
Other Income 22,686 3,450 4,681 (1,231) 135.68%
Total General Fund Revenues 23,680,117$ 23,392,375$ 13,484,684$ 9,907,691$ 57.65%
Park & Recreation Revenues:
General Property Taxes 4,000,561$ 4,171,506$ 2,085,753$ 2,085,753$ 50.00%
Licenses and Permits 110 6,600 220 6,380 3.33%
Intergovernmental 208,536 68,902 32,617 36,285 47.34%
Charges for Services 1,082,163 1,070,750 903,443 167,307 84.37%
Miscellaneous Revenue 1,035,310 967,900 572,449 395,451 59.14%
Other Income 78,902 42,150 2,869 39,281 6.81%
Total Park & Recreation Revenues 6,405,582$ 6,327,808$ 3,597,351$ 2,730,457$ 56.85%
Summary of Revenues - General Fund and Park & Recreation
As of August 31, 2012
Study Session Meeting of September 24, 2012 (Item No. 9)
Subject: August 2012 Monthly Financial Report Page 3
2011 2012 2012 Balance Budget
Actual Budget Aug YTD Remaining to Actual %
General Government:
Administration 825,168$ 1,012,554$ 504,100$ 508,454$ 49.79%
Accounting 624,573 641,691 396,202 245,489 61.74%
Assessing 506,426 517,840 324,510 193,330 62.67%
Human Resources 629,734 667,612 408,081 259,531 61.13%
Community Development 1,082,461 1,076,376 657,183 419,194 61.06%
Facilities Maintenance 955,880 1,083,128 588,129 494,999 54.30%
Information Resources 1,421,858 1,507,579 838,317 669,262 55.61%
Communications & Marketing 256,558 265,426 158,010 107,416 59.53%
Community Outreach 84,300 8,185 5,783 2,402 70.65%
Total General Government 6,386,958$ 6,780,391$ 3,880,317$ 2,900,074$ 57.23%
Public Safety:
Police 6,943,375$ 7,273,723$ 4,509,567$ 2,764,156$ 62.00%
Fire Protection 3,061,962 3,346,931 2,013,092 1,333,839 60.15%
Inspectional Services 1,818,212 1,889,340 1,172,919 716,421 62.08%
Total Public Safety 11,823,549$ 12,509,994$ 7,695,578$ 4,814,416$ 61.52%
Public Works:
Public Works Administration 803,259$ 389,783$ 211,242$ 178,541$ 54.19%
Public Works Engineering 816,280 927,337 555,385 371,952 59.89%
Public Works Operations 2,461,099 2,604,870 1,488,783 1,116,087 57.15%
Total Public Works 4,080,638$ 3,921,990$ 2,255,411$ 1,666,579$ 57.51%
Non-Departmental:
General 81,287$ -$ 50,000$ (50,000)$ 0.00%
Transfers Out 900,000 - - - 0.00%
Tax Court Petitions - 180,000 - 180,000 0.00%
Total Non-Departmental 981,287$ 180,000$ 50,000$ 130,000$ 27.78%
Total General Fund Expenditures 23,272,432$ 23,392,375$ 13,881,306$ 9,511,069$ 59.34%
Park & Recreation:
Organized Recreation 1,266,774$ 1,305,747$ 959,721$ 346,026$ 73.50%
Recreation Center 1,424,076 1,466,246 1,081,680 384,566 73.77%
Park Maintenance 1,462,866 1,461,645 947,180 514,465 64.80%
Westwood 488,579 515,456 319,990 195,466 62.08%
Environment 396,664 390,009 223,610 166,399 57.33%
Vehicle Maintenance 1,300,708 1,188,705 845,388 343,317 71.12%
Total Park & Recreation Expenditures 6,339,666$ 6,327,808$ 4,377,569$ 1,950,239$ 69.18%
Summary of Expenditures - General Fund and Park & Recreation
As of August 31, 2012
Study Session Meeting of September 24, 2012 (Item No. 9)
Subject: August 2012 Monthly Financial Report Page 4
Meeting Date: September 24, 2012
Agenda Item #: 5a
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other: Vendor Claims
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
EDA Vendor Claims
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to accept for filing Vendor Claims for the period August 25 through September 14, 2012.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
BACKGROUND:
The Finance Department prepares this report for council’s review.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
None.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
Attachments: EDA Vendor Claims
Prepared by: Connie Neubeck, Account Clerk
9/18/2012CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:58:59R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
1Page -Council Check Summary
9/14/2012 -8/25/2012
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
295.017015 WALKER-REYNOLDS WELD PROP OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESGREEN HORIZONS
429.10TH 7-LOUISIANA OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
257.46PARK COMMONS G&A LAND MAINTENANCE
981.57
45.00HARD COAT LEGAL SERVICESKENNEDY & GRAVEN
731.50DEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A LEGAL SERVICES
776.50
3,000.00HRA LEVY G&A LEGAL SERVICESLOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP
3,000.00
50,000.00VICTORIA PONDS G&A REFERENDUM - TAX INC. PAYM&L ANODIZING PROPERTIES LLC
50,000.00
212.31DEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A TELEPHONENEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS
212.31
7.43DEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A OFFICE SUPPLIESOFFICE DEPOT
7.43
2,753.31DEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A PLANNINGSEH
2,753.31
7,667.55DEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A PLANNINGSRF CONSULTING GROUP INC
7,667.55
62,092.18CONVENTION & VISITORS BUREAU COST REIMBURSEMENT-VISIONST LOUIS PARK CONV & VISITORS
62,092.18
Report Totals 127,490.85
EDA Meeting of September 24, 2012 (Item No. 5a)
Subject: EDA Vendor Claims Page 2
Meeting Date: September 24, 2012
Agenda Item #: 7a
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other: Public Hearing
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Preliminary Development Agreement between the EDA and 9920 Hotels LLC
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to Adopt EDA Resolution approving the Preliminary Development Agreement between
the EDA and 9920 Hotels LLC.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the EDA approve the proposed Preliminary Development Agreement between the EDA
and 9920 Hotels LLC relative to the demolition of the former Sanortini’s restaurant building?
SUMMARY
The City has declared the former Santorini restaurant building located at 9920 Wayzata Blvd a
public health hazard and has ordered that it must be either fully restored or removed. This
property is a prime redevelopment opportunity for the city; one which may require financial
assistance. While there is no redevelopment proposal currently, the EDA may wish to protect the
option to provide tax increment financing at this location in the future. In order to do so the EDA
must enter into a Preliminary Development Agreement with the current property owner prior to
the removal of the building. Under the proposed Agreement the property owner agrees to
demolish and remove the structurally substandard building on the site at its expense and the EDA
agrees to work with the property owner toward redeveloping the property. Once the EDA and the
property owner execute the proposed Agreement, the building can be removed as required by the
City.
BACKGROUND
On November 10, 2011 the City’s Inspection Department conducted an inspection of the
building located at 9920 Wayzata Blvd (formerly Santorini Taverna & Grill and “subject
property”) and determined it to be unsafe and a public nuisance. On June 18th, the City Council
adopted a resolution ordering that the building either be restored to full code compliance or
removed.
The subject property is at a highly visible location at the northwest quadrant of I-394 and U.S.
169 next to the Metropoint Business Center. The 1.3 acre subject property and adjacent 1.3 acre
parcel (related parking lot) represent a significant redevelopment opportunity for the city. The
redevelopment site is currently being marketed as a location for a major, high quality, mixed-use
development.
Should a project that meets the City’s redevelopment objectives for this site be proposed, the
EDA may wish to consider facilitating it through the use of tax increment financing. The
existence of a structurally substandard building on the subject property makes it possible for the
EDA to establish a Redevelopment or Renovation and Renewal Tax Increment District at this
location. However the removal of the substandard building prior to the creation of such a district
eliminates the EDA‘s ability to use this financing tool. To protect the future potential for the
EDA Meeting of September 24, 2012 (Item No. 7a) Page 2
Subject: Preliminary Development Agreement between the EDA and 9920 Hotels LLC
EDA to create a TIF district at this location while presently requiring removal of the substandard
structure, the EDA must do two things. One, it must adopt a resolution establishing that the
subject property is occupied by a structurally substandard building prior to its demolition and that
the EDA may, at some time in the future, choose to create a TIF district encompassing the
property. The EDA adopted this resolution on June 18th. Secondly, the demolition of the
substandard building must be performed by a “developer” under an agreement with the EDA.
For purposes of this agreement the “developer” can be the current property owner. This is the
proposed Preliminary Development Agreement before the EDA. These actions will protect the
EDA’s ability to include the subject property in a future TIF district for up to three years
following building demolition.
Preliminary Development Agreement Summary
The following is a summary of the Preliminary Development Agreement between the EDA and
the property owner (9920 Hotels LLC and “Developer”), for the demolition and removal of the
building located 9920 Wayzata Blvd (“Property”). During the term of the Agreement:
The Developer agrees to:
1. Cause the building on the Property to be demolished and all building debris removed
at Developer’s expense no later than the earlier of December 31, 2012, or the date
required under any City demolition order.
2. Maintain the Property in compliance with City ordinances.
3. If Developer determines not to undertake redevelopment of the Property directly, it
will use its best efforts to seek a successor entity that will proceed with such
redevelopment, subject to the EDA’s consent.
4. Negotiate in good faith with the EDA regarding any proposed redevelopment of the
Property, including any possible public financial assistance.
The EDA agrees to:
1. Review any proposed successor to Developer, and if acceptable, cooperate with the
successor as the Developer of the Property.
2. Cooperate with Developer or a successor in evaluating any redevelopment proposal
submitted by Developer, including whether any public financial assistance is
warranted in connection with that project.
3. Seek all necessary information with regard to the anticipated public costs associated
with any proposed redevelopment of the Property.
4. If the EDA determines that tax increment assistance is reasonably necessary in order
to induce the proposed redevelopment of the Property, with the Developer’s
assistance, begin the process to create a redevelopment or renewal and renovation
tax increment financing district encompassing the Property
5. Negotiate in good faith with the Developer or a successor regarding any proposed
redevelopment of the Property, including any possible public financial assistance
with the goal of entering into a Redevelopment Contract.
EDA Meeting of September 24, 2012 (Item No. 7a) Page 3
Subject: Preliminary Development Agreement between the EDA and 9920 Hotels LLC
The term of the Agreement is for three years and may be extended by mutual agreement of
the parties.
Both parties understand that any financial assistance provided by the EDA through a future
Redevelopment Contract are subject to the proposed future project being economically/
statutorily feasible, reasonably necessary and in the best interests of each party.
Next Steps
The property owners have agreed to remove the building as required no later than the end of the
year. In order for the EDA to include the subject property in a future TIF district, the EDA must
file a request for certification of such a district with the Hennepin County Auditor within three years
after the date of building demolition.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION
Under the proposed Preliminary Development Agreement the property owner agrees to demolish
and remove the structurally substandard building on the subject property at its expense. Approval
of the proposed Agreement does not commit the EDA to providing any amount of tax increment
financing in conjunction with the future redevelopment of the subject property, rather it simply
preserves the EDA’s future ability to create a redevelopment or renewal and renovation tax
increment financing district on the subject property should it choose to do so.
VISION CONSIDERATION
This project supports the Strategic Directions of providing well-maintained [neighborhoods],
being a connected and engaged community, as well as promoting community aesthetics.
Attachments: Resolution of Approval
Preliminary Development Agreement between the EDA and 9920 Hotels
Prepared by: Greg Hunt, Economic Development Coordinator
Reviewed by: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, EDA Executive Director and City Manager
EDA Meeting of September 24, 2012 (Item No. 7a) Page 4
Subject: Preliminary Development Agreement between the EDA and 9920 Hotels LLC
ST. LOUIS PARK ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RESOLUTION NO. 12-____
APPROVING PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE ST. LOUIS PARK ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ATHORITY
AND 9920 HOTELS, LLC
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Commissioners of the St. Louis Park, Economic
Development Authority (“Authority”) as follows:
1. Background.
1.01. 9920 Hotels, LLC (the “Developer”) owns certain property (the “Property”) in the
City of St. Louis Park (the “City”) which Property is occupied by a building found to be in
substandard condition by City inspectors and for which demolition has been ordered.
1.02. The Authority and the Developer have determined to enter into a preliminary
development agreement (the “PDA”), providing for negotiation of a definitive development
contract that will address (among other things) terms under which the Developer will market the
Property to a third-party developer acceptable to the Authority, and the Authority may provide
certain financial assistance if warranted to make development by such third-party developer
financially feasible.
1.03. The Board has reviewed the PDA, and has determined that it is in the best interests
of the Authority to approve and execute the PDA.
2. Approval of PDA.
2.01. The Authority approves the PDA, and authorizes and directs the President and
Executive Director to execute same in substantially the form on file, subject to modifications that
do not alter the substance of the transaction and are approved by the President and Executive
Director, provided that execution of the PDA by such officials will be conclusive evidence of
their approval.
2.02. Authority officials and consultants are authorized to take any other actions
necessary to carry out the Authority’s obligations under the PDA, and to bring a proposed
definitive development contract before the Authority.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the Economic Development
Authority September 24, 2012
Executive Director President
Attest:
Secretary
EDA Meeting of September 24, 2012 (Item No. 7a) Page 5
Subject: Preliminary Development Agreement between the EDA and 9920 Hotels LLC
Exhibit A
PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
THIS PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (this “Agreement”), dated this
24th day of September, 2012, by and between the St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority,
a municipal corporation and political subdivision under the laws of the State of Minnesota (the
“Authority”) and 9920 Hotels, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company (the “Developer”):
WITNESSETH
WHEREAS, the Authority desires to promote redevelopment of certain property legally
described in Exhibit A attached hereto (the “Property”); and
WHEREAS, the Authority has found the building located on the Property to be structurally
substandard within the meaning of Minnesota Statutes, Section 49.174, subd. 10; and
WHEREAS, the Authority and Developer have determined that is in the best interest of the
parties to demolish the existing building and negotiate regarding potential redevelopment of the
Property, all as further described in this Agreement;
WHEREAS, the Authority has determined that it is in the Authority’s best interests that the
Developer be designated as the sole developer of the Property during the term of this Agreement;
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and of the mutual covenants and
obligations set forth herein, the parties agree as follows:
1. During the term of this Agreement, the Developer (or its successors and assigns)
shall:
(a) At no cost to the Authority, cause the existing building on the Property to be
demolished and all demolition debris to be removed from the Property as soon as reasonably
practicable after the date of this Agreement. The parties agree that such demolition shall
occur no later than the earlier of December 31, 2012, or the date required under any City
demolition order.
(b) Maintain the Property in compliance with City ordinances.
(c) If Developer determines not undertake redevelopment of the Property
directly, use its best efforts to seek a successor entity that will proceed with such
redevelopment, subject to the Authority’s consent as further described in Section 7 hereof.
(d) Negotiate in good faith with the Authority regarding any proposed
redevelopment of the Property, including any possible public financial assistance related
thereof, all with the goal of entering into a contract for private redevelopment (the
“Contract”).
EDAl Meeting of September 24, 2012 (Item No. 7a)
Subject: Preliminary Development Agreement between the EDA and 9920 Hotels LLC Page 6
2. During the term of this Agreement, the Authority agrees to:
(a) Review any proposed successor to Developer as described in Section 7, and
if the Authority determines to approve that successor, thereafter cooperate with the
successor as the Developer under this Agreement.
(b) Cooperate with Developer or a successor in evaluating any redevelopment
proposal submitted by Developer, including whether any public financial assistance is
warranted in connection with that effort.
(c) Proceed to seek all necessary information with regard to the anticipated
public costs associated with any proposed redevelopment.
(d) If the Authority determines that tax increment assistance is reasonably
necessary in order to induce the proposed redevelopment of the Property, with the
Developer’s assistance, begin the process to create a redevelopment or renewal and
renovation tax increment financing district encompassing the Property, including the
preparation of a tax increment financing plan, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections
469.174 through 469.1799, as amended (collectively, the “TIF Act”); provided that parties
agree and understand that the Authority must file a request for certification of such a tax
increment financing district within three years after the date of demolition of the building on
the Property, unless Section 469.174, subd. 10(d) is hereafter amended to extend that time
period.
(e) Negotiate in good faith with the Developer or a successor regarding any
proposed redevelopment of the Property, including any possible public financial assistance
related thereto, all with the goal of entering into a Contract.
3. It is expressly understood that execution and implementation of the Contract shall be
subject to:
(a) A determination by the Authority in its sole discretion that its undertakings
are feasible based on (i) the projected tax increment revenues and any other revenues
designated by the Authority; (ii) the purposes and objectives of any tax increment,
development, or other plan created or proposed for the purpose of providing financial
assistance for the Redevelopment; and (iii) the best interests of the Authority.
(b) A determination by the Authority that any Authority financial assistance is
reasonably necessary in order to make the Redevelopment financially feasible, and that any
such assistance is limited to the amount necessary to achieve financial feasibility based on
Developer’s (or a successor’s) pro forma and review of all the facts and circumstances.
(c) A determination by the Developer or successor that the Redevelopment is
economically feasible and in the best interests of the Developer or successor.
EDAl Meeting of September 24, 2012 (Item No. 7a)
Subject: Preliminary Development Agreement between the EDA and 9920 Hotels LLC Page 7
4. This Agreement is effective from the date hereof through September 1, 2015. After
such date, neither party shall have any obligation hereunder except as expressly set forth to the
contrary herein. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary herein, the term of this Agreement may
be extended by mutual written agreement of the parties, provided that the Authority’s approval of
such extension may be given by the Authority Administrator.
5. Each party shall be solely responsible for all costs incurred by that party under this
Agreement. However, the parties agree and understand that any Contract will include provisions
requiring the Developer (or successor) to reimburse the Authority for its administrative costs in
connection with the proposed redevelopment, including costs of negotiation and drafting of the
Contract. Further, if the Authority determines that tax increment financing assistance is reasonably
required for redevelopment of the Property, the Authority may require that Developer or successor
file an application for such assistance and pay a deposit to the Authority to cover administrative
costs related to that activity, all in accordance with Authority policies.
6. This Agreement may be terminated upon ten (10) days written notice by either party
to the other of any of the following events of default, only if such events of default shall remain
uncured during the aforementioned notice period:
(a) an essential precondition to the execution of the Contract cannot be met; or
(b) if, in the sole discretion of the Authority, an impasse has been reached in the
negotiation or implementation of any material term or condition of this Agreement or the
Contract; or
7. The Developer is designated as sole developer of the Property during the term of this
Agreement. However, the parties agree and understand that Developer may determine to convey
the Property to a third party, and to assign the rights and obligations under this Agreement to such
successor. Developer shall submit a proposal for any such transfer to the Authority, and the
Authority shall be entitled to review and approve the successor. If the Authority approves the
successor, the Developer and successor shall execute and an assignment and assumption of this
Agreement in a form acceptable to the Authority. Absent such Authority approval, Developer shall
not assign or transfer its rights under this Agreement in full or in part.
8. If any portion of this Agreement is held invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction,
such decision shall not affect the validity of any remaining portion of the Agreement.
9. In the event any covenant contained in this Agreement should be breached by one
party and subsequently waived by another party, 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. This Agreement may not be amended nor any of its terms modified except by a writing
authorized and executed by all parties hereto.
10. Notice or demand or other communication between or among the parties shall be
sufficiently given if sent by mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested or delivered personally:
EDAl Meeting of September 24, 2012 (Item No. 7a)
Subject: Preliminary Development Agreement between the EDA and 9920 Hotels LLC Page 8
(a) As to the Authority:
St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority
5005 Minnetonka Blvd.
St. Louis Park, MN 55416-2216
(b) As to the Developer:
9920 Hotels, LLC
1513 12th Street SE
Rochester, MN 55904
Attn: Ari Kolas
11. This Agreement may be executed simultaneously in any number of counterparts, all
of which shall constitute one and the same instrument.
12. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of
the State of Minnesota. Any disputes, controversies, or claims arising out of this Agreement shall
be heard in the state or federal courts of Minnesota, and all parties to this Agreement waive any
objection to the jurisdiction of these courts, whether based on convenience or otherwise.
EDAl Meeting of September 24, 2012 (Item No. 7a)
Subject: Preliminary Development Agreement between the EDA and 9920 Hotels LLC Page 9
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Authority has caused this Agreement to be duly executed in
its name and behalf and its seal to be duly affixed hereto and the Developer has caused this
Agreement to be duly executed as of the day and year first above written.
ST. LOUIS PARK ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
By
President
By
Executive Director
(Authority signature page to Preliminary Development Agreement)
EDAl Meeting of September 24, 2012 (Item No. 7a)
Subject: Preliminary Development Agreement between the EDA and 9920 Hotels LLC Page 10
9920 HOTELS, LLC
By
Its President
(Developer signature page to Preliminary Development Agreement)
EDAl Meeting of September 24, 2012 (Item No. 7a)
Subject: Preliminary Development Agreement between the EDA and 9920 Hotels LLC Page 11
A-1
EXHIBIT A
Description of Property
That Part of the Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 1, Township 117, Range 22, Hennepin
County, Minnesota, described as beginning at a point on the most Southerly line of Lot 1, Block 7, Shelard Park
distant 315.25 feet Easterly from the West line of said Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter as measured
along the most Southerly line of said Lot 1; thence South 87 degrees 41 minutes 54 seconds West along said most
Southerly line of Lot 1 to said West line (assuming said West line has a bearing of South 1 degrees 11 minutes 16
seconds West) a distance of 315.25 feet; thence South 1 degree 11 minutes 16 seconds West along said West line a
distance of 114.56 feet; thence South 77 degrees 38 minutes 16 seconds East a distance of 214.20 feet; thence
North 87 degrees 44 minutes 40 seconds East a distance of 104.50 feet to the intersection with a line bearing South
1 degree 14 minutes 59 seconds West from the point of beginning; thence North 1 degree 14 minutes 59 seconds
East a distance of 198.98 feet to the point of beginning.
[Torrens Certificate No. 1212398]
AND
That part of the Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 1, Township 117, Range 22, Hennepin
County, Minnesota, described as beginning at a point on the most Southerly line of Lot 1, Block 7, Shelard Park
distant 315.25 feet Easterly from the West line of said Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter as measured
along said most Southerly line of Lot 1; thence North 87 degrees 41 minutes 54 seconds East (assuming said West
line has a bearing of South 1 degree 11 minutes 16 seconds West) along said most Southerly line of Lot 1 and its
Easterly extension a distance of 317.55 feet to the Northerly extension of the West line of Lot 4 said Block 7;
thence South 02 degrees 03 minutes 09 seconds West along said Northerly extension of the West line of Lot 4 and
the West line of said Lot 4, a distance of 119.74 feet; thence South 64 degrees 01 minutes 24 seconds West a
distance of 197.53 feet; thence South 87 degrees 44 minutes 40 seconds West a distance of 139.87 feet to the
intersection with a line bearing South 1 degree 14 minutes 59 seconds West from the point of beginning; thence
North 1 degree 14 minutes 59 seconds East a distance of 198.98 feet to the point of beginning.
[Torrens Certificate No. 1335184]
Together with the adjacent portion of that part of the Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 1,
Township 117 North, Range 20 North, shown as Parcel 44 on Minnesota Department of Transportation Right of
Way Plat No. 27-3, lying Northerly of Line 1 described as follows:
Line 1: Beginning at Right of Way Boundary Corner B211 as shown on said Plat No. 27-23; thence Easterly on an
azimuth of 101 degrees 20 minutes 23 seconds along the boundary of said plat of 214.28 feet to Right of Way
Boundary Corner B1; then continue on an azimuth of 101 degrees 20 minutes 23 seconds for 93.00 feet; thence
deflect to the left for 350.87 feet on a non-tangential curve, concave to the North and passing through Right of Way
Boundary Corner B2 as shown on said Plat 27-23, having a radius of 763.94 feet, a delta angle of 26 degrees 18
minutes 56 seconds, and a chord azimuth of 70 degrees 47 minutes 34 seconds to the Easterly line of Tract A
hereinbefore described; thence on an azimuth of 01 degree 05 minutes 15 seconds for 7.37 feet to the Right of Way
Boundary Corner B3 as shown on said plat No. 27-23 and there terminating.
[Abstract property]
EDAl Meeting of September 24, 2012 (Item No. 7a)
Subject: Preliminary Development Agreement between the EDA and 9920 Hotels LLC Page 12
Meeting Date: September 24, 2012
Agenda Item #: 2a
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:
2012 Evergreen Awards
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
The Mayor is requested to present the 2012 Evergreen Awards to the following recipients:
• 4038 Quentin – Randall Olson (Minikahda-Vista Neighborhood)
• 4151 Ottawa – James & Barbara Jacobs (Minikahda-Vista Neighborhood)
• 3804 Rhode Island – Adrienne Fleming; Stephanie and Ron Byland (South Oak Hill
Neighborhood)
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
BACKGROUND:
The Evergreen Award is presented each year in recognition of properties that are uniquely
designed, landscaped and well maintained with an emphasis on landscaping that is visible to the
passerby. Businesses, apartments and houses are all eligible to receive the award.
The judges selecting the Evergreen Award recipients are comprised of Parks and Recreation
Advisory Commission members, past Evergreen Award winners, volunteers and staff who have a
keen interest in flowers, plants, landscaping and landscape design. There were five judges
inspecting this year’s nominations.
There were five nominations this year throughout the City. Winners are presented with an award
certificate, a Dwarf Alberta Spruce tree and “Evergreen Award Winner” signs posted in their
boulevard for two weeks. Jim Vaughan, Environmental Coordinator, will be at the meeting to
present the awards to the three winners.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Well maintained landscaping enhances the beauty of St. Louis Park. This program is consistent
with one of the Council’s Strategic Directions which states “St. Louis Park is committed to
promoting and integrating arts, culture, and community aesthetics in all City initiatives,
including implementation where appropriate”.
Attachments: None
Prepared by: Stacy Voelker, Administrative Secretary
Jim Vaughan, Environmental Coordinator
Reviewed by: Cindy Walsh, Director of Parks and Recreation
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting Date: September 24, 2012
Agenda Item #: 2b
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:
Recognition for Assistant Fire Chief Mike Dobesh’s 14 Years of Service
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
The Mayor is asked to read the certificate and recognize Assistant Chief Mike Dobesh for his
more than 14 years of service to the City of St. Louis Park.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
BACKGROUND:
City Policy states that employees who retire or resign in good standing with over 10 years of
service will be presented with a framed certificate from the Mayor, City Manager, and City
Council.
Mike Dobesh has resigned after more than 14 years of service to the City’s Fire Department. He
has accepted a new position with the City of Richfield. Assistant Chief Dobesh will be in
attendance at this meeting. The mayor is asked to read the certificate and present it to him in
recognition of his years of service.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
Attachments: None
Prepared by: Ali Fosse, HR Coordinator
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting Date: September 24, 2012
Agenda Item #: 3a
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
AUGUST 27, 2012
1. Call to Order
Mayor Pro Tem Sue Sanger called the meeting to order at 5:45 p.m.
Councilmembers present: Mayor Jeff Jacobs (arrived at 6:15 p.m.), Steve Hallfin, Anne Mavity,
Julia Ross, Susan Sanger, Sue Santa, and Jake Spano.
Councilmembers absent: None.
Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening).
Guests: Jon Iverson (Iverson Reuvers Law Firm and Brian Gaviglio (League of Minnesota
Cities Insurance Trust.
1a. Roll Call
2. Closed Executive Session
The City Council met in closed executive session with attorneys for the purpose of
discussing litigation strategy with the City's attorney in Jason Marth vs. Officer John
Herman case.
3. Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 6:30 p.m.
______________________________________ ______________________________________
Nancy Stroth, City Clerk Jeff Jacobs, Mayor
Meeting Date: September 24, 2012
Agenda Item #: 3b
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
AUGUST 27, 2012
The meeting convened at 6:35 p.m.
Councilmembers present: Mayor Jeff Jacobs, Steve Hallfin, Anne Mavity, Julia Ross, Susan
Sanger, Sue Santa, and Jake Spano.
Councilmembers absent: None.
Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), Director of Inspections (Mr. Hoffman), Director
of Public Works (Mr. Rardin), Public Works Coordinator (Mr. Merkley), Administrative
Services Intern (Mr. French), Inspection Services Manager (Ms. Boettcher), Communications
Coordinator (Mr. Zwilling), and Recording Secretary (Ms. Hughes).
Guest: Jim Brimeyer (Met Council), Brian Ukena (Eureka Recycling), Paul Kronig (Hennepin
County), and Wayne Gjerde (MPCA).
1. Future Study Session Agenda Planning – September 10, 2012
Mr. Harmening presented the proposed study session agenda for September 10, 2012.
Councilmember Sanger stated that a presentation was made at a recent TAB meeting regarding
Thrive MSP 2040 which included a PowerPoint presentation and which asked several high level
questions regarding Met Council's approach to planning over the next thirty years. She indicated
feedback on these questions has been requested and will be discussed at the September 19th TAB
meeting. She requested feedback from Council on these questions and agreed to distribute the
PowerPoint presentation and questions to Council. She asked if Council would like to further
discuss this at a study session or whether Council preferred to provide feedback via email.
It was the consensus of the City Council to direct the City Manager to forward the PowerPoint
presentation and questions regarding Thrive MSP 2040 to Council and to compile the responses
for distribution to Council.
Councilmember Mavity stated that the Institute on Race and Poverty is interested in a formal
discussion regarding desegregation and its impact on housing. She asked Council to let her
know if it is interested in a more formal discussion regarding this topic
2. Update on Southwest Light Rail Transit (SWLRT)
Mr. Harmening presented the staff report and introduced Mr. Brimeyer.
Mr. Brimeyer explained Met Council's bidding process for the SWLRT Preliminary Engineering
(PE) phase and stated that staff from Mn/DOT, Met Council, and other agencies reviewed the
two proposals received and decided that URS was the most qualified bidder. He discussed the
Sabo bridge report and 35W bridge collapse and indicated Met Council hired special counsel to
further review URS. He stated that without declaring a bidder as a responsible bidder or not
responsible, Met Council made the decision to break up the SWLRT engineering contract and to
City Council Meeting of September 24, 2012 (Item No. 3b) Page 2
Subject: Study Session Minutes of August 27, 2012
also hire a third party engineering firm to oversee the work of the engineering firm hired for the
project. He advised that revised RFPs have been issued and responses to the RFP are due in
October. He noted that the FTA, CTIB, and other agencies involved in SWLRT agreed with Met
Council's decision regarding the PE process and revised timetable. He added there is still a
question about whether the project will receive any DEED money, noting it does not have
legislative support. He stated Met Council will continue to bond with grant anticipation notes
and there is money committed for PE. He then discussed Thrive MSP 2040 and the regional
forecast prepared by Met Council which forecasts the population will increase from 2.8 million
to 3.7 million between 2010 and 2040; the forecast also states households will increase from 1.1
million to 1.5 million and that employment will increase from 1.5 million jobs to 2.1 million
jobs. He indicated Met Council is mandated by State law to prepare a regional framework by
2014 and Met Council will begin conducting several listening sessions.
Councilmember Ross requested that the City's website include a link to the listening sessions
hosted by Met Council.
Councilmember Mavity stated she sits on the housing committee of Metro Cities and one of the
issues being discussed is Met Council's housing projections/goals and the committee's concern
regarding the formula that tells cities how much affordable housing they are supposed to have.
She indicated the committee feels this should be re-evaluated to take into account existing
housing and the committee feels that cities should maintain an ownership role in determining
their housing goals.
Mayor Jacobs thanked Mr. Brimeyer for the update.
3. Solid Waste Collection Program – Plastics Education
Mr. Merkley presented the staff report and introduced Brian Ukena of Eureka Recycling, Paul
Kroening of Hennepin County, and Wayne Gjerde of MPCA. He stated Mr. Gjerde is MPCA's
recycling market development coordinator and serves as the principal technical expert in markets
for recycling materials. He advised that Mr. Kroening currently manages the waste reduction
and recycling unit for the County. He stated Mr. Ukena is the Director of Business Development
for Eureka focusing on zero waste composting and commodity sales.
Mr. Gjerde discussed the efforts made by the State since the early 1990's to increase recycling
and stated there are over 200 companies in the State that use recycled materials. He indicated the
State has 15,000 manufacturing jobs tied to recycling resulting in approximately $72 million in
state and local taxes being collected. He also discussed some of the companies using and selling
recycled materials, noting that recycled materials were used in the rebar that went into building
the 35W bridge. He encouraged everyone to go to the Eco Experience Building at the State Fair
to see the wall of 15,000 bottles intended to highlight the fact that only 25% of beverage
containers are recycled while the rest are thrown away. He stated there are many companies
operating under capacity in the U.S. because they cannot get enough post-consumer plastics.
Mr. Kroening distributed a recycling guide developed by the County and stated that recycling in
the County has been stagnant for the last decade. He indicated the State recently set new goals to
increase recycling from 38% to 45% by 2015 and eventually to increase recycling up to 60% by
2030. He explained there are four recycling centers (MRFs) that serve the metro area and they
all collect the same materials. He indicated that new materials have been added to the recycling
City Council Meeting of September 24, 2012 (Item No. 3b) Page 3
Subject: Study Session Minutes of August 27, 2012
list and the County requires all cities to collect #1-5 plastics. He showed several samples of
plastics and discussed PVC, which is typically found in shampoo bottles and blister packaging,
noting there are currently no domestic markets for PVC consumer packaging. He indicated the
MRFs have difficulty marketing #3, #6, or #7 plastics, but #3 PVC, #6 and #7 represent a small
amount of the entire plastic stream. He stated that nationally, the vast majority of communities
are moving to single sort recycling primarily because of ease and convenience and this has
resulted in people recycling more materials. He stated if St. Louis Park adopted a single sort
system, the bins would be replaced with a 60 or 90-gallon cart, which provides more recycling
capacity. He added that Minneapolis saw a 30-50% increase in recycling when it began its
single sort recycling pilot projects. He acknowledged that single sort recycling results in higher
contamination rates of 5-9% versus Eureka's dual sort contamination rate of 1.4%.
Mr. Ukena agreed that increasing the recycling container size is a motivating factor for people to
recycle. He indicated there are 60,000 plastics recyclers in China and it is difficult to know
where recycled materials are going once the materials are sent overseas. He stated Eureka is
interested in having a conversation with the public about the reality of PVC plastic and how the
public can influence retailers to phase out the use of PVC.
Councilmember Ross stated that educating residents is a key factor and felt that residents are
conscientious and trying to do the right thing when it comes to recycling. She indicated the City
has an aging population and it will be important for the City to make recycling easy for all
residents. She agreed the City should do what makes the most sense for the community as a
whole but urged the City to remain cognizant of its elderly population and people with
disabilities to make it easy to recycle. She asked if the City's website could include a list of
products that cannot be recycled.
Mr. Gjerde stated that Minnesota has been active in pursuing legislation related to product
stewardship and felt it was likely that some producer responsibility legislation will be passed in
the next session that puts the onus on the manufacturer to produce materials that are recyclable.
Councilmember Sanger requested further information about the contamination rates of dual sort
and single sort recycling methods. She stated she was interested in data on the differential rates
between how much recycled material is thrown in the landfill versus how much gets recycled.
Mr. Gjerde stated that approximately 8% of recycled material goes into the landfill from single
sort MRF’s. He indicated that of the entire amount generated in solid waste in Minnesota,
people throw away another million tons that could have been recycled.
Mr. Kroening stated the dual sort residual rate is 1% and Allied and Waste Management's
contamination rates for its single sort recycling are around 8%.
Councilmember Sanger indicated she has asked residents what keeps them from recycling more
and residents have consistently stated they do not know what to recycle in terms of plastic and
residents have also stated convenience is a factor. She stated none of the residents she spoke
with objected to a dual sort system but did object to two carts because of limited storage space.
Mr. Merkley indicated the City needs to conform to the new County requirement to collect all
plastic containers and lids #1-5 by January 1, 2013, and the City hopes to do this by October 1st.
He stated Eureka will pick up all materials and will not be leaving tags like before.
City Council Meeting of September 24, 2012 (Item No. 3b) Page 4
Subject: Study Session Minutes of August 27, 2012
Mr. Rardin noted that Eureka will not take Styrofoam.
Councilmember Mavity asked if plastic bags will be added to the list of materials.
Mr. Kroening indicated there is a strong market for recycling plastics bags but most communities
do not collect plastic bags curbside because they get intertwined with the hauler's equipment. He
stated there are a number of outlets that accept plastic bags for recycling.
Councilmember Santa stated that residents have told her they appreciated the open houses and
conversations with Eureka regarding recycling and she received a lot of positive comments
regarding a single sort system. She added the City needs to continue its educational outreach.
Councilmember Spano stated he heard positive responses regarding single sort and felt it made
sense for the City to move in that direction.
Councilmember Sanger requested that Council continue its discussion regarding expanding
recycling for multi-family housing, schools, and institutions.
Mr. Kroening stated the County is currently working on a campaign for multi-family housing
and will be working with cities on that campaign.
4. Beekeeping in St. Louis Park
Mr. Hoffman presented the staff report and introduced Mr. French, Administrative Services
Intern, who conducted the research for this discussion with Council.
Councilmember Santa stated there is a beekeeper a couple of blocks from her house and she has
not heard any complaints or received any negative feedback from neighbors in the area. She
stated she did not think there was anything that needed to be fixed from a policy standpoint and
added if there is a problem, she would like to know about it, but she did not see anything to
indicate there was a problem with beekeepers.
Councilmember Ross stated she heard from one resident that there was a problem, but for the
most part, she has never heard of a problem with beekeeping. She stated if there is a problem,
she would like to know about it and if Council decides to take action, she would like to see a
combination of regulations and permits/licenses.
Councilmember Spano stated he was not comfortable with instituting regulatory change based on
one complaint. He indicated he would entertain a policy to address the issue if there was a
systemic problem that was evident, but was concerned about one complaint among neighbors
resulting in regulations being enacted in the entire City.
Councilmember Mavity stated that unless there was a clear and present issue or danger, she did
not see a compelling need to regulate beekeeping because she has not seen that it is a problem
and her preference was to do nothing as it relates to beekeeping. She added if it is the will of
Council to enact regulations, her preference would be to use an installation permit rather than an
annual permit.
City Council Meeting of September 24, 2012 (Item No. 3b) Page 5
Subject: Study Session Minutes of August 27, 2012
Councilmember Hallfin stated that St. Louis Park is committed to being a leader in
environmental stewardship and this issue goes to environmental stewardship. He indicated he
did not see beekeeping as an issue and did not think one neighbor complaint should result in the
City enacting regulations. He added he felt the City should do nothing and leave things the way
they are, but if it is the will of Council to take action, sensible guidelines should be adopted.
Councilmember Sanger acknowledged the environmental benefits of honeybees but urged
Council to consider the environment in which these beehives are located. She stated she would
prefer to ban beekeeping altogether because of the serious public health issues for people who
are allergic to beestings. She indicated the statement that having a fence or trees will prevent
bees from going into a neighbor's yard is absurd. She stated the Minnesota Hobby Beekeepers
Association website talks about the importance of getting pets and kids inside when bees are
swarming and she did not understand why the City would authorize some behavior that would
impinge upon neighbors enjoying their yards. She agreed with those communities that have
indicated beekeeping is for rural, agricultural areas and the City is much too dense for
beekeeping.
Mayor Jacobs agreed with Councilmember Sanger and noted that most cities ban beekeeping.
He stated at a minimum, he would be okay with regulating it and added he has not heard any
complaints but was concerned about beestings. He stated he would not want to have beehives
kept in front yards and was concerned about having them located next to parks, schools, and
areas where there are a lot of children. He requested that staff research appropriate regulations
and come back to Council for further discussion.
Councilmember Santa requested that any regulations include a provision prohibiting placement
of beehives under or along utility easements.
It was the consensus of the City Council to direct staff to prepare a draft ordinance regulating
residential beekeeping within the City.
5. Communications/Meeting Check-In (Verbal)
Councilmember Spano stated he recently forwarded an email to Mr. Harmening regarding an
approximate $800,000 that the State earmarked in the 2006 appropriations bill for projects in St.
Louis Park. He urged the City to ask the State to spend this money in St. Louis Park.
Mr. Harmening indicated he contacted Mn/DOT and learned these funds will be used on
Highway 100 as originally intended.
Mr. Harmening updated Council regarding his earlier email about the young boy who was bit by
a coyote and reported the City will be meeting with a contractor on Thursday to discuss the
approach to be used to call in the animal and shoot it. He indicated the contractor will be asked
to look at the location where the incident occurred as well as other incident areas in the City to
see if removal of the coyotes can be done in those areas. He agreed to keep Council apprised.
Councilmember Mavity indicated that while this approach will be effective it is not a solution to
the problem. She asked if the City has contacted Three Rivers Park District, the City of
Minneapolis, and/or other communities.
City Council Meeting of September 24, 2012 (Item No. 3b) Page 6
Subject: Study Session Minutes of August 27, 2012
Mayor Jacobs indicated he talked to Mayor Jim Hovland in Edina about the issue; in addition,
the consortium of Mayors is looking at the coyote population issue.
The meeting adjourned at 8:44 p.m.
Written Reports provided and documented for recording purposes only:
6. Public Safety Software Update
7. Breck School – Private Activity Revenue Note, Series 2012A
8. 2012 Semi-Annual Housing Programs Report
9. Business Park Rezoning Process Update
10. Prism Dial-A-Ride Program Update
11. July 2012 Monthly Financial Report
______________________________________ ______________________________________
Nancy Stroth, City Clerk Jeff Jacobs, Mayor
Meeting Date: September 24, 2012
Agenda Item #: 3c
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
SEPTEMBER 4, 2012
1. Call to Order
Mayor Jacobs called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
Councilmembers present: Mayor Jeff Jacobs, Anne Mavity, Julia Ross, Susan Sanger, Sue
Santa, and Jake Spano.
Councilmembers absent: Steve Hallfin.
Staff present: Deputy City Manager/Director of Human Resources (Ms. Deno), City Clerk (Ms.
Stroth), Controller (Mr. Swanson), Finance Supervisor (Mr. Heintz), Planning/Zoning Supervisor
(Ms. McMonigal), Assistant Zoning Administrator (Mr. Morrison), Planner (Mr. Fulton), and
Recording Secretary (Ms. Hughes).
1a. Pledge of Allegiance
1b. Roll Call
2. Presentations
2a. Retirement Recognition Resolution for Matt Reilly
Mayor Jacobs recited the Resolution Recognizing the Contributions of and Expressing
Appreciation to Support Services Agent Matt Reilly and presented a plaque to Mr. Reilly
in recognition of 30 years of service to the City.
Mr. Reilly expressed thanks for the opportunity to serve the residents of St. Louis Park
and stated it has been a great honor.
3. Approval of Minutes
3a. Study Session Minutes July 23, 2012
The minutes were approved as presented.
3b. City Council Meeting Minutes August 6, 2012
Councilmember Santa requested that the second line of the second paragraph under
agenda item 9 on page 6 be revised to state "August 14, because some polling places may
have changed due to redistricting and encouraged…"
The minutes were approved as amended.
3c. Study Session Minutes August 13, 2012
City Council Meeting of September 24, 2012 (Item No. 3c) Page 2
Subject: City Council Meeting Minutes of September 4, 2012
Councilmember Sanger requested that the fourth line of the first paragraph on page 4 be
revised to state, "difference in setting the levy increase at 3.5% versus 4.0% was
miniscule for each individual property owner and reminded Council…"
The minutes were approved as amended.
3d. City Council Meeting Minutes August 20, 2012
The minutes were approved as presented.
4. Approval of Agenda and Items on Consent Calendar
NOTE: The Consent Calendar lists those items of business which are considered to be routine
and/or which need no discussion. Consent items are acted upon by one motion. If discussion is
desired by either a Councilmember or a member of the audience, that item may be moved to an
appropriate section of the regular agenda for discussion.
4a. Adopt Resolution No. 12-123 authorizing final payment in the amount of
$2,275.00 and accepting the work for the elevator for Fire Station No. 1 with
Schindler Elevator Corporation, Project No. 2008-3001, City Contract No. 98-11.
4b. Approve Contract with Three Rivers Park District to clear and remove snow from
the LRT and Cedar Lake Extension Trails through the City of St. Louis Park for
the 2012-2013 Winter Season.
4c. Enter into agreement with KOMA for completion of architectural and engineering
design services, preparation of construction documents, and assistance with
contract administration for the first floor City Hall remodeling project.
4d. Adopt Resolution No. 12-124 of the City Council of St. Louis Park, Minnesota,
recognizing the contributions of and expressing appreciation to Support Services
Agent Matt Reilly.
4e. Approve for filing Fire Civil Service Commission Minutes February 6, 2012.
4f. Approve for filing Planning Commission Minutes July 18, 2012.
4g. Approve for filing Vendor Claims.
It was moved by Councilmember Ross, seconded by Councilmember Santa, to approve
the Agenda and items listed on the Consent Calendar; and to waive reading of all
resolutions and ordinances.
The motion passed 6-0 (Councilmember Hallfin absent).
5. Boards and Commissions
5a. Reappointment of Citizen Representatives to the Community Education
Advisory Commission
It was moved by Councilmember Sanger, seconded by Councilmember Ross, to reappoint
the following Commissioners as citizen representatives to the Community Education
Advisory Commission with terms as follows:
Name Term Expiration
Gregg Lindberg 6/30/2015
City Council Meeting of September 24, 2012 (Item No. 3c) Page 3
Subject: City Council Meeting Minutes of September 4, 2012
Kristin Piper 6/30/2015
The motion passed 6-0 (Councilmember Hallfin absent).
It was moved by Councilmember Sanger, seconded by Councilmember Ross, to appoint
Osman Mire to the Housing Authority with term expiration of 6/30/2017.
The motion passed 6-0 (Councilmember Hallfin absent).
6. Public Hearings
6a. On-Sale Intoxicating and Sunday Sale Liquor License – Raku Sushi &
Lounge, Inc.
Ms. Stroth presented the staff report and advised the City received an application for an
on-sale intoxicating and Sunday sale liquor license for Raku Sushi & Lounge to be
located at 5371 16th Street West in the Shops at West End. She stated the premises will
consist of 3,700 square feet and will have outdoor patio seating. She indicated that Raku
Sushi & Lounge plans to open in October and will serve sushi and other entrees. She
then introduced Mr. Xusheng Wang, the current owner.
Mayor Jacobs opened the public hearing. No speakers were present. Mayor Jacobs
closed the public hearing.
It was moved by Councilmember Ross, seconded by Councilmember Santa, to approve
application from Raku Sushi & Lounge, Inc., for an on-sale intoxicating and Sunday sale
liquor license to be located at 5371 16th Street West, with the license term through March
1, 2013.
Councilmember Mavity stated she was excited to see another new business and
welcomed Mr. Wang to the City. She reminded Mr. Wang about the City's Ordinance
requiring at least 50% in food sales compared to liquor sales.
Councilmember Sanger indicated Council was led to believe that the Shops at West End
would have more traditional retail stores and not quite as many restaurants. She
requested that staff provide Council with an update regarding the City's progress on
attracting additional retail stores to the Shops at West End.
Ms. Deno agreed to bring this matter to a study session for further discussion by Council.
The motion passed 6-0 (Councilmember Hallfin absent).
7. Requests, Petitions, and Communications from the Public – None
8. Resolutions, Ordinances, Motions and Discussion Items
8a. Adoption of the 2013 Preliminary General and Park and Recreation Fund
Budgets, 2013 Preliminary Property Tax Levy and Preliminary HRA
Property Tax Levy. Resolution No. 12-125 and Resolution No. 12-126
City Council Meeting of September 24, 2012 (Item No. 3c) Page 4
Subject: City Council Meeting Minutes of September 4, 2012
Mr. Swanson presented the staff report and explained that on August 13, 2012, Council
directed staff to prepare a 2013 Preliminary Property Tax Levy increase of 4% compared
to the 2012 Final Property Tax Levy. He stated the 2013 Preliminary Property Tax Levy
of $24,712,941 represents an increase of $950,190 over the 2012 levy. He reminded
Council that the 2013 Preliminary Property Tax Levy approved tonight cannot be
increased but can be decreased at the time of the Final Property Tax Levy meeting in
December. He advised the HRA Levy has been used in the past for infrastructure
improvements such as Highway 7/Wooddale and the City proposes to use the HRA Levy
for the Highway 7/Louisiana Avenue project. He stated the recommended 2013 HRA
Levy is $900,933 based on data from Hennepin County and represents the maximum levy
consistent with the City's Long Range Financial Management Plan. He indicated the
Truth in Taxation public hearing will be scheduled for December 3, 2012, and adoption
of the 2013 Final Property Tax and HRA Levies and final 2013 budget will be scheduled
for December 17, 2012.
It was moved by Councilmember Sanger, seconded by Councilmember Spano, to approve
Resolution No. 12-125 Approving 2013 Proposed General and Park and Recreation
Fund Budgets, 2013 Preliminary Property Tax Levy, and Setting Public Hearing Date for
the 2013 Budget and Final Property Tax Levy.
The motion passed 6-0 (Councilmember Hallfin absent).
It was moved by Councilmember Santa, seconded by Councilmember Ross, to approve
Resolution No. 12-126 Authorizing the Preliminary HRA Levy for 2013.
The motion passed 6-0 (Councilmember Hallfin absent).
8b. First Reading of Ordinance for Street Renaming – 25½ Street West to Barry
Street West
Mr. Fulton presented the staff report and stated that Beth El Synagogue has requested that
25½ Street be renamed Barry Street West. He noted there are no properties off 25½
Street and Benilde St. Margaret's School has indicated its support of the request. He
added the City has a policy of eliminating half streets when possible and any sign
changes required by the street renaming will be funded by Beth El Synagogue. He
introduced Mr. Gil Mann representing Beth El Synagogue.
It was moved by Councilmember Sanger, seconded by Councilmember Mavity, to
approve First Reading of Ordinance Renaming 25 ½ Street West to Barry Street West
and to set Second Reading for September 24, 2012.
The motion passed 6-0 (Councilmember Hallfin absent).
8c. First Reading – Zoning Ordinance Amendment Pertaining to Mobile Food
Vehicles and Catering.
Mr. Morrison presented the staff report and explained that the existing ordinance
currently allows mobile food vehicles with conditions that are rather restrictive, e.g.,
City Council Meeting of September 24, 2012 (Item No. 3c) Page 5
Subject: City Council Meeting Minutes of September 4, 2012
temporary use for up to 14 days per calendar year and the owner is only allowed to sell
outside what is being sold inside the building. He stated the proposed ordinance creates
another category specific to mobile food vehicles and would allow mobile food vehicles
on private non-residential properties with permission of the property owner, at events on
public parks and in the public right-of-way if the right-of-way is closed as required by the
City. He indicated the ordinance includes performance standards such as lighting and
signage and will require only food and beverages to be sold. He explained the ordinance
amendment regarding catering proposes to allow catering as an accessory use to religious
institutions, community centers, and educational facilities in the R-1, R-2, and R-3
districts and the only condition attached is the prohibition of outside storage of vehicles
used in conjunction with the catering.
Councilmember Ross requested that action on this Zoning Ordinance amendment be split
into two actions and requested that the Zoning Ordinance Amendment regarding catering
be pulled from the agenda and placed on a study session agenda. She added she was in
agreement with the Zoning Ordinance amendment regarding mobile food vehicles. She
asked if mobile food vehicles would be allowed to park overnight during events such as
Parktacular.
Mr. Morrison advised that conditions attached to the mobile food vehicles would allow
the vehicles to be parked overnight during events such as Parktacular.
Councilmember Santa asked how this will work during an event like the 4th of July where
events are held in the park for one night and the surrounding streets are not closed.
Mr. Morrison replied that the ordinance will require the mobile food vehicles to be
located on the park premises in the parking lot or elsewhere as permitted by the Parks
Department and not parked in the street.
Councilmember Sanger asked if the City has special parking requirements for the
employees who are coming on-site to do catering operations and requested that this issue
be addressed in the ordinance. She stated there was nothing in the ordinance limiting the
size of signage on mobile food vehicles and indicated she did not want to see large
billboards attached to mobile food vehicles. She requested that the ordinance include
signage standards and size limitations. She added the ordinance also does not address
whether mobile food vehicles can sell alcoholic beverages.
Mr. Morrison stated that ordinances from other communities were reviewed in drafting
the mobile food vehicle ordinance and signage is limited to that which is permanently
attached to the vehicle.
Councilmember Sanger requested that staff determine the average size of signs placed on
mobile food vehicles and put limits on signage size in the ordinance as well as prohibit
signs to be placed on top of the mobile food vehicles.
Ms. Deno stated that alcoholic beverages are not allowed to be sold from the mobile food
vehicles.
City Council Meeting of September 24, 2012 (Item No. 3c) Page 6
Subject: City Council Meeting Minutes of September 4, 2012
Councilmember Sanger requested that the ordinance specifically state that alcoholic
beverages are not allowed to be sold from the mobile food vehicles.
Councilmember Mavity requested clarification regarding the lighting requirements and
asked if the ordinance will contain hours of operation. She stated she had concerns from
a safety standpoint about making sure there is sufficient lighting and also had concerns
about lighting from a nuisance standpoint. She requested further information regarding
what other communities have done with respect to hours of operation.
Mr. Morrison stated the ordinance does not include hours of operation because events
will vary depending on the specific event. He added that lights are required by law and
staff wanted to make sure the ordinance is not inadvertently prohibiting any type of
required lighting on vehicles.
Councilmember Spano felt the City would have fewer complaints regarding lighting
and/or signage than complaints regarding noise because a lot of food trucks run a
generator, which is quite loud. He requested that staff provide Council with information
on how it will address any noise issues.
Councilmember Sanger indicated that some food trucks have loud music playing and
suggested adding some noise restrictions.
It was moved by Councilmember Ross, seconded by Councilmember Sanger, to table
First Reading of Ordinance Amending the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code Relating to
Zoning by Amending Sections 36-4, 36-82, 36-163, 36-164, and 36-165 pending further
discussion at a study session.
The motion passed 6-0 (Councilmember Hallfin absent).
8d. Minnehaha Creek Remeander EAW Record of Decision and Conditional Use
Permit for Excavation/Fill and Work in the Floodplain. Resolution No. 12-
127 and Resolution No. 12-128.
Mr. Fulton presented the staff report and explained the Minnehaha Creek remeander
project includes adding bends to restore the creek's functionality, adding a trail,
modifying the canoe landings, as well as adding storm water benefits adjacent to
Excelsior Boulevard. He stated the City was the Responsible Government Unit for the
EAW completed by the Watershed District consultants and comments were received
from Mn/DOT, Met Council, DNR, and MPCA, which are summarized in the findings of
fact. He stated the City's review and comments are complete and the City found no need
for an environmental impact statement. He explained that the CUP is needed to allow for
grading, excavation, fill and work in the FP - General Floodplain Overlay District.
Approximately 16,000 cubic yards of soil material will be moved as part of the project.
He stated that the hauling will occur primarily internal to the site and not within
residential neighborhoods. He indicated that the work in the floodplain will result in no
net increase in flood stage elevation and no danger to people upstream. In addition, the
trail and boardwalk uses are permitted uses in the FP Overlay District and will not impact
the floodplain. He advised that funding for the trail has not yet been identified and the
City is working with the Watershed District to identify funds for this portion of the
City Council Meeting of September 24, 2012 (Item No. 3c) Page 7
Subject: City Council Meeting Minutes of September 4, 2012
project, adding that this work can happen later because the trail will be built after the
stream remeander and storm water improvements are completed.
It was moved by Councilmember Mavity, seconded by Councilmember Sanger, to adopt
Resolution No. 12-127 Approving Record of Decision and the Negative Declaration of
Need for an Environmental Impact Statement for the Minnehaha Creek Reach 20
Restoration.
Councilmember Mavity indicated she was excited about adding on to what Park Nicollet
and the Watershed District have done in this area to provide access to this waterway. She
asked if there is a bridge included in the area behind the Municipal Service Center.
Mr. Fulton replied that there is a bridge, and the trail follows the south side of the creek
along the Meadowbrook property. To avoid wetland impacts, trail users continuing west
would cross the creek and travel on the north side, south of the MSC.
Councilmember Mavity added that this bridge and access point brings all of the
Meadowbrook apartments within walking distance of the proposed light rail station and is
an exciting ancillary benefit of this project.
The motion passed 6-0 (Councilmember Hallfin absent).
It was moved by Councilmember Mavity, seconded by Councilmember Santa, to adopt
Resolution No. 12-128 Granting Conditional Use Permit Under Sections 36-79 and 36-
294 of the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code, Relating to Zoning to Permit Excavation, Fill,
and Work in the Floodplain for Property Zoned POS-Parks and Open Space, IG –
General Industrial, RC – High Density Multi-Family Residential, and FP – General
Floodplain Overlay Districts, Locating Along Minnehaha Creek Between Meadowbrook
Road and Louisiana Avenue South.
Councilmember Ross stated the action taken by Council on this project seems highly
irregular given that the City has not yet secured funding for the trail portion of the project
and requested further information regarding this funding. She added she wanted to make
sure residents know the City is not picking up the bill for the trail portion of the project.
Mr. Fulton advised that the remeander project was initiated by the Watershed District and
the City, in collaboration with the Watershed District, received approximately $300,000
from the Clean Water Fund to be used toward engineering costs and construction and that
total construction costs for this project are approximately $1.2 million, with all funds paid
either through the Clean Water Fund or the Watershed District. He stated there are
advantages to doing the trail work concurrent with the grading and the Watershed District
has agreed that rough grading of the trail area will occur during construction.
Mr. James Wisker, Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, appeared before the City
Council and stated this project represents an expansion of the concept that was developed
at Methodist Hospital and is intended to provide open access to the creek and also for the
health of the creek system itself, which has been designated as an impaired water by the
state. He explained the Watershed District is paying for this project through its ad
valorem district wide levy and the trail portion of the project has been identified in the
City's Comprehensive Plan as a desirable place consistent with the Watershed District's
City Council Meeting of September 24, 2012 (Item No. 3c) Page 8
Subject: City Council Meeting Minutes of September 4, 2012
vision to create a regional park system around Minnehaha Creek that strengthens
community connections and includes a trail system that will connect to the regional trail
along the light rail and allow passage into the City of Hopkins. He stated that they have
been working with City staff, Hennepin County, and Three Rivers Park District to
explore all available opportunities for trail funding. He added the trail will be bid as an
alternate on this project so that if funding is secured, the Watershed District can exercise
that alternate and implement the trail system.
The motion passed 6-0 (Councilmember Hallfin absent).
Mr. Wisker invited any interested Councilmembers to tour the site and meet with the
Watershed District Board to review the project further. He added the Planning
Commissioners were extended this invitation as well.
9. Communications
Mayor Jacobs reminded residents to watch for children and school buses now that school
is back in session.
Councilmember Santa reminded residents there will be no City Council meeting on
September 17th because of Rosh Hashanah. She stated that STEP will be having a
fundraiser on Monday, September 24th, at McCoy's from 4:00-10:00 p.m. with 25% of all
food and non-alcoholic beverage sales donated to STEP. She added that on Friday,
September 28th, a fundraiser for STEP will be held at Westwood Lutheran Church and
will include bridge and 500 card games; interested residents can contact STEP or her for
information.
10. Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 8:20 p.m.
______________________________________ ______________________________________
Nancy Stroth, City Clerk Jeff Jacobs, Mayor
Meeting Date: September 24, 2012
Agenda Item #: 4a
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 Reading of Ordinance - Street Renaming 25 1/2 Street West to Barry Street West
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to Approve Second Reading and Adopt Ordinance renaming 25 ½ Street West to Barry
Street West, and approve summary ordinance for publication on October 4, 2012.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Is the proposed name change consistent with City street naming policies?
BACKGROUND:
Beth El Synagogue, located at 5224 26th Street W., has requested that 25 ½ Street W. to the north
of their site be renamed Barry Street W. To rename a City street, an official petition must be
submitted, and the Council must adopt an ordinance that officially renames the street. The City
Council adopted the first reading of this ordinance on September 4th, 2012. Adoption of the
second reading is followed by publication of the ordinance; the effective date for this ordinance
is November 7th, following the elections, to ensure residents are able to easily find Beth El
during the voting process.
At the present time, there are no properties that have an address on this segment of 25 ½ Street
W., nor is the street in alignment with any other segments of 25 ½ Street W. The street is located
between Beth El Synagogue and Benilde St. Margaret’s School (BSM). BSM has an address off
of Highway 100 South, and has indicated support for Beth El’s request.
As a general practice, the City has tried to eliminate half streets when possible, due to the
potential for confusion. In this area of the City, there is no 25th Street W., and it is unknown why
25 ½ Street W. was originally chosen. This segment of 25 ½ Street W. does not line up with any
other segments of the street in the City. A graphic depicting the existing street names in the area
of 25 ½ Street is attached.
Some sign changes would be needed as a result of the name change request. In addition to the
City street signs, there is a change to a directional exit sign along Highway 100. The change to
the Highway 100 signage has been reviewed and found to be acceptable by the Minnesota
Department of Transportation. All sign changes needed to accommodate the new street name
will be paid for by Beth El Synagogue.
Signs will be replaced as soon as possible following the Ordinance’s effective date (11/07/12) by
City traffic maintenance personnel as part of the City’s typical sign replacement plan. City maps
and associated publications will be modified as they are created. Because of the minor nature of
the name change, it is not anticipated that major map changes are necessary in the short-term.
If approved, Beth El would request to modify its address from 26th Street W. to Barry Street W.
City Council Meeting of September 24, 2012 (Item No. 4a) Page 2
Subject: Second Reading of Ordinance - Street Renaming 25 1/2 Street West to Barry Street West
The Police and Fire Departments have been notified of the change and have no comments. The
U.S. Post Office will be notified of the change once it is effective.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
All sign changes needed to accommodate the new street name will be paid for by Beth El
Synagogue.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
Attachments: Ordinance Renaming 25 ½ Street West to Barry Street West
Summary Ordinance for Publication
Street Map
Prepared by: Adam Fulton, Planner
Reviewed by: Meg McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor
Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of September 24, 2012 (Item No. 4a) Page 3
Subject: Second Reading of Ordinance - Street Renaming 25 1/2 Street West to Barry Street West
ORDINANCE NO. ___-12
AN ORDINANCE RENAMING 25 ½ STREET WEST TO
BARRY STREET WEST
THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK DOES ORDAIN:
Section 1. BARRY STREET WEST
That the street heretofore designated 25 ½ Street West lying between the
Highway 100 East Frontage Road and 26th Street West is hereby changed
and renamed Barry Street West.
Section 2. Effective Date
This Ordinance shall take effect November 7th, 2012.
Reviewed for Administration Adopted by the City Council
City Manager Mayor
Attest: Approved as to Form and Execution:
City Clerk City Attorney
First Reading September 4, 2012
Second Reading September 24, 2012
Date of Publication October 4, 2012
Date Ordinance takes effect November 12, 2012
City Council Meeting of September 24, 2012 (Item No. 4a) Page 4
Subject: Second Reading of Ordinance - Street Renaming 25 1/2 Street West to Barry Street West
SUMMARY
ORDINANCE NO. ___-12
AN ORDINANCE RENAMING A STREET
This ordinance states that a segment of 25 ½ Street West which lies between Hwy. 100 E.
Frontage Road and 26th Street West will be renamed Barry Street West.
This ordinance shall take effect November 7, 2012.
Adopted by the City Council September 24, 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 4, 2012
City Council Meeting of September 24, 2012 (Item No. 4a) Page 5
Subject: Second Reading of Ordinance - Street Renaming 25 1/2 Street West to Barry Street West
STREET MAP
Meeting Date: September 24, 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:
Acceptance of Donation for a Portable Sound System in the Wolfe Park Amphitheater from the
American Legion
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to Adopt Resolution accepting a donation from the American Legion in the amount of
$4,000 for a portable sound system in the Wolfe Park Amphitheater.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the City Council wish to accept the gift with restrictions on its use?
BACKGROUND:
State statute requires City Council’s acceptance of donations. This requirement is necessary in
order to make sure the City Council has knowledge of any restrictions placed on the use of each
donation prior to it being expended.
The Frank Lundberg Post 282 American Legion is graciously donating to the City an amount of
$4,000. This donation is given with restrictions that the donation be applied toward the purchase
of a portable sound system in the Wolfe Park Amphitheater.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
This donation will provide a portable sound system in the Wolfe Park Amphitheater.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Collaboration with other organizations is related to the results of Vision St. Louis Park and one
of the adopted Strategic Directions that “St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and
engaged community”.
Attachments: Resolution
Prepared by: Stacy Voelker, Administrative Secretary
Reviewed by: Rick Birno, Recreation Superintendent
Cindy Walsh, Director of Parks and Recreation
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of September 24, 2012 (Item No. 4b) Page 2
Subject: Acceptance of Donation for a Portable Sound System from the American Legion
RESOLUTION NO. 12-____
RESOLUTION APPROVING ACCEPTANCE OF DONATION
FROM THE AMERICAN LEGION IN THE AMOUNT OF $4,000
FOR A PORTABLE SOUND SYSTEM IN THE WOLFE PARK AMPHITHEATER
WHEREAS, The City of St. Louis Park is required by State statute to authorize
acceptance of any donations; and
WHEREAS, the City Council must also ratify any restrictions placed on the donation by
the donor; and
WHEREAS, the American Legion desires to assist the City with support for a portable
sound system in the Wolfe Park Amphitheater with a donation of $4,000; and
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park that the gift is hereby accepted with thanks to the American Legion with the understanding
it will be used for a portable sound system in the Wolfe Park Amphitheater.
Reviewed for Administration Adopted by the City Council September 24, 2012
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Meeting Date: September 24, 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:
Acceptance of Monetary Donation in Memory of Dan Fearn
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to Adopt a Resolution approving acceptance of monetary donations from Bruce Berry
and Sue Anne Arkenbeck in the amount of $125 for Westwood Hills Nature Center.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the City Council wish to accept these gifts with restrictions on its use?
BACKGROUND:
State statute requires City Council’s acceptance of donations. This requirement is necessary in
order to make sure the City Council has knowledge of any restrictions placed on the use of each
donation prior to it being expended.
Bruce Berry graciously donated $25 and Sue Anne Erkenbeck graciously donated $100. Dan
Fearn recently passed away and the donations are in tribute to him. The donations will be used to
provide special program supplies for Westwood Hills Nature Center.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
These donations will be used to provide special program supplies for Westwood Hills Nature
Center.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
Attachments: Resolution
Prepared by: Stacy Voelker, Administrative Secretary
Mark Oestreich, Manager of Westwood Hills Nature Center
Reviewed by: Cindy Walsh, Director of Parks and Recreation
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of September 24, 2012 (Item No. 4c) Page 2
Subject: Acceptance of Monetary Donation in Memory of Dan Fearn
RESOLUTION NO. 12-____
RESOLUTION APPROVING ACCEPTANCE OF DONATIONS
IN MEMORY OF DAN FEARN
IN THE AMOUNT OF $125
TOWARD SPECIAL PROGRAM SUPPLIES
AT WESTWOOD HILLS NATURE CENTER.
WHEREAS, The City of St. Louis Park is required by State statute to authorize
acceptance of any donations; and
WHEREAS, the City Council must also ratify any restrictions placed on the donation by
the donor; and
WHEREAS, Bruce Berry and Sue Anne Erkenbeck desire to assist in the purchase of
special program supplies for Westwood Hills Nature Center with a donation of $125; and
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park that the gifts are hereby accepted with thanks to Bruce Berry and Sue Anne Erkenbeck with
the understanding that it must be used to purchase special program supplies for Westwood Hills
Nature Center.
Reviewed for Administration Adopted by the City Council September 24, 2012
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Meeting Date: September 24, 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:
Final Payment Resolution - Contract 75-12 Allied Blacktop Company – Project No. 2012-0001
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to Adopt Resolution authorizing final payment in the amount of $17,711.59 for the 2012
Sealcoat Project with Allied Blacktop Company - Project No. 2012-0001, City Contract No. 75-
12.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the City Council wish to approve this final contract payment?
BACKGROUND:
City Council approved undertaking the 2012 Sealcoat Project– City Project No. 2012-0001. The
project was advertised, bid and awarded to Allied Blacktop Company on May 21, 2012 in the
amount of $277,879.43. This project included sealcoating selected streets in Pavement
Management Area 4 which comprises the neighborhoods of Bronx Park, Birchwood and
Sorensen neighborhoods.
The Contractor completed this work within the contract time allowed (10 days) at a final contract
cost of $274,846.93. The project had underruns amounting to $3,032.50.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
The cost for this project was accounted for in the 2012 capital budget. The work will be paid for
using the Pavement Management Fund.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
Attachments: Resolution
Prepared by: Jim Olson, Engineering Project Manager
Reviewed by: Scott Brink, City Engineer
Mike Rardin, Public Works Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of September 24, 2012 (Item No. 4d) Page 2
Subject: Final Payment Resolution - Contract 75-12 Allied Blacktop Company – Project No. 2012-0001
RESOLUTION NO. 12-____
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING FINAL PAYMENT IN THE
AMOUNT OF $17,711.59 FOR THE 2012 CITY SEALCOAT PROJECT
WITH ALLIED BLACKTOP COMPANY ACCEPTING WORK ON
CONTRACT SEALCOATING
CITY PROJECT NO. 2012-0001
CONTRACT NO. 75-12
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, as
follows:
1. Pursuant to a written contract with the City dated May 21, 2012, Allied Blacktop
Company has satisfactorily completed the contract sealcoating, as per Contract No. 75-
12.
2. The Director of Public Works has filed his recommendations for final acceptance of the
work.
3. The work completed under this contract is accepted and approved. The City Manager is
directed to make final payment on the contract, taking the contractor's receipt in full.
Original Contract Price $277,879.43
Underruns $ 3,032.50
Contract Amount $274,846.93
Previous Payments $257,135.34
Balance Due $ 17,711.59
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council September 24, 2012
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Meeting Date: September 24, 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:
Call for a Public Hearing to Consider Reconstruction of Highway 100
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to establish a Public Hearing date of November 5, 2012 to consider MnDOT’s request
for Municipal Consent for the Highway 100 Improvement Project - State Project 2734-43 (City
Project No. 2005-2000).
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does Council wish to continue to move forward with the Highway 100 Improvement project?
BACKGROUND:
A report was provided to Council on September 10, 2012 providing an update on the Highway
100 project. The report provided a general history and background of the entire project,
including the process over the last few years that led to the current layout. In addition, the report
laid out a list of anticipated next steps and projected schedule. Just recently, the City received a
Municipal Consent request from MnDOT in a letter dated September 18, 2012.
NEXT STEPS:
Municipal Consent:
Municipal consent is required when any of the following three conditions are a result of the
improvement: Access changes, capacity increases or decreases, and the acquisition of right of
way.
MnDOT has submitted a formal request for municipal consent in a letter dated September 18,
2012 (Attachment 1). MnDOT’s request and attachments include the following:
1. An estimate of the City’s share of the project’s cost. (At this time, the City’s estimated
share of the cost is projected to be $60,000. This estimate is essentially a share based on
basic and standard municipal contributions as shown per the breakdown. As the City
continues to work with MnDOT, including the consideration and incorporation of visual
quality amenities and public art into the final design, the City’s share of the project cost
may increase, depending on the level of improvements desired).
2. Project purpose
3. Route location
4. Short description of the proposed design
5. Any additional supporting data
City Council Meeting of September 24, 2012 (Item No. 4e) Page 2
Subject: Call for a Public Hearing to Consider Reconstruction of Highway 100
As a result of receiving MnDOT’s formal request, the following action must proceed as follows:
1. The City must set a public hearing date within 15 days of the official request.
2. The City must conduct a Public Hearing within 60 days of the official request. Staff
recommends scheduling the public hearing at the regular Council meeting of November
5th.
3. Prior to holding the public hearing, MnDOT has agreed to host an Open House Meeting.
This meeting is currently scheduled for October 24, 2012.
4. The City must provide a 30-day notice of the Public Hearing prior to the scheduled date.
Presuming Council moves forward as recommended, publication in the St. Louis Park
Sun-Sailor would occur on October 4, 2012.
5. The City must approve or disapprove the MnDOT municipal consent request within 90
days of the Public Hearing or let the time period expire, in which case it is deemed
approved. If the City disapproves, MnDOT’s options are:
1. Make the changes requested by the City (if any)
2. Refer the layout to an Appeal Board
3. Stop the project
4. Modify the project so municipal consent is not required
5. Prepare a new final layout and start the municipal consent process over from the
beginning
Noise Walls and Environmental Assessment: Concurrent with the Municipal Consent process,
MnDOT will be conducting parallel processes with approval of the Environmental Assessment
(EA) and whether or not to remove noise walls from the project design plans. MnDOT has
indicated intent to release the EA for public comment sometime within the next few weeks, with
a public hearing date yet to be determined.
Noise Advisory Committee (NAC) meetings have been held since the end of last year and the
fourth and final meeting was held on June 19, 2012. As previously reported, MnDOT created the
NAC to comply with the “new” federal Noise Analysis process required for this project. The
intent of the NAC was to provide two-way communication between the community and the
project team, educate residents about the noise evaluation process, review the noise analysis
methodology and results, and provide feedback to the City Council as well as communicate
project information to neighborhood residents. As a result of these meetings and the information
conveyed by committee members to their neighbors, many residents already have a good deal of
knowledge and background information regarding this matter.
Noise walls are presently included as part of the project layout and design. The State of
Minnesota, in accordance with federal regulations, follows a process that allows for adjacent
property owners to remove the walls from the project should they desire through a voting
procedure. Informational meetings for residents explaining this process have been scheduled by
MnDOT for October 16 and October 18. Notification of the meetings and ballots will be sent to
affected property owners at least two weeks prior to those dates.
City Council Meeting of September 24, 2012 (Item No. 4e) Page 3
Subject: Call for a Public Hearing to Consider Reconstruction of Highway 100
Visual Quality Process and Public Art: MnDOT is in the process of hiring a consultant to help
facilitate a Visual Quality Process Manual Development for the project. This process typically
includes a committee to allow for articulation of community values and objectives to ensure
sensitivity to visual quality and aesthetics in the design. This process will also include the
consideration of public art, similar to procedures utilized for the Highway 7/Louisiana Avenue
project. Currently, staff is working to put together a list of potential community representatives
that might be interested in serving on the Visual Quality Process committee. We anticipate
having a list of the committee members available sometime within the next couple of weeks.
Project Advisory Committee: MnDOT is also working to form a Project Advisory Committee.
This group would meet on a biannual basis through the design phase and more frequently during
actual construction. The purpose of this committee will be to allow MnDOT to provide current
project information and receive feedback from stakeholders to help better understand and address
the many issues that arise during a project of this magnitude. Specific committee members have
not yet been determined, but it is expected that members will include a wide variety of interests,
including representatives of the many agencies involved (both elected representatives and staff),
such as the City, County, State, the business community, and other stakeholders as appropriate.
Based on the current project status and progress made to date, the following schedule is
anticipated at this time:
September, 2012
(Subject to Change)
Municipal Consent Approval Process
Municipal Consent Request Received September 18, 2012
City Sets Public Hearing Date September 24, 2012
City Publishes Notice of Public Hearing October 4, 2012
MnDOT Hosts Public Meeting October 24, 2012
City Holds Public Hearing November 5, 2012
Deadline to Approve / Deny Request February 3, 2012
Public Environmental Assessment (EA) Released September - October, 2012
Noise wall Voting Process
Ballots and Information Mailed Early October
Information Meetings October 16 and 18, 2012
Voting Period Expires December 28, 2012
Development of Construction Plans and Specifications Fall 2012 - September 2014
EA Process Completed Early 2013
Right of Way Acquisition May 2013 - May 2014
Open Bids and Award Contract May 2014
Construction Late 2014 - 2016
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
As described in MnDOT’s request, the City’s share of the MnDOT project cost is estimated to be
approximately $60,000. As the City continues to work with MnDOT through final design,
including visual quality and public art considerations, the City’s share of the project cost may
increase, depending on the level of improvements desired by the city. In addition to cost
participation in the actual MnDOT project, the city also has several other obligations related to
this project:
City Council Meeting of September 24, 2012 (Item No. 4e) Page 4
Subject: Call for a Public Hearing to Consider Reconstruction of Highway 100
Engineering Expenses:
Previous Expenses and Studies $90,000
Additional Engineering Expenses $150,000
Utility Relocations or Improvements:
Stormwater Facilities $600,000
Sanitary Sewer Facilities $1,000,000
Water Facilities $900,000
Utica Ave Reconstruction $250,000
VISION CONSIDERATION:
The following Strategic Direction and focus area was identified by Council in 2007:
St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged community.
Focus will be on:
• Promoting regional transportation issues and related dedicated funding sources affecting
St. Louis Park including but not limited to Highway 100 and SWLRT.
Attachments: Attachment 1 – Municipal Consent Request
Prepared by: Scott Brink, City Engineer
Reviewed by: April Crockett, West Area Engineer, MnDOT
Michael P. Rardin, Public Works Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of September 24, 2012 (Item No. 4e) Subject: Call for a Public Hearing to Consider Reconstruction of Highway 100Page 5
City Council Meeting of September 24, 2012 (Item No. 4e) Subject: Call for a Public Hearing to Consider Reconstruction of Highway 100Page 6
Meeting Date: September 24, 2012
Agenda Item #: 4f
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:
Imposing Civil Penalties for Liquor License Violations
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to Adopt Resolution imposing civil penalty for liquor license violation on May 18, 2012,
at Best of India, 8120 Minnetonka Blvd. according to the recommendation of the City Manager.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the City Council concur with the decision of the City Manager to impose a penalty for a
liquor license violation occurring May 18, 2012, at the Best of India restaurant in St. Louis Park?
BACKGROUND:
Liquor compliance checks were conducted by the St. Louis Park Police Department in May,
2012. Under the direction of police officers, an underage buyer attempted to purchase alcoholic
beverages at each of the 53 licensed establishments throughout the city. Five of the licensed
establishments failed the compliance check, one of which was Best of India restaurant. This is
the first violation for Best of India. Citations were issued in each case and forwarded to
Hennepin County District Court for consideration of criminal penalties.
The City is responsible for imposing civil penalties. Minnesota Statutes 340A.415 limits civil
penalty fees of up to $2,000 for each violation. Ordinance No. 2329-07 adopted May 7, 2007
states that the presumptive civil penalties for the violations of selling alcohol to an underage
person are as follows:
1st Violation 2nd Violation
within 3 yrs
3rd Violation
Within 3 yrs
4th Violation
Within 3 yrs
$2,000 $2,000 and
1 day suspension
$2,000 and
3 day suspension Revocation
Administrative Process
Liquor license violators were given three options:
1. Acceptance of the violation and payment of the penalty. If the license holder agreed to
the Stipulation of Facts, they could sign the form, acknowledging their acceptance of the
violation and agreeing to pay the administrative penalty of $2,000. With this, the license
holder waived the right to any further appeal with the City Council.
2. Administrative hearing with the City Manager. The license holder could appear at an
administrative hearing before the City Manager, sign the Stipulation of Facts form and
pay the administrative penalty of $2,000. With this, the license holder waived the right to
any further appeal with the City Council.
3. City Council Hearing. If the license holder did not agree with the Stipulation of Facts,
they could appeal directly to the City Council and schedule an appearance at a public
meeting of the City Council.
City Council Meeting of September 24, 2012 (Item No. 4f) Page 2
Title: Imposing Civil Penalties for Liquor License Violations
Administrative Hearings were held on June 28, 2012. After their hearing, Best of India requested
to meet and talk with the St. Louis Park City Attorney. Following further discussions, Best of
India signed the Stipulation of Facts form, and a penalty fine was determined by the City
Manager.
The establishment and fine set are as follows:
Establishment
Name Address Violation
Date
Number of
Violations
within 3 years
Fine/Penalty
Best of India 8120 Minnetonka Blvd. 5/18/2012 1 $ 2,000
If the City Council should disagree with the City Manager’s recommendation, a hearing would
need to be scheduled for the Licensee to appear before the City Council for further consideration.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Preventing the sale of alcohol to minors by imposing penalties assures that St. Louis Park
continues to be a connected and engaged Children First Community.
Attachments: Resolution
Prepared by: Ray French, Administrative Services Intern
Reviewed by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of September 24, 2012 (Item No. 4f) Page 3
Title: Imposing Civil Penalties for Liquor License Violations
RESOLUTION NO. 12 -____
RESOLUTION IMPOSING CIVIL PENALTY
FOR LIQUOR LICENSE VIOLATION
OCCURRING ON MAY 18, 2012 AT
BEST OF INDIA
8120 MINNETONKA BLVD
WHEREAS, on May 18, 2012, a liquor license violation, sale of liquor to a minor,
occurred at Best of India, 8120 Minnetonka Blvd, in St. Louis Park; and
WHEREAS, the liquor license violation was the first occurrence at this establishment
within three years; and
WHEREAS, the license holder, has stipulated that the incident occurred and was a
violation of the city liquor license ordinance Sections 3-73 through 3-75; and
WHEREAS, the license holder was informed of the civil penalty process and has agreed
to accept the administrative penalty as set by the City Manager and as approved by the City
Council.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that a civil penalty of $2,000 is hereby
imposed on the license holder pursuant to City Code Section 3-75.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council September 24, 2012
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Meeting Date: September 24, 2012
Agenda Item #: 4g
OFFICIAL MINUTES
Parks and Recreation Advisory
Commission Meeting
February 15, 2012
6:30 p.m. – Meeting
1. Call to Order
Tom Worthington, Vice Chair, called the meeting to order at 6:33 p.m.
Commission members present: Sophia Flumerfelt, George Foulkes, Kirk Hawkinson, and Tom
Worthington
Commission members absent: Jim Beneke and George Hagemann
Staff present: Cindy Walsh, Parks and Recreation Director, Rick Beane, Park Superintendent,
Rick Birno, Recreation Superintendent, Jim Vaughan, Environmental Coordinator, and Stacy
Voelker, Administrative Secretary
Guests present: Joe Arko, Lacrosse Association
2. Presentation – Lacrosse Association
Members introduced themselves as did Mr. Arko, Lacrosse Association representative. Mr. Arko
volunteered on the Hockey Association board for 14 years and has been in the Lacrosse
Association for two years. He has three boys whom all played Lacrosse.
Mr. Arko provided the history of the Lacrosse Association which began in 2007 as a new
member of the 26 team Minnesota Boy Scholastic Lacrosse Association. The Associations
mission statement includes allowing young men to better themselves, develop life-long work
habits and have fun. Mr. Arko reviewed the Associations Board of Directors, coaching staff and
founder of the Association.
The Association is comprised of Varsity, Junior Varsity, 9/10 grade, 7/8 grade and 5/6 grade
levels. In 2009 there were 65 participants, in 2010 they had 83 and in 2011 there were 103
participants. The varsity teams are very successful and boys are competing for spots in college
teams. Participants play approximately 90 competitive league games each year plus invitational
tournaments in Grand Rapids, Shakopee and Iowa.
The Lacrosse Association season attempts to begin in March if facilities are available. The
Association has utilized Lifetime Fitness to begin working on basic skills and also uses an open
field in Hopkins through the month of March. Mr. Worthington inquired if the association has
considered becoming a school sanctioned sport. Mr. Arko indicated Mr. Reed, Association
president, has discussed with Andy Ewald from the High School. The downside is the High
School has fewer games and more regulations/stipulations. Mr. Foulkes inquired on how many
participants may be lost to the Minneapolis Storm league? Mr. Arko knows of three personally
but feels the success of varsity teams bring kids in. Last year the Association had two boys from
Wayzata register.
City Council Meeting of September 24, 2012 (Item No. 4g) Page 2
Subject: Parks & Rec Advisory Commission Meeting Minutes of February 15, 2012
The fees to play Lacrosse are comparable to playing Little League Baseball. Scholarship fees are
a challenge as 20-40% of all kids need scholarships to play. Mr. Arko feels fee-based turf rental
will be challenging due to scholarship expenses.
Lacrosse utilizes the Junior High field as their primary field plus uses Ainsworth Park field but it
is not large enough to host tournaments due to parking necessity stated Mr. Arko. The
Association would like to identify another Lacrosse field to use and prefers a lower rate for turf
rental so their tournaments could pay for the rental.
Mr. Foulkes inquired if the 20-40% scholarships area representative of the community or the
participants. Mr. Arko advised not privy of the Football Association’s financial aspect but is
aware the Hockey Association budgets $10,000 for scholarships. The Association has never
compared kids in various activities. Kevin Reed requires participants to sign a paper advising of
their need for funding and all are approved. In Mr. Arko’s experience, no one is turned away in
Lacrosse or Hockey. Mr. Birno will obtain numbers of demographics from last couple years as
the city charges for field maintenance but do not charge for kids with scholarships. The
information will be provided to the Commission at a future meeting.
Members thanked Mr. Arko for his presentation and for volunteering.
3. Approval of Minutes
a. December 7, 2011
It was moved by Commission member Mr. Hawkinson seconded by Commission member
Mr. Foulkes to approve the Minutes. Motion passed 4 – 0.
4. New Business
a. Minnehaha Creek Clean-up for 2012
Mr. Vaughan indicated the annual Minnehaha Creek Clean-up will occur on Saturday,
April 21from 9 a.m. to 11 a.m. The Commission will be team members and are asked to
arrive early and meet in the parking lot by Breamer Bank. Mr. Vaughan provided a map
from two years ago and recommends cleaning the Knollwood Canoe landing area. Ms.
Flumerfelt will make this a volunteer event through Benilde-St. Margaret’s. There has
been a great turnout from BSM in the past. Members and staff will discuss and finalize
plans at the March 21 meeting.
Mr. Vaughan provided information to the members on the Tree Trust tree sale.
b. 2012 Capital Improvement Program
Mr. Birno and Mr. Beane reviewed the 2012 Capital Improvement program as follows:
• Aquila Park proposed projects include lighting field 5, upgrade existing trail
lighting to LED and replacing the existing sun shelter. A public meeting will be
held on March 20 for the ball field light project. Next year staff will review
City Council Meeting of September 24, 2012 (Item No. 4g) Page 3
Subject: Parks & Rec Advisory Commission Meeting Minutes of February 15, 2012
adding lighting to the back fields at Louisiana Oaks Park. Mr. Beane indicated
Kids around the World was utilized for playground replacement at Aquila and it
worked great. Removed playground equipment will be installed in the Dominican
Republic.
• Basketball courts will be replaced at Ainsworth and Nelson Parks including
adjustable hoops.
• Basketball hoops/adjustable backboards will be replaced at Aquila Elementary
School and the Junior High.
• Bleachers will be replaced at Dakota Park, Tower Park and the Aquila Tennis
Courts.
• The dug-outs on the south Skippy Field at Carpenter Park will be replaced.
• Improvements will be made to one of the softball fields at Dakota Park.
• Fence will be repaired as needed on Paul Frank field in Freedom Park.
• Drinking fountain will be installed at Justad Park.
• Park shelter buildings at Louisiana Oaks and Oak Hill Parks will be stained.
• Oak Hill and Wolfe Parks will receive playground equipment for ages 2-5.
• Various projects will occur at The Rec Center including an update to the Banquet
and Gallery, the addition of a cooling system in the concession stand, purchasing
rental skates, reviewing the fire protection in the west arena and studying the west
arena refrigeration system.
• Field redevelopment at Tower Park.
• Trail/field light improvements at Dakota, Louisiana Oaks, Wolfe and Oak Hill
Parks.
• Annual tree replacement.
• Annual vehicle replacement/purchases.
Members inquired on outdoor rinks. Mr. Beane advised rinks were closed early but
received a lot of use; staff was great and flexible for flooding. Mr. Birno indicated all
broomball and hockey programs were played.
5. Old Business
a. Community Recreation Facilities Task Force Update
Ms. Walsh and members agreed to include updates at each meeting.
Mr. Worthington indicated Ms. Flumerfelt and he are on the Task Force and have
attended the meetings. Schoenbauer’s information from the survey was reviewed. The
Task Force will take a tour of other facilities. Members were invited on tour and advised
transportation will depart from The Rec Center at 6 p.m. on February 26. Members were
asked to RSVP to ensure adequate transportation. The next Task Force meeting will be
March 5 to debrief from the tour. Ms. Walsh indicated Cunningham Group will work
with the Task Force and provide visuals from the recommendations.
Ms. Flumerfelt advised the school field is scheduled to begin construction June 8. Since
the sod is in good condition, suggested cutting out and selling with revenue going to
STEP. Being a school district project, staff recommended proposing to Andy Ewald.
City Council Meeting of September 24, 2012 (Item No. 4g) Page 4
Subject: Parks & Rec Advisory Commission Meeting Minutes of February 15, 2012
6. Staff Reports – Rick Beane, Park Superintendent
Mr. Beane briefed members on the scheduled enhancements at Birchwood and Oak Hill Parks to
provide easier accessibility. Approximately 12 trees at Oak Hill Park were outfitted with LED
lighting and upgrading will continue this fall.
Nexgen is a new software management program which will include park infrastructure, is led by
Public Works. Training will be provided to allow staff to view GPS, infrastructure, produce work
orders, etc. which is currently being done by paper. Training will be in March with program in
full use in April.
STS is trimming trees and removing buckthorn, Mr. Beane advised. Park Maintenance crews are
gearing up for spring! The City tree crews are trimming a lot of park areas which look great. Park
signs are being updated with material other than wood. Approximately 150 to 200 picnic tables
are being freshened up as they contained graffiti, rotten wood, etc.
The City partnered with the Rotary Clubs for the Bundled Up event which was a huge success,
stated Mr. Beane. It is estimated 400 to 500 people attended. The money raised will go to the
summer concert series and fee assistance. Mr. Birno hopes it will become an annual event due to
the great turnout.
The ribbon cutting at Northside Park will be held May 12 at 11 a.m. Also that day is the Fire
Station No. 2 ribbon cutting at 10 a.m., the Arbor Day celebration and concert and the Minnesota
Tree Climbing Championship.
The turf fields have had issues so staff is researching other field options. Mr. Beane indicated
others use plugs (Lambeau Field) and they work great. Mr. Birno is continuing research on
Grassmasters as they are used all over Europe for professional soccer fields. The organization
would love to have a showcase field in Minnesota and the Soccer Association is willing to
commit.
Mr. Beane indicated Gary Fix will be retiring this year.
7. Other / Future Agenda Items
Ms. Walsh indicated most of the March meeting will be spent planning for the Creek clean-up.
Mr. Birno will provide information on Fee Assistance/scholarships.
Mr. Hawkinson inquired if there is a sign up for the Creek clean-up and was directed to contact
Mr. Vaughan.
Mr. Hawkinson inquired on the Fire Station projects. Staff is currently moving into Fire Station
#2 and in April/May will move into Fire Station #1 Ms. Walsh advised. The old station will be
removed once staff is moved into their new facility.
City Council Meeting of September 24, 2012 (Item No. 4g) Page 5
Subject: Parks & Rec Advisory Commission Meeting Minutes of February 15, 2012
Mr. Hawkinson inquired on a plaque to be added with the playground equipment that went
overseas. Mr. Beane will research and provide information to Ms. Walsh to update the
Commission at a future meeting.
Mr. Foulkes complimented staff at the Nature Center and how it looks. He also complimented
Mr. Worthington on running the meeting. Mr. Beane advised the Nature Center was retrofitted
with LED lighting which qualified for rebates also.
Mr. Hawkinson inquired on the two member vacancies; Mr. Foulkes indicated Council has
interviewed and will advise interviewees on Feb. 21.
Mr. Worthington advised planning an all-school reunion this summer which may be a good
opportunity to sell turf.
8. Adjournment
It was moved by Commission member Flumerfelt seconded by Commission member Hawkinson
to adjourn at 7:49 p.m. The motion passed 4 - 0.
Respectfully submitted,
Stacy Voelker
Stacy Voelker
Recording Secretary
Meeting Date: September 24, 2012
Agenda Item #: 4h
OFFICIAL MINUTES
Parks and Recreation Advisory
Commission Meeting
March 21, 2012, 6:30 p.m.
The Rec Center Programming Office
1. Call to Order
Chair Worthington called the meeting to order at 6:31 p.m.
Commission members present: Jim Beneke, Sophia Flumerfelt, George Foulkes, Sarah Foulkes,
Elizabeth Griffin, George Hagemann, Kirk Hawkinson, and Tom Worthington.
Commission members absent: None.
Staff present: Environmental Coordinator (Mr. Vaughan) and Recording Secretary (Ms. Voelker).
Guests present: None.
2. Presentation – None
3. Approval of Minutes
a. February 15, 2012
It was moved by Commission member Foulkes seconded by Commission member Beneke
to approve the Minutes. Motion passed 8 – 0.
4. New Business
a. Storm Water Pond / Lake Survey
Mr. Vaughan distributed a draft of the 10 year proposed Storm Basin Rehabilitation and
Maintenance Plan for the Commission to view. Mr. Vaughan indicated there are two
others on the storm water team to ensure storm water is dealt with correctly. Members
listened as Mr. Vaughan explained how the storm water system works in projects and
upholds the Clean Water Act. As each City is responsible for what goes into the
Mississippi River, the goal is to keep impurities within St. Louis Park. Barr Engineering
was hired to inventory each pond and lake, to evaluate sediment and phosphorus loading
into waters, and to keep water quality high. The Plan is a draft as it has not been approved
by Council yet. The State looks at Cities with a population over 40,000. St. Louis Park is
the only one (of 30 cities) that is decreasing impervious surface through development. It
is challenging to keep up with the rules from the state. The goal of the city is to increase
awareness of the impact on surface/storm water.
Mr. Hagemann inquired what a project would entail. Mr. Vaughan indicated the water
would be tested, sedatives removed, dredged material removed, repair the structure area if
needed and creating a wild area or vegetation around the water.
City Council Meeting of September 24, 2012 (Item No. 4h) Page 2
Subject: Parks & Rec Advisory Commission Meeting Minutes of March 21, 2012
Members reviewed a drainage map of the City which shows what water body the various
streets drain into. The City provides kayaks for water sampling to monitor the water
quality. Mr. Vaughan works with the Volunteer Coordinator to obtain volunteers and
currently have three taking samples.
b. Invasive Species Update
There are always invasive species to battle, Mr. Vaughan indicated. Emerald Ash Borer
has been found in St. Paul and moved to the west side of the Mississippi River but not to
St. Louis Park. Mr. Vaughan explained the purple traps are out to catch the male beetles.
Staff continues to remove dying trees to be proactive in eliminating breeding ground as
there no way to immediately see if a tree is infected.
Japanese beetles were described by Mr. Vaughan and what they eat. The beetles will be
bad this year due to the mild winter. Not many insects were killed over the winter yet the
plants are still in a state of drought. The wood ticks are present already and Lyme disease
is common; recommend testing for disease.
1000 Canker is a new disease affecting butternut and walnut trees. The southern part of
the state has a big walnut tree area which will be affected by 1000 Canker disease.
Another insect to be on the lookout for is the Asian Long-Horn Beetle. The Asian Long-
horn beetle attacks Maple trees. St. Louis Park currently has a 60% canopy of Maple
trees. Mr. Vaughan provided a description of the beetle and encourages diversifying trees
by planting Oaks, Maples, Linden, Ornamentals, Japanese Lilac Trees and Hawthorne’s.
c. Wildlife Feeding Ordinance
Mr. Vaughan explained the ordinance currently in effect against feeding Canadian Geese,
deer and raccoons. Calls regarding wildlife this year have been minimal. The city’s
ordinance regarding feeding the deer is vague. Staff will recommend a change in the
ordinance to include height restrictions and a ban on certain foods that would attract
geese, deer and raccoons. Coyotes are now feeding on the distracted rodents and birds.
There is no feeding ban against coyotes as it is recommended to scare coyotes. Research
indicates if a coyote is scared two to three times, they will not return.
Mr. Worthington inquired if ordinance prohibits cat (feral) feeding. Mr. Vaughan noted
and will research to include in ordinance change.
Members discussed deer issues and potential increase in deer population due to mild
weather. Due to lack of snow, no flyovers were conducted this year.
City Council Meeting of September 24, 2012 (Item No. 4h) Page 3
Subject: Parks & Rec Advisory Commission Meeting Minutes of March 21, 2012
d. Tree Pruning and Planting Information
The city hires a contractor to prune boulevard trees. Members were provided information
on tree pruning rotation and directed to the map on the website for specific details. Mr.
Vaughan advised pruning is done January through March. Due to the mild weather this
year and no plowing needs, more staff time was dedicated to tree pruning.
Staff is trying to diversify tree planting in St. Louis Park. Mr. Vaughan distributed the
tree sale brochure and explained the process. Staff is encouraging people to purchase and
plant trees so when an invasive species arrive, St. Louis Park will have a diverse tree
covering. This is the fourth year of the tree sale which has always been successful.
e. Tree Climb Championship and Arbor Day Tree Planting, May 12, 9 a.m. at Oak
Hill Park
Mr. Vaughan advised there is an annual tree climbing championship where individuals
climb trees using ropes. This year, St. Louis Park is hosting the championship on May 12
and 13 at Oak Hill Park. There will be approximately 40-50 participants between the
men’s and women’s events. The winners will go to Portland, Oregon for a final event. If
you are interesting in volunteering at the event, please contact Mr. Vaughan directly.
Cargill donated $6,000, the Lions Club donated $250 and the city donated $5,000 to plant
50 trees, by Cargill employees, in Oak Hill Park on May 12. KidPower with Rachel is
providing the music, a zip line will go down the hill, and there will be food, seedlings
given away and other events. Mr. Vaughan indicated the donations will also contribute to
trees 30 trees planted, by Cargill employees, for Wolfe Park.
f. Boneyard Residential brush Program
Mr. Vaughan introduced the new boneyard residential brush program. The program
allows residents of St. Louis Park to dispose of trees and trimming debris at the boneyard.
The brush then will be ground up and brought to District Energy. The brush disposal site
will be open to residents of St. Louis Park, some commercial people (for a fee), and the
school district to dispose of any size brush. Temporary staff will be at site to check ID’s
and show individuals where to dump the material. Mr. Vaughan advised this will save the
city approximately $40,000 a year by not paying for wood disposal and cgrinding fees,
and site management. The site will open on April 21, Earth Day weekend.
5. Old Business
a. Minnehaha Creek Clean-up, April 21, 9 a.m.
Mr. Worthington advised the Creek clean-up is scheduled for 9 a.m. on April 21. This is
the fifth year the Commission has cleaned up Minnehaha Creek which varies between
two locations. Mr. Vaughan showed a map of the location for the clean-up and asked
members to meet at the canoe landing no later than 8:45 a.m. Cargill is promoting this
event and 15 Benilde-St. Margaret students plus Lacrosse players will be attending. Mr.
Vaughan asked for members to RSVP as he will assign areas to lead. All members
City Council Meeting of September 24, 2012 (Item No. 4h) Page 4
Subject: Parks & Rec Advisory Commission Meeting Minutes of March 21, 2012
express they will be present and lead teams. The city will provide some gloves, rubber
boots, and waist-high waders. Members were encourages to bring own gloves. If it is
slightly raining, the clean-up event will be held. If it is pouring rain, the event will be
postponed until Sunday, April 22.
Members discussed having drinking water available. Mr. Vaughan will connect with Mr.
Birno to see if paper cups and water jugs are available. Mr. Vaughan or Ms. Voelker will
email members of the status.
b. Beautify the Park kick-off with Minnehaha Creek Clean-up
Beautify the Park is a fun initiative to get people outside and assist in cleaning up the city,
planting trees, etc. The initiative begins with the Minnehaha Creek clean-up and goes
through until the Public Works clean-up day in June.
Visit the Beautify the Park page on the environmental are of the website for details. The
city provides garbage bags and pokers for neighborhoods that are interested in
participating.
6. Staff Reports – Jim Vaughan, Environmental Coordinator
Prairie Restoration has been hired to maintain native landscaping throughout the city Mr.
Vaughan advised. Native Landscapes consist of prairie grasses and wild flowers placed
along lakes and ponds which serve as filters and helps minimize geese from going into
the water bodies.
Westwood Nature Center should have a controlled burn this year. Mr. Vaughan is
working with the Fire Department to accomplish this task. Otherwise, no other burning
will be done as is too dry.
7. Other / Future Agenda Items
a. Community Recreation Facilities Task Force Update
Ms. Flumerfelt advised Cuningham Group, a consulting firm, was hired to assist in the
study of a community recreation facility. Cuningham Group talked to the task force about
what they want to see. They do not want to recreate a Lifetime Fitness but want a broad
range of activities in the facility. The task force members expressed their top comments
which included a pool, welcoming, homey, an inviting space and a meeting place for all
ages. At their next meeting, they will discuss the top comments more in depth. Mr.
Beneke advised none of the other facilities visited had what we want which is a common
inner space to meet for all ages.
City Council Meeting of September 24, 2012 (Item No. 4h) Page 5
Subject: Parks & Rec Advisory Commission Meeting Minutes of March 21, 2012
Members briefly discussed an easy to get to location and new or old facility. Staff will
work with Cuningham Group to prepare presentation to Council.
Mr. Hagemann inquired on a theater/performance space. Mr. Worthington does not recall
as one of top three but a multi-purpose space and art gallery area was recognition as a
need.
Mr. Foulkes inquired if the senior center would be closed and a new senior center would
be included in this facility. If so, he suggested adding a woodworking shop also. Mr.
Worthington has not heard that Lenox would close if a new facility was built. Mr. Beneke
advised some discussions have taken place through CEAC but nothing definite. Chaska
tied all their centers together (i.e. history center, art center, etc.).
Task Force members will keep the Commission updated.
b. Members welcomed new members Elizabeth Griffin & Sarah Foulkes
Members introduced themselves and provided a brief description of their history, self and
interests. Ms. Griffin and Ms. Foulkes provided the same.
Mr. Hagemann advised the Belt Line station planning group discussed what amenities the
station should include such as art, open space for food truck, bike lockers, and others.
Belt Line is the first station that has received grant money. It appears Belt Line will go
under the LRT trail but still in discussions. Discussions regarding the area west of Belt
Line (Ottawa) will change the flow.
Mr. Hagemann advised FOTA, Our Town: Beats and Streets, is a drum related activity
which provides classes for drumming, has ethnic components and individuals will be part
of a drum circle. The Our Town: Beats and Streets kicks off in May at the Ice Cream
Social. Stanley Kipper and Chico Perez are musicians that focus on drumming and get
kids involved.
Mr. Beneke advised the Commission will have a joint meeting with CEAC in April. The
meeting will be held in the Rec Center Gallery and begin at 6:30 p.m. Mr. Beneke asked
to review the Joint Use Agreement between the city and school district. Ms. Voelker will
research.
Ms. Flumerfelt advised she can find more volunteers for the creek clean up and get
volunteers for Arbor Day/Tree Championship. Mr. Vaughan would appreciate it.
Mr. Worthington announced St. Louis Park will host an all school reunion on August 25
from 11 a.m. – 2 p.m. at the High School.
City Council Meeting of September 24, 2012 (Item No. 4h) Page 6
Subject: Parks & Rec Advisory Commission Meeting Minutes of March 21, 2012
8. Adjournment
It was moved by Commission member Hagemann seconded by Commission member Hawkinson
to adjourn at 7:46 p.m. The motion passed 8 - 0.
Respectfully submitted,
Stacy Voelker
Stacy Voelker
Recording Secretary
Meeting Date: September 24, 2012
Agenda Item #: 4i
OFFICIAL MINUTES
JOINT MEETING
Parks & Recreation Advisory Commission
Community Education Advisory Council
April 18, 2012, 6:30 p.m.
The Rec Center Gallery
1. Call to Order
Cindy Walsh, Director of Parks and Recreation, called the meeting to order at 6:35 p.m.
Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission members present: Jim Beneke, Sophia Flumerfelt,
George Foulkes, Sarah Foulkes, Elizabeth Griffin, Kirk Hawkinson, and Tom Worthington.
Commission members absent: George Hagemann.
Staff present: Cindy Walsh, Director of Parks and Recreation, Lisa Abernathy, Recreation
Coordinator, and Stacy Voelker, Recording Secretary.
Community Education Advisory Council members present: Lisa Greene, Community Education
Director, Jim Beneke, Bobbie Betz, Sandy Johnson, Anne Mavity, Joan Monicatti, Julia Ross,
Joe Tatalovich, and Shirley Zimmerman.
Commission members absent: Austin Bosley, Amy Burns, Bill Levine, Gregg Lindberg, Steve
McCulloch, Mike Mulligan, Rolf Peterson, Kristen Piper, Pam Rykken, Sue Santa, Mark
Schwartz, Pam Solstad-Montray and Dina Stender.
2. Introductions
Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission members and the Community Education Advisory
Council introduced themselves.
Ms. Greene, thanked the Commission for scheduling this joint meeting. Ms. Walsh feels it would
be beneficial to have a joint meeting every other year.
3. Approval of Minutes
a. March 21, 2012
It was moved by Commission member Worthington seconded by Commission member G.
Foulkes to approve the Minutes. Motion passed 7 – 0.
It was moved by Council member Betz, seconded by Council member Ross to approve the
Minutes. Motion passed 9 - 0.
City Council Meeting of September 24, 2012 (Item No. 4i) Page 2
Subject: Parks & Rec Advisory Commission Meeting Minutes of April 18, 2012
4. Overview of Both Departments
a. Parks and Recreation Department
Ms. Walsh provided an overview of the Parks and Recreation Department. The
department is comprised of five divisions: organized recreation which encompasses youth
and adult programming, camps; the Rec Center which is made up of two ice arenas, an
outdoor aquatic park and two rental rooms; Westwood Hills Nature Center; Park
Maintenance/Forestry which is a big part of the annual budget as it includes managing
tree disease, parks, and storm damage; and fleet vehicles which include the city
mechanics. The department is comprised of 39 staff, including maintenance. Maintenance
staff is located in the Municipal Service Center (MSC) to share equipment in the same
building which works well.
The Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission are involved in various aspects of all
divisions. For example, the Commission is hosting the fifth annual Minnehaha Creek
clean up this Saturday. Two sections were adopted and the Commission hosts the clean-
up of the two sections on a rotating basis. Various community and school groups also
participate. Mr. Worthington invited all to assist in the Creek clean up on Saturday, April
21 at 9 a.m. by Knollwood Park. Ms. Walsh indicated the art piece in the entrance of the
Rec Center includes recycled materials from the Creek clean-up. Ms. Zimmerman
commented that the entrance looks great.
Ms. Walsh advised the Commission recommends Park Dedication to Council. In earlier
years, the Commission would discuss accepting land dedication versus cash
contributions, now there’s no land available so the city accepts the cash contributions.
The Commission also is involved with larger park improvements projects, commented
Ms. Walsh. They help facilitate meetings for parks and provide a sounding board for
residents. Commission members volunteer at special events, work through new program
ideas and discuss/research new initiatives (i.e. Dog Park). Mr. Worthington indicated the
Commission meets with all youth sports associations regularly to discuss successes and
issues. Typically the Commission meets at the Rec Center but may meet at various
facilities. The Commission also discusses trail and sidewalks plus hosts an annual staff
recognition luncheon Mr. Worthington advised. Members also volunteer on city task
forces as needed and a member serves as the liaison with Friends of the Arts.
b. Community Education
Lisa Greene, Director of Community Education, advised Community Education is an arm
of the School District. They offer Early childhood programs out of Central Community
Center, youth programs are offered after school and during the summer, and they offer
senior membership through Lenox Community Center. Community Education also offers
childcare from infant up to school age, adult enrichment programs, senior programming
at Lenox, GED instruction, and education for adults. Community Education is in
consortium with Minnetonka, Hopkins, and an adult correction facility in Plymouth
(Project SOAR). Project SOAR serves adults with disabilities. Ms. Greene advised their
activities are include in a brochure they produce. The brochures are created/delivered
City Council Meeting of September 24, 2012 (Item No. 4i) Page 3
Subject: Parks & Rec Advisory Commission Meeting Minutes of April 18, 2012
three times a year (Community Education and Lenox programs) plus issue a Summer
Spark for summer programs.
Community Education is required by law to have an Advisory Council, Ms. Greene
indicated. The Advisory Council approves the Community Education budget annually
prior to going to the School Board for approval. The Advisory Council also acts in an
advisory capacity. Staff has attended CEAC meetings for communication (not
presentation) which has been very beneficial. Ms. Johnson indicated it’s nice to have a
joint meeting as it has created a new way to think about CEAC.
Ms. Walsh advised the Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission reports to the City
Council for feedback on ideas. Ms. Greene advised she presents Community Education
information to the School Board. Community Education Advisory Council is advisory to
Community Education but not to the School Board. Parks and Recreation Advisory
Council are advisory to the City Council.
Community Education Advisory Council has 18 members of varying city representation
(i.e. health, Council members, religious, etc.). Some members are appointed by the school
board. The Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission has eight members of which two
are appointed by the school district and one is a student member.
5. Current Joint Programming
Ms. Walsh answered a question from a member regarding how do we figure out who does what
by stating it has always worked out as both are here to serve the same population, with the same
purpose and same facilities. For example, Jim Vaughan’s Spring landscape workshop is
advertised through Lenox; Park and Rec staff along with Community Education staff coordinate
the “Get Out Get Active” program with Rita at Lenox; Facilities are shared; lifeguard
certification classes are acquired through Community Education; swimming lessons are held at
the Aquatic Park but are run by Community Education; jointly host Caring Youth Awards
annually; jointly host Children’s First Ice Cream Social; jointly advertise; joint programming at
Westwood Hills Nature Center with specific groups through Lenox; and the City has utilized a
van owned by Lenox. The city mechanics provide needed repairs. Ms. Greene added Community
Education and Parks and Recreation also work with the same volunteer coordinator for programs.
Joint programming has been very beneficial to all involved.
Mr. Hawkinson inquired on working with home school individuals and Ms. Greene advised they
do work with home school individuals. Ms. Walsh indicated the city works with home school
groups via skating lessons, programs at nature center, and various sporting activities to fulfill the
requirements.
Ms. Ross inquired of any known web programming or web learning based program to provide
education opportunities. Ms. Walsh indicated environmental items are on the web and cable TV.
Mr. Hawkinson indicated some have been covered at the open houses also.
Ms. Betz is impressed with how Community Education and Parks and Recreation work together.
As a new resident, she advised the number of brochures and overlap is confusing but understands
more now. Ms. Betz inquired on the efficiencies of combining brochures. The timing of
City Council Meeting of September 24, 2012 (Item No. 4i) Page 4
Subject: Parks & Rec Advisory Commission Meeting Minutes of April 18, 2012
deadlines is challenging and Community Education actually has three different publications. Ms.
Greene advised Community Education has discussed combining the Lenox and Community
Education brochures. Ms. Zimmerman mentioned the Lenox brochure is mailed to members only
whereas the Community Education brochure is mailed to all residents. Members discussed
another issue with a joint catalog is people would be confused where to register for programs
and/or where programs are held. Ms. Mavity indicated in less than ten years, all would be
electronic. Currently, Community Education’s online registration is at 60% Ms. Greene
indicated, including some senior registrants. Ms. Walsh indicated over 50% of Parks and
Recreation registrations are online.
Ms. Johnson indicated it’s wonderful to see the Parks and Recreation brochure combined with
Park Perspective. Ms. Walsh indicated the web site will have mobile app soon also. Ms. Greene
commended the city on their new user-friendly web site application.
Mr. Tatalovich inquired on the budgets of each division. Ms. Walsh advised the Fleet division
has a million dollar expenditure, the Parks and Recreation budget is around three million, and the
Capital Improvement Program is an additional 800,000 to one million a year for structural
upgrades. New trails and facilities are financed differently. Ms. Monicatti inquired how CIP’s are
decided. Mr. Worthington advised the Commission is briefed on the budget and the five year CIP
plan which is then presented to Council. Ms. Mavity indicated some neighborhood groups also
get involved in CIP projects. The Kids around the World playground program, which takes older,
removed playground equipment to be utilized in various countries, is a new program utilized by
the city advised Mr. Worthington.
Ms. Walsh briefed members on the Community Recreation Facility Study which began with
Vision St. Louis Park. A survey was conducted and a task force appointed by Council to ensure
there are gathering places that are very unique to the community. The city wants to be on the
frontend of the trend. The study is in the early stages with a report to Council scheduled in
October. Ms. Mavity commented if a new recreation facility does happen, it will open new
opportunities for the city. Ms. Ross indicated gathering places are a trend that’s happening more
and people are going out more to meet others. The community is also more mobile. Speaker
Ellen O’Sullivan echoed the need for gathering places with various ages for people to have an
opportunity to sit for a while.
Ms. Ross commented that if fewer people have children, the need for more gathering places may
increase. The city is getting ahead of the curve to find what the community wants. Mr. Beneke
inquired as to how the school is involved in the project including funding. Members will
brainstorm how the school district can be involved. Ms. Ross encouraged input from Lenox
members to the task force as Lenox is changing. The school board representatives on the task
force are Ms. Greene and Andy Ewald.
6. Potential Future Joint Programming
Ms. Walsh asked for ideas that can be presented tonight or any time in the future. Discussion
amongst the Commissions was encouraged.
Ms. Johnson indicated it appears Wi-Fi in coffee shops is limited depending on the customers
purchase. Ms. Ross commented the county is moving to Results Only Work Environment which
City Council Meeting of September 24, 2012 (Item No. 4i) Page 5
Subject: Parks & Rec Advisory Commission Meeting Minutes of April 18, 2012
is away from cubes with technology onto Wi-Fi access everywhere. Ms. Greene advised that
Lenox does have Wi-Fi access installed by the city (a joint project) and people do come in to use
it. Ms. Ross feels inexpensively reconfiguring some space at Lenox and advertising Wi-Fi might
be a great way to get people into the building. Discussions have occurred on how to change space
at Lenox to accommodate more people.
Mr. Worthington suggested contacting various groups, such as birders, to explore targeting
outreach to Meadowbrook, etc. with birding, gardening, and geocaching. These activities meld
technology with encouraging active kids; it gets kids outside in a non-traditional way. It was
noted that all school age kids go to Westwood Hills Nature Center once or twice a year. Young
kids are getting exposure to nature and familiar with the Nature Center. Mr. Foulkes advised the
number of groups visiting the Nature Center has decreased. Feels it is due to funding as there are
fewer grants for busing. The Nature Center is looking at programs that work with science or
other departments. A pond/waterfall will be installed in front of the Nature Center, indicated Ms.
Walsh, which will use recycled water and provide an educational opportunity. Members
discussed how to educate people that the Nature Center is open to the public, funding busing
costs and grants.
Ms. Monicatti advised she has been working with Community Education to get clubs at the
Junior High for pre-teens to keep them interested. There is a lot of green space for outdoor
activities and encouraging diversity. Charlie, who previously worked for the Parks and
Recreation Department, is the service coordinator and will be located at the Junior High.
Ms. Greene solicited other joint programming ideas for various ages. Mr. Worthington asked of a
place for historical memories to be scanned and saved to which Ms. Greene advised that Lenox
offers.
Ms. Betz asked about the community gardens and feels good opportunity for diversity.
Community gardens are located at Nelson, Texa-Tonka, and Victoria Parks, advised Ms. Walsh.
Ms. Greene added there is a garden behind Meadowbrook Collaborate (which is under
Community Education), and has been contacted by a family that would like to get their children
involved in gardening.
A member inquired if the city is offering the Tot play time in the Banquet Room to which Ms.
Abernathy indicated it is offered on Tuesday, Wednesday and Friday mornings November
through March. Members commented the program is very nice, provides great discussions among
parents and feels the need for a larger space. An indoor play area has surfaced in the Community
Recreation Facility Task Force discussions, Ms. Walsh advised. Ms. Greene offered to jointly
advertise but is unaware of a larger space currently available.
Mr. Worthington inquired if there is an interest for adult theater or classes. Ms. Greene advised
the community has Maggie’s Farm Theater which is doing joint programs with the senior
program, various work around St. Louis Park, and they offer an annual play in the Lenox gym
where they pay rent. Ms. Walsh indicated the task force is discussing the need for a community
theater. The High school, Benilde-St. Margaret’s, Jewish Community Center, and Park Nicollet
(at Methodist) have beautiful theaters which appear to be underutilized. Ms. Ross confirmed
theaters and suggested utilizing for speaker series along with plays. Corporate groups seek
theater space for presentations and large groups, Ms. Ross advised which might be a good use for
City Council Meeting of September 24, 2012 (Item No. 4i) Page 6
Subject: Parks & Rec Advisory Commission Meeting Minutes of April 18, 2012
maximizing the facilities. The city doesn’t need several of everything in our community. Ms.
Abernathy mentioned Parks and Recreation is offering youth classes this year with an individual
who has connections with the Guthrie. Ms. Walsh and Ms. Greene indicated their departments
can assist with access to these facilities.
Mr. Worthington suggested a yearly theme to unify Parks and Recreation and Community
Education. The groups could market items more programmatic for year.
Ms. Johnson advised the Senior Program is sponsoring their annual spaghetti dinner at Lenox
next Friday.
All ideas are encouraged to be forwarded to Ms. Walsh and/or Ms. Geene. Members thanked
each other and agreed to meet again.
7. Adjournment
It was moved by Commission member G. Foulkes seconded by Commission member Hawkinson
to adjourn at 7:59 p.m. The motion passed 7 - 0.
Respectfully submitted,
Stacy Voelker
Stacy Voelker
Recording Secretary
Meeting Date: September 24, 2012
Agenda Item #: 4j
MINUTES
St. Louis Park Housing Authority
Westwood Room, St. Louis Park City Hall
St. Louis Park, MN
Thursday, August 9, 2012, 5:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Commissioners Catherine Courtney, Renee DuFour, Justin Kaufman,
Suzanne Metzger
GUESTS PRESENT: Dan Hunt, Hunt & Associates, Michael Bosl, Kern, DeWenter, Viere,
Ltd.
STAFF PRESENT: Adam Fulton, Steve Heintz, Jane Klesk, Kathy Larsen, Kevin Locke,
Michele Schnitker
1. Call to Order – The meeting was called to order at 5:03 p.m.
2. Approval of Minutes for July, 2012
The Board minutes of July 19, 2012 were unanimously approved.
3. Hearings – None
4. Reports and Committees – None
5. Unfinished Business – None
6. New Business
a. Eliot School Redevelopment Site Presentation
Mr. Fulton, Planner, introduced Dan Hunt, Hunt & Associates, developer of the
Eliot School site. Mr. Hunt presented information regarding the development at
the site, explaining that the existing building will be demolished and two separate
apartment buildings will be constructed, providing a total of 144 one- and two-
bedroom units, with an average rent of $1.55 per square foot. After additional
discussion, Mr. Hunt answered questions from the Commissioners.
b. 2011 Audit Presentation
Ms. Schnitker introduced Steve Heintz, Finance Supervisor, who introduced
Michael Bosl, of Kern, DeWenter, Viere, Ltd., the HA’s audit firm. Mr. Bosl
reviewed the Management Letter and the Audited Financial Statements for Fiscal
Period Ended December 31, 2011 and stated that overall, the Authority is in a
solid financial position to meet its outstanding obligations and continue to operate
City Council Meeting of September 24, 2012 (Item No. 4j) Page 2
Subject: Housing Authority Meeting Minutes August 9, 2012
into the reasonably foreseeable future. There were no significant deficiencies or
material weaknesses identified.
c. Approval of Capital Improvement Contract Award – Hamilton House
The Approval of Capital Improvement Contract Award was tabled until the
September 2012 Board meeting.
d. Approval of Revised Private Development Contract – 9019 Cedar Lake Road
Ms. Larsen explained that the only revision to the Development Contract for the
Sale of 9010 Cedar Lake Road – Excess Land was the legal description. The
revision was recommended by the HA’s counsel, Campbell Knutson.
Commissioner Kaufman moved to approve the revised Contract for Private
Development – 9019 Cedar Lake Road; Commissioner Metzger seconded and the
motion passed 4-0.
e. Housing Activity Report
Ms. Larsen presented the Housing Activity Report, stating that most notable for
2011 was the continuing impact of economic conditions on housing activities.
The report will be provided to the City Council and Planning Commission at their
upcoming meetings. No action is required.
7. Communications from Executive Director
a. Claims List – August, 2012
b. Communications
1. Monthly Report – August, 2012
8. Other
9. Adjournment
Commissioner Kaufman moved to adjourn the meeting, and Commissioner Metzger
seconded the motion. The motion passed 4-0. The meeting adjourned at 6:29 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
_____________________
Renee DuFour, Secretary
Meeting Date: September 24, 2012
Agenda Item #: 4k
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 August 25 through September 14, 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
9/18/2012CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:55:50R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
1Page -Council Check Summary
9/14/2012 -8/25/2012
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
377.53FABRICATIONOTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES3M
377.53
7,701.26PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYAAA-LICENSE DIVISION
7,701.26
109.34ORGANIZED REC G & A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CARABERNATHY, LISA
109.34
3,142.83GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICEABM EQUIPMENT & SUPPLY INC
3,142.83
2,035.00PRE-SCHOOL PROGRAMS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESABRAKADOODLE
2,035.00
295.00WATER UTILITY G&A TRAININGADVANCED DRUG TESTING
295.00
157.86OPERATIONSOPERATIONAL SUPPLIESAIRGAS NORTH CENTRAL
157.86
1,388.00H.V.A.C. EQUIP. MTCE BUILDING MTCE SERVICEALLIANCE MECH SRVCS INC
1,388.00
1,713.69SEALCOAT PREPARATION OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESALLIED BLACKTOP
1,713.69
128.74POLICE G & A TELEPHONEAMERICAN MESSAGING
128.74
205.00PUBLIC WORKS OPS G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPSAMERICAN PUBLIC WORKS ASSOC
205.00
29.56GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE OPERATIONAL SUPPLIESAMERIPRIDE LINEN & APPAREL SER
29.56
70.00WESTWOOD G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPSANCA
70.00
12.79-IT G & A BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEESANCHOR PAPER CO
1,358.30SUPPORT SERVICES G&A OFFICE SUPPLIES
1,345.51
City Council Meeting of September 24, 2012 (Item No. 4k)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 2
9/18/2012CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:55:50R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
2Page -Council Check Summary
9/14/2012 -8/25/2012
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
352.50GO BONDS-FIRE STATIONS G&A IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDIANCOM COMMUNICATIONS INC
352.50
2,021.86FABRICATIONOTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESANDERSEN INC, EARL
2,021.86
837.73GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SUPPLYAPACHE GROUP OF MINNESOTA
837.73
200.00SOLID WASTE G&A OTHERAPOGEE RETAIL LLC
200.00
25.00HUMAN RESOURCES TRAININGAPPLE VALLEY, CITY OF
25.00
495.00SEWER UTILITY G&A TRAININGAPWA-MN CHAPTER
495.00
92.83NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION GRANT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESAQUILA NEIGHBORHOOD ASSN
92.83
785.30GENERAL CUSTODIAL DUTIES OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESARAMARK UNIFORM CORP ACCTS
785.30
25.00ENVIRONMENTAL G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPSARBOR DAY FOUNDATION
25.00
1,624.51PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYASPEN EQUIPMENT CO
1,624.51
1,254.68OPERATIONSOPERATIONAL SUPPLIESASPEN MILLS
1,254.68
34.61E-911 PROGRAM TELEPHONEAT&T
34.61
246.72TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT OFFICE EQUIPMENTAT&T MOBILITY
246.72
4,761.51WATER UTILITY G&A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICEAUTOMATIC SYSTEMS INC
4,761.51
City Council Meeting of September 24, 2012 (Item No. 4k)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 3
9/18/2012CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:55:50R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
3Page -Council Check Summary
9/14/2012 -8/25/2012
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
585.94PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDIAVR INC
585.94
201.73POLICE G & A SUBSISTENCE SUPPLIESBARKER, BOB COMPANY
35.56POLICE G & A POSTAGE
237.29
373.32PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT BUILDINGS & STRUCTURESBARTLEY SALES CO
373.32
118.52REFORESTATION FUND OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESBARTSCH, NANCY
118.52
160.21WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL SUPPLIESBATTERIES PLUS
160.21
1,494.13PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDIBEBERGS LANDSCAPE SUPPLY
1,494.13
5,211.60CONSTRUCTION MATERIAL IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDIBEDFORD TECHNOLOGY LLC
5,211.60
112.50GREEN REMODELING PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESBERG, JULIE
112.50
53.44NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION GRANT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESBLACKSTONE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSN
53.44
1,659.47REILLY BUDGET OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESBLOOMINGTON, CITY OF
1,659.47
229.78REFORESTATION FUND OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESBLUMBERG, ANN
229.78
72.68INSTRUCTIONAL SKATING LESSONS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESBOBIER, HEIDI
72.68
462.50GREEN REMODELING PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESBORAAS, MARY
462.50
1,600.00PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDIBORMANN CONSTRUCTION INC
City Council Meeting of September 24, 2012 (Item No. 4k)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 4
9/18/2012CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:55:50R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
4Page -Council Check Summary
9/14/2012 -8/25/2012
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
1,600.00
143.69PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYBOYER TRUCK PARTS
143.69
1,943.25GO BONDS-FIRE STATIONS G&A BUILDINGS & STRUCTURESBRAUN INTERTEC CORPORATION
1,221.50CE MATERIALS TESTING IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
3,164.75
95.73REFORESTATION FUND OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESBRINK, JUDY
95.73
69.66REFORESTATION FUND OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESBRUNSWICK GABLES ASSN
69.66
741.00OPERATIONSRADIO COMMUNICATIONSCALHOUN TOWERS APTS
741.00
250.00PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDICAMPBELLS SIGNATURE LANDSCAPES
250.00
12.01-PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH DUE TO OTHER GOVTSCARLISLE CO
186.69WESTWOOD G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
174.68
1.04-GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET DUE TO OTHER GOVTSCARPETS PLUS/COLOR TILE
16.23GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES
15.19
318.49IT G & A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICECARTRIDGE CARE
318.49
13,715.40TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT OFFICE EQUIPMENTCDW GOVERNMENT INC
13,715.40
1,941.64DISCOUNT LOAN PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESCENTER ENERGY & ENVIRONMENT
1,941.64
150.00SUPPORT SERVICES TRAININGCENTER FOR SOMALIA HISTORY STU
150.00
41.36SEWER UTILITY G&A HEATING GASCENTERPOINT ENERGY
City Council Meeting of September 24, 2012 (Item No. 4k)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 5
9/18/2012CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:55:50R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
5Page -Council Check Summary
9/14/2012 -8/25/2012
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
41.36
4,137.94ENTERPRISE G & A HEATING GASCENTERPOINT ENERGY SERVICES IN
4,137.94
10,200.00EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S OTHER RETIREMENTCENTRAL PENSION FUND
10,200.00
175.00GREEN REMODELING PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESCHERNE, JESSICA
175.00
118.73FACILITIES MCTE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIESCINTAS CORPORATION
191.38PUBLIC WORKS G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
1,308.85PARK MAINTENANCE G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
54.51AQUATIC PARK BUDGET GENERAL SUPPLIES
18.32AQUATIC PARK MAINTENANCE OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
289.44VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
46.90GENERAL REPAIR GENERAL SUPPLIES
2,028.13
136.63-GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET DUE TO OTHER GOVTSCITIZENS INDEPENDENT BANK
81.72ADMINISTRATION G & A POSTAGE
149.00ADMINISTRATION G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS
1,352.60ADMINISTRATION G & A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT
213.30ADMINISTRATION G & A MEETING EXPENSE
25.75HUMAN RESOURCES OFFICE SUPPLIES
1,067.50HUMAN RESOURCES GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
71.77HUMAN RESOURCES ORGANIZATIONAL DEVELOPMENT
25.00HUMAN RESOURCES RECOGNITION
124.20HUMAN RESOURCES CITE
375.00COMM & MARKETING G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS
24.98IT G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
2,212.00FINANCE G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS
31.21FINANCE G & A MEETING EXPENSE
195.00GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE TRAINING
6.93POLICE G & A MOTOR FUELS
40.50POLICE G & A POSTAGE
623.20ERUTRAVEL/MEETINGS
1,740.20E BYRNE JAG 2009-10 SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT
193.08OPERATIONSOFFICE SUPPLIES
592.85OPERATIONSGENERAL SUPPLIES
930.42OPERATIONSFIRE PREVENTION SUPPLIES
City Council Meeting of September 24, 2012 (Item No. 4k)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 6
9/18/2012CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:55:50R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
6Page -Council Check Summary
9/14/2012 -8/25/2012
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
7.99OPERATIONSSMALL TOOLS
158.58OPERATIONSTRAINING
2,510.37OPERATIONSSEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT
5.00OPERATIONSBANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES
142.23INSPECTIONS G & A TRAINING
56.10PUBLIC WORKS G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES
38.58ENGINEERING G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES
1,403.88PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORY
18.04-PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH DUE TO OTHER GOVTS
32.29ORGANIZED REC G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
2,527.20ORGANIZED REC G & A TRAINING
30.02ORGANIZED REC G & A MEETING EXPENSE
293.11SUMMER FIELDTRIPS GENERAL SUPPLIES
290.00T-BALL/BASEBALL GENERAL SUPPLIES
290.00SOCCERGENERAL SUPPLIES
100.67PARK MAINTENANCE G & A SMALL TOOLS
195.00PARK MAINTENANCE G & A TRAINING
47.76ENVIRONMENTAL G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES
30.80WESTWOOD G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
53.29REC CENTER BUILDING GENERAL SUPPLIES
12.81INSTRUCTIONAL SKATING LESSONS GENERAL SUPPLIES
73.96AQUATIC PARK BUDGET GENERAL SUPPLIES
534.55AQUATIC PARK BUDGET OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
127.18AQUATIC PARK BUDGET TRAINING
320.76CONCESSIONSCONCESSION SUPPLIES
51.59DAILY ADMISSION OFFICE SUPPLIES
202.72TV PRODUCTION NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT
1,060.60TV PRODUCTION SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT
750.00SOLID WASTE RECYCLING GRANT SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT
.89-CAPITAL REPLACEMENT B/S DUE TO OTHER GOVTS
16.01TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT OFFICE EQUIPMENT
5.35TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT TELEPHONE
21,289.05
58.34-WATER UTILITY BALANCE SHEET DUE TO OTHER GOVTSCLEAN HARBORS ENV SERVICES INC
906.90REILLY BUDGET CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICE
848.56
520.05CONCESSIONSCONCESSION SUPPLIESCOCA-COLA BOTTLING CO
520.05
17,212.04ADMINISTRATION G & A LEGAL SERVICESCOLICH & ASSOCIATES
City Council Meeting of September 24, 2012 (Item No. 4k)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 7
9/18/2012CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:55:50R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
7Page -Council Check Summary
9/14/2012 -8/25/2012
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
17,212.04
1,101.80UNINSURED LOSS G&A UNINSURED LOSSCOLLISION CENTER
1,101.80
4.51BUILDING MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICECOMCAST
4.51
52,528.11SEALCOAT PREPARATION OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESCOMMERCIAL ASPHALT COMPANY
1,378.60PATCHING-PERMANENT OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
1,048.64ROUTINE MAINTENANCE OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
1,809.06PARK MAINTENANCE G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
1,048.63STORM WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE
57,813.04
429.95REC CENTER BUILDING OPERATIONAL SUPPLIESCONTINENTAL RESEARCH CORP
429.95
129.89-GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET DUE TO OTHER GOVTSCREATIVE PRODUCT SOURCING INC
2,019.16DARE PROGRAM OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
1,889.27
3,179.36SEWER UTILITY G&A OTHERCUES INC
3,179.36
714.00SOFTBALLOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESCURRAN-MOORE, KIM
714.00
1,907.18SSD 1 G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESCUSTOM PRODUCTS & SERVICES
1,396.86SSD 2 G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
581.93SSD 3 G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
864.08SSD #4 G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
687.74SSD #5 G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
211.61SSD #6 G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
5,649.40
24,032.30WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESDAKOTA SUPPLY GROUP
24,032.30
2,150.88GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIESDALCO ENTERPRISES INC
4,880.30GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SUPPLY
849.69REC CENTER BUILDING OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
City Council Meeting of September 24, 2012 (Item No. 4k)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 8
9/18/2012CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:55:50R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
8Page -Council Check Summary
9/14/2012 -8/25/2012
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
7,880.87
872.85BUILDING MAINTENANCE BUILDING MTCE SERVICEDALSIN, JOHN & SONS INC
872.85
900.00IT G & A TRAININGDDW CONSULTING LLC
900.00
5,379.66INSPECTIONS G & A DUE TO OTHER GOVTSDEPT LABOR & INDUSTRY
260.00INSPECTIONS G & A LICENSES
5,639.66
19,872.00ROTTLUND VILLAGE - PUBLIC ART IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDIDESIGN SERVICE
19,872.00
293.35ENTERPRISE G & A ADVERTISINGDEX MEDIA EAST LLC
293.35
264.97CABLE TV G & A OTHERDIGITAL PICTURES INC
264.97
613.44SPLASH PAD MAINT - Oak Hill Pk OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESDJ ELECTRIC SERVICES INC
525.00REC CENTER BUILDING MAINTENANCE
600.00REC CENTER BUILDING BUILDING MTCE SERVICE
1,150.65ARENA MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE
875.00AQUATIC PARK BUDGET EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE
2,757.08PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT BUILDINGS & STRUCTURES
6,406.00PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
12,927.17
940.00POSTAL SERVICES POSTAGEDO-GOOD.BIZ INC
3,171.10SOLID WASTE G&A ADVERTISING
4,111.10
146.25ESCROWSANDERSON BUILDERSEHLERS & ASSOCIATES INC
146.25
1,791.16WATER UTILITY G&A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICEELECTRIC MOTOR REPAIR
1,791.16
883.05PARK EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESELECTRIC PUMP INC
883.05
City Council Meeting of September 24, 2012 (Item No. 4k)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 9
9/18/2012CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:55:50R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
9Page -Council Check Summary
9/14/2012 -8/25/2012
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
113.50INSPECTIONS G & A ELECTRICALELECTRICAL VISIONS
113.50
2,642.53PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYEMERGENCY AUTOMOTIVE TECHNOLOG
2,642.53
192.57OPERATIONSOPERATIONAL SUPPLIESEMERGENCY MEDICAL PRODUCTS
192.57
75.74REFORESTATION FUND OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESENGEBRETSON, BETTY
75.74
3,351.32NETWORK SUPPORT SERVICES GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESESP SYSTEMS PROFESSIONALS INC
3,351.32
1,043.10PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDIESS BROTHERS & SONS INC
496.97SEWER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE
11,865.80STORM WATER UTILITY G&A REPLACEMENTS
13,405.87
7,021.04RIGHT-OF-WAY IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDIEVERGREEN LAND SERVICES CO
7,021.04
1,000.00ESCROWSPMC ESCROWEXECUTIVE TITLE
1,000.00
310.62PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYFACTORY MOTOR PARTS CO
310.62
39.20PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYFASTENAL COMPANY
6.40WATER UTILITY G&A EQUIPMENT PARTS
45.60
9.81SEWER UTILITY G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESFEDEX
9.81
120.00HALLOWEEN PARTY GENERAL SUPPLIESFEINBERG, GREG
120.00
446.74WATER UTILITY G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIESFERGUSON WATERWORKS
11,229.55WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE
City Council Meeting of September 24, 2012 (Item No. 4k)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 10
9/18/2012CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:55:50R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
10Page -Council Check Summary
9/14/2012 -8/25/2012
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
11,676.29
286.37REC CENTER BUILDING MOTOR FUELSFERRELLGAS
286.37
4,238.35OPERATIONSGENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESFIRE CATT LLC
4,238.35
32.00OPERATIONSOPERATIONAL SUPPLIESFIRE EQUIPMENT SPECIALTIES INC
52.24OPERATIONSSMALL TOOLS
84.24
107.17REFORESTATION FUND OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESFISCHER, MARK & LUCY
107.17
32.18POLICE G & A BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIESFLOYD TOTAL SECURITY
795.20WATER UTILITY G&A BUILDING MTCE SERVICE
262.30MUNICIPAL BLDG IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
1,089.68
6,000.00ESCROWSDEMO / BROOKSIDE TRAFFICFREESTONE HOLDING LLC
6,000.00
5,808.16PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT MAINTENAN OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESGAME TIME
5,808.16
349.00PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT BUILDINGS & STRUCTURESGARTNER REFRIG & MFG INC
349.00
153.00SOFTBALLOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESGHIZONI, DAVE
153.00
22.83GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICEGLASS DOCTOR
22.83
954.10WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICEGOPHER STATE ONE-CALL INC
954.10
77.26GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIESGRAINGER INC, WW
500.28PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORY
577.54
City Council Meeting of September 24, 2012 (Item No. 4k)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 11
9/18/2012CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:55:50R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
11Page -Council Check Summary
9/14/2012 -8/25/2012
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
510.00DAMAGE REPAIR OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESGRANITE LEDGE ELECTRICAL CONTR
170.00WIRING REPAIR OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
170.00SYSTEM REPAIR OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
850.00
3,605.00GO BONDS-FIRE STATIONS G&A IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDIGREEN ACRES SPRINKLER CO
13,450.00PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
32.45-CAPITAL REPLACEMENT B/S DUE TO OTHER GOVTS
1,580.73MUNICIPAL BLDG IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
18,603.28
57.71PARK GROUNDS MAINTENANCE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESGREEN HORIZONS
2,111.13WEED CONTROL OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
682.00SSD #4 G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
2,850.84
175.47REFORESTATION FUND OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESGREENE, ANDREA
175.47
252.59PARK GROUNDS MAINTENANCE LANDSCAPING MATERIALSGREENLIFE SUPPLY LLC
252.59
297,319.11GREENSBORO HIA OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESGREENSBORO CONDOMINIUM OWNERS
297,319.11
31.64ORGANIZED REC G & A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CARGROSS, ALISON
31.64
4,800.00WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICEGROTH SEWER & WATER
4,800.00
451.92EMPLOYEE FLEX SPEND G&A HEALTH INSURANCEGROUP HEALTH INC - WORKSITE
451.92
130.00OPERATIONSTRAININGGYM WORKS INC
130.00
297.24WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL SUPPLIESHACH CO
297.24
3,324.00GO BONDS-FIRE STATIONS G&A BUILDINGS & STRUCTURESHALLBERG ENGINEERING INC
3,324.00
City Council Meeting of September 24, 2012 (Item No. 4k)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 12
9/18/2012CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:55:50R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
12Page -Council Check Summary
9/14/2012 -8/25/2012
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
484.50SOFTBALLOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESHAMILTON, MIKE
484.50
45.00REC CENTER BUILDING GENERAL SUPPLIESHAMMEL GREEN & ABRAHAMSON INC
45.00
1,370.25AQUATIC PARK BUDGET GENERAL SUPPLIESHAWKINS INC
8,800.66WATER UTILITY G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
10,170.91
1,914.13PARK GROUNDS MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIESHCI CHEMTEC INC
1,914.13
640.18PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDIHEDBERG AGGREGATES
220.54STORM WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
1,016.94STORM WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE
1,877.66
35.40WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERSHENDERSON, DEBBIE
35.40
425.00SOFTBALLOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESHENDERSON, TRACY
425.00
129.50ASSESSING G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPSHENNEPIN COUNTY TAXPAYER SERVI
129.50
534.38IT G & A COMPUTER SERVICESHENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER
4,052.08POLICE G & A SUBSISTENCE SERVICE
21.50OPERATIONSGENERAL SUPPLIES
4,607.96
799.71ENGINEERING G & A RENTAL EQUIPMENTHERTZ EQUIPMENT RENTAL CORP
799.71
9,990.00SEWER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICEHIGHVIEW PLUMBING INC
9,990.00
2,000.00ESCROWSDEMO / BROOKSIDE TRAFFICHILL, AMY
2,000.00
City Council Meeting of September 24, 2012 (Item No. 4k)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 13
9/18/2012CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:55:50R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
13Page -Council Check Summary
9/14/2012 -8/25/2012
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
79.39WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERSHILZENDAGER, LEONARD
79.39
1,627.57GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIESHIRSHFIELDS
1,627.57
28.59ROUTINE MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIESHOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES
91.77PAINTINGOTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
55.13PARK MAINTENANCE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
146.75IRRIGATION MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES
17.92BEAUTIFICATION / FLOWERS LANDSCAPING MATERIALS
42.85WATER UTILITY G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
17.06WATER UTILITY G&A EQUIPMENT PARTS
70.32WATER UTILITY G&A BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES
167.33REILLY BUDGET BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES
595.57SEWER UTILITY G&A BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES
35.25STORM WATER UTILITY G&A EQUIPMENT PARTS
1,268.54
383.13GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICEHOPKINS AUTO BODY INC
2,164.80UNINSURED LOSS G&A UNINSURED LOSS
2,547.93
91.58ASSESSING G & A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CARHOPPE, MARK
91.58
75.00KICKBALLOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESHOWES, JEFFREY
275.00SOFTBALLOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
350.00
100.00VOLLEYBALLOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESHOWES, JENNIFER
100.00
125.00KICKBALLOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESHOWES, KRISTINE
275.00SOFTBALLOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
400.00
5,578.25PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDIHRGREEN
600.00TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT POLICE EQUIPMENT
6,178.25
22.87SUMMER GRADE 6-8 GENERAL SUPPLIESHSBC BUSINESS SOLUTIONS
City Council Meeting of September 24, 2012 (Item No. 4k)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 14
9/18/2012CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:55:50R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
14Page -Council Check Summary
9/14/2012 -8/25/2012
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
22.87
40,376.16SYSTEM REPAIR OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESHUBBELL LIGHTING INC
40,376.16
112.50GREEN REMODELING PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESHUIRAS, KEN
112.50
2,500.00ESCROWSPMC ESCROWHUNTLEY, RAPHAEL
2,500.00
59.86REFORESTATION FUND OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESHUTCHINS, MELISSA
59.86
50.15PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYI-STATE TRUCK CENTER
50.15
80.44IRRIGATION MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIESINDELCO
80.44
590.00FINANCE G & A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTATINSIGHT EDGE
590.00
5,000.00RIGHT-OF-WAY IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDIINTEGRA REALTY RESOURCES
5,000.00
32.17PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYINVER GROVE FORD
32.17
212.50GREEN REMODELING PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESJENNIGES, NICHOLAS
212.50
84.00PARK MAINTENANCE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIESJERRY'S HARDWARE
6.88GENERAL REPAIR GENERAL SUPPLIES
90.88
300.00WATER UTILITY G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIESJM CONSULTING LTD
300.00
871.76IRRIGATION MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIESJOHN DEERE LANDSCAPES/LESCO
114.40IRRIGATION MAINTENANCE LANDSCAPING MATERIALS
986.16
City Council Meeting of September 24, 2012 (Item No. 4k)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 15
9/18/2012CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:55:50R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
15Page -Council Check Summary
9/14/2012 -8/25/2012
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
34.95INSPECTIONS G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPSJOURNAL OF LIGHT CONSTRUCTION
34.95
77.48REFORESTATION FUND OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESKAEDING, PAUL
77.48
70.00INSTRUCTIONAL SKATING LESSONS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESKARCHER-RAMOS, AMBER
70.00
265.00LIFEGUARDINGOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESKEHOSS, ADAM
265.00
276.92EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S WAGE GARNISHMENTSKELLER, JASMINE Z
276.92
48.29WESTWOOD G & A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CARKENIGER, ALISA
48.29
2,577.80ESCROWSKENNEDY & GRAVEN
306.00GREENSBORO HIA LEGAL SERVICES
1,150.50WESTWOOD VILLAS HIA LEGAL SERVICES
4,034.30
60.34REFORESTATION FUND OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESKENT, RALEIGH
60.34
1,030.00PRE-SCHOOL PROGRAMS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESKIDCREATE STUDIO
1,030.00
585.00NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION GRANT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESKILMER POND HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIA
585.00
215.00INSPECTIONS G & A CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCEKLAWITTER, ROSS
215.00
171,309.49GO BONDS-FIRE STATIONS G&A BUILDINGS & STRUCTURESKRAUS-ANDERSON CONSTRUCTION CO
171,309.49
353.46ARENA MAINTENANCE OPERATIONAL SUPPLIESKRISS PREMIUM PRODUCTS INC
353.46
City Council Meeting of September 24, 2012 (Item No. 4k)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 16
9/18/2012CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:55:50R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
16Page -Council Check Summary
9/14/2012 -8/25/2012
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
787.78BLDG/GROUNDS OPS & MAINT BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIESKRUGE-AIR INC
787.78
162.50GREEN REMODELING PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESLADD, LEIGHTON
162.50
251.01IT G & A GENERAL SUPPLIESLADEN'S BUSINESS MACHINES INC
251.01
10.82PARK MAINTENANCE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIESLAKES GAS CO
10.82
296.78WATER UTILITY G&A EQUIPMENT PARTSLARSCO INC
516.47WATER UTILITY G&A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE
813.25
2,417.49MUNICIPAL BLDG BUILDING MTCE SERVICELARSON, JH CO
2,417.49
92.21GENERAL REPAIR GENERAL SUPPLIESLAWSON PRODUCTS INC
92.21
16,371.00GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET PREPAID EXPENSESLEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES
8,186.00ADMINISTRATION G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS
24,557.00
15.00OPERATIONSTRAININGLEAGUE OF MN CITIES
15.00
165.39SUMMER PLAYGROUNDS MILEAGE-PERSONAL CARLEE, KATIE
165.39
104.79INSTRUCTIONAL SKATING LESSONS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESLENTNER, LAURA
104.79
8,238.49TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT OFFICE EQUIPMENTLOGIS
8,238.49
152.07ORGANIZED REC G & A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CARLOMBARDI, JIM
152.07
560.00SOCCEROTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESLORINSER, ANTHONY
City Council Meeting of September 24, 2012 (Item No. 4k)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 17
9/18/2012CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:55:50R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
17Page -Council Check Summary
9/14/2012 -8/25/2012
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
560.00
141.37PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYLUBRICATION TECHNOLOGIES INC
141.37
210.00GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICELUPIENT CHEVROLET OF BLOOMINGT
210.00
2,277.83FABRICATIONOTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESM-R SIGN CO INC
2,277.83
40.38INSTRUCTIONAL SKATING LESSONS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESMACGREGOR-HANNAH, MAREN
40.38
77.62PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYMACQUEEN EQUIP CO
77.62
11.18WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERSMAPLE BANK
11.18
226.79SSD 1 G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESMAPLE CREST LANDSCAPE
299.26SSD 2 G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
170.43SSD 3 BALANCE SHEET OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
149.63SSD #4 G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
159.14SSD #5 G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
79.52SSD #6 G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
1,865.00MUNICIPAL BLDG IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
2,949.77
59.23REFORESTATION FUND OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESMCELROY, KATIE
59.23
4.35PARK MAINTENANCE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIESMENARDS
8.30BRICK HOUSE (1324)GENERAL SUPPLIES
110.42WESTWOOD G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
85.45REILLY BUDGET BUILDING MTCE SERVICE
208.52
19.17OPERATIONSSMALL TOOLSMES - MIDAM
19.17
89.13KICKBALLGENERAL SUPPLIESMETRO ATHLETIC SUPPLY
City Council Meeting of September 24, 2012 (Item No. 4k)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 18
9/18/2012CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:55:50R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
18Page -Council Check Summary
9/14/2012 -8/25/2012
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
89.13
103,019.40INSPECTIONS G & A DUE TO OTHER GOVTSMETROPOLITAN COUNCIL
34,182.55REILLY BUDGET CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICE
137,201.95
282.37REILLY BUDGET EQUIPMENT PARTSMID AMERICA METER INC
282.37
20,012.88PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYMIDWAY FORD
20,012.88
304,236.49CONSTRUCTION PAYMENTS IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDIMIDWEST ASPHALT CORP
310.11STORM WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE
304,546.60
1,808.43OPERATIONSFIRE PREVENTION SUPPLIESMIDWEST BADGE & NOVELTY CO
113.13OPERATIONSOPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
984.64SOLID WASTE COLLECTIONS PRINTING & PUBLISHING
2,906.20
1,225.00WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESMIDWEST TESTING LLC
1,225.00
111.00ASSESSING G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPSMINNEAPOLIS AREA ASSOC REALTOR
111.00
152.12EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S ACCRUED OTHER BENEFITSMINNESOTA BENEFIT ASSOC
152.12
455.73OPERATIONSTRAININGMINNESOTA CONWAY
455.73
21,558.00WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESMINNESOTA DEPT HEALTH
21,558.00
93.81ROUTINE MAINTENANCE OPERATIONAL SUPPLIESMINNESOTA GLOVE & SAFETY INC
93.81
16.00EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S ACCRUED OTHER BENEFITSMINNESOTA NCPERS LIFE INS
16.00
City Council Meeting of September 24, 2012 (Item No. 4k)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 19
9/18/2012CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:55:50R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
19Page -Council Check Summary
9/14/2012 -8/25/2012
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
185.00WESTWOOD G & A TRAININGMNA
185.00
126.00ADULT PROGRAMS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESMOELLER, STEEN
126.00
145.00-GO BONDS-FIRE STATIONS BAL S RETAINED PERCENTAGEMOLIN CONCRETE PRODUCTS CO
2,900.00GO BONDS-FIRE STATIONS G&A BUILDINGS & STRUCTURES
2,755.00
505.10FINANCE G & A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTATMONTILINO, DEBRA
505.10
82.55REFORESTATION FUND OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESMOORE, JUDITH
82.55
2,865.00PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDIMOST DEPENDABLE FOUNTAINS
2,865.00
627.63PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYMTI DISTRIBUTING CO
627.63
500.00REILLY BUDGET OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESMVTL LABORATORIES
500.00
635.56PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYNAPA (GENUINE PARTS CO)
37.70ARENA MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE
193.87GENERAL REPAIR GENERAL SUPPLIES
867.13
185.42ADMINISTRATION G & A TELEPHONENEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS
110.39HUMAN RESOURCES TELEPHONE
570.08RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT TELEPHONE
126.66ASSESSING G & A TELEPHONE
161.75FINANCE G & A TELEPHONE
883.34POLICE G & A TELEPHONE
400.68OPERATIONSTELEPHONE
575.17INSPECTIONS G & A TELEPHONE
507.32ENGINEERING G & A TELEPHONE
548.98PUBLIC WORKS OPS G & A TELEPHONE
233.36PARK AND REC G&A TELEPHONE
432.73ORGANIZED REC G & A TELEPHONE
City Council Meeting of September 24, 2012 (Item No. 4k)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 20
9/18/2012CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:55:50R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
20Page -Council Check Summary
9/14/2012 -8/25/2012
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
397.57PARK MAINTENANCE G & A TELEPHONE
109.15ENVIRONMENTAL G & A TELEPHONE
231.58WESTWOOD G & A TELEPHONE
158.69VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A TELEPHONE
422.21WATER UTILITY G&A TELEPHONE
249.27SEWER UTILITY G&A TELEPHONE
109.29SOLID WASTE G&A TELEPHONE
6,413.64
225.00MOVE-UP PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESNGUYEN ARCHITECTS
225.00
184.21REFORESTATION FUND OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESO'HARA, ROBERT
184.21
54.29ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL SUPPLIESOFFICE DEPOT
109.03FINANCE G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES
49.10GENERAL INFORMATION OFFICE SUPPLIES
316.50POLICE G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES
15.69POLICE G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
148.36INSPECTIONS G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
58.87PUBLIC WORKS G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES
59.21WATER UTILITY G&A OFFICE SUPPLIES
811.05
1,595.25INSPECTIONS G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESOFFICE TEAM
1,595.25
90.32SEWER UTILITY G&A EQUIPMENT PARTSOLSEN CHAIN & CABLE CO INC
90.32
2,818.55-GO BONDS-FIRE STATIONS BAL S RETAINED PERCENTAGEOMANN BROTHERS PAVING INC
56,371.00GO BONDS-FIRE STATIONS G&A BUILDINGS & STRUCTURES
53,552.45
106.88NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION GRANT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESON SITE SANITATION
106.88
24,000.00ESCROWSGENERALPARKSHORE SENIOR CAMPUS
24,000.00
68.63INSTRUCTIONAL SKATING LESSONS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESPARR, MELISSA
City Council Meeting of September 24, 2012 (Item No. 4k)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 21
9/18/2012CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:55:50R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
21Page -Council Check Summary
9/14/2012 -8/25/2012
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
68.63
372.00SUMMER PLAYGROUNDS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESPAYNE, DOUGLAS
372.00
411.17BUILDING MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICEPBBS EQUIPMENT CORP
411.17
9,133.75REILLY BUDGET OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICEPETERSON COMPANIES INC
9,133.75
24.88SUPPORT SERVICES COMPUTER SUPPLIESPETTY CASH
24.88
701.68PARK GROUNDS MAINTENANCE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESPHILIP'S TREE CARE INC
347.34WEED CONTROL OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
1,049.02
151.04PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYPIONEER RIM & WHEEL CO
151.04
230.73INSTRUCTIONAL SKATING LESSONS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESPOLK, MARLA
230.73
779.42PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYPOMP'S TIRE SERVICE INC
779.42
361.80PARK MAINTENANCE G & A TELEPHONEPOPP.COM INC
361.80
90.00POLICE G & A LICENSESPOST BOARD
90.00
190.00POSTAL SERVICES POSTAGEPOSTMASTER
190.00
2,371.34TREE MAINTENANCE OTHERPOWERPLAN OIB
2,371.34
214.18STORM WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICEPRAIRIE RESTORATIONS INC
214.18
City Council Meeting of September 24, 2012 (Item No. 4k)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 22
9/18/2012CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:55:50R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
22Page -Council Check Summary
9/14/2012 -8/25/2012
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
9,843.19TREE DISEASE PUBLIC CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICEPRECISION LANDSCAPE & TREE
9,843.19
3,736.39GO BONDS-FIRE STATIONS G&A IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDIPRESSWRITE PRINTING INC
3,736.39
180.00ARENA MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICEPRINTERS SERVICE INC
180.00
665.50DIAL-A-RIDE PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESPRISM EXPRESS MANAGER
665.50
53.04-GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET DUE TO OTHER GOVTSPROMOS 911
824.56OPERATIONSFIRE PREVENTION SUPPLIES
771.52
5,998.01WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICEQ3 CONTRACTING
1,918.50SEWER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE
3,742.91STORM WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE
11,659.42
412.96PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYQUEST ENGINEERING INC
412.96
11.56ESCROWSQUICKSILVER EXPRESS COURIER
34.22VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A POSTAGE
45.78
67.84IT G & A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICEQUILL CORP
67.84
115.59REFORESTATION FUND OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESRAGEN, MICHELLE
115.59
2,000.00WESTWOOD G & A LANDSCAPING MATERIALSRAMSEY COUNTY
133.00WESTWOOD G & A OFFICE EQUIPMENT
992.03PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
3,125.03
2,602.66FACILITY OPERATIONS GARBAGE/REFUSE SERVICERANDY'S SANITATION INC
1,185.84REC CENTER BUILDING GARBAGE/REFUSE SERVICE
1,029.51SOLID WASTE COLLECTIONS GARBAGE/REFUSE SERVICE
City Council Meeting of September 24, 2012 (Item No. 4k)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 23
9/18/2012CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:55:50R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
23Page -Council Check Summary
9/14/2012 -8/25/2012
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
4,818.01
150.00ENGINEERING G & A CLOTHING AND TOOL ALLOWANCERED WING SHOE STORE
150.00
130.94POLICE G & A OFFICE SUPPLIESREGENCY OFFICE PRODUCTS LLC
130.94
72.00INSPECTIONS G & A BUILDINGRESTORATION PROFESSIONALS
72.00
1,446.40EMPLOYEE FLEX SPEND G&A TUITIONREUVERS, TERRY
1,446.40
1,000.00ESCROWSDEMO / BROOKSIDE TRAFFICRIBNICK, JEROME
1,000.00
5,887.49IT G & A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICERICOH USA INC
5,887.49
178.50SOFTBALLOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESROGERS, KYLE
178.50
276.50ORGANIZED REC G & A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CARROSA, NATE
276.50
575.00VOLLEYBALLOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESROSEN, LILLIAN
575.00
1,047.38STORM WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICEROYAL CONCRETE PIPE INC
1,047.38
647.58EMPLOYEE FLEX SPEND G&A TUITIONRUD, JOSEPH
647.58
838.05SEALCOAT PREPARATION OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESRUFFRIDGE JOHNSON EQUIPMENT CO
838.05
2,500.00ESCROWSDEMO / BROOKSIDE TRAFFICSALMELA, PAUL
2,500.00
28.94INSTRUCTIONAL SKATING LESSONS GENERAL SUPPLIESSAURER, MARTI
City Council Meeting of September 24, 2012 (Item No. 4k)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 24
9/18/2012CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:55:50R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
24Page -Council Check Summary
9/14/2012 -8/25/2012
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
68.00INSTRUCTIONAL SKATING LESSONS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
96.94
2,275.00GO BONDS-FIRE STATIONS BAL S RETAINED PERCENTAGESCHINDLER ELEVATOR CORP
2,275.00
95.00REFORESTATION FUND OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESSCHREINER, PAUL
95.00
45.23INSPECTIONS G & A GENERAL SUPPLIESSCHWAAB INC
45.23
31,104.31CE INSPECTION IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDISEH
551.00PE DESIGN IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
4,404.11SEWER UTILITY G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
36,059.42
621.00ORGANIZED REC G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESSESAC
621.00
213.50STREET CAPITAL PROJ G & A IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDISGC HORIZON LLC
210.00WATER CAPITAL PROJ G & A IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
173.25SEWER CAPITAL PROJ G & A IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
596.75
54.50ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESSHRED-IT USA MINNEAPOLIS
10.00FINANCE G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
50.00POLICE G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
10.00OPERATIONSGENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
10.00INSPECTIONS G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
134.50
80.00GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIESSIEGEL DISPLAY PRODUCTS
80.00
450.56GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICESIMPLEXGRINNELL LP
450.56
20,623.68PAINTINGOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESSIR LINES-A-LOT
20,623.68
41.60INSPECTIONS G & A ELECTRICALSKIBNESS, MARK
City Council Meeting of September 24, 2012 (Item No. 4k)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 25
9/18/2012CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:55:50R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
25Page -Council Check Summary
9/14/2012 -8/25/2012
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
41.60
4,445.00STORM WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESSL-SERCO
4,445.00
90.92REFORESTATION FUND OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESSOTEBEER, WENDY
90.92
3,150.00WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESSOURCE WATER SOLUTIONS LLC
3,150.00
1,729.90IT G & A DATACOMMUNICATIONSSPRINT
1,729.90
8.66-FACILITIES MCTE G & A BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEESSPS COMPANIES INC
462.76PLUMBING MTCE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES
454.10
396.00-CAPITAL REPLACEMENT B/S DUE TO OTHER GOVTSSQUARERIGGER SOFTWARE
5,856.75TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT OFFICE EQUIPMENT
299.25TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE
5,760.00
68.23ENGINEERING G & A ENGINEERING SERVICESSRF CONSULTING GROUP INC
469.88PE DESIGN IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
1,378.44CE INSPECTION IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
7,354.39CONSTRUCTION PAYMENTS IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
9,270.94
979.00UNINSURED LOSS G&A UNINSURED LOSSST CROIX REC CO
979.00
15,394.29TREE DISEASE PRIVATE CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICEST CROIX TREE SERVICE INC
15,394.29
523.40NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION GRANT PUBLIC LIABILITY INSURANCESTATE FARM INSURANCE
523.40
1,218.50-GO BONDS-FIRE STATIONS BAL S RETAINED PERCENTAGESTEENBERG-WATRUD CONSTRUCTION
24,370.00GO BONDS-FIRE STATIONS G&A BUILDINGS & STRUCTURES
23,151.50
City Council Meeting of September 24, 2012 (Item No. 4k)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 26
9/18/2012CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:55:50R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
26Page -Council Check Summary
9/14/2012 -8/25/2012
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
115.86REFORESTATION FUND OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESSTEENLAGE, BARAK
115.86
9,000.00ESCROWSDEMO / BROOKSIDE TRAFFICSTRAND, JEANNINE
9,000.00
20.58POLICE G & A POLICE EQUIPMENTSTREICHER'S
610.00ERUOPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
2,680.00PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORY
3,310.58
112.50GREEN REMODELING PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESSTULBERG, JEAN
112.50
1,650.00PE DESIGN IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDISUMMIT ENVIROSOLUTIONS INC
26,460.39REILLY BUDGET GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
28,110.39
277.25ADMINISTRATION G & A LEGAL NOTICESSUN NEWSPAPERS
277.25
499.00MUNICIPAL BLDG IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDISWANSON & YOUNGDALE INC
499.00
125.44SOCCEROPERATIONAL SUPPLIESTAHO SPORTSWEAR
125.44
26.39SUMMER THEATER ARTS CAMP GENERAL SUPPLIESTARGET BANK
26.39
59.34ADMINISTRATION G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESTELELANGUAGE INC
59.34
104.06BUILDING MAINTENANCE BUILDING MTCE SERVICETERMINIX INT
104.06
5.00OPERATIONSGENERAL SUPPLIESTEXA TONKA TAILORING
5.00
20.39REILLY BUDGET EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICETHERMASTOR PRODUCTS GROUP
20.39
City Council Meeting of September 24, 2012 (Item No. 4k)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 27
9/18/2012CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:55:50R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
27Page -Council Check Summary
9/14/2012 -8/25/2012
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
76.71INSTRUCTIONAL SKATING LESSONS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESTHOMPSON, HOLLY
76.71
643.00GO BONDS-FIRE STATIONS G&A IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDITIERNEY BROTHERS INC
643.00
604.63ADMINISTRATION G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESTIMESAVER OFF SITE SECRETARIAL
604.63
429.48WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESTKDA
5,498.53PE INVEST/REVIEW/PER IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
5,193.76PE DESIGN IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
11,121.77
57,600.00PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDITOWN & COUNTRY FENCE INC
57,600.00
750.00COUNTS AND STUDIES OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESTRAFFIC DATA INC
750.00
2,003.91STORM WATER OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESTREE TRUST
5,928.43REFORESTATION FUND OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
7,932.34
983.84PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYTRI STATE BOBCAT
983.84
65.97REFORESTATION FUND OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESTSATSOS, GEORGE & STEPHANIE
65.97
266.40PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYTURFWERKS
266.40
68.75-GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET DUE TO OTHER GOVTSTWIN CITY GARAGE DOOR CO
1,068.75GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE BUILDING MTCE SERVICE
1,000.00
120.00ADMINISTRATION G & A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTATTWIN WEST CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
120.00
261.00GO BONDS-FIRE STATIONS G&A IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDIUHL CO INC
261.00
City Council Meeting of September 24, 2012 (Item No. 4k)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 28
9/18/2012CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:55:50R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
28Page -Council Check Summary
9/14/2012 -8/25/2012
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
1,066.22STORM WATER UTILITY G&A RENTAL EQUIPMENTUNITED RENTALS INC
1,066.22
150.00EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S WAGE GARNISHMENTSUNITED STATES TREASURY
150.00
240.00EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S UNITED WAYUNITED WAY OF MINNEAPOLIS AREA
240.00
30.00STORM WATER UTILITY G&A TRAININGUNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA
30.00
150.00STORM WATER UTILITY G&A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTATUNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA REGIST
150.00
120.00POLICE G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESUNO DOS TRES COMMUNICATIONS
120.00
557.00HUMAN RESOURCES RECRUITMENTUS HEALTH WORKS MEDICAL GROUP
557.00
231.13WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESUSA BLUE BOOK
231.13
30,740.89WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICEVALLEY-RICH CO INC
30,740.89
89.91ENVIRONMENTAL G & A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CARVAUGHAN, JIM
89.91
74.06COMMUNICATIONS/GV REIMBURSEABL TELEPHONEVERIZON WIRELESS
922.31TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT OFFICE EQUIPMENT
996.37
918.27WATER UTILITY G&A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICEVESSCO INC
918.27
54.63IRRIGATION MAINTENANCE LANDSCAPING MATERIALSVIKING ELECTRIC SUPPLY
54.63
128.00OPERATIONSSUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPSVOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTERS' BENEFI
City Council Meeting of September 24, 2012 (Item No. 4k)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 29
9/18/2012CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:55:50R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
29Page -Council Check Summary
9/14/2012 -8/25/2012
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
128.00
97.46REFORESTATION FUND OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESWAHYU, RIKY
97.46
243.30WESTWOOD G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESWASTE MANAGEMENT OF WI-MN
1,240.93SEWER UTILITY G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
1,484.23
1,928.81WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICEWATER CONSERVATION SERVICE INC
1,928.81
1,728.61CONCESSIONSCONCESSION SUPPLIESWATSON CO INC
1,728.61
702.31SEWER UTILITY G&A BUILDING MTCE SERVICEWEBER ELECTRIC
702.31
71.53REFORESTATION FUND OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESWEETS, SANDRA
71.53
114,060.80WESTWOOD VILLAS HIA OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESWESTWOOD VILLA ASSN
114,060.80
1,751.00MUNICIPAL BLDG IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDIWHEELER HARDWARE
1,751.00
7,443.84ROUTINE MAINTENANCE OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESWHEELER LUMBER LLC
7,443.84
78.20REFORESTATION FUND OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESWHITTLESEY, NANCY
78.20
85.50PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDIWRAP CITY GRAPHICS
85.50
1,452.31FACILITY OPERATIONS ELECTRIC SERVICEXCEL ENERGY
653.46WESTWOOD G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
23,509.15ENTERPRISE G & A ELECTRIC SERVICE
92.86STORM WATER UTILITY G&A ELECTRIC SERVICE
255.94OPERATIONSELECTRIC SERVICE
25,963.72
City Council Meeting of September 24, 2012 (Item No. 4k)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 30
9/18/2012CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:55:50R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
30Page -Council Check Summary
9/14/2012 -8/25/2012
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
162.24ADMINISTRATION G & A MEETING EXPENSEYOGASTUDIO
162.24
978.98SWEEPINGEQUIPMENT PARTSZARNOTH BRUSH WORKS INC
978.98
13.75-PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH DUE TO OTHER GOVTSZIEBART OF MINNESOTA INC
213.75PREVENTATIVE MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE
200.00
1,056.90PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYZIEGLER INC
1,056.90
155.09AQUATIC PARK BUDGET GENERAL SUPPLIESZIP PRINTING
155.09
Report Totals 2,070,861.87
City Council Meeting of September 24, 2012 (Item No. 4k)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 31
Meeting Date: September 24, 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:
Breck School - Public Hearing and Final Bond Resolution - Issuance of Private Activity Revenue
Note, Series 2012A
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Mayor to open the public hearing, solicit comments and close the public hearing. Motion to
Adopt Final Bond Resolution Authorizing the Issuance of Private Activity Revenue Note, Series
2012A for Breck School.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
• Does the City Council desire to undertake the action as proposed?
• The proposed action is consistent with the City’s approved policy for issuing private
activity revenue bonds.
BACKGROUND:
Breck School plans to demolish the existing upper school, previously Golden Valley High
School, and build a new upper school. The project also includes modernizing the school's
science facilities. The construction started this summer and will be complete before the 2013-
2014 school year begins. Breck School is located in Golden Valley and draws students from
many of the western suburbs, including the City of Minnetonka and the City of St. Louis Park.
The City of Minnetonka will be issuing $6,500,000 in bonds and the City of St. Louis Park is
also being asked to issue $6,500,000 in bonds to help finance the project. This is an acceptable
joint effort for Breck School, the City of Minnetonka and the City of St. Louis Park to participate
in. The bonds will be bought by U.S. Bank National Association in a negotiated sale.
The synopsis for finalizing this process and for issuing these bonds is as follows: a public
hearing scheduled for the regular City Council meeting of September 24, 2012. After the public
hearing is closed, the City Council will be asked to consider a resolution authorizing issuance of
the bonds and the execution of related documents. If the City Council approves the resolution,
this would allow the bonds to be issued on a date agreed upon by the parties. Representatives
from Kennedy and Graven and Breck School will be available to answer any questions the City
Council or public may have. Also, attached is a letter outlining the process from Kennedy and
Graven.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
These bonds are not obligations of the City in any respect, but rather are payable solely from
revenues of Breck School. They will also pay a fee of 1/8th of one percent in two semi-annual
payments to the City based on the amount of bonds outstanding each year. These monies will be
deposited in the City’s Housing Rehabilitation Fund.
City Council Meeting of September 24, 2012 (Item No. 6a) Page 2
Subject: Breck School - Public Hearing & Final Bond Resolution - Issuance of Revenue Note, Series 2012A
VISION CONSIDERATION:
The fee the City collects on bond issues such as this help fund programs out of the City’s
Housing Rehab Fund which is consistent with the City’s Strategic Direction related to housing
Attachments: Resolution
Letter from Kennedy and Graven
Prepared by: Brian A. Swanson, Controller
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of September 24, 2012 (Item No. 6a) Page 3
Subject: Breck School - Public Hearing & Final Bond Resolution - Issuance of Revenue Note, Series 2012A
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 12-____
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE, SALE AND DELIVERY
OF THE REVENUE NOTE (BRECK SCHOOL PROJECT), SERIES
2012A; APPROVING THE FORM OF AND AUTHORIZING THE
EXECUTION AND DELIVERY OF THE NOTE AND RELATED
DOCUMENTS; PROVIDING FOR THE SECURITY, RIGHTS, AND
REMEDIES WITH RESPECT TO THE NOTE; AND GRANTING
APPROVAL FOR CERTAIN OTHER ACTIONS WITH RESPECT
THERETO
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota (the
“City”), as follows:
Section 1. Background.
1.01. Statutory Authorization. The City is authorized by Minnesota Statutes, Sections
469.152 through 469.1651, as amended (the “Act”), to issue revenue obligations to finance, in
whole or in part, the cost of the acquisition, construction, reconstruction, improvement,
betterment, or extension of a “project,” defined in the Act, in part, as any properties, real or
personal, used or useful in connection with a revenue producing enterprise, or any combination
of two or more such enterprises engaged in any business.
1.02. The Series 2012A Note. Breck School, a Minnesota nonprofit corporation (the
“Borrower”), has requested that the City issue its Revenue Note (Breck School Project), Series
2012A (the “Series 2012A Note”), in one or more series, in the original aggregate principal
amount not to exceed $6,500,000, and loan the proceeds derived from the sale of the Series
2012A Note to the Borrower pursuant to the terms of a Loan Agreement, to be dated on or after
October 1, 2012 (the “Loan Agreement”), between the City and the Borrower. The Series 2012A
Note is proposed to be purchased by U.S. Bank National Association, a national banking
association (the “Lender”).
1.03. The Project. The Borrower has also requested that the City of Minnetonka,
Minnesota (“Minnetonka”), issue its Revenue Note (Breck School Project), Series 2012B (the
“Series 2012B Note,” and together with the Series 2012A Note, the “Notes”), in one or more
series, in the original aggregate principal amount not to exceed $6,500,000 and loan the proceeds
thereof to the Borrower. The proceeds of the Notes will be applied to the following purposes:
(i) to finance the costs of the demolition of a significant portion of the existing Upper School on
the Borrower’s campus located at 123 Ottawa Avenue North in Golden Valley, Minnesota, and
the construction and equipping of a new Upper School on the same site, including the
rehabilitation and repurposing of the existing science facilities (the “Project”); (ii) to fund one or
more reserve funds, if necessary; (iii) to pay capitalized interest on the Notes; and (iv) to pay the
costs of issuance of the Notes and other costs related to the Project.
City Council Meeting of September 24, 2012 (Item No. 6a) Page 4
Subject: Breck School - Public Hearing & Final Bond Resolution - Issuance of Revenue Note, Series 2012A
1.04. Joint Powers Authority.
(a) Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 471.656, as amended, a city may issue
obligations to finance the acquisition or improvement of property located outside of the
corporate boundaries of such city if the obligations are issued under a joint powers agreement in
which one or more of the parties to the joint powers agreement issue such obligations and the
property is located entirely within the boundaries of one or more of the parties to the joint
powers agreement.
(b) Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 471.59, as amended, by the terms of a
joint powers agreement entered into through action of their governing bodies, two or more cities
may jointly or cooperatively exercise any power common to the contracting parties or any
similar powers, including those which are the same except for the territorial limits within which
they may be exercised and the joint powers agreement may provide for the exercise of such
powers by one or more of the participating governmental units on behalf of the other
participating units.
(c) The City, Minnetonka, and the City of Golden Valley, Minnesota (“Golden
Valley”) are all authorized by the Act to issue revenue obligations to finance the Project. The
City, Golden Valley, and Minnetonka are proposing to enter into a Joint Powers Agreement, to
be dated on or after October 1, 2012 (the “Joint Powers Agreement”), pursuant to which Golden
Valley, as host city, will consent to the issuance of revenue obligations and the financing of the
Project by the City and Minnetonka, and pursuant to which the City and Minnetonka will agree
to issue such revenue obligations to finance the Project.
1.05. Tax-Exempt Status of Borrower. The Borrower has represented to the City that it
is exempt from federal income taxation under Section 501(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986, as amended (the “Code”), as a result of the application of Section 501(c)(3) of the Code.
1.06. Loan Repayments. The loan repayments to be made by the Borrower under the
Loan Agreement will be fixed so as to produce revenue sufficient to pay the principal of,
premium, if any, and interest on the Series 2012A Note when due. The City will assign its rights
to the basic payments and certain other rights under the Loan Agreement to the Lender pursuant
to the terms of a Pledge Agreement, to be dated on or after October 1, 2012 (the “Pledge
Agreement”), between the City and the Lender. The Borrower will secure its obligations by
executing and delivering to the Lender a Supplemental Agreement, to be dated on or after
October 1, 2012 (the “Supplemental Agreement”).
1.07. Disbursement of Series 2012A Note Proceeds. The proceeds of the Series 2012A
Note will be disbursed by the Lender to the Borrower pursuant to the Loan Agreement and the
Supplemental Agreement.
1.08. Documents. Forms of the following documents have been submitted to the City
and are now on file with the City: (i) a form of the Series 2012A Note; (ii) the Loan Agreement;
(iii) the Pledge Agreement; (iv) the Joint Powers Agreement; and (v) the Supplemental
Agreement.
1.09. Public Hearing. Section 147(f) of the Code, and regulations promulgated
thereunder, requires that prior to the issuance of the Note, the City Council of the City must
approve the Note after conducting a public hearing thereon. Section 469.154, subdivision 4, of
City Council Meeting of September 24, 2012 (Item No. 6a) Page 5
Subject: Breck School - Public Hearing & Final Bond Resolution - Issuance of Revenue Note, Series 2012A
the Act requires that prior to submitting an application to the Minnesota Department of
Employment and Economic Development (“DEED”) for approval of the Project, the City
Council must conduct a public hearing on the proposal to undertake projects authorized to be
financed under the terms of the Act.
A notice of public hearing (the “Public Notice”) was published in the Sun-Sailor, the
official newspaper and a newspaper of general circulation in the City, with respect to: (i) the
required public hearing under Section 147(f) of the Code; (ii) the required hearing under Section
469.154, subdivision 4, of the Act; and (iii) approval of the issuance of the Note. The Public
Notice was published at least fourteen (14) days before a special meeting of the City Council
conducted on September 24, 2012. On such date, the City Council conducted a public hearing at
which a reasonable opportunity was provided for interested individuals to express their views,
both orally and in writing, with respect to the proposed issuance of the Series 2012A Note and
the location and nature of the Project.
Section 2. Issuance of the Series 2012A Note.
2.01. Findings. The City Council hereby finds, determines, and declares that:
(a) The issuance and sale of the Series 2012A Note, the execution and delivery by the
City of the Series 2012A Note, the Loan Agreement and the Pledge Agreement, and the
performance of all covenants and agreements of the City contained in the Loan Agreement, the
Pledge Agreement, and the Joint Powers Agreement are undertaken pursuant to the Act.
(b) The Project furthers the economic development purposes stated in Section
469.152 of the Act and constitutes a revenue producing “project,” as defined in Section 469.153,
subdivision 2(b), of the Act.
(c) The loan repayments to be made by the Borrower under the Loan Agreement are
fixed to produce revenues sufficient to provide for the prompt payment of principal of, premium,
if any, and interest on the Series 2012A Note issued under this resolution when due, and the
Loan Agreement also provides that the Borrower is required to pay all expenses of the operation
and maintenance of the Project, including, but without limitation, adequate insurance thereon and
insurance against all liability for injury to persons or property arising from the operation thereof,
and all lawfully imposed taxes and special assessments levied upon or with respect to the Project
and payable during the term of the Loan Agreement.
(d) As provided in the Loan Agreement, the Series 2012A Note shall not be payable
from nor charged upon any funds other than the revenues pledged to its payment, nor shall the
City be subject to any liability thereon, except as otherwise provided in this paragraph. No
holder of the Series 2012A Note shall ever have the right to compel any exercise by the City of
its taxing powers to pay any of the Series 2012A Note or the interest or premium thereon, or to
enforce payment thereof against any property of the City except the interests of the City in the
Loan Agreement and the revenues and assets thereunder, which will be assigned to the Lender
under the Pledge Agreement. The Series 2012A Note shall not constitute a charge, lien, or
encumbrance, legal or equitable, upon any property of the City, except the interests of the City in
the Loan Agreement, and the revenues and assets thereunder, which will be assigned to the
Lender under the Pledge Agreement. The Series 2012A Note shall recite that the Series 2012A
Note is issued pursuant to the Act, and that the Series 2012A Note, including interest and
premium, if any, thereon, is payable solely from the revenues and assets pledged to the payment
City Council Meeting of September 24, 2012 (Item No. 6a) Page 6
Subject: Breck School - Public Hearing & Final Bond Resolution - Issuance of Revenue Note, Series 2012A
thereof, and the Series 2012A Note shall not constitute a debt of the City within the meaning of
any constitutional or statutory limitations.
2.02. Issuance and Sale of the Series 2012A Note. The City hereby authorizes the
issuance of the Series 2012A Note in a principal amount not to exceed $6,500,000, in one or
more series, in the form, and with the terms set forth in the form of the Series 2012A Note now
on file with the City. The aggregate principal amount of the Series 2012A Note, the interest rate
of the Series 2012A Note, the terms for adjustment of the interest rate on the Series 2012A Note,
the date of the documents referenced in this resolution and the Series 2012A Note, and the terms
of redemption of the Series 2012A Note may be established or modified with the approval of the
City. The execution and delivery of the Series 2012A Note shall be conclusive evidence that the
City has approved such terms as subsequently established or modified. The offer of the Lender
to purchase the Series 2012A Note at the price of par plus accrued interest, if any, to the date of
delivery at the interest rate or rates specified in the Series 2012A Note is hereby accepted. Upon
approval of the Project by DEED, the Mayor and City Manager of the City are authorized and
directed to prepare and execute the Series 2012A Note as prescribed in the Loan Agreement and
the Series 2012A Note shall be delivered to the Lender. The Mayor and City Manager of the
City are hereby authorized to execute and deliver any agreements with any depository institution,
including any representation letter or amendment to any existing representation letter, in the
event the City and the Lender elect to register the Series 2012A Note in book-entry form.
2.03. Approval of Documents. The Loan Agreement, the Pledge Agreement, and the
Joint Powers Agreement are hereby approved in substantially the forms on file with the City on
the date hereof. The terms of the Loan Agreement, the Pledge Agreement, and the Joint Powers
Agreement may be established or modified with the approval of the City. The execution and
delivery of such documents shall be conclusive evidence that the City has approved such terms
as subsequently established or modified. The Mayor and City Manager of the City are
authorized and directed to execute and deliver the Loan Agreement, the Pledge Agreement, and
the Joint Powers Agreement. Copies of all of the documents necessary to the transaction herein
described shall be delivered, filed, and recorded as provided herein and in the Loan Agreement.
2.04. Certifications of the City. The Mayor and City Manager of the City and other
officers, employees, and agents of the City are hereby authorized and directed to prepare and
furnish to bond counsel and the Lender certified copies of all proceedings and records of the City
relating to the issuance of the Series 2012A Note, including a certification of this resolution.
Such officers, employees, and agents are hereby authorized to execute and deliver, on behalf of
the City, all other certificates, instruments, and other written documents that may be requested by
bond counsel, the Lender, or other persons or entities in conjunction with the issuance of the
Series 2012A Note. Without imposing any limitation on the scope of the preceding sentence,
such officers, employees, and agents are specifically authorized to execute and deliver a
certificate relating to federal tax matters including matters relating to arbitrage and rebate
certificate, a receipt for the proceeds derived from the sale of the Series 2012A Note, an order as
to the application of the proceeds of the Series 2012A Note, a general certificate of the City, and
an Information Return for Tax-Exempt Private Activity Bond Issues, Form 8038 (Rev. April
2011).
2.05. Security for the Series 2012A Note. The City hereby authorizes the Borrower to
provide such security for payment of its obligations under the Loan Agreement and for payment
of the Series 2012A Note, as is agreed upon by the Borrower and the Lender.
City Council Meeting of September 24, 2012 (Item No. 6a) Page 7
Subject: Breck School - Public Hearing & Final Bond Resolution - Issuance of Revenue Note, Series 2012A
2.06. DEED Application. As required by the terms of Section 469.154 of the Act, the
employees, officers, and agents of the City are hereby authorized and directed to submit an
application to DEED for approval of the Project and the issuance of the Series 2012A Note.
2.07. Bank Qualification Designation. The City hereby determines that the reasonably
anticipated amount of tax-exempt obligations which will be issued by the City during calendar
year 2012 does not exceed $10,000,000. The 2012A Note is hereby designated as a “qualified
tax-exempt obligation” by the City for the purposes of Section 265(b)(3) of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986, as amended.
Section 3. Miscellaneous.
3.01. Agreements Binding. All agreements, covenants, and obligations of the City
contained in this resolution and in the above-referenced documents shall be deemed to be the
agreements, covenants, and obligations of the City to the full extent authorized or permitted by
law, and all such agreements, covenants, and obligations shall be binding on the City and
enforceable in accordance with their terms. No agreement, covenant, or obligation contained in
this resolution or in the above-referenced documents shall be deemed to be an agreement,
covenant, or obligation of any member of the City Council, or of any officer, employee, or agent
of the City in that person’s individual capacity. Neither the members of the City Council nor any
officer executing the Series 2012A Note shall be liable personally on the Series 2012A Note or
be subject to any personal liability or accountability by reason of the issuance of the Series
2012A Note.
3.02. Rights Conferred. Except as herein otherwise expressly provided, nothing in this
resolution or in the Loan Agreement, expressed or implied, is intended or shall be construed to
confer upon any person, firm, or corporation other than the City and the registered and beneficial
owners of the Series 2012A Note, any right, remedy, or claim, legal or equitable, under and by
reason of this resolution or any provision hereof or of the Loan Agreement or any provision
thereof; this resolution, the Loan Agreement and all of their provisions being intended to be, and
being for the sole and exclusive benefit of the City and the registered and beneficial owners of
the Series 2012A Note issued under the provisions of this resolution and the Loan Agreement,
and the Borrower to the extent expressly provided in the Loan Agreement.
3.03. Validity. In case any one or more of the provisions of this resolution, or of the
documents mentioned herein, or of the Series 2012A Note issued hereunder shall for any reason
be held to be illegal or invalid, such illegality or invalidity shall not affect any other provision of
this resolution, or of the aforementioned documents, or of the Series 2012A Note, but this
resolution, the aforementioned documents, and the Series 2012A Note shall be construed and
endorsed as if such illegal or invalid provisions had not been contained therein. If for any reason
the Mayor or the City Manager of the City, or any other officers, employees, or agents of the
City authorized to execute certificates, instruments, or other written documents on behalf of the
City, shall for any reason cease to be an officer, employee, or agent of the City after the
execution by such person of any certificate, instrument, or other written document, such fact
shall not affect the validity or enforceability of such certificate, instrument, or other written
document. If for any reason the Mayor or the City Manager is unable to execute and deliver the
documents referred to in this resolution, such documents may be executed by any member of the
City Council or any officer of the City delegated the duties of the Mayor or the City Manager
with the same force and effect as if such documents were executed and delivered by the Mayor
or the City Manager.
City Council Meeting of September 24, 2012 (Item No. 6a) Page 8
Subject: Breck School - Public Hearing & Final Bond Resolution - Issuance of Revenue Note, Series 2012A
3.04. Effective Date. This resolution shall be in full force and effect from and after its
approval.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, this 24th day of
September, 2012.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council September 24, 2012
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
City Council Meeting of September 24, 2012 (Item No. 6a)
Subject: Breck School - Public Hearing & Final Bond Resolution - Issuance of Revenue Note, Series 2012A
Page 9
City Council Meeting of September 24, 2012 (Item No. 6a)
Subject: Breck School - Public Hearing & Final Bond Resolution - Issuance of Revenue Note, Series 2012A Page 10
Meeting Date: September 24, 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:
Authorize and Award Sale of General Obligation Taxable Bonds, Series 2012A for the
Greensboro Square
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to Adopt Resolution awarding the sale of approximately $1,290,000 taxable G.O.
Housing Improvement Area (HIA) Bonds, Series 2012A.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the City Council desire to proceed with the recommended action as proposed?
BACKGROUND:
On December 5, 2011 the Council established Ordinance 2406-11 establishing the Greensboro
HIA and passed Resolution No. 11-134 imposing fees. This was done in response to Greensboro
Condominium Owners Association’s petition to the Council to conduct a public hearing
regarding the establishment of Greensboro Condominium Owners Association as an HIA.
The total project cost was originally estimated to be $3,835,000 and has been decreased to
$3,445,862, of which $2,947,394 is for construction costs with the remainder for soft costs and
bond issuance costs. The City received $1,047,260 in prepaid special assessments. This means
the City will need to loan the association $2,398,602 to pay for all costs associated with the
project. $1,290,000 will be financed through the issuance of Taxable General Obligation
Housing Improvement Area bonds. The remainder of the cost, $1,108,602, will be financed
through a loan of funds from the EDA’s Development Fund. Both the bonds and the EDA loan
will be repaid to the City from the HIA fees collected with the real estate taxes of the property
owners located in the Greensboro HIA. Both the bonds and the EDA loan will have a twenty
year term, and the interest rate on the EDA loan will be set at 100 basis points higher than the
true interest rate on the bonds, with a finalized EDA loan payment schedule to be prepared upon
issuance of the bonds. Any of the remaining 191 property owners that did not prepay their HIA
fee will have the opportunity to prepay at any time during the 20-year term of the bonds and
EDA loan.
The bond sale is currently scheduled for the morning of September 24th, with the bond proceeds
being available in late October. Since Greensboro HIA is moving forward with improvements
now, the EDA will need to potentially lend the City $2,398,602 of the project costs, since the
prepaid HIA fees will not be adequate to cover the construction costs and the bond proceeds
won’t be available until October. Since the funds are being loaned from the EDA to the City,
this constitutes an internal loan and a resolution authorizing the loan was approved by the EDA
May 7, 2012. The internal loan will be for an amount up to $2,525,000 and only the amount of
funds needed to pay for project costs will be advanced. A portion of this internal loan will be
City Council Meeting of September 24, 2012 (Item No. 8a) Page 2
Subject: Authorize and Award Sale of G.O. Taxable Bonds, Series 2012A for Greensboro Square
repaid to the EDA when bond proceeds are received in October and the remaining will be repaid
through collection of the HIA fees over 20 years.
The Bonds will carry taxable interest rates because the improvements are on private property
rather than the typical public improvements. It is the intent of the City to levy a housing
improvement area fee on each unit to support 105% of the debt service beginning with taxes
payable beginning in 2013 for those owners that did not prepay.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Issuance of these bonds is necessary to provide partial funding for the project, and to allow for
the City’s liquid financial assets to be available for other projects within the City.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
The Greensboro Condominium Owners Association 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.
Attachment: Resolution Awarding the Sale of Approximately $1,290,000 Taxable G.O.
Housing Improvement Area (HIA) Bonds, Series 2012A
Prepared by: Brian A. Swanson, Controller
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of September 24, 2012 (Item No. 8a) Page 3
Subject: Authorize and Award Sale of G.O. Taxable Bonds, Series 2012A for Greensboro Square
Extract of Minutes of Meeting
of the City Council of the City of
St. Louis Park, Hennepin County, Minnesota
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of
St. Louis Park, Minnesota, was duly held in the City Hall in said City on Monday, September 24,
2012, commencing at 7:00 P.M.
The following members were present:
and the following were absent:
* * * * * * * * *
The Mayor announced that the next order of business was consideration of the proposals
which had been received for the purchase of the City’s Taxable General Obligation Housing
Improvement Area Bonds, Series 2012A, to be issued in the original aggregate principal amount of
$____________.
The City Controller presented a tabulation of the proposals which had been received in the
manner specified in the Terms of Proposal for the Bonds. The proposals were as set forth in
EXHIBIT A attached hereto.
After due consideration of the proposals, Member _______________ then introduced the
following written resolution, the reading of which was dispensed with by unanimous consent, and
moved its adoption:
City Council Meeting of September 24, 2012 (Item No. 8a) Page 4
Subject: Authorize and Award Sale of G.O. Taxable Bonds, Series 2012A for Greensboro Square
RESOLUTION NO. 12-______
A RESOLUTION AWARDING THE SALE OF TAXABLE
GENERAL OBLIGATION HOUSING IMPROVEMENT AREA
BONDS, SERIES 2012A, IN THE ORIGINAL AGGREGATE
PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF $________; FIXING THEIR FORM
AND SPECIFICATIONS; DIRECTING THEIR EXECUTION AND
DELIVERY; AND PROVIDING FOR THEIR PAYMENT
BE IT RESOLVED By the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Hennepin County,
Minnesota (the “City”) as follows:
Section 1. Sale of Bonds.
1.01. Background.
(a) The City has previously established the Greensboro Housing Improvement
Area (the “Housing Improvement Area”) in order to facilitate certain housing improvements
(the “Housing Improvements”) to property known as the Greensboro Condominium
Association. The City Council has previously imposed a housing improvement fee (the
“Housing Fees”) on housing units located in the Housing Improvement Area in order to
finance the Housing Improvements.
(b) Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 475, as amended, and Sections
428A.11 through 428A.21 (collectively, the “Act”), the City is authorized to issue general
obligation bonds in the amount necessary to defray the costs of the Housing Improvements,
which costs are payable primarily from the Housing Fees and may be further secured by the
pledge of the City’s full faith, credit, and taxing power.
(c) The City finds it necessary and expedient to issue its Taxable General
Obligation Housing Improvement Area Bonds, Series 2012A (the “Bonds”), in the original
aggregate principal amount of $__________, pursuant to the Act, in order to defray the costs
of the Housing Improvements.
(d) The City is authorized by Section 475.60, subdivision 2(9) of the Act to
negotiate the sale of the Bonds because the City has retained an independent financial
advisor in connection with the sale of the Bonds. The actions of the City staff and its
financial advisor in negotiating the sale of the Bonds are ratified and confirmed in all
aspects.
1.02. Award to the Purchaser and Interest Rates. The proposal of __________________
(the “Purchaser”) to purchase the Bonds of the City described in the Terms of Proposal thereof is
found and determined to be a reasonable offer and is accepted, the proposal being to purchase the
Bonds at a price of $____________ (principal amount of $__________, [plus original issue
premium of $________,] [less original issue discount of $________,] less underwriter’s discount of
$________), plus accrued interest to the date of delivery, if any, for Bonds bearing interest as
follows:
City Council Meeting of September 24, 2012 (Item No. 8a) Page 5
Subject: Authorize and Award Sale of G.O. Taxable Bonds, Series 2012A for Greensboro Square
Year of
Maturity
Interest
Rate
Year of
Maturity
Interest
Rate
2014 % 2024 %
2015 2025
2016 2026
2017 2027
2018 2028
2019 2029
2020 2030
2021 2031
2022 2032
2023 2033
True interest cost: __________%.
1.03. Purchase Contract. The sum of $________, being the amount proposed by the
Purchaser in excess of $___________, will be credited to the Bond Fund hereinafter created or to
the Project Fund hereinafter created, as determined by the City Controller in consultation with the
City’s financial advisor. The City Controller is directed to retain the good faith check of the
Purchaser, pending completion of the sale of the Bonds, and to return the good faith checks of the
unsuccessful proposers forthwith. The Mayor and the City Manager are directed to execute a
contract with the Purchaser on behalf of the City.
1.04. Terms and Principal Amounts of the Bonds. The City shall forthwith issue and sell
the Bonds in the total principal amount of $_________, originally dated October 17, 2012, in the
denomination of $5,000 each or any integral multiple thereof, numbered No. R-1, upward, bearing
interest as above set forth, and which mature on February 1 in the years and amounts as follows:
Year Amount Year Amount
2014 $ 2024 $
2015 2025
2016 2026
2017 2027
2018 2028
2019 2029
2020 2030
2021 2031
2022 2032
2023 2033
1.05. Optional Redemption. The City may elect on February 1, 2021, and on any date
thereafter to prepay Bonds due on or after February 1, 2022. Redemption may be in whole or in
part and if in part, at the option of the City and in such manner as the City will determine. If less
than all Bonds of a maturity are called for redemption, the City will notify DTC (as defined in
Section 6 hereof) of the particular amount of such maturity to be prepaid. DTC will determine by
City Council Meeting of September 24, 2012 (Item No. 8a) Page 6
Subject: Authorize and Award Sale of G.O. Taxable Bonds, Series 2012A for Greensboro Square
lot the amount of each participant’s interest in such maturity to be redeemed and each participant
will then select by lot the beneficial ownership interests in such maturity to be redeemed. All
prepayments will be at a price of par plus accrued interest.
[1.06. Mandatory Redemption; Term Bonds. To be completed if Term Bonds are
requested by the Purchaser.]
Section 2. Registration and Payment.
2.01. Registered Form. The Bonds shall be issued only in fully registered form. The
interest thereon and, upon surrender of each Bond, the principal amount thereof, is payable by check
or draft issued by the Registrar described herein.
2.02. Dates; Interest Payment Dates. Each Bond will be dated as of the last interest
payment date preceding the date of authentication to which interest on the Bond has been paid or
made available for payment, unless (i) the date of authentication is an interest payment date to
which interest has been paid or made available for payment, in which case such Bond shall be dated
as of the date of authentication, or (ii) the date of authentication is prior to the first interest payment
date, in which case such Bond will be dated as of the date of original issue. The interest on the
Bonds will be payable on February 1 and August 1 of each year, commencing August 1, 2013, to
the owner of record thereof as of the close of business on the fifteenth day of the immediately
preceding month, whether or not such day is a business day.
2.03. Registration. The City will appoint, and shall maintain, a bond registrar, transfer
agent, authenticating agent and paying agent (the “Registrar”). The effect of registration and the
rights and duties of the City and the Registrar with respect thereto are as follows:
(a) Register. The Registrar must keep at its principal corporate trust office a
bond register in which the Registrar provides for the registration of ownership of Bonds and
the registration of transfers and exchanges of Bonds entitled to be registered, transferred or
exchanged.
(b) Transfer of Bonds. Upon surrender for transfer of a Bond duly endorsed by
the registered owner thereof or accompanied by a written instrument of transfer, in form
satisfactory to the Registrar, duly executed by the registered owner thereof or by an attorney
duly authorized by the registered owner in writing, the Registrar will authenticate and
deliver, in the name of the designated transferee or transferees, one or more new Bonds of a
like aggregate principal amount and maturity, as requested by the transferor. The Registrar
may, however, close the books for registration of any transfer after the fifteenth day of the
month preceding each interest payment date and until such interest payment date.
(c) Exchange of Bonds. When Bonds are surrendered by the registered owner
for exchange the Registrar will authenticate and deliver one or more new Bonds of a like
aggregate principal amount and maturity, as requested by the registered owner or the
owner’s attorney in writing.
(d) Cancellation. Bonds surrendered upon any transfer or exchange will be
promptly cancelled by the Registrar and thereafter disposed of as directed by the City.
City Council Meeting of September 24, 2012 (Item No. 8a) Page 7
Subject: Authorize and Award Sale of G.O. Taxable Bonds, Series 2012A for Greensboro Square
(e) Improper or Unauthorized Transfer. When a Bond is presented to the
Registrar for transfer, the Registrar may refuse to transfer the Bond until the Registrar is
satisfied that the endorsement on the Bond or separate instrument of transfer is valid and
genuine and that the requested transfer is legally authorized. The Registrar will incur no
liability for the refusal, in good faith, to make transfers which it, in its judgment, deems
improper or unauthorized.
(f) Persons Deemed Owners. The City and the Registrar may treat the person in
whose name a Bond is registered in the bond register as the absolute owner of the Bond,
whether the Bond is overdue or not, for the purpose of receiving payment of, or on account
of, the principal of and interest on the Bond and for all other purposes, and payments so
made to a registered owner or upon the owner’s order will be valid and effectual to satisfy
and discharge the liability upon such Bond to the extent of the sum or sums so paid.
(g) Taxes, Fees and Charges. For a transfer or exchange of Bonds, the Registrar
may impose a charge upon the owner thereof sufficient to reimburse the Registrar for any
tax, fee or other governmental charge required to be paid with respect to the transfer or
exchange.
(h) Mutilated, Lost, Stolen or Destroyed Bonds. If a Bond becomes mutilated or
is destroyed, stolen or lost, the Registrar will deliver a new Bond of like amount, number,
maturity date and tenor in exchange and substitution for and upon cancellation of the
mutilated Bond or in lieu of and in substitution for a Bond destroyed, stolen or lost, upon the
payment of the reasonable expenses and charges of the Registrar in connection therewith;
and, in the case of a Bond destroyed, stolen or lost, upon filing with the Registrar of
evidence satisfactory to it that the Bond was destroyed, stolen or lost, and of the ownership
thereof, and upon furnishing to the Registrar of an appropriate bond or indemnity in form,
substance and amount satisfactory to it and as provided by law, in which both the City and
the Registrar must be named as obligees. Bonds so surrendered to the Registrar will be
cancelled by the Registrar and evidence of such cancellation must be given to the City. If
the mutilated, destroyed, stolen or lost Bond has already matured or been called for
redemption in accordance with its terms it is not necessary to issue a new Bond prior to
payment.
(i) Redemption. In the event any of the Bonds are called for redemption, notice
thereof identifying the Bonds to be redeemed will be given by the Registrar by mailing a
copy of the redemption notice by first class mail (postage prepaid) to the registered owner of
each Bond to be redeemed at the address shown on the registration books kept by the
Registrar and by publishing the notice if required by law. Failure to give notice by
publication or by mail to any registered owner, or any defect therein, will not affect the
validity of any proceeding for the redemption of Bonds. Bonds so called for redemption
will cease to bear interest after the specified redemption date, provided that the funds for the
redemption are on deposit with the place of payment at that time.
2.04. Appointment of Initial Registrar. The City appoints Bond Trust Services
Corporation, Roseville, Minnesota, as the initial Registrar. The Mayor and the City Manager are
authorized to execute and deliver, on behalf of the City, a contract with the Registrar. Upon merger
or consolidation of the Registrar with another corporation, if the resulting corporation is a bank or
City Council Meeting of September 24, 2012 (Item No. 8a) Page 8
Subject: Authorize and Award Sale of G.O. Taxable Bonds, Series 2012A for Greensboro Square
trust company authorized by law to conduct such business, such corporation is authorized to act as
successor Registrar. The City agrees to pay the reasonable and customary charges of the Registrar
for the services performed. The City reserves the right to remove the Registrar upon 30 days’ notice
and upon the appointment of a successor Registrar, in which event the predecessor Registrar must
deliver all cash and Bonds in its possession to the successor Registrar and must deliver the bond
register to the successor Registrar. On or before each principal or interest due date, without further
order of this Council, the City Controller must transmit to the Registrar moneys sufficient for the
payment of all principal and interest then due.
2.05. Execution, Authentication and Delivery. The Bonds will be prepared under the
direction of the City Manager and executed on behalf of the City by the signatures of the Mayor and
the City Manager, provided that all signatures may be printed, engraved or lithographed facsimiles
of the originals. In case any officer whose signature or a facsimile of whose signature appears on the
Bonds ceases to be such officer before the delivery of any Bond, such signature or facsimile will
nevertheless be valid and sufficient for all purposes, the same as if the officer had remained in office
until delivery. Notwithstanding such execution, a Bond will not be valid or obligatory for any
purpose or entitled to any security or benefit under this Resolution unless and until a certificate of
authentication on the Bond has been duly executed by the manual signature of an authorized
representative of the Registrar. Certificates of authentication on different Bonds need not be signed
by the same representative. The executed certificate of authentication on each Bond is conclusive
evidence that it has been authenticated and delivered under this Resolution. When the Bonds have
been so prepared, executed and authenticated, the City Manager shall deliver the same to the
Purchaser upon payment of the purchase price in accordance with the contract of sale heretofore
made and executed, and the Purchaser is not obligated to see to the application of the purchase price.
2.06. Temporary Bonds. The City may elect to deliver in lieu of printed definitive Bonds
one or more typewritten temporary Bonds in substantially the form set forth in EXHIBIT B attached
hereto with such changes as may be necessary to reflect more than one maturity in a single
temporary bond. Upon the execution and delivery of definitive Bonds the temporary Bonds will be
exchanged therefor and cancelled.
Section 3. Form of Bond.
3.01. Execution of the Bonds. The Bonds will be printed in substantially the form set
forth in EXHIBIT B attached hereto.
3.02. Approving Legal Opinion. The City Clerk shall obtain a copy of the proposed
approving legal opinion of Kennedy & Graven, Chartered, Minneapolis, Minnesota, which shall be
complete except as to dating thereof and shall cause the opinion to be printed on or accompany each
Bond.
Section 4. Payment; Security; Pledges and Covenants.
4.01. Funds. For the convenience and proper administration of the moneys to be
borrowed and repaid on the Bonds, and to make adequate and specific security to the purchasers and
holders of the Bonds from time to time, there is hereby created a separate special fund of the City to
be known as the Greensboro Housing Improvement Area Fund (the “Housing Fund”), which fund
will be continued and maintained as a permanent fund of the City until all the Bonds are paid.
Within the Housing Fund there will be established and maintained separate accounts as follows:
City Council Meeting of September 24, 2012 (Item No. 8a) Page 9
Subject: Authorize and Award Sale of G.O. Taxable Bonds, Series 2012A for Greensboro Square
(a) The Project Fund, into which fund will be deposited proceeds of the Bonds
in the amount of $_____________. Upon issuance of the Bonds, the City shall also deposit
into the Project Fund (a) proceeds of the Internal Loan from the St. Louis Park Economic
Development Authority to the Greensboro Condominium Association (the “Association”),
pursuant to the Development Agreement, dated April 12, 2012, as amended by a First
Amendment thereto dated August 20, 2012 (the “Development Agreement”), between the
City and the Association, in the amount of $1,108,602, and (b) prepaid Housing Fees in the
amount of $1,047,260, which Housing Fees were levied on property within the Housing
Improvement Area and were prepaid pursuant to the resolution levying the Housing Fees.
Of the total amount deposited in the Project Fund, $__________ will be disbursed to the
City to pay the administrative costs of the Housing Improvement Area, including any rebate
of prepaid Housing Fees. The balance of funds in the Project Fund shall be disbursed to pay
the costs of the Housing Improvements in accordance with the terms of the Development
Agreement. Interest earnings from moneys in the Project Fund shall be credited to the
Project Fund.
(b) The Costs of Issuance Fund, into which fund will be deposited proceeds of
the Bonds in the amount of $________, which amount will be used solely for the purpose of
paying costs of issuance of the Bonds. The City authorizes the Purchaser to forward
amounts in the Costs of Issuance Fund allocable to the payment of issuance expenses (other
than amounts payable to Kennedy & Graven, Chartered, as Bond Counsel) to KleinBank,
Chaska, Minnesota, on the closing date for further distribution as directed by the City’s
financial advisor, Ehlers & Associates, Inc. Any balance remaining in the Costs of Issuance
Fund after all disbursements for issuance expenses shall be transferred to the Project Fund.
Interest earnings from moneys in the Costs of Issuance Fund shall be credited to the Surplus
Fund hereinafter created.
(c) The Bond Fund, into which fund will be deposited from Bond proceeds
$_________, which represents capitalized interest through August 1, 2013, together with
any amount over the minimum purchase price paid by the Purchaser, to the extent
designated for deposit in the Bond Fund in accordance with Section 1.03 and Housing Fees
in the amount necessary to pay when due the principal and interest on the Bonds. Interest
earnings from moneys in the Bond Fund shall be credited to the Bond Fund.
(d) The Surplus Fund, into which fund will be deposited all Housing Fees in
excess of the amounts required to be deposited into the Bond Fund and the Project Fund
under this Section. Amounts in the Surplus Fund shall be applied and disbursed in
accordance with the Development Agreement. Interest earnings from moneys in the Surplus
Fund shall be credited to the Surplus Fund.
4.02. Deposit of Funds. Money in the funds created by this Resolution will be kept
separate from other municipal funds and deposited only in a bank or banks which are members of
the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”). Deposits which cause the aggregate deposits
of the City in any one bank to be in excess of the amount insured by FDIC must be continuously
secured in the manner provided by law for the investment of municipal funds. In the event excess
moneys are held in any of the accounts created pursuant to Section 4.01 of this Resolution, such
excess moneys shall be applied and disbursed in accordance with the Development Agreement.
City Council Meeting of September 24, 2012 (Item No. 8a) Page 10
Subject: Authorize and Award Sale of G.O. Taxable Bonds, Series 2012A for Greensboro Square
4.03. Covenants Regarding Housing Improvements. The City hereby covenants with the
holders from time to time of the Bonds as follows:
(a) The City has caused or will cause the Housing Fees for the Housing
Improvements in the Housing Improvement Area to be promptly levied against housing
units in such Housing Improvement Area so that the first installment will be collectible not
later than 2013 and will take all steps necessary to assure prompt collection. The City
Council will cause to be taken with due diligence all further actions that are required under
the Development Agreement for the construction of the Housing Improvements financed
wholly or partly from the proceeds of the Bonds, and will take all further actions necessary
for the final and valid levy of the Housing Fees and the appropriation of any other funds
needed to pay the Bonds and interest thereon when due.
(b) In the event of any current or anticipated deficiency in Housing Fees (after
taking into account any revenues collected or anticipated to be collected under the
Development Agreement), the City Council will levy ad valorem taxes in the amount of the
current or anticipated deficiency.
(c) The City will keep complete and accurate books and records showing
receipts and disbursements in connection with the Housing Improvements, Housing Fees
levied therefor and other funds appropriated for their payment, collections thereof and
disbursements therefrom, and monies on hand.
4.04. No Tax Levy Required. It is hereby determined that the estimated collections of
Housing Fees for the payment of principal and interest on the Bonds will produce at least five
percent in excess of the amount needed to meet when due the principal and interest payments on the
Bonds, and that no tax levy is needed at this time.
4.05. Taxpayer Services Division Manager’s Certificate as to Registration. The City
Clerk is authorized and directed to file a certified copy of this Resolution with the Taxpayer
Services Division Manager of Hennepin County and to obtain the certificate required by Section
475.63 of the Act.
Section 5. Authentication of Transcript.
5.01. City Proceedings and Records. The officers of the City are authorized and directed
to prepare and furnish to the Purchaser and to the attorneys approving the Bonds, certified copies of
proceedings and records of the City relating to the Bonds and to the financial condition and affairs
of the City, and such other certificates, affidavits and transcripts as may be required to show the
facts within their knowledge or as shown by the books and records in their custody and under their
control, relating to the validity and marketability of the Bonds and such instruments, including any
heretofore furnished, shall be deemed representations of the City as to the facts stated therein.
5.02. Certification as to Official Statement. The Mayor, the City Manager and the City
Controller are authorized and directed to certify that they have examined the Official Statement
prepared and circulated in connection with the issuance and sale of the Bonds and that to the best of
their knowledge and belief the Official Statement is a complete and accurate representation of the
facts and representations made therein as of the date of the Official Statement.
City Council Meeting of September 24, 2012 (Item No. 8a) Page 11
Subject: Authorize and Award Sale of G.O. Taxable Bonds, Series 2012A for Greensboro Square
Section 6. Book-Entry System; Limited Obligation of City.
6.01. DTC. The Bonds will be initially issued in the form of a separate single typewritten
or printed fully registered Bond for each of the maturities set forth in Section 1.04 hereof. Upon
initial issuance, the ownership of each such Bond will be registered in the registration books kept by
the Registrar in the name of Cede & Co., as nominee for The Depository Trust Company, New
York, New York, and its successors and assigns (“DTC”). Except as provided in this Section, all of
the outstanding Bonds will be registered in the registration books kept by the Registrar in the name
of Cede & Co., as nominee of DTC.
6.02. Participants. With respect to Bonds registered in the registration books kept by the
Registrar in the name of Cede & Co., as nominee of DTC, the City, the Registrar and the Paying
Agent will have no responsibility or obligation to any broker dealers, banks and other financial
institutions from time to time for which DTC holds Bonds as securities depository (the
“Participants”) or to any other person on behalf of which a Participant holds an interest in the
Bonds, including but not limited to any responsibility or obligation with respect to (i) the accuracy
of the records of DTC, Cede & Co. or any Participant with respect to any ownership interest in the
Bonds, (ii) the delivery to any Participant or any other person other than a registered owner of
Bonds, as shown by the registration books kept by the Registrar, of any notice with respect to the
Bonds, including any notice of redemption, or (iii) the payment to any Participant or any other
person, other than a registered owner of Bonds, or any amount with respect to principal of or
interest on the Bonds. The City, the Registrar and the Paying Agent may treat and consider the
person in whose name each Bond is registered in the registration books kept by the Registrar as the
holder and absolute owner of such Bond for the purpose of payment of principal and interest with
respect to such Bond, for the purpose of registering transfers with respect to such Bonds, and for all
other purposes. The Paying Agent will pay all principal of and interest on the Bonds only to or on
the order of the respective registered owners, as shown in the registration books kept by the
Registrar, and all such payments will be valid and effectual to fully satisfy and discharge the City’s
obligations with respect to payment of principal of or interest on the Bonds to the extent of the sum
or sums so paid. No person other than a registered owner of Bonds, as shown in the registration
books kept by the Registrar, will receive a certificated Bond evidencing the obligation of this
Resolution. Upon delivery by DTC to the City Manager of a written notice to the effect that DTC
has determined to substitute a new nominee in place of Cede & Co., the words “Cede & Co.” will
refer to such new nominee of DTC; and upon receipt of such a notice, the City Manager will
promptly deliver a copy of the same to the Registrar and the Paying Agent.
6.03. Representation Letter. The City has heretofore executed and delivered to DTC a
Blanket Issuer Letter of Representations (the “Representation Letter”) which shall govern payment
of principal of and interest on the Bonds and notices with respect to the Bonds. Any Paying Agent
or Registrar subsequently appointed by the City with respect to the Bonds will agree to take all
action necessary for all representations of the City in the Representation Letter with respect to the
Registrar and Paying Agent, respectively, to at all times be complied with.
6.04. Transfers Outside Book-Entry System. In the event the City, by resolution of the
City Council, determines that it is in the best interests of the persons having beneficial interest in the
Bonds that they be able to obtain Bond certificates, the City will notify DTC, whereupon DTC will
notify the Participants, of the availability through DTC of Bond certificates. In such event the City
will issue, transfer and exchange Bond certificates as requested by DTC and any other registered
City Council Meeting of September 24, 2012 (Item No. 8a) Page 12
Subject: Authorize and Award Sale of G.O. Taxable Bonds, Series 2012A for Greensboro Square
owners in accordance with the provisions of this Resolution. DTC may determine to discontinue
providing its services with respect to the Bonds at any time by giving notice to the City and
discharging its responsibilities with respect thereto under applicable law. In such event, if no
successor securities depository is appointed, the City will issue and the Registrar will authenticate
Bond certificates in accordance with this Resolution and the provisions hereof will apply to the
transfer, exchange and method of payment thereof.
6.05. Payments to Cede & Co. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Resolution to
the contrary, so long as any Bond is registered in the name of Cede & Co., as nominee of DTC, all
payments with respect to principal of and interest on such Bond and all notices with respect to such
Bond will be made and given, respectively in the manner provided in the Representation Letter.
Section 7. Continuing Disclosure.
7.01. Execution of Continuing Disclosure Certificate. “Continuing Disclosure Certificate”
means that certain continuing Disclosure Certificate executed by the Mayor and City Manager and
dated the date of issuance and delivery of the Bonds, as originally executed and as it may be
amended from time to time in accordance with the terms thereof.
7.02. City Compliance with Provisions of Continuing Disclosure Certificate. The City
hereby covenants and agrees that it will comply with and carry out all of the provisions of the
Continuing Disclosure Certificate. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Resolution, failure
of the City to comply with the Continuing Disclosure Certificate is not to be considered an event of
default with respect to the Bonds; however, and Bondholder may take such actions as may be
necessary and appropriate, including seeking mandate or specific performance by court order, to
cause the City to comply with its obligations under this section.
Section 8. Defeasance. When all Bonds have been discharged as provided in this
Section, all pledges, covenants and other rights granted by this Resolution to holders of the
Bonds will cease, except that the pledge of the full faith and credit of the City for the prompt and
full payment of the principal of and interest on the Bonds will remain in full force and effect.
The City may discharge all Bonds which are due on any date by depositing with the Registrar on
or before that date a sum sufficient for the payment thereof in full. If any Bond should not be
paid when due, it may nevertheless be discharged by depositing with the Registrar a sum
sufficient for the payment thereof in full with interest accrued to the date of such deposit.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council September 24, 2012
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
City Council Meeting of September 24, 2012 (Item No. 8a) Page 13
Subject: Authorize and Award Sale of G.O. Taxable Bonds, Series 2012A for Greensboro Square
EXHIBIT A
PROPOSALS
City Council Meeting of September 24, 2012 (Item No. 8a) Page 14
Subject: Authorize and Award Sale of G.O. Taxable Bonds, Series 2012A for Greensboro Square
EXHIBIT B
FORM OF BOND
No. R-__ $___________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
TAXABLE GENERAL OBLIGATION HOUSING IMPROVEMENT AREA BOND
SERIES 2012A
Rate
Maturity
Date of
Original Issue
CUSIP
February 1, 20__ October 17, 2012
Registered Owner: Cede & Co.
The City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, a duly organized and existing municipal corporation
in Hennepin County, Minnesota (the “City”), acknowledges itself to be indebted and for value
received hereby promises to pay to the Registered Owner specified above or registered assigns, the
principal sum of $__________ on the maturity date specified above, with interest thereon from the
date hereof at the annual rate specified above, payable February 1 and August 1 in each year,
commencing August 1, 2013, to the person in whose name this Bond is registered at the close of
business on the fifteenth day (whether or not a business day) of the immediately preceding month.
The interest hereon and, upon presentation and surrender hereof, the principal hereof are payable in
lawful money of the United States of America by check or draft by Bond Trust Services
Corporation, Roseville, Minnesota, as Bond Registrar, Paying Agent, Transfer Agent and
Authenticating Agent, or its designated successor under the Resolution described herein. For the
prompt and full payment of such principal and interest as the same respectively become due, the full
faith and credit and taxing powers of the City have been and are hereby irrevocably pledged.
The City may elect on February 1, 2021, and on any date thereafter to prepay Bonds due on
or after February 1, 2022. Redemption may be in whole or in part and if in part, at the option of the
City and in such manner as the City will determine. If less than all Bonds of a maturity are called
for redemption, the City will notify The Depository Trust Company (“DTC”) of the particular
amount of such maturity to be prepaid. DTC will determine by lot the amount of each participant’s
interest in such maturity to be redeemed and each participant will then select by lot the beneficial
ownership interests in such maturity to be redeemed. All prepayments will be at a price of par plus
accrued interest.
City Council Meeting of September 24, 2012 (Item No. 8a) Page 15
Subject: Authorize and Award Sale of G.O. Taxable Bonds, Series 2012A for Greensboro Square
This Bond is one of an issue in the aggregate principal amount of $___________, all of like
original issue date and tenor, except as to number, maturity date, redemption privilege, and interest
rate, all issued pursuant to a resolution adopted by the City Council on September 24, 2012 (the
“Resolution”), for the purpose of providing money to aid in financing various housing
improvements within a housing improvement area in the City, pursuant to and in full conformity
with the home rule charter of the City and the Constitution and laws of the State of Minnesota,
including Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 475, as amended, and Sections 428A.11 to 428A.21, and the
principal hereof and interest hereon are payable primarily from certain housing improvement fees
levied or to be levied on property within the housing improvement area in which the housing
improvements are located, as set forth in the Resolution to which reference is made for a full
statement of rights and powers thereby conferred. The full faith and credit of the City are
irrevocably pledged for payment of this Bond and the City Council has obligated itself to levy ad
valorem taxes on all taxable property in the City in the event of any deficiency in revenues pledged,
which taxes may be levied without limitation as to rate or amount. The Bonds of this series are
issued only as fully registered Bonds in denominations of $5,000 or any integral multiple thereof of
single maturities.
As provided in the Resolution and subject to certain limitations set forth therein, this Bond is
transferable upon the books of the City at the principal office of the Bond Registrar, by the
registered owner hereof in person or by the owner’s attorney duly authorized in writing upon
surrender hereof together with a written instrument of transfer satisfactory to the Bond Registrar,
duly executed by the registered owner or the owner’s attorney; and may also be surrendered in
exchange for Bonds of other authorized denominations. Upon such transfer or exchange the City
will cause a new Bond or Bonds to be issued in the name of the transferee or registered owner, of
the same aggregate principal amount, bearing interest at the same rate and maturing on the same
date, subject to reimbursement for any tax, fee or governmental charge required to be paid with
respect to such transfer or exchange.
The City and the Bond Registrar may deem and treat the person in whose name this Bond is
registered as the absolute owner hereof, whether this Bond is overdue or not, for the purpose of
receiving payment and for all other purposes, and neither the City nor the Bond Registrar shall be
affected by any notice to the contrary.
IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED, RECITED, COVENANTED AND AGREED that all
acts, conditions and things required by the Constitution and laws of the State of Minnesota and the
City’s home rule charter to be done, to exist, to happen and to be performed preliminary to and in
the issuance of this Bond in order to make it a valid and binding general obligation of the City in
accordance with its terms, have been done, do exist, have happened and have been performed as so
required, and that the issuance of this Bond does not cause the indebtedness of the City to exceed
any constitutional, statutory or charter limitation of indebtedness.
This Bond is not valid or obligatory for any purpose or entitled to any security or benefit
under the Resolution until the Certificate of Authentication hereon has been executed by the Bond
Registrar by manual signature of one of its authorized representatives.
City Council Meeting of September 24, 2012 (Item No. 8a) Page 16
Subject: Authorize and Award Sale of G.O. Taxable Bonds, Series 2012A for Greensboro Square
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City of St. Louis Park, Hennepin County, Minnesota, by
its City Council, has caused this Bond to be executed on its behalf by the facsimile or manual
signatures of the Mayor and the City Manager and has caused this Bond to be dated as of the date
set forth below.
Dated: October 17, 2012
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
(Facsimile) (Facsimile)
Mayor City Manager
_________________________________
CERTIFICATE OF AUTHENTICATION
This is one of the Bonds delivered pursuant to the Resolution mentioned within.
BOND TRUST SERVICES CORPORATION
By
Authorized Representative
_________________________________
ABBREVIATIONS
The following abbreviations, when used in the inscription on the face of this Bond, will
be construed as though they were written out in full according to applicable laws or regulations:
TEN COM -- as tenants in common UNIF GIFT MIN ACT
_________ Custodian _________
(Cust) (Minor)
TEN ENT -- as tenants by entireties under Uniform Gifts or Transfers to
Minors Act, State of _______________
JT TEN -- as joint tenants with right of
survivorship and not as tenants in
common
Additional abbreviations may also be used though not in the above list.
________________________________________
City Council Meeting of September 24, 2012 (Item No. 8a) Page 17
Subject: Authorize and Award Sale of G.O. Taxable Bonds, Series 2012A for Greensboro Square
ASSIGNMENT
For value received, the undersigned hereby sells, assigns and transfers unto
______________________________________ the within Bond and all rights thereunder, and
does hereby irrevocably constitute and appoint _________________________ attorney to
transfer the said Bond on the books kept for registration of the within Bond, with full power of
substitution in the premises.
Dated:
Notice: The assignor’s signature to this assignment must correspond with the
name as it appears upon the face of the within Bond in every particular,
without alteration or any change whatever.
Signature Guaranteed:
NOTICE: Signature(s) must be guaranteed by a financial institution that is a member of the
Securities Transfer Agent Medallion Program (“STAMP”), the Stock Exchange Medallion Program
(“SEMP”), the New York Stock Exchange, Inc. Medallion Signatures Program (“MSP”) or other
such “signature guarantee program” as may be determined by the Registrar in addition to, or in
substitution for, STAMP, SEMP or MSP, all in accordance with the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended.
The Bond Registrar will not effect transfer of this Bond unless the information
concerning the assignee requested below is provided.
Name and Address:
(Include information for all joint owners if this
Bond is held by joint account.)
Please insert social security or other
identifying number of assignee
_________________________________
City Council Meeting of September 24, 2012 (Item No. 8a) Page 18
Subject: Authorize and Award Sale of G.O. Taxable Bonds, Series 2012A for Greensboro Square
PROVISIONS AS TO REGISTRATION
The ownership of the principal of and interest on the within Bond has been registered on
the books of the Registrar in the name of the person last noted below.
Date of Registration
Registered Owner
Signature of
Officer of Registrar
Cede & Co.
Federal ID #13-2555119
City Council Meeting of September 24, 2012 (Item No. 8a) Page 19
Subject: Authorize and Award Sale of G.O. Taxable Bonds, Series 2012A for Greensboro Square
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
)
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) SS.
)
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK )
I, the undersigned, being the duly qualified and acting City Clerk of the City of St. Louis
Park, Hennepin County, Minnesota (the “City”), do hereby certify that I have carefully compared
the attached and foregoing extract of minutes of a regular meeting of the City Council of the City
held on September 24, 2012, with the original minutes on file in my office and the extract is a full,
true and correct copy of the minutes insofar as they relate to the issuance and sale of the City’s
Taxable General Obligation Housing Improvement Area Bonds, Series 2012A, in the original
aggregate principal amount of $_________.
WITNESS My hand officially as such City Clerk and the corporate seal of the City this
______ day of _______________, 2012.
City Clerk
City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota
(SEAL)
City Council Meeting of September 24, 2012 (Item No. 8a) Page 20
Subject: Authorize and Award Sale of G.O. Taxable Bonds, Series 2012A for Greensboro Square
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
CERTIFICATE OF TAXPAYER SERVICES
DIVISION MANAGER AS TO REGISTRATION
WHERE NO AD VALOREM TAX LEVY
I, the undersigned Taxpayer Services Division Manager, Hennepin County, Minnesota,
hereby certify that a resolution adopted by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota
(the “City”), on September 24, 2012, relating to the City’s Taxable General Obligation Housing
Improvement Area Bonds, Series 2012A, in the amount of $__________, dated October 17, 2012,
has been filed in my office and said obligations have been registered on the register of obligations in
my office.
WITNESS My hand and official seal this ____ day of ____________, 2012.
Taxpayer Services Division Manager
Hennepin County, Minnesota
(SEAL)
Deputy
Meeting Date: September 24, 2012
Agenda Item #: 8b
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:
1st Reading - Zoning Ordinance Amendment Regulating Outdoor Lighting
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to Approve First Reading of an Ordinance amending the Outdoor Lighting regulations in
the Zoning Ordinance, and set the second reading for October 15, 2012.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
What should be the appropriate and enforceable lighting standards for St. Louis Park?
BACKGROUND:
On April 9 and July 9, 2012 the City Council discussed revisions to the lighting ordinance at
Study Sessions. Attached are copies of these minutes. Work on the ordinance has continued,
and the Planning Commission held a public hearing on July 1 8, 2012. The Planning Commission
recommended approval of the proposed ordinance and their minutes are attached as well.
ORDINANCE CONSIDERATIONS:
Recent concerns by citizens in relation to outdoor recreational lighting have prompted staff to
evaluate our ordinance provisions. In particular, the following items were identified to be
addressed:
• The feasibility of achieving the city’s requirements related to seeing a light source from off-
site;
• The glare and spillover light requirements;
• How to regulate a wide variety of types of outdoor lighting;
• Clarifying the measurement methods.
To address these items, the City hired HKGi to research issues and practices of regulating
outdoor lighting, and proposes revisions to the ordinance.
As discussed at the July 9 Study Session the proposed ordinance includes:
• Additional definitions including: glare, luminaire, full cutoff, semi-cutoff, fully shielded,
flood light, indirect light and spill light.
• Require equipment that minimizes the visibility of the light source and its reflected image
versus requiring it cannot be viewed from off-site for athletic fields. This requirement is
not always possible to meet.
• Replacing the viewing requirement with new standards for the type of fixtures, shielding
of lights, aiming the standards appropriately and measures for glare control.
• Treating outdoor recreational lighting as a specialized use.
• Adding revised regulations for recreational facilities, including maximum levels of
illumination, measure methods, fixture shielding and aiming, maximum fixture heights
and higher spillover lighting maximums.
• A new method of measuring recreational lighting to more accurately reflect the direct
lighting impacts on residential properties. Measuring would be by facing a light meter
City Council Meeting of September 24, 2012 (Item No. 8b) Page 2
Subject: 1st Reading - Zoning Ordinance Amendment Regulating Outdoor Lighting
directly at the light source at 3 feet above grade at the residential property line. This
method directs the light meter at the light source and results in higher readings than our
past measurement methods. As a result, the proposed measurement standards are
therefore higher; the proposed standard for recreational lighting adjacent to residential
dwellings would be 1.5 footcandles at the residential property line. This standard would
have to be met when the lights are initially installed; some reduction in the footcandles is
expected to occur over time resulting in lower actual lighting over the life of the lights.
The proposed revisions to the ordinance require the applicant to provide more information prior
to installing lights.
Comments received at the July 9 City Council Study Session are reflected in the ordinance.
These items related to the provision of a low lighting option to be used at athletic fields to turn
the lights down when events are complete and light is only needed for exiting and clean up; and
adding the provision that landscaping can be used for screening the lighting at athletic fields.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
A public hearing was held before the Planning Commission on July 18th. One member of the
public, Michael Valley, 2509 Princeton Ct and the Princeton Ct. Association president, was
present to speak. He stated that the association has raised concerns about Benilde’s athletic field
lighting since the beginning of the field remodel. He said of the 24 residences, 7 abut the
Benilde field and feel the impact of those lights. The Planning Commission recommended
approval of the ordinance. The draft Planning Commission minutes are attached.
Other comments have been received from another Princeton Court resident, Lee Snitzer. These
include a series of questions about athletic field lighting, including the allowed height of lights,
hours of operation, and the number of courses of light allowed. Staff has responded with
answers and is working with BSM to get some of the site specific questions answered.
NEXT STEPS
New outdoor recreation lighting systems, new standards for luminaires, glare illuminance, and
spill light will apply. Existing facilities would have to come into compliance if they are
expanded or as fixtures are replaced. This would impact most outdoor lighting facilities in the
city, including 4-6 football, soccer and baseball fields, which would need to be updated over
time. Typical lighting replacement occurs anywhere from 4 to 15 years, depending on the usage,
so over a period of time, lighted fields within the city would become in complete compliance
with the new ordinance.
SUMMARY
The proposed new lighting ordinance is intended to better equip outdoor lights throughout the
city to both ensure a safe playing environment while also minimizing the impacts to surrounding
residential properties. By limiting the amount of spill light and glare, neighbors will be better
protected from the impact of lighted fields.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
None at this time.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged community, including having
strong neighborhoods.
City Council Meeting of September 24, 2012 (Item No. 8b) Page 3
Subject: 1st Reading - Zoning Ordinance Amendment Regulating Outdoor Lighting
Attachments: Proposed Outdoor Lighting Ordinance
Unofficial Planning Commission Minutes of July 18, 2012
Study Session Minutes Excerpts – April 9 and July 9, 2012
Prepared by: Meg J. McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor
Reviewed by: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of September 24, 2012 (Item No. 8b) Page 4
Subject: 1st Reading - Zoning Ordinance Amendment Regulating Outdoor Lighting
ORDINANCE NO.____-12
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ST. LOUIS PARK
ORDINANCE CODE RELATING TO ZONING BY
AMENDING SECTION 36-363
THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK DOES ORDAIN:
Findings
Sec. 1. The St. Louis Park Ordinance Code, Section 36-363 Outdoor lighting, is hereby
replaced in its entirety as follows:
Sec. 36-363 Outdoor lighting.
(a) Purpose. The purpose of this section is to minimize the adverse effect of light and glare on
operators of motor vehicles, pedestrians, and on residential and other land uses in the vicinity of
a light source in order to promote traffic safety and to prevent the nuisances associated with the
intrusion of spill light and glare.
(b) Applicability. The requirements of this section apply to all outdoor lighting, except lighting
for signs which are covered under section 36-362, and for street lighting within public rights-of-
way.
(c) Definitions. The following words; terms and phrases, when used in this section, shall have
the meanings ascribed to them in this subsection, except where the context clearly indicates a
different meaning.
Cutoff or Shielded – An outdoor light fixture constructed or shielded in such a manner that no
more than 2.5 percent of its light occurs above the horizontal plane of the fixture, and no more
than 10 percent of its light occurs above 80 degrees.
Direct Light – Light emitted directly from the lamp, off of the reflector or reflector diffuser,
or through the refractor or other diffuser lens, of a luminaire.
Footcandle – The basic unit of illuminance or the amount of light falling on a surface. One
footcandle is approximately equal to the illuminance produced by a light source of one candle in
intensity, measured on a surface at a distance of one foot above grade. Footcandles can be
measured both horizontally and vertically by a footcandle or light meter.
Full Cutoff or Fully Shielded – An outdoor light fixture constructed or shielded in such a
manner that no light occurs above the horizontal plane and no more than 10 percent of its light
occurs above 80 degrees.
Glare – The sensation produced directly by a light source or indirectly from reflective
surfaces within the visual field that is sufficiently brighter than the level to which the eyes are
adapted, which can cause annoyance, discomfort, or loss in visual performance and visibility.
City Council Meeting of September 24, 2012 (Item No. 8b) Page 5
Subject: 1st Reading - Zoning Ordinance Amendment Regulating Outdoor Lighting
The magnitude of glare depends on such factors as the size, position, brightness of the source,
and on the brightness level to which the eyes are adapted.
Illuminance – The amount of light falling on any point of a surface, typically measured in
footcandles (or lux in the metric system).
Indirect Light – Direct light that has been reflected or scattered off of other surfaces.
Lamp – The component of the luminaire that actually produces the light, more commonly
known as a bulb.
Light Spill – Light that falls beyond the boundaries of the property on which the lighting
installation is located and because of quantitative, directional or spectral content causes
annoyance, discomfort, or loss in visual performance and visibility.
Lumen – A unit used to measure the actual amount of light that is produced by a light source.
The lumen quantifies the amount of light energy produced by a lamp at the lamp, not by the
energy input, which is indicated by the wattage. For example, a 75-watt incandescent lamp can
produce 1,000 lumens while a 70-watt high-pressure sodium lamp can produce 6,000 lumens.
Luminaire or Fixture – The complete lighting assembly or fixture (including but not limited
to the lamps, housing, ballasts, photocells, reflectors, lenses, shields, visors, louvers) but not the
support assembly (poles or mounting brackets).
Mounting Height – The vertical distance as measured from the ground directly below the
centerline of the luminaire to the lowest light-emitting part of the luminaire.
Ornamental Lighting – Lighting that is installed mainly or entirely for its decorative effect
rather than as an aid to visibility.
Semi Cutoff or Partially Shielded – An outdoor light fixture constructed or shielded in such a
manner that no more than 5 percent of its light occurs above the horizontal plane of the fixture,
and no more than 20 percent of its light occurs above 80 degrees.
Shielded – A luminaire from which no direct glare is visible at normal viewing angles by
virtue of its being properly located, aimed, oriented, and properly fitted with spill and glare
control devices, such as shields, barn doors, baffles, louvers, skirts, inserts, visors and reflectors.
(d) General provisions.
(1) Lighting plan. Submittal of a lighting plan shall be required to ensure compliance with
this section for all new development, redevelopment, and additions other than single-
family and two-family dwelling units. The city may also require a lighting plan for any
proposed new light source. This lighting plan shall include the following:
a. A site plan showing locations of buildings, parking areas, landscaping, and all
proposed outdoor lighting fixtures;
b. Proposed mounting height of each outdoor lighting fixture;
City Council Meeting of September 24, 2012 (Item No. 8b) Page 6
Subject: 1st Reading - Zoning Ordinance Amendment Regulating Outdoor Lighting
c. Descriptions of each proposed outdoor lighting fixture including but not limited to
manufacturers catalog specifications sheets, photometric data, IESNA “cutoff” fixture
designation, glare control package, type of lamp (e.g. high pressure sodium, metal
halide, mercury vapor, fluorescent induction), lamp color temperature, and on/off
control devices.
d. An illuminance grid (point-by-point) plot of footcandles overlaid on the site plan,
plotted out to 0.0 footcandles, indicating the location and aiming of outdoor lighting
fixtures in compliance with the regulations of this section.
(2) Maximum illuminance levels. Outdoor lighting shall not exceed the maximum maintained
illuminance levels as recommended by the Illuminating Engineering Society of North
America (IESNA).
(3) Measurement. Post-installation lighting levels shall be measured after dark at the
property line of the adjacent property by facing a light meter directly at the light source at
3 feet above grade.
(4) Spill light and glare. Outdoor lighting shall be designed and arranged to limit spill light
and glare on adjacent properties. Reflected glare or spill light shall not exceed five-tenths
(0.5) footcandle when the source of light abuts any residential property or one (1.0)
footcandles when the source of light abuts any commercial or industrial property, as
measured at the property line of the adjoining use.
(5) Hours of operation. The city may limit the hours of operation of outdoor lighting
equipment if the city believes it necessary to reduce the impact of light on the
surrounding neighborhood.
(6) Prohibited lighting. No flickering or flashing lights shall be permitted.
(7) Luminaire design.
a. For the lighting of predominantly horizontal surfaces, luminaires shall be aimed
straight down and shall meet full cutoff criteria unless ornamental light fixtures are
installed in the manner provided in a site and building plan approved by the city.
Ornamental fixtures may be approved when the developer can demonstrate that
undesirable off-site impacts stemming from direct or reflected views of the light
source are eliminated by the fixture design or location of the lighting fixture.
b. For the lighting of predominantly non-horizontal surfaces, such as building facades,
landscaping, fountains, displays and statuary, luminaires shall be located, aimed and
shielded so as to not project their beam onto abutting properties, past the object being
illuminated, skyward or onto a public roadway. The lighting shall be fitted with such
devices as shields, barn doors, baffles, louvers, skirts or visors to minimize spill light
and glare impacts.
(8) Maximum mounting height. Light poles or standards for exterior lighting shall not exceed
a height of 45 feet, except that poles or standards on the top level of parking structures
shall not exceed 25 feet.
(e) Recreational lighting provisions. Because of its unique requirements for nighttime visibility
of recreational activities and limited days/hours of operation, outdoor recreational facility
City Council Meeting of September 24, 2012 (Item No. 8b) Page 7
Subject: 1st Reading - Zoning Ordinance Amendment Regulating Outdoor Lighting
lighting is exempt from the outdoor lighting standards of section (d) (2) through (8) above. An
outdoor recreational facility that has illuminated playing fields, courts or performance spaces
shall be subject to the following standards:
(1) Luminaire design. All outdoor recreational lighting fixtures shall be directionally
shielded. Lighting fixtures shall also be aimed to ensure that their beams fall within the
primary playing area of the fields/courts/tracks or primary performance space and
immediate surroundings so that spill light and glare on adjacent properties are minimized.
(2) Glare control. All outdoor recreational lighting fixtures shall be from a manufacturer that
offers a glare control package and it shall be fitted with the manufacturer’s glare control
package.
(3) Maximum illuminance levels. All outdoor recreational lighting installations shall be
designed to achieve no greater than the maximum illuminance levels for the proposed
recreational activity as recommended by the Illuminating Engineering Society of North
America (IESNA).
(4) Maximum spill light levels. Spill light shall be minimized to the greatest extent possible
given the unique illumination constraints of the outdoor recreational facility. Since
outdoor recreational facilities require much higher lighting levels than other outdoor
lighting uses and are in operation for limited periods of time, the maximum spill light
level allowed is also higher. When an outdoor recreational facility abuts a residential
dwelling unit, it shall be designed so that the illumination at the residential property
boundary line that is attributable to the recreational lighting does not exceed 1.5
maximum vertical footcandles.
(5) Maximum mounting height. The mounting height of outdoor recreational lighting fixtures
shall not exceed a maximum height of eighty (80) feet. The City Council may approve
additional height if it is shown as necessary to reduce spill and glare and has no
additional adverse impacts.
(6) Hours of operation. The use of outdoor recreational lighting shall not be permitted
between the hours of 11:00 PM and 7:00 AM. The main lighting shall be turned off no
later than one hour after an event ends. Where technically feasible, a low level lighting
system shall be installed to be used for patrons leaving the facility, cleanup, nighttime
maintenance and other closing activities.
(7) Visual impact plan. To assist the City in determining whether the potential impacts of
proposed outdoor recreational lighting have been suitably managed, applications for
illuminating outdoor recreational facilities shall be accompanied not only with the
information required under section (d) (1) above but also by a visual impact plan that
contains the following:
a. Plan views containing a layout of the outdoor recreational facility, showing light pole
locations, and showing the location of abutting residential properties and structures.
b. Elevations containing pole and luminaire mounting heights, and luminaire arrays for
each pole location.
c. Light scans in the maximum vertical plane containing illuminance plots at the
boundary of the adjacent property, taken at a height of three (3) feet.
City Council Meeting of September 24, 2012 (Item No. 8b) Page 8
Subject: 1st Reading - Zoning Ordinance Amendment Regulating Outdoor Lighting
d. Proposed frequency of use of the outdoor recreational facility during hours of darkness
on a month-by-month basis and proposed time when the recreational lighting will be
switched off.
e. A narrative describing the measures proposed to achieve minimum off-site
disturbance, including landscape screening.
(8) Subsections (e)(5) and (6) shall apply to all outdoor recreational facilities existing as of
the effective date of this Ordinance. Subsection (e) shall apply in its entirety to any new
outdoor recreational facility, the expansion of an existing facility, upon replacement of
the luminaires or fixtures or upon any reconfiguration of existing lighting installations.
Outdoor recreational lighting installations existing as of the effective date of this
Ordinance may continue to be operated in their existing configuration, including repair
and maintenance, so long as there is no increase in maximum illuminance levels, light
spill or glare.
Sec. 2. The City Council has considered the advice and recommendation of the Planning
Commission (Case No. 12-19-ZA).
Sec. 3. The contents of Planning Case File 12-19-ZA are hereby entered into and made
part of the public hearing record and the record of decision for this case.
Sec. 4. Section 1 of this Ordinance shall take effect fifteen days after its publication.
Section 2 of this Ordinance shall take effect twenty days after its publication.
Public Hearing July 18, 2012
First Reading September 24, 2012
Second Reading
Date of Publication
Date Ordinance takes effect
Reviewed for Administration Adopted by the City Council
City Manager Mayor
Attest: Approved as to Form and Execution:
City Clerk City Attorney
City Council Meeting of September 24, 2012 (Item No. 8b) Page 9
Subject: 1st Reading - Zoning Ordinance Amendment Regulating Outdoor Lighting
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
JULY 18, 2012 – 6:00 p.m.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MEMBERS PRESENT: Lynne Carper, Robert Kramer, Dennis Morris,
Richard Person, Carl Robertson, Larry Shapiro
MEMBERS ABSENT: Claudia Johnston-Madison
STAFF PRESENT: Meg McMonigal, Gary Morrison, Nancy Sells
***
B. Outdoor Lighting – Zoning Ordinance Amendment
Applicant: City of St. Louis Park
Case No.: 12-19-ZA
Meg McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor, presented the staff report. She explained that
the proposed amendment is in response to issues that came from the public, in particular when
the Benilde fields were rebuilt. She said there were requirements in the ordinance that were
difficult for anyone to meet. One of them regarded seeing a light source or its reflection from
off-site. Staff took a look at all of the outdoor lighting, revamped the glare and spillover
requirements, addressed additional types of outdoor lighting, changed the measurement methods
and with that change changed the requirements of footcandles for outdoor recreational facilities.
Ms. McMonigal said the new ordinance adds quite a few requirements that staff will look at in
advance when reviewing site plans or conditional use permits to minimize spillover effects on
other properties. She reviewed a number of new requirements.
Ms. McMonigal addressed questions about the ordinance which Commissioner Carper sent in
advance of the meeting. One of his questions regarded abutting properties. Ms. McMonigal
said staff measures the lighting at the property line of the use.
In addressing Commissioner Carper’s question about horizontal surfaces, Ms. McMonigal said
the requirement is that the lights on buildings be pointed down, not out.
Commissioner Carper also asked if the criteria were tested on non-recreational areas to
determine if most lighting applications meet the criteria. Ms. McMonigal said for non-
recreational areas the standards will be the same and most of the lighting on new sites has had to
meet these criteria in the past. She said staff did measure 10 or more of the major fields around
the city and almost all of them should meet the criteria. There might be one or two spots on one
or two fields that might not meet the criteria but most of the lighting will meet these new criteria.
Chair Kramer asked if an outdoor recreational area has an official designation.
Ms. McMonigal spoke about the definition of an outdoor recreational facility that has illuminated
playing fields, courts or performance spaces. She said there are probably a dozen around the
city, and they are schools and parks.
City Council Meeting of September 24, 2012 (Item No. 8b) Page 10
Subject: 1st Reading - Zoning Ordinance Amendment Regulating Outdoor Lighting
Chair Kramer asked about lighting which was temporary or seasonal.
Ms. McMonigal responded that typically that kind of use wouldn’t come through for an
approval, but if there is an issue the proposed ordinance would allow the City to work with the
installer of the light.
Chair Kramer opened the public hearing.
Michael Valley, 2509 Princeton Ct., Princeton Ct. Association president, said the association has
raised concerns about Benilde’s lighting since the beginning of the field remodel. He said of the
24 residences, 7 abut the Benilde field and feel the impact of those lights. Mr. Valley asked if
the Benilde field fits the new proposed criteria.
Ms. McMonigal said Benilde’s fields have been measured several times with some of the
Princeton Ct. residents. These fields will meet the new guidelines. She went on to say the
Benilde fields meet the current guidelines as well, with the exception of being able to view the
light source or its reflection from off-site.
Mr. Valley asked how the 80 ft. maximum mounting height was determined.
Ms. McMonigal stated a consultant helped with the lighting study and she believes 80 ft. is a typical
maximum for recreational fields. She said she didn’t think Benilde’s lights are quite that high.
Mr. Valley asked if the proposed ordinance was written to allow Benilde’s lighting to fit the new
ordinance. He asked how the consultant looked at what currently exists in the City, compared it
with model ordinances, and then came up with the proposed ordinance amendment.
Ms. McMonigal stated that the consultant looked at a number of sources, including Illuminating
Engineering Standards and a number of ordinances around the country and the general practices.
At the same time, City staff measured all around the city looking at all the fields to see the
current situation in St. Louis Park. She said the goal was to increase the requirements,
particularly with the lights themselves, to do the maximum amount of shielding possible so a
field could still be adequately lighted for safety, but not going over that maximum. The efforts
in the ordinance go to the spillover effect.
Mr. Valley asked why the maximum illuminance levels of the Illuminating Engineering Society
of North America (IESNA) weren’t spelled out in the ordinance.
Ms. McMonigal said specific levels weren’t referenced because the handbooks of the IESNA
change over time.
Commissioner Robertson commented that specific illuminance levels probably weren’t
referenced in the proposed ordinance because there are different standards for different
applications, and to reference the IESNA’s standards covers all the bases.
Chair Kramer closed the public hearing as no one else was present wishing to speak.
Commissioner Morris made a motion recommending approval of the revised Outdoor Lighting
Zoning regulations. Commissioner Robertson seconded the motion, and the motion passed on a
vote of 6-0.
City Council Meeting of September 24, 2012 (Item No. 8b) Page 11
Subject: 1st Reading - Zoning Ordinance Amendment Regulating Outdoor Lighting
Excerpt from Study Session April 9, 2012
6. Outdoor Lighting Ordinance
Ms. McMonigal presented the staff report and introduced Jeff Miller, consultant with HKGi.
Mr. Miller presented the findings of the exterior lighting ordinance study and stated that the
critical issues identified in the study include the need to change the standard that prohibits a light
source from being visible off site, addressing spillover or glare, standards for recreational fields,
and it was found that the current measurement methods are confusing.
Councilmember Sanger requested clarification regarding recreational lighting versus other
outdoor lighting. She questioned why there is currently so much spillover recreational lighting
on adjacent properties.
Mr. Miller explained it is typical for recreational lighting to be treated differently because
lighting needs for spectators and participants is challenging and the amount of time that lighting
is used is limited compared to a parking lot or street light. He stated the lighting for different
types of sports needs to be different, must be aimed in different directions, and requires different
light levels. He indicated they are recommending that the City focus on shielding of lights and
aiming of lights in preparing an outdoor lighting ordinance.
Councilmember Santa stated that lighted recreational facilities in the City have spillover issues
and the City appears to be the biggest offender. She reminded Council that it needs to think
about how it is going to apply these standards to its own facilities and not just Benilde-St.
Margaret’s.
Councilmember Sanger expressed concern that the City previously approved the plan by
Benilde-St. Margaret’s to build an athletic field and Benilde-St. Margaret’s was aware of the
City’s Ordinance requirements and has failed to comply. She stated the City has received
complaints and the City has not forced Benilde-St. Margaret’s to resolve the problem. She
requested that any outdoor lighting ordinance include a requirement to eliminate glare.
Councilmember Mavity stated she appreciated Councilmember Sanger’s frustration but it is not
possible to meet the City’s current ordinance and it needs to be amended. She added that light
pollution is part of life in an urban setting and to require the elimination of all glare is not
reasonable.
Councilmember Hallfin suggested that the hours of operation be expanded to allow operation of
lights whenever games are being played because it is sometimes dark before 4:00 p.m. and lights
are needed for games. He requested that staff look at the best practice for this requirement.
Councilmember Spano requested that the ordinance include a requirement for natural buffers,
e.g., trees, around lighting sources. He stated that when Methodist expanded its facility,
plantings were used as light shields and the trees have done a great job of shielding the
neighboring properties from the lights on the sides of the building.
City Council Meeting of September 24, 2012 (Item No. 8b) Page 12
Subject: 1st Reading - Zoning Ordinance Amendment Regulating Outdoor Lighting
Councilmember Sanger requested that the setback requirements be reviewed to require lighting
be installed a minimum number of feet from adjacent residential property lines. She also asked
if height restrictions on lights could be added.
Ms. Deno agreed that staff would look at best practices in other models for residential property
setbacks and height restrictions.
It was the consensus of the City Council to direct staff to develop specific outdoor lighting
ordinance provisions with the Planning Commission and prepare an updated ordinance for
Council review in study session.
Excerpt from Study Session April 9, 2012
1. Outdoor Lighting Ordinance
Ms. McMonigal presented the staff report and proposed Outdoor Lighting ordinance. She
advised that it appears impossible to meet the requirement that a light source or its reflected
image not be seen off-site particularly as it relates to outdoor recreational lights. She stated the
proposed ordinance contains new requirements for measuring light which results in a different
standard that is clearer and which can be measured consistently.
Mr. Miller stated the new ordinance contains a higher standard noting that the current ordinance
allows 0.5 footcandles at the property line for all outdoor lighting. He indicated their research
found it was very atypical to have recreational lighting held to the same standards as other
lighting.
Mr. Fulton demonstrated how light is measured under the current ordinance and how it will be
measured under the new ordinance, noting that the lighting consultant informed the City it
should be measuring the maximum plane of light which will be different for a car lot versus
recreational lighting and this measurement will yield a higher number.
Councilmember Spano stated he would like to see requirements for using natural landscaping or
plantings to help shield neighboring properties. He asked if there was any discussion about using
landscaping around recreational facilities that abut residential properties to prevent fixtures from
being viewed from the property line.
Ms. McMonigal agreed to research this further. She added that the City reviews lighting and
landscaping plans as part of its review of site plans and the issue of shielding neighboring
properties from light glare could be addressed at that time.
Mr. Miller noted that the ordinance contains a new requirement to submit a visual impact plan
when applications for outdoor lighting are submitted to the City.
Councilmember Sanger suggested that the third sentence of paragraph (d)(6) be revised to state
“where technically feasible, a low level lighting system shall be installed to be used for patrons
leaving the facility, cleanup, nighttime maintenance and other closing activities.” She also
suggested that the ordinance include some time limits or specify the maximum number of hours
City Council Meeting of September 24, 2012 (Item No. 8b) Page 13
Subject: 1st Reading - Zoning Ordinance Amendment Regulating Outdoor Lighting
or days of the week for hours of operation. She also asked if the new ordinance will apply to
current recreational fields or only to future lighting.
Ms. McMonigal stated the ordinance will apply to future outdoor lighting. She indicated the
section regarding hours of operation can be changed by the City Council and noted that limiting
the maximum number of hours or days of the week would be difficult to enforce.
Councilmember Mavity stated she appreciated the concerns raised by Councilmember Sanger
but was concerned about the City mandating the maximum number of hours or days of the week
and mandating that a low level lighting system be installed at every location.
Councilmember Spano suggested that landscaping be noted as an option for screening lighting
from neighbors.
It was the consensus of the City Council to direct staff to hold a public hearing on the outdoor
lighting ordinance at the July 18, 2012, Planning Commission meeting.