The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2011/01/18 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - RegularAGENDA JANUARY 18, 2011 (Sue Sanger Out) 7:20 p.m. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY – Council Chambers 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Minutes 3a. Economic Development Authority Minutes December 20, 2010 3b. Economic Development Authority Minutes January 3, 2011 4. Approval of Agenda 5. Reports 6. Old Business 7. New Business 7a. Contract for Private Development between the EDA and CKJ Properties, LLC Recommended Action: Motion to adopt the resolution approving the Contract for Private Development between the EDA and CKJ Properties, LLC. 8. Communications 9. Adjournment 7:30 p.m. CITY COUNCIL MEETING – Council Chambers 1. Call to Order 1a. Pledge of Allegiance 1b. Roll Call 2. Presentations 2a. Human Rights Award Presentation 3. Approval of Minutes 3a. Joint City Council/School Board Meeting Minutes November 29, 2010 3b. Special Study Session Minutes December 20, 2010 3c. City Council Meeting Minutes December 20, 2010 3d. City Council Meeting Minutes January 3, 2011 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 to approve items on the consent calendar. (Alternatively: Motion to add or remove items from the agenda, motion to move items from consent calendar to regular agenda for discussion and to approve those items remaining on the consent calendar.) Meeting of January 18, 2011 Economic Development Authority and City Council Agenda 5. Boards and Commissions 6. Public Hearings 7. Requests, Petitions, and Communications from the Public 8. Resolutions, Ordinances, Motions and Discussion Items 8a. Northside Park Approval of Plans and Specifications, and Authorize Bids Recommended Action: Motion to Adopt Resolution accepting report, establishing and ordering Improvement Project No. 20110050, approving plans and specifications, and authorizing advertisement for bids for the redevelopment of Northside Park. 8b. Second Reading – Ordinance Providing for Domestic Partner Voluntary Registration Program Recommended Action: Motion to adopt Second Reading of an Ordinance adding Chapter 5 to the St. Louis Park City Code concerning Domestic Partners. 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 January 18, 2011 Economic Development Authority and City Council Agenda 4. CONSENT CALENDAR 4a. Adopt Resolution authorizing the special assessment for the repair of the sewer service line at 1800 Maryland Avenue South, St. Louis Park, MN - P.I.D. 05-117-21-34-0092 4b. Adopt Resolution authorizing the special assessment for the repair of the sewer service line at 3033 Florida Avenue South, St. Louis Park, MN - P.I.D. 17-117-21-11-0035 4c. Adopt Second Reading of Ordinance approving the Vacation of a portion of street right-of- way at Oxford Street and Wooddale Avenue South, and approve the summary ordinance for publication 4d. Adopt Resolution certifying the special assessment for the Property Restoration Project in the amount of $7,635 4e. Adopt Resolution authorizing execution of a one (1) year contract with AECOM Technical Services, Inc. for consultant services related to the implementation of the Reilly Tar & Chemical Corporation (Reilly) Remedial Action Plan (RAP) during year 2011 4f. Adopt Resolution approving a Minor Amendment to the Final PUD for the West End Redevelopment Project 4g. Approve Amendment No. 2 to Contract 142-08 which provides additional engineering consulting services for the Highway 7 / Louisiana Avenue Interchange project, Project No. 2012-0100 4h. Approve for Filing Human Rights Commission Minutes August 17, 2010 4i. Approve for Filing Human Rights Commission Minutes October 19, 2010 4j. Approve for Filing Parks & Recreation Advisory Commission Minutes September 22, 2010 4k. Approve for Filing Parks & Recreation Advisory Commission Minutes October 20, 2010 4l. Approve for Filing Police Advisory Commission Minutes November 3, 2010 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: January 18, 2011 Agenda Item #: 3a UNOFFICIAL MINUTES ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA DECEMBER 20, 2010 1. Call to Order President Finkelstein called the meeting to order at 7:15 p.m. Commissioners present: President Finkelstein, Anne Mavity, Paul Omodt, Julia Ross, Susan Sanger, and Sue Santa. Commissioners absent: Jeff Jacobs. Staff present: Executive Director (Mr. Harmening), Deputy Executive Director (Ms. Gohman), Director of Community Development (Mr. Locke), Economic Development Coordinator (Mr. Hunt), Controller (Mr. Swanson), Finance Supervisor (Mr. Heintz), and Recording Secretary (Ms. Hughes). 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Minutes 3a. Economic Development Authority Minutes of December 6, 2010 Commissioner Sanger requested that the second sentence of the first paragraph on page 2 be revised to state “She asked if the opinion letter from counsel was clear that the City would not have any liability for remediation costs necessary on off the site, adding that she was concerned that the opinion letter does not address any liability the City might have if indeed pollution emanating from the site leaches out and pollutes properties adjacent to this site.” The minutes were approved as amended. 4. Approval of Agenda The agenda was approved as presented. 5. Reports 5a. Economic Development Authority Vendor Claims It was moved by Commissioner Santa, seconded by Commissioner Ross, to approve the EDA Vendor Claims. The motion passed 6-0 (Commissioner Jacobs absent). 6. Old Business - None 7. New Business 7a. Establishment of the Hardcoat Tax Increment Financing District EDA Resolution No. 10-22 EDA Meeting of January 18, 2011 (Item No. 3a) Page 2 Subject: EDA Meeting Minutes of December 20, 2010 Mr. Hunt presented the staff report and advised that the establishment of the Hardcoat TIF District will enable the City to allocate tax increment generated from the proposed project to the Development Fund in order to reimburse a portion of the CAP funds provided to Hardcoat. He stated that Hardcoat intends to acquire the former Flame Metals property located at 7301 and 7317 West Lake Street and plans to renovate the building and site. In order to complete the renovation, Hardcoat has applied for construction assistance under the EDA’s CAP program and a TIF District is proposed to reimburse a portion of the CAP funding provided to Hardcoat. He advised that the Construction Assistance meets the statutory requirements necessary to create an Economic Development TIF District, including encouraging a manufacturer to remain in the state, increasing employment, and enhancing the tax base. He stated that it is estimated that upon completion, the project will generate approximately $207,000 in tax increment over the nine year term of the TIF District. He added that a Development Contract with Hardcoat has been completed and the EDA will take formal action on this contract this evening. It was moved by Commissioner Santa, seconded by Commissioner Omodt, to adopt EDA Resolution No. 10-22 Adopting a Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project No. 1, Establishing the Hardcoat Tax Increment Financing District Therein and Adopting a Tax Increment Financing Plan Therefor. President Finkelstein stated that this represents a great project and will result in the renovation of an eyesore and turning it into a new building of great use to the community; however, he felt the CAP assistance being provided is too much money and the proposed project will not add enough new employees. He stated that the CAP program established a limit of $250,000 and this project requested over $400,000. Commissioner Omodt stated that he was in favor of this project and the assistance being provided represents exactly what the CAP program was meant to fund. He added that all statutory requirements are met, and Hardcoat’s request does not preclude another entity from coming forward with a CAP request. The motion passed 5-1 (President Finkelstein opposed). 7b. Contract for Private Development between the EDA and M&L Properties, LLC (Hardcoat Inc) EDA Resolutions No. 10-23 and No. 10-24 It was moved by Commissioner Santa, seconded by Commissioner Omodt, to adopt EDA Resolution No. 10-23 Approving a Contract for Private Development Containing a Construction Assistance Program Loan to M & L Properties, LLC, and Providing the Form, Terms, Covenants and Directions for Such Loan. The motion passed 5-1 (President Finkelstein opposed). It was moved by Commissioner Santa, seconded by Commissioner Omodt, to adopt EDA Resolution No. 10-24 Authorizing Interfund Loan for Advance of Certain Costs in Connection with the Hardcoat Tax Increment Financing District. The motion passed 5-1 (President Finkelstein opposed). EDA Meeting of January 18, 2011 (Item No. 3a) Page 3 Subject: EDA Meeting Minutes of December 20, 2010 7c. 2011 Final HRA Levy Certification EDA Resolution No. 10-25 Mr. Heintz presented the staff report and advised that on September 7th, the EDA adopted a preliminary HRA levy of $1,028,888; this represents a $14,453 decrease from 2010 and is based on the lower taxable market value in the City for the 2011 levy. He added that the HRA levy is used to fund infrastructure improvements, e.g. Highway 7 & Louisiana. It was moved by Commissioner Sanger, seconded by Commissioner Omodt, to adopt EDA Resolution No. 10-25 Authorizing the HRA Levy for 2011 and Approval of the EDA Budget for Fiscal Year 2011. The motion passed 6-0. 7d. Authorize Bank Signatories EDA Resolution No. 10-26 Mr. Swanson presented the staff report and explained that formal approval of the EDA’s authorized signatories is required as part of a change in banking regulations. It was moved by Commissioner Omodt, seconded by Commissioner Mavity, to adopt EDA Resolution No. 10-26 Authorizing Bank Signatories. The motion passed 6-0. 7e. Interfund Loans EDA Resolution No. 10-27 Mr. Swanson presented the staff report and explained that the Elmwood TIF District has incurred project costs but insufficient increment has been generated to fund the City’s portion of the costs at this time. He stated that an interfund loan is necessary from the Development Fund in order to provide a temporary funding source in the maximum amount of $5 million; the loan will be repaid with interest as tax increment is generated in future years. He also explained that the Ellipse TIF District has a potential deficit and an interfund loan from the Development Fund is requested in the amount of $10,000; this loan will be repaid with interest as tax increment is generated in future years. It was moved by Commissioner Mavity, seconded by Commissioner Sanger, to adopt EDA Resolution No. 10-27 Authorizing Interfund Loans. The motion passed 6-0. 8. Communications - None 9. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 7:26 p.m. ______________________________________ ______________________________________ Secretary President Meeting Date: January 18, 2011 Agenda Item #: 3b UNOFFICIAL MINUTES ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA JANUARY 3, 2011 1. Call to Order Vice President Omodt called the meeting to order at 7:25 p.m. Commissioners present: Vice President Paul Omodt, Jeff Jacobs, Anne Mavity, Julia Ross, Susan Sanger, and Sue Santa. Commissioners absent: President Phil Finkelstein. Staff present: Executive Director (Mr. Harmening) and Recording Secretary (Ms. Hughes). 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Minutes - None 4. Approval of Agenda The agenda was approved as presented. 5. Reports – None 5a. Economic Development Authority Vendor Claims It was moved by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Santa, to approve the EDA Vendor Claims. The motion passed 6-0 (President Finkelstein absent). 6. Old Business - None 7. New Business 7a. 2011 Economic Development Authority Officers It was moved by Commissioner Ross, seconded by Commissioner Mavity, to elect Phil Finkelstein as President, Paul Omodt as Vice President, and Sue Santa as Treasurer to the Economic Development Authority for the 2011 term. The motion passed 6-0 (President Finkelstein absent). 8. Communications - None 9. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 7:27 p.m. ______________________________________ ______________________________________ Secretary President Meeting Date: January 18, 2011 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: Contract for Private Development between the EDA and CKJ Properties, LLC. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to adopt the resolution approving the Contract for Private Development between the EDA and CKJ Properties, LLC. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the EDA approve the proposed Contract for Private Development between the EDA and CKJ Properties, LLC to facilitate the proposed renovation of 3540 Dakota Ave. South (former Bikemasters building? BACKGROUND: The EDA reviewed Mr. Curt Rahman’s (CKJ Properties, LLC’s) application for Construction Assistance Program (CAP) funds related to the proposed renovation of the former Bikemasters building at the November 22nd Study Session where it was favorably received. Staff provided a preview of the business terms that served as the basis for the proposed Development Contract with CKJ Properties, LLC in a report for the January 10th Study Session. The former Bikemasters building is located at 3540 Dakota Ave. South. It is a two-story, commercial structure of approximately 18,000 SF built in the 1950’s. In recent years the building was neglected and fell into disrepair. As a result, the building sustained damage due to lack of maintenance and vandalism. The building went into foreclosure last year. Mr. Rahman acquired the property in September 2010 with the intention of fixing it up and re-leasing it to several retail and office tenants. To date, the building has been emptied, and all the pre-sale code deficiencies have been satisfactorily addressed. Mr. Rahman’s renovation plans for the property include new windows and doors, new bathrooms, new flooring and carpeting, new ceilings, new electrical and plumbing systems, new energy efficient HVAC equipment, new dock doors and downspouts, as well as interior and exterior painting, landscaping, parking lot resurfacing and striping, and screening of outdoor dumpsters. Request for Financial Assistance The total estimated cost to renovate the former Bikemasters building is approximately $210,000. Of this amount, CKJ Properties applied for up to $70,000 in Construction Assistance. This amount equals 33% of total estimated project costs; the maximum amount for which businesses may apply under the CAP Policy. Mr. Rahman plans to apply the proposed CAP funds toward the replacement of inefficient, 20- year-old HVAC systems. Without CAP assistance, none of the HVAC system will be replaced as Mr. Rahman has no more than $150,000 remaining at his disposal through a credit line and those funds are being applied toward other necessary repairs and renovations to the building. Mr. Rahman cannot obtain another loan on the building as it is prohibited under the contract for deed on the property. EDA Meeting of January 18, 2011 (Item No.7a) Page 2 Subject: Contract for Private Development between the EDA and CKJ Properties, LLC Proposed Funding Source The source of the CAP funds is tax increment generated by eight of the City’s TIF districts which would be disbursed from the Development Fund. Structure of CAP Funds It is proposed that CAP funds be provided to CKJ Properties upon prove-up that qualified renovation costs (“Public Redevelopment Costs”) were incurred. The reimbursement will be structured as a forgivable loan secured by a personal guarantee. Provided the building is held and properly maintained by CKJ Properties for 5 years after project completion, the entirety of the loan will be forgiven. If the property is sold within 5 years of project completion, the entirety of the loan must be repaid along with 6% accrued interest from the date funding was provided. Project Schedule CKJ Properties is anxious to begin the proposed renovation work as soon as possible and have it completed by spring 2011. Current/Estimated Market Value The subject property’s current assessed value is $725,000 (due to a tax court petition reflecting the building’s deteriorated condition). Upon renovation, tenancy and market conditions the building could be assessed for $1.2 to $1.3 million by 2012. Job Creation The proposed repair and renovation work would result in several temporary construction jobs. Additional employment opportunities will result from future retail and office tenants in the building. Development Contract The following is a summary of the Development Contract between the EDA and CKJ Properties, LLC (“Developer”), for the renovation of 3540 Dakota Ave. South. 1. The Redeveloper will construct the Minimum Improvements (repair and renovate the subject property) in accordance with the terms of the Contract, the Redevelopment Plan and all local, state and federal laws and regulations (including, but not limited to, environmental, zoning, building code and public health laws and regulations). 2. The Redeveloper will secure all permits, licenses and approvals necessary for construction of the Minimum Improvements. 3. The parties agree that the proposed development by the Redeveloper would not occur before July 1, 2011 but for the assistance being provided by the EDA. 4. The EDA has determined that, in order to make development of the Minimum Improvements financially feasible and to expedite such development and stimulate the rapid creation of jobs pursuant to the Job Creation Act, it is necessary to provide the Redeveloper with a CAP Loan for a portion of the costs of interior and exterior renovation and construction of the Minimum Improvements on the Redevelopment Property (detailed as Schedule B “Public Redevelopment Costs” in the Contract). 5. To assist the Redeveloper with payment of the Public Redevelopment Costs, the EDA shall provide the Redeveloper with a CAP Loan in the principal amount of up to $70,000. The EDA shall loan the CAP Loan funds to Redeveloper upon Redeveloper having: EDA Meeting of January 18, 2011 (Item No.7a) Page 3 Subject: Contract for Private Development between the EDA and CKJ Properties, LLC (a) no later than December 1, 2011, delivered to the EDA written evidence satisfactory to the EDA that Redeveloper has incurred the Public Redevelopment Costs, which evidence must include copies of the paid invoices or other comparable evidence for the Public Redevelopment Costs; (b) delivered lien waivers from each contractor, including subcontractors, who shall be engaged to work on, or to furnish materials and supplies for the Minimum Improvements, for all work done and for all materials furnished by it for the Minimum Improvements. 6. The source of funds for the CAP Loan will be Tax Increments from the City’s TIF Districts pursuant to the Spending Plan, in accordance with the Job Creation Act. 7. In accordance with the Job Creation Act, construction of the Minimum Improvements must commence no later than July 1, 2011, and no extensions of the commencement date will be considered. If the construction has not commenced by such date, the EDA has no further obligations under the Contract. 8. The Redeveloper understands and acknowledges that the CAP Loan must be fully repaid, along with accrued interest at the rate of 6.0%, if the Redeveloper fails to maintain the Minimum Improvements in good repair and condition, if a Transfer of the Redevelopment Property occurs at any time before the Termination Date, or if the EDA exercises its right to terminate the Contract as a remedy for any Event of Default. 9. The parties agree and understand that the financial assistance described in the Contract does not constitute a business subsidy within the meaning of the Business Subsidy Act. The Redeveloper releases and waives any claim against the EDA and its governing body members, officers, agents, servants and employees thereof arising from application of the Business Subsidy Act to this Agreement, including without limitation any claim that the EDA failed to comply with the Business Subsidy Act with respect to the Contract. 10. The parties agree and understand that the Contract is subject to the job creation requirements of the Job Creation Act. Accordingly, through the use of the CAP Loan, the Redeveloper shall cause the renovation of the Minimum Improvements, which renovation shall create or retain construction jobs. In addition, the Redeveloper shall cause to be created such new full-time equivalent jobs as permitted by the construction of the Minimum Improvements, and subsequent leasing of the commercial and office space therein. 11. The Redeveloper must submit to the EDA a written report regarding job goals and results by no later than February 1 of each year, commencing February 1, 2012 and continuing until the Termination Date or if the goals are not met, the date the CAP Loan is repaid. 12. Redeveloper agrees that it will construct or cause construction of the Minimum Improvements on the Redevelopment Property in accordance with the approved Construction Plans and that it will, during any period while the Redeveloper retains ownership of any portion of the Minimum Improvements, operate and maintain, preserve and keep the Minimum Improvements or cause the Minimum Improvements to be maintained, preserved and kept in good repair and condition. EDA Meeting of January 18, 2011 (Item No.7a) Page 4 Subject: Contract for Private Development between the EDA and CKJ Properties, LLC 13. Before commencing construction of the Minimum Improvements, the Redeveloper shall submit to the EDA Construction Plans for the Minimum Improvements acceptable to the EDA. The Construction Plans shall provide for the construction of the Minimum Improvements and shall be in conformity with the Contract, the Redevelopment Plan and all applicable State and local laws and regulations. 14. If the Redeveloper desires to make any material change (meaning changes that increase or decrease construction costs by $100,000 or more) in the Construction Plans after their approval by the EDA, the Redeveloper shall submit the proposed change to the EDA for its approval. The EDA’s approval of any such change in the Construction Plans will not be unreasonably withheld. 15. The Redeveloper shall commence construction of the Minimum Improvements by July 1, 2011. The Redeveloper shall complete the construction of the Minimum Improvements by December 1, 2011. All work with respect to the Minimum Improvements to be constructed by the Redeveloper shall be in conformity with the Construction Plans as submitted by the Redeveloper and approved by the EDA. 16. Promptly after completion of the Minimum Improvements in accordance with those provisions of the Contract relating solely to the obligations of the Redeveloper to construct the Minimum Improvements, the EDA Representative shall deliver to the Redeveloper a Certificate of Completion. (a) If the EDA Representative refuses or fails to provide the above certification, the Authority Representative shall, within thirty (30) days after written request by the Redeveloper, provide the Redeveloper with a written statement, indicating in adequate detail in what respects the Redeveloper has failed to complete the Minimum Improvements in accordance with the provisions of the Agreement, or is otherwise in default, and what measures or acts it will be necessary, in the opinion of the Authority, for the Redeveloper to take or perform in order for the EDA to issue the Certificate of Completion. (b) The construction of the Minimum Improvements shall be deemed to be substantially complete upon issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the Minimum Improvements, and upon determination by the EDA Representative that all related site improvements on the Redevelopment Property have been substantially completed in accordance with approved Construction Plans. 17. Redeveloper agrees not to transfer the Redevelopment Agreement or the Redevelopment Property (except to an affiliate) during the term of the Contract. 18. Redeveloper agrees that the EDA and the City (the “Indemnified Parties”) shall not be liable for and agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the Indemnified Parties against any loss or damage to property or any injury to or death of any person occurring at or about or resulting from any defect in the Development Property or the Minimum Improvements. 19. Redeveloper agrees to protect and defend the Indemnified Parties and further agrees to hold the Parties harmless from any claim, demand, suit, action, or other proceeding whatsoever by the construction, installation, ownership, maintenance, and operation of the Development Property. EDA Meeting of January 18, 2011 (Item No.7a) Page 5 Subject: Contract for Private Development between the EDA and CKJ Properties, LLC 20. Redeveloper agrees until the Termination Date that it shall not discriminate upon the basis of race, color, creed, sex or national origin in the sale, lease, or rental or in the use or occupancy of the Development Property or any improvements erected or to be erected thereon. 21. The Redeveloper agrees that no portion of the Redevelopment Property will be used for a sexually-oriented business, a pawnshop, a check-cashing business, payday loan agency, a tattoo business; or a gun business. Business Subsidy The assistance provided to the Developer under the Contract does not constitute a “business subsidy” under the Minnesota Business Subsidy Act because the purchase price of the Development Property equals at least 70% of the County assessor’s finalized market value of the Development Property for the 2010 assessment year. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: To stimulate private construction activity within the city it is proposed that the EDA consider providing CKJ Properties, LLC with up to $70,000 through the Construction Assistance Program to repair and renovate the former Bikemasters property. Such funds would be provided on a reimbursement basis and as a forgivable loan from tax increment generated by eight of the City’s TIF districts. VISION CONSIDERATION: Renovating existing buildings through the Construction Assistance Program is consistent with elements of Vision St. Louis Park as it facilitates and promotes environmental stewardship and green development. Attachments: Resolution of Approval Development Contract with CKJ Properties, LLC Prepared by: Greg Hunt, Economic Development Coordinator Reviewed by: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director Approved by: Nancy Deno Gohman, EDA Deputy Exec Dir and Deputy City Mgr EDA Meeting of January 18, 2011 (Item No.7a) Page 6 Subject: Contract for Private Development between the EDA and CKJ Properties, LLC ST. LOUIS PARK ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY RESOLUTION NO. 11-____ RESOLUTION APPROVING A CONTRACT FOR PRIVATE REDEVELOPMENT WITH AND A CONSTRUCTION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM LOAN TO CKJ PROPERTIES, LLC, AND PROVIDING THE FORM, TERMS, COVENANTS AND DIRECTIONS FOR SUCH LOAN. BE IT RESOLVED BY the Board of Commissioners (“Board”) of the St. Louis Park Economic Redevelopment Authority, St. Louis Park, Minnesota (the “Authority”) as follows: Section 1. Authorization; Award of Loan. 1.01. Authorization. The Authority and the City of St. Louis Park have heretofore approved the establishment of the Victoria Ponds, Park Center Housing, CSM, Mill City, Edgewood, Wolfe Lake, Aquila Commons, and Elmwood Tax Increment Financing District (the “TIF Districts”) within Redevelopment Project No. 1 (“Project”), have adopted a spending plan (the “Spending Plan”) pursuant to Minnesota Laws 2010, Chapter 216, Section 32 (the “Job Creation Act”) for the purpose of financing certain improvements within the Project using tax increments from the TIF Districts to stimulate job creation, and have established a Construction Assistance Program (“CAP”) to provide further guidelines for use of the tax increments from the TIF Districts under the Spending Plan. Pursuant to the Job Creation Act, the Authority is authorized to provide loans, interest rate subsidies, or assistance in any form to private development consisting of the construction or substantial rehabilitation of buildings and ancillary facilities to create or retain jobs. Such assistance is payable from all or any portion of revenues derived from the TIF Districts and authorized for such use under the Spending Plan. The Authority hereby finds and determines that it is in the best interests of the Authority to provide a CAP Loan to CKJ Properties, LLC (the “Redeveloper”) for the purpose of financing certain Public Redevelopment Costs in connection with the construction by the Redeveloper of certain Minimum Improvements, all as such terms are defined in the Contract for Private Redevelopment between the Authority and the Redeveloper (the “Agreement”) presented to the Board on the date hereof. 1.02. Approval of Agreement; Terms of the Loan. (a) The Authority hereby authorizes the President and Executive Director to execute the Agreement in substantially the form presented to the Board, subject to modifications that do not alter the substance of the transaction and that are approved by the President and Executive Director, provided that execution of the Agreement by those officials shall be conclusive evidence of their approval. All capitalized terms in this resolution have the meaning provided in the Agreement unless the context requires otherwise. (b) Pursuant to the Agreement, the Authority will loan to the Redeveloper the CAP Loan in the principal amount of the lesser of $70,000 or 33% of the Public Redevelopment Costs actually incurred by the Redeveloper, evidenced by a promissory note (the “Note”) and secured EDA Meeting of January 18, 2011 (Item No.7a) Page 7 Subject: Contract for Private Development between the EDA and CKJ Properties, LLC by the personal guaranty of Curt Rahman (the “Guaranty”) to be executed and delivered to the Authority by the Redeveloper in substantially the forms attached hereto as Exhibit A and Exhibit B. Proceeds of the CAP Loan shall be disbursed in accordance with Section 3.3 of the Agreement. The CAP Loan shall bear interest at the rate of 6.0% per annum, subject to the provisions of Section 2 hereof. Section 2. Repayment of Loan. The entire unpaid balance of principal and interest shall be due and payable upon the earlier of the following: (i) thirty (30) days after written notification by the Authority to the Redeveloper of the occurrence of an Event of Default as defined in the Agreement or Guaranty; or (ii) ten (10) days after the Redeveloper makes or allows to be made any total or partial Transfer of the Redevelopment Property, if such transfer occurs within five (5) years after the issuance of a Certificate of Completion for the Minimum Improvements as provided in Section 4.4 of the Agreement. If no Transfer occurs within five (5) years of the issuance of the Certificate of Completion for the Minimum Improvements, no payments of interest shall be payable on this CAP Loan and the principal balance shall be forgiven. Section 3. Effective Date. This resolution shall be effective upon approval. Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the Economic Redevelopment Authority the 18th of January, 2011 Executive Director President Attest Secretary 380348v3 MNI SA285-96 Third Draft January 12, 2011 CONTRACT FOR PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT By and Between ST. LOUIS PARK ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY and CKJ PROPERTIES, LLC Dated as of: _____________, 2011 This document was drafted by: KENNEDY & GRAVEN, Chartered (MNI) 470 U.S. Bank Plaza Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 (612) 337-9300 http://www.kennedy-graven.com EDA Meeting of January 18, 2011 (Item No. 7a) Subject: Contract for Private Development between the EDA and CKJ Properties, LLC Page 8 380348v3 MNI SA285-96 i TABLE OF CONTENTS Page PREAMBLE ...................................................................................................................................1 ARTICLE I Definitions Section 1.1. Definitions................................................................................................................2 ARTICLE II Representations and Warranties Section 2.1. Representations by the Authority.............................................................................6 Section 2.2. Representations and Warranties by the Redeveloper...............................................6 ARTICLE III Property Acquisition; Public Redevelopment Costs Section 3.1. Status of Redevelopment Property...........................................................................8 Section 3.2. Environmental Conditions.......................................................................................8 Section 3.3. CAP Loan.................................................................................................................9 Section 3.4. Business Subsidy ...................................................................................................11 ARTICLE IV Construction of Minimum Improvements Section 4.1. Construction of Improvements ..............................................................................10 Section 4.2. Construction Plans.................................................................................................10 Section 4.3. Commencement and Completion of Construction.................................................12 Section 4.4. Certificate of Completion ......................................................................................12 Section 4.5. Records ..................................................................................................................14 ARTICLE V Insurance Section 5.1. Insurance................................................................................................................16 ARTICLE VI Taxes Section 6.1. Intentionally Omitted.............................................................................................18 Section 6.2. Review of Taxes ....................................................................................................18 EDA Meeting of January 18, 2011 (Item No. 7a) Subject: Contract for Private Development between the EDA and CKJ Properties, LLC Page 9 380348v3 MNI SA285-96 ii ARTICLE VII Intentionally Omitted ARTICLE VIII Prohibitions Against Assignment and Transfer; Indemnification Section 8.1. Representation as to Redevelopment.....................................................................20 Section 8.2. Prohibition Against Redeveloper’s Transfer of Property and Assignment of Agreement.....................................................................................20 Section 8.3. Release and Indemnification Covenants................................................................21 ARTICLE IX Events of Default Section 9.1. Events of Default Defined .....................................................................................23 Section 9.2. Remedies on Default..............................................................................................23 Section 9.3. No Remedy Exclusive............................................................................................24 Section 9.4. No Additional Waiver Implied by One Waiver ....................................................24 Section 9.5. Attorney Fees.........................................................................................................24 ARTICLE X Additional Provisions Section 10.1. Conflict of Interests; Representatives Not Individually Liable.............................25 Section 10.2. Equal Employment Opportunity............................................................................25 Section 10.3. Restrictions on Use................................................................................................25 Section 10.4. Provisions Not Merged With Deed........................................................................25 Section 10.5. Titles of Articles and Sections...............................................................................25 Section 10.6. Notices and Demands ............................................................................................25 Section 10.7. Counterparts...........................................................................................................26 Section 10.8. Recording...............................................................................................................26 Section 10.9. Amendment............................................................................................................26 Section 10.10. Authority Approvals..............................................................................................26 TESTIMONIUM ...........................................................................................................................27 SIGNATURES ..............................................................................................................................27 SCHEDULE A Redevelopment Property SCHEDULE B Public Redevelopment Costs SCHEDULE C CAP Loan Resolution SCHEDULE D Certificate of Completion EDA Meeting of January 18, 2011 (Item No. 7a) Subject: Contract for Private Development between the EDA and CKJ Properties, LLC Page 10 380348v3 MNI SA285-96 1 CONTRACT FOR PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT THIS AGREEMENT, made as of the ____ day of _________, 2011, by and between the St. Louis Park Economic Redevelopment Authority (the “Authority”), a public body corporate and politic under the laws of Minnesota, and CKJ Properties, LLC (the “Redeveloper”), a Minnesota limited liability company. WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the Authority was created pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Sections 469.090 to 469.1081 (the “Act”) and was authorized to transact business and exercise its powers by a resolution of the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota (the “City”); and WHEREAS, the Authority has undertaken a program to promote the development and redevelopment of land which is underutilized within the City, and in this connection created the Redevelopment Project No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as the “Project”) in an area (hereinafter referred to as the “Project Area”) located in the City pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.001 to 469.047 (the “HRA Act”); and WHEREAS, pursuant to the Act, the Authority is authorized to undertake certain activities to prepare such real property for development and redevelopment by private enterprise; and WHEREAS, the Redeveloper has acquired certain property (the “Redevelopment Property”) in the Project Area and intends to redevelop on that property an existing commercial and office facility, as further described herein (the “Minimum Improvements”); and WHEREAS, the Authority has previously established the Victoria Ponds, Park Center Housing, CSM, Mill City, Edgewood, Wolfe Lake, Aquila Commons, and Elmwood Tax Increment Financing Districts (the “TIF Districts”) pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.174 to 469.1799, as amended, made up of property in the Project Area; and WHEREAS, the City and Authority have duly established a Spending Plan (the “Spending Plan”) for the TIF Districts pursuant to Minnesota Laws 2010, Chapter 216, Section 32 (the “Job Creation Act”), which authorizes the use of tax increments from the TIF Districts to provide improvements, loans, interest rate subsidies, or assistance in any form to private development consisting of construction that will create or retain jobs, and have further implemented a Construction Assistance Program (“CAP”) which provides policy guidelines for such use of tax increments pursuant to the Spending Plan; and WHEREAS, the Authority intends to provide assistance to the Redeveloper pursuant to the CAP and Spending Plan, as more fully described herein; and WHEREAS, the Authority believes that the development of the Redevelopment Property pursuant to and in general fulfillment of this Agreement, conforms to the Spending Plan, CAP EDA Meeting of January 18, 2011 (Item No. 7a) Subject: Contract for Private Development between the EDA and CKJ Properties, LLC Page 11 380348v3 MNI SA285-96 2 and Job Creation Act and is in the vital and best interests of the City, will promote the health, safety, morals, and welfare of its residents, and will be in accord with the public purposes and provisions of the applicable State and local laws and requirements under which the Project has been undertaken and is being assisted. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and the mutual obligations of the parties hereto, each of them does hereby covenant and agree with the other as follows: EDA Meeting of January 18, 2011 (Item No. 7a) Subject: Contract for Private Development between the EDA and CKJ Properties, LLC Page 12 380348v3 MNI SA285-96 3 ARTICLE I Definitions Section 1.1. Definitions. In this Agreement, unless a different meaning clearly appears from the context: “Act” means Minnesota Statutes Sections 469.090 to 469.1081, as amended. “Affiliate” means with respect to any entity (a) any corporation, partnership, limited liability company or other business entity or person controlling, controlled by or under common control with the entity, and (b) any successor to such party by merger, acquisition, reorganization or similar transaction involving all or substantially all of the assets of such party (or such Affiliate). For the purpose hereof the words “controlling”, “controlled by” and “under common control with” shall mean, with respect to any corporation, partnership, limited liability company or other business entity, the ownership of fifty percent or more of the voting interests in such entity or possession, directly or indirectly, of the power to direct or cause the direction of management policies of such entity, whether through ownership of voting securities or by contract or otherwise. “Agreement” means this Agreement, as the same may be from time to time modified, amended, or supplemented. “Authority” means the St. Louis Park Economic Redevelopment Authority. “Authority Representative” means the Executive Director of the Authority, or any person designated by the Executive Director to act as the Authority Representative for the purposes of this Agreement. “Business Day” means any day except a Saturday, Sunday, legal holiday, a day on which the City is closed for business, or a day on which banking institutions in the City are authorized by law or executive order to close. “Business Subsidy Act” means Minnesota Statutes, Sections 116J.993 to 116J.995, as amended. “CAP” means the City’s Construction Assistance Program, adopted by the City Council and Authority on July 19, 2010. “CAP Loan” means the loan, substantially in the form contained in the Loan Resolution, to be delivered by the Authority to the Redeveloper in accordance with Section 3.4 hereof to reimburse the Redeveloper for Public Redevelopment Costs. “CAP Loan Resolution” means the resolution of the Authority, substantially in the form of attached Schedule B to be adopted by the Authority to authorize the CAP Loan. EDA Meeting of January 18, 2011 (Item No. 7a) Subject: Contract for Private Development between the EDA and CKJ Properties, LLC Page 13 380348v3 MNI SA285-96 4 “City” means the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota. “Certificate of Completion” means the certification provided to the Redeveloper pursuant to Section 4.4 of this Agreement. “Construction Plans” means the plans, specifications, drawings and related documents on the construction work to be performed by the Redeveloper on the Redevelopment Property which (a) shall be as detailed as the plans, specifications, drawings and related documents which are submitted to the appropriate building officials of the City, and (b) shall include at least the following: (1) site plan; (2) floor plan; (3) landscape plan; and (4) such other plans or supplements to the foregoing plans as the Authority may reasonably request to allow it to ascertain the nature and quality of the proposed construction work. “County” means the County of Hennepin, Minnesota. “Event of Default” means an action by the Redeveloper listed in Article IX of this Agreement. “HRA Act” means Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.001 to 469.047, as amended. “Job Creation Act” means Minnesota Laws 2010, Chapter 216, Section 32. “Minimum Improvements” means renovation, on the Redevelopment Property, of an existing commercial and office facility containing approximately 18,000 square feet, to be leased to commercial and office tenants. Such renovation shall include all Public Redevelopment Costs attached hereto as Schedule B. “Parcel” means any parcel of the Redevelopment Property. “Project” means the Authority’s Redevelopment Project No. 1. “Project Area” means the geographic area within the boundaries of the Project. “Public Redevelopment Costs” has the meaning provided in Section 3.3(a) hereof. “Redeveloper” means CKJ Properties, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company, or its permitted successors and assigns. “Redevelopment Plan” means the Redevelopment Plan for the Project. “Redevelopment Property” means the real property described in Schedule A of this Agreement. “Spending Plan” means the Spending Plan for the TIF Districts approved by the City Council and Authority on July 19, 2010, pursuant to the Job Creation Act. EDA Meeting of January 18, 2011 (Item No. 7a) Subject: Contract for Private Development between the EDA and CKJ Properties, LLC Page 14 380348v3 MNI SA285-96 5 “State” means the state of Minnesota. “Tax Official” means any County assessor, County auditor, County or State board of equalization, the commissioner of revenue of the State, or any State or federal district court, the tax court of the State, or the State Supreme Court. “Termination Date” means five years after the date of issuance of the certificate of completion for the Minimum Improvements or earlier termination pursuant to this Agreement. “TIF Districts” means the Victoria Ponds, Park Center Housing, CSM, Mill City, Edgewood, Wolfe Lake, Aquila Commons, and Elmwood Tax Increment Financing Districts previously created by the City and the Authority. “Transfer” has the meaning set forth in Section 8.2(a) hereof. “Unavoidable Delays” means delays beyond the reasonable control of the party seeking to be excused as a result thereof which are the direct result of strikes, other labor troubles, prolonged adverse weather or acts of God, fire or other casualty to the Minimum Improvements, litigation commenced by third parties which, by injunction or other similar judicial action, directly results in delays, or acts of any federal, state or local governmental unit (other than the Authority or City in exercising their rights under this Agreement), including without limitation condemnation or threat of condemnation of any portion of the Redevelopment Property, which directly result in delays. Unavoidable Delays shall not include delays experienced by the Redeveloper in obtaining permits or governmental approvals necessary to enable construction of the Minimum Improvements by the dates such construction is required under Section 4.3 of this Agreement, so long as the Construction Plans have been approved in accordance with Section 4.2 hereof. EDA Meeting of January 18, 2011 (Item No. 7a) Subject: Contract for Private Development between the EDA and CKJ Properties, LLC Page 15 380348v3 MNI SA285-96 6 ARTICLE II Representations and Warranties Section 2.1. Representations by the Authority. (a) The Authority is an economic development authority duly organized and existing under the laws of the State. Under the provisions of the Act and the HRA Act, the Authority has the power to enter into this Agreement and carry out its obligations hereunder. (b) The Authority will use its best efforts to facilitate development of the Minimum Improvements, including but not limited to cooperating with the Redeveloper in obtaining necessary administrative and land use approvals and construction financing pursuant to Section 7.1 hereof. (c) The Authority will make the CAP Loan, subject to all the terms and conditions of the CAP policy guidelines and this Agreement. (d) The activities of the Authority are undertaken pursuant to the Job Creation Act for the purpose of fostering the development and redevelopment of certain real property, which will provide employment opportunities, revitalize this portion of the Project Area, and increase the tax base. Section 2.2. Representations and Warranties by the Redeveloper. The Redeveloper represents and warrants that: (a) The Redeveloper is a limited liability company, duly established and in good standing under the laws of the State of Minnesota, is not in violation of any provisions of its articles of organization or bylaws, is duly qualified as a domestic limited liability company and authorized to transact business within the State, has power to enter into this Agreement and has duly authorized the execution, delivery, and performance of this Agreement by proper action of its members. (b) The Redeveloper will construct the Minimum Improvements in accordance with the terms of this Agreement, the Redevelopment Plan and all local, state and federal laws and regulations (including, but not limited to, environmental, zoning, building code and public health laws and regulations), and has sufficient funding to complete all such Minimum Improvements. (c) The Redeveloper will use reasonable efforts to secure all permits, licenses and approvals necessary for construction of the Minimum Improvements. (d) The Redeveloper has received no written notice or other written communication from any local, state or federal official that the activities of the Redeveloper or the Authority in the Project Area may be or will be in violation of any environmental law or regulation (other than those notices or communications of which the Authority is aware). The Redeveloper is EDA Meeting of January 18, 2011 (Item No. 7a) Subject: Contract for Private Development between the EDA and CKJ Properties, LLC Page 16 380348v3 MNI SA285-96 7 aware of no facts the existence of which would cause it to be in violation of or give any person a valid claim under any local, state or federal environmental law, regulation or review procedure. (e) Neither the execution and delivery of this Agreement, the consummation of the transactions contemplated hereby, nor the fulfillment of or compliance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement is prevented, limited by or conflicts with or results in a breach of, the terms, conditions or provisions of any corporate restriction or any evidences of indebtedness, agreement or instrument of whatever nature to which the Redeveloper is now a party or by which it is bound, or constitutes a default under any of the foregoing. (f) The proposed development by the Redeveloper hereunder would not occur before July 1, 2011 but for the assistance being provided by the Authority hereunder. [The remainder of this page is intentionally left blank.] EDA Meeting of January 18, 2011 (Item No. 7a) Subject: Contract for Private Development between the EDA and CKJ Properties, LLC Page 17 380348v3 MNI SA285-96 8 ARTICLE III Property Acquisition; Public Redevelopment Costs Section 3.1. Status of Redevelopment Property. The Redevelopment Property consists of the parcel described in Schedule A. As of the date of this Agreement the Redeveloper has acquired the Redevelopment Property. The Authority has no obligation to acquire the Redevelopment Property. Section 3.2. Environmental Conditions. (a) The Redeveloper acknowledges that the Authority makes no representations or warranties as to the condition of the soils on the Redevelopment Property or the fitness of the Redevelopment Property for construction of the Minimum Improvements or any other purpose for which the Redeveloper may make use of such property, and that the assistance provided to the Redeveloper under this Agreement neither implies any responsibility by the Authority or the City for any contamination of the Redevelopment Property nor imposes any obligation on such parties to participate in any cleanup of the Redevelopment Property. (b) Without limiting its obligations under Section 8.3 of this Agreement the Redeveloper further agrees that it will indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the Authority, the City, and their governing body members, officers, and employees, from any claims or actions arising out of the presence, if any, of hazardous wastes or pollutants existing on or in the Redevelopment Property (including without limitation any asbestos in any existing building), unless and to the extent that such hazardous wastes or pollutants are present as a result of the actions or omissions of the indemnitees. Nothing in this section will be construed to limit or affect any limitations on liability of the City or Authority under State or federal law, including without limitation Minnesota Statutes Sections 466.04 and 604.02. Section 3.3. CAP Loan. (a) Generally. The Authority has determined that, in order to make development of the Minimum Improvements financially feasible and to expedite such development and stimulate the rapid creation of jobs pursuant to the Job Creation Act, it is necessary to provide the Redeveloper with a CAP Loan for a portion of the Public Redevelopment Costs incurred by the Redeveloper as set forth in Schedule B, subject to the terms of this Section. (b) Terms. To assist the Redeveloper with payment of the Public Redevelopment Costs, the Authority shall provide the Redeveloper with the CAP Loan in the principal amount of the lesser of $70,000 or 33% of the actual Public Redevelopment Costs incurred by the Redeveloper. The Authority shall loan the CAP Loan funds to Redeveloper upon Redeveloper having: (i) no later than December 1, 2011, delivered to the Authority written evidence satisfactory to the Authority that Redeveloper has incurred the Public Redevelopment Costs, which evidence must include copies of the paid invoices or other comparable evidence for the Public Redevelopment Costs; and EDA Meeting of January 18, 2011 (Item No. 7a) Subject: Contract for Private Development between the EDA and CKJ Properties, LLC Page 18 380348v3 MNI SA285-96 9 (ii) delivered lien waivers from each contractor, including subcontractors, who shall be engaged to work on, or to furnish materials and supplies for the Minimum Improvements, for all work done and for all materials furnished by it for the Minimum Improvements. The terms of the CAP Loan will be substantially those set forth in the form of the CAP Loan Resolution shown in Schedule C, and the CAP Loan will be subject to all terms of the CAP Loan Resolution, which is incorporated herein by reference. The source of funds for the CAP Loan will be Tax Increments from the TIF Districts pursuant to the Spending Plan, in accordance with the Job Creation Act. (c) Termination of right to CAP Loan. In accordance with the Job Creation Act, construction of the Minimum Improvements must commence no later than July 1, 2011, and no extensions of the commencement date will be considered. If the construction has not commenced by such date, the Authority has no further obligations under this Section 3.3. (d) Assignment of CAP Loan. The parties agree and acknowledge that the CAP Loan may not be assigned to a third party. (e) Qualifications. The Redeveloper understands and acknowledges that the CAP Loan must be fully repaid, along with accrued interest at the rate of 6.0%, if the Redeveloper fails to maintain the Minimum Improvements in good repair and condition as required under Section 4.1 hereof, if a Transfer of the Redevelopment Property occurs at any time before the Termination Date, or if the Authority exercises its right to terminate this Agreement as a remedy for any Event of Default under Article IX hereof. Public Redevelopment Costs exceeding the principal amount of the CAP Loan are the sole responsibility of Redeveloper. Section 3.4. Business Subsidy. (a) Exemption. The Redeveloper warrants and represents that the Redeveloper’s investment in the purchase of the Redevelopment Property equals at least seventy percent (70%) of the County assessor’s finalized market value of the Redevelopment Property for the 2010 assessment year, calculated as follows: Aggregate cost of acquisition of Redevelopment Property............$643,800 Assessor’s finalized market value of Redevelopment Property (pay 2011)........................................................................$725,000 $643,800 (net acquisition cost) is 89% of $725,000 (assessor’s finalized fair market value of the Redevelopment Property payable in 2011). Accordingly, the parties agree and understand that the financial assistance described in this Agreement does not constitute a business subsidy within the meaning of the Business Subsidy Act. The Redeveloper releases and waives any claim against the Authority and its governing body members, officers, agents, servants and employees thereof arising from application of the Business Subsidy Act to this Agreement, including without limitation any EDA Meeting of January 18, 2011 (Item No. 7a) Subject: Contract for Private Development between the EDA and CKJ Properties, LLC Page 19 380348v3 MNI SA285-96 10 claim that the Authority failed to comply with the Business Subsidy Act with respect to this Agreement. (b) Job Goals. Notwithstanding the exemption from the requirements of the Business Subsidy Act described in Section 3.4(a), the parties agree and understand that this Agreement is subject to the job creation requirements of the Job Creation Act. Accordingly, through the use of the CAP Loan, the Redeveloper shall cause the renovation of the Minimum Improvements, which renovation shall create or retain construction jobs. In addition, the Redeveloper shall cause to be created such new full-time equivalent jobs as permitted by the construction of the Minimum Improvements, and subsequent leasing of the commercial and office space therein. (c) Reports. The Redeveloper must submit to the City a written report regarding job results by no later than February 1 of each year, commencing February 1, 2012 and continuing until the date the goals stated in Section 3.4(b) are met; or (ii) if the goals are not met, the date the CAP Loan is repaid in accordance with its terms. The City will provide information to the Redeveloper regarding the required forms. If the Redeveloper fails to timely file any report required under this Section, the City will mail the Redeveloper a warning within one week after the required filing date. If, after 14 days of the postmarked date of the warning, the Redeveloper fails to provide a report, the Redeveloper must pay to the City a penalty of $100 for each subsequent day until the report is filed. The maximum aggregate penalty payable under this Section is $1,000. [The remainder of this page is intentionally left blank.] EDA Meeting of January 18, 2011 (Item No. 7a) Subject: Contract for Private Development between the EDA and CKJ Properties, LLC Page 20 380348v3 MNI SA285-96 11 ARTICLE IV Construction of Minimum Improvements Section 4.1. Construction of Improvements. The Redeveloper agrees that it will construct or cause construction of the Minimum Improvements on the Redevelopment Property in accordance with the approved Construction Plans and that it will, during any period while the Redeveloper retains ownership of any portion of the Minimum Improvements, operate and maintain, preserve and keep the Minimum Improvements or cause the Minimum Improvements to be maintained, preserved and kept with the appurtenances and every part and parcel thereof, in good repair and condition. Section 4.2. Construction Plans. (a) Before commencing construction of the Minimum Improvements, the Redeveloper shall submit to the Authority Construction Plans for the Minimum Improvements. The Construction Plans shall provide for the construction of the Minimum Improvements and shall be in conformity with this Agreement, the Redevelopment Plan and all applicable State and local laws and regulations. The Authority will approve the Construction Plans in writing if (i) the Construction Plans conform to all terms and conditions of this Agreement; (ii) the Construction Plans conform to the goals and objectives of the Redevelopment Plan; (iii) the Construction Plans conform to all applicable federal, state and local laws, ordinances, rules and regulations; and (iv) no Event of Default has occurred. The Authority’s approval shall not be unreasonably withheld. Said approval shall constitute a conclusive determination that the Construction Plans (and the Minimum Improvements, constructed in accordance with said plans) comply to the Authority’s satisfaction with the provisions of this Agreement relating thereto. The Redeveloper hereby waives any and all claims and causes of action whatsoever resulting from the review of the Construction Plans by the Authority and/or any changes in the Construction Plans requested by the Authority. Neither the Authority nor any employee or official of the Authority shall be responsible in any manner whatsoever for any defect in the Construction Plans or in any work done pursuant to the Construction Plans, including changes requested by the Authority. (b) If the Redeveloper desires to make any material change in the Construction Plans or any component thereof after their approval by the Authority, the Redeveloper shall submit the proposed change to the Authority for its approval. For the purpose of this section, the term “material” means changes that increase or decrease construction costs by $100,000 or more. The Authority’s approval of any such change in the Construction Plans will not be unreasonably withheld. Section 4.3. Commencement and Completion of Construction. The Redeveloper shall commence construction of the Minimum Improvements by July 1, 2011. Subject to Unavoidable Delays, the Redeveloper shall complete the construction of the Minimum Improvements by December 1, 2011. All work with respect to the Minimum Improvements to be constructed or EDA Meeting of January 18, 2011 (Item No. 7a) Subject: Contract for Private Development between the EDA and CKJ Properties, LLC Page 21 380348v3 MNI SA285-96 12 provided by the Redeveloper on the Redevelopment Property shall be in conformity with the Construction Plans as submitted by the Redeveloper and approved by the Authority. The Redeveloper agrees for itself, its successors, and assigns, and every successor in interest to the Redevelopment Property, or any part thereof, that the Redeveloper, and such successors and assigns, shall promptly begin and diligently prosecute to completion the development of the Redevelopment Property through the construction of the Minimum Improvements thereon, and that such construction shall in any event be commenced and completed within the period specified in this Section 4.3 of this Agreement. After the date of this Agreement and until the Minimum Improvements have been fully leased, the Redeveloper shall make reports, in such detail and at such times as may reasonably be requested by the Authority, but no more than monthly, as to the actual progress of the Redeveloper with respect to such construction and leasing. Section 4.4. Certificate of Completion. (a) Promptly after completion of the Minimum Improvements in accordance with those provisions of the Agreement relating solely to the obligations of the Redeveloper to construct the Minimum Improvements (including the dates for beginning and completion thereof), the Authority Representative shall deliver to the Redeveloper a Certificate in substantially the form shown as Schedule D, in recordable form and executed by the Authority. (b) If the Authority Representative shall refuse or fail to provide any certification in accordance with the provisions of this Section 4.4 of this Agreement, the Authority Representative shall, within thirty (30) days after written request by the Redeveloper, provide the Redeveloper with a written statement, indicating in adequate detail in what respects the Redeveloper has failed to complete the Minimum Improvements in accordance with the provisions of the Agreement, or is otherwise in default, and what measures or acts it will be necessary, in the opinion of the Authority, for the Redeveloper to take or perform in order for the Authority to issue the Certificate of Completion. (c) The construction of the Minimum Improvements shall be deemed to be substantially complete upon issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the Minimum Improvements, and upon determination by the Authority Representative that all related site improvements on the Redevelopment Property have been substantially completed in accordance with approved Construction Plans. Section 4.5. Records. The Authority and the City, through any authorized representatives, shall have the right at all reasonable times after reasonable notice to inspect, examine and copy all books and records of Redeveloper relating to the Minimum Improvements. Such records shall be kept and maintained by Redeveloper through the Maturity Date. [The remainder of this page is intentionally left blank.] EDA Meeting of January 18, 2011 (Item No. 7a) Subject: Contract for Private Development between the EDA and CKJ Properties, LLC Page 22 380348v3 MNI SA285-96 13 ARTICLE V Insurance Section 5.1. Insurance. (a) The Redeveloper will provide and maintain at all times during the process of constructing the Minimum Improvements an All Risk Broad Form Basis Insurance Policy and, from time to time during that period, at the request of the Authority, furnish the Authority with proof of payment of premiums on policies covering the following: (i) Builder’s risk insurance, written on the so-called “Builder’s Risk -- Completed Value Basis,” in an amount equal to 100% of the principal amount of the Note, and with coverage available in nonreporting form on the so-called “all risk” form of policy. The interest of the Authority shall be protected in accordance with a clause in form and content satisfactory to the Authority; (ii) Comprehensive general liability insurance (including operations, contingent liability, operations of subcontractors, completed operations, and contractual liability insurance) together with an Owner’s Protective Liability Policy with limits against bodily injury and property damage of not less than $1,000,000 for each occurrence (to accomplish the above-required limits, an umbrella excess liability policy may be used). The Authority shall be listed as an additional insured on the policy; and (iii) Workers’ compensation insurance, with statutory coverage, provided that the Redeveloper may be self-insured with respect to all or any part of its liability for workers’ compensation. (b) Upon completion of construction of the Minimum Improvements and prior to the Maturity Date, the Redeveloper shall maintain, or cause to be maintained, at its cost and expense, and from time to time at the request of the Authority shall furnish proof of the payment of premiums on, insurance as follows: (i) Insurance against loss and/or damage to the Minimum Improvements under a policy or policies covering such risks as are ordinarily insured against by similar businesses. (ii) Comprehensive general public liability insurance, including personal injury liability (with employee exclusion deleted), against liability for injuries to persons and/or property, in the minimum amount for each occurrence and for each year of $1,000,000, and shall be endorsed to show the City and Authority as additional insureds. (iii) Such other insurance, including workers’ compensation insurance respecting all employees of the Redeveloper, in such amount as is customarily carried by like organizations engaged in like activities of comparable size and liability exposure; provided that the Redeveloper may be self-insured with respect to all or any part of its liability for workers’ compensation. EDA Meeting of January 18, 2011 (Item No. 7a) Subject: Contract for Private Development between the EDA and CKJ Properties, LLC Page 23 380348v3 MNI SA285-96 14 (c) All insurance required in Article V of this Agreement shall be taken out and maintained in responsible insurance companies selected by the Redeveloper that are authorized under the laws of the State to assume the risks covered thereby. Upon request, the Redeveloper will deposit annually with the Authority policies evidencing all such insurance, or a certificate or certificates or binders of the respective insurers stating that such insurance is in force and effect. Unless otherwise provided in this Article V of this Agreement each policy shall contain a provision that the insurer shall not cancel nor modify it in such a way as to reduce the coverage provided below the amounts required herein without giving written notice to the Redeveloper and the Authority at least thirty (30) days before the cancellation or modification becomes effective. In lieu of separate policies, the Redeveloper may maintain a single policy, blanket or umbrella policies, or a combination thereof, having the coverage required herein, in which event the Redeveloper shall deposit with the Authority a certificate or certificates of the respective insurers as to the amount of coverage in force upon the Minimum Improvements. (d) The Redeveloper agrees to notify the Authority immediately in the case of damage exceeding $100,000 in amount to, or destruction of, the Minimum Improvements or any portion thereof resulting from fire or other casualty. In such event the Redeveloper will forthwith repair, reconstruct, and restore the Minimum Improvements to substantially the same or an improved condition or value as it existed prior to the event causing such damage and, to the extent necessary to accomplish such repair, reconstruction, and restoration, the Redeveloper will apply the net proceeds of any insurance relating to such damage received by the Redeveloper to the payment or reimbursement of the costs thereof. The Redeveloper shall complete the repair, reconstruction and restoration of the Minimum Improvements, regardless of whether the net proceeds of insurance received by the Redeveloper for such purposes are sufficient to pay for the same. Any net proceeds remaining after completion of such repairs, construction, and restoration shall be the property of the Redeveloper. (e) In lieu of its obligation to reconstruct the Minimum Improvements as set forth in this Section, the Redeveloper shall have the option of paying to the Authority an amount that, in the opinion of the Authority and its fiscal consultant, is sufficient to pay or redeem the outstanding principal and accrued interest on the CAP Loan. (f) The Redeveloper and the Authority agree that all of the insurance provisions set forth in this Article V shall terminate upon the termination of this Agreement. EDA Meeting of January 18, 2011 (Item No. 7a) Subject: Contract for Private Development between the EDA and CKJ Properties, LLC Page 24 380348v3 MNI SA285-96 15 ARTICLE VI Taxes Section 6.1. Intentionally Omitted. Section 6.2. Review of Taxes. The Redeveloper agrees that prior to the Termination Date it will not cause a reduction in the real property taxes paid in respect of the Redevelopment Property through: (A) willful destruction of the Redevelopment Property or any part thereof; or (B) willful refusal to reconstruct damaged or destroyed property pursuant to Section 5.1 of this Agreement, except as provided in Section 5.1(e). The Redeveloper also agrees that it will not, prior to the Termination Date, seek exemption from property tax for the Redevelopment Property or any portion thereof or transfer or permit the transfer of the Redevelopment Property to any entity that is exempt from real property taxes and state law (other than any portion thereof dedicated or conveyed to the City in accordance with platting of the Redevelopment Property), or apply for a deferral of property tax on the Redevelopment Property pursuant to any law. [The remainder of this page is intentionally left blank.] EDA Meeting of January 18, 2011 (Item No. 7a) Subject: Contract for Private Development between the EDA and CKJ Properties, LLC Page 25 380348v3 MNI SA285-96 16 ARTICLE VII Intentionally Omitted EDA Meeting of January 18, 2011 (Item No. 7a) Subject: Contract for Private Development between the EDA and CKJ Properties, LLC Page 26 380348v3 MNI SA285-96 17 ARTICLE VIII Prohibitions Against Assignment and Transfer; Indemnification Section 8.1. Representation as to Redevelopment. The Redeveloper represents and agrees that its purchase of the Redevelopment Property, and its other undertakings pursuant to the Agreement, are, and will be used, for the purpose of development of the Redevelopment Property and not for speculation in land holding. Section 8.2. Prohibition Against Redeveloper’s Transfer of Property and Assignment of Agreement. The Redeveloper represents and agrees that during the term of this Agreement, except only by way of security for, and only for, the purpose of obtaining financing necessary to enable the Redeveloper or any successor in interest to the Redevelopment Property, or any part thereof, to perform its obligations with respect to undertaking the development contemplated under this Agreement, and any other purpose authorized by this Agreement, the Redeveloper has not made or created and will not make or create or suffer to be made or created any total or partial sale, assignment, conveyance, or lease, or any trust or power, or transfer in any other mode or form of or with respect to this Agreement or the Redevelopment Property or any part thereof or any interest therein, or any contract or agreement to do any of the same, to any person or entity whether or not related in any way to the Redeveloper (collectively, a “Transfer”). If a Transfer occurs before the Termination Date, the Authority may accelerate the CAP Loan as provided in Section 3.3(e) hereof. For the purposes of this Agreement, the term Transfer does not include (i) acquisition of a controlling interest in Developer by another entity or merger of Developer with another entity; or (ii) any sale, conveyance, or transfer in any form to any Affiliate. Section 8.3. Release and Indemnification Covenants. (a) Except for any willful misrepresentation or any willful or wanton misconduct or negligence of the Indemnified Parties as hereinafter defined, and except for any breach by any of the Indemnified Parties of their obligations under this Agreement, the Redeveloper releases from and covenants and agrees that the Authority, the City, and the governing body members, officers, agents, servants, and employees thereof (the “Indemnified Parties”) shall not be liable for and agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the Indemnified Parties against any loss or damage to property or any injury to or death of any person occurring at or about or resulting from any defect in the Redevelopment Property or the Minimum Improvements. (b) Except for any willful misrepresentation or any willful or wanton misconduct or negligence of the Indemnified Parties, and except for any breach by any of the Indemnified Parties of their obligations under this Agreement, the Redeveloper agrees to protect and defend the Indemnified Parties, now and forever, and further agrees to hold the aforesaid harmless from any claim, demand, suit, action, or other proceeding whatsoever by any person or entity whatsoever arising or purportedly arising from this Agreement, or the transactions contemplated hereby or the acquisition, construction, installation, ownership, maintenance, and operation of the Redevelopment Property. EDA Meeting of January 18, 2011 (Item No. 7a) Subject: Contract for Private Development between the EDA and CKJ Properties, LLC Page 27 380348v3 MNI SA285-96 18 (c) Except for any willful misrepresentation or any willful or wanton misconduct or negligence of the Indemnified Parties as hereinafter defined, and except for any breach by any of the Indemnified Parties of their obligations under this Agreement, the Indemnified Parties shall not be liable for any damage or injury to the persons or property of the Redeveloper or its officers, agents, servants, or employees or any other person who may be about the Redevelopment Property or Minimum Improvements. (d) All covenants, stipulations, promises, agreements and obligations of the Authority contained herein shall be deemed to be the covenants, stipulations, promises, agreements, and obligations of such entity and not of any governing body member, officer, agent, servant, or employee of such entities in the individual capacity thereof. [The remainder of this page is intentionally left blank.] EDA Meeting of January 18, 2011 (Item No. 7a) Subject: Contract for Private Development between the EDA and CKJ Properties, LLC Page 28 380348v3 MNI SA285-96 19 ARTICLE IX Events of Default Section 9.1. Events of Default Defined. The following shall be “Events of Default” under this Agreement and the term “Event of Default” shall mean, whenever it is used in this Agreement, any one or more of the following events, after the non-defaulting party provides thirty (30) days written notice to the defaulting party of the event, but only if the event has not been cured within said thirty (30) days or, if the event is by its nature incurable within thirty (30) days, the defaulting party does not, within such thirty-day period, provide assurances reasonably satisfactory to the party providing notice of default that the event will be cured and will be cured as soon as reasonably possible: (a) Failure by the Redeveloper or Authority to observe or perform any covenant, condition, obligation, or agreement on its part to be observed or performed under this Agreement. (b) If, before issuance of the certificate of completion for all the Minimum Improvements, the Redeveloper shall (i) file any petition in bankruptcy or for any reorganization, arrangement, composition, readjustment, liquidation, dissolution, or similar relief under the United States Bankruptcy Act or under any similar federal or State law, which action is not dismissed within sixty (60) days after filing; or (ii) make an assignment for benefit of its creditors; or (iii) admit in writing its inability to pay its debts generally as they become due; or (iv) be adjudicated a bankrupt or insolvent. Section 9.2. Remedies on Default. Whenever any Event of Default referred to in Section 9.1 of this Agreement occurs, the non-defaulting party may: (a) Suspend its performance under this Agreement until it receives assurances that the defaulting party will cure its default and continue its performance under the Agreement. (b) Upon a default by the Redeveloper under this Agreement, the Authority may accelerate the CAP Loan and terminate this Agreement. (c) Take whatever action, including legal, equitable, or administrative action, which may appear necessary or desirable to collect any payments due under this Agreement, or to enforce performance and observance of any obligation, agreement, or covenant under this Agreement, provided that nothing contained herein shall give the Authority the right to seek specific performance by Redeveloper of the construction of the Minimum Improvements. EDA Meeting of January 18, 2011 (Item No. 7a) Subject: Contract for Private Development between the EDA and CKJ Properties, LLC Page 29 380348v3 MNI SA285-96 20 Section 9.3. No Remedy Exclusive. No remedy herein conferred upon or reserved to any party is intended to be exclusive of any other available remedy or remedies, but each and every such remedy shall be cumulative and shall be in addition to every other remedy given under this Agreement or now or hereafter existing at law or in equity or by statute. No delay or omission to exercise any right or power accruing upon any default shall impair any such right or power or shall be construed to be a waiver thereof, but any such right and power may be exercised from time to time and as often as may be deemed expedient. To entitle the Authority to exercise any remedy reserved to it, it shall not be necessary to give notice, other than such notice as may be required in this Article IX. Section 9.4. No Additional Waiver Implied by One Waiver. In the event any agreement contained in this Agreement should be breached by either party and thereafter waived by the other 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 hereunder. Section 9.5. Attorney Fees. Whenever any Event of Default occurs and if the non- defaulting party employs attorneys or incurs other expenses for the collection of payments due or to become due or for the enforcement of performance or observance of any obligation or agreement on the part of the defaulting party under this Agreement, the defaulting party shall, within ten (10) days of written demand by the non-defaulting party, pay to the non-defaulting party the reasonable fees of such attorneys and such other expenses so incurred by the non- defaulting party. [The remainder of this page is intentionally left blank.] EDA Meeting of January 18, 2011 (Item No. 7a) Subject: Contract for Private Development between the EDA and CKJ Properties, LLC Page 30 380348v3 MNI SA285-96 21 ARTICLE X Additional Provisions Section 10.1. Conflict of Interests; Representatives Not Individually Liable. The Authority and the Redeveloper, to the best of their respective knowledge, represent and agree that no member, official, or employee of the Authority shall have any personal interest, direct or indirect, in the Agreement, nor shall any such member, official, or employee participate in any decision relating to the Agreement that affects his personal interests or the interests of any corporation, partnership, or association in which he, directly or indirectly, is interested. No member, official, or employee of the City or Authority shall be personally liable to the Redeveloper, or any successor in interest, in the event of any default or breach by the Authority or for any amount that may become due to the Redeveloper or successor or on any obligations under the terms of the Agreement. Section 10.2. Equal Employment Opportunity. The Redeveloper, for itself and its successors and assigns, agrees that during the construction of the Minimum Improvements provided for in the Agreement it will comply with all applicable federal, state, and local equal employment and non-discrimination laws and regulations. Section 10.3. Restrictions on Use. The Redeveloper agrees that until the Termination Date, the Redeveloper, and such successors and assigns, shall devote the Redevelopment Property to the operation of the Minimum Improvements as described in Section 1.1 hereof, and shall not discriminate upon the basis of race, color, creed, sex or national origin in the sale, lease, or rental or in the use or occupancy of the Redevelopment Property or any improvements erected or to be erected thereon, or any part thereof. Redeveloper agrees that no portion of the Redevelopment Property will be used for a sexually-oriented business, a pawnshop, a check- cashing business, a tattoo business, or a gun business. Section 10.4. Provisions Not Merged With Deed. None of the provisions of this Agreement are intended to or shall be merged by reason of any deed transferring any interest in the Redevelopment Property and any such deed shall not be deemed to affect or impair the provisions and covenants of this Agreement. Section 10.5. Titles of Articles and Sections. Any titles of the several parts, Articles, and Sections of the Agreement are inserted for convenience of reference only and shall be disregarded in construing or interpreting any of its provisions. Section 10.6. Notices and Demands. Except as otherwise expressly provided in this Agreement, a notice, demand, or other communication under the Agreement by either party to the other shall be sufficiently given or delivered if it is dispatched by registered or certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, or delivered personally, to the following addresses (or to such other addresses as either party may notify the other): EDA Meeting of January 18, 2011 (Item No. 7a) Subject: Contract for Private Development between the EDA and CKJ Properties, LLC Page 31 380348v3 MNI SA285-96 22 To Redeveloper: CKJ Properties, LLC Attn: Curt Rahman P.O. Box 16173 St. Louis Park, Minnesota 55416 To Authority: St. Louis Park Economic Redevelopment Authority Attn: Executive Director 5005 Minnetonka Boulevard St. Louis Park, Minnesota 55416-2518 Section 10.7. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which shall constitute one and the same instrument. Section 10.8. Recording. The Authority may record this Agreement and any amendments thereto with the Hennepin County recorder. The Redeveloper shall pay all costs for recording. The Redeveloper’s obligations under this Agreement are covenants running with the land for the term of this Agreement, enforceable by the Authority against the Redeveloper, its successor and assigns, and every successor in interest to the Redevelopment Property, or any part thereof or any interest therein. Section 10.9 Amendment. This Agreement may be amended only by written agreement approved by the Authority and the Redeveloper. Section 10.10. Authority Approvals. Unless otherwise specified, any approval required by the Authority under this Agreement may be given by the Authority Representative, except that final approval of issuance of the Note shall be made by the Authority’s board of commissioners. [The remainder of this page is intentionally left blank.] EDA Meeting of January 18, 2011 (Item No. 7a) Subject: Contract for Private Development between the EDA and CKJ Properties, LLC Page 32 380348v3 MNI SA285-96 23 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Authority and Redeveloper have caused this Agreement to be duly executed by their duly authorized representatives as of the date first above written. ST. LOUIS PARK ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY By Its President By Its Executive Director STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) SS. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ____ day of _________, 2011 by ______________________ and ___________________ the President and Executive Director of the St. Louis Park Economic Redevelopment Authority, on behalf of the Authority. Notary Public EDA Meeting of January 18, 2011 (Item No. 7a) Subject: Contract for Private Development between the EDA and CKJ Properties, LLC Page 33 380348v3 MNI SA285-96 24 CKJ PROPERTIES, LLC By Its STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) SS. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _____ day of ________, 2011, by _________________________, the _________________ of CKJ Properties, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company, on behalf of the company. Notary Public EDA Meeting of January 18, 2011 (Item No. 7a) Subject: Contract for Private Development between the EDA and CKJ Properties, LLC Page 34 380348v3 MNI SA285-96 A-1 SCHEDULE A DEVELOPMENT PROPERTY EDA Meeting of January 18, 2011 (Item No. 7a) Subject: Contract for Private Development between the EDA and CKJ Properties, LLC Page 35 380348v3 MNI SA285-96 B-1 SCHEDULE B PUBLIC REDEVELOPMENT COSTS Energy-efficient HVAC Garage Doors Restrooms Floors and Carpet Windows and glass Parking lot resurfacing/striping Electrical Landscaping Interior and exterior paint General demolition Dumpster screening Ceiling Tile Downspouts/roof edging Exterior metal doors Signage repair EDA Meeting of January 18, 2011 (Item No. 7a) Subject: Contract for Private Development between the EDA and CKJ Properties, LLC Page 36 380348v3 MNI SA285-96 C-1 SCHEDULE C CAP LOAN RESOLUTION ST. LOUIS PARK ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY RESOLUTION NO. 11-____ RESOLUTION APPROVING A CONSTRUCTION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM LOAN TO CKJ PROPERTIES, LLC, AND PROVIDING THE FORM, TERMS, COVENANTS AND DIRECTIONS FOR SUCH LOAN BE IT RESOLVED BY the Board of Commissioners (“Board”) of the St. Louis Park Economic Redevelopment Authority, St. Louis Park, Minnesota (the “Authority”) as follows: Section 1. Authorization; Award of Loan. 1.01. Authorization. The Authority and the City of St. Louis Park have heretofore approved the establishment of the Victoria Ponds, Park Center Housing, CSM, Mill City, Edgewood, Wolfe Lake, Aquila Commons, and Elmwood Tax Increment Financing District (the “TIF Districts”) within Redevelopment Project No. 1 (“Project”), have adopted a spending plan (the “Spending Plan”) pursuant to Minnesota Laws 2010, Chapter 216, Section 32 (the “Job Creation Act”) for the purpose of financing certain improvements within the Project using tax increments from the TIF Districts to stimulate job creation, and have established a Construction Assistance Program (“CAP”) to provide further guidelines for use of the tax increments from the TIF Districts under the Spending Plan. Pursuant to the Job Creation Act, the Authority is authorized to provide loans, interest rate subsidies, or assistance in any form to private development consisting of the construction or substantial rehabilitation of buildings and ancillary facilities to create or retain jobs. Such assistance is payable from all or any portion of revenues derived from the TIF Districts and authorized for such use under the Spending Plan. The Authority hereby finds and determines that it is in the best interests of the Authority to provide a CAP Loan to CKJ Properties, LLC (the “Redeveloper”) for the purpose of financing certain Public Redevelopment Costs in connection with the construction by the Redeveloper of certain Minimum Improvements, all as such terms are defined in the Contract for Private Redevelopment between the Authority and the Redeveloper (the “Agreement”) presented to the Board on the date hereof.. 1.02. Approval of Agreement; Terms of the Loan. (a) The Authority hereby authorizes the President and Executive Director to execute the Agreement in substantially the form presented to the Board, subject to modifications that do not alter the substance of the transaction and that are approved by the President and Executive Director, provided that execution of the Agreement by those officials shall be conclusive evidence of their approval. All capitalized terms EDA Meeting of January 18, 2011 (Item No. 7a) Subject: Contract for Private Development between the EDA and CKJ Properties, LLC Page 37 380348v3 MNI SA285-96 C-2 in this resolution have the meaning provided in the Agreement unless the context requires otherwise. (b) Pursuant to the Agreement, the Authority will loan to the Redeveloper the CAP Loan in the principal amount of the lesser of $70,000 or 33% of the Public Redevelopment Costs actually incurred by the Redeveloper, evidenced by a promissory note (the “Note”) and secured by the personal guaranty of Curt Rahman (the “Guaranty”) to be executed and delivered to the Authority by the Redeveloper in substantially the forms attached hereto as Exhibit A and Exhibit B. Proceeds of the CAP Loan shall be disbursed in accordance with Section 3.3 of the Agreement. The CAP Loan shall bear interest at the rate of 6.0% per annum, subject to the provisions of Section 2 hereof. Section 2. Repayment of Loan. The entire unpaid balance of principal and interest shall be due and payable upon the earlier of the following: (i) thirty (30) days after written notification by the Authority to the Redeveloper of the occurrence of an Event of Default as defined in the Agreement or Guaranty; or (ii) ten (10) days after the Redeveloper makes or allows to be made any total or partial Transfer of the Redevelopment Property, if such transfer occurs within five (5) years after the issuance of a Certificate of Completion for the Minimum Improvements as provided in Section 4.4 of the Agreement. If no Transfer occurs within five (5) years of the issuance of the Certificate of Completion for the Minimum Improvements, no payments of interest shall be payable on this CAP Loan and the principal balance shall be forgiven. Section 3. Effective Date. This resolution shall be effective upon approval. Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the Economic Redevelopment Authority __________, 2011 Executive Director President Attest Secretary EDA Meeting of January 18, 2011 (Item No. 7a) Subject: Contract for Private Development between the EDA and CKJ Properties, LLC Page 38 380348v3 MNI SA285-96 C-3 Exhibit A to CAP Loan Resolution PROMISSORY NOTE $______________ ____________, 2011 Interest rate: 6.0% CKJ Properties, LLC (“Maker”), for value received, hereby promises to pay to the St. Louis Park Economic Redevelopment Authority, a public body corporate and politic under the laws of Minnesota, or its assigns (collectively referred to herein as “Holder”), at its designated principal office or such other place as the Holder may designate in writing, the principal sum of ________ and no/100ths Dollars ($_______.00), with interest thereon at the rate of six percent (6.0%) per annum, in any coin or currency that at the time or times of payment is legal tender for the payment of private debts in the United States of America. The principal of and interest on this Note is payable as follows: 1. Simple interest shall accrue from the date of delivery, calculated on the basis of a 360-day year consisting of twelve 30-day months. The entire unpaid balance of principal and interest shall be due and payable upon the earlier of the following: (i) thirty (30) days after written notification by Holder to Maker of the occurrence of an Event of Default as defined in the Contract for Private Redevelopment between the Maker and the Holder, dated as of ___________, 2011 (the “Agreement”); or (ii) ten (10) days after the Maker makes or allows to be made any total or partial transfer, sale, assignment, conveyance, lease, or transfer in any other mode, of the Redevelopment Property (as defined in the Agreement), if such transfer occurs within five (5) years after the date of issuance of a Certificate of Completion for the Minimum Improvements as defined in the Agreement. No Transfer of the Redevelopment Property occurs within five (5) years of the date of the Certificate of Completion and no Event of Default occurs and continues by such date, no interest payments shall be payable on this Note and the entire principal balance shall be forgiven. 2. This Note is secured by the personal guaranty by Curt Rahman in favor of the Holder of even date herewith (the “Guaranty”), given to the Holder on the date hereof. All of the agreements, conditions, covenants, provisions, and stipulations contained in the Agreement and the Guaranty are hereby made a part of this Note to the same extent and with the same force and effect as if they were fully set forth herein. It is agreed that time is of the essence of this Note. If an Event of Default occurs under the Agreement, the Guaranty, or any other instrument securing this Note, then the Holder of this Note may at its right and option, without notice, declare immediately due and payable the principal balance of this Note and interest accrued thereon, together with reasonable attorneys fees and expenses incurred by the Holder of this Note in collecting or enforcing payment hereof, whether by lawsuit or otherwise, and all other sums due hereunder or any instrument securing this Note. The Maker of this Note agrees that the Holder of this Note may, without notice to and without affecting the liability of the Maker, accept additional or substitute security for this Note, or release any security or any party liable for this Note or extend or renew this Note. EDA Meeting of January 18, 2011 (Item No. 7a) Subject: Contract for Private Development between the EDA and CKJ Properties, LLC Page 39 380348v3 MNI SA285-96 C-4 3. The remedies of the Holder of this Note as provided herein, and in the Agreement, the Guaranty, or any other instrument securing this Note, shall be cumulative and concurrent and may be pursued singly, successively, or together, and, at the sole discretion of the Holder of this Note, may be exercised as often as occasion therefor shall occur; and the failure to exercise any such right or remedy shall in no event be construed as a waiver or release thereof. The Holder of this Note shall not be deemed, by any act of omission or commission, to have waived any of its rights or remedies hereunder unless such waiver is in writing and signed by the Holder and then only to the extent specifically set forth in the writing. A waiver with reference to one event shall not be construed as continuing or as a bar to or waiver of any right or remedy as to a subsequent event. This Note may not be amended, modified, or changed except only by an instrument in writing signed by the party against whom enforcement of any such amendment, modifications, or change is sought. 4. If any term of this Note, or the application thereof to any person or circumstances shall, to any extent, be invalid or unenforceable, the remainder of this Note, or the application of such term to persons or circumstances other than those to which it is invalid or unenforceable shall not be affected thereby, and each term of this Note shall be valid and enforceable to the fullest extent permitted by law. 5. If any Event of Default occurs, and if Holder engages legal counsel or others in connection with advice to Holder or Holder’s rights and remedies under the Agreement or this Note, Maker shall pay all reasonable expenses incurred by Holder for such persons, irrespective of whether any suite or other proceeding has been or is filed or commenced. Any such expenses, costs and charges shall constitute additional principal, payable upon demand, and subject to this Note and the Guaranty. 6. It is intended that this Note is made with reference to and shall be construed as a Minnesota contract and is governed by the laws thereof. Any disputes, controversies, or claims arising out of this Note or the Agreement shall be heard in the state or federal courts of Minnesota, and all parties to this Note and the Agreement waive any objection to the jurisdiction of these courts, whether based on convenience or otherwise. 7. The performance or observance of any promise or condition set forth in this Note may be waived, amended, or modified only by a writing signed by the Maker and the Holder. No delay in the exercise of any power, right, or remedy operates as a waiver thereof, nor shall any single or partial exercise of any other power, right, or remedy. IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED AND RECITED that all conditions, acts, and things required to exist, happen, and be performed precedent to or in the issuance of this Note do exist, have happened, and have been performed in regular and due form as required by law. EDA Meeting of January 18, 2011 (Item No. 7a) Subject: Contract for Private Development between the EDA and CKJ Properties, LLC Page 40 380348v3 MNI SA285-96 C-5 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Maker has caused this Note to be duly executed as of the ________ day of ______________, 2011. CKJ PROPERTIES, LLC By: ______________________________________ Its _________________________________ [SIGNATURE PAGE FOR PROMISSORY NOTE] EDA Meeting of January 18, 2011 (Item No. 7a) Subject: Contract for Private Development between the EDA and CKJ Properties, LLC Page 41 380348v3 MNI SA285-96 C-6 Exhibit B to CAP Loan Resolution GUARANTY AGREEMENT THIS GUARANTY AGREEMENT is entered into as of this _____ day of ________, 2011, by Curt Rahman (the "Guarantor"), for the benefit of the ST. LOUIS PARK ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Authority, a public body corporate and politic under the laws of Minnesota ("Authority"). WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, Guarantor is principal of CKJ Properties, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company (the “Company”); and WHEREAS, Company owns certain property located at 3540 Dakota Avenue South, St. Louis Park, MN 55416 (“Property”) and desires to make certain improvements to the Property in order to renovate and redevelop the Property as rental commercial and office space; and WHEREAS, Authority has agreed to make a loan of $________ (the "Loan") in order to assist Company to make the improvements for the benefit of the Property; and WHEREAS, Authority has agreed to make the Loan on the condition that the Guarantor execute a personal guaranty agreement (the "Guaranty Agreement") to Authority equal to one hundred percent (100%) of the Loan, including principal and accrued interest thereon. NOW, THEREFORE, in order to obtain such benefit, the Guarantor does hereby, subject to the terms hereof, covenant and agree with Authority as follows: ARTICLE I Representations and Warranties of the Guarantor Section 1.1. The Guarantor represents and warrants as follows: (a) the execution and delivery of this Guaranty Agreement and the fulfillment of the terms and conditions hereof do not and will not conflict with or result in a breach of any of the terms or conditions of any agreement or instrument to which the Guarantor is now a party, and will not constitute a default under any of the foregoing, or result in the creation or imposition of any lien, charge or encumbrance of any nature upon any of the Guarantor’s property or assets contrary to the terms of any instrument or agreement; (b) the assumption of obligations hereunder will result in a direct financial benefit to the Guarantor; (c) the Guarantor is not, on the date of execution of this instrument, in default EDA Meeting of January 18, 2011 (Item No. 7a) Subject: Contract for Private Development between the EDA and CKJ Properties, LLC Page 42 380348v3 MNI SA285-96 C-7 under any agreement creating, evidencing or securing any indebtedness of the Guarantor or guaranteeing any indebtedness of any other person; (d) there is no action, suit, investigation, or proceeding pending against or affecting the Guarantor or the business, operations, or properties of the Guarantor, before or by any governmental department, commission, board, bureau or agency or any court, arbitrator or jury, which could, if determined adversely, result in any material adverse change in the business, operations, or properties of the Guarantor or in the ability of the Guarantor to perform his obligations under this Guaranty Agreement; (e) no governmental order, permission, consent, approval or authorization is required to be obtained and no registration or declaration is required to be filed in connection with the execution and delivery of this instrument by the Guarantor; and (f) the Guarantor has filed all United States and state tax returns which are required to be filed, and has paid or made provision for payment of all taxes which have become due pursuant to such returns. ARTICLE II Covenants and Agreements of Guarantor Section 2.1. Guaranty. The Guarantor hereby absolutely, irrevocably and unconditionally guarantees to the Authority, the full and prompt performance of all of the terms, covenants, and conditions to be performed by the Guarantor under the Contract for Private Redevelopment (the “Agreement”) and any payments due under the Promissory Note (the “Note”) to be executed by CKJ Properties, LLC securing repayment of the Loan. The Authority shall have the right to proceed first and directly against the Guarantor under this Guaranty Agreement without proceeding against or exhausting any other remedies it may have, and without resorting to any other security or guaranty now or hereafter held by it. Section 2.2. Obligations Unconditional. The obligations of the Guarantor under this Guaranty Agreement shall be absolute, irrevocable and unconditional, shall remain in full force and shall not be affected, modified or impaired upon the happening from time to time of any event, including without limitation any of the following: (a) any failure, omission, delay or lack on the part of the Authority or the Guarantor, to enforce, assert or exercise any right, power or remedy conferred on the Authority or the Guarantor in this Guaranty or any other act or acts on the part of the Authority or the Guarantor; (b) the voluntary or involuntary liquidation, dissolution, sale or other disposition of all or substantially all the assets, marshalling of assets and liabilities, receivership, insolvency, bankruptcy, assignment for the benefit of creditors, reorganization, arrangement, EDA Meeting of January 18, 2011 (Item No. 7a) Subject: Contract for Private Development between the EDA and CKJ Properties, LLC Page 43 380348v3 MNI SA285-96 C-8 composition with creditors or readjustment of, or other similar proceedings affecting the Guarantor or CKJ Properties, LLC, or any of his or its assets, or any allegation or contest of the validity of this Guaranty in any such proceeding; (c) to the extent permitted by law, the release or discharge of the Guarantor from the performance or observance of any obligation, covenant or agreement contained in this Guaranty Agreement or arising by operation of law; or (d) the default or failure of the Guarantor to perform fully any of his obligations set forth in this Guaranty Agreement. Section 2.3. No Set-Off. No set-off, counterclaim, reduction, or diminution of any obligation, or any defense of any kind or nature which the Guarantor has or may have against Authority shall be available hereunder to the Guarantor against Authority in any proceeding hereunder. Section 2.4. Waiver of Notice. The Guarantor hereby expressly waives notice from Authority of its acceptance of and reliance upon this Guaranty Agreement. Section 2.5. Payment of Fees and Expenses. The Guarantor agrees to pay all the costs, expenses and fees including all reasonable attorneys' fees, which may be incurred by Authority in enforcing or attempting to enforce this Guaranty Agreement following any default on the part of the Guarantor hereunder, whether the same shall be enforced by suit or otherwise. Section 2.6. Waiver by Guarantor. The Guarantor waives any right it may have to claim that any payment made under or required by this Guaranty Agreement is a "fraudulent conveyance" under fraudulent conveyance laws of any state or the United States. Section 2.7. The Payments. Authority shall provide to the Guarantor five (5) days notice of any payment required to be made by the Guarantor pursuant to the terms hereof. All payments by the Guarantor hereunder shall be made in immediately available U.S. funds to Authority at its office in the City Hall of the City of St. Louis Park or as otherwise directed by Authority in writing, by 12:00 noon, Central time on the date due. ARTICLE III Miscellaneous Section 3.1. When Obligations Arise; Termination. The obligations of the Guarantor hereunder shall arise absolutely and unconditionally when the Loan shall have been made by Authority to CKJ Properties, LLC, and shall continue until satisfaction of the Loan under the terms of the Agreement and the Note. Section 3.2. Remedies Cumulative. No remedy herein conferred upon or reserved to the Authority is intended to be exclusive of any other available remedy or remedies, but each and every such remedy shall be cumulative and shall be in addition to every other remedy given under this EDA Meeting of January 18, 2011 (Item No. 7a) Subject: Contract for Private Development between the EDA and CKJ Properties, LLC Page 44 380348v3 MNI SA285-96 C-9 Guaranty or now or hereafter existing at law or in equity. No delay or omission to exercise any right or power accruing upon any default, omission or failure of performance hereunder shall impair any such right or power or shall be construed to be a waiver thereof, but any such right and power may be exercised from time to time and as often as may be deemed expedient. In the event any provision contained in this Guaranty Agreement should be breached by the Guarantor and thereafter duly waived by the Authority, such waiver shall be limited to the particular breach so waived and shall not be deemed to waive any other breach hereunder. Section 3.3. No Waiver. No waiver, amendment, release or modification of this Guaranty Agreement shall be established by conduct, custom or course of dealing, but solely by an instrument in writing duly executed by the parties hereto. Section 3.4. Restoration of Positions. If the Authority has instituted any proceeding to enforce any right or remedy under this Guaranty Agreement and such proceeding has been discontinued or abandoned for any reason, or has been determined adversely to the Authority, then and in every such case the Guarantor and Authority shall, subject to any determination in such proceeding, be restored severally and respectively to their former positions hereunder, and thereafter all rights and remedies of the Authority shall continue as though no such proceeding had been instituted. Section 3.5. Entire Agreement; Counterparts. This Guaranty Agreement constitutes the entire agreement, and supersedes all prior agreements and understandings, both written and oral, between the parties with respect to the personal guaranty of the Guarantor and may be executed simultaneously in several counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, and all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument. Section 3.6. Invalidity. The invalidity or unenforceability of any one or more phrases, sentences, clauses or sections in the Guaranty Agreement shall not affect the validity or enforceability of the remaining portions of this Guaranty Agreement, or any part thereof. Section 3.7. Applicable Law. This Guaranty Agreement shall be interpreted in accordance with and governed by the laws of the state of Minnesota. Section 3.8. Notices. All notices or other communications hereunder shall be sufficiently given and shall be deemed given when mailed, certified mail, return receipt requested, postage prepaid, with proper address as set forth below. The Guarantor and Authority may, by written notice to the other, designate any other address to which notices or other communications to it shall be sent when contemplated by this Guaranty Agreement. Until otherwise provided, all notices and other communications shall be addressed as follows: To the Guarantor: Curt Rahman CKJ Properties, LLC P.O. Box 16173 St. Louis Park, MN 55416 To Authority St. Louis Park Economic Development EDA Meeting of January 18, 2011 (Item No. 7a) Subject: Contract for Private Development between the EDA and CKJ Properties, LLC Page 45 380348v3 MNI SA285-96 C-10 Authority 5005 Minnetonka Avenue St. Louis Park, MN 55416 Attn: Executive Director IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Guarantor has caused this Guaranty Agreement to be executed as of the date first above written. _______________________________ Curt Rahman Accepted this ____ day of ________________ by St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority. By________________________________________ Its Executive Director By _______________________________________ Its President This document drafted by: KENNEDY & GRAVEN, CHARTERED 470 US Bank Plaza 200 South Sixth Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 (612) 337-9300 EDA Meeting of January 18, 2011 (Item No. 7a) Subject: Contract for Private Development between the EDA and CKJ Properties, LLC Page 46 D-1 380348v3 MNI SA285-96 SCHEDULE D CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETION WHEREAS, the St. Louis Park Economic Redevelopment Authority (the “Authority”) and CKJ Properties, LLC (the “Redeveloper”) entered into a certain Contract for Private Redevelopment dated _________, 2011 (the “Contract”); and WHEREAS, the Contract contains certain covenants and restrictions set forth in Articles III and IV thereof related to completing certain Minimum Improvements; and WHEREAS, the Redeveloper has performed said covenants and conditions insofar as it is able in a manner deemed sufficient by the Authority to permit the execution and recording of this certification; NOW, THEREFORE, this is to certify that all construction and other physical improvements related to the Minimum Improvements specified to be done and made by the Redeveloper have been completed and the agreements and covenants in Articles III and IV of the Contract have been performed by the Redeveloper, and this Certificate is intended to be a conclusive determination of the satisfactory termination of the covenants and conditions of Articles III and IV of the Contract related to completion of the Minimum Improvements, but any other covenants in the Contract shall remain in full force and effect. Dated: _______________, 20__. ST. LOUIS PARK ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY By Authority Representative EDA Meeting of January 18, 2011 (Item No. 7a) Subject: Contract for Private Development between the EDA and CKJ Properties, LLC Page 47 D-2 380348v3 MNI SA285-96 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) SS. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ____ day of _________, 20__ by ______________________, the __________________ of the St. Louis Park Economic Redevelopment Authority, on behalf of the Authority. Notary Public This document drafted by: Kennedy & Graven, Chartered 470 U.S. Bank Plaza Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 EDA Meeting of January 18, 2011 (Item No. 7a) Subject: Contract for Private Development between the EDA and CKJ Properties, LLC Page 48 Meeting Date: January 18, 2011 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: Human Rights Award Presentation RECOMMENDED ACTION: No formal action is requested. The City Council is asked to join the Human Rights Commission in recognizing The Inside Look and Sharon and Neil Anderson for their contributions to the community in the area of human rights. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Not Applicable BACKGROUND: Each year, the St. Louis Park Human Rights Commission coordinates an award to honor individuals that contribute to increasing understanding and cooperation between people of different backgrounds. Award recipients are recognized as leaders who support our vision of creating a community in which diversity is a natural part of everyday life. Nominations are made by community members and the winners are selected by the Human Rights Commission. The Inside Look and Neil and Sharon Anderson were selected as the 2010 Human Rights Award recipients. 2010 Human Rights Award Recipient: The Inside Look The Inside Look is a talk show that tackles social issues present in today’s communities. What is unique about this talk show is that was developed by St. Louis Park High School students. The Inside Look meets every week at the high school and consists of 20 high school students that have worked together for over a year to create the talk show. The group is student led with members taking on various leadership roles. The creation of the talk show is providing St. Louis Park youth with an opportunity to voice their opinions and discuss difficult social issues and is also a way for their voices to be heard by a larger audience giving them greater power to change their community. The first episode of the show aired in November and addressed race misconceptions and caused students to re-evaluate racial stereotypes. The students worked with the school administration to show the episode during school hours and over 500 students attended the viewing. The next episode will air in January and will focus on inter-racial dating, a topic important to the students at St. Louis Park High School. The show has not only helped the 20 students involved in the project discuss difficult topics, but they have reached out to hundreds of other students through the show and sparked dialogue that is helping to improve understanding and cooperation between students with different backgrounds. City Council Meeting of January 18, 2011 (Item No. 2a) Page 2 Subject: Human Rights Award Presentation 2010 Human Rights Award Recipient: Sharon and Neil Anderson Sharon and Neil Anderson have lived in St. Louis Park for over 25 years and have made a lifelong commitment to progress understanding and cooperation of human rights within St. Louis Park and beyond. Neil and Sharon were both active in the Vision Diversity Committee where Neil was Chair and Sharon played an integral part in the final report. Sharon was also active in the first visioning process. Prior to the vision committee, Neil served on the Human Rights Task force that made recommendations to the Human Rights Commission. For over 20 years, Sharon worked as the St. Louis Park Housing Authority’s Public Housing Manager. In her tenure, Sharon set a standard of fairness and equality towards all and that tradition continues today. As the Housing Authority Housing Manager, Sharon actively recruited minority contractors to bid on HA projects, even before this was a HUD requirement Sharon has been and continues to be an outspoken advocate on diversity issues. Sharon works as a volunteer screener helping to ensure fair housing policies are being applied equitably in the rental housing market. Sharon is also a regular volunteer for STEP and takes low income individuals to the food shelf, doctor appointments, the grocery store, etc. living her commitment of fostering understanding. Neil has been a volunteer instructor for the University of Minnesota’s Osher Lifelong Learning Institute (OLLI) to further the understanding of racism from its birth to consequences. His goal is to create an understanding of diversity and racism and he teaches at the Lenox Community Center and the JCC. February, a busy month for Neil, finds him lecturing on African American History during Black History Month. He reaches beyond adults and has carried the message of understanding to St. Louis Park elementary schools, the Jr. High, and area high schools. Neil continues to teach through OLLI bringing the message of tolerance to St. Louis Park audiences. Sharon and Neil support and encourage each other’s activities to ensure St. Louis Park retains a sense of inclusion and openness to all. They have done so much over the years and continue to make human rights a priority and are great assets to the St. Louis Park Community. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not applicable VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable Attachments: None Prepared by: Marney Olson, Community Liaison Reviewed by: John Luse, Chief of Police Approved by: Nancy Deno Gohman, Deputy City Manager/HR Director Meeting Date: January 18, 2011 Agenda Item #: 3a UNOFFICIAL MINUTES JOINT CITY COUNCIL/SCHOOL BOARD MEETING ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA NOVEMBER 29, 2010 The meeting convened at 6:40 p.m. Councilmembers present: Mayor Jeff Jacobs, Phil Finkelstein, Anne Mavity, Paul Omodt, Julia Ross, Susan Sanger, and Sue Santa. School Board Members present: Board Chair Nancy Gores, Rolf Peterson, Bruce Richardson, Pam Rykken, Larry Shapiro, Julie Sweitzer, and Jim Yarosh. City Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), Organizational Development Coordinator (Ms. Gothberg), Community Development Director (Mr. Locke), and Planning/Zoning Supervisor (Ms. McMonigal). Guests: Mark Amfahr (Amfahr Consulting), Gene Davis and Frank Loetterle, R.L. Banks, and Jeanne Witzig (Kimley Horn Consulting). Freight Rail Studies Mr. Locke stated that the presentations this evening were prepared as a result of the two City Council and School Board resolutions passed in July of this year regarding freight rail. One resolution requested that the County more fully evaluate the potential routes for freight rail identified in the 2009 TC&W freight realignment study and the second resolution was a restatement of the City’s 2001 position regarding freight rail. He explained that the City Council passed another resolution updating its position regarding freight rail in light of the MN&S route which emerged from the 2009 study as the recommended route for TC&W trains now going through the Kenilworth corridor. The City’s stated position was that the City would accept the MN&S route if there were no other viable routes and if adequate mitigation was addressed. He then introduced Mark Amfahr from Amfahr Consulting. Mr. Amfahr explained that he focused his route analysis on alternative routes that could be used to connect TC&W’s rail network into the St. Paul area where TC&W delivers its freight to other railroads; this analysis included the Chaska cut-off, Midtown and Highway 169 alternatives and was intended to ensure that evaluation measures and cost factors were applied consistently. He reviewed the evaluation measures he used in his analysis, including sound engineering, freight rail operations, transportation system impacts, acquisitions/displacements, estimated costs in 2010 dollars, potential environmental risks, and implementation factors. He discussed the “west connection options” alternative mentioned in the 2009 report. He indicated this was an alternative for freight rail coming into the Twin Cities and was not a practical alternative for the railroad because the majority of the freight rail traffic needs to travel east and all that the west end offers is a diversion of 28 coal trains per year. Chaska Cut-Off Mr. Amfahr reviewed the Chaska cut-off alignment which would affect additional train traffic, including present difficulties due to the housing developments, obstacles of crossing the Minnesota River, and a steep bluff in the area. He stated that most of the environmental issues City Council Meeting of January 18, 2011 (Item No. 3a) Page 2 Subject: Joint City Council/School Board Meeting Minutes of November 29, 2010 were not significant until you get into town, where there is a community center and a school yard, so there is no realistic chance of getting through this area today. He then summarized the Chaska cut-off evaluation as follows: Sound Engineering: This route can meet freight rail industry standards for operations. The westbound grade would be a limitation for TC&W versus existing operations and would require 11 miles of new trackage including a new crossing of the Minnesota River. Freight Rail Operations: The additional distance versus other routes would increase TC&W’s operating costs, TC&W would have to own and maintain additional trackage, TC&W would need to operate over the UP trackage, and TC&W could serve a new customer in Chaska (United Sugars). Transportation System Impacts: Five new at-grade crossings would be required with no impact to trails and there would be no impact to existing or planned transitways. Acquisitions/Displacements: 25 housing units would be displaced at a total value of $9.4 million. Estimated Cost: The total project cost would be $129.8 million (includes 30% contingency); major elements include a new track, grade separated crossings and Minnesota River bridges. Environmental Issues: The Minnesota River crossing likely requires an environmental impact statement with an estimated time to complete of three to eight years due to the existence of wetlands and other protected areas. Implementation Factors: The principal constraint is the Minnesota River crossing and the environmental documentation and permitting are significant. Construction would require approvals/permits from the US Army Corps of Engineers, FRA, US EPA, US Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior, MN DNR, MN PCA, MN SHPO, and local watershed districts. In addition, TC&W must agree to own and maintain the new trackage, TC&W must obtain trackage rights from UP, Mn/DOT must agree to crossing over TH 212, and Carver County must agree to crossing over CR 40. Highway 169 Mr. Amfahr discussed the Highway 169 corridor, stating that a connection would require reconfiguring the 169/Excelsior Boulevard intersection. He stated that this area has a Super Target, apartments, and townhomes along the right-of-way. He then summarized the Highway 169 evaluation as follows: Sound Engineering: This route can meet freight rail industry standards for operations and would require a new bridge over Minnehaha Creek and 2.7 miles of new track. Freight Rail Operations: TC&W would most likely own and maintain the new track, TC&W would need additional trackage rights from BNSF, and TC&W would reach Savage via the existing St. Louis Park connection or via a new BNSF connection to the MN&S route. Transportation System Impacts: This route would require that the 169/Excelsior Boulevard interchange be reconfigured, as well as six new at-grade crossings (two in Hopkins and four in City Council Meeting of January 18, 2011 (Item No. 3a) Page 3 Subject: Joint City Council/School Board Meeting Minutes of November 29, 2010 St. Louis Park), would require reconstruction and/or relocation of the recreational trail, and would have no impact to existing or planned transitways. Acquisitions/Displacements: 131 housing units would be displaced at a total value of $38 million. Estimated Cost: The total project cost would be $121.6 million (includes 30% contingency); major elements include significant acquisition/displacements and the reconfiguration of the 169/Excelsior Boulevard intersection. Environmental Issues: The impact of the bridge over Minnehaha Creek would need to be assessed. Implementation Factors: TC&W must agree to own and maintain the 2.7 miles of new track, TC&W must obtain trackage rights from BNSF on the Wayzata subdivision, Mn/DOT and FHWA must agree to modifications to Highway 169, the County must agree to the impact to Excelsior Boulevard, and the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District must approve the bridge construction over Minnehaha Creek. Midtown Corridor Mr. Amfahr stated that the Midtown corridor is the only other practical option other than the Kenilworth corridor and MN&S that are currently being studied. He stated that one of the major obstacles with the Midtown corridor is the bridges are all old and very low by today’s standards. He noted that this trail is a vital corridor in and out of the city and this option represents the most complications due to the number of vehicles traveling in the area each day and would require a grade separation. This option would also require digging down six feet for a total of four miles with a retaining wall constructed on each side to allow for adequate clearance. He stated the Sabo bridge presents a conflict and would require rebuilding somewhere else, removing it, or reconfiguring it at a high cost. He then summarized the Midtown evaluation as follows: Sound Engineering: This route would require significant modifications to meet freight rail industry standards for operations, would require excavation of six feet of former rail bed to meet the clearance requirement of 23 feet, and the quality of the bridge over the Mississippi River is questionable. Freight Rail Operations: TC&W must assume responsibility for ownership and maintenance of 4.4 miles of new track, TC&W must secure trackage rights from CP for a section from Hiawatha Avenue east to St. Paul, and TC&W would need to continue using the connection at St. Louis Park and the MN&S route to reach Savage. Mr. Amfahr noted that every one of the bridges is on State Preservation Society property. Transportation System Impacts: This route would require a reconfiguration of the Highway 55/Hiawatha Avenue and 28th Street intersection, both routes would be elevated resulting in four new at-grade road crossings and closure of the South 5th and Humboldt Avenue at-grade crossings, would result in the removal of the recently opened Sabo bridge over Highway 55/Hiawatha Avenue, would require reconstruction of the Hiawatha light rail line from 31st Street to 26th Street, both the light rail line and TH 55 would experience closures and/or disruptions during construction, negatively impacting users, and freight rail operation in this corridor would directly conflict with the proposed Midtown streetcar project. City Council Meeting of January 18, 2011 (Item No. 3a) Page 4 Subject: Joint City Council/School Board Meeting Minutes of November 29, 2010 Acquisitions/Displacements: A single building east of Highway 55 would be displaced. Estimated Cost: The total project cost would be $195.6 million (includes 30% contingency). Environmental Issues: Unknown soil and subgrade conditions along the Midtown corridor, the Midtown corridor is on the National Register of Historic Places, and the Dean Parkway and Lake of the Isles bridges are located on parkland. Implementation Factors: TC&W must agree to maintain additional trackage, TC&W must obtain trackage rights from CP east of Hiawatha Avenue, significant modifications would be needed to the transportation system at Highway 55/Hiawatha Avenue, Mn/DOT and FHWA must agree to reconstruction of Highway 55/Hiawatha Avenue, Minneapolis and FHWA must agree to reconstruction or removal of the Sabo bridge, and the Met Council and FTA must agree to reconstruction of the Hiawatha light rail. Mr. Amfahr presented a summary comparison of the three alternatives, stating that the principal challenges to the Chaska cut-off include permitting issues for the Minnesota River crossing and TC&W is not in favor of this alternative. He advised that the Midtown scenario represents a high cost versus the other scenarios, along with its conflict with transit and other development plans in the Midtown corridor. He stated that the primary challenges with the Highway 169 scenario include the value and number of housing units impacted. School Board Member Peterson requested information regarding the assumptions used for width of the right-of-way in each of the alternative routes that were analyzed. Mr. Amfahr stated that the right-of-way was defined by the previous railroad and is typically 100’ or less. He added that each scenario assumed a 136 pound, class 3 rail. Councilmember Sanger asked what efforts, if any, were made to quantify what it would cost to compensate the railroad for the fact that there would be some operational challenges associated with each scenario, and whether those costs were factored into the estimates presented. Mr. Amfahr replied that those costs were not factored into the estimates, and noted that he only looked at the physical route for each scenario in order to determine how much it would cost. He stated that the data would then be turned over to TC&W and the various communities to evaluate, and TC&W would be responsible for providing an indication of how much it would cost the railroad to operate under a given scenario. School Board Member Sweitzer asked if the other river crossing depicted on the Chaska cut-off map had been considered. Mr. Amfahr replied that he looked at this option, but it is not physically possible to get from one line to another due to the steep elevation. School Board Member Richardson asked if TC&W was not in favor of the Chaska cut-off because of the additional twenty miles it would add to their trips. City Council Meeting of January 18, 2011 (Item No. 3a) Page 5 Subject: Joint City Council/School Board Meeting Minutes of November 29, 2010 Mr. Amfahr stated that the additional miles were a major factor, but also because the grade is steeper at 1% for many miles out of the valley, which would require TC&W to use additional fuel and crews. Mr. Locke introduced Gene Davis and Frank Loetterle of R.L. Banks, the consultants that performed the analysis of how freight rail could be kept in the Kenilworth corridor along with the light rail and dealing with the trails. Mr. Loetterle advised that they looked at seven different scenarios: (1) all three alignments at grade, (2) the bike trail relocated out of the corridor, (3) the bike trail as an elevated structure through the corridor, (4) elevated light rail, (5) light rail in a tunnel through the corridor, (6) light rail and freight rail sharing a track, and (7) light rail on a single track instead of two. He discussed the evaluation measures, including sound engineering, freight rail operations (will TC&W continue to have a safe, efficient, economical connection to St. Paul?), light rail operations (can the light rail function as it is intended?), and other transportation system impacts (what are the potential impacts to roads and commuter bike trails?). He noted that they did not look at motor vehicle traffic impacts and conducted no traffic studies. He added that evaluation measures included property impacts, potential environmental risks, historic properties, water quality, aesthetics, implementation factors, and estimated costs. Mr. Davis reviewed the existing alignments in the corridor and stated that under the existing alignment, TC&W has 50’ of right-of-way, but noted the width is not uniform throughout the corridor. He stated they used typical design criteria for freight rail, for bike trails, and for light rail. He stated that for freight, they used a 50’ minimum width if centered in the middle to allow 25’ of clearance. He indicated that the light rail cross section is 38’ and it goes along with what the Hiawatha light rail has; the bike trail is a standard 20’ for a two lane path, 8’ wide with a 2’ shoulder on each side. He advised that when you put all three forms of transportation in the same corridor, you need at least 94’ for a 25’ minimum between freight rail tracks and the closest light rail track. He added that the 25’ minimum is known in the industry, but that number may be expanded in the future. Mr. Loetterle reviewed Scenario #1 (all three alignments at grade) and stated that given the need for 94’ for all three alignments in the corridor, there is a narrow stretch of right-of-way with townhomes located nearby. He reviewed potential environmental risks which require identification of any parks, recreational areas, wildlife and waterfowl refuges, or historic sites, districts or archeological sites in the project area and consulting with officials to include all possible planning to minimize harm. He advised that with this scenario, potential environmental risks include the properties owned by the Minneapolis Park Board that may fall under 4f protection, including Cedar Lake Park, the Cedar-Isles channel, Cedar Lake Parkway, and Park Siding Park. He stated that the current design of the light rail transit encroaches upon land as part of the park at Cedar Lake. He stated another significant problem is that the railroad will need to cross somewhere along this route requiring an additional light rail bridge, most likely between the MN&S corridor and Wooddale Avenue. He summarized Scenario #1 as follows: this scenario could be done from an engineering standpoint, this scenario may have some 4f impacts, the engineering solution is reasonable, freight rail operations would be unchanged, light rail operations would be maintained but with increased operating costs, but the biggest issue with this scenario is the taking of 33 out of 57 townhomes. City Council Meeting of January 18, 2011 (Item No. 3a) Page 6 Subject: Joint City Council/School Board Meeting Minutes of November 29, 2010 Mr. Loetterle reviewed Scenario #2 (the bike trail relocated out of the corridor) and stated that this scenario used the current conceptual design plans for light rail under the theory that if light rail is kept where it is, there would be room on the east side of the light rail where the bike trail was removed. He advised that this scenario includes some property impacts and TC&W would still have to connect to BNSF which would require TC&W to get on the other side of the light rail, requiring another bridge. He stated that the Penn Avenue station would have to be up in the air and represents a cost not currently being considered as part of the light rail alignment. He indicated that the existing trail functions as a transportation trail that allows direct, easy and fast access to downtown Minneapolis and an alternative that provides similar accessibility is not readily apparent. He summarized Scenario #2 as follows: an engineering solution is reasonable, freight rail operations would be unchanged, light rail operations would be maintained but with increased operating costs, transportation system impacts include removal of the commuter bike trail from the corridor, property acquisition of 117 housing units is required, and environmental issues include potential 4f impacts to Park Board property, the Cedar-Isles channel, and Cedar Lake Parkway. Mr. Loetterle reviewed Scenario #3 (the bike trail as an elevated structure through the corridor) and stated the most important issue here is that this is not a friendly environment for people to be biking. He advised that bike bridges would require barriers on the sides and above to protect users from overhead catenary and to protect the freight rail trains from vandalism, and would require an additional light rail bridge near the Penn Avenue station. He summarized Scenario #3 as follows: an engineering solution is not reasonable and creates unique or unusual problems, freight rail operations would be unchanged, the light rail operations are maintained but with increased operating costs, transportation system impacts include impairment of the functionality of the commuter bike trail, acquisition of 117 housing units would be required, and environmental issues include potential 4f impacts to Park Board property, the Cedar-Isles channel, and Cedar Lake Parkway. Mr. Loetterle reviewed Scenario #4 (elevated light rail) and stated that this scenario would result in some roller coastering of the light rail because there is insufficient room north of the West Lake Street bridge for light rail to rise from ground level to full height before reaching the narrow part of the corridor. He summarized Scenario #4 as follows: an engineering solution is not reasonable and creates additional construction, maintenance or operational costs of an extraordinary magnitude, freight rail operations would be unchanged, light rail operations are maintained but with increased operating costs, transportation system impacts include functionality of the bike trail, no acquisition of housing units would be required, and environmental issues include potential 4f impacts to Park Board property, the Cedar-Isles channel, and Cedar Lake Parkway. He noted that there are fairly significant aesthetic impacts with this scenario and the cost analysis did not include noise walls or screens. Mr. Loetterle reviewed Scenario #5 (light rail in a tunnel through the corridor) and advised that the bike trail would remain with light rail constructed through the corridor with portions in a tunnel and freight rail constructed at grade. He indicated that this cut and cover alternative would be impractical because of the weight of freight trains and the roof of this tunnel is a continuous bridge running the entire length of the tunnel. He added that this alternative is also impractical because of the Cedar-Isles channel; a deep tunnel has an unpredictable effect on groundwater, requires continued maintenance, safety and security problems, and is vastly more expensive than other available alternatives. He summarized Scenario #5 as follows: an engineering solution is not reasonable and creates additional construction, maintenance or City Council Meeting of January 18, 2011 (Item No. 3a) Page 7 Subject: Joint City Council/School Board Meeting Minutes of November 29, 2010 operational costs of extraordinary magnitude, freight rail operations would be unchanged, light rail operations are maintained but with increasing operating costs, the functionality of the commuter bike trail would be maintained, no housing units would be acquired, and environmental issues include potential parkland 4f impacts to Park Board property, the Cedar- Isles channel, and Cedar Lake Parkway, as well as potential negative impacts on groundwater flow and water quality. Mr. Loetterle reviewed Scenario #6 (light rail and freight rail sharing a track) and stated that a shared track alignment would run through most of the corridor. He advised that the Federal Rail Authority requires temporal separation of freight rail and light rail operations; because light rail operates from 3:30 a.m. to 12:30 a.m., the time period available to TC&W would be too restrictive. He stated that it would not be possible to share freight rail and light rail in this corridor using TC&W’s operating plan today. He added that this scenario would also require a redesign of the stations and an adjustment to the station platform height would be necessary to allow sufficient clearance for freight rail train equipment. He summarized Scenario #6 as follows: an engineering solution is not reasonable and represents a severe economic impact to the freight rail railroad, freight rail operations would be impaired, light rail operations would be maintained but with increased operating costs, this scenario includes a potential for modification of new LRVs and retrofitting existing LRVs, transportation system impacts include maintaining the functionality of the bike trail, no housing units would be acquired, and environmental issues include potential 4f impacts to Park Board property, the Cedar-Isles channel, and Cedar Lake Parkway. Mr. Loetterle reviewed Scenario #7 (light rail on a single track instead of two) and stated that a single track would subject the light rail line to operating restrictions that would prevent the line from achieving its forecasted ridership, which is inconsistent with the stated Purpose and Need of the project. He stated that if a single track were used in this entire section, it would be difficult to maintain headways under 15 minutes and assumes that every train arrives at its mark at the right moment every time in both directions. He then summarized Scenario #7 as follows: an engineering solution is not reasonable and compromises the light rail project’s Purpose and Need, freight rail operations would be unchanged, light rail operations would be impaired, transportation system impacts include maintaining the functionality of the bike trail, no housing units would be acquired, and environmental issues include potential 4f impacts to Park Board property, the Cedar-Isles channel, and Cedar Lake Parkway. Mr. Loetterle advised that the first two options could be built and the last five options are not reasonable because of cost and operational problems and fatal flaws. He stated that each of the scenarios has impacts on light rail operations which could be manageable except for the single track option, while scenarios #2 and #3 have to cope with the issue of the bike trail and its functionality. He noted that the first scenario definitely has property impacts, while scenarios #2 and #3 might have significant impacts unless the light rail line is re-engineered; there is also an environmental risk with most of these scenarios. He reviewed the cost estimates for each scenario as follows: Scenario #1: $51-59 million, Scenario #2: $109-120 million, Scenario #3: $71-88 million, Scenario #4: $112-139 million, Scenario #5: $203-230 million, Scenario #6: $35-43 million, Scenario #7: $31-38 million. He reviewed the implementation factors and noted that TC&W must agree to the track design, TC&W must have a safe, efficient, economical connection to St. Paul, CP Rail must also agree to the track design, and CP Rail must agree to the design of the light rail stations built next to freight rail tracks. City Council Meeting of January 18, 2011 (Item No. 3a) Page 8 Subject: Joint City Council/School Board Meeting Minutes of November 29, 2010 Mayor Jacobs asked if the cost estimates take into account any mitigation for existing properties that might remain, e.g., sound walls. Mr. Loetterle replied that they did not include any mitigation costs. Councilmember Finkelstein requested information regarding laws governing the railroads and whatever local control a city has over a local railroad in this process. Mr. Davis stated that railroads are required under a common carrier obligation to service industries and if they do not service those industries, then they can be held liable to the Surface Transportation Board. He indicated that TC&W is an interested stakeholder and is represented here this evening; getting TC&W involved early and talking with them about what they require or what safety concerns they have will make this process easier. Councilmember Mavity requested further information regarding the railroad’s decision making process. She also asked what considerations are being given to pedestrians coming to the light rail stations at Beltline and Wooddale to reduce safety issues at those stations. Mr. Loetterle stated that if you put freight rail in the stretch between Louisiana and the Penn Avenue station, you would have to think about how you want to get pedestrians across the freight rail track during the time when freight rail trains are going by; for all scenarios that return freight rail to the corridor, you have to think about these issues for Wooddale, Beltline, and Lake Street. Mr. Davis noted that the FRA controls railroad safety and operating issues and all other issues concerning freight rail are handled through the Surface Transportation Board. He added that their cost estimates did not reflect any changes to a typical light rail station. Councilmember Sanger asked if there are any plans to re-look at the alignment of the light rail within the Kenilworth corridor and if not, why not. Ms. Katie Walker, Hennepin County Project Manager for the SWLRT project, stated that the project has transitioned to the Met Council as the lead agency, so Met Council will be leading the preliminary engineering work for the project. She advised that in general, the light rail has been placed in the optimal spot in the corridor and there may be some minor modifications during the engineering phase, but in general that alignment is fairly well set and has been placed there because it needs to make certain curvatures of track and certain grades. She added that DEIS document disclosed that freight rail would no longer be in the corridor and was the underlying base assumption that went into the light rail design. Councilmember Finkelstein requested further information regarding the timeframe for decisions regarding funding. Ms. Gail Dorfman, Hennepin County Commissioner, agreed that the County can ask the Met Council and the FTA about the issue of moving light rail in the Kenilworth corridor. She advised that the Met Council has applied to the FTA for project approval and they anticipate hearing something in the next two months. She stated there is bipartisan support for this project and if the Federal government approves the project, there is already some state bonding money available, as well as $12 million from the County’s Transit Improvement Board. She pointed out City Council Meeting of January 18, 2011 (Item No. 3a) Page 9 Subject: Joint City Council/School Board Meeting Minutes of November 29, 2010 that the project cannot proceed with preliminary engineering until approval is received from the FTA. She discussed the timing for light rail and stated that in general, the best case scenario would include construction during 2014, 2015, and 2016 with opening in 2017; whatever is going to happen with freight rail will need to be done in 2013, money will need to be in place by 2012, and application for funds from the FRA will need to be done in 2011. Councilmember Sanger asked if any of the alternative routes for freight rail relocation are off the table for further discussion. She also asked when the City can expect to receive answers to the questions contained in Mayor Jacobs’s recent letter to the County and Mn/DOT regarding the criteria being used to make decisions about freight rail relocation. Ms. Dorfman explained that because of the switch to the Kenilworth corridor, the County has an agreement with CP and TC&W that stipulates that the County must provide a “safe, efficient and economical route” for the TC&W trains currently on Kenilworth. She stated that the PMT is looking at definitions of a higher standard of safety and the definition of efficient and economical as determined by the railroads; the railroads have to agree to any location and they have the ultimate thumbs up or down on this. She indicated that there is a significant level of coordination required with other agencies to make this happen, including support from numerous public and private partners. She stated that there is some question about the specific legal authority that all the public entities have to impact that decision and the PMT clearly plays a role related to the MN&S design and mitigation, but no one agency can make this decision. She added that the process requires a fair amount of consensus about the criteria being used, about what is the most viable and feasible alternative, as well as the approval of the railroad companies; if consensus is not reached over the next year regarding freight rail location, design, and mitigation, there is no question that the SWLRT project will be in jeopardy and the FTA has been clear about that. Mr. Mark Wagner, President of TC&W, stated that they need to study all of the materials presented and was unsure how long it would take them; TC&W has determined that it will need to hire consultants to help with their decision as well. He added that acceptable grades for freight rail are much lower and they have trouble with a 1% grade; in addition, there are track standards that are nationwide track standards. Councilmember Mavity expressed appreciation to TC&W for attending and participating in this meeting. She suggested that the City consider inviting TC&W to participate in discussions with the Council to allow Council to better understand TC&W’s decision-making process. School Board Member Rykken requested further information regarding mitigation around schools and what is done to keep kids safe. Mr. Davis explained that supplemental measures include separating the lanes to create a barricaded area, a security fence along the right-of-way, or a special gate at the walkway portion of the crossing. School Board Member Richardson stated that he did not want to see the tunnel option dismissed out of hand. He acknowledged that a tunnel would be more expensive, but safety factors can be built into this option that include protecting the groundwater. He stated that safety is a #1 concern, as well as noise and vibration mitigation around the school. City Council Meeting of January 18, 2011 (Item No. 3a) Page 10 Subject: Joint City Council/School Board Meeting Minutes of November 29, 2010 MN&S Update Ms. Jeanne Witzig, Kimley Horn Consulting, provided an update regarding the MN&S freight rail study and explained that the purpose of the study is to analyze potential design concepts, environmental impacts, and potential mitigation measures associated with the potential relocation of TC&W freight rail operations from the Kenilworth corridor onto the MN&S line. She stated that key elements of the MN&S study include the development of a design concept including capital cost estimates and conducting an environmental assessment (EAW) review at the State level. She added that Mn/DOT is the responsible government unit (RGU) for the EAW and as part of the EAW, they will study community impacts and if federal dollars are applied for, it will go through a Federal environmental review process as well. She reviewed the PMT process and stated that four meetings have been held to date. At the November 9 PMT meeting, the preliminary baseline design concepts for the MN&S study were reviewed and a PMT open house meeting will be held on December 16th to provide more information and receive comments relative to the preliminary design concepts and mitigation measures. The PMT will reconvene in January or February to discuss design concepts and further evaluate mitigation measures, including a detailed noise vibration study, traffic impacts, soil contamination in the corridor, and specific mitigation measures. She stated that this information will be presented in the EAW and forwarded to Mn/DOT as part of the official review process. Comments will be responded to in Findings of Fact and Mn/DOT will make a final environmental determination that all impacts have been adequately evaluated and an overall project final report will be prepared summarizing the overall process and outlining next steps. Mr. Locke advised that the consultant’s reports will be available online on the County’s website (www.hennepin.us/freightrail), MN&S study website (www.mnsrailstudy.org), and a link on the City’s website. He stated that Council will discuss the studies at its December 13th study session; following that meeting, the City will talk to residents to get their input on the draft reports and come back to the Council after the first of the year to discuss next steps. Mayor Jacobs expressed his thanks to the consultants for their presentations and to the School Board and residents for attending. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m. ______________________________________ ______________________________________ Nancy Stroth, City Clerk Jeff Jacobs, Mayor Meeting Date: January 18, 2011 Agenda Item #: 3b UNOFFICIAL MINUTES CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL STUDY SESSION ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA DECEMBER 20, 2010 The meeting convened at 6:30 p.m. Councilmembers present: Mayor Pro Tem Susan Sanger, Phil Finkelstein, Anne Mavity, Paul Omodt, Julia Ross, and Sue Santa. Councilmembers absent: Mayor Jeff Jacobs. Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), Deputy City Manager/Human Resources Director (Ms. Gohman), Controller (Mr. Swanson), Finance Supervisor (Mr. Heintz), and Recording Secretary (Ms. Hughes). Guests: David Mol, CPA, and Andrew Hering, CPA (HLB Tautges Redpath, Ltd.) 1. Meet with Proposed City Audit Firm Representatives Mr. Heintz presented the staff report and stated that pursuant to Council direction, staff requested proposals for auditing services for fiscal year end 2010 and concluded that HLB Tautges Redpath, Ltd. would provide the best overall service to the City. He then introduced David Mol, CPA, and Andrew Hering, CPA, with HLB Tautges Redpath, Ltd. Mr. Mol presented an overview of HLB Tautges Redpath, Ltd. and the audit team for the City, including himself, Peggy Moeller, and Andrew Hering. He discussed how the firm would approach the City’s audit, including minimizing risk, and Tautges Redpath’s commitment to client service and a dedicated staff who deal in governmental accounting. He stated that Tautges Redpath will tailor the audit to meet the needs of the City. Mr. Hering reviewed Tautges Redpath’s emphasis on disbursements, payroll, and utility billing as well as the segments of the audit. Mr. Mol presented a list of client cities and other governmental entities. He also discussed Tautges Redpath’s affiliation with HLB International and the services provided by the firm. Mr. Harmening stated that the City’s former audit firm, Abdo, Eick and Meyers, provided good service to the City; however, staff felt that Tautges Redpath could continue to take the City to the next level and improve and enhance the City’s operations. Mr. Swanson stated that Tautges Redpath has worked with cities larger than St. Louis Park and staff felt that Tautges Redpath had more overall experience in terms of police and fire funds and tax increment financing. Councilmember Finkelstein requested that the Council be provided with a primer that includes basic information on how to read a financial statement, including what it means and what to look for. He added that City staff does an extraordinary job. Councilmember Ross asked if there will be any transition costs such as software related to the transition to Tautges Redpath. City Council Meeting of January 18, 2011 (Item No. 3b) Page 2 Subject: Special Study Session Minutes of December 20, 2010 Mr. Mol replied that Tautges Redpath will work hard to make the transition smooth and efficient and to lessen the impact as much as possible for staff. He noted that they will need to obtain an understanding of the City’s internal control system which will require a little more staff time. Mr. Swanson stated that there will be no additional cash outlay related to the transition, just staff time. He added that the working relationship with Tautges Redpath will be year-round. Councilmember Finkelstein asked how any material mistake would be communicated to the Council. Mr. Mol stated that if a material mistake were found, they would first communicate with the City Manager and then bring the matter to the Council’s attention. He indicated that they would not wait until the audit opinion is issued to communicate any material mistake. It was the consensus of the City Council to proceed with a contract for auditing services with HLB Tautges Redpath, Ltd. Other Mr. Harmening stated that the proposed domestic partner registry ordinance is going to the Human Rights Commission tomorrow night for consideration. He asked the Council if this item should be placed for first reading on the January 3, 2011, City Council agenda. It was the consensus of the City Council to place this item on the City Council agenda as soon as possible. Mr. Harmening agreed to place this item on the January 3, 2011, City Council agenda for first reading, followed by the second reading on January 18th. Councilmember Ross noted that the November financial report indicated that Public Works operations supplies have exceeded budget due to increases in the cost of asphalt and road salt. She asked how many snowstorms the City can handle until it impacts the budget. Mr. Harmening advised that if Public Works incurs additional overtime and supplies expenses in 2010, it will end the year over budget; however, the City will end 2010 under budget in some other areas so the City’s final bottom line is okay. He acknowledged that snow plowing will remain a priority and this will result in overtime expense. The meeting adjourned at 7:02 p.m. Written Reports provided and documented for recording purposes only: 2. November 2010 Monthly Financial Report ______________________________________ ______________________________________ Nancy Stroth, City Clerk Susan Sanger, Mayor Pro Tem Meeting Date: January 18, 2011 Agenda Item #: 3c UNOFFICIAL MINUTES CITY COUNCIL MEETING ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA DECEMBER 20, 2010 1. Call to Order Mayor Pro Tem Sanger called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Councilmembers present: Mayor Pro Tem Susan Sanger, Phil Finkelstein, Anne Mavity, Paul Omodt, Julia Ross, and Sue Santa. Councilmembers absent: Mayor Jeff Jacobs. Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), Deputy City Manager/Human Resources Director (Ms. Gohman), City Attorney (Mr. Scott), Community Development Director (Mr. Locke), Planning/Zoning Supervisor (Ms. McMonigal), Economic Development Coordinator (Mr. Hunt), Communications Coordinator (Mr. Zwilling), Controller (Mr. Swanson), Finance Supervisor (Mr. Heintz), and Recording Secretary (Ms. Hughes). 1a. Pledge of Allegiance 1b. Roll Call 2. Presentations 2a. James L. Brimeyer Resolution of Appreciation Mayor Pro Tem Sanger presented Mr. Brimeyer with an appreciation plaque recognizing Mr. Brimeyer’s years of service to the City of St. Louis Park and for his service on the Southwest Transitway Policy Advisory Committee. She also recited the Council Resolution recognizing Mr. Brimeyer’s service. Mr. Brimeyer expressed his thanks to the City Council. 3. Approval of Minutes 3a. Study Session Minutes of November 22, 2010 Councilmember Santa requested that second sentence in the fifth paragraph on page 5 be revised to state “She stated she would prefer to bring more stability to the City’s finances across the board and was comfortable with the 4.88% a 4.0% levy.” Councilmember Ross requested that a paragraph be added after the seventh paragraph on page 4 that states “Councilmember Ross assured residents that a rezoning would not happen without a proposal on the table by a developer.” The minutes were approved as amended. 3b. Joint City Council/School Board Meeting Minutes of November 29, 2010 Councilmember Omodt stated that this was a fairly important meeting and included significant exchange of data. He requested that a complete set of minutes be prepared that reflects the information presented by the consultants and others at the meeting. City Council Meeting of January 18, 2011 (Item No. 3c) Page 2 Subject: City Council Meeting Minutes of December 20, 2010 Mr. Harmening stated that this meeting was videotaped and agreed to have more complete minutes prepared. No action was taken on the Joint City Council/School Board meeting minutes of November 29, 2010, pending preparation of a more complete set of minutes by staff. 3c. City Council Minutes of December 6, 2010 Councilmember Mavity requested that a paragraph be added after the fourth paragraph on page 5 that states “Mr. Locke acknowledged that PPL representatives asked staff whether they should attend the City Council meeting and were informed by staff that their attendance at the meeting was not necessary.” Councilmember Omodt stated that Mr. Locke’s statement regarding PPL’s attendance at the meeting was not accurate at that point in the minutes and noted that the correct place for Councilmember Mavity’s requested revision is on page 7 before the Council vote. Councilmember Finkelstein requested that the fifth paragraph on page 10 be stricken and replaced with the following: “Councilmember Finkelstein stated he conducted an independent review of the site and noted that the proposal does not meet the City’s general CUP requirements because of the following: (1) It violates Section 1 of the CUP requirements as being inconsistent and non supportive of the City’s principal goals, objectives, and land use designations; (2) It violates Section 2 of the CUP requirements (detrimental to health, safety and general welfare) due to pedestrian issues on the east driveway between Dairy Queen and Baja Sol, and due to congestion issues which comes down to the basic issue of livability; (3) It violates Section 4 of the CUP requirements having an adverse impact on governmental facilities in that it will affect Excelsior Boulevard with backup traffic, U-turn issues, and traffic criss-crossing in the back with pedestrian activity; and (4) It violates Section 5 of the CUP requirements having an adverse impact on the use and enjoyment of properties in close proximity. He stated that during his independent review, he could hear noise at the fence, noting that it is not the intercom box where you order food, but rather blasting car stereos and leaving garbage.” Mr. Harmening stated that the Council motion on page 5 regarding the Louisiana Court Series 2010C bond issue needs to be clarified by replacing the blank line and inserting the principal amount of $1,770,000. He stated that the Council motion on page 6 regarding the Fire Stations Series 2010D bond issue also needs to be clarified by replacing the blank line and inserting the principal amount of $13,025,000. Mayor Pro Tem Sanger requested that the first sentence of the fourth paragraph on page 10 be revised to state “Councilmember Sanger stated that the Wendy’s proposal was voted against not because it was not well thought out or and that it would not enhance the area and that the current proposal is not an improvement.” She also requested that the fourth sentence of the fourth paragraph on page 10 be revised to state “She stated that from a logic perspective, she could not understand how adding the drive-through will increase profits for the business and but simultaneously how the proposed model will not add more traffic to the site.” The minutes were approved as amended. City Council Meeting of January 18, 2011 (Item No. 3c) Page 3 Subject: City Council Meeting Minutes of December 20, 2010 3d. Special Study Session Minutes of December 6, 2010 Councilmember Mavity requested that the seventh paragraph on page 2 be revised to state “Councilmember Mavity suggested that the League of Women Voters be asked to participate suggest names of people who could participate on the fiber optic study task force, specifically names of women who are grossly under-represented on the task force. She stated there appears to be unreasonably low participation by women on the task force.” The minutes were approved as amended. 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. 10-150 of appreciation to recognize James L. Brimeyer for serving on the Southwest Transitway Policy Advisory Committee led by Hennepin County Regional Rail Authority. 4b. Adopt Resolution No. 10-151 authorizing final payment in the amount of $13,724.68 for the 2009 MSA Street Improvement Project - Wooddale Avenue with Valley Paving, Inc., Project No. 2009-1101 - City Contract No. 75-10. 4c. Adopt Resolution No. 10-152 authorizing final payment in the amount of $12,000.00 for Water Treatment Plant No. 1 Rehabilitation with Magney Construction, Inc., Project No. 2008-1400, City Contract No. 12-10. 4d. Approve Amendment No. 1 to Contract 02-10 which provides engineering construction services for the Highway 7/Wooddale Avenue Interchange Project - Project No. 2004-1700. 4e. Approve Resolution No. 10-153 establishing W. 44th Street as a Municipal State Aid Street. 4f. Adopt Resolution No. 10-154 committing specific revenue sources to special revenue funds and approve amendments to the City’s Fund Balance Policy. 4g. Adopt Resolution No. 10-155 authorizing fund equity transfers and fund closings and Adopt Resolution No. 10-156 approving interfund loans. 4h. Approve a one year contract with three option years with HLB Tautges Redpath, LTD for auditing services. 4i. Adopt Resolution No. 10-157 authorizing bank signatories and opening of money market account. 4j. Adopt Resolution No. 10-158 authorizing the special assessment for the repair of the sewer service line at 5912 Minnetonka Boulevard - P.I.D. 09-117-21-34-0191. 4k. Approve for Filing Planning Commission Minutes September 15, 2010. 4l. Approve for Filing Planning Commission Minutes October 6, 2010. 4m. Approve for Filing Planning Commission Minutes October 20, 2010. 4n. Approve for Filing Planning Commission Minutes November 17, 2010. 4o. Approve for Filing Vendor Claims. 4p. Approve for Filing Housing Authority Minutes November 10, 2010. City Council Meeting of January 18, 2011 (Item No. 3c) Page 4 Subject: City Council Meeting Minutes of December 20, 2010 Mr. Harmening advised that a letter was received from Dairy Queen indicating that it was formally withdrawing its application; as a result, agenda item 8a (Dairy Queen – Conditional Use Permit for In-Vehicle Service) should be removed from the agenda. It was moved by Councilmember Ross, seconded by Councilmember Santa, to approve the Agenda as amended to remove Agenda Item 8a (Dairy Queen – Conditional Use Permit for In-Vehicle Service), approve items listed on the Consent Calendar, and to waive reading of all resolutions and ordinances. The motion passed 6-0. 5. Boards and Commissions - None 6. Public Hearings 6a. Public Hearing and Resolution Approving Establishment of the Hardcoat Tax Increment Financing District Resolutions No. 10-159 and No. 10-160 Mr. Hunt presented the staff report and indicated this item was approved earlier this evening by the EDA and requires Council ratification. Mayor Pro Tem Sanger opened the public hearing. No speakers present. Mayor Pro Tem Sanger closed the public hearing. It was moved by Councilmember Santa, seconded by Councilmember Omodt, to adopt Resolution No. 10-159 adopting a Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project No. 1; Establishing the Hardcoat Tax Increment Financing District Therein and Adopting a Tax Increment Financing Plan Therefo; and to adopt Resolution No. 10-160 approving internal Loan for Advance of certain costs in connection with Hardcoat Tax Increment Financing District. The motion passed 5-1 (Councilmember Finkelstein opposed). 7. Requests, Petitions, and Communications from the Public – None 8. Resolutions, Ordinances, Motions and Discussion Items 8a. Dairy Queen – Conditional Use Permit for In-Vehicle Service This item was removed from the agenda. 8b. Namakan Properties – Registered Land Survey (RLS) Hwy 7/Blake Road Resolution No. 10-161 Ms. McMonigal presented the staff report and stated that Namakan Properties proposes to purchase a portion of the Mn/DOT right-of-way adjacent to the building which requires Council approval of a Registered Land Survey in order to convey a portion of the property from Mn/DOT to Namakan Properties. She advised that Namakan Properties proposes to use the Mn/DOT property for additional parking which will enable them to City Council Meeting of January 18, 2011 (Item No. 3c) Page 5 Subject: City Council Meeting Minutes of December 20, 2010 lease the remaining tenant space more easily. She noted that the Planning Commission reviewed the request and recommended approval. Councilmember Mavity asked if any consideration or study was conducted with respect to the stormwater management in this area since this portion of the property will go from being green space to pavement. She expressed concern about the amount of pavement on the site. Ms. McMonigal stated that typically if a site is small enough, it does not meet the requirements for stormwater. She indicated that approximately one-half of the Mn/DOT property will be retained in case the intersection is changed in the future. Councilmember Santa stated that this is an area with a building on it that has been under- utilized because of the parking issues and was pleased to see that the property will get the parking it needs to provide an opportunity for the businesses to be more successful. She indicated she was also pleased to see the City was recommending retaining some of the land around the monument which already has nice landscaping. She added that the drainage in that area has historically been very good. It was moved by Councilmember Santa, seconded by Councilmember Finkelstein, to adopt Resolution No. 10-161 giving approval for a Registered Land Survey (RLS) for Namakan Properties at Highway 7 and Blake Road. Councilmember Mavity stated that she will support this request and it is important to promote City businesses to the extent possible. She requested that the City remain very attentive to these kinds of stormwater management issues when creating larger surface parking lots in otherwise green space areas. Mr. William Bailey, Namakan Properties, appeared before the City Council and stated that the property he is purchasing from Mn/DOT is currently being used for parking by all the businesses. He noted that Mn/DOT re-did the storm sewer in this area when it created the cul-de-sac, so it was engineered with stormwater in mind. He expressed his thanks and appreciation to City staff and particularly to Gary Morrison for assisting him with this project. The motion passed 6-0. 8c. Second Reading – Ordinance Providing for a Local Lodging Tax Ordinance No. 2396-10 Mr. Hunt presented the staff report and stated that for over a year, Council has been discussing the formation of a convention and visitors bureau (CVB) as a means of promoting St. Louis Park as a tourism destination to stimulate additional economic activity. He indicated that significant research was conducted and considerable discussion held with local stakeholders. He advised that the primary revenue source for CVBs in Minnesota is a local lodging tax and state law allows imposing a tax up to 3% of gross receipts of room rentals for the purpose of marketing and promoting the City. He noted that there are currently 26 metro area communities that have adopted a local lodging tax of at least 3% and the proposed Ordinance authorizes a 3% local lodging tax effective March 1, 2011. He presented copies of letters received from the Marriott Minneapolis West, CSM Properties, TownePlace Suites, SpringHill Suites, and the Doubletree Hotel City Council Meeting of January 18, 2011 (Item No. 3c) Page 6 Subject: City Council Meeting Minutes of December 20, 2010 Minneapolis-Park Place urging a “no” vote; in addition, a letter from Torgerson Properties indicating mixed support for the CVB, as well as a letter of support from Park Nicollet Melrose Institute. He also presented a summary of reactions of select areas companies relative to the CVB concept from Bruce Nustad at TwinWest Chamber of Commerce. Ms. Robbie Sullivan, Area Director of Sales and Marketing for CSM Lodging, appeared before the City Council and expressed her appreciation for the approach taken by the City in this process and for asking the hotel community about its concerns. She stated that as a hotelier, she does not see this as the right time for the formation of a CVB and to impose a local lodging tax. She stated that she felt an additional 3% tax would create a competitive disadvantage for their hotels when looking at the proximity of St. Louis Park to Minnetonka or Plymouth. She expressed concern about the infrastructure required to support a destination type of organization, and stated that St. Louis Park does not have a convention center that draws groups into the area, nor does it have sports facilities for different types of athletic events. She stated that she did not feel there was a base that was strong enough for a CVB in St. Louis Park and felt it would make more sense if a multi- city CVB were formed that would level the playing field for all hotels on the 394 strip. Mr. Joel Carver, Vice President of Sales and Marketing for CSM Lodging, appeared before the City Council and stated that while they applaud the City and the TwinWest Chamber of Commerce for its desire to market and improve the City, he did not feel it was appropriate at this time to form a CVB based on the economic conditions that exist today. He stated he was concerned with the change in the competitive landscape and a 3% lodging tax causes them serious concern. He expressed significant concern that the lodging tax will shift business from other parts of the Twin Cities and not bring business in to St. Louis Park hotels. He stated that he felt the CVB presents a phenomenal opportunity, just not at this time, and requested the Council to vote “no.” Mr. Fred Talerico, General Manager of Marriott Minneapolis West, appeared before the City Council and agreed with Ms. Sullivan and Mr. Carver. He noted that their hotel sits across from another hotel located in Minnetonka and a lodging tax would put them at a disadvantage in going after businesses or overnight accommodations to surrounding hotels that are not subject to the same lodging tax. Mr. Sandy Buonanni, General Manager of Doubletree Hotel Minneapolis-Park Place, appeared before the City Council and agreed with Ms. Sullivan and Messrs. Carver and Talerico. He stated from their standpoint, their hotel must remain very competitive when fighting in a market that is so close to downtown Minneapolis. He indicated that the CVB would be funded from other fees collected throughout the year, including membership fees, and he felt that it would be difficult for their hotel to decide whether to join the CVB or the TwinWest Chamber. He added that it would come down to a choice of which entity can and should support their business. Mr. Mike Kottke, Director of Sales and Marketing of Doubletree Hotel Minneapolis, urged the Council to vote “no.” He stated that Torgerson Properties indicated it would support the CVB if a majority of hoteliers were behind it and there are a lot of individuals here this evening who do not support the CVB. He stated that he felt this was the wrong time for a lodging tax and the tax would be unfair to the local hoteliers. City Council Meeting of January 18, 2011 (Item No. 3c) Page 7 Subject: City Council Meeting Minutes of December 20, 2010 Ms. Gayle Junnila, Metro Regional Manager for Explore Minnesota Tourism, appeared before the City Council and discussed Explore Minnesota Tourism’s mission, the marketing and advertising opportunities within the Minnesota tourism industry, and how Explore Minnesota can support tourism marketing at the CVB level and help increase tourism in the metro region. She presented the Council with copies of the “Minneapolis Saint Paul Area Playbook,” a publication produced for consumer inquiries to bring people into the area. She stated that she understands it is highly competitive right now, tourism is down, and meetings and conventions are decreasing, but felt that more marketing and more promotion will help bring tourists and businesspeople into a community. Mr. Michael Landstad, Senior Property Manager for the West End development and Duke Realty, appeared before the City Council and expressed support for the CVB initiative. He stated that having a CVB would help promote the common good of all the businesses in the City and help the City as a whole. He indicated that in the long run, a well-run CVB has been proven to generate revenue to that city. He added that he felt it would be a disservice not to offer a professionally operated CVB that promotes the businesses within the City. Mr. Jatin Setia, Executive Director, Twin Cities Film Fest, appeared before the City Council and stated that the first Twin Cities Film Festival was held this year in downtown Minneapolis and at Mall of America. He noted that the Film Festival’s Board recently approved moving the Film Festival to the West End and will run for six days in the fall of 2011. He stated that a CVB is crucial for their organization to help promote the City and to promote St. Louis Park as a destination. He added that the Film Festival is looking forward to a long term relationship with the City and having a CVB could only benefit the City overall. Councilmember Ross stated that there appeared to be early buy-in for the CVB concept from the local hoteliers and requested that the speakers address their change of heart. Mr. Carver stated that they were involved in the early discussions and the reality is that we are in unprecedented economic times, with declining rates and occupancies. He indicated that revenues across the country and in the Twin Cities, including St. Louis Park, have suffered a greater decline than projected and they have been losing market share in the Twin Cities. He stated the local hoteliers wanted a clear indication of how business would come in from external markets to this area to assure that the City was not trying to take business away from other parts of the Twin Cities. He stated that they want St. Louis Park to retain its healthy competitive advantage and a CVB has the potential to move business away because of the tax rate. He added that they applaud the City’s efforts in creating a CVB, but agreed with the others that this is not the appropriate time. Councilmember Ross requested further information regarding what the hotels are doing to make sure that their rates are affordable for families who stay in their hotels. Ms. Sullivan stated that approximately 64% of their business is transient and the remainder represents groups. She stated that while they are looking to make sure they offer affordable options for travelers and grow their weekend business, their opportunity is to grow occupancy at a competitive rate, not necessarily the lowest rate. She indicated that they contacted the Melrose Institute to find out which hotels they would refer clients City Council Meeting of January 18, 2011 (Item No. 3c) Page 8 Subject: City Council Meeting Minutes of December 20, 2010 to, and were told that they referred clients to the Hampton Inn in Minnetonka or Holiday Inn in Golden Valley. Councilmember Omodt stated that he is a proponent of aggressive marketing and as a business traveler, price is not at the top of his list. He stated that he supports the CVB and felt it would put St. Louis Park in a much better position in terms of being a destination and having many things to offer. Mayor Pro Tem Sanger asked if there is anything in the ordinance that would preclude the City from expanding to a multi-city CVB. She stated that the hoteliers have expressed concern that the City cannot precisely specify up front how the CVB marketing will work and what the return on that investment will be. She stated that the City will not be running the CVB and will be governed by a separate Board of Directors, which will include hotel and business representatives, and which will have power and authority to develop marketing plans and will have responsibility for calculating the return on investment. She added that the Board of Directors will be responsible for evaluating and defining whether the CVB is successful and if the Board came to the conclusion that the CVB was not working as well as hoped, the CVB could be dissolved. She noted that the CVB will not be an overnight success and that it will take time to organize and build the brand. Mr. Hunt stated that this is correct and stated that the Council also has the ability to choose to review how well the CVB is fulfilling its goals and objectives. Councilmember Mavity acknowledged the concerns of the hoteliers but was supportive of the CVB. She stated that Council talked about having a five year look-back provision that would provide an opportunity to make sure there has been a return on investment based on measurable evaluation data. Councilmember Ross stated that she understands these are tough economic times but felt that in order to make money, the City needs to invest as well. She proposed an amendment to the ordinance in order to make this a win-win for everybody whereby the City would have five year look-back language to revisit the CVB model at the end of that time to see if it is effective and to examine the return on investment in order to demonstrate that the CVB is working for St. Louis Park and for the local hotels. Councilmember Santa questioned whether the Council can bind a future Council to an action. Mr. Scott explained that the language in the ordinance does not need to be amended to reflect this five year look-back provision. He suggested that Council approve the second reading of the Ordinance as presented and to direct staff to review the CVB in five years to determine how things are working with the CVB. It was moved by Councilmember Ross, seconded by Councilmember Omodt, to adopt second reading of Ordinance No. 2396-10 amending Chapter 8 to add a New Article Providing a Local Lodging Tax. Councilmember Finkelstein suggested a friendly amendment to the motion adding that the City review the operation of the CVB in five years. City Council Meeting of January 18, 2011 (Item No. 3c) Page 9 Subject: City Council Meeting Minutes of December 20, 2010 Councilmember Ross agreed to Councilmember Finkelstein’s friendly amendment. Councilmember Omodt seconded Councilmember Finkelstein’s friendly amendment. Mayor Pro Tem Sanger suggested a friendly amendment to the motion that the City review the operation of the CVB no later than five years after formation of the CVB. Councilmember Ross agreed to Mayor Pro Tem Sanger’s friendly amendment. Councilmember Omodt seconded Mayor Pro Tem Sanger’s friendly amendment. The motion passed 6-0. 8d. Adoption of 2010 Revised Budget, 2011 Budgets, 2011 City and HRA Property Tax Levies, 2011 – 2015 Capital Improvement Plan and 2011 Utility Rates. Resolutions No. 10-162, 10-163, 10-164, 10-165 Mr. Swanson presented the staff report and stated that the levy increase of 4% from 2010 represents an increase of approximately $898,000; this levy represents a decrease from the proposed 4.88% preliminary levy approved by Council in September. He presented the 2011 proposed General and Park and Recreation Fund Budgets and a summary of the Enterprise, Internal Service, Special Revenue, and relevant Capital Projects Funds for 2011. He also presented the 2011-2015 Capital Improvement Plan which shows $168 million in planned investments over the next five years; $57 million of this amount represents resources that the City controls and the remaining is based on federal, state and county grants or funding. He then presented the proposed 2011 utility rates and noted that staff analyzed the rates in the City’s four utility funds and determined that rate adjustments were needed to maintain the long term sustainability of each of these funds. Councilmember Finkelstein stated that Council held several meetings with staff regarding the budget and stated that he would support the 2011-2015 Capital Improvement Program and the 2011 utility rates, but would not support the 4% levy. He stated he felt that based on previous Council discussions, the City could make do with a 2.95% levy and still meet the capital needs of the City as well as maintain an appropriate fund balance. He stated that a 4% levy will place the City’s fund balance above 40%, which exceeds the amount set by Council policy. He added that any concern about levy limits by the State or the concern that the City needs to save money is not a good enough reason to levy at 4%. Councilmember Mavity stated that the Council has all of the residents in mind and is trying to do the right thing. She stated that Council received public testimony at the Truth in Taxation hearing about the struggles residents are facing and their fears of increased property taxes, but felt there is a reason that St. Louis Park residents are willing to pay more because they want quality services and the Council wants to make sure the City has the ability to continue to provide that level of quality services. She noted that the 4% levy represents a decrease from what Council passed in September and the impact to residents on an annual basis will be minimal. Councilmember Santa expressed her support for the 4% levy and stated that it was prudent to remember that the wonderful work that the City does comes at a cost in terms City Council Meeting of January 18, 2011 (Item No. 3c) Page 10 Subject: City Council Meeting Minutes of December 20, 2010 of overtime for snowplowing, use of additional fuel, equipment wear and tear, and additional road chemicals. Councilmember Omodt stated that the budget and levy decisions were not made lightly by Council as evidenced by the numerous meetings and study sessions attended by Council and City staff. He pointed out that if the levy for 2011 were less than 4%, the City would be required to levy almost 6% in 2012; it was decided that a more consistent level of levy amounts in 2011 and 2012 was more appropriate. He added that he did not support the 2011 utility rates because he did not believe that a tiered water system makes sense, it does not lower usage, and there is no data to support that tiered water rates conserve water. Mayor Pro Tem Sanger stated that she supports the 4% levy and it is important for the City to conduct long range financial planning and to look beyond what the City can get by with in one year without long term repercussions. She indicated that the City’s fund balance will be shifted to address deficits in a number of other budgets and will leave the City with a General Fund balance within the limits set by Council policy and the State Auditor requirements. She added that cutting the City’s budget further makes no difference in dollars to the average homeowner, but it makes a big difference to the City in terms of being able to cope with changes that the legislature may impose, including levy limits and cutbacks in services provided by the State. It was moved by Councilmember Santa, seconded by Councilmember Omodt, to adopt Resolution No. 10-162 adopting the 2010 Revised General and Park and Recreation Funds Budgets, 2011 Budgets and Adopting the 2011 Final Property Tax Levy. The motion passed 5-1 (Councilmember Finkelstein opposed). It was moved by Councilmember Santa, seconded by Councilmember Mavity, to adopt Resolution No. 10-163 approving the 2010 HRA Levy Collectible in 2011. The motion passed 6-0. It was moved by Councilmember Santa, seconded by Councilmember Mavity, to adopt Resolution No. 10-164 adopting the 2011-2015 Capital Improvement Program. The motion passed 6-0. It was moved by Councilmember Santa, seconded by Councilmember Mavity, to adopt Resolution No. 10-165 setting Utility Rates. The motion passed 5-1 (Councilmember Omodt opposed). 8e. 2011 Employee Compensation Resolution No. 10-166 Ms. Gohman presented the staff report and stated that a 2.25% salary increase for non- union employees effective 12/31/10 and a 0% increase for 2011; this follows the pattern of wage increases for the Police Officer and Sergeant groups and falls in line with the budget adopted this evening. She stated that each year, Council approves participation in City Council Meeting of January 18, 2011 (Item No. 3c) Page 11 Subject: City Council Meeting Minutes of December 20, 2010 the volunteer firefighters benefit program; cost for the program is $247. She indicated that the paid on-call firefighter performance program recommends a 2.25% increase effective January 1, 2011. She noted that Council took a decrease in 2010 wages and department heads received a 0% increase in 2010 with other employees receiving 1% January 1, 2010 and no increase by the employer for benefits contribution. City Manger salary will be reviewed upon completion of the performance evaluation process early 2011. Councilmember Santa stated that one of the first things she heard as a new Councilmember was the willingness of City staff to work with the City in meeting its financial challenges. She added that she takes pleasure in approving a 2.25% salary increase. It was moved by Councilmember Santa, seconded by Councilmember Finkelstein, to adopt Resolution No. 10-166 confirming compensation for Non-Union Employees; continuing participation in the Volunteer Firefighter Benefit Program, and continuing Performance Program Pay for Paid-on-Call Firefighters. Councilmember Omodt stated that the City does not work without the effort from a lot of good people, and that effort does not go unnoticed. He stated that staff worked hard to make the budget possible and he hoped that the public recognizes that effort because it is not without personal sacrifice by the City’s 240 employees because each and every one of them has worked hard to make the budget work for all taxpayers. He expressed his thanks to all City staff for their sacrifices on behalf of the City. The motion passed 6-0. 9. Communications Mr. Harmening requested that residents move their vehicles from the street due to the snow emergency so that the streets can be plowed effectively. Councilmember Ross expressed her thanks to the Hennepin County Board of Commissioners for the $200,000 grant for the Northside Park project. Mayor Pro Tem Sanger stated that she attended the grand opening of the new park shelter and warming house at Birchwood Park and invited residents to go skating and enjoy the warming house. She expressed her thanks to City staff for completing the project at an economical price. Mayor Pro Tem Sanger stated that the Council would not be meeting again until January 3rd and wished everyone a happy holiday. 10. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 9:16 p.m. ______________________________________ ______________________________________ Nancy Stroth, City Clerk Susan Sanger, Mayor Pro Tem Meeting Date: January 18, 2011 Agenda Item #: 3d UNOFFICIAL MINUTES CITY COUNCIL MEETING ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA JANUARY 3, 2011 1. Call to Order Mayor Jacobs called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Councilmembers present: Mayor Jeff Jacobs, Anne Mavity, Paul Omodt, Julia Ross, Susan Sanger, and Sue Santa. Councilmembers absent: Councilmember Phil Finkelstein. Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), Deputy City Manager/Human Resources Director (Ms. Gohman), City Attorney (Mr. Scott), Fire Chief (Mr. Stemmer), Planning/Zoning Supervisor (Ms. McMonigal), Senior Planner (Mr. Walther), Planner (Mr. Fulton), Communications Coordinator (Mr. Zwilling), and Recording Secretary (Ms. Hughes). 1a. Pledge of Allegiance 1b. Roll Call 2. Presentations 2a. Recognition for Mayor Jacobs’ Service as Co-Chair of Active Living Hennepin County from 2006-2010 Gail Dorfman, Hennepin County Commissioner, presented a certificate to Mayor Jacobs in recognition and appreciation of the Mayor’s service as co-chair of Active Living Hennepin County. She also acknowledged Mr. Walther’s significant role in the partnership. She stated that Active Living Hennepin County is an initiative funded by Blue Cross Blue Shield that encourages and promotes a physically active healthy lifestyle, particularly in terms of creating public and private spaces that make it easy for people to walk, access transit, and bike. She referenced the City’s commitment to the project and stated that Excelsior and Grand is an example of a walkable, livable, and bikeable community, as well as the West End project. She then introduced Karen Nikolai, Active Living Project Manager. Ms. Nikolai expressed her thanks to the City for its partnership and recognized Mr. Walther’s work on the project, noting that it has been helpful to have Mr. Walther’s expertise in city planning. She stated that she looks forward to continuing to work with the City and to discuss a complete streets policy. Mayor Jacobs expressed his thanks to Ms. Dorfman and also expressed his thanks to Mr. Walther for his instrumental role in working to make the streets more friendly for cars, pedestrians, and bicyclists. He stated that Active Living has been actively involved in creating building designs that encourage people to walk, and Active Living represents a great partnership between the County, St. Louis Park, and other communities. City Council Meeting of January 18, 2011 (Item No. 3d) Page 2 Subject: City Council Meeting Minutes of January 3, 2011 3. Approval of Minutes 3a. Study Session Minutes of December 13, 2010 Councilmember Mavity requested that the last sentence of the third paragraph on page 4 be revised to state “She stated that she wanted to make sure the City looks more closely at having more pedestrian and bike crossings and to make these areas safe, most notably with their use as light rail transit stations at the Wooddale and Beltline crossing.” The minutes were approved as amended. 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. 11-001 Declaring 2011 City Council Meeting Dates. 4b. Approve Resolution No. 11-002 designating the St. Louis Park Sun Sailor as the City’s Official Newspaper for year 2011. 4c. Adopt Resolution No. 11-003 electing to not waive the statutory tort limits for liability insurance. 4d. Approve 2010 Pay Equity Report. 4e. Adopt Resolution No. 11-004 authorizing final payment in the amount of $43,243.88 and accepting work for the 2010 Random Concrete Repair with Ron Kassa Construction, Inc. Project Nos. 2010-0003, 0004, & 0006, City Contract No. 100-10. 4f. Adopt Resolution No. 11-005 authorizing the special assessment for the repair of the sewer service line at 2929 Yosemite Avenue South, St. Louis Park, MN - P.I.D. 09-117-21-34-0104. 4g. Adopt Resolution No. 11-006 certifying the special assessment for the Traffic Signal and Intersection Improvements, W. 36th Street at Park Center Boulevard, Project No. 2009-2101, in the amount of $221,567.93 - P.I.D. 06-028-24-32-0017. 4h. Approve for Filing Vendor Claims. 4i. Approve for Filing Planning Commission Minutes December 8, 2010. It was moved by Councilmember Omodt, seconded by Councilmember Sanger, to approve the Agenda and items listed on the Consent Calendar; and to waive reading of all resolutions and ordinances. The motion passed 6-0 (Councilmember Finkelstein absent). 5. Boards and Commissions 5a. Reappointment of Citizen Representatives to Boards and Commissions It was moved by Councilmember Sanger, seconded by Councilmember Santa, to reappoint the following Commissioners as city representatives to their respective commissions with terms as follows: City Council Meeting of January 18, 2011 (Item No. 3d) Page 3 Subject: City Council Meeting Minutes of January 3, 2011 Name Commission Term Expiration Ryan Burt Board of Zoning Appeals 12/31/2013 Paul Roberts Board of Zoning Appeals 12/31/2013 David Lee Fire Civil Service Commission 12/31/2013 George Hagemann Park and Recreation Advisory Commission 12/31/2013 Kirk Hawkinson Park and Recreation Advisory Commission 12/31/2013 Sam Flumerfelt (youth) Park and Recreation Advisory Commission 8/31/2011 Lynne Carper Planning Commission 12/31/2013 Dennis Morris Planning Commission 12/31/2013 Andrew Ford (youth) Planning Commission 8/31/2011 James Smith Police Advisory Commission 12/31/2013 Hans Widmer Police Advisory Commission 12/31/2013 Matt Flory Police Advisory Commission 12/31/2013 Jason Kley Police Advisory Commission 12/31/2013 Rick Dworsky Telecommunications Advisory Commission 12/31/2013 Dale Hartman Telecommunications Advisory Commission 12/31/2013 Toby Keeler Telecommunications Advisory Commission 12/31/2013 The motion passed 6-0 (Councilmember Finkelstein absent). Mayor Jacobs expressed his thanks to all the volunteers who serve on the City’s boards and commissions. 5b. Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission 2011 Appointments Resolution No. 11-007 It was moved by Councilmember Omodt, seconded by Councilmember Santa, to adopt Resolution No. 11-007 Appointing Jim deLambert, Commissioner, and Justin Riss, Alternative Commissioner, to the Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission; and Laura Adler, Member to the Technical Advisory Committee for three year terms expiring January 31, 2014. The motion passed 6-0 (Councilmember Finkelstein absent). 6. Public Hearings 6a. Fire Stations #1 and #2 – Street Vacation, Conditional Use Permits, and Plat Resolutions No. 11-008, 11-009 and 11-010 Mr. Fulton presented the staff report and explained that the vacation of a portion of Oxford Street for Fire Station #1 affects only the northerly portion of the lot. He stated that fire stations are a permitted use with the condition of a 25’ setback from residential. He indicated that the site has a parking requirement of 35 spaces and 44 are provided in this location. He discussed the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for excavation and fill, and preliminary and final plat. He stated that any trees not replaced on-site would result in a payment to the Tree Replacement Fund, and that the subdivision variance request is due to the location of the proposed building. City Council Meeting of January 18, 2011 (Item No. 3d) Page 4 Subject: City Council Meeting Minutes of January 3, 2011 Mr. Fulton explained that a CUP for excavation and fill is required for Fire Station #2. He indicated that the site has a parking requirement of 15 spaces and 23 are being provided. He advised that the CUP is necessary because the site slopes steeply to the west. He noted that Northside Park is included as part of this CUP for fill and would follow a similar haul route. Mayor Jacobs opened the public hearing. No speakers were present. Mayor Jacobs closed the public hearing. Councilmember Ross asked if fiber optics are being considered for either one of the sites. Mr. Fulton stated that discussion has taken place regarding installation of fiber optics to the fire stations; both will be connected to the City’s fiber network. No decisions have been made about where additional conduit may be needed, but it will be installed where necessary Councilmember Ross stated that concerns have previously been expressed regarding light spillage from the fire trucks exiting the station onto Louisiana Avenue. She asked if mitigation measures have been discussed with the neighbors. Mr. Sean Walther, Project Manager, stated that staff has been speaking with the neighbor across the street from the north driveway but no conclusion has been reached. He noted that one option is to provide screening; consideration is also being given to reversing the direction that trucks go into the building. Councilmember Ross requested further information regarding the impact on Northside Park’s spring and summer activities during renovation, as well as the impact on traffic flow on Louisiana Avenue during construction. Mr. Walther stated that Northside Park is officially closed and construction activity will continue throughout the summer; the park will not reopen until 2012 because the turf needs to establish itself. He stated that there will be some increased traffic on Louisiana Avenue during excavation and fill; this activity will begin as early as May and will continue for a month or two. He noted that most construction activity will begin at 7:00 a.m. and hauling will not typically extend beyond 5:00 p.m. Councilmember Mavity stated that the tree loss at Fire Station #1 is significant primarily because the building footprint is much larger. She requested that staff continue to look at this as part of the overall project costs to ensure that the Tree Replacement Fund receives an infusion to plant more trees in the community. Mr. Fulton stated that it is important to note that the landscape plan for the site is still in flux and a final determination regarding tree replacement will be made at the time a building permit is issued. Councilmember Mavity asked if the street vacation on Oxford Street will have any impact on whether Oxford is a one way or two way street. City Council Meeting of January 18, 2011 (Item No. 3d) Page 5 Subject: City Council Meeting Minutes of January 3, 2011 Mr. Fulton replied that the general right-of-way along Oxford Street is approximately 60 feet; future decisions about traffic direction will not be limited by the proposed vacation. Councilmember Sanger requested further information regarding how the City will maintain adequate fire protection services while the fire stations are being demolished and rebuilt. Mr. Luke Stemmer, Fire Chief, explained that Fire Station #1 equipment and personnel will be relocated to Fire Station #2 during construction; Fire Station #2 equipment and personnel will be moved to the recently renovated Municipal Service Center. He stated that the Fire Department will then begin reviewing current response times to determine if changes are needed in order to maximize response times and maximize the Fire Department’s ability to get equipment where it is needed. He added that there will be no reduction in services to residents during construction and the Fire Department is confident it can continue to maintain current response times throughout the community. It was moved by Councilmember Mavity, seconded by Councilmember Sanger, to adopt first reading of an Ordinance Vacating the Street. The motion passed 6-0 (Councilmember Finkelstein absent). It was moved by Councilmember Mavity, seconded by Councilmember Sanger, to approve Resolution No. 11-008 Granting Conditional Use Permit Under Section 36-79 of the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code Relating to Zoning to Permit Excavation and Fill in Excess of 400 Cubic Yards for Property Zoned POS Parks and Open Space District and R-3 Two-Family Residential District Located at 3750 Wooddale Avenue South. The motion passed 6-0 (Councilmember Finkelstein absent). It was moved by Councilmember Mavity, seconded by Councilmember Sanger, to approve Resolution No. 11-009 Giving Approval for Preliminary and Final Plat with Variance from Subdivision Ordinance. The motion passed 6-0 (Councilmember Finkelstein absent). It was moved by Councilmember Mavity, seconded by Councilmember Sanger, to approve Resolution No. 11-010 Granting Conditional Use Permit Under Section 36-79 of the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code Relating to Zoning to Permit Placement of Fill in Excess of 400 Cubic Yards for Property Zoned C-2 General Commercial District and POS Parks and Open Space District Located at 2262 Louisiana Avenue South. The motion passed 6-0 (Councilmember Finkelstein absent). Mayor Jacobs expressed the City Council’s thanks to City staff at every level for working on this important project. 7. Requests, Petitions, and Communications from the Public – None City Council Meeting of January 18, 2011 (Item No. 3d) Page 6 Subject: City Council Meeting Minutes of January 3, 2011 8. Resolutions, Ordinances, Motions and Discussion Items 8a. Domestic Partner Voluntary Registration Program Ms. Gohman presented the staff report and noted that this item does not require a public hearing. She advised that the Human Rights Commission reviewed this item at its December 21st meeting and expressed its support for the City Council to pursue a domestic partner voluntary registration program. The Human Rights Commission also asked the Council to consider sending a resolution to the State regarding this issue. She stated that the draft ordinance is a City ordinance and does not create any rights otherwise available to married couples under state or federal law. She noted that the registration program allows fees for program participation the same as family fee membership, if it offers such fees to others. She explained that all City employees except firefighters currently have a flex leave program which does not restrict use of leave and a domestic partner registration has no impact on staff’s ability to use such leave. She indicated that staff can work with the firefighters to include domestic partner language in their sick leave program. She added that some employees also have a funeral leave bank that includes a definition of family; that language could also be amended to include use for a domestic partner. She stated that the ordinance will have minimal administrative burden and the proposed fees are $50 for registration and $25 for an amendment or termination to the registration. Mr. Curt Peterson, 2815 Toledo Avenue, appeared before the City Council and stated that the domestic partner registration ordinance is an important step toward recognizing the dignity, value, and integrity of each person and protecting all families regardless of sexual orientation. He indicated that this is not a legal action and is only symbolic, but a cross and a flag are also symbolic. Mr. Kenny Wolf appeared before the City Council and expressed his thanks to the City Council for considering this ordinance. He stated that the ordinance may be symbolic, but it is meaningful, responds to the needs of residents, and proves that St. Louis Park is the most livable for the LGBT community. Mr. Phil Durand, Minneapolis, appeared before the City Council and stated that his organization is honored to provide information and service to St. Louis Park in its consideration of this ordinance. He indicated that it is important to recognize that this ordinance extends to all same sex and heterosexual couples and noted that there are many elderly heterosexual couples who choose to live together but remain unmarried and this ordinance provides a way for them to register their relationship. He pointed out that the proposed ordinance does not impose any obligations on businesses or other institutions. Ms. Erin Keyes, 2637 Joppa Avenue, appeared before the City Council and stated that this ordinance in an important step in an important evolving process. She indicated that it means a lot to be in a community where they are welcomed and expressed her thanks to the City Council and Human Rights Commission. Ms. Janice Goldstein, 4730 Park Commons Drive, appeared before the City Council and expressed her thanks to the City Council for considering this and stated she would be grateful if the Council approves the ordinance. City Council Meeting of January 18, 2011 (Item No. 3d) Page 7 Subject: City Council Meeting Minutes of January 3, 2011 Councilmember Sanger expressed thanks to the residents who came forward and spoke about the ordinance. She stated she is proud to have initiated this ordinance that is intended to help identify and promote St. Louis Park as a welcoming and inclusive community. She noted that the impetus for this ordinance was that she was hearing stories from people about how they were excluded from the decision-making process when their loved one was in a medical crisis and this ordinance will serve to encourage medical providers to include domestic partners as members of the decision-making team. She added that this ordinance can benefit a lot of people and will cause no harm to anybody if the ordinance does not apply to their circumstances. It was moved by Councilmember Sanger, seconded by Councilmember Mavity, to adopt first reading of an Ordinance adding Chapter 5 to the St. Louis Park City Code Concerning Domestic Partners, and to set Second Reading January 18, 2011. Councilmember Sanger requested that staff review its employee policies and to add the term domestic partner language in regards to use of leave. Mayor Jacobs stated that Councilmember Sanger’s request need not be included as part of the motion and will be considered a directive to staff. Councilmember Santa agreed with Councilmember Sanger’s comments regarding the proposed ordinance. She asked why the city would require amendment or change in domestic partnership registration. Ms. Gohman explained that an amendment would be initiated by an applicant for items they may choose for example name change, address change, or anything that they would like in revising their documentation. Councilmember Mavity stated that she is honored and privileged to approve this ordinance and it allows the Council a chance, even symbolically, to begin to right some of the injustices and wrongs from the past. Councilmember Ross stated that she fully supports this ordinance. She indicated that St. Louis Park is as a community that welcomes all people regardless of background or orientation and this ordinance says to all residents that they are welcome in this community. Councilmember Omodt expressed his thanks to Councilmember Sanger for bringing this issue forward and added that the ordinance is long overdue. Mayor Jacobs stated that St. Louis Park has a long tradition of diversity and welcoming people to its community. He agreed that the ordinance is long overdue and sends a message to the community that this is who we are, we accept and welcome everybody in this town, and we are glad you are here. The motion passed 6-0 (Councilmember Finkelstein absent). City Council Meeting of January 18, 2011 (Item No. 3d) Page 8 Subject: City Council Meeting Minutes of January 3, 2011 8b. Designating 2011 Mayor Pro Tem Resolution No. 11-011 It was moved by Councilmember Santa, seconded by Councilmember Ross, to adopt Resolution No. 11-011 Appointing Susan Sanger to the Office of Mayor Pro Tem for the Year 2011. The motion passed 6-0 (Councilmember Finkelstein absent). 9. Communications Mayor Jacobs expressed the City Council’s thanks to the City’s public works staff for their hard work and great job in keeping the streets plowed. Councilmember Ross reminded residents to please shovel their sidewalks and clear the snow from fire hydrants. 10. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 8:28 p.m. ______________________________________ ______________________________________ Nancy Stroth, City Clerk Jeff Jacobs, Mayor Meeting Date: January 18, 2011 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: Special Assessment - Sewer Service Line Repair at 1800 Maryland Avenue South. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to Adopt Resolution authorizing the special assessment for the repair of the sewer service line at 1800 Maryland Avenue South, St. Louis Park, MN - P.I.D. 05-117-21-34-0092. POLICY CONSIDERATION: None - The proposed action is consistent with policy previously established by the City Council. BACKGROUND: Paul Martin, owner of the single family residence at 1800 Maryland Avenue South has requested the City to authorize the repair of the sewer service line for his home and assess the cost against the property in accordance with the City’s special assessment policy. Analysis: The City requires the repair of service lines to promote the general public health, safety and welfare within the community. The special assessment policy for the repair or replacement of water or sewer service lines for existing homes was adopted by the City Council in 1996. This program was put into place because sometimes property owners face financial hardships when emergency repairs like this are unexpectedly required. Plans and permits for this service line repair work were completed, submitted, and approved by City staff. The property owner hired a contractor and repaired the sewer service line in compliance with current codes and regulations. Based on the completed work, this repair qualifies for the City’s special assessment program. The property owner has petitioned the City to authorize the sewer service line repair and special assess the cost of the repair. The total eligible cost of the repair has been determined to be $10,500.00. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: The City has funds in place to finance the cost of this special assessment. VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. Attachments: Resolution Prepared by: Scott Anderson, Utility Superintendent Through: Mike Rardin, Public Works Director Brian Swanson, Controller Approved by: Nancy Deno Gohman, Deputy City Manager/HR Dir. City Council Meeting of January 18, 2011 (Item No. 4a) Page 2 Subject: Special Assessment - Sewer Service Line Repair at 1800 Maryland Avenue South RESOLUTION NO. 11-____ RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE SPECIAL ASSESSMENT FOR THE REPAIR OF THE SEWER SERVICE LINE AT 1800 MARYLAND AVENUE SOUTH, ST. LOUIS PARK, MN P.I.D. 05-117-21-34-0092 WHEREAS, the Property Owner at 1800 Maryland Avenue South has petitioned the City of St. Louis Park to authorize a special assessment for the repair of the sewer service line for the single family residence located at 1800 Maryland Avenue South; and WHEREAS, the Property Owner has agreed to waive the right to a public hearing, right of notice and right of appeal pursuant to Minnesota Statute, Chapter 429; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park has received a report from the Utility Superintendent related to the repair of the sewer service line. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, that: 1. The petition from the Property Owner requesting the approval and special assessment for the sewer service line repair is hereby accepted. 2. The sewer service line repair that was done in conformance with the plans and specifications approved by the Public Works Department and Department of Inspections is hereby accepted. 3. The total cost for the repair of the sewer service line is accepted at $10,500.00. 4. The Property Owner has agreed to waive the right to a public hearing, notice and appeal from the special assessment; whether provided by Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429, or by other statutes, or by ordinance, City Charter, the constitution, or common law. 5. The Property Owner has agreed to pay the City for the total cost of the above improvements through a special assessment over a ten (10) year period at the interest rate of 5.85%. 6. The Property Owner has executed an agreement with the City and all other documents necessary to implement the repair of the sewer service line and the special assessment of all costs associated therewith. Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council January 18, 2011 City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk Meeting Date: January 18, 2011 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: Special Assessment - Sewer Service Line Repair at 3033 Florida Avenue South. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to Adopt Resolution authorizing the special assessment for the repair of the sewer service line at 3033 Florida Avenue South, St. Louis Park, MN - P.I.D. 17-117-21-11-0035. POLICY CONSIDERATION: None - The proposed action is consistent with policy previously established by the City Council. BACKGROUND: Timothy and Jessica Berthiaume, owners of the single family residence at 3033 Florida Avenue South have requested the City to authorize the repair of the sewer service line for their home and assess the cost against the property in accordance with the City’s special assessment policy. Analysis: The City requires the repair of service lines to promote the general public health, safety and welfare within the community. The special assessment policy for the repair or replacement of sewer service lines for existing homes was adopted by the City Council in 1996. This program was put into place because sometimes property owners face financial hardships when emergency repairs like this are unexpectedly required. Plans and permits for this service line repair work were completed, submitted, and approved by City staff. The property owners hired a contractor and repaired the sewer service line in compliance with current codes and regulations. Based on the completed work, this repair qualifies for the City’s special assessment program. The property owners have petitioned the City to authorize the sewer service line repair and special assess the cost of the repair. The total eligible cost of the repair has been determined to be $1,557.06. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: The City has funds in place to finance the cost of this special assessment. VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. Attachments: Resolution Prepared by: Scott Anderson, Utility Superintendent Through: Mike Rardin, Public Works Director Brian Swanson, Controller Approved by: Nancy Deno Gohman, Deputy City Manager, HR Director City Council Meeting of January 18, 2011 (Item No. 4b) Page 2 Subject: Special Assessment - Sewer Service Line Repair at 3033 Florida Avenue RESOLUTION NO. 11-____ RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE SPECIAL ASSESSMENT FOR THE REPAIR OF THE SEWER SERVICE LINE AT 3033 FLORIDA AVENUE SOUTH, ST. LOUIS PARK, MN P.I.D. 17-117-21-11-0035 WHEREAS, the Property Owners at 3033 Florida Avenue South have petitioned the City of St. Louis Park to authorize a special assessment for the repair of the sewer service line for the single family residence located at 3033 Florida Avenue South; and WHEREAS, the Property Owners have agreed to waive the right to a public hearing, right of notice and right of appeal pursuant to Minnesota Statute, Chapter 429; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park has received a report from the Utility Superintendent related to the repair of the sewer service line. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, that: 1. The petition from the Property Owners requesting the approval and special assessment for the sewer service line repair is hereby accepted. 2. The sewer service line repair that was done in conformance with the plans and specifications approved by the Public Works Department and Department of Inspections is hereby accepted. 3. The total cost for the repair of the sewer service line is accepted at $1,557.06. 4. The Property Owners have agreed to waive the right to a public hearing, notice and appeal from the special assessment; whether provided by Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429, or by other statutes, or by ordinance, City Charter, the constitution, or common law. 5. The Property Owners have agreed to pay the City for the total cost of the above improvements through a special assessment over a ten (10) year period at the interest rate of 5.85%. 6. The Property Owners have executed an agreement with the City and all other documents necessary to implement the repair of the sewer service line and the special assessment of all costs associated therewith. Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council January 18, 2011 City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk Meeting Date: January 18, 2011 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: Fire Station #1 – Vacation of Right-of-Way. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to Adopt Second Reading of Ordinance approving the Vacation of a portion of street right-of-way at Oxford Street and Wooddale Avenue South, and approve the summary ordinance for publication. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the Council wish to grant final approval for the vacation of street right-of-way? BACKGROUND: The request to vacate a portion of Oxford Street right-of-way is associated with the reconstruction of Fire Station #1. The vacated land will allow for the construction of a parking area to the north of the fire station, with access provided from Oxford Street. The City Council held a public hearing and approved the first reading of an ordinance vacating street right-of-way at Oxford Street and Wooddale Avenue South on January 3rd, 2011. No citizens spoke at the public hearing. At that meeting, the City Council approved the Conditional Use Permit for excavation and fill and the Preliminary and Final Plat for Fire Station #1, and the CUP for excavation and fill at Fire Station #2. A second reading is required to complete the vacation, and 15 days following publication of the ordinance the vacation takes effect. A graphic and legal description of the proposed vacation is attached for review. The vacation will include 4,825 square feet of land. The right-of-way at the point where Oxford St. terminates at Wooddale Avenue is currently 103 feet wide, due to the street design at the intersection of Oxford and Wooddale. Following the vacation, the right-of-way will be 60 feet wide. Oxford Street, which is currently 30 feet wide, will remain unchanged. The vacation will have no impact on utilities, and has been reviewed and found acceptable by the City Engineer. A drainage and utility easement will be retained over the vacated portion of Oxford Street, should additional utilities need to be installed there in the future. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: None. VISION CONSIDERATION: None. Attachments: Ordinance – Vacation of Oxford Street Right-of-Way – Fire Station #1 Ordinance Summary for Publication Vacation Document, Oxford Street Prepared by: Adam Fulton, Planner Reviewed by: Meg McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor Kevin Locke, Community Development Director Approved by: Nancy Deno Gohman, Deputy City Manager/HR Director City Council Meeting of January 18, 2011 (Item No. 4c) Page 2 Subject: Fire Station #1 – Vacation of Right-of-Way ORDINANCE NO.____-11 AN ORDINANCE VACATING STREET Portion of Oxford Street at Oxford Street and Wooddale Avenue South THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK DOES ORDAIN: Section 1. A petition in writing signed by a majority of all of the owners of all property abutting upon both sides of the street proposed to be vacated has been duly filed. The notice of said petition has been published in the St. Louis Park Sailor on December 23, 2010 and the City Council has conducted a public hearing upon said petition and has determined that the street is not needed for public purposes, and that it is for the best interest of the public that said street be vacated. Section 2. The following described right-of-way of a portion of the street as now dedicated and laid out within the corporate limits of the City of St. Louis Park, is vacated: That part of Oxford Street (formerly known as Summit Avenue) as dedicated in the plat of REARRANGEMENT OF ST. LOUIS PARK, according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota described as commencing at the northwest corner of Block 60 of said REARRANGEMENT OF ST. LOUIS PARK; thence on an assumed bearing of South 89 degrees 01 minute 14 seconds East, along the north line of said Block 60, a distance of 200.00 feet to the point of beginning of the land to be described; thence North 0 degrees 36 minutes 05 seconds East a distance of 4.01 feet; thence northeasterly a distance of 140.79 feet along a non-tangential curve, concave to the northwest, having a radius of 321.83 feet, a central angle of 25 degrees 03 minutes 57 seconds and a chord bearing of North 78 degrees 25 minutes 25 seconds East; thence North 65 degrees 53 minutes 27 seconds East, tangent to said curve, a distance of 17.60 feet; thence southeasterly a distance of 47.97 feet along a tangential curve, concave to the south, having a radius of 37.10 feet and a central angle of 74 degrees 04 minutes 56 seconds; thence South 40 degrees 01 minutes 37 seconds East, tangent to last described curve, a distance of 29.39 feet; thence southeasterly a distance of 13.99 feet along a tangential curve, concave to the northeast, having a radius of 406.54 feet and a central angle of 1 degree 58 minutes 17 seconds to said north line of Block 60; thence North 89 degrees 01 minute 14 seconds West, along said north line of Block 60 a distance of 224.62 feet to the point of beginning. reserving, however, to the City of St. Louis Park any and all easements that may exist in, over, and across the described property for storm sewer, sanitary sewer, water main, and public utility purposes. Section 3. The City Clerk is instructed to record certified copies of this ordinance in the Office of the Hennepin County Register of Deeds or Registrar of Titles as the case may be. Sec.4. This Ordinance shall take effect fifteen days after its publication. First Reading January 3, 2010 Second Reading January 18, 2010 Date of Publication January 27, 2010 Date Ordinance takes effect February 11, 2010 City Council Meeting of January 18, 2011 (Item No. 4c) Page 3 Subject: Fire Station #1 – Vacation of Right-of-Way 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 January 18, 2011 (Item No. 4c) Page 4 Subject: Fire Station #1 – Vacation of Right-of-Way SUMMARY ORDINANCE NO.____-11 AN ORDINANCE VACATING STREET This ordinance states that a portion of Oxford Street at Oxford Street and Wooddale Avenue South will be vacated. This ordinance shall take effect 15 days after publication. Adopted by the City Council January 18, 2011 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: January 27, 2011 City Council Meeting of January 18, 2011 (Item No. 4c) Subject: Fire Station #1 – Vacation of Right-of-Way Page 5 Meeting Date: January 18, 2011 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: Special Assessment – Property Restoration Project – 2205 Quebec Drive - PID 0811721220018. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to Adopt Resolution certifying the special assessment for the Property Restoration Project in the amount of $7,635. POLICY CONSIDERATION: None - The proposed action is consistent with policy previously established by the City Council. BACKGROUND: History The property owner was found guilty of failure to comply with minimum landscape requirements, failure to maintain the weeds and/or turf grass to height under six inches, and failure to remove the nuisance of weeds. The court directed the city to correct these deficiencies. A landscape contractor was hired and the restoration work was completed October 21, 2010. The contract amount was $5,290 and included:  Remove debris from site  Place excess rock under deck and level  Spray to kill off existing vegetation  Grade and shape existing material to establish proper sub-grade  Install good soil to correct grades  Install minimum 4” black dirt over entire area and finish grade  Hydro-seed area  Install seed blanket The property owner subsequently disrupted and removed the erosion control seed blankets. Returning to court, the city was directed to clean up, re-seed and re-install erosion control blankets. This follow-up work was completed on December 2, 2010. The additional amount for completion was $2,345, resulting in a project total of $7,635. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: The project cost will be 100% assessed to the property owner, Larry Goss. Mr. Goss signed the assessment agreement and waived his right to a public hearing. The City has funds in place to finance the cost of the special assessment. VISION CONSIDERATION: None. Attachments: Resolution Assessment Agreement Prepared by: Ann Boettcher, Inspection Services Manager Reviewed by: Brian Hoffman, Director of Inspections Brian Swanson, Controller Approved by: Nancy Deno Gohman, Deputy City Manager/HR Director City Council Meeting of January 18, 2011 (Item No. 4d) Page 2 Subject: Special Assessment – Property Restoration Project – 2205 Quebec Drive RESOLUTION NO. 11-____ RESOLUTION CERTIFYING THE SPECIAL ASSESSMENT FOR THE PROPERTY RESTORATION PROJECT – 2205 QUEBEC DRIVE IN THE AMOUNT OF $7,635 WHEREAS, Larry Goss, the Property Owner at 2205 Quebec Drive (PID 0811721220018) failure to maintain the landscape to the minimum city code; and WHEREAS, the Property Owner agreed to have one hundred percent (100%) of the cost of the above improvements assessed against the property in accordance with the City’s special assessment policy; and WHEREAS, the Property Owner agreed to waive the right to a public hearing, right of notice and right of appeal pursuant to Minnesota Statute, Chapter 429; and WHEREAS, the Property Owner has agreed to pay the City for the total cost of the above improvements through a special assessment over a five (5) year period at the interest rate of 5.85 %. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, that: 1. The total cost for the Property Restoration Project at 2205 Quebec Drive is accepted at $7,635. Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council January 3, 2011 City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk City Council Meeting of January 18, 2011 (Item No. 4d) Subject: Special Assessment – Property Restoration Project – 2205 Quebec Drive Page 3 City Council Meeting of January 18, 2011 (Item No. 4d) Subject: Special Assessment – Property Restoration Project – 2205 Quebec Drive Page 4 City Council Meeting of January 18, 2011 (Item No. 4d) Subject: Special Assessment – Property Restoration Project – 2205 Quebec Drive Page 5 City Council Meeting of January 18, 2011 (Item No. 4d) Subject: Special Assessment – Property Restoration Project – 2205 Quebec Drive Page 6 City Council Meeting of January 18, 2011 (Item No. 4d) Subject: Special Assessment – Property Restoration Project – 2205 Quebec Drive Page 7 City Council Meeting of January 18, 2011 (Item No. 4d) Subject: Special Assessment – Property Restoration Project – 2205 Quebec Drive Page 8 Meeting Date: January 18, 2011 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: Authorize Contract for 2011 Consultant Services (Reilly). RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to adopt resolution authorizing execution of a one (1) year contract with AECOM Technical Services, Inc. for consultant services related to the implementation of the Reilly Tar & Chemical Corporation (Reilly) Remedial Action Plan (RAP) during year 2011. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the Council wish to approve this contract? BACKGROUND: History In September, 1986, the Reilly Consent Decree became effective and the City accepted responsibility for a number of environmental remediation tasks contained in the Reilly Remedial Action Plan (RAP). Over the last 24 years the City has retained the services of nine consulting engineers or firms to provide for the design and/or implementation of the RAP activities. One firm, AECOM, has served as the cornerstone of the professional “consortium” because of its extensive historical relationship with the Reilly project. Contract activities have included, but not been limited to: • Groundwater sampling and analysis • Drafting annual reports for agency review • Aquifer studies • Investigation of leaking wells • Soil investigations • Historical file searches • General project administration While many of the studies required by the Reilly RAP have been completed by AECOM and others, certain tasks such as groundwater sample retrieval and annual reporting represent ongoing activities which will require consultant assistance in 2011 and in the future. AECOM has provided consultant services for the ongoing tasks in the past, and as such, has been recognized by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) and Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) as an approved consultant for such activities. Staff supports the continued use of AECOM for such services. City Council Meeting of January 18, 2011 - Item 4e Page 2 Subject: Authorize Contract for 2011 Consultant Services (Reilly) 2011 Environmental Services The following work tasks describe the work and associated costs expected during 2011: Task 100 - 2010 Annual Monitoring Report: This task involves drafting text and preparing figures and tables to assist the City in completing the 2010 Annual Monitoring Report. The Annual Monitoring Report includes analytical results, groundwater contour maps, a historical summary of analytical results, and a data quality review. This report is due to the U.S. EPA and MPCA (Agencies) on March 15, 2011. Task 150 - 2010 Annual Progress Report and GAC Plant Report: AECOM will assist the City in completing these two reports for submittal to the Agencies on March 15, 2011. Task 400 - Groundwater Monitoring and Sample Shipping: This task involves collecting groundwater samples in accordance with the 2011 Sampling Plan and making water level measurements pursuant to that Plan. Table 1 indicates a cost of $55,000 for this work, which is slightly less than last year based on fewer samples. The Task 400 cost includes shipping a subset of the samples to Test America Denver via overnight Federal Express by AECOM. Task 480 - Sampling Plan and QAPP: This task involves the preparation of the annual sampling plan, due October 31, 2011, and the Quality Assurance Project Plan, due June 30, 2011. These should be routine plans with no significant changes planned for next year. Task 500 - Five-Year Review Issues: The Agencies are preparing the next five-year review, which is due in September 2011. AECOM and city staff recently met with the Agencies and responded to some of the Agencies’ requests for follow up actions in 2010. However, we anticipate that there may be additional requests for information (updated data, attendance at meetings, etc) so Table 1 includes a budget for this task in 2011. Task 600 - Laboratory Coordination: This task includes four subtasks which can be summarized into the following two work efforts: 1. Working with Test America and Pace labs on implementing the Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP), coordinating sampling events, and updating and maintaining the water quality database. 2. Providing data review and data validation at the levels described in the QAPP. The data validation and data quality review will be documented in the Annual Monitoring Report. The costs shown in Table 1 are based on AECOM subcontracting the analysis of 31 PAH compounds for an estimated 62 part per trillion samples to Test America’s Denver laboratory and subcontracting the analysis of 16 PAH compounds for an estimated 32 part per billion samples to Pace located in Minneapolis. Test America and Pace will also perform one extended PAH analysis and Pace will do one acid fraction analysis. The sample numbers were derived from the 2011 Sampling Plan submitted on November 1, 2010 and may change if the Agencies have comments on the plan. City Council Meeting of January 18, 2011 - Item 4e Page 3 Subject: Authorize Contract for 2011 Consultant Services (Reilly) Task 700 - Site Closure: In 2011, AECOM will submit a letter/report to the Agencies requesting cessation of pumping at wells W410, W420, W421, and W439. The letter, under development during 2010, will be submitted to the Agencies’ in January or February 2011 after City review. AECOM will work with Summit to generate figures and data summaries to explain the rationale for stopping the pumps. AECOM anticipates some reluctance on the part of the Agencies and have included budget to cover a follow up meeting and correspondence to respond to the Agencies’ questions and obtain their approval. Task 810 - Program Management and Miscellaneous: This task includes overall planning, directing, and controlling AECOM's resources to perform this project. This task also includes miscellaneous project activities throughout the year. AECOM proposes to establish the same task budget for 2011 program management as for prior years. Summary As noted above, AECOM has been deeply involved in previous related activities and has collaborated with the City in the development of proposals submitted to the Agencies for the work tasks listed. Staff supports the continued use of AECOM for the work tasks. Staff is aware of the City Council’s desire to solicit competitive quotations for consultant services whenever possible. In this instance AECOM’s historical data base and experience in developing the basic technical foundation upon which the 2011 tasks are identified cause the Agencies and City staff to strongly support a continued contractual relationship with AECOM. As in the past, all activities are assigned through, and closely monitored by staff. Wherever possible, staff drafts reports for submittals, makes contacts with the Agencies, and coordinates the consultant activities, thereby reducing out of pocket expenditures. Finally, AECOM proposes to conduct all work described on a time and materials basis, using the same terms and conditions as our existing contract, for the costs shown in Table 1. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Estimated Contract Cost Past annual costs paid to AECOM for Reilly consulting services since 1993 have ranged from a low of $64,642 to a high of $195,177 in 2009. The AECOM contract for 2010 allowed for possible expenses of $189,000 with actual year to date expenses through November of $180,177. The proposal received from AECOM estimates the cost for 2011 work tasks at $166,000. The variation in costs from year to year is generally associated with responding to EPA/MPCA concerns identified in their 5 year reviews (Task 5). During 2009 and 2010, significant funds were expended on responding to soil gas vapor concerns and past 5 year review issues raised by the Agencies. Following is a summary of the 2011 AECOM work tasks described above and their estimated costs: City Council Meeting of January 18, 2011 - Item 4e Page 4 Subject: Authorize Contract for 2011 Consultant Services (Reilly) Table 1 TASK ESTIMATED COST Task 100: 2010 Annual Monitoring Report (due March 15, 2011) $ 16,500 Task 150: 2010 Progress Report and GAC Plant Report $ 2,500 Task 400: Groundwater Sampling and Monitoring in 2011 $ 55,000 Task 480: Sampling Plan and QAPP $ 5,000 Task 500: Five Year Review $ 5,000 Task 600: Laboratory Coordination $ 42,000 Subtask: Lab coordination $ 5,000 Subtask: Data validation and review $ 7,000 Subtask: Test America lab subcontract $ 26,000 Subtask: Pace lab subcontract $ 4,000 Task 700: Site Closure $ 15,000 Subtask: Cessation Request $ 15,000 Task 810: Project Management/Miscellaneous $ 25,000 Total Estimated Project Cost for 2011: $ 166,000 The 2011 Reilly Budget contains funding for these Reilly related consultant activities. Contract Terms The following significant terms have been in the past contracts and will also be incorporated into this contract: 1. Contract terminates on December 31, 2011 with City rights to extend for up to two (2) additional one (1) year periods. 2. Compensation to be based on actual work performed with a maximum contract amount of $166,000 for 2011. 3. AECOM will defend and indemnify the City for AECOM’s actions related to this contract. 4. AECOM has independent contractor status. 5. City may terminate this contract at any time for any reason with a 30 day written notice. The City Attorney was involved in the preparation of this contract. VISION CONSIDERATION: Not Applicable Attachment: Resolution Prepared by: Michael P. Rardin, Director of Public Works Approved by: Nancy Deno Gohman, Deputy City Manager/HR Director City Council Meeting of January 18, 2011 - Item 4e Page 5 Subject: Authorize Contract for 2011 Consultant Services (Reilly) RESOLUTION NO. 11 - ___ RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AGREEMENT WITH AECOM TECHNICAL SERVICES, INC. FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES RELATED TO IMPLEMENTATION OF THE REILLY TAR & CHEMICAL CORPORATION REMEDIAL ACTION PLAN WHEREAS, pursuant to the execution of a Consent Decree in the case of the United States of America, et al versus Reilly Tar & Chemical Corporation, et al, the City of St. Louis Park has assumed certain responsibilities in the implementation of a Remedial Action Plan related thereto; and WHEREAS, the City has determined that it will be necessary to retain the services of a professional consultant to implement various activities for which it is responsible under the terms of the Consent Decree and Remedial Action Plan. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, that: 1. The Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized to enter into a contract with AECOM Technical Services, Inc. in the amount of $166,000 for consultant activities related to the implementation of the Reilly Tar & Chemical Corporation Remedial Action Plan during 2011. Reviewed for Administration Adopted by the City Council January 18, 2011 City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk Meeting Date: January 18, 2011 Agenda Item #: 4f Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance Presentation Other: EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other: Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other: TITLE: West End Apartments - PUD Minor Amendment. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to adopt Resolution approving a Minor Amendment to the Final PUD for the West End Redevelopment Project. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Is the City Council supportive of the proposed minor revisions to improve parking at the West End Apartments development? BACKGROUND: The West End Apartments development is part of the overall Planned Unit Development for The West End Redevelopment. The City Council approved a PUD Major Amendment for the 120- unit West End Apartment building on September 7, 2010. The West End Apartments developer, The Excelsior Group, proposes some changes to the parking that significantly improve the parking on the site. Below is a list of the changes compared to the previously approved plan. • Fewer bedrooms: The number of bedrooms in the development has been reduced from 173 to 167 bedrooms. This change reduces the required number of parking stalls by six stalls (one per bedroom). • Additional on-site parking: The number of parking stalls provided on site increases from 170 to 173 stalls. In addition to the on-site parking, West End Apartments has recorded parking agreements with Duke Realty to use five parking stalls anytime, and another 30 parking stalls overnight, in the Moneygram Tower parking ramp. • Fewer tandem parking stalls: The approved plan had 30 pairs of tandem parking stalls. The revised plan has only 14 pairs of tandem parking stalls. • Much better parking circulation: The approved plan had five drive aisles that dead-ended at a wall, which results in poor circulation and presents challenges to entering and exiting the parking stalls at the end of the aisle. The revised plan uses some one-way drive aisles to eliminate all the dead-end aisles and significantly improve the vehicular circulation and access to parking stalls. This design would be safer and much more convenient for residents. • More compact parking stalls: The approved plan had 17 compact parking stalls. The proposed plan increases the total number to 42 compact parking stalls. This is the maximum number of compact parking stalls allowed by City Code. Please note the compact parking stalls proposed will have the standard width (8½ feet wide), but are 16 feet deep instead of 18 City Council Meeting of January 18, 2011 (Item No. 4f) Page 2 Subject: West End Apartments – PUD Minor Amendment feet deep. Sixteen feet is a typical compact stall depth. This is an excellent trade-off for fewer tandem parking stalls and no dead-end aisles. Slightly less on-site designed outdoor recreation area (DORA): The approved plan allowed 2,876 sq. ft. of DORA to be provided off-site. The proposed plan would increase this by 260 square feet to 3,136 sq. ft. The overall DORA provided through out the West End PUD still exceeds the 12% minimum required (15% or 158,642 sq. ft.). In order to make the improvements listed above, a portion of the building was widened two feet. This resulted in the loss of a very narrow strip of open space (ranging from 4” to 1’-8”) around the edge of the building. To help compensate for that loss, the proposal adds 30 sq. ft. to a 2nd floor terrace (a higher quality “people space”). The West End Apartments would still have 11,839 sq. ft. of DORA on-site. • Correction to floor area ratio (F.A.R.): F.A.R. is the numerical value obtained by dividing the total floor area of buildings excluding the basement by the lot area on which such buildings are located. The approved plan had an F.A.R. of 3.234 (150,192 sq. ft. floor area / 46,433 sq. ft. lot area). The proposed F.A.R. is 3.235 (150,227 sq. ft. floor area / 46,433 sq. ft. lot area). The change is insignificant. The approved PUD resolution states the approved F.A.R. was 3.9. Staff erroneously included the lower level parking garage (basement) in the previous F.A.R. calculation. The resolution corrects this error. Conclusion The plan revisions proposed in this PUD Minor Amendment meet all City Code requirements and represent significant improvements to the parking for the West End Apartments development. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: None VISION CONSIDERATION: The proposed project has a relationship to the City Council’s Strategic Direction of providing a well maintained and diverse housing stock. Attachments: Resolution Approving PUD Minor Amendment (changes highlighted) Revised Lower Level and First Floor Parking Plans Previously Approved Parking Plans Prepared by: Sean Walther, Senior Planner Reviewed by: Meg McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor Approved by: Nancy Deno Gohman, Deputy City Manager/HR Director City Council Meeting of January 18, 2011 (Item No. 4f) Page 3 Subject: West End Apartments – PUD Minor Amendment RESOLUTION NO. 11-___ Amends and Restates Resolution Nos. 08-057, 08-128, 09-040, 09-064 and 10-093 A RESOLUTION AMENDING AND RESTATING RESOLUTION NOS. 08-057, 08-128, 09-040, 09-064, AND 10-093 RELATING TO A FINAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR THE WEST END REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST QUADRANT OF INTERSTATE 394 AND HIGHWAY 100 The West End Redevelopment Project WHEREAS, A.D. West End LLC has made application to the City Council for a Minor Amendment to a Final Planned Unit Development (Final PUD) for The West End Redevelopment Project located at the southwest quadrant of Interstate 394 and Highway 100 and legally described as THE SHOPS AT WEST END. WHEREAS, the City Council considered the effect of the proposed amendment on the health, safety, and welfare of the occupants of the surrounding lands, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, the effect on values of properties in the surrounding area and the effect of the use on the Comprehensive Plan; and compliance with the intent of the Zoning Ordinance; and WHEREAS, a Final PUD was approved regarding the subject property pursuant to Resolution No. 08-057 of the St. Louis Park City Council dated April 28, 2008 which contained conditions applicable to said property; and WHEREAS, a Minor Amendment to the Final PUD was approved regarding the subject property pursuant to Resolution No. 08-128 of the St. Louis Park City Council dated October 6, 2008 which contained conditions applicable to said property; and WHEREAS, a Minor Amendment to the Final PUD was approved regarding the subject property pursuant to Resolution No. 09-040 of the St. Louis Park City Council dated March 2, 2009 which contained conditions applicable to said property; and WHEREAS, a Minor Amendment to the Final PUD was approved regarding the subject property pursuant to Resolution No. 09-064 of the St. Louis Park City Council dated May 4, 2009 which contained conditions applicable to said property; and WHEREAS, a Major Amendment to the Final PUD was approved regarding the subject property pursuant to Resolution No. 10-093 of the St. Louis Park City Council dated September 7, 2010 which contained conditions applicable to said property; and WHEREAS, due to changed circumstances, amendments to those conditions are now necessary, requiring the amendment of that Final PUD; and WHEREAS, it is the intent of this resolution to continue and restate the conditions of the Final PUD granted by Resolution Nos. 08-057, 08-128, 09-040, 09-064, and 10-093 to add the amendments now required, and to consolidate all conditions applicable to the subject property in this resolution; and City Council Meeting of January 18, 2011 (Item No. 4f) Page 4 Subject: West End Apartments – PUD Minor Amendment WHEREAS, the contents of Planning Case Files 11-01-PUD are hereby entered into and made part of the public hearing and the record of decision for this case. CONCLUSION NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that Resolution Nos. 08-057, 08-128, 09- 040, 09-064, 10-093 are hereby restated and amended by this resolution which continues and amends a Final Planned Unit Development to the subject property at the location described above based on the following conditions: 1. The uses on the subject property are limited to retail, service, restaurants, hotel, theater, and office. The following uses are not allowed: in-vehicle sales and service (drive- through); motor fuel stations; motor vehicle sales, service and repair; car washes; currency exchanges; check cashing; pay loan agencies; pawnshops; sexually-oriented businesses, tattoo shops; gun shops (not excluding a sporting goods store that sells, as part of its sporting goods inventory, guns and ammunition). 2. The final site plan and façade design of the large retail building on Lot 4, Block 1, THE SHOPS AT WEST END (proposed grocery store) shall require a PUD Minor Amendment with review by the Planning Commission. 3. The hotel site plans for Lot 3, Block 1, THE SHOPS AT WEST END shall require a PUD Major Amendment if any variances are requested. If the plan does not require a variance, the application may be processed as a PUD Minor Amendment and include review and recommendation of the Planning Commission. 4. The total gross floor area of restaurants shall be limited to 82,277 square feet. 5. The total number of seats in the movie theater shall be limited to 2,700 seats. 6. Tenants in Building 32 shall be limited to Mercantile (Group M) uses as defined in the 2007 Minnesota State Building Code, such as retail or wholesale stores, sales rooms, department stores, drug stores, markets, etc. 7. The portion of the five-level retail parking structure (Building 35) that is within 20 feet of the Gamble Drive right-of-way shall have a minimum of 60% Class I exterior materials. The Developer shall amend the Official Exhibits to comply with this requirement. 8. The Community Development Director and Zoning Administrator or their designee(s) may approve individual tenant/building façade designs administratively or refer proposals to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration, as City staff deems necessary. 9. The sign plan is subject to Community Development Director and Zoning Administrator review and approval. Sign permits are required. 10. Access to the truck courts on the west retail block from Park Place Boulevard shall be limited to between 8 p.m. and 10 a.m. City Council Meeting of January 18, 2011 (Item No. 4f) Page 5 Subject: West End Apartments – PUD Minor Amendment 11. The access will be controlled from Park Place Boulevard to the truck courts on the west retail block using a mechanical bollard system and directional signs in the Park Place Boulevard right-of-way. The Developer shall enter into a Planning Development Contract with the City of St. Louis Park that addresses this private use of public land. 12. The Developer shall maintain horizontal separation from landscaping (i.e. boulevard trees) of at least three feet from shallow underground utilities (i.e. fiber optic cable, private utilities, etc.), and eight feet horizontal separation from deeper underground utilities (i.e. water, sanitary sewer, etc.). 13. Tree plantings and street furnishings shall be located in a manner that maintains at least six feet wide clearance space in all boulevard/sidewalk areas for snow removal. 14. The Developer shall amend the Official Exhibits (The Shops at West End Design Guidelines) to incorporate the following: a. At pedestrian level, facades on Buildings 12, 22, 23, 24, 31, 32 and 33 shall be primarily transparent: 1. At least 60% of facades between 3 feet and 7 feet above the first floor elevation shall consist of pedestrian entrances, display windows or windows affording views into retail, offices, gallery or lobby space. The West End Tenant Design Guidelines shall illustrate the portions of the above referenced buildings subject to this requirement. 2. Visibility into the space shall be maintained for a minimum of three feet, but display of merchandise in this space is allowed. Display windows may be used to meet the transparency requirement. b. At pedestrian level (between 3 feet and 7 feet above the first floor elevation), building facades facing public streets, West End Boulevard, or the pedestrian arcade shall have no more than 10% of the total window area be glass block, mirrored, spandrel, frosted or other opaque glass. c. No more than 10% of the total window area of any building façade shall have signs applied to the inside or outside surface of the window. The remaining 90% of window and door area shall be clear or slightly tinted glass that allows views into and out of the building. d. Tenants in Buildings 12, 22, 24, 31, and 33 that are located adjacent to public and/or private street intersections shall locate entrances at or near the adjacent building corner. e. Awnings and canopies shall be made of heavy canvas, fabric, metal and/or glass. Plastic and vinyl awnings are prohibited. Backlit awnings and canopies are prohibited. 15. A business may use the sidewalk within five feet of its building wall for the following purposes, provided the business maintains a clear walkway that is at least eight feet wide along Park Place Boulevard and at least six feet wide along other streets, and provided the uses do not occur in the public right-of-way unless the City approves an City Council Meeting of January 18, 2011 (Item No. 4f) Page 6 Subject: West End Apartments – PUD Minor Amendment encroachment agreement in accordance with the City’s Temporary Private Use of Public Land Policy: a. Display of merchandise, not to exceed 100 square feet per business; b. Benches, planters, ornaments, art; c. Signs permitted in the zoning ordinance; and d. Outdoor dining. Outdoor dining areas may extend farther than five-feet from the building wall, provided tables and chairs or other structures maintain the required horizontal clearance for a walkway between the dining area and other obstructions, such as trees, poles, and curbs. 16. The Developer shall provide easements and $285,000 for public art to help satisfy the alternative landscaping requirements. The City and the Developer will develop a public process to select the artists, artworks and locations. 17. The Developer shall amend Official Exhibits (utility plans) to provide separate domestic and fire water service lines to the buildings. 18. The developer shall work with the Police Department on the design and construction of the police substation area in Building 31. In particular, the plan shall provide windows and doorway on the northeast building elevation along the alley. 19. The developer shall redesign the public restroom entrances in the Building 31 atrium to have open entrances (no exterior doors to the atrium), similar to typical stadium/movie theater restroom entrances, as requested by the Police Department. 20. At City of St. Louis Park’s sole discretion, and upon conferring with the property owner, the property owner shall change the designation of West End Boulevard on-street parking stalls from short-term customer parking to “pick-up/drop-off only” (or similar restriction). 21. The applicant shall be responsible to obtain all permits from the City and other agencies. 22. The property owner(s) shall be responsible for obtaining a City license for all parking structures. 23. Tenants shall be responsible for obtaining all City licenses (i.e. grocery store, hotel, etc.). 24. The property owner shall prepare and effectuate traffic management plans that reduce traffic congestion. The property owner submitted a plan for review and approval of the by the St. Louis Park and Golden Valley I-394 Joint Task Force. The property owner shall implement The Traffic Management Plan (TMP) approved by the Travel Demand Management Joint Task Force prior to City issuance of a certificate of occupancy. 25. The City and Developer shall set up a monitoring program to determine actual sanitary sewer flows. Following each phase of the development, sewer flows will be analyzed to determine if sewer flows exceed Metropolitan Council limits described in the City Council Meeting of January 18, 2011 (Item No. 4f) Page 7 Subject: West End Apartments – PUD Minor Amendment Metropolitan Council’s letter to the City of St. Louis Park dated December 14, 2006. If sanitary sewer flows exceed said limits, the Developer shall submit a final design of a privately owned, privately maintained, temporary sanitary sewer peak flow detention facilities for Metropolitan Council Environmental Services (MCES) and City of St. Louis Park approval. The Developer shall construct the said approved system and put it into operation in the timeframe designated by MCES and City of St. Louis Park, and prior to City issuance of building permits for additional phases. 26. The Developer shall abide by the City’s water use restrictions and follow State of Minnesota requirements for low-flow structures. After each phase of the redevelopment, water usage shall be monitored. If monitoring shows use exceeds 90% of peak capacity, the Developer shall cooperate with the City to identify citywide and project-specific measures to increase water treatment capacity and reduce consumption prior to City issuance of building permits. 27. The north office tower and operations center at 1551 Utica Avenue (Lot 1, Block 2, THE SHOPS AT WEST END) shall be developed, used and maintained in accordance with the Official Exhibits from Zoning Application 86-14-SP and 07-61-PUD. If there is any conflict between the Official Exhibits, 07-61-PUD shall supersede. The following 86-14- SP Official Exhibits are incorporated by reference herein: Exhibit A – Site Plan and Lighting Plan; Exhibit B – Grading Plan; Exhibit C – Utilities Plan; Exhibit D – Landscape Plan; Exhibit E – Building Elevations; Exhibit F – Basement Floor Level Plan; Exhibit G – Ground Floor Plan; Exhibit H – Second Floor Plan; and Exhibit I – Typical Floor Plan, as modified by City Development on March 13, 1986. (The floor plans are included to show general use and configurations only.) 28. The following conditions shall apply to the south office tower at 1600 Utica Avenue (Lot 1, Block 2, THE SHOPS AT WEST END): a. The site shall be developed, used and maintained in accordance with the Official Exhibits from Zoning Application 98-42-PUD and 07-61-PUD. If there is any conflict between the Official Exhibits, 07-61-PUD shall supersede. The following 98-42-PUD Official Exhibits are incorporated by reference herein: Exhibit A – Site Plan, Exhibit B – Landscape Plan, Exhibit C – Existing Survey, Exhibit D – Grading, Drainage and Erosion Control Plan, Exhibit E – Utility Plan, Exhibit F – East Elevations, Exhibit G – North Elevation, Exhibit H – South Elevation, Exhibit I – West Elevations, Exhibit J – West Elevation - Parking Ramp, and Exhibit K – Parking Ramp elevation (south). b. Parking ramp layouts and site plan shall provide designation of at least 20 bicycle racks and at least 20 carpool spaces in convenient locations. c. A covenant shall be recorded on the property which specifies that a minimum of 4,000 square feet of the atrium shall remain in perpetuity as indoor open space and available for general “public” use. Said interior atrium space shall be designed in an aesthetically pleasing and usable way, with landscaping, benches, and the like. A detailed atrium plan shall be submitted and approved by the Community Development Director and the Zoning Administrator. City Council Meeting of January 18, 2011 (Item No. 4f) Page 8 Subject: West End Apartments – PUD Minor Amendment d. The following modifications to ordinance requirements are re-authorized: 1. The floor area ratio for the PUD can be 1.57. 2. The setbacks on Gamble Drive for the parking ramp can be 17 feet. 3. Reduced office building setback along Gamble Drive of 96 feet. 29. The Chili’s restaurant site at 5245 Wayzata Boulevard (Lot 2, Block 1, THE SHOPS AT WEST END) shall be developed, used and maintained in accordance with the Official Exhibits from Zoning Applications 91-13-SP and 07-61-PUD. If there is any conflict between the Official Exhibits, 07-61-PUD shall supersede. The following 91-13-SP Official Exhibits are incorporated by reference herein: Exhibit A – Overall Site Plan, Exhibit B – Site Plan, Exhibit C – Grading Plan, Exhibit D – Landscape Plan, Exhibit E – Floor Plan, and Exhibit F and F-1 – Elevations. 30. The Olive Garden restaurant site at 5235 Wayzata Boulevard (Lot 1, Block 1, THE SHOPS AT WEST END) shall be developed, used and maintained in accordance with the Official Exhibits from Zoning Applications 93-9-CUP, 93-34-CUP and 07-61-PUD. If there is any conflict between the Official Exhibits, 07-61-PUD shall supersede. The following 93-9-CUP and 93-34-CUP Official Exhibits are incorporated by reference herein: Exhibit A-1 – Site Plan, Exhibit B – Utility Plan, Exhibit C-1 – Landscape Plan, and Exhibit D – Exterior Elevations. 31. Prior to issuance of building permits, the following conditions shall be met: a. A Planning Development Contract shall be executed between the Developer and City that addresses, at a minimum: 1. Conditions of PUD approval as applicable or appropriate; 2. Public use of gathering spaces in the development; 3. Private use of public land 4. Maintenance agreement and/or special service district; 5. Surety in the form of an irrevocable letter of credit for Redeveloper Public Improvements and landscaping; and 6. Administrative approval of modifications to the PUD plans. The Mayor and City Manager are authorized to execute said Planning Development Contract. b. The Developer shall provide a surety to the City of St. Louis Park in the form of an irrevocable letter of credit for 1.10 times the estimated Redeveloper Public Improvements costs (as defined in the Redevelopment Agreement), and 1.25 times the estimated landscaping costs. c. The property owner shall pay the applicable Traffic Management Administrative Fee. 1. The portion of the shopping center subject to this fee is on Lot 2, Block 2, THE SHOPS AT WEST END. The total fee of $34,633 shall be paid to the City of St. Louis Park prior to City issuance of building permits. 2. Subsequent phases of the PUD (future hotel and office towers) shall pay fifty percent of the fee upon submission of a Final PUD Amendment application, and the remaining fifty percent of the fee upon submission of a building permit application, for each respective development phase. City Council Meeting of January 18, 2011 (Item No. 4f) Page 9 Subject: West End Apartments – PUD Minor Amendment 32. The Planned Unit Development shall be amended on October 6, 2008 to incorporate all of the preceding conditions and add the following conditions relating to Lot 4, Block 1, THE SHOPS AT WEST END, Hennepin County, Minnesota: a. The site shall be developed, used and maintained in accordance with the Official Exhibits from Zoning Application 08-32-PUD, including Exhibits C4B-Site Layout Plan North, C8A-Utility Plan, C10B-Landscape Street Plan, A11101- Building 11 Overall Plan, A11111-Building 11 Level 1 Area 1, A111112- Building 11 Level 1 Area 2, A11401-Building 11 Exterior Elevations, such documents incorporated by reference herein. b. Overnight cart storage shall be inside the building. c. The Developer shall continue to work with City staff through a public process to select public art and the complete plaza design. d. The Developer shall submit a site plan and programming plan for the plaza area to the City for review and approval by the Zoning Administrator. e. The building proposal includes graphic art panels in order to enhance the appearance of the building and pedestrian environment. The Developer shall submit plans for the graphics on the backlit translucent wall-mounted panels for review and approval by the Zoning Administrator. The panels and/or graphics shall be changed from time to time and at least biennially. The panel may include any mosaic, mural, painting or graphic art or combination thereof which is professionally applied to the panel that does not contain any brand name, product name, letters of the alphabet spelling or abbreviating the name of any product, company, profession or business, or any logo, trademark, trade name, or other commercial message (defined as supergraphics in the City Sign Code and exempt from the Sign Code provisions). The Developer shall allow use of the panels for public art. Proposed public art shall be subject to review and approval by the Developer and building tenant(s). f. Assent Form and Official Exhibits must be signed by the applicant (or applicant and owner if applicant is different from owner) prior to issuance of a building permit. g. The sign plan is subject to Community Development Director and Zoning Administrator review and approval. Sign permits are required. h. Approval of Building Permits, which may impose additional requirements. i. A Planning Development Contract between the Developer and City shall be amended to address, at a minimum: 1. Amended conditions of PUD approval as applicable or appropriate; 2. Public use of the plaza gathering space; 3. Temporary uses of the plaza; and 4. Administrative approval of modifications to the PUD plans. City Council Meeting of January 18, 2011 (Item No. 4f) Page 10 Subject: West End Apartments – PUD Minor Amendment 33. The Planned Unit Development shall be amended on May 4, 2009 to incorporate all of the preceding conditions and add the following conditions relating to Lot 4, Block 1 and Lot 2, Block 2, THE SHOPS AT WEST END, Hennepin County, Minnesota: a. The site shall be developed, used and maintained in accordance with the Official Exhibits from Zoning Application 09-07-VAR and 09-08-PUD relating to the Shops at West End Sign Plan, such documents incorporated by reference herein. 34. The Planned Unit Development shall be amended on September 7, 2010 to incorporate all of the preceding conditions and add the following conditions relating to Lot 3, Block 1, THE SHOPS AT WEST END, Hennepin County, Minnesota: a. The PUD major amendment is for the development of a six-story, 120-unit apartment building with structured parking to be developed at 5310 16th Street W, with five off-site parking stalls and 2,876 3,136 square feet of the designed outdoor recreation area provided off-site. b. The following PUD modifications, in addition to modifications previously authorized for the overall Shops At West End PUD: 1. Floor area ratio of 3.9 3.24. 2. Housing density of 112.6 units per acre. c. The site shall be developed, used and maintained in accordance with the Official Exhibits from Zoning Applications 10-23-PUD and 10-25-VAR relating to a shadow variance, including Exhibits A100 Site Plan (revised 01/10/2011), AB101 Lower Level Garage Plan (revised 01/10/2011), A101 First Floor Plan (revised 01/10/2011), A102 Second Floor Plan (revised 01/10/2011), A103 Floors 3-6 Typical Floor Plan (revised 01/10/2011), A400 Exterior Elevations (revised 01/10/2011), A401 Exterior Elevations (revised 01/10/2011), L100 Landscape Plan (revised 01/10/2011), such documents incorporated by reference herein. d. The five (5) proposed off-site parking stalls shall be protected by an irrevocable covenant in a form approved by the City Attorney. A certified copy of the recorded document shall be provided to the Zoning Administrator within 60 days after approval. e. Prior to starting any site work, the following conditions shall be met: 1. The owner/applicant shall sign an Assent Form and the Official Exhibits. 2. All necessary permits must be obtained. 3. A preconstruction meeting shall be held with the appropriate development, construction and City representatives. f. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the following conditions shall be met: 1. Plans shall be reviewed by the City Engineer and Zoning Administrator to ensure that all proposed utilities, public access points and construction documents conform to the requirements of the City Code of Ordinances and City policies. 2. The applicant shall pay park dedication and trail dedication fees. City Council Meeting of January 18, 2011 (Item No. 4f) Page 11 Subject: West End Apartments – PUD Minor Amendment 3. To ensure construction of the landscaping and the cleaning of public streets during construction, a financial guarantee shall be provided in the amount of 125% of the cost of the landscaping materials. The performance guarantee shall be in the form of cash escrow or letter of credit. The financial guarantee will be refunded upon project completion, however, a 25% will be retained for one year after installation to ensure the plants have survived the warranty period. 4. The planned installation of any mechanical equipment shall include means to ensure it is fully screened from off-site view. 5. The proposed off-site parking facilities and shared parking facilities shall be protected by an irrevocable covenant in a form approved by the City Attorney. The applicant shall submit a certified copy of the recorded document to the Zoning Administrator. g. The developer shall comply with the following conditions during construction: 1. All City noise ordinances shall be complied with, including that there be no construction activity between the hours of 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. 2. The applicant shall pay park dedication and trail dedication fees. 3. The site shall be kept free of dust and debris that could blow onto neighborhood properties. 4. Public streets shall be maintained free of dirt and shall be cleaned as necessary. 5. The City shall be contacted a minimum of 72 hours prior to any work in a public street. Work in a public street shall take place only upon the determination by the Director of Public Works that appropriate safety measures have been taken to ensure motorist and pedestrian safety. h. Prior to the issuance of any temporary or permanent occupancy permit the following shall be completed: 1. Fire lanes shall be signed and striped in accordance with the signed Official Exhibits. 2. Landscaping and irrigation shall be in accordance with the signed Official Exhibits. 3. Exterior building improvements shall be completed in accordance with the signed Official Exhibits and approved materials and colors. 4. All mechanical equipment shall be installed and it shall be demonstrated that all such equipment is fully screened from off-site views. To protect the health, safety and welfare of the community, the painting of mechanical equipment shall not be considered screening. i. No outside storage is permitted. Incidental outside storage shall be removed within 48 hours. 35. The Planned Unit Development shall be amended on January 18, 2011 to incorporate all of the preceding conditions with amendments to conditions relating to Lot 3, Block 1, THE SHOPS AT WEST END, Hennepin County, Minnesota. In addition to any other remedies, the developer or owner shall pay an administrative fee of $750 per violation of any condition of this approval. City Council Meeting of January 18, 2011 (Item No. 4f) Page 12 Subject: West End Apartments – PUD Minor Amendment Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council January 18, 2011 City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk City Council Meeting of January 18, 2011 (Item No. 4f) Subject: West End Apartments – PUD Minor Amendment Page 13 City Council Meeting of January 18, 2011 (Item No. 4f) Subject: West End Apartments – PUD Minor Amendment Page 14 City Council Meeting of January 18, 2011 (Item No. 4f) Subject: West End Apartments – PUD Minor Amendment Page 15 City Council Meeting of January 18, 2011 (Item No. 4f) Subject: West End Apartments – PUD Minor Amendment Page 16 Meeting Date: January 18, 2011 Agenda Item #: 4g Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance Presentation Other: EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other: Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other: TITLE: Amend Consultant Contract - Highway 7 / Louisiana Avenue Interchange Project. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to approve Amendment No. 2 to Contract 142-08 which provides additional engineering consulting services for the Highway 7 / Louisiana Avenue Interchange project, Project No. 2012- 0100. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the City Council wish to continue activities necessary to complete Phase 3 of the project development? BACKGROUND: History and Recent Activities The City’s Capital Improvement Program (C.I.P.) indentifies the Highway 7/Louisiana Avenue intersection as a priority improvement project. The proposed project will provide for the construction of a grade-separated interchange at Louisiana Avenue and Highway 7. The project will also include 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 the transportation and safety needs of both Mn/DOT and the City. In December 2008, the City entered into a contract in the amount of $306,548 with SEH, Inc. for engineering services related to developing plans for a grade separated interchange at Highway 7 and Louisiana Avenue. SEH developed a work plan that includes four phases. Phase 1 includes scoping and data collection, Phase 2 includes concept design and alternatives analysis, Phase 3 includes preliminary design and environmental assessment, and Phase 4 includes final design, right-of-way acquisition and bidding documents. The initial contract included all project activities for Phase 1 and 2 which were completed in April 2010. Phase 2 work consisted of the development of 10 concept designs which were eventually screened down to two possible alternatives. In March 2010, Council approved Amendment 1 to this contract which provided for Phase 3 project activities. Phase 3 activities consist of preliminary design and environmental assessment work along with continuing efforts in determining a final preferred concept. During Phase 3, a Value Engineering (VE) Study was conducted by Mn/DOT for this proposed project. VE studies are required on all federally funded projects in excess of $20 million. The goal of the study was to take an independent look at the project and identify possible improvements to the project that may add value. A number of cost saving ideas were generated along with a new concept alternative. The new concept was further developed by SEH, Inc. into what is now the project’s City Council Meeting of January 18, 2011 (Item No. 4g) Page 2 Subject: Amend Consultant Contract - Highway 7 / Louisiana Avenue Interchange Project preferred design, a tight diamond design with a 6 legged roundabout. The extra VE Study work performed by SEH was not originally planned or accounted for in the Phase 3 activities. Work on Phase 3 activities, Preliminary Design and Environmental Assessment, is continuing. A geometric layout of the preferred interchange concept has been completed and is currently undergoing review and approval within Mn/DOT and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). Approval of the layout is anticipated by February 2011. A draft Environmental Assessment (EA) has also recently been completed and distributed to the various agency stakeholders for their review and comment. Upon completion of the agency reviews, the EA will be revised and then made available for public comment. A public hearing will also be held to provide an additional opportunity for public comment. The public hearing is anticipated to occur in March, 2011. No significant environmental concerns have been identified with this project. Additional Professional Services Needed in Phase 3 Additional work, originally planned to be done during Phase 4, needs to be added (accelerated) to Phase 3 to satisfy Mn/DOT EA requirements. This includes completing a Phase II Environmental Site Assessment for the project. This work is necessary to indentify contaminated areas within the project area and establish a plan to handle the materials should they be encountered or removed from the site during construction. SEH, Inc. also needed to perform additional work during Phase 3 as a result of the Value Engineering Study required by Mn/DOT in August 2010 (as noted above). In summary, SEH has reached the “not to exceed” limit of the contract for Phase 3 activities as a result of the additional efforts required to develop a final preferred concept, participation in the VE Study, and the acceleration of Phase 4 environmental work required by Mn/DOT. A contract amendment is required to complete planned Phase 3 activities. Project Schedule Phase 3 activities are expected to be completed by July/August, 2011 when the Environmental Assessment work is expected to be completed and finalized by the Mn/DOT and FHWA. Phase 4 services (which include final design, right of way acquisition, and preparation of plans and specifications for construction) will need to commence prior to completion of the Phase 3 services in order to meet the 2012 project deadlines. Staff plans to meet with Council at a February or March Study Session to discuss costs associated with Phase 4 project activities. Work on Phase 4 project activities will need to begin in early April 2011 in order to complete construction plans for bidding by Spring/Early Summer 2012. A critical date that influences the project schedule is the sunset date on the $7.6 million of federal and $594,000 of Mn/DOT Municipal Agreement funding already secured by the city. Our commitment to accepting the federal monies is to deliver a project with plans completed and approved by Mn/DOT prior to the March 31, 2012 sunset date. Opening of bids can generally occur about 90 days after all Mn/DOT approvals have been obtained. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Estimated Contract Cost A Proposal from SEH dated January 4, 2011 provides for the additional Phase II Environmental Site Assessment activities to be completed during Phase 3. The cost of this work along with completing remaining Phase 3 tasks is estimated at $185,000. All work performed under this contract is being paid for on a time and materials basis. The initial source of funding for this work/project is the HRA levy proceeds. City Council Meeting of January 18, 2011 (Item No. 4g) Page 3 Subject: Amend Consultant Contract - Highway 7 / Louisiana Avenue Interchange Project Based on costs for the additional work in Phase 3 activities, professional services costs for Contract 142-08 with SEH is now estimated to be as follows: Original Contract (Phase 1 & 2 work) $ 306,548 Amendment No. 1 (Phase 3 work) $ 350,000 Amendment No. 2 (Additional Phase 3 work) $ 185,000 Total $ 841,548 Contract Terms The following terms are incorporated into this contract: 1. Phase 3 contract work is scheduled for completion by the end of August, 2011. 2. Compensation is based on actual work performed with a maximum contract amount of $841,548. 3. SEH has independent contractor status. 4. City may terminate this contract with seven (7) days notice. The document utilized for this contract is the City’s standard professional services agreement developed by the City Attorney. VISION CONSIDERATION: The following Strategic Direction and focus area has 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. Attachments: Amendment No. 2 Prepared by: Jim Olson, Engineering Project Manager Reviewed by: Mike Rardin, Public Works Director Approved by: Nancy Deno Gohman, Deputy City Manager/HR Director City Council Meeting of January 18, 2011 (Item No. 4g) Page 4 Subject: Amend Consultant Contract - Highway 7 / Louisiana Avenue Interchange Project AMENDMENT NO 2. CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK CONSULTING SERVICES CONTRACT NO. 142-08 THIS AGREEMENT is made on January 18, 2011, by and between the CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, Minnesota, a Minnesota municipal corporation (hereinafter referred to as “City”), and Short Elliot Hendrickson, Inc., a Minnesota corporation (hereinafter referred to as “SEH”). 1. BACKGROUND: The parties have previously entered into an agreement for consulting services dated December 1, 2008 (“Initial Agreement”). The Initial Agreement authorizes SEH to provide engineering consulting services for Phase 1 and 2 of project 2012-0100 at a cost not to exceed $306,548.00. On March 15, 2010 Amendment No. 1 was approved to perform Phase 3 activities at an additional cost of $350,000 with a not to exceed total contract cost of $656,548. 2. ITEM NO. 1: SCOPE OF SERVICES: This paragraph shall be amended to include the additional Phase 3 engineering services outlined in the SEH proposal dated January 4, 2011. 3. ITEM NO. 2: TIME FOR PERFORMANCE OF SERVICES: This paragraph is modified to reflect that Phase 3 activities are to be completed by the end of August, 2011. 4. ITEM NO. 3: COMPENSATION FOR SERVICES: Subject to the modifications set forth herein, the not to exceed compensation amount shall increase by $185,000 from $656,548.00 to $841,548. IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed by their respective duly authorized officers. EXECUTED as to the day and year first above written. SEH, INC. CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK By:________________________________ By:________________________________ Jeff Jacobs, Mayor Title:_______________________________ and________________________________ Thomas Harmening, City Manager Meeting Date: January 18, 2011 Agenda Item #: 4h City of St. Louis Park Human Rights Commission Minutes – August 17, 2010 Westwood Room, City Hall I. Call to Order Chair Lyon called the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m. A. Roll Call Commissioners Present: Stuart Morgan, Jeff Mueller, Isabella Stewart, Mary Tomback, Vladimir Sivriver, and Sharon Lyon Commissioners Absent: Jonathan Awasom, Bill Gavzy, Alison Knoche Prosser, and Shelley T Weier Staff: Marney Olson Guests: Tom, Minneapolis Resident B. Approval of Agenda The agenda was approved as presented. C. Approval of Minutes It was moved by Commissioner Morgan, seconded by Commissioner Mueller, to approve the minutes of July 20, 2010 as presented. The motion passed 6-0. II. Commissioner & Committee Reports A. Individual commissioner & staff reports Ms. Olson shared a Community Meal flyer with the commissioners. From June 16th to August 18th, a meal was served each Wednesday evening at Lenox Community Center. The meal was open to everyone. If they continue this meal next year, commissioners expressed interest in having information about the HRC available. The Human Rights Day Conference is Friday, December 3rd. Please notify Ms. Olson if you are interested in attending. Commissioner Morgan announced he has stepped down from the State League of Human Rights Commissions. They would like another representative from St. Louis Park, so please let Stuart know if you are interested. City Council Meeting of January 18, 2011 (Item No. 4h) Page 2 Subject: Human Rights Commission Minutes August 17, 2010 B. Police Advisory Commission update Commissioner Tomback expressed interest in participating on a subcommittee with PAC. The HRC and PAC will jointly work on a project that may resemble a mini Citizen’s Academy for new Americans and immigrants. III. Bookmark in the Park Bookmark in the Park and the Human Rights Commission are jointly sponsoring an author event. Bookmark in the Park’s them is Inclusion this year and author Kao Yang will speak about her book “The Latehomecomer: a Hmong Family Memoir”. All commissioners are encouraged to attend. The commissioner discussed PR for this event and Mary suggested seeing if we could get this in a curriculum or extra credit at the schools. She will talk to the IB coordinators. IV. Diversity Lens The commissioners discussed places to share the Diversity Lens. We will have a table at the author event, but other ideas included STEP, at the State of the City, Open Houses at Schools, and distributing them through neighborhood associations. V. New Business Ms. Tomback would like the commission to consider addressing disabilities in our future work. She said this is an area that tends to get forgotten and commissioners agreed this may be an area to explore. VI. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 8:00 pm. Meeting Date: January 18, 2011 Agenda Item #: 4i City of St. Louis Park Human Rights Commission Minutes – October 19, 2010 Westwood Room, City Hall I. Call to Order Acting Chair Tomback called the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m. A. Roll Call Commissioners Present: Bill Gavzy, Jeff Mueller, Vladimir Sivriver, Mary Tomback & Shelley T Weier Commissioners Absent: Alison Knoche Prosser, Sharon Lyon, Stuart Morgan & Isabella Stewart Staff: Marney Olson, Lt. Lori Dreier & Amy Stegora-Peterson Guests: Rashmi Seneviratne, Police Advisory Commission B. Approval of Agenda It was moved by Commissioner Gavzy, seconded by Commissioner Weier, to approve the agenda as presented. The motion passed 5-0. C. Approval of Minutes It was moved by Commissioner Sivriver, seconded by Commissioner Gavzy, to approve the minutes of August 17, 2010, as presented. The motion passed 5-0. II. Commissioner and Committee Reports A. Individual commissioner and staff reports Commissioner Weier noted when the Human Rights Commission began their film series, the first film was called The Letter, and was about the town Lewiston and issues they experienced with a new refugee community. Lewiston is now hosting a conference on Medical Refugee Management and how to be a welcoming community. Some Twin Cities residents were helping to coordinate the conference. It was suggested that an article be done on where Lewiston had changed from the time the film was done. Ms. Olson indicated the Human Rights day conference would be Friday, December 3rd. Coach Boone, from the movie Remember the Titans will be the keynote speaker. City Council Meeting of January 18, 2011 (Item No. 4i) Page 2 Subject: Human Rights Commission Minutes October 19, 2010 Residents Octavia White and Shirley Lloyd expressed concerns about the public housing they were living in. Lt. Dreier suggested they contact the Housing Authority and Inspections Department. Ms. Olson noted that Jonathan Awasom had resigned due to work conflicts. III. Joint PAC/HRC Project Sub Committee formation Ms. Seneviratne, PAC, reported that the Police Advisory Commission created a training program, the Citizens Police Academy for residents of St. Louis Park. One of the ways the two Commissions can work together could be creating a training session with topics such as how to deal with Police if you are pulled over or domestic issues, etc. She suggested they create a sub committee to work on the class structure. Commissioners Tomback and Sivriver volunteered to help on the sub committee. IV. October Bookmark in the Park Event Ms. Olson indicated that Kao Kalia Yang, the author of The Late Homecomer, A Hmong Family Memoir, was going to be speaking at the Bookmark in the Park event. The theme is inclusion. Commissioner Morgan is organizing a table to provide HRC information at the event (brochures and Diversity Lens). It would be helpful for other Commissioners to assist. V. Human Rights Award Ms. Olson suggested the commission review the guidelines and application form for the Human Rights Award. There will be an article in the upcoming Park Perspective about the award and information will also be put the on the City web site. Commissioners agreed to change the wording in item number four to broaden the perspective for eligibility. They recommended inserting that activities were to benefit the St. Louis Park community or were undertaken (based) within St. Louis Park. VI. New Business Ms. Olson stated the Commission previously discussed canceling the November meeting. They need to meet in December to determine the recipient of the Human Rights award and need to be sure to have a quorum. The next meeting will be held on December 21st. It was moved by Commissioner Gavzy, seconded by Commissioner Weier, to cancel the November HRC meeting. The motion passed 5-0. IV. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 7:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Amy L. Stegora-Peterson Recording Secretary Meeting Date: January 18, 2011 Agenda Item #: 4j OFFICIAL MINUTES Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission Meeting September 22, 2010 7 p.m. - Meeting MEMBERS PRESENT: Sam Flumerfelt, George Hagemann, Tom Worthington, George Foulkes and Kirk Hawkinson MEMBERS ABSENT: Christina Barberot and Steve Hallfin STAFF PRESENT: Cindy Walsh, Lisa Abernathy, and Carrie Haslerud 1. Call to Order George Hagemann, Chair, called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m. 2. Presentation: None 3. Approval of Minutes a. August 18, 2010 Commissioner Hagemann, made a motion to approve the August 18, 2010 minutes. The motion passed 5- 0. 4. New Business a. Community Recreation Planning Process Ms. Walsh advised City Council is open to the community survey process. Council wants to make it clear the survey is not a commitment but rather a venue for residents to offer opinions about what is missing in St. Louis Park. The City would like to give all residents an opportunity to offer ideas. Mr. Foulkes suggested finding an avenue to reach the people who use the parks. Ms. Walsh handed each member a list of Themes for Community Recreation Planning. Ms. Walsh requested members review the list and provide comments and/or additions. Mr. Hagemann requested clarification on what is considered a gap in service. He inquired if a service or facility in a nearby community could be used by St. Louis Park residents and agreements established to mutually benefit both communities. Ms. Walsh requested members discuss ways to get the survey information to residents. Online surveys, paper surveys and focus groups are all avenues to facilitate a variety of City Council Meeting of January 18, 2011 (Item No. 4j) Page 2 Subject: Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission Minutes September 22, 2010 feedback. Mr. Hageman suggested approaching local businesses to investigate partnerships that will benefit City residents. Mr. Worthington suggested a trails theme. A question was raised about grooming trails for Cross Country skiing. A short discussion followed to create an Outdoor Space Theme in order to plan for canoe access and access to natural areas with bike/walking trails. Mr. Worthington suggested Frisbee golf. Ms. Walsh advised all of the council are in support of the survey. She clarified the focus group will be facilitated by an outside source. Ms. Walsh inquired if members had any other ideas and suggested members e-mail her as other thoughts come to mind. She will notify members when the survey group is selected. Mr. Flumerfelt continued the discussion on ways to reach residents by suggesting Face Book as a tool. Mr. Foulkes suggested finding ways to reach seniors. He suggested approaching them during waiting times such as when they are in line for flu shots. Ms. Walsh mentioned the neighborhood leaders. Ms. Abernathy suggested including the survey with water bills. Mr. Worthington suggested the Sun Sailor and neighborhood newsletters. He also suggested considering ways to include non-English speaking populations. b. Park Dedication – West End Residential Ms. Walsh advised the City of St. Louis Park is working on an agreement with the West End developers for park dedication funds. She advised the City strongly supports the success of West End businesses. Only about half the West End area is developed. It is thought by allowing Duke, the developer, to apply credit from previous funds toward future dedication funds it might alleviate some of the cost. Mr. Worthington cautioned too large an amount would set a precedent for future developers. In response to a question from Mr. Hawkinson, Ms. Walsh advised the amount of credit and details are still under discussion. She will let members know when there is a clear concept. In response to a question from Mr. Worthington, Ms Walsh stated the dedication funds can only be used for capital improvements. Sean Walther will attend the October meeting to present the park dedication. 5. Old Business a. Public Art Update – W. 36th Street and The Ellipse Ms Walsh advised benches and ballards are installed between Hwy 100 and Wooddale. Ms. Walsh stated the new coffee shop, Coffee Buzz, expressed interest in having information available explaining the public art. Ms. Walsh advised The Ellipse’s grand opening is September 23, 2010. The Artist is Norman Anderson. Ms. Walsh expressed interest in a ribbon cutting sometime in October. City Council Meeting of January 18, 2011 (Item No. 4j) Page 3 Subject: Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission Minutes September 22, 2010 Ms. Walsh advised the Wooddale bridge appears to be on schedule and will open by the end of the year. b. Staff Appreciation Luncheon Mr. Hagemann opened a short discussion to follow up on previous plans for the Friday, October 1st staff appreciation lunch. Mr. Foulkes mentioned he will not be present for the lunch due to a family commitment; however, he will supply the burgers. Mr. Hawkinson clarified details regarding beverages. Mr. Flumerfelt will not be attending due to school requirements. Mr. Hawkinson inquired if the fireplace will be turned on. Ms. Walsh indicated it can be turned on if the weather is cool. 6. Communications a. Chair Mr. Hagemann expressed appreciation to the City for allowing Cycle Cross Racing in Aquila Park. He advised Cyclocross is a US Cycling Association sanctioned event. Ms. Walsh advised outside groups who use City Parks for events are required to carry insurance and apply for a permit. b. Commissioners In response to a question from Mr. Hawkinson, the cell phone carrier decided not to pursue applying for a variance to construct a cell tower. Mr. Hawkinson inquired about the progress of the MSC and surrounding area. Ms. Walsh advised most of the work is done. She commented creek access and paving is complete at the canoe landing providing a very nice landing. Mr. Foulkes commented he has seen rental-bikes on some of the trails and inquired if St. Louis Park has been contacted regarding rental site locations within the City. The bikes are supplied through a program sponsored through Minneapolis. Mr. Hagemann inquired if e-bikes (motorized bikes with low watt motors) are allowed on the bike trails. Ms. Walsh indicated they are under discussion and at this point are not disallowed. A comment was made it would be nice to allow the e-bikes on the trails in order to get more people commuting. The Three Rivers Park District is still discussing an ordinance. Mr. Worthington mentioned a new biological control for emerald ash borer. He described a stingless wasp was released along the Mississippi River. Mr. Worthington will send a press City Council Meeting of January 18, 2011 (Item No. 4j) Page 4 Subject: Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission Minutes September 22, 2010 release to Ms. Walsh. Ms. Walsh mentioned St. Louis Park has a grant from the Department of Agriculture to remove Ash trees. New trees will be planted in the spring. Other communications from Mr. Worthington included information on the Gulf Oil spill clean up. Mr. Worthington expressed sorrow for the loss of Brandi Frakie who passed away recently. Mr. Flumerfelt mentioned the new quarter is going well for him at school. c. Friends of the Arts Update Mr. Hagemann advised Arts and Culture applications are due Nov. 5th. Ms. Abernathy is the staff liaison. He also described a West End event called Feed your Passion for Fashion and reported the poetry project was given some nice press in the West Metro. d. Program Report – Lisa Abernathy Ms. Abernathy listed the following updates: Stacia Goodman, one of the Arts and Culture Grant recipients, will unveil her mosaic on Saturday, September 25th from 2 p.m. to 3 p.m. at The Rec Center. The Farmers Market business has slowed since the pool closure. The Birchwood shelter grand opening is Friday, December 17th. The Goblin March and Boogie Concert is October 29th. She is still looking for volunteers. Little Tot Playtime is Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Fridays from 9:30 a.m. – 11:30 a.m. in The Rec Center banquet room. In response to a question from Mr. Worthington, Ms. Abernathy advised the program is for children 5 and under. In response to a question from Mr. Foulkes, Ms. Abernathy stated there is a $2 charge per child. An average number of 50 to 60 children attend each time. e. Director Report Ms Walsh expressed appreciation for the addition of Ms. Abernathy to the Parks and Recreation staff. The Westwood Hills Nature Center Halloween Party is October 22nd and 23rd. Volunteer dinners will be donated by Qdoba and Noodles and Company. City Council Meeting of January 18, 2011 (Item No. 4j) Page 5 Subject: Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission Minutes September 22, 2010 Ms. Walsh notified members the City received a Historic Preservation award from the Preservation Alliance of Minnesota for the Lilac Park Beehives. The award presentation was quite extensive and included a dinner and guest speaker. Ms. Walsh updated members on artificial turf discussions. City, School and youth association partnerships may be required to finance the project. Ms. Walsh noted limited use of the new Benilde field is available and some adult soccer games have been played there. The City would like to provide more opportunities for adult soccer other sports like LaCrosse if needs increase. Mr. Flumerfelt mentioned some residents do not like crowd noise at the new Benilde field. The next Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, October 20, 2010. A joint November/December meeting will be held on Wednesday, December 1st. 7. Adjournment It was moved by Commissioner Hagemann to adjourn at 8:40 p.m. The motion passed 5 - 0. Respectfully submitted, Carrie Haslerud Carrie Haslerud Recording Secretary Meeting Date: January 18, 2011 Agenda Item #: 4k OFFICIAL MINUTES Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission Meeting October 20, 2010 7 p.m. – Meeting 1. Call to Order George Hagemann, Chair, called the meeting to order at 7 p.m. Commission members present: Christina Barberot, Sam Flumerfelt, George Foulkes, George Hagemann, Steve Hallfin, and Kirk Hawkinson. Commission members absent: Tom Worthington. Staff present: Director of Parks and Recreation, Cindy Walsh, Manager of Buildings and Structures, Craig Panning, and Administrative Secretary, Stacy Voelker. 2. Presentation: Baseball Association Sandy Olevitch, President of the Baseball Association, and Commission members introduced themselves. Mr. Olevitch advised there were multiple organizations in youth baseball and last year they succeeded in merging into one organization. Although there are still structural and charter issues, they are all working cooperatively and the new association has board members from each of the old organizations. One challenge is that most board members are at the end of their tenure. They continue attempts to increase early involvement in the Association. The individual organizations have also committed to a unified website which will be available beginning January 1, 2011 under the St. Louis Park Baseball Association with tabs for different age groups. Mr. Olevitch indicated the information published in the Parks and Recreation brochure will mirror what’s on the website and point back to the website for additional information. Last year there were 405 participants in Little league, 105 in Traveling (ages 10-15),40 in Babe Ruth (ages 16-18), and approximately 32 in Legion or Junior Legion for a total of 582 participants. Mr. Hawkinson inquired how other cities baseball associations are organized to which Mr. Olevitch indicated he is unsure but advised Edina has one website for baseball and Eagan has one website for all sports associations with hockey, basketball, baseball, etc. under the one site. Mr. Oleviech advised he would be interested in assisting that along. Ms. Walsh appreciated the offer. Mr. Hagemann inquired if girls are playing baseball. There are a small amount of girls, mainly under age 10, advised Mr. Olevitch. Some girls have played through age 12 and one played through age 16. They are welcome to join. From past experience, Mr. Olevitch stated, around age 10 they go into Fastpitch Softball. Ms. Barberot inquired what age kids start baseball to which Mr. Olevitch responded typically begin around age 7 or 8. Mr. Hallfin advised the association will take 5-6 year olds and will bring out tee for T-ball to hit if needed. City Council Meeting of January 18, 2011 (Item No. 4k) Page 2 Subject: Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission Minutes October 20, 2010 Mr. Hallfin is pleased the associations have came together and thanked Mr. Olevitch for volunteering. Mr. Hallfin inquired if there is anything else the Association would like to see from the City? Working with facility people are more than helpful, Mr. Olevitch commented, and the City puts time into keeping the fields in good condition. The association would like to pool their money so they can work with the city on making shared, small improvements (this is their goal for 2011). The City is always excellent to work with and hears the same from each group Mr. Olevitch indicated. Cooperation between the City and the Association has been great; St. Louis Park kids are playing on great fields. Commission members thanked Mr. Olevitch for attending; Mr. Olevitch was thankful for the opportunity. 3. Approval of Minutes a. September 22, 2010 Commission member Hagemann requested that a word in item 6a on page 3 be corrected to “Cyclocross”. It was moved by Councilmember Barberot, seconded by Councilmember Hawkinson, to approve the Minutes as amended. Motion passed 6 – 0. 4. New Business a. Park Dedication – West End Residential (Sean Walther) Sean Walther, Senior Planner, and new Commission members introduced themselves. Members were provided a background on the West End project from Mr. Walther. The West End is currently 70% leased and continues to obtain retail and restaurant tenants. Mr. Walther indicated Utica Avenue is scheduled to be redone in 2012 when storm sewers are renovated. In 2010, Duke Realty received the Watershed District Hero Award and made great improvements to storm water in the West End area. This project quadrupled their 2020 annual phosphorus reduction goal for Brownie Lake. Mr. Walther indicated the original proposal of a hotel development has changed and a 120-unit apartment complex is now being proposed. The comprehensive plan did not include public parks in the West End area, but the area does include gathering spaces in private sections which has been successful. The private development provides maintenance of the streetscape and gathering spaces within the planned unit development. It is a challenge to include green space in the area of the project. City Council encouraged the developer to provide outdoor recreation area, advised Mr. Walther, and the developer responded with a proposal including green area on the roof (three rooftop terraces), including passive and active outdoor recreational amenities including a pool and a green roof, as well as indoor amenities. City Council Meeting of January 18, 2011 (Item No. 4k) Page 3 Subject: Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission Minutes October 20, 2010 The original West End Project had Tax Increment Funding that went into the project and the development paid $917,000 to park dedication with approximately $900,000 forgiven. The city’s subdivision ordinance reads if the density of subdivision development is increased, the city should review for reconsideration of park land and/or cash contribution requirements. Staff is proposing a similar 50% reduction in park dedication for the proposed apartment building, and recognizing the park dedication fees already paid for the hotel use in 2008, which would equal $80,500 in park and trail dedication fees. Ms. Barberot suggested include grass on the roof which is low maintenance and advised buildings in New York City have been grassed which also reduces energy drastically. Duke Realty as been a leader in environmental actions indicated Ms. Walsh. Mr. Walther commented that a green roof is included on the second floor terrace. Also, The West End shopping center includes green roof components that capture rain water. In addition, they have slot drains in sidewalks to capture rain water. Mr. Walther advised Green roofs are an option but have had a lot of mixed responses on how effective they are in energy savings and how or when they pay back, Mr. Walther commented. They are more costly and he is unsure what a reasonable payback is for this particular development. Mr. Hagemann inquired on public art in area. Mr. Walther advised public art was included as part of the entire West End project. Duke Realty is vested in public art and has helped fix Foster Wheeler’s piece, advised Ms. Walsh. Ms. Barberot inquired if the Costco area is part of the project. Mr. Walther responded that it is not. He added that Costco and other adjoining property owners are participating in a special service district for Park Place Boulevard so the maintenance of landscaping, irrigation, etc. is not paid by the City, but rather by neighboring parcels. Mr. Hallfin would like to acquire full park dedication funds from the project. Mr. Hawkinson is concerned allowing partial receipt of park dedication funds on this project would set precedence and would be acceptable in the future for other projects. Mr. Walther indicated staff views the apartment proposal as part of the West End project, and unique from past and future developments. Commission members discussed differing opinions of the park dedication acceptance. Members want to be cooperative yet want to ensure the city has a sustainable park system. Members were concerned about setting a precedent for future developments. Mr. Hagemann and Mr. Foulkes voiced their opinion on the risk of losing park dedication funds if the development does not proceed at all and recommends the Commission accept what can be reasonably acquired. The Commission should recognize the improvements to the streets and sidewalks the development has made and the quality of the designed outdoor recreation area provided in the West End Apartments and The Shops at West End as a whole, including public art. Members want to retain their credibility with the city but also want to ensure a sustainable park system which is partially funded with park dedication. Members were concerned that the decision regarding park dedication has already been approved. Mr. Walther explained the decision has not been made. City Council has received a written report in a recent Study Session but action on the item is scheduled for City Council Meeting of January 18, 2011 (Item No. 4k) Page 4 Subject: Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission Minutes October 20, 2010 the November 1 City Council meeting. The PRAC held no meetings in the summer so there wasn’t an opportunity to discuss the site plan when the PUD major amendment application was being reviewed. Mr. Walther indicated. Members discussed past practice and Ms. Walsh advised park dedication fee in lieu of park space is appropriate in areas where the comprehensive plan does not call for new park space. The comprehensive plan currently identifies two areas that could have future residential and parks, but they are not in the vicinity of The West End. She noted a relatively recent example when the City did require land dedication as part of a new development. Blackstone Park was identified in the plan, PRAC asked for the land, and park was created. It was moved by Commission member Hallfin, seconded by Commission member Barberot, to request full park and trail dedication fees be obtained from the proposed apartment complex in West End. The motion passed 4-2 (Commission members Hagemann and Foulkes opposed). b. Fire Station Update (Sean Walther) Mr. Walther indicated the city is in the process of working with an architect and engineers since May; held three neighborhood meetings; then preceded through a schematic design and cost estimate which has been supported by City Council. They are now reviewing the interior of buildings which will be going to council mid-November. Potentially going to lead certification on building and considering geothermal on project. Mr. Walther indicated the fire station averages over 4,000 calls per year which are more medical calls than fire calls. Rick Beane, Park Superintendent, is part of the design crew as the Fire Stations will be in or are adjacent to two different parks. The Elmwood area indicated they would like a warming house or restrooms Mr. Walther explained. There will be restrooms available during busy times. Northside Park has seen declining use since other parks have improved. This creates an opportunity to expand the property and build a new building at Birchwood. Staff is coordinating the schedule of the fire station remodel with park redevelopment and use. Mr. Walther indicated Fire Station 2 could be built and remain open at the same time and has discussed constructing both stations at the same time. Both stations will be bid at the same time to provide a cost savings. A report will be provided to Council in mid-November stated Mr. Walther. Members viewed site plans and conceptual sketches of the Fire Stations and discussed with Mr. Walther. Mr. Walther explained the utility department has moved to the MSC permanently and is more efficient to have all public works in same building. Each building will be built on National Standards, and will be approximately three times the current size. Staff hopes to remove old building immediately after new building is ready. Members thanked Mr. Walther for the information. 5. Old Business a. Community Recreation Planning Process Update City Council Meeting of January 18, 2011 (Item No. 4k) Page 5 Subject: Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission Minutes October 20, 2010 Ms. Walsh provided an update on the Community Recreation Planning Process and indicated the Request for Proposal has been advertised and sent to organizations. With November 1 as a deadline for bids to return, December and January is when the survey will be available for completion. Ms. Walsh encourages the Commission to promote the survey for residents to complete it. The survey will be emailed via neighborhood groups and will work with non-organized neighborhood groups to get the survey to all. The survey, Ms. Walsh indicated, will be available via email and paper copy. 6. Communications a. Chair None. b. Commissioners Mr. Flumerfelt offered to organize some BSM students to volunteer at the October 29 event. Ms. Walsh will discuss with Lisa Abernathy and Ms. Abernathy will contact Mr. Flumberfelt. Mr. Hallfin is proud to be a commissioner and is pleased that individuals are respectful. Mr. Foulkes invited all to an event on Saturday, October 23 from 3 p.m. to 8 p.m. in Maple Plain with money going to the Breast Cancer Center. Everything received from the event is donated. Notes were collected from the Staff Appreciation Luncheon, Ms. Barberot advised, and all reviewed. Ms. Barberot distributed an article found in Time magazine where kids build playground materials. The article discusses how kids create materials out of recycled materials. Ms. Barberot also attends PTA meetings and wanted to pass along complaints that were heard regarding the fee for field trips to the Nature Center. Staff accepted information. c. Friends of the Arts Update Mr. Hagemann advised the Arts and Culture Grant process is open and indicated any piece of art that benefits St. Louis Park is available. Applications will be accepted for one to two more weeks. d. Program Report (Craig Panning) Craig Panning, Manager of Grounds and Structures, advised staff utilized environmentally friendly Sphagnum moss at the Aquatic Park this past summer during the last month of the season. The moss is imported from New Zealand, cleans the water, which then allows less chemicals to be used. The moss controls the chemical balance and the water clarity is improved. It is also being used in the cooling towers in The Rec Center. The moss is used to filter condensation which is used in air conditioners and condensers in ice arenas. Mr. Panning has noticed less of a calcium buildup since the moss was added to the chemicals that control the cooling water. City Council Meeting of January 18, 2011 (Item No. 4k) Page 6 Subject: Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission Minutes October 20, 2010 In reviewing the history of the Sphagnum Moss, it was founded in WWII. As soldiers were injured, their wounds were packed in the moss and they were transported to the medical facilities. No infections developed in the wounds packed with the moss. The U of M doctors researched and found the moss reduces chemicals. Sphagnum Moss has been found in an area in southern Minnesota on a ridge so may try to harvest the moss locally. Mr. Panning advised St. Paul has been using the moss in their outdoor and indoor pools for two years and have found great success. Another benefit of the moss is the cost savings in chemicals and finding it has a one month life span. Currently The Rec Center is the only organization trying the moss in cooling towers, advised Mr. Panning, and we are using it at the Oak Hill Splash Pad. At the Splash Pad, the chemical use is small but water is held in an underground vault to re-circulate through the play fields. After the moss was added, there is no odor in the vault. Mr. Panning commented the final pool season report will be available in November. The month of June was challenging with a lot of rain, but July and August were good months. Both ice arena’s remained open this year and the ice quality appears to have held up, Mr. Panning advised. Keeping both rinks open increased The Rec Center revenue approximately $50,000 this year. Mr. Panning explained the dehumidification system in the east arena will be replaced in 2011 which has a budget of $300,000 in the Capital Improvement fund. The replacement will allow the dehumidification system to be more efficient. Commission members complimented Mr. Panning that The Rec Center is run great and thanked him for attending. e. Director Report Ms. Walsh advised the ribbon cutting for the Ellipse on Excelsior will be held on Monday; the art along West 36th Street is now complete and the art in the entrance of The Rec Center is hung. A great deal of the items on The Rec Center art piece were acquired from the Minnehaha Creek clean up. 7. Adjournment It was moved by Commissioner Hallfin to adjourn at 9:06 p.m. The motion passed 6 - 0. Respectfully submitted, Stacy Voelker Stacy Voelker Recording Secretary Meeting Date: January 18, 2011 Agenda Item #: 4l City of St. Louis Park Police Advisory Commission Minutes – November 3, 2010 Aquila Room, City Hall I. Call to Order Chair Widmer called the meeting to order at 7:00. Commissioners Present: Ken Huiras, Jason Kley, Rashmi Seneviratne, Jim Smith, Alexa Cushman and Hans Widmer Staff Present: Lieutenant Harcey and Ms. Stegora-Peterson. II. Approval of Minutes It was noted that Commissioner Trussoni last name was now Cushman, which should be reflected in the minutes. Motion to approve the minutes of September 1, 2010 was made by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner Huiras. The minutes were approved as amended. III. HRC Update – How to build on our partnership Commissioner Seneviratne reported she met with the HRC and they discussed forming a sub committee to build on the partnership between the two committees and work on a joint project. They discussed ELL classes and proving training for immigrants on how to work with Police (stops, how to contact, domestic violence, etc.). Lt. Harcey added that the Community Outreach Officer, Kim Czapar, had been invited in the past to attend ELL classes. He or other staff members would be involved and they could make it an abbreviated form of the Citizens Academy, possibly one to two nights. Commissioner Seneviratne added the HRC was looking for nominations for the Human Rights award, which is given to people doing something positively affecting St. Louis Park. IV. Golf Tournament Update Lt. Harcey stated the tournament income was better than last year, but not quite as good as two years ago. Hole sponsors were up and there were the same amount of golfers. A few more Police officers attended. They need to increase participation and do more advertising for next year, but plan to keep the same entry fee. City Council Meeting of January 18, 2011 (Item No. 4l) Page 2 Subject: Police Advisory Commission Minutes November 3, 2010 V. PSA - Video Project – Update (Day in the life, Community Policing, Traffic stops, Dog Ordinance) Lt. Harcey indicated “A Day in the Life” had been filmed, but he hadn’t heard anything further from Mr. Dunlap and would contact him. Chair Widmer noted an outline had been done for the Traffic Stop and Community Policing PSA. Commissioner Flory was going to work on the dog ordinance PSA outline. They should continue to think of other ideas. VI. Update on Cornerstone and Domestic Violence Education Commissioner Cushman noted she and staff from Cornerstone and the City had been Emailing to make sure a Domestic Violence PSA (done by Cornerstone) was updated. The City was going to add Cornerstones contact information to the web site. They are also putting together draft fliers for those affected by domestic violence (with contact information) to put up in restrooms and community areas. She asked Commissioners to think of other areas they could be posted and would ask the Cornerstone staff to attend the next meeting. Lt. Harcey indicated the Police Department was also working with Cornerstone and the City Attorney on a Domestic Violence Intervention program (procedures, how to improve, etc.). They are trying to determine the best areas to reach out (Perspectives, PPL, Community Center, clinics, STEP, high school, grocery stores, West End). The Police Department has victims call Cornerstone to talk with someone who can help with temporary housing issues. VII. 2010 Year-end report for City Council - Planning Chair Widmer indicated he would work on the report. A date to meet with City Council had not been scheduled. A goal to add to the 2011 Work Plan would be the sub committee work with HRC and domestic violence work. V. Old/New Business Chair Widmer stated elections would be held in January for Chair and Vice Chair. His term would be expiring, but he agreed to continue on the Commission. Commissioner Swiderski had decided not to continue. They had one vacancy and one youth position open. VI. Adjourn The meeting adjourned at 7:29 PM. Meeting Date: January 18, 2011 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: Northside Park Approval of Plans and Specifications, and Authorize Bids. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to Adopt Resolution accepting this report, establishing and ordering Improvement Project No. 20110050, approving plans and specifications, and authorizing advertisement for bids for the redevelopment of Northside Park. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the City Council wish to continue to move forward with this project? BACKGROUND: Northside Park was originally developed in the early 1970’s. Because of its age and heavy use, it is in need of redevelopment. This park has been in our capital plans for several years and, due to planning, refrained from doing any work on it as staff thought it best to do in conjunction with the fire station replacement. The planned improvements for the redevelopment of Northside Park include: • Relocating and reconstructing the parking lot; • Adding curb and gutters to parking lot to accommodate storm water runoff; • Construct sediment pond(s) in partnership with the fire station project for environmental and watershed issues; • Remodel concession stand building; update bathroom; • Relocate and reconstruct the two existing ball fields; • Construct an additional new youth size ball field; • Eliminate the two practice ball fields; • Install irrigation system; • Redesign and develop green space; re-landscape the park; • Replace all ball field amenities (bleachers, scoreboards, dugouts, etc.); • Relocate current play structure; • Remove outdoor skating area; • Construct new storage shed; and • Design into project green building technology whenever possible. This project will allow the City of St. Louis Park the opportunity to better serve youth athletic participants and casual park users from the community, metro area, regional boundaries and statewide. City Council Meeting of January 18, 2011 (Item No. 8a) Page 2 Subject: Northside Park Approval of Plans and Specifications, and Authorize Bids PUBLIC PROCESS: The plans for Northside Park redevelopment included an extensive public process. Beginning in 2008, staff met with stakeholders. Meetings were held with the Willow Park neighborhood to understand their desires and concerns. The Baseball Association was very involved in assisting in the design of the park to ensure that the redevelopment project could accommodate their program as well as use by the neighborhood. In addition to meeting with the neighborhood and park users, staff was present at several of the neighborhood and city-wide meetings regarding the construction of Fire Station No. 2, since the station is located adjacent to the park. Both projects were coordinated to minimize impacts to both sites and surrounding areas during construction. The new construction of the fire station will include a portion of the park that previously included a hockey rink. The park redevelopment does not include the replacement of the hockey rink in the park. Knowing that the rink would need to be relocated, a new warming house was built in 2010 at Birchwood Park although rink activities previously scheduled at Northside Park are not being programmed at Birchwood Park. The Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission reviewed the plans for redevelopment of the park several times. They were also involved with discussing alternatives with the park users. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: This project was planned for and included in the City’s adopted Capital Improvement Program (CIP). At the time the CIP was developed, staff planned to receive $200,000 in grant money from the Hennepin Youth Sports and use $800,000 from the Park Improvement Fund. Staff was recently informed that the city will also receive an additional $200,000 for a total of $400,000 from the grant. With the additional grant money, staff has identified funding sources totaling $1,200,000. Anticipated expenses prior to going out for bids are $1,171,960. The total estimated cost and funding for construction of three baseball fields, a storage garage, a sun/picnic shelter, a parking lot, reconstruction of the walking trails, and remodeling of the concession stand at Northside Park are as follows: Expense breakdown Construction of Park Improvements $ 887,800.00 Parking lot $ 132,090.00 Maintenance building $ 60,000.00 Trails $ 55,250.00 Concession stand remodel $ 16,820.00 Sun/ Picnic Shelter $ 20,000.00 Total $ 1,171,960.00 Revenue Sources Park Improvement Fund $ 800,000.00 Hennepin County Youth Sports Program Grant $ 400,000.00 Total $ 1,200,000.00 City Council Meeting of January 18, 2011 (Item No. 8a) Page 3 Subject: Northside Park Approval of Plans and Specifications, and Authorize Bids CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE Staff is suggesting the following schedule: January 18, 2011 - City Council approval of plans and authorization to bid January 28 & February 4, 2011 - Advertise bids February 24, 2011 - Bid opening March 21, 2011 - City Council to review bid tab report and award contract April 15, 2011 - Begin construction November 15, 2011 - Project completion NEXT STEPS AND TIMELINES: If the City Council approves the plans and specifications and authorizes bids, staff will receive bids on February 24, 2011. The Council will be asked to approve the bidder and authorize the project to begin at its March 21, 2011 meeting. Project construction will begin following council approval. VISION CONSIDERATION: This project supports the Vision statement that St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged community. Attachments: Resolution Master Park Plan Prepared by: Stacy Voelker, Administrative Secretary Rick Beane, Park Superintendent Reviewed by: Cindy Walsh, Director of Parks and Recreation Approved by: Nancy Deno Gohman, Deputy City Manager/HR Director City Council Meeting of January 18, 2011 (Item No. 8a) Page 4 Subject: Northside Park Approval of Plans and Specifications, and Authorize Bids RESOLUTION NO. 11-_______ RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE PROJECT REPORT, ESTABLISHING IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 20110050 APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS, AND AUTHORIZING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park has received a report related to the reconstruction at Northside Park, City Project No. 20110050. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, that: 1. The Project Report regarding Project No. 20110050 is hereby accepted. 2. Such improvement as proposed is necessary, cost effective, and feasible as detailed in the Project Report. 3. The proposed project, designated as Project No. 20110050 is hereby established and ordered. 4. The plans and specifications for the making of the improvement, as prepared under the direction of the Park Superintendent, or designee, are approved. 5. The City Clerk shall prepare and cause to be inserted at least two weeks in the official newspaper and at least one week in the Construction Bulletin, an advertisement for bids for the making of said improvement under said-approved plans and specifications. The advertisement shall appear not less than ten (10) days prior to the date and time of receipt of bids, and specify the work to be done, state the date and time bids will be received by the City Clerk, and that no bids will be considered unless sealed and filed with the City Clerk and accompanied by a bid bond payable to the City for five (5) percent of the amount of the bid. 6. The Park Superintendent, or designee, shall report the receipt of bids to the City Council shortly after the letting date. The report shall include a tabulation of the bid results and a recommendation to the City Council. Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council January 18, 2011 City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk Concept Master Plan, Revised City of St. Louis Park, MN Northside Rotary Park December 29, 2010 Scoreboard, typ. Play Area Existing Tennis Courts to Remain Proposed Firestation Little League Ballfield #1 Little League Ballfield #3 Little League Ballfield #2 Filtration Basin, typ. Artificial Turf Batting Cage and Practice Areas, typ. Existing Tree to Remain, typ. Proposed Tree, typ. Parking Lot 77 Total Stalls ExistingExisting Concessions & Restrooms New Maintenance Storage Bldg Picnic Shelter City Council Meeting of January 18, 2011 (Item No. 8a) Subject: Northside Park Approval of Plans and Specifications, and Authorize Bids Page 5 Meeting Date: January 18, 2011 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: Second Reading – Ordinance Providing for a Domestic Partner Voluntary Registration Program. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to adopt Second Reading of an Ordinance adding Chapter 5 to the St. Louis Park City Code concerning Domestic Partners. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does Council wish to adopt an Ordinance for a Domestic Partner Voluntary Registration Program? BACKGROUND: In November, the Council discussed a voluntary registration program for domestic partners. Council reviewed information about the program and an example of an ordinance from another community. In Minnesota, the following cities have a registration program for domestic partners: Minneapolis, St. Paul, Duluth, Rochester, Edina, Maplewood and Golden Valley. St Louis Park Human Rights Commission discussed this program at their regular meeting in December 2010. A motion was approved to inform the Council that the HRC supports the City Council pursuing a domestic partner voluntary registration program and the HRC would also like the Council to consider sending a resolution to the State of Minnesota regarding this issue. At the regular City Council meeting on January 3, 2011, first reading of the ordinance was approved. Next steps The proposed schedule for ordinance adoption is as follows: o Second Reading January 18, 2011 o Published January 27, 2011 o Effective date February 11, 2011 (assuming the above timeframe is met) FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: The proposed fees are set to cover administrative costs. VISION CONSIDERATION: Not Applicable. Attachments: Ordinance Ordinance Summary Draft of the Registration, Change and Termination Forms Prepared & Approved by: Nancy Deno Gohman, Deputy City Manager/HR Director City Council Meeting of January 18, 2011 (Item No. 8b) Page 2 Subject: Second Reading – Ordinance Providing for a Domestic Partner Voluntary Registration Program ORDINANCE NO. _____-11 AN ORDINANCE ADDING CHAPTER 5 TO THE ST LOUIS PARK CITY CODE CONCERNING DOMESTIC PARTNERS THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK DOES ORDAIN: SECTION 1. The City of St. Louis Park Code of Ordinances is hereby amended by adding the following Chapter 5 to read as follows: Chapter 5 DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIP Sec. 5.01 Purpose. The City of St. Louis Park authorizes and establishes a voluntary program of registration of domestic partners. The domestic partnership registry is a means by which unmarried, committed couples who reside or work in St. Louis Park and who share a life and home together may document their relationship. St. Louis Park’s Domestic Partnership ordinance is a City ordinance and does not create rights, privileges, or responsibilities that are available to married couples under state or federal law. The City of St. Louis Park cannot provide legal advice concerning domestic partnerships. Applicants and registrants may wish to consult with an attorney for such advice including but not limited to: wills, medical matters, finances and powers of attorney, children and dependents, health care and employment benefits. Sec. 5.02 Definitions. The following words and phrases used in this Code have the meanings given in this Section. Domestic Partner. Any two adults who meet all the following: 1. Are not related by blood closer than permitted under marriage laws of the state. 2. Are not married. 3. Are competent to enter into a contract. 4. Are jointly responsible to each other for the necessities of life. 5. Are committed to one another to the same extent as married persons are to each other, except for the traditional marital status and solemnities. 6. Do not have any other domestic partner(s). 7. Are both at least 18 years of age. 8. At least one of whom resides in St. Louis Park or is employed in St. Louis Park. Domestic Partnership. The term “domestic partnership” shall include, upon production of valid, government-issued documentation, in addition to domestic partnerships registered with the City of St. Louis Park, and regardless of whether partners in either circumstance have sought further registration with the City of St. Louis Park: A. Any persons who have a currently-registered domestic partnership with a governmental body pursuant to state, local or other law authorizing such registration. The term domestic partnership shall be construed liberally to include unions, regardless of title, in which City Council Meeting of January 18, 2011 (Item No. 8b) Page 3 Subject: Second Reading – Ordinance Providing for a Domestic Partner Voluntary Registration Program two individuals are committed to one another as married persons are traditionally committed, except for the traditional marital status. B. Marriages that would be legally recognized as a contract of lawful marriage in another local, state or foreign jurisdiction, but for the operation of Minnesota law. Sec. 5.03 Registration of Domestic Partnerships. A. The City Clerk shall accept an application in a form provided by the City to register domestic partners who state in such application that they meet the definition of domestic partners. B. The City Clerk shall charge an application fee for the registration of domestic partners and shall charge a fee for providing certified copies of registrations, amendments, or notices of termination. The fees required by this Section shall be in the amount set forth in Appendix A of this Code. C. The City Clerk shall provide each domestic partner with a registration certificate. The registration certificate shall not be issued prior to the third working day after the date of the application. D. This application and certificate may be used as evidence of the existence of a domestic partner relationship. E. The City Clerk shall keep a record of all registrations of domestic partnership, amendments to registrations and notices of termination. The records shall be maintained so that amendments and notices of termination are filed with the registration of domestic partnership to which they pertain. F. The application and amendments thereto, the registration certificate, and termination notices shall constitute government data and will be subject to disclosure pursuant to the terms of the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. Sec. 5.04 Amendments. The City Clerk may accept amendments for filing from persons who have domestic partnership registrations on file, except amendments which would replace one of the registered partners with another individual. Sec. 5.05 Termination of Domestic Partnership. Domestic partnership registration terminates when the earliest of the following occurs: 1. One of the partners dies; or 2. Forty-five days after one partner sends the other partner a written notice of termination and that he or she has terminated the partnership by filing a notice with the City Clerk. City Council Meeting of January 18, 2011 (Item No. 8b) Page 4 Subject: Second Reading – Ordinance Providing for a Domestic Partner Voluntary Registration Program Sec. 5.06 Homestead Designation. Eligibility for the designation of property as a homestead, the application process and the verification process are set forth in State Statutes. In administering the state homestead statutes the City will not impose any additional requirements on domestic partners. Sec. 5.07 Fees If the City of St. Louis Park offers a family fee, family membership or family registration, domestic partners are entitled to the same family fee, family membership or family registration. Sec. 5.08 Employment with the City City of St Louis Park will include domestic partner in the definition of family as it relates to Employment with the City. Domestic Partner will be afforded the same opportunities as it relates to employment for the city as allowed by law. SECTION 2. Appendix A Fee Schedule of the City of St. Louis Park Code of Ordinances is hereby amended by adding the following: CITY CLERK’S OFFICE Domestic Partnerships Registration Registration Application Fee $50 Amendment to Application $25 Termination of Registration $25 SECTION 3. This ordinance shall be deemed adopted and take effect fifteen days after its publication. ENACTED this 18th day of January, 2011, by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park. Public Hearing/First Reading January 3, 2011 Second Reading January 18, 2011 Summary Ordinance Published January 27, 2011 Ordinance takes effect February 11, 2011 Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council January 18, 2011 City Manager Mayor Attest: Approved as to form and execution: City Clerk City Attorney City Council Meeting of January 18, 2011 (Item No. 8b) Page 5 Subject: Second Reading – Ordinance Providing for a Domestic Partner Voluntary Registration Program SUMMARY ORDINANCE NO. ____-11 AN ORDINANCE ADDING CHAPTER 5 TO THE ST LOUIS PARK CITY CODE CONCERNING DOMESTIC PARTNERS This ordinance will add Chapter 5 Domestic Partnership provisions for the City of St. Louis Park to provide a Domestic Partner Voluntary Registration Program. This ordinance shall take effect February 11, 2011. Adopted by the City Council January 18, 2011 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: January 27, 2011 City Council Meeting of January 18, 2011 (Item No. 8b) Page 6 Subject: Second Reading – Ordinance Providing for a Domestic Partner Voluntary Registration Program APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION AS A DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIP REGISTRATION FEE: $50.00 We hereby apply to register as Domestic Partners (each initial). ______ ______ I have read and understand the terms and conditions of Chapter 5 of the St. Louis Park City Code attached to this application. ______ ______ I affirm that we meet the definition of Domestic Partners and are eligible for registration. APPLICANT INFORMATION PRINT NAME:_____________________________________________________Date: SIGNATURE: PRINT NAME:_____________________________________________________Date: SIGNATURE: _______________________________________________________________________________ ADDRESS: __________________________________________________________________________________ CITY/STATE: ______________________________________________________Zip______________________ REGISTRATION REQUIREMENT (please check one) : Reside in St. Louis Park or Work in St. Louis Park STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) SS. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged and signed before me this _____ day of ___________________, 2011 by ________________________________ and _________________________________. Applicant Name Applicant Name ________________________________________ Notary Seal Notary Public The City of St. Louis Park authorizes and establishes a voluntary program of registration of domestic partners. The domestic partnership registry is a means by which unmarried, committed couples who reside or work in St. Louis Park and who share a life and home together may document their relationship. St. Louis Park’s Domestic Partnership ordinance is a City ordinance and does not create rights, privileges, or responsibilities that are available to married couples under state or federal law. The City of St. Louis Park cannot provide legal advice concerning domestic partnerships. Applicants and registrants may wish to consult with an attorney for such advice including but not limited to: wills, medical matters, finances and powers of attorney, children and dependents, health care and employment benefits. Mail application and registration fee to: City of St. Louis Park - City Clerk 5005 Minnetonka Blvd St. Louis Park, MN 55416 Forms must be complete along with notarized signatures to process the application. Fee is required prior to processing. Once process is complete, certification will be mailed to the address on this form. Please allow 10 working days for processing. Questions? Contact the City Clerk at 952-928-2840 or nstroth@stlouispark.org OFFICE USE ONLY Date Received _____________ Effective Date _____________ City Council Meeting of January 18, 2011 (Item No. 8b) Page 7 Subject: Second Reading – Ordinance Providing for a Domestic Partner Voluntary Registration Program AMENDMENT TO APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION AS A DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIP PROCESSING FEE $25 (Not to be used to replace one of the registered partners with another individual) PREVIOUS APPLICANT INFORMATION PRINT NAME: PRINT NAME: ADDRESS: CITY/STATE: _____________________________________________________ ZIP: Please indicate change under the terms and conditions of Chapter 5 of the City of St. Louis Park Ordinance: _____________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________ SIGNATURE: ______________________________________________________ Date: SIGNATURE: ______________________________________________________ Date: STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) SS. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged and signed before me this ______ day of ___________________, 2011 by ________________________________ and _________________________________. Applicant Name Applicant Name ________________________________________ Notary Seal Notary Public Mail form and $25 processing fee to: City of St. Louis Park - City Clerk 5005 Minnetonka Blvd St. Louis Park, MN 55416 Forms must be complete along with notarized signatures prior to processing. Once process is complete, information will be mailed to the address on this form. Please allow 10 working days for processing. Questions? Contact the City Clerk at 952-928-2840 or nstroth@stlouispark.org OFFICE USE ONLY Date Received _____________ Effective Date _____________ City Council Meeting of January 18, 2011 (Item No. 8b) Page 8 Subject: Second Reading – Ordinance Providing for a Domestic Partner Voluntary Registration Program TERMINATION OF REGISTRATION AS A DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIP PROCESSING FEE $25 PRINT NAME: ADDRESS: CITY/STATE: _____________________________________________________ ZIP: I HEREBY TERMINATE MY REGISTRATION AS A DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIP UNDER THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF CHAPTER 5 OF THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK ORDINANCE. Signature:___________________________________________________ Date: STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) SS. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged and signed before me this _____ day of ___________________, 2011 by ________________________________. Applicant Name ________________________________________ Notary Seal Notary Public Effective 45 days after completion of this document and filed with the City Clerk. PLEASE NOTIFY THE FOLLOWING INDIVIDUAL BASED ON 5.05 (2) OF THIS TERMINATION BY CERTIFIED MAIL: PRINT NAME: ADDRESS: CITY/STATE: __________________________________________________ ZIP: 5.05 Termination of Domestic Partnership. Domestic partnership registration terminates when the earliest of the following occurs: 1. One of the partners dies; or 2. Forty-five days after one partner sends the other partner a written notice of termination and that he or she has terminated the partnership by filing a notice with the City Clerk Mail form and $25 processing fee to: City of St. Louis Park - City Clerk 5005 Minnetonka Blvd St. Louis Park, MN 55416 Forms must be complete along with notarized signature prior to processing. Once process is complete, information will be mailed to the address on this form. Effective 45 days after completion of this document and filed with the City Clerk. Questions? Contact the City Clerk at 952)928-2840 or nstroth@stlouispark.org OFFICE USE ONLY Date Received _____________ Effective Date _____________