HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011/04/04 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - RegularAGENDA
APRIL 4, 2011
6:45 p.m. SPECIAL STUDY SESSION – Council Chambers
Discussion Items
1. 6:45 p.m. 2011 Valuation Report
Written Reports
2. Bidding and Construction / Project Management
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 February 22, 2011
4. Approval of Agenda
5. Reports
5a. Economic Development Authority Vendor Claims
6. Old Business
7. New Business
7a. First Amendment to the Redevelopment Contract with Wooddale Catered Living, LLC.
Recommended Action: Motion to Approve the Resolution approving the First
Amendment to the Contract for Private Redevelopment By and Between St. Louis Park
Economic Development Authority and Wooddale Catered Living, 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. Recognition of Board & Commission Members
2b. Caring Youth Day Proclamation
3. Approval of Minutes
3a. Council Workshop Minutes March 12, 2011
3b. Study Session Minutes March 14, 2011
3c. Special Study Session March 21, 2011
3d. City Council Minutes March 21, 2011
Meeting of April 4, 2011
Special Study Session, Economic Development Authority and City Council Agenda
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.)
5. Boards and Commissions -- None
6. Public Hearings -- None
7. Requests, Petitions, and Communications from the Public – None
8. Resolutions, Ordinances, Motions and Discussion Items
8a. Amend Consultant Contract - Highway 7 / Louisiana Avenue Interchange Project.
Recommended Action: Motion to Approve Amendment No. 3 to Contract 142-08 which
provides additional engineering consulting services for Phase 4 activities (Final Detail
Design) for the Highway 7 / Louisiana Avenue Interchange Project, Project No. 2012-
0100.
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 April 4, 2011
Special Study Session, 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
1618 Melrose Avenue South, St. Louis Park, MN – P.I.D. 01-117-22-44-0003
4b. Adopt Resolution authorizing the special assessment for the repair of the water service line at
4249 Ottawa Avenue South, St. Louis Park, MN - P.I.D. 07-028-24-31-0022
4c. Grant the City Manager authority to administratively approve work extras (change orders
and minor extra work) for an additional $100,000 limit for City Project 2004-1700
(Highway 7/Wooddale Interchange Project), in accordance with the City’s existing policy
4d. Approve Resolution approving Wellness Incentive Program for benefit earning staff in
2011-2012
4e. Adopt Resolution Accepting Donation to the City to support the Environmental
Coordinator’s Attendance at the 2011 International Society of Arboriculture Conference
4f. Approve for Filing Parks & Recreation Advisory Commission Minutes January 19, 2011
4g. Approve for Filing Vendor Claims
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: April 4, 2011
Agenda Item #: 1
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
2011 Valuation Report.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
No formal action required at this time. Staff will update City Council on the 2011 Valuation
Report.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable at this time. This report is intended to assist the Council in making decisions as
part of the Local Board of Appeals and Equalization process.
BACKGROUND:
The Assessing Division annually renders an opinion of valuation and classification for all parcels
of real estate in St. Louis Park. The report submitted to council on March 14 summarized the
aggregate conclusions. At this study session the assessor will present an overview and answer
questions. The presentation will review the MN property tax system, the assessment process and
the valuation picture for the community as of January 2, 2011.
Related to the report, the presentation will also cover the appeal process in preparation for the St.
Louis Park Local Board of Appeal and Equalization scheduled for April 25, 2011.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Composition of the community’s real estate valuations and corresponding tax capacity has an
impact on the budget process.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not Applicable.
Attachments: 2011 Valuation Report
Prepared by: Cory Bultema, City Assessor
Approved by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager
2011 Valuation Report
(Payable 2012 Tax Period)
Assessing Staff
General Information – 952-924-2535
Cory Bultema – City Assessor – 952-924-2536
Marty Fechner – Assessment Technician/Appraiser – 952-924-2533
Mark Hoppe – Appraiser I – 952-924-2529
Deb Lynch – Appraiser II – 952-924-2532
Bridget Nathanson – Appraiser II – 952-924-2530
Kelley Schomer – Appraiser – 952-924-2638
Contents:
Summary of the St. Louis Park 2011 Assessment Roll…… Pages 2 – 6
The Appeal Process……………………………………… Page 7
Overview of the Minnesota Property Tax System……….. Page 8
The Assessment Process………………………………….. Page 9 – 10
Special Study Session Meeting of April 4, 2011 (Item No. 1)
Subject: 2011 Valuation Report Page 2
2
Summary of the St. Louis Park 2011 Assessment Roll
The 2011 Notice of Valuation and Classification is mailed to each property owner in March. The notice
reflects the property value as of January 2, 2011 and applies to the Pay 2012 tax period. The total valuation
of the city stands at $5,248,322,200. This reflects a 1.0% “net” decline in total value versus the 2010
assessment. A comparative review is the value composition is made as follows:
Historical Composition of Assessment: 2009 Assess 2010 Assess 2011 Assess
Residential Uses 69.6% 68.3% 67.4%
Apartment Uses 9.3% 9.4% 10.1%
Commercial Uses 21.1% 22.3% 22.5%
The above reference to the assessment composition indicates a value shift from residential to apartments and
commercial-industrial uses. This is expected given the recent value trending for residential parcels which
include single-family homes, condos and townhomes. Also playing a significant role are recent redevelopment
efforts which are critical in fully built-out communities such as St. Louis Park. Further understanding of the
value composition and year-over-year trending is explored in the chart following.
Assessed market value change for dominant sectors (comparison of 2011 assessment versus 2010)
Single-Family Residential - 2.5% Static Basis versus - 2.0% with Improvements
Condominium - 4.0% Static Basis versus - 4.0% with Improvements
Townhomes - 2.4% Static Basis versus - 2.4% with Improvements
Apartments + 0.7% Static Basis versus + 3.1% with Improvements
Commercial-Industrial + 0.3% Static Basis versus + 1.1% with Improvements
St. Louis Park Total - 1.7% Static Basis versus - 1.0% with Improvements
Value change on a static basis reflects the property types in a direct comparison from one year to the next and
does not include improvement values arising from renovations and new construction. While the static basis
comparison is interesting, the value change including improvements is much more accurate in terms of
understanding the economic activity for the community. While new construction and renovations continue
in the residential sectors, they are down from past years. The apartment sector benefited from the Ellipse
(coming on-line for 2011). Continued commercial sector growth in and around the West End project as well
as other spot locations also mitigated the overall value trends.
Assessors as a rule always reference the true market… i.e. the data by which we set the assessment to mirror
what is actually happening. The following chart provides a comparative reference for St. Louis Park versus
our immediate neighbors across multiple years.
Historic Median Sale Price – includes Single-Family Homes, Condos, Townhomes, Twin homes
% Change % Change
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 from 09 from 05
St. Louis Park 230,000 233,000 233,500 226,950 212,500 213,703 + 0.6% - 7.0%
Edina 357,000 389,500 378,000 387,500 324,950 339,000 + 4.3% - 5.0%
Golden Valley 262,000 267,900 272,400 257,450 220,000 235,000 + 6.8% -10.3%
Hopkins 190,950 205,900 205,000 170,000 164,900 150,350 - 8.8% -21.3%
Minnetonka 292,000 270,000 285,000 263,500 242,000 265,000 + 9.5% - 9.2%
Source: Minneapolis Association of Realtors Sales Data (MAAR)
Special Study Session Meeting of April 4, 2011 (Item No. 1)
Subject: 2011 Valuation Report Page 3
3
The preceding chart reflects aggregate figures for all (primarily) ownership based residential uses. Viewed on a
long term, St. Louis Park has retained value in line with surrounding communities. And yet, when
contemplating the sale price trends from 2010 to 2011, our performance seems to be weakening. Why? A
number of factors are noted for your reference. They include price points, absorption of distressed properties
and the relative performance within the dominant residential use property types (single-family homes, condos,
townhomes). We will begin with two charts reviewing the performance variation in the traditional market,
the foreclosure market and short sales.
Single-Family Homes – Median Sale Price – Traditional vs Foreclosure vs Short Sale
Traditional Market Foreclosure Market Short Sale Market
2009 2010 Change 2009 2010 Change 2009 2010 Change
St. Louis Park 228,500 228,725 0.1%160,750 146,696 -8.7%165,000 180,000 9.1%
Edina 408,500 441,525 8.1%304,700 245,000 -19.6%315,000 357,250 13.4%
Golden Valley 250,000 286,000 14.4%157,613 154,000 -2.3%168,900 180,000 6.6%
Hopkins 229,845 209,900 -8.7%147,950 120,500 -18.6%194,210 165,000 -15.0%
Minnetonka 300,000 327,500 9.2%230,000 220,000 -4.3%277,500 250,000 -9.9%
Twin Cities 219,900 225,000 2.3%123,600 126,900 2.7%160,000 160,000 0.0%
Source: Minneapolis Area Association of Realtors "The Thing"
Condo & Townhomes – Median Sale Price – Traditional vs Foreclosure vs Short Sale
Traditional Market Foreclosure Market Short Sale Market
2009 2010 Change 2009 2010 Change 2009 2010 Change
St. Louis Park 163,300 180,000 10.2%102,950 83,000 -19.4%180,000 170,000 -5.6%
Edina 146,150 150,000 2.6%86,750 83,000 -4.3%97,500 116,025 19.0%
Golden Valley 169,750 205,750 21.2%78,750 125,000 58.7%68,300 50,000 -26.8%
Hopkins 151,250 115,000 -24.0%71,000 60,000 -15.5%64,000 59,950 -6.3%
Minnetonka 174,950 165,000 -5.7%110,000 110,250 0.2%130,000 115,000 -11.5%
Twin Cities 160,000 160,000 0.0%105,000 100,000 -4.8%121,000 117,000 -3.3%
Source: Minneapolis Area Association of Realtors "The Thing"
Lender mediated sales are defined as those where the property is coming out of a foreclosure and/or a “short”
sale where the financial institution is involved in the listing of the property due to the owner’s equity being
potentially negative. Across the 13 county Twin City Metro Area: the 2008 market share of these sales
represented 32% of the total transactions; in 2009 this market share increased to 43%; and in 2010 the trend
“improved” slightly to 40% of all sales.
St. Louis Park was at 17.7% for 2009 and increased to 20.0% in 2010 for year-over-year market share. In
the raw statistical sense, speaking, this is positive although the trending is worrisome. Comparative
performance, however, is important to understand. St. Louis Park ranked 21st lowest for market share of
lender mediated sales in 2009. Our rank improved to 8th lowest in 2010. The assessment is tempered by
these facts with the knowledge that we do expect the distressed market to continue into 2011 given the local
volume of sheriff sale actions during 2010, the timing associated with their absorption and the fundamental
economic factors which have improved only slightly.
We complete our review of the overall residential sector by breaking it down into two distinct categories…
low density (single-family homes) and mid-to-high density (condo-townhome).
Special Study Session Meeting of April 4, 2011 (Item No. 1)
Subject: 2011 Valuation Report Page 4
4
Single-family homes comprise over 50% of the community’s total value. Our contemplation included
the traditional sales review, on-market listings at multiple points throughout the year, accessing the MLS sale
info as well as statistics for the traditional and lender-mediated markets (monthly and quarterly updating
basis), quintile inspections which focused on the northwest environs of the city and, of course, new
construction and renovation permit reviews.
We are seeing a distinct market reaction where the quality properties are retaining their value much better
than those with lesser fundamental quality or unique attributes (such as wooded lots and advantageous views).
Review of the sale transactions from neighborhood to neighborhood for the 2011 assessment was reasonably
tight… the dominant adjustment range was -2.0% to -3.0% and a total range between -7.6% and +1.9%
overall. Six neighborhoods were increased in the aggregate valuation sense.
The single-family residential stock remains fairly durable, in the competitive sense, versus immediately
adjacent jurisdictions which play a role in our market. Our sale count continues to be relatively healthy
although it is important to note the issue of the traditional market versus the lender mediated market. From a
valuation standpoint, assessing staff has been monitoring both the traditional sales and those of the lender
mediated (foreclosure and short sale) sub-markets extensively over the last three years.
There are forty-five (45) distinct Condominium complexes in the community with a decidedly diverse
stock in terms of structural vintage, design format (apartment conversions, lo-rise, hi-rise, row-house and
most everything in between), and a wide pricing structure ranging from 70,000 per unit to over 500,000 per
unit. This sub-market exhibited very complex movements in 2009 and 2010 with valuations based on both
sales and on-market listings within, as well as between, each competitively ranked complex. The total
complex valuations moved in a range of -0.2% to -11.5% with both market forces and intra-complex issues
taken into consideration. The median adjustment was -4.0% overall.
The low end stock (generally below 90,000 per unit) has partially leveled off following a two year state of
distress with the general economy, foreclosures, short sales and physical issues associated with an aging stock.
This segment of the SLP universe was adjusted on a significant percentage basis for the 2010 assessment. For
the 2011 assessment many complexes are stabilizing and we tempered valuation adjustments relative to a)
review of each complex and b) market evidence that a floor value of 70,000 exists in this price niche.
The mid-range stock fared reasonably well with many individual unit movements approaching zero. This
market segment seems to be performing well for the 2011 assessment and comprises a majority of the St.
Louis Park units (average unit value at 143,024). The upper stock, generally defined as 200,000+ values,
came down in most cases with a few specific complexes of more recent construction showing signs of
increased foreclosure and short sales. This is a distinct reversal of the 2010 assessment where the strongest
performers were the newer projects which dominate the mid-to-upper price brackets.
There are eighteen (18) distinct Townhome complexes in the community. About one-half of them are
relatively small with less than 20 units in the complex. The other half are predominantly in the 20-70 unit
bracket with just a few larger complexes. In general, the same market forces are at play in this niche as that of
the condos with several mitigating factors. They include: a higher unit value to begin with (average unit
value at 182,305) which seems to be more economically durable; also it is our perception that the physical
designs tend to be less problematic albeit with some exceptions; and the rate of lender mediated transactions
Special Study Session Meeting of April 4, 2011 (Item No. 1)
Subject: 2011 Valuation Report Page 5
5
and on-market offerings tends to be less dramatic. Complex movements tended to be in the 0% to – 8.2%
with the median adjustment at – 2.4% for the 2011 assessment.
The Apartment sector has exhibited the least value change over the past few years. This is partially due to
one project (Camerata) coming on-line in 2009 and another (Ellipse) complete in 2011 along with a slightly
increasing market for the 2011 assessment. Traditionally speaking, the apartment market normally performs
in a reverse image of the lower pricing brackets of the owner-occupied residential market. We note, however,
that this historic performance parameter has ceased to be reliable due to the pricing influence arising from the
foreclosure market forces in single-family homes, condos and townhomes. In terms of value change, the
smaller properties (fewer than 10 units) were reduced by 0.4% as this niche is small investor grade which is
again heavily influenced by competition in the single-family, condo and townhome foreclosure sub-markets.
The remainder of the apartment stock increased in value by 1.0% net of improvements.
The Commercial and Industrial properties were the strongest over the past three years in terms of value
growth albeit in contrast to relatively weak residential and apartment sectors. It is important to realize that
these properties comprise about 5% of our total parcel count while accounting for 22.5% of the total value
and, most importantly, 35.5% of the total tax capacity for the 2010 assessment. The following table gives
some background on performance over time:
Commercial & Industrial Valuation Change: 2009-to-2010 & 2010-to-2011
2009 to 2010 2010 to 2011
Dominant Use Categories Static Gross Static Gross
Restaurant & Grocery -5.7% 12.8% -0.6% -0.6%
Hotel & Motel -16.8% 3.5% +7.9% +7.9%
Office (All Types) -2.1% -0.2% -1.9% -1.5%
Retail (Free Standing, Big Box and Multi-Tenant) -5.6% 17.2% -2.5% +0.3%
Industrial -3.3% -2.1% -0.9% -0.6%
Total Commercial & Industrial -5.0% 1.9% +0.3% +1.1%
As can be surmised in reviewing the trends above, raw statistics can be very misleading. As noted previously,
the static value change reflects the direct comparison of the existing properties from one year to the next. The
gross change includes the value of renovations and new construction. For commercial and industrial use
properties, especially for “mature” communities, continuous redevelopment is vital to long term
health. St. Louis Park has been remarkably fortunate in this regard.
As can be seen above, the city’s commercial-industrial value actually increased for both the 2010 and 2011
assessment periods. These value increases are largely attributed to the West End development project along
with smaller developments interspersed throughout the community. When the analysis turns to the existing
stock, however, the picture is decidedly less optimistic.
The commercial-industrial markets clearly began a decline in 2008 throughout the metro area. The
fundamental economic forces leading to that decline can be summarized as jobs, the availability of financing
and slowing absorption of newer construction stock following years of robust growth.
Special Study Session Meeting of April 4, 2011 (Item No. 1)
Subject: 2011 Valuation Report Page 6
6
In terms of the dominant use categories, office buildings are a major value component of the total stock. The
trending has been for increasing vacant space throughout the west metro which is well illustrated by recent
reports showing rates of 14.6% vacant one year ago increasing to 17.3% currently. Vacant and “shadow”
space are forecasted to stabilize in the short term and likely to lead to flat or nominal change in rental rates
across the class A and B stock while the Class C stock is already at reduced rates.
Another dominant use category of significant note is that of retail. While retail has struggled in the metro
market, in this respect the west sector has a relatively low vacancy rate currently under 10%. Given the scale
of the West End development, however, it has been noted that vacancies have rippled throughout the
community as many owners have contacted the assessing office to report that existing tenants are requesting
renegotiated leases in the middle of their terms. We do not expect any significant positive movement in this
sector and have set the assessment accordingly.
We close our review with the industrial market. We have reviewed the overall market and taken a more
conservative approach given the state of the economy. Industrial, as its own sub-market, was reduced for the
2010 assessment by 2.1% and reduced again for the 2011 assessment by 0.6% as we locally equalized
properties and very few valuations moved more than a few percentage points in either direction.
Special Study Session Meeting of April 4, 2011 (Item No. 1)
Subject: 2011 Valuation Report Page 7
7
The Appeal Process
We receive inquiries and questions about market value, the assessment process and how the property tax
system operates throughout the year. An open dialogue between staff and the property owner is a key aspect
of the mass appraisal system. We recognize that some properties receive statistic-based adjustments to market
value and the assessing staff welcomes an opportunity to individually re-verify property attributes which are of
public record. We also re-examine properties in cases where there is doubt over the accuracy of our records.
A very large majority of property owners’ concerns can be resolved through this informal review.
In portraying the ongoing real estate “crisis,” many major media outlets fail to recognize that there are
significant nuances to real estate submarkets. The benchmark that is consistently cited by the media is that
average sales prices or sale volumes are rapidly declining, and they make no reference to the performance of
the various submarkets whether it is nationally or locally. For example, the residential foreclosure and short
sale market phenomenon has occupied bold headlines for much of 2008, 2009 and 2010. Yet when we
closely review the sub-markets it is clear that our local market is performing at a much more stable pace than
is the norm. Also on the residential front, the applicability and accuracy of sources such as Case-Shiller and
Zillow have been found to be frequently inaccurate in local context.
Two important points are stressed in the informal and formal appeal processes:
1. By statute the assessing staff utilizes the traditional market in setting valuations. We do not
disregard the impact of the distressed sale sub-market, but we do not utilize these sales as
comparables when traditional sales exist. This is not only by legal precedent but also good
appraisal methodology… we are seeing a marked increase in poor quality fee appraisals using
distressed sales which clearly do not understand the nuances of our market.
2. Appeals on the basis of comparative assessment are not valid at the Local Board level. By
appealing on this basis, the property owner is essentially asking for a complete reassessment of the
entire community. Market transactions set the market. Comparative assessment analysis (referred
to as “equality” in assessor-speak) is handled through a very well defined process at the tax court
level. Equality is judged by the actual market performance over the sales study period and the
Minnesota Department of Revenue publishes these reports annually.
Where there is evidence a property has been incorrectly valued, we will review and adjust the assessed market
value. Where we cannot have a meeting of the minds with the property owner, the appeal process is well
defined and offers multiple opportunities for re-valuation. In addition to informal review, the appeal process
is summarized as follows:
1. Local Board of Appeal and Equalization – The Local Board is scheduled to convene on April 25 with a
likely re-convene date of May 9, 2011. Staff serves as the respondent in this setting and will again provide
complete information regarding each property that is the subject of appeal. This process is greatly improved if
property owners contact the Assessing division in advance of the meeting if they intend to make an appeal so
that we may educate them on how to prepare their appeal.
2. County Board of Review – Property owners may appeal the decision of the Local Board of Review to the
County Board of Review which meets on June 13, 2011. An application to appeal at the County level is
required by May 25 and we routinely inform all Local Board appellants of these time frames.
3. Tax Court – Property owners may appeal directly to the Minnesota State Tax Court. Petitions regarding
the 2011 Assessment may be filed until April 30, 2012.
Special Study Session Meeting of April 4, 2011 (Item No. 1)
Subject: 2011 Valuation Report Page 8
8
Overview of the Minnesota Property Tax System
Minnesota law establishes a specific process and time line for the entire property tax system, including the
assessment of property. The system is summarized as follows:
1. All real property is valued at market value annually and classified according to usage. In addition there
are a multitude of sub-classifications and credits which are administratively updated.
2. State law defines how the value and class rate are translated into tax capacity as well as refinements for
subsidies and credits (e.g. homestead, veteran exclusion, limited market value, etc.).
3. Budgets for each taxing jurisdiction, which include decisions on the use of various funding sources, are
set annually. Funding sources include the property tax levy, voter approved market value referendums,
bonding, special assessments and other sources such as user fees.
4. The total property tax levy is divided by the total capacity of each jurisdiction (city, county, school
district and others) to determine the total levy extension multiplier. The respective multiplier for each
jurisdiction is applied to each individual property to calculate property taxes. It is essential to
understand that the property tax “rate” is a math equation as used in the Minnesota system.
The Assessing function deals with the first step above as staff renders an opinion of market value and
classification annually for property tax purposes of 17,000+ parcels in St. Louis Park. The conversion of value
and class into tax capacity is also subject to refinements for the sub-classifications and credits as set by the
legislature. The assessment of all properties must be made in compliance with standards established by the
Minnesota Department of Revenue and Minnesota Statutes.
Market value is defined in Minnesota Statute 272.03 subd 8 as:
The usual selling price at the place where the property to which the term is applied shall be at the time of
assessment; being the price which could be obtained at a private sale or an auction sale, if it is determined by
the assessor that the price from the auction sale represents an arm's-length transaction. The price obtained at
a forced sale shall not be considered (emphasis added).
Market value is well described as a moving target. Market supply/demand, interest rates, general economic
conditions and seasonal cycles all play a significant role over time. The Minnesota property tax system
accommodates these issues by requiring an annual opinion of value as of January 2nd. The assessing staff
monitors the sales activity throughout the assessment period and adjusts the valuation of each property in
order to reflect market conditions.
Classification of the property use is also defined by Minnesota statute. The rationale for this requirement is
that the Minnesota property tax system applies differing classification rates in determining how the value is
translated into tax capacity. The following table presents a summary of the dominant property types and their
associated class rates:
Base Homestead Non-Homestead e.g. Tax Capacity at Taxable Values
Property Type Values Base Over-Base Base Over-Base 250,000 500,000 1,000,000
Comm & Industrial 150,000 N/A N/A 1.50% 2.00% 4,250 9,250 19,250
Residential * 500,000 1.00% 1.25% 1.00% 1.25% 2,500 5,000 11,250
As can be seen above, the class system greatly favors residential properties in terms of the base tax capacity rate
which is used in the tax calculation process. This difference widens further as commercial properties are
subject to additional state based levies for education while residential properties are reduced by subsidy factors
such as the market value homestead credit. Voter approved referenda are market value based so all properties
are taxed equally on each dollar of property value.
Special Study Session Meeting of April 4, 2011 (Item No. 1)
Subject: 2011 Valuation Report Page 9
9
The Assessment Process
Parcel Review and Valuation
The purpose of the assessment process is to annually render an accurate and equitable opinion of market value
of each parcel of property. Doing so requires current information about the properties being assessed and the
local real estate market. In addition to the economic market forces at work, the individual property location,
use and physical characteristics play a significant role in the valuation. The St. Louis Park Assessing division
maintains a record of every property in the city including its size, location, physical characteristics and
condition.
The Minnesota property tax system requires periodic inspections. The current cycle of inspection is on a five
year rotating schedule which may be altered due to physical change of the property (renovations, remodeling,
additions and damage). Approximately 20% (or a quintile) of all properties are physically reviewed each year.
This does not mean that all properties have an interior inspection which may be precluded by scheduling
difficulties or an owner’s preference. The goal of periodic and interim inspections is to assess the
characteristics and corresponding market value of each property as closely as possible versus the property’s
competitive position.
It is important to know that the valuation process for residential properties in the State of Minnesota is based
on mass appraisal. In years past, St. Louis Park and other cities used trending factors to revalue all the
properties (approximately 80%) not in the quintile districts that are physically reviewed each year. Today the
valuations are modeled by the use of a computer assisted mass appraisal (CAMA) methodology. To
summarize, the physical characteristics for each property are maintained in a large data base which calculates
the individual valuations based upon the location, style and physical characteristics for each property with
annual adjustments made to the data tables to mirror market performance based on competitive properties
that have sold during the comparison time period.
The mass appraisal process is different from the individual appraisal system used by banks, mortgage
companies and others. The mass appraisal system used in St. Louis Park involves the comparison of thousands
of properties with the actual residential market transactions from the same neighborhood, and market sales of
the same quality and type of property throughout the city. New houses, additions and remodeling are valued
based on their characteristics and the value impact of the improvement.
Having the local assessment system operate effectively also requires as much information about the local real
estate market as possible. The Assessing division makes a record of all property sales using the Certificate of
Real Estate Value (CRV) filed at Hennepin County for each property sale. This information is frequently
augmented with sales information obtained regularly from the Multiple Listing Service (MLS) and other
sources, including follow-up re-inspections in the case where the sale price indicates that we may have
imperfect information.
In all cases, the sales information collected by the Assessing division is closely scrutinized. Evidence suggesting
anything but an arms-length transaction (a forced sale, foreclosure, a sale to a relative, etc.) results in the sales
information being excluded from the market value comparison. This is important as the market information
constitutes the measurable database for the statistical comparisons necessary to make the property assessment.
Special Study Session Meeting of April 4, 2011 (Item No. 1)
Subject: 2011 Valuation Report Page 10
10
Assessment Statistics
The two most common methods of measuring the quality and equity of assessed values are those of the
median ratio and coefficient of dispersion (COD). Simply put, the ratio is the measure of the assessed value
divided by the sale price of a closed arm’s length transaction. An example: a home assessed at $380,000 sells
for $400,000, the sales ratio is 95.0% (380,000 / 400,000).
The median ratio is the exact mid-point of all ratios where ½ of the sales are above and ½ below that ratio.
While the Minnesota Department of Revenue standard of acceptable performance ranges from 90% to 105%,
most jurisdictions are wary of approaching the 100% mark on a mass appraisal basis. The target ratio has
been around 95% for many years to accommodate the fact that the median ratio, by its nature, is the mid-
point. This is well illustrated by the bell curve chart below.
The COD reflects the quality and equity of the assessment as it measures the dispersion from the midpoint, or
median. The more closely the assessed values are grouped around the midpoint, the more equitable the
assessment. Lower COD’s indicate that the individual ratios are closely distributed near the median. In terms of
accepted standards, a COD for residential properties around 10.0 is good. The COD standard for commercial,
industrial and apartment properties is higher at 15.0 as these properties are more unique in value attributes.
The 2011 assessment is statistically broken down as follows:
Property Classification Median Ratio Coefficient of Dispersion
Commercial-Industrial 93.0 11.9 8 Qualified Sales
Apartments 96.5 (County) 0.0 1 Qualified Sale
Residential (Single-Family) 95.4 4.2 304 Qualified Sales
Condominiums 94.4 8.3 74 Qualified Sales
Townhomes 95.1 7.4 16 Qualified Sales
As can be seen above, the going-in 2011 ratio compliance is statistically sound. The sales period being
referenced is the state mandated sales study of October 2009 through September 2010. Our analysis has also
taken into account transactions in the period from October 2010 through December 2010 given the current
market forces at play. Slight variations around the target ratio have been made to reflect market conditions as
of the assessment date and the ratio has been time adjusted on a preliminary basis. The MN Department of
Revenue provides final time adjusted figures approximately eighteen months after the assessment is completed
which is utilized in the tax court process.
Median
100.0%
Median
95.0%
95 97.5 102.5 105 90 92.5 97.5 100
Special Study Session Meeting of April 4, 2011 (Item No. 1)
Subject: 2011 Valuation Report Page 11
Meeting Date: April 4, 2011
Agenda Item #: 2
Regular Meeting: Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Bidding and Construction / Project Management.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
None - the purpose of this discussion is to provide Council additional information requested at
the January 24, 2011 Study Session and to inform Council of actions taken as directed at that
same Study Session.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Do the actions taken below address Council concerns raised at the last two Study Sessions? If
not, what else would Council like staff to further address?
BACKGROUND:
History
During 2010, the City Council developed a priority list of six items to be discussed at future
study sessions of which this item was one. Discussion of topic item began at the September 20,
2010 Study Session and was continued at the January 24, 2011 Study Session (report attached).
At the January study session, City Attorney, Tom Scott, answered various legal questions about
the bidding and construction processes. During the discussion Council made several requests of
staff:
1. requested information regarding best value bidding
2. suggested that a mediation requirement be included in city contracts
3. suggested that additional contract language be considered to minimize our liability
associated with actions (or lack of actions) of utility companies
4. suggested that the city consider requiring or encouraging the use of smaller, minority or
women-owned businesses
Current
Staff followed up on the Council requests made at the January 24th Study Session and is pleased
to report:
1. information on best value contracting has been attached to this report
2. provisions have been added to city contracts requiring mediation prior to commencement
of legal proceedings related to claims
3. provisions have been added to city contracts to further protect the city from contractor
claims associated with utility unknowns or delays
Special Study Session Meeting of April 4, 2011 (Item No. 2) Page 2
Subject: Bidding and Construction / Project Management
4. According to the City Attorney, establishing mandatory disadvantaged, minority, or small
business enterprise contracting requirements or goals would require an analysis of
historical public contracting practices in St. Louis Park to establish a basis for any set
aside requirement to address past practices of discrimination. The outcome of such a
study would determine whether any mandatory requirements would be legally defensible.
Staff is not aware of any suburban cities in Minnesota that have initiated such a set aside
program. Staff, with the assistance of the City Attorney, has added to both the instruction
to bidders and city contracts language stating that contractors are to provide
Disadvantaged Business Enterprises (DBEs), as defined in 49 C.F.R. Part 26, and other
small businesses the maximum feasible opportunity to participate in city contracts.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
None.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
None.
Attachments: Excerpt from Study Session Report, January 24, 2011 – Item No. 3
Best Value Contracting, March 10, 2009
Prepared by: Michael P. Rardin, Public Works Director
Reviewed by: Tom Scott, City Attorney
Cindy Walsh, Parks and Recreation Director
Brian Hoffman, Inspections Director
Approved by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager
Special Study Session Meeting of April 4, 2011 (Item No. 2) Page 3
Subject: Bidding and Construction / Project Management
Excerpt From Study Session of January 24, 2011 - Item No. 3
TITLE:
Bidding and Construction / Project Management.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
None - the purpose of this discussion is to provide Council with basic information on public
sector project development, bidding, and construction management processes; and, answer
questions raised by Council at the September 20, 2010 study session.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Are there additional topics or areas relating to public sector bidding and construction/project
management that the City Council would like staff to research and discuss further at a future
study session?
BACKGROUND:
The City Council has developed a priority list of 6 items to be discussed at future study sessions.
Staff is working to bring these discussion items to Council the first quarter of 2011. The list
includes:
1. Construction/Project Management – January 24th
2. Review of Policies - Expenses that are City vs. Property Owner or Combination -
February
3. Storm Water/Surface water Management – session held January 10th
4. BN Bridge Replacement
5. City Council Meeting Audience Norms/Rules
6. Reilly Tar 101
History on Construction/Project Management
1. At the regular meeting held on September 7, 2010, Council expressed an interest in
discussing bidding and construction / project management. At the Study Session held on
September 20, 2010, Council provided staff with a long list of questions they would like
answered plus requested staff provide them with a basic background on project
management at a future Study Session.
Basic Project Development / Management Information
The following outline presents the basic phases associated with project management from
conception through construction to the operational phase:
1. Planning - significant policy involvement, target date set, budget and scope
conceptualization; visioning, policy, and planning skills utilized during this project phase.
develop project charter (determine - project mgr, mission, scope, unknowns, risks)
develop project management plan (determine - goals/success factors, scope, schedule,
budget, roles/responsibilities/coordination, risk analysis/mgmt, quality control
process, change mgmt process, project delivery method)
2. Design - less policy involvement, scope is defined, and budget defined, but subject to
change; technical mgmt skills utilized during this project phase.
Special Study Session Meeting of April 4, 2011 (Item No. 2) Page 4
Subject: Bidding and Construction / Project Management
Excerpt From Study Session of January 24, 2011 - Item No. 3
3. Construction - little to no policy involvement, scope and schedule defined by contract
documents, and budget (for the most part) defined by contracts; construction mgmt skills
utilized during this project phase.
bid / contracting process
contractor management
change / claims management
health and safety
completion and acceptance
4. Closeout - final project documentation completed and filed, financial reconciliation and
invoicing / assessing, O&M manuals, staff training, as-builts, and project review /
critique; technical and financial mgmt skills utilized during this project phase.
5. O & M - facility / asset ownership and use.
Basic Project Components / Variables
The following project components or variables seem to be inherent in all projects and of most
significant value to most projects. Basic management theory implies that it is possible to control
only two of the following three variables - time, cost, and quality. Basic project management
theory expands that to five variables - schedule, budget, quality, risk, and scope. Generally
speaking, three or possibly four of these variables are controlled at the expense of the other(s).
1. schedule (time)
2. budget (cost)
3. quality (quality)
4. risk
5. scope
Council Questions from the September Study Session
Following is the list of questions from the September 20 Study Session Council requested be
answered:
Authority Questions:
1. Do we need to use Mn/DOT to oversee projects?
Answer: no
2. What is the City role or responsibility on other agency projects?
Answer: as a stakeholder we have input that should be considered; beyond that, only as
otherwise mutually agreed to. Agencies are required to comply with our ordinances, etc
as specified by statute.
3. How far can the City push a project when it is being managed by another government
entity?
Answer: only as allowed in number 2 above.
4. What is the role of a project engineer?
Answer: the preferred role would be the Engineer decides all questions regarding:
(a) quality and acceptability of materials furnished and work performed
(b) manner of performance and rate of progress of the work
(c) interpretation of the Plans, Specifications, and Special Provisions
Special Study Session Meeting of April 4, 2011 (Item No. 2) Page 5
Subject: Bidding and Construction / Project Management
Excerpt From Study Session of January 24, 2011 - Item No. 3
(d) measurement, control of quantities, and the amount of any deductions or
adjustments to be made in payment
(e) acceptable fulfillment of all Contract provisions on the part of the contractor
5. What is Mn/DOT’s role and responsibility when they act as the project engineer?
Answer: as owner, they perform as in number 4 above. When the city is the owner, they
act as our agent (such as on the Hwy 7 / Wooddale project) where they simply represent
us as the same as a consultant would.
6. What is the role of City staff in terms of monitoring?
Answer: City staff monitor projects City daily and will fulfill project engineer duties to
the extent authorized by Council.
7. What is a “change order” and at what level does it become a change order instead of the
ordinary course of doing business?
Answer: generally a change order results from either a decision by the city to change the
scope of the project or an increase in the contractor’s work due to a concealed or
unknown condition or claimed breach by the city of its contract obligations. A change
order can involve an increase or decrease in the contract amount or a change to the time
to complete the contract, or both. Whether something is a change order versus an
additional cost or time delay that is part of the contractor’s risk depends on the particular
contract language and the facts of each particular circumstance.
8. What is the approval process for a change order?
Answer: The City Manger has been authorized by Council to approve change orders up
to a cumulative total of $100,000; after that, Council approval is required. The City
Manager has also been authorized by Council to approve time extensions or minor
changes that do not affect the scope of the contract (see attachments - City Change Order
Procedure and Parks and Recreation Department bids and change orders).
9. How can the City limit liability for change orders that it does not initiate?
Answer: to be answered / discussed at the study session.
10. Can we eliminate, ignore, or refuse change orders we do not like?
Answer: to be answered / discussed at the study session.
11. Should a problem arise, when and how is the Council notified to assure there is no time
lapse?
Answer: sometimes not at all, other times within hours via the City Manager. This
should be discussed further to determine Council’s desire to be involved in contract or
project change decisions.
12. When do private utilities have responsibility and what is their role and responsibility?
Answer: generally, private utility companies are obligated to move their facilities located
in city right of way at their cost when they interfere with the project. Timely utility
relocations are a constant problem for cities.
Special Study Session Meeting of April 4, 2011 (Item No. 2) Page 6
Subject: Bidding and Construction / Project Management
Excerpt From Study Session of January 24, 2011 - Item No. 3
Bidding Questions:
13. Information on the contractor’s experience, background, ability to come in at cost, and if
they have been sued. How is the lowest responsible bidder vetted by staff?
Answer: required bid submittals are reviewed which include legal requirements,
contractor designated personnel, contractor designated equipment, contractor designated
subcontractors along with known past construction experience in City or other agencies.
14. What is the statutory definition of “lowest and responsible bidder?”
Answer: Courts have interpreted the responsibility of bidders to mean financial
responsibility, integrity, skill, and the likelihood of performing faithful and satisfactory
work.
15. What rights and responsibilities does the Council have under State law to reject bids,
accept a bid, or rebid the project?
Answer: City must award to lowest responsible bidder; city can reject all bids and rebid a
project.
16. What questions should be asked when the low bid is substantially lower than
competitors?
Answer: to be answered / discussed at the study session.
Contract / Specification Requirement Questions:
1. What options are there for mandatory inclusion of alternate dispute resolution (ADR) to
bring parties to the table?
Answer: City has complete control over what type, if any, of mandatory Alternative
Dispute Resolution (ADR) process is included in the contract. Typically, city does not
include a binding arbitration provision in the contact specifications. This can be
discussed further.
2. Can we include diversity language for women and minorities?
Answer: The City does support this type of statement. On June 7, 2010, the City Council
adopted resolution 10-060 supporting minority-owned business, women’s business
enterprises and small business. The City of St. Louis Park will provide information to,
support and encourage contracting, professional services and purchasing with such
agencies. Typically, very few, if any, local agencies require further tracking systems and
requirements since it is a complex and costly endeavor. This can be discussed further.
Design Questions:
1. Do projects always consider the issues of pedestrian and bicyclist access and safety?
Answer: yes.
Special Study Session Meeting of April 4, 2011 (Item No. 2) Page 7
Subject: Bidding and Construction / Project Management
Excerpt From Study Session of January 24, 2011 - Item No. 3
Performance Questions:
1. What is the general process used by staff to arrive at a cost estimate?
Answer: project engineer expertise along with the project design / components and
specification requirements (schedule, quality, risk assignment, and scope / magnitude).
The attached example project estimate will be discussed at the study session.
2. Can staff provide a summary of recent projects in terms of estimated costs, low bid, and
final costs?
Answer: please see attachment “Project History”
3. Can staff provide a summary of past bids comparing low bid amounts to next higher bid
amounts to understand impact of change orders?
Answer: please see attachment “Project History”
Planning Questions:
1. When should the City hire a construction manager or use independent reviews to help
assess what should happen and what it should cost?
Answer: when staff recommends based on workload or expertise needed to deliver a
specific project.
Other Questions:
1. Can staff provide information on processes that have worked well in the past?
Answer: more specifics are required to be able to answer this question. This can be
discussed at the study session.
2. What tools have been used in the past and what are the benefits of those tools and
approaches? What has worked well and not worked well?
Answer: more specifics are required to be able to answer this question. This can be
discussed at the study session.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
None.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
None.
Attachments: Project History - Public Works and Inspections
Project History - Parks and Recreation
City Change Order Procedure
Parks and Recreation Department bids and change orders
Example Project Estimate - Public Works
Prepared by: Mike Rardin, Public Works Director
Tom Scott, City Attorney
Reviewed by: Cindy Walsh, Parks and Recreation Director
Brian Hoffman, Inspections Director
Approved by: Nancy Deno Gohman, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
Special Study Session Meeting of April 4, 2011 (Item No. 2) Page 8
Subject: Bidding and Construction / Project Management
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
BEST VALUE CONTRACTING
Presented by: Thomas M. Scott
March 10, 2009
Best value contracting is a procurement method that considers price
and performance criteria.
Alternative to awarding contract to lowest responsible bidder based
upon competitive sealed bids.
Limited to contracts for construction, alteration, repair or maintenance
work.
More subjective selection process than awards based on the lowest
responsible bid.
Allows contractors that emphasize quality and skill over price to better
compete.
Use Request for Proposal (RFP) rather than Request for Bid (RFB)
RFP must state relative weight of price and other selection criteria,
including the relative weight of any interview with contractor.
Contract award must be made to contractor offering the best value
applying the weighted criteria as set forth in the RFP.
City employees and consultants retained by City to prepare or
evaluate RFPs must be trained by State Department of
Administration or “through other training.”
Limited to one project or 20 percent of projects for each of first three
fiscal years in which best value contracting is used by the City.
Special Study Session Meeting of April 4, 2011 (Item No. 2) Page 9
Subject: Bidding and Construction / Project Management
Performance criteria may include, but not limited to, the following:
(1) the quality of the vendor’s or contractor’s performance on
previous projects;
(2) the timeliness of the vendor’s or contractor’s performance on
previous projects;
(3) the level of customer satisfaction with the vendor’s or
contractor’s performance on previous projects;
(4) the vendor’s or contractor’s record of performing previous
projects on budget and ability to minimize cost overruns;
(5) the vendor’s or contractor’s ability to minimize change orders;
(6) the vendor’s or contractor’s ability to prepare appropriate
project plans;
(7) the vendor’s or contractor’s technical capacities;
(8) the individual qualifications of the contractor’s key personnel; or
(9) the vendor’s or contractor’s ability to assess and minimize risks.
“Performance on previous projects” does not include the exercise or
assertion of a person’s legal rights.
Meeting Date: April 4, 2011
Agenda Item #: 3a
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
FEBRUARY 22, 2011
1. Call to Order
President Finkelstein called the meeting to order at 7:21 p.m.
Commissioners present: President Phil Finkelstein, Jeff Jacobs, Julia Ross, Susan Sanger, and
Sue Santa.
Commissioners absent: Commissioners Anne Mavity and Paul Omodt.
Staff present: Executive Director (Mr. Harmening), Director of Community Development (Mr.
Locke), Economic Development Coordinator (Mr. Hunt), and Recording Secretary (Ms.
Hughes).
2. Roll Call
3. Approval of Minutes
3a. Economic Development Authority Minutes of January 18, 2011
The minutes were approved as presented.
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 5-0 (Commissioners Mavity and Omodt absent).
6. Old Business - None
7. New Business
7a. Issuance of Two TIF Revenue Notes Totaling $1,450,000 – Ellipse on
Excelsior Project
EDA Resolution No. 11-02
EDA Meeting of April 4, 2011 (Item No. 3a) Page 2
Subject: EDA Meeting Minutes of February 22, 2011
Mr. Hunt presented the staff report and advised that the City entered into a
redevelopment contract with Ellipse on Excelsior LLC in which the EDA agreed to
reimburse the redeveloper for certain Public Redevelopment Costs including remediation
costs up to a maximum of $1,450,000. He stated that in order to reimburse the Public
Redevelopment Costs, the EDA agreed to issue a TIF note in the maximum amount of
$1,230,000 pursuant to a “Series A Note” and in order to reimburse the environmental
costs, the EDA agreed to issue a TIF note in the maximum amount of $220,000 pursuant
to a “Series B Note”. He indicated that staff has reviewed and verified that the
Redeveloper incurred more than sufficient Redevelopment and Environmental Costs
within the project to warrant the issuance of the Series A and Series B Notes. These
Notes will be secured by available tax increment generated from the improved properties
and represent a “pay as you go” approach. He stated that the Notes will bear 6% interest
with a term of 13 years. Consistent with the City’s TIF policy, Fiscal Disparities will be
taken from inside the District and a 5% administrative fee will be charged to the District.
He added that in order to secure the Notes, the Redeveloper signed a Minimum
Assessment Agreement that the minimum market value of the project will be $17.6
million as of January 2, 2012. He noted one minor change to the proposed resolution
which indicates that both Notes will be structured so as to be paid off simultaneously as
opposed to paying off the “A Note” first and then paying off the “B Note”. He noted that
this change will make it easier to administer the Notes and does not affect the term of the
Notes as to when they are ultimately retired. He added that the modified resolution
reflects this approach and therefore removes the payment schedule and simply states that
85% of the “A Note” and 14% of the “B Note” will be paid off simultaneously over the
course of the next 13 years.
It was moved by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Santa, to adopt EDA
Resolution No. 11-02 Awarding the Sale of, and Providing the Form, Terms, Covenants
and Directions for the Issuance of its Tax Increment Revenue Notes to Ellipse on
Excelsior LLC.
The motion passed 5-0 (Commissioners Mavity and Omodt absent).
8. Communications - None
9. Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 7:28 p.m.
______________________________________ ______________________________________
Secretary President
Meeting Date: April 4, 2011
Agenda Item #: 5a
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other: Vendor Claims
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Vendor Claims.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to accept for filing Vendor Claims for the period February 12, 2011 through March 25,
2011.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
BACKGROUND:
The Finance Department prepares this report for council’s review.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
None.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
Attachments: Vendor Claims
Prepared by: Connie Neubeck, Account Clerk
3/28/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 6:30:56R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
1Page -Council Check Summary
3/25/2011 -2/12/2011
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
2,636.65DEVELOPMENT FUND OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESCAMERATA LLC
2,636.65
883.63DEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESCAMPBELL KNUTSON PROF ASSOC
883.63
69.477015 WALKER-REYNOLDS WELD PROP HEATING GASCENTERPOINT ENERGY
69.47
298.43DEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A TRAININGCITIZENS INDEPENDENT BANK
298.43
745.00DEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPSEDAM
745.00
441.07CSM TIF DIST G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESEHLERS & ASSOCIATES INC
441.07MILL CITY G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
441.07PARK COMMONS G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
441.08EDGEWOOD TIF DIST G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
441.07WOLFE LAKE COMMERCIAL TIF G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
441.07AQUILA COMMONS G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
441.07HWY 7 BUSINESS CENTER G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
3,087.50
5,000.00HRA LEVY G&A LEGAL SERVICESFRANZEN & ASSOCIATES LLC
5,000.00
40.06DEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESGOTHBERG, BRIDGET
40.06
3,848.50DEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESHOISINGTON KOEGLER GROUP INC
3,848.50
480.58GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET CLEARING ACCOUNTKENNEDY & GRAVEN
1,012.50HARD COAT LEGAL SERVICES
1,112.157015 WALKER-REYNOLDS WELD PROP LEGAL SERVICES
387.00HSTI G&A LEGAL SERVICES
2,630.40DEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A LEGAL SERVICES
5,622.63
3,000.00HRA LEVY G&A LEGAL SERVICESLOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP
3,000.00
EDA Meeting of April 4, 2011 (Item No. 5a)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 2
3/28/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 6:30:56R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
2Page -Council Check Summary
3/25/2011 -2/12/2011
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
437.37DEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A TELEPHONENEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS
437.37
7.21DEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A OFFICE SUPPLIESOFFICE DEPOT
7.21
9,333.00DEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESSEARCHWIDE LLC
9,333.00
12,237.31DEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A PLANNINGSEH
12,237.31
4,157.49DEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A PLANNINGSRF CONSULTING GROUP INC
4,157.49
82.897015 WALKER-REYNOLDS WELD PROP WATER SERVICEST LOUIS PARK, CITY OF
82.89
225.00DEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPSULI-THE URBRAN LAND INSTITUTE
225.00
Report Totals 51,712.14
EDA Meeting of April 4, 2011 (Item No. 5a)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 3
Meeting Date: April 4, 2011
Agenda Item #: 7a
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:
First Amendment to the Redevelopment Contract with Wooddale Catered Living, LLC.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to Approve the Resolution approving the First Amendment to the Contract for Private
Redevelopment By and Between St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority and
Wooddale Catered Living, LLC.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the EDA support the proposed extensions to the Redevelopment Contract with Wooddale
Catered Living as specified in the proposed First Amendment?
BACKGROUND:
For several years Wooddale Catered Living (Greco Development and “Redeveloper) has been
working with the EDA and the City on a major, mixed-use redevelopment to be located at the
southeast corner of Wooddale Ave and 36th Street West across from the future light rail station.
As envisioned, Wooddale Pointe would entail a five story building consisting of a 115 unit senior
assisted living complex on the second through fifth floors, 10,000 SF of retail on the first floor
and a small outdoor public gathering area that would include public art.
A major amendment to the PUD for the proposed project was approved on November 16, 2009
and a second Redevelopment Contract between the EDA and Greco was approved June 7, 2010.
For nearly a year and a half Greco has been working on securing project financing through the
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Unfortunately, the time to secure the
financing commitment from HUD took much longer than anticipated. As it now stands, the
Redeveloper expects to close on its financing with HUD in mid-May and hopefully break ground
in June. Construction will take 12–14 months, so Greco anticipates completing the project in late
summer 2012.
Terms of the Proposed First Amendment
According to Section 4.3 in the Redevelopment Contract, the Wooddale Point project was to
have commenced by December 31, 2010 and be completed by March 31, 2012. In order for the
Redeveloper to avoid being found in default, the project’s required completion schedule needs to
be adjusted through an amendment. Under the proposed First Amendment the project’s required
commencement date is extended six months to July 1, 2011 and its required completion date is
similarly extended to September 30, 2012. Likewise a similar shift in the dates within the
Minimum Assessment Agreement referenced in Section 6.3 is proposed.
Section 3.4 of the Contract is also proposed to be amended. Under this Section the Redeveloper
was to reimburse the EDA for the $15,975 application fee it paid to Hennepin County when it
applied for a Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Grant related to the project. Late last fall, the
County chose to return this application fee to the EDA. Therefore, the language stipulating that
EDA Meeting of April 4, 2011 (Item No. 7a) Page 2
Subject: First Amendment to the Redevelopment Contract with Wooddale Catered Living, LLC
the Redeveloper reimburse the EDA for this fee is no longer necessary and is proposed to be
removed.
Extension of TOD Grant
On a related note, the EDA’s TOD grant contract with Hennepin County requires that the
Wooddale Pointe project be completed by December 31, 2011. Given the project’s revised time
schedule it is clear that it will be well under way but will not be completed by that time. Staff
therefore administratively requested that the EDA’s contract with the County be extended until
December 31, 2012 so as to allow for project’s full completion and remain in compliance under
the contract.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
The proposed contract extensions reflect the realistic schedules for completing Wooddale Pointe.
The construction delay means that the Redeveloper’s reimbursement of TIF-eligible expenses
related to the project will likewise be delayed.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Wooddale Pointe is consistent with the City’s vision to be a community of diverse, high quality
housing permeated with arts and cultural activities with many gathering places.
Attachments: Resolution of Approval
First Amendment to Redevelopment Contract w/ Wooddale Catered Living,
LLC
Prepared by: Greg Hunt, Economic Development Coordinator
Reviewed by: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Nancy Deno, EDA Deputy Executive Director and Deputy City Manager
EDA Meeting of April 4, 2011 (Item No. 7a) Page 3
Subject: First Amendment to the Redevelopment Contract with Wooddale Catered Living, LLC
EDA RESOLUTION NO. 11-_____
RESOLUTION APPROVING A FIRST AMENDMENT OF A
CONTRACT FOR PRIVATE REDEVELOPMENT BY AND
BETWEEN THE ST. LOUIS PARK ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND WOODDALE
CATERED LIVING LLC
BE IT RESOLVED BY the Board of Commissioners ("Board") of the St. Louis Park
Economic Development Authority, St. Louis Park, Minnesota (the "Authority") as follows:
Section 1. Recitals.
1.01. The Authority currently administers Redevelopment Project No. 1 (the “Project”),
pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.001 to 469.047 (the “HRA Act”) within an area
located in the City, and has approved a Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Elmwood Village
Tax Increment Financing District pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.174 to 469.1791 (the
“TIF Act”), made up of certain property within the Project (the “Redevelopment Property”) to be
developed by Wooddale Catered Living, LLC (the “Redeveloper”).
1.02. The Authority and Wooddale Catered Living, LLC executed a certain Contract for
Private Redevelopment, dated as of June 7, 2010 (the “Agreement”).
1.03. The Authority pledged Available Tax Increment (as defined in the Agreement) to
pay or reimburse certain costs incurred by the Redeveloper in connection with the development of a
mixed-use retail and residential housing facility on the Redevelopment Property (the “Minimum
Improvements”).
1.04. The parties have negotiated and propose to execute a First Amendment to the
Agreement (the “First Amendment”) to modify certain provisions of the Agreement, notably the
dates of commencement and completion of construction of the Minimum Improvements.
Section 2. First Amendment Approved.
2.01. The First Amendment as presented to the Board is hereby in all respects
approved, 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 document by
such officials shall be conclusive evidence of approval. The President and Executive Director
are hereby authorized to execute, on behalf of the Authority, the First Amendment.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by Economic Development
Authority April 4, 2011
Executive Director President
Attest
Secretary
EDA Meeting of April 4, 2011 (Item No. 7a) Page 4
Subject: First Amendment to the Redevelopment Contract with Wooddale Catered Living, LLC
FIRST AMENDMENT TO CONTRACT FOR PRIVATE REDEVELOPMENT
This agreement is made as of ____________, 2011, by and between the ST. LOUIS
PARK ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, a public body politic and corporate (the
“Authority”) and WOODDALE CATERED LIVING, LLC, a Minnesota limited partnership (the
“Redeveloper”).
WHEREAS, the Authority and Wooddale Catered Living, LLC entered into that certain
Contract for Private Redevelopment dated as of June 7, 2010 (the “Contract”) providing, among
other things, for the construction of certain improvements (the “Minimum Improvements”) on
the property legally described within the Contract (the “Development Property”); and
WHEREAS, the parties have determined to extend the dates of commencement and
completion of construction of the Minimum Improvements and modify certain other provisions
of the Contract.
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:
1. Amendment to Section 3.3(c) of the Contract. Section 3.3(c) of the Contract is
amended as follows:
(c) Termination of right to Note. All conditions for delivery of the Note must be met
by no later than March 31 September 30, 2012, which date is less than ten (10) years after the
date of certification of the TIF District by the County and complies with the so-called five-year
rule under Section 469.1763, subd. 3(c) of the TIF Act, as amended during the 2009 State
legislative session. If the conditions for delivery of the Note are not satisfied by the date
described in this paragraph, the City has no further obligations under this Section 3.3.
2. Amendment to Section 3.4 of the Contract. Section 3.4 of the Contract is
amended as follows:
(b) The Authority will pay or reimburse the Redeveloper for Grant-Eligible Costs from
and to the extent of the grant proceeds, less the amount described in Section 3.4(c) hereof, in
accordance with the terms of the grant agreement between the Authority and County and the terms
of this section. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary herein, if Grant-Eligible Costs exceed the
amount to be reimbursed under this Section, such excess shall be the sole responsibility of the
Redeveloper (except to the extent reimbursable under the Note).
(c) The Redeveloper agrees and acknowledges that the Authority has paid a grant
application fee of $15,975 to the County (the “Grant Application Fee”) in connection with the
Grant, and that the Authority shall retain the first $15,975 in grant proceeds disbursed for Grant-
Eligible Costs from the County as reimbursement for the Grant Application Fee.
3. Amendment to Section 4.3(a) of the Contract. Section 4.3(a) of the Contract is
amended as follows:
(a) Subject to Unavoidable Delays, the Redeveloper must commence construction of the
Minimum Improvements by December 31, 2010 July 1, 2011, and substantially complete
construction of the Minimum Improvements by March 31, 2012 September 30, 2012. All work
EDA Meeting of April 4, 2011 (Item No. 7a) Page 5
Subject: First Amendment to the Redevelopment Contract with Wooddale Catered Living, LLC
with respect to the Minimum Improvements to be constructed on the Redevelopment Property
shall be in substantial conformity with the Construction Plans as submitted by the Redeveloper
and approved by the Authority.
4. Amendment to Section 6.3(a) of the Contract. Section 6.3(a) of the Contract is
amended as follows:
(a) Upon execution of this Agreement, the Redeveloper shall, with the Authority, execute
an Assessment Agreement pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.177, subd. 8, specifying
an assessor's minimum Market Value for the Redevelopment Property and Minimum
Improvements constructed thereon. The amount of the minimum Market Value shall be
$2,050,000 as of January 2, 2011 2012, and $13,650,000 as of January 2, 2012 2013 and each
January 2 thereafter, notwithstanding the status of construction by such dates.
5. Miscellaneous. Except as amended by this Amendment, the Contract shall remain
in full force and effect. Upon execution, Redeveloper shall reimburse the Authority for all out-of
pocket-costs incurred by the Authority in connection with negotiating, drafting and approval of
this Amendment.
(Remainder of this page intentionally left blank.)
EDA Meeting of April 4, 2011 (Item No. 7a) Page 6
Subject: First Amendment to the Redevelopment Contract with Wooddale Catered Living, LLC
Dated this _____ day of April, 2011.
Wooddale Catered Living, LLC St. Louis Park Economic Development
Authority
By:______________________________ By:___________________________
Its ________________ Its President
By:___________________________
Its Executive Director
THIS DOCUMENT DRAFTED BY:
Kennedy & Graven, Chartered
470 US Bank Plaza
200 South Sixth Street
Minneapolis, Mn 55402
(612) 337-9300
Meeting Date: April 4, 2011
Agenda Item #: 2a
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other: Proclamation
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Recognition of Board and Commission Members.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
1. The Mayor is asked to read the attached Proclamation honoring all volunteer commissioners
in observance of National Volunteer Week.
2. The Mayor is asked to recognize and present Certificates of Appreciation to the following
past outgoing board and commission members:
• Mohamed Abdi – Human Rights Commission (Feb. 2007 – June 2010)
• Jonathan Awasom – Human Rights Commission (March 2009 – Oct. 2010)
• Joan Barnes – Police Advisory Commission ( Dec. 2007 – Jan. 2011)
• Steve Fillbrandt – Housing Authority (March 2004 – June 2010)
• Bill Gavzy – Human Rights Commission (Feb. 2008 - March 2011)
• James Kelly – Charter Commission (Oct. 2006 – Oct. 2010)
• Sharon Lyon – Human Rights Commission (Dec. 2006 – Dec. 2010)
• Robert Malooly – Community Education Advisory Commission (Feb. 2008 – Sept. 2010)
• Vladimir Sivriver – Human Rights Commission ( Feb. 2008 – Dec. 2010)
• Pat Swiderski – Police Advisory Commission ( Dec. 2006 – Nov. 2010)
• Shelley Weier – Human Rights Commission (March 2005 – Dec. 2010)
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Not Applicable.
BACKGROUND:
The City of St. Louis Park has had a long-standing tradition of citizen involvement in all aspects
of city government. Citizen involvement improves the quality and responsiveness of public
decision making. An opportunity to do that is by serving as a commissioner on one of the City’s
nine boards and commissions – Board of Zoning Appeals, Charter Commission, Fire Civil
Service Commission, Human Rights Commission, Housing Authority, Parks and Recreation
Advisory Commission, Planning Commission, Police Advisory Commission, and the
Telecommunications Advisory Commission. In addition, the City Council also appoints citizen
representatives for positions on the Bassett Creek Water Management Commission and the
Community Education Advisory Commission.
It is because of the past commitment of citizen representatives on these various boards and
commissions that staff requests City Council honor these individuals for their past service to the
community and recognize the contributions they have made.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
None.
City Council Meeting of April 4, 2011 (Item No. 2a) Page 2
Subject: Recognition of Board and Commission Members
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Recognizing citizen representatives who volunteer as commissioners to the various Boards and
Commissions is consistent with the Council’s Strategic Direction of being a connected and
engaged community.
Attachments: Proclamation
Prepared by: Nancy Stroth, City Clerk
Approved by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager
City Council Meeting of April 4, 2011 (Item No. 2a) Page 3
Subject: Recognition of Board and Commission Members
PROCLAMATION
Honoring Board and Commission Volunteers
WHEREAS, various Boards and Commissions serve in an advisory capacity to
the City of St. Louis Park City Council and are conferred various degrees of decision
making power of the city; and
WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park welcomes its citizens to share their talents
and perspectives by serving on an advisory board or commission;
WHEREAS, citizen involvement enhances the quality and responsiveness of
public decision making and the progress of the community; and
WHEREAS, Board and Commission volunteers are an essential piece of the Park
vital to our future as a caring and productive community; and integral to our vision of
becoming a connected and engaged community; and
WHEREAS, Board and Commission volunteers continue to selflessly give their
compassion, time, and commitment to better their community and the lives of others; and
WHEREAS, Board and Commission volunteers continue to make a difference
through their hard work, dedication and outstanding contributions to the City of St. Louis
Park; and
WHEREAS, in observance of National Volunteer Week, a special tribute is due to
honor our valuable volunteers who serve as a board or commission member.
NOW THEREFORE, let it be known that the Mayor and City Council of the
City of St. Louis Park do hereby commemorate volunteer members of St. Louis Park
Boards & Commissions for their dedicated service and outstanding contributions to
improving the quality of lives of others, and supporting our community and its people.
WHEREFORE, I set my hand and cause the
Great Seal of the City of St. Louis Park to be
affixed this 4th day of April, 2011.
______________________________________
Jeff Jacobs, Mayor
Meeting Date: April 4, 2011
Agenda Item #: 2b
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other: Proclamation
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Caring Youth Day Proclamation.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
The Mayor is asked to present the Caring Youth Day Proclamation. This is the 22nd year that
the community has held this celebration to recognize young people for their caring spirit and
concern for others. Bob Ramsey from the Caring Youth Recognition Committee will be in
attendance at the meeting to accept the proclamation.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
None.
BACKGROUND:
Twenty-two years ago Roland and Doris Larson, members of Westwood Lutheran Church, had
an idea to recognize young people for their spirit of caring and concern for others.
The Larson’s created this event at Westwood Lutheran Church out of the Larson’s lifelong
passion for youth ministry and caring. The following year, the Larson’s brought the idea to the
St. Louis Park community. In 1990, the Youth Development Committee under the leadership of
Beth Johnson held the first community-wide Caring Youth Recognition where 16 honorees were
named. Since then, the event has evolved and is truly community owned. Today, representatives
from several different community organizations plan the Caring Youth event. To recognize the
Larson’s continuous support, the honor was renamed in 2011 “The Roland and Doris Larson
Caring Youth Recognition”.
To date, 410 youth have been honored through St. Louis Park’s Caring Youth Recognition.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
None.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Bringing together people to recognize our youth is consistent with the Strategic Direction of
being a connected and engaged community.
Attachments: Proclamation
Prepared by: Debbie Fischer, Office Assistant
Approved by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager
City Council Meeting of April 4, 2011 (Item No. 2b) Page 2
Subject: Caring Youth Day Proclamation
PROCLAMATION
CARING YOUTH DAY
WHEREAS, St. Louis Park will be hosting it’s 22nd annual community wide
celebration to recognize young people for their caring spirit and concern for others; and
WHEREAS, Caring Youth Day was the creation of Westwood Lutheran Church
and Roland and Doris Larson and is now planned by representatives of several
community organizations; and
WHEREAS, to date 410 youth have been honored through St. Louis Park’s
Caring Youth Recognition; and
WHEREAS, these young people are important assets to our community who
inspire all of us through their altruistic actions; and
WHEREAS, these additional young people who have involved themselves
unselfishly in a cause or situation that benefits others will be recognized on April 26,
2011;
NOW THEREFORE, let it be known that the Mayor and City Council of the
City of St. Louis Park do hereby proclaim April 26, 2011, to be Caring Youth Day in St.
Louis Park and call upon all citizens in our Community to join in the salute of these
special young people.
WHEREFORE, I set my hand and cause the Great
Seal of the City of St. Louis Park to be affixed this 4th
day of April, 2011.
_______________________________
Jeff Jacobs, Mayor
Meeting Date: April 4, 2011
Agenda Item #: 3a
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
City Council Workshop Session
West End Community Room
1621 West End Boulevard
March 12, 2011
The workshop session was called to order at 9:02 a.m. by Mayor Jeff Jacobs.
Councilmembers present: Mayor Jeff Jacobs, Sue Sanger, Julia Ross, Sue Santa, and Anne
Mavity.
Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), Deputy City Manager (Ms. Deno), Organizational
Development Coordinator (Ms. Gothberg). Director of Public Works (Mr. Rardin) and Director
of Parks and Recreation (Ms. Walsh) attended in the afternoon.
Others present: Jim Brimeyer and Karen Black attended in the morning.
City Council Workshop Session
1. Carver Governance Model
Jim Brimeyer presented the model and an overview of how it works. Council learned the
history of the Carver Governance Model and when it came to the City of St. Louis Park.
They shared comments, asked questions, and discussed ways it worked for the City of St.
Louis Park.
2. City Council Communications
City Council Communications worked with Karen Black, Communications Facilitator, on
the most effective way of communicating as a council, especially when making difficult
and divided decisions.
3. Louisiana Ave & Hwy 7 Interchange
Mike Rardin was present to update and answer questions. Council direction was to
continue moving forward while continuing to check on the financial conditions.
4. Civic/Recreational Facilities
Cindy Walsh was present to lead the discussion and answer questions. Council direction
was to continue to get feedback through the Decisions Resources Community Survey,
analyze that data along with the web opinion survey, and then determine the exact next
steps. They also indicated that when this is done, they would like to visit a variety of
other cities and see what they have done in this area.
The workshop was adjourned at 3:27 p.m.
____________________________________ ______________________________________
Nancy Stroth, City Clerk Jeff Jacobs, Mayor
Meeting Date: April 4, 2011
Agenda Item #: 3b
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
MARCH 14, 2011
The meeting convened at 6:30 p.m.
Councilmembers present: Mayor Jeff Jacobs (arrived at 7:06 p.m.), Anne Mavity (arrived at
6:34 p.m.), Paul Omodt, Julia Ross, Susan Sanger, and Sue Santa.
Councilmembers absent: Phil Finkelstein.
Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), Director of Community Development (Mr.
Locke), Planning/Zoning Supervisor (Ms. McMonigal), Economic Development Coordinator
(Mr. Hunt), City Engineer (Mr. Brink), Organizational Development Coordinator (Ms.
Gothberg), Communications Coordinator (Mr. Zwilling), and Recording Secretary (Ms. Hughes).
Guests: Bill Morris and Peter Leatherman (Decision Resources) and April Crockett (Mn/DOT).
1. Future Study Session Agenda Planning – March 28, 2011
Mr. Harmening presented the proposed study session agenda for March 28th.
2. Residential Survey Update
Ms. Gothberg presented the staff report and proposed city-wide residential survey. She then
introduced Mr. Bill Morris and Mr. Peter Leatherman of Decision Resources.
Councilmember Mavity requested that the definition of “move-up housing” be clarified or more
specific because some residents may not have a clear understanding of the term as used in the
survey.
Mayor Pro Tem Sanger asked how the City can be sure it will obtain an accurate, randomized
sample of the community given the fact that many people have given up their land-lines and use
only cell phones.
Mr. Morris advised that the survey will generate a random sample and the cell phone only group
represents only about 3-4% of residents in the metro area. He noted that one group not taken
into account may be the person who has moved into the area and is using a cell phone with a
different area code.
Mayor Pro Tem Sanger expressed concern that the survey might miss this distinct demographic
group, representing new arrivals, and asked if this will change the kind of results obtained.
Mr. Morris stated that the survey will track the age of respondents and added that only 10-15%
of respondents will fall into the cell phone only demographic.
Councilmember Ross suggested that the questions related to city services include a question
regarding sidewalks.
City Council Meeting of April 4, 2011 (Item 3b) Page 2
Subject: Study Session Minutes of March 14, 2011
Councilmember Mavity suggested that the questions related to city services include a question
regarding garbage and recycling.
It was the consensus of the City Council to include a question related to city services regarding
plowing and overall maintenance of sidewalks.
Councilmember Ross suggested that question numbers 51, 52, or 53 ask respondents if they were
treated with respect and dignity by City staff.
Mayor Pro Tem Sanger suggested that the question regarding a respondent’s last contact with the
City be clarified to indicate whether that contact was with City staff and/or the Mayor or
Councilmembers.
It was the consensus of the City Council to add an additional question that asks if a respondent
has contacted the Mayor or City Council in the past year.
Councilmember Mavity stated that if a resident answers “no” to question number 76 regarding
the appearance of housing, that response is not necessarily a negative response and may simply
mean that the appearance of the neighborhood has been maintained.
Mr. Morris suggested that if the response to this question is no, a follow-up question be asked to
inquire whether they feel the appearance in their neighborhood has declined or been maintained.
He added that question numbers 83 and 85 are intended to probe for specifics regarding the
overall appearance of residential neighborhoods.
Mayor Pro Tem Sanger suggested that question number 88 include not only the reference to
work and include school or other places.
Councilmember Mavity stated that question number 92 should reference the Met Council and the
City as well as Hennepin County, and should be used in the present tense rather than stating
“may pursue.” She added that question numbers 92 and 93 may not be needed.
Councilmember Ross asked if question number 107 related to additional amenities should
specify indoor or outdoor amenities.
Ms. Gothberg indicated that the question regarding civic amenities should reference an indoor
facility.
Councilmember Mavity noted that trails and sidewalks ranked high on the community recreation
survey results and suggested that these items be included in the list of amenities.
Mr. Leatherman suggested including a reference to “expansion of trails and sidewalks.”
Councilmember Santa suggested that the reference to an artificial turf sports field be changed to
an artificial turf athletic field.
Mayor Pro Tem Sanger requested that question number 108 be amended to include a reference to
user fees.
City Council Meeting of April 4, 2011 (Item 3b) Page 3
Subject: Study Session Minutes of March 14, 2011
Councilmember Mavity suggested that question number 109 be clarified to include a reference to
civic groups, school groups, and/or neighborhood groups.
It was the consensus of the City Council to eliminate question number 111.
Councilmember Ross suggested that question number 112 include a reference to the manner in
which residents receive information about emergencies, e.g., snow emergencies or parking
restrictions.
It was the consensus of the City Council to add an additional question after question number 113
that asks residents how they want to receive information as it relates to emergencies.
Councilmember Santa suggested that question number 121 include a reference to the Lenox
Center.
It was the consensus of the City Council to amend question number 122 to state “what is your
primary source of information about the Saint Louis Park Public Schools, if any?”
Councilmember Mavity expressed concern regarding question number 133 and asked how this
information will be used in the survey.
It was the consensus of the City Council to amend question number 133 to state “for
demographic purposes, I need to ask your gender.”
Mayor Jacobs arrived at 7:06 p.m. and presided over the remainder of the meeting.
3. Proposed St. Louis Park Open to Business Program
Mr. Hunt presented the staff report and advised that the Metropolitan Consortium of Community
Developers (MCCD) provides various services to small businesses, including technical
assistance to those running or owning a small business as well as providing assistance to
entrepreneurs starting a business. He then introduced Mr. Rob Smolund, Enterprise Facilitator,
and Mr. Jim Roth, Executive Director for MCCD.
Mr. Roth stated that MCCD is an association of 43 nonprofit community developers working
across the Twin Cities metro area working to improve housing and economic opportunity. He
indicated that MCCD recently established the Open to Business program which provides small
business assistance services under contract with cities in Hennepin County. He added that
MCCD has assembled a strong staff with complementary expertise around technical, regulatory,
and financing issues, and is also active in local issues affecting affordable housing.
Mr. Smolund stated that he works on a one-on-one basis with people wanting to open or expand
a business and to provide an objective third party view on their business. He indicated the Open
to Business program is intended to be branded as a city’s program and would provide a valuable
resource for small businesses. He added that MCCD provides and/or facilitates approximately
fifty loans per year.
City Council Meeting of April 4, 2011 (Item 3b) Page 4
Subject: Study Session Minutes of March 14, 2011
Councilmember Mavity requested further information regarding performance measures. She
also requested further information regarding goals and targeted dollar amounts for loans that
could be expected in the City.
Mr. Roth stated that the Open to Business program represents a much more proactive effort to
reach businesses in the City. He indicated that MCCD is heavily involved in working with
businesses along the Central Corridor.
Mr. Locke indicated that the Economic Development staff feels the Open to Business program
represents a worthwhile investment and would provide great long-term value for the City by
helping its businesses, especially small businesses, get the resources they need and will serve to
improve the City’s tax base. He noted that any contract with MCCD would be for a one year
term.
Councilmember Omodt stated that any program entered into by the City should not
unintentionally discriminate against franchise businesses.
Councilmember Ross stated that the Open to Business program makes sense, particularly around
leveraging small business loans for minority and women owned businesses.
It was the consensus of the City Council to direct staff to proceed with a contract with the
MCCD to bring its Open to Business program to St. Louis Park.
4. Southwest Light Rail Transit and Freight Rail Studies Update
Mr. Harmening presented the staff report.
Ms. McMonigal provided an update regarding the Southwest Light Rail Transit (SWLRT)
project and discussed the integration of the SWLRT Community Works and SWLRT
Management Committee. She also discussed the SWLRT and Community Works funding
sources as well as the project schedule, stating that the DEIS is in the process of being completed
and preliminary engineering will begin in May or June with funding provided by the Federal
government. She indicated that the Hennepin County Community Works Steering Committee is
currently working on setting its vision and goals and staff is creating a work plan that includes
parking and access, which have been identified as high priority.
Councilmember Santa asked if the project has gone through all the required budgetary processes
and if the money has been allocated for the project.
Ms. McMonigal replied that not all of the funding has been allocated and the FTA has not yet
agreed to the next step in the project, which is giving approval to begin Preliminary Engineering
(PE). She added that the project is high on the FTA list in terms of its performance for cost and
ridership.
Mr. Harmening pointed out that funding for these types of projects is approved on an incremental
basis.
Mr. Bill James, Management Committee Member, stated that there are currently 23 new FTA
start projects of $1 billion or more and the SWLRT and Central Corridor represent two of those
23 projects. He advised that the FTA reviewed the preliminary risk assessment of timelines,
City Council Meeting of April 4, 2011 (Item 3b) Page 5
Subject: Study Session Minutes of March 14, 2011
funding, and scope for SWLRT in February; since that time, the FTA had further questions
regarding whether the project has accounted for increases in the cost of steel, concrete, etc. and
that information is being reviewed now by the FTA. He stated it is expected that the FTA will
sign off in April and release the project in May to enter the preliminary engineering phase.
Ms. McMonigal reviewed next steps, including continued committee work, Beltline station area
planning phase II, and DEIS comments. She advised that two grants were received from the Met
Council for work related to Beltline, one for surface water planning and the other for design
guidelines. She indicated when the DEIS is finalized, a meeting with Council will be scheduled
during April, May, or June.
Mayor Jacobs stated that he felt it was important to include a forum to obtain public comment
and provide residents with an opportunity to review the DEIS documents.
Mr. Locke provided an update on the freight rail studies, stating that the EAW from the MNS
study is still underway and the expectation is that this study will be issued in May. He noted that
the EAW will obtain sign-off from Mn/DOT as the responsible governmental unit (RGU), the
EAW will be published, and a thirty day comment period will follow. He added that a public
meeting would fall within that thirty day timeframe during which comments will be accepted and
become part of the public record. He explained that it is the RGU’s responsibility to make a
judgment after the thirty day comment period as to the adequacy of the EAW and whether
further environmental analysis is necessary or if changes should be made to the EAW based on
comments.
Mr. Harmening stated it is important to keep in mind that the EAW process does not choose a
route, but rather is intended to identify potential environmental impacts, mitigation measures,
and determine whether further environmental review is required. He noted that those decisions
are made by the RGU and the City may submit official comments.
Councilmember Omodt expressed frustration that the City, the City Council, and the community
have not been heard and felt it was critical to have a public process in place whereby residents
are involved and can comment on the issue.
Councilmember Sanger agreed and stated the City needs to have its own process and hold a
public meeting in which Mr. McKenzie’s findings regarding the viability of the Kenilworth
corridor for both light rail and freight rail are presented along with the freight rail alternatives
comparison. She indicated that once public input is received, the information should be tied into
the EAW process that the County is running before the County finishes its process. She
expressed concern that the County is going to rush through the process before the City gets its
portion done.
Mr. Locke presented a proposed process for community involvement on the freight rail
comparison, including a study session on May 9th to discuss the draft comparison analysis by
SEH, community meetings the week of May 16th to provide an opportunity for residents to ask
question and make comments, a study session on May 23rd to receive a freight rail update, a
public hearing on June 6th regarding freight rail routing comments, a study session on June 13th
to include a policy discussion on freight rail, and a Council meeting on June 20th to adopt a
resolution updating Council’s freight rail policy.
City Council Meeting of April 4, 2011 (Item 3b) Page 6
Subject: Study Session Minutes of March 14, 2011
Councilmember Sanger stated that she felt the schedule needs to be moved up by approximately
three weeks because the City needs to have its position statement and information ready to give
to the County long before the County finishes the EAW.
It was the consensus of the City Council to have this process completed earlier if possible, in
order that comments may be submitted during the EAW comment period.
The Council discussed the items identified as measures for providing a comparison of freight rail
in the Kenilworth corridor with freight rail on the MNS line.
Councilmember Santa requested that water quality, water ponding, and soil impacts be included.
Mr. Locke stated that this list is intended to focus on those things that are most critical from the
City’s perspective. He indicated that the EAW will address wetland and water quality for MNS
but these items will not be addressed as it relates to the Kenilworth corridor because there is no
EAW in process for Kenilworth.
The Council discussed the desired process for obtaining public input.
Councilmember Sanger proposed that the Council hold one or more listening sessions for
residents attended by all Councilmembers and staff, and that minutes be prepared so that the
information can be compiled and disseminated. She stated that the City already has a starting list
of mitigation issues and the City should be able to compile its own list of necessary mitigation
measures and use it as part of the public meeting process to see if anything has been missed. She
added that Safety in the Park could provide assistance in compiling a robust list of mitigation
measures.
Mr. Harmening summarized the desired outcomes that Council is looking for, including making
sure the City has a comprehensive comment document on the EAW, developing an updated
formal position on the routing options, and involving the public in those two processes by
holding two public meetings, and Council desires to have all of this done by the end of May
based on the premise that the EAW process will run from May 1 to June 1.
Mr. Locke suggested that the week of May 16th community meetings could be used for
listening/comment sessions and presentation by SEH of its comparison findings and the June 6th
public hearing could be another listening/comment session. He agreed to adjust the meeting
schedule to fit everything in before the end of May.
Councilmember Sanger requested assistance from SEH with regard to the noise and vibration
technical information and to explain this issue so people understand how that impacts mitigation.
She also requested assistance regarding the County’s definition and use of the terms
“betterment” and “mitigation.” She explained that the County has previously talked about
mitigation it would not offer and labeled the noise and vibration question as “minor” and
everything else as “betterment” rather than mitigation. She requested information regarding who
gets to decide what constitutes “betterment” or “mitigation and the criteria being used by the
County. She stated that the measures for providing a freight rail comparison should include a
comparison of track safety or the number of curves in the track and asked that the list of
measures for comparison include safety implications. She suggested that the measures compare
the distance between a property and the center line of tracks, not just comparing the number of
homes within a certain number of feet. She requested further information regarding property to
City Council Meeting of April 4, 2011 (Item 3b) Page 7
Subject: Study Session Minutes of March 14, 2011
be acquired and who is deciding what property is acquired. She also requested that the measures
include right-of-way comparisons.
Councilmember Ross requested that comparison measure #3 include the type of institution. She
also requested that comparison measure #7 include pedestrian crossings at trails and bike trails.
Councilmember Mavity stated that a wide variety of safety issues need to be included, including
impact on car crossings and the number of cars crossing the tracks. She requested that the
comparison measures address the elimination of the wye because this represents a safety issue
and quality of life issue for the neighborhoods.
Councilmember Santa requested that the comparison measures address the number of at-grade
crossings.
Councilmember Sanger requested that the comparison measures address track elevation.
Councilmember Mavity requested that the comparison measures address lost economic
development opportunities and property values that are impacted by the trains.
5. Trunk Highway 169 Noise Wall Options
Mr. Harmening presented the staff report.
Mr. Brink discussed several options for noise abatement along Highway 169 and introduced
April Crockett, Mn/DOT West Area Engineer. He explained that Mn/DOT has scheduled
construction in 2015 of a 20’ noise wall along the east side of Highway 169 between W. 16th
Street and I-394 (Option A). He noted that the 20’ noise wall could be extended to a location
just south of W. 16th Street, but would require closure of the W. 16th Street ramp. He indicated
that Mn/DOT has also proposed to construct a visual barrier consisting of a 12’ wall in the area
located between Cedar Manor Lake and the wetland area north of W. 22nd Street (Option H). He
added that Mn/DOT is offering to construct this barrier in 2012 at no cost to the City, provided
the exit and entrance ramps to Highway 169 from W. 22nd Street, W. 22nd Lane, ad W. 23rd Street
are closed.
Councilmember Ross expressed concern regarding re-routing of traffic and the increased number
of cars on Cedar Lake Road if the W. 16th Street ramp is closed.
It was the consensus of the City Council to direct staff to pursue the public process for Option H.
6. Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission 2010 Annual Report and 2011 Work
Plan
Mr. Harmening presented the staff report.
Councilmember Mavity suggested that the Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission be
invited to meet with Council once the community survey is completed.
City Council Meeting of April 4, 2011 (Item 3b) Page 8
Subject: Study Session Minutes of March 14, 2011
Councilmember Omodt requested that staff encourage the School District to fill the School
District representative vacancy on the Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission and to
provide the School Board with suggestions for filling the vacancy.
Councilmember Sanger suggested that the Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission’s 2011
Work Plan include sidewalks and trails.
7. Communications/Meeting Check-in (Verbal)
The Council expressed congratulations to Councilmember Finkelstein on the birth of his
granddaughter.
Mr. Harmening advised that a gunshot victim was reported this afternoon in the vicinity of the
trail near Minnetonka Boulevard. He indicated that few details are available at this time but it
appears the victim was shot in Hopkins.
Councilmember Mavity noted the recent ad in the Sun Sailor encouraging tenants to join the
fight for constitutional rights.
The meeting adjourned at 10:22 p.m.
Written Reports provided and documented for recording purposes only:
8. 2011 Valuation Report
9. 2011-2012 Wellness Incentive Program
10. Federal Early Retiree Reinsurance Program (ERRP) Disbursement
11. Redevelopment Project and EDA Contract Status Report: 1st Quarter 2011
______________________________________ ______________________________________
Nancy Stroth, City Clerk Jeff Jacobs, Mayor
Meeting Date: April 4, 2011
Agenda Item #: 3c
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL STUDY SESSION
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
MARCH 21, 2011
The meeting convened at 7:00 p.m.
Councilmembers present: Mayor Pro Tem Susan Sanger, Phil Finkelstein, Anne Mavity, Paul
Omodt and Julia Ross.
Councilmembers absent: Mayor Jeff Jacobs and Councilmember Sue Santa.
Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), Director of Community Development (Mr.
Locke), Communications Coordinator (Mr. Zwilling), and Recording Secretary (Ms. Hughes).
1. Community Input Schedule for Freight Rail Studies
Mr. Harmening presented the staff report and proposed schedule for community input with
respect to the freight rail route comparison. He stated that the schedule was prepared based on
the assumption that the deadline for comments on the EAW will be June 1st. He indicated that
the schedule proposes to hold two community meetings/listening sessions during the week of
April 25th and includes five Council meetings in May in order to meet the June 1st deadline for
comments on the EAW.
Mr. Locke advised that the earliest date the EAW will be published is May 2nd and the schedule
can be adjusted if needed.
Council discussed possible dates and logistics for the community meetings/listening sessions.
It was the consensus of the City Council to hold the community meetings/listening sessions on
Wednesday, April 27th, and Thursday, April 28th, at a location to be determined.
Mr. Zwilling stated that the City cannot broadcast live from every location but the meetings
could be taped and immediately replayed on the City’s website.
Councilmember Finkelstein stated that it will be important to make sure that all residents have an
opportunity to be heard and suggested that time limits be imposed to allow everybody a chance
to voice their comments. He also suggested that residents be allowed to give their allotted time
to another resident.
Councilmember Ross suggested using whiteboards that list some of the key issues that have been
discussed and/or raised, e.g., whistle-free zones, so that if residents see this item already on the
list, they may decide they do not want or need to speak on the topic, which could serve to limit
the number of people wanting to speak at the meetings. She added this is not intended to
discourage people from speaking at the meetings, but may help to avoid having a significant
number of people speaking to the same issue.
City Council Meeting of April 4, 2011 (Item 3c) Page 2
Subject: Special Study Session Minutes of March 21, 2011
Mayor Pro Tem Sanger stated it will be useful to have handouts available at the meetings. She
also suggested having comment cards available for people to submit written comments if they do
not wish to speak at the meetings. She added that residents should also be informed that if they
speak at the first community meeting, they do not need to attend the second community meeting
to say the same thing.
It was the consensus of the City Council to utilize comment cards at the community
meetings/listening sessions.
Council discussed ground rules for running the meeting and keeping the meeting on track.
Mayor Pro Tem Sanger indicated that residents should be informed that no formal Council
decisions will be made at the community meetings/listening sessions and that the meetings are
intended to provide residents with an opportunity to be heard and for the Council to listen. She
suggested that a written list of resident questions be prepared and answers provided at a later
date.
Councilmember Omodt requested further information regarding the financially viable aspect and
who is paying for what with respect to freight rail and its impact on the City’s budget.
Other
Mr. Harmening presented a recent Real Estate Journal article that announced Wells Fargo’s
intention to move 450 jobs from its Minneapolis location to the Interchange Tower.
The meeting adjourned at 7:35 p.m.
______________________________________ ______________________________________
Nancy Stroth, City Clerk Susan Sanger, Mayor Pro Tem
Meeting Date: April 4, 2011
Agenda Item #: 3d
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
MARCH 21, 2011
1. Call to Order
Mayor Pro Tem Sanger called the meeting to order at 7:40 p.m.
Councilmembers present: Mayor Pro Tem Susan Sanger, Phil Finkelstein, Anne Mavity, Paul
Omodt, and Julia Ross.
Councilmembers absent: Mayor Jeff Jacobs and Councilmember Sue Santa.
Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), Fire Chief (Mr. Stemmer), Parks and Recreation
Director (Ms. Walsh), Community Development Director (Mr. Locke), and Recording Secretary
(Ms. Hughes).
1a. Pledge of Allegiance – Led by Girl Scouts Brownie Troop 13193
1b. Roll Call
2. Presentations
2a. St. Louis Park Girl Scouts Brownie Troop 13193 – Water Conservation
Presentation
The St. Louis Park Girl Scouts Brownie Troop 13193 presented their Take Action Project
on Water Conservation, which includes a display at the St. Louis Park Library as well as
a Home and Lawn Care Checklist Activity Sheet. Brownie Troop 13193 asked everyone
to take the quiz and sign the pledge contained on the checklist.
Mayor Pro Tem Sanger expressed the City Council’s thanks to Girl Scouts Brownie
Troop 13193 for leading the Pledge of Allegiance and for providing important
information regarding water conservation.
2b. Retirement Recognition Resolutions for Three Employees: Paul Steinhilber,
Jim Thompson, and John Altepeter
Mayor Pro Tem Sanger recited the Resolution recognizing the contributions of and
expressing appreciation to Paul Steinhilber for over thirty years of service to the City.
She also presented Mr. Steinhilber with a plaque in recognition of his years of service.
Mr. Steinhilber expressed his thanks to the City Council.
Fire Chief Stemmer expressed his thanks to Mr. Steinhilber for thirty years of dedicated
service and wished him the best in his retirement.
Mayor Pro Tem Sanger recited the Resolution recognizing the contributions of and
expressing appreciation to James Thompson for over 38 years of dedicated service.
Mayor Pro Tem Sanger recited the Resolution recognizing the contributions of and
expressing appreciation to John Altepeter for over 22 years of dedicated service.
City Council Meeting of April 4, 2011 (Item 3d) Page 2
Subject: City Council Minutes of March 21, 2011
2c. Congressman Keith Ellison Presentation
Mayor Pro Tem Sanger introduced Congressman Keith Ellison.
Congressman Ellison expressed his thanks to the Girl Scout Brownie Troop for their
presentation this evening. He also expressed his thanks to the City employees who were
honored this evening. He stated that all over the country, a generationally-defining debate
is taking place on the proper role of government. He indicated that in the course of
working through the Federal budget, those items that benefit cities are under careful
review and there will be a lot of changes being made. He congratulated the City on the
completion of the Highway 7/Wooddale Avenue project. He stated that he remains
focused on the funding for the Highway 7 and Louisiana Avenue project, adding that he
felt Federal funding for this project will be competitive and not easy to obtain, but
doable. He discussed the SWLRT project and indicated that to his knowledge, FTA
funding is being heavily scrutinized but remains a high priority. He announced that
submissions for the Congressional arts competition are due by April 1st. He stated that
the student who wins the contest will have his or her art placed in the Capitol building.
He expressed his appreciation to the Council for their service.
Councilmember Mavity stated that the City receives approximately $220,000 as part of
the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program and those funds are used for
a number of City programs, including emergency repair programs. She indicated that
these funds make a big difference in the community.
Congressman Ellison agreed and stated that these are the dollars that local governments
can use to meet their own needs. He requested that the Council consider writing him a
letter regarding the importance of the CDBG program.
Councilmember Ross requested an update regarding cost of living increases for Social
Security.
Congressman Ellison advised that a bill was offered in Congress for a $250 COLA but it
did not pass into law. He acknowledged the importance of this issue but given the budget
and economic conditions, he did not feel an increase would be forthcoming.
2d. Acceptance of Monetary Donation from St. Louis Park Rotary for the
Westwood Hills Nature Center Climbing Feature
Ms. Walsh introduced Sunrise Notary Club members Matt Shadow, Brandon Oslund,
Mike Spencer, Linda Trummer; and Noon Rotary Club members Karen Atkinson and Jay
Rasmussen.
Mr. Matt Shadow presented a donation in the amount of $15,000 to the City for the new
rock climbing feature at the Westwood Hills Nature Center. He stated that the
contribution represents a collaborative effort on the part of the Noon Rotary Club,
Sunrise Rotary Club, and the Rotary Foundation of Rotary International.
Mayor Pro Tem Sanger expressed the City Council’s gratitude for this generous donation.
City Council Meeting of April 4, 2011 (Item 3d) Page 3
Subject: City Council Minutes of March 21, 2011
Ms. Walsh stated that the rock climbing features have been on the wish list and the City
could not have done this without the Rotary’s generous donation. She indicated that it is
anticipated the rock climbing feature will be installed by the end of May.
Councilmember Finkelstein stated that the Rotary Clubs are open to men and women and
are comprised of people who live and work in the community. He indicated that the
Noon Rotary Club meets at 12:00 on Mondays at the Doubletree Hotel and the Sunrise
Rotary Club meets at 7:30 a.m. on Fridays at Vescio’s. He expressed gratitude for the
Rotary’s donation and stated he is deeply touched by the work they do in the community.
Ms. Linda Trummer stated that the Rotary is planning a community celebration to
commemorate the Rotary’s anniversary. She encouraged anyone interested in joining the
Rotary to contact the Noon Rotary Club or Sunrise Rotary Club.
3. Approval of Minutes
3a. Study Session Minutes February 28, 2011
Councilmember Mavity requested that the sixth paragraph on page 7 be revised to state
“Councilmember Mavity requested that the City provide the various commissions new
and youth commissioners with sufficient ongoing support to make sure they understand
the issues they are dealing with.”
Mayor Pro Tem Sanger requested that the second sentence of the seventh paragraph on
page 5 be revised to clarify that she, and not Ms. Rohlfing, made the statement that the
deer problem in the community is worse and that she, and not Ms. Rohlfing, encouraged
Council to become familiar with the historical management of the deer population.
The minutes were approved as amended.
3b. City Council Meeting Minutes March 7, 2011
The minutes were approved as presented.
3c. Special Study Session Minutes March 7, 2011
The minutes were approved as presented.
4. Approval of Agenda and Items on Consent Calendar
NOTE: The Consent Calendar lists those items of business which are considered to be routine
and/or which need no discussion. Consent items are acted upon by one motion. If discussion is
desired by either a Councilmember or a member of the audience, that item may be moved to an
appropriate section of the regular agenda for discussion.
4a. Designate Friedges Landscaping, Inc. as the lowest responsible bidder for the
reconstruction of the Northside Park project and authorize execution of a contract
with the firm in the amount of $711,170.93.
4b. Adopt Resolution No. 11- 036 accepting this report, establishing and ordering
Improvement Project No. 20110090, approving plans and specifications, and
authorizing advertisement for bids for the Dehumidification project in The Rec
Center East Arena.
City Council Meeting of April 4, 2011 (Item 3d) Page 4
Subject: City Council Minutes of March 21, 2011
4c. Adopt Resolution No. 11-037 to approve St. Louis Park Lions Club’s request for
placing temporary signs in the public right-of-way.
4d. Approve Resolution No. 11-038 approving disbursement of Early Retiree
Reinsurance Program (ERRP) funds to plan participants.
4e. Adopt Resolution No. 11-039 accepting a donation from the St. Louis Park Rotary
in the amount of $15,000 for a new climbing feature at Westwood Hills Nature
Center.
4f. Adopt Resolution No. 11-040 to recognize retiree Paul Steinhilber, Resolution
No. 11-041 to recognize Jim Thompson, and Resolution No. 11-042 to recognize
John Altepeter for their years of service to the City of St. Louis Park.
4g. Approve for Filing Housing Authority Minutes February 9, 2011.
4h. Approve for Filing of Vendor Claims.
It was moved by Councilmember Finkelstein, seconded by Councilmember Mavity, to
approve the Agenda and items listed on the Consent Calendar; and to waive reading of
all resolutions and ordinances.
The motion passed 5-0 (Mayor Jacobs and Councilmember Santa absent).
5. Boards and Commissions – None
6. Public Hearings – None
7. Requests, Petitions, and Communications from the Public – None
8. Resolutions, Ordinances, Motions and Discussion Items – None
9. Communications
Councilmember Finkelstein announced a wine tasting fundraiser sponsored by the Rotary
on Thursday, May 19th, at 5:00 p.m. at Excelsior and Grand. He indicated further
information is available on the Hoigaard’s website, including sign-up and/or information
on how to donate items for the silent auction. He also proudly announced the birth of his
first granddaughter, Tovah.
Mr. Harmening announced that the City will be hosting a program called “Minnesota and
the New Normal,” with U of M Economist, Tom Stinson, and State Demographer, Tom
Gillaspy, on Thursday, March 24th, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. He stated that
the program is free; interested parties are asked to preregister at
www.slpcommunityed.com.
Councilmember Finkelstein suggested that the program be videotaped.
10. Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 8:26 p.m.
______________________________________ ______________________________________
Nancy Stroth, City Clerk Susan Sanger, Mayor Pro Tem
Meeting Date: April 4, 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 1618 Melrose Avenue South.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to Adopt Resolution authorizing the special assessment for the repair of the sewer service
line at 1618 Melrose Avenue South, St. Louis Park, MN – P.I.D. 01-117-22-44-0003.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
None - The proposed action is consistent with policy previously established by the City Council.
BACKGROUND:
Ricky and Kimberley Rossow, owners of the single family residence at 1618 Melrose 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 $2,300.00.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
The City has funds in place to finance the cost of this special assessment.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
Attachments: Resolution
Prepared by: Scott Anderson, Utility Superintendent
Through: Mike Rardin, Public Works Director
Brian Swanson, Controller
Approved by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager
City Council Meeting of April 4, 2011 (Item No. 4a) Page 2
Subject: Special Assessment - Sewer Service Line Repair at 1618 Melrose Avenue South
RESOLUTION NO. 11-____
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE SPECIAL ASSESSMENT
FOR THE REPAIR OF THE SEWER SERVICE LINE AT
1618 MELROSE AVENUE SOUTH, ST. LOUIS PARK, MN
P.I.D. 01-117-22-44-0003
WHEREAS, the Property Owners at 1618 Melrose 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 1618 Melrose 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 $2,300.00.
4. The Property Owners have agreed to waive the right to a public hearing, notice and appeal
from the special assessment; whether provided by Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429, or by
other statutes, or by ordinance, City Charter, the constitution, or common law.
5. The Property Owners have agreed to pay the City for the total cost of the above
improvements through a special assessment over a ten (10) year period at the interest rate of
5.85%.
6. The Property Owners have executed an agreement with the City and all other documents
necessary to implement the repair of the sewer service line and the special assessment of all
costs associated therewith.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council April 4, 2011
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Meeting Date: April 4, 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 - Water Service Line Repair at 4249 Ottawa Avenue South.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to Adopt Resolution authorizing the special assessment for the repair of the water service
line at 4249 Ottawa Avenue South, St. Louis Park, MN - P.I.D. 07-028-24-31-0022.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
None - The proposed action is consistent with policy previously established by the City Council.
BACKGROUND:
Shawn and Valerie Tracy, owners of the single family residence at 4249 Ottawa Avenue South have
requested the City to authorize the repair of the water 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 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 owners hired a contractor and repaired the water service line in compliance with
current codes and regulations. Based on the completed work, this repair qualifies for the City’s
special assessment program. The property owners have petitioned the City to authorize the water
service line repair and special assess the cost of the repair. The total eligible cost of the repair has
been determined to be $2,595.00.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
The City has funds in place to finance the cost of this special assessment.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
Attachments: Resolution
Prepared by: Scott Anderson, Utility Superintendent
Through: Mike Rardin, Public Works Director
Brian Swanson, Controller
Approved by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager
City Council Meeting of April 4, 2011 (Item No. 4b) Page 2
Subject: Special Assessment - Water Service Line Repair at 4249 Ottawa Avenue South
RESOLUTION NO. 11-____
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE SPECIAL ASSESSMENT
FOR THE REPAIR OF THE WATER SERVICE LINE AT
4249 OTTAWA AVENUE SOUTH, ST. LOUIS PARK, MN
P.I.D. 07-028-24-31-0022
WHEREAS, the Property Owners at 4249 Ottawa Avenue South have petitioned the
City of St. Louis Park to authorize a special assessment for the repair of the water service line for
the single family residence located at 4249 Ottawa 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 water service line.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park, Minnesota, that:
1. The petition from the Property Owners requesting the approval and special assessment for
the water service line repair is hereby accepted.
2. The water service line repair that was done in conformance with the plans and specifications
approved by the Public Works Department and Department of Inspections is hereby
accepted.
3. The total cost for the repair of the water service line is accepted at $2,595.00.
4. The Property Owners have agreed to waive the right to a public hearing, notice and appeal
from the special assessment; whether provided by Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429, or by
other statutes, or by ordinance, City Charter, the constitution, or common law.
5. The Property Owners have agreed to pay the City for the total cost of the above
improvements through a special assessment over a ten (10) year period at the interest rate of
5.85%.
6. The Property Owners have executed an agreement with the City and all other documents
necessary to implement the repair of the water service line and the special assessment of all
costs associated therewith.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council April 4, 2011
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Date: April 4, 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:
Project Administration – Highway 7/Wooddale Interchange Project – Project No. 2004-1700.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to grant the City Manager authority to administratively approve work extras (change
orders and minor extra work) for an additional $100,000 limit for City Project 2004-1700
(Highway 7/Wooddale Interchange Project), in accordance with the City’s existing policy.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the City Council wish to grant the City Manager the change order authority requested?
The project will continue to be administered in accordance with the City’s existing policy.
BACKGROUND:
The City Charter states that the City Manager is the chief purchasing agent of the City and is
allowed to approve and execute contracts in compliance with State Law. The City’s internal
procedure/policy was recently updated to be in compliance with State Law, allowing the City
Manager to approve general purchasing up to a cumulative maximum of $100,000. In the event
the $100,000 amount is exceeded, City Council approval is required.
The Highway 7/Wooddale Project is substantially complete. Remaining work this coming
season essentially includes some final restoration work such as final turf restoration and
miscellaneous punch list and clean-up work related items.
The City is the project owner while construction administration is being performed by Mn/DOT.
Mn/DOT is currently updating and completing several administrative items prior to finalizing the
project this summer, including processing remaining change orders and work orders.
The City Manager is authorized to approve change orders on contracts up to a cumulative total of
$100,000. The last authorization approved by the City Council was July 6, 2010. Since that
date, a considerable amount of construction activity occurred that necessitated additional
administrative approvals. Examples of additional work items have typically included utility
adjustments, additional traffic signage, changes to materials, amounts and quantities of specific
items, etc. The change orders and additions encountered to date have been typical of most
projects, and have been addressed with the contractor by Mn/DOT with concurrence and
approval by the City in accordance with the Mn/DOT - City Cooperative Agreement, and the
City’s internal policy. Change orders and orders for additional work items and quantity
adjustments are typical for any construction project and the Highway 7/Wooddale project ($11.6
million) has been no exception other than the magnitude of the project amplifies the number
changes and associated costs beyond those of our smaller projects.
Staff has attached a Project Budget Sheet showing original estimated/budgeted project costs and
funding sources along with final estimated project costs and funding sources. In addition, staff
has attached a Change Order Summary Sheet for this project listing the work orders, change
orders, and supplemental agreements approved to date. Please note that the work and change
City Council Meeting of April 4, 2011 (Item No. 4c) Page 2
Subject: Project Administration – Highway 7-Wooddale Interchange Project – Project No. 2004-1700
orders authorized by Council and approved by the City Manager to date currently total
$196,677.69 and all approved projects currently approved by the City total $596,677.69.
Three work orders currently pending (yellow on the attached sheet) are estimated to total
$57,000. $658,816.00 has been set aside as a part of the original project budget to deal with
changes expected to occur throughout construction. Approval of this item allows the City
Manager to authorize up to an additional $100,000 for necessary changes on this project.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
None. The project continues to be constructed within the original budgeted amount, and costs
continue to be monitored in accordance with Federal (ARRA), State, and City regulations.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
Attachments: Project Budget Sheet
Change Order Summary Sheet
Prepared by: Scott Brink, City Engineer
Reviewed by: Mike Rardin, Director of Public Works
Tom Scott, City Attorney
Approved by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manger
City Council Meeting of April 4, 2011 (Item No. 4c) Page 3
Subject: Project Administration – Highway 7-Wooddale Interchange Project – Project No. 2004-1700
PROJECT BUDGET
04/04/2011
Highway 7/Wooddale Interchange Project
(Project No. 2004-1700)
Projected Project Costs
Estimate/Budget as Presented to City Council
08/03/09
Expenditures
Construction* $12,300,000
Right of Way $4,500,000
Engineering $1,300,000
Construction Engineering (Mn/DOT) $900,000
Total $19,000,000
Funding Sources
Federal (STIP) $5,885,000
ARRA (Stimulus) $3,465,000
Mn/DOT (Construction Engineering) $900,000
Local $8,750,000
Total $19,000,000
Projected Final Budget as of 04/04/11
Expenditures
Construction** $10,400,000
Right of Way *** $5,000,000
Engineering $1,650,000
Construction Engineering (Mn/DOT) $900,000
Total $17,950,000
Funding Sources
Federal (STIP) $5,325,000
ARRA (Stimulus) $3,465,000
Mn/DOT (Construction Engineering) $900,000
Local $8,260,000
Total $17,950,000
* Construction cost does not include MCES portion. MCES portion is directly reimbursed from MCES.
** Projected Construction Cost Includes Change Orders and Work Orders. Dos not include MCES
portion.
MCES portion is directly reimbursed from MCES.
*** Final Right of Way acquisition costs not yet determined (conservative estimate provided)
City Council Meeting of April 4, 2011 (Item No. 4c) Subject: Project Administration - Highway 7-Wooddale Interchange Project - Project No. 2004-1700Page 4
Meeting Date: April 4, 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:
2011-2012 Wellness Incentive Program.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to approve Resolution approving Wellness Incentive Program for benefit earning staff in
2011-2012.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does Council wish to approve the recommended Wellness Incentive Program for benefit earning
staff in 2011-2012?
BACKGROUND:
Why provide a wellness incentive? As health care costs continue to rise year after year, we have
searched for ways to keep our premiums low. Methods such as switching health care providers,
offering consumer driven health plans, creating VEBA/HRA accounts, and reducing plan options
have been implemented. At a certain point, the only remaining way to lower costs is to have
healthier employees. One way to make employees healthier is to focus on prevention.
The City of St. Louis Park has for many years offered and encouraged preventive wellness
activities such as health risk questionnaires, on-site flu vaccinations, on-site biometric screening,
free preventive medical and dental exams as a part of insurance coverage, employee assistance
programs, health and fitness discounts, and countless other health and wellness seminars,
challenges, and events.
These wellness activities have all been offered to staff on a voluntary basis with no incentive for
participating. Research shows that providing an incentive for wellness activities greatly
increases participation.
What does the program look like? The Wellness Incentive Program will encourage healthy
lifestyle activities, and staff will determine each year (if program continues) what the required
activities will be. The City Manager will have full authority for setting program criteria and
awarding the incentive to staff.
The program as presented is the first step in an ongoing and evolving wellness program.
Currently, we have presented the wellness incentive program as a one year program, but our long
term goal is to continue and improve upon the program to achieve results. Future requirements
to receive the incentive will be reviewed by staff and consultants to best align employee
behaviors to desired healthy outcomes.
The following two activities are required to receive incentive the first year of the program:
1. Certified non-smoker, or participation in a smoking cessation program. Smoking
cessation programs are available free of charge through the City’s health insurance.
City Council Meeting of April 4, 2011 (Item No. 4d) Page 2
Subject: 2011-2012 Wellness Incentive Program
2. Health Risk Assessment Questionnaire, as provided by the City (either online or on
paper). This instrument provides the employee with a health score and identifies areas in
which they may be at risk for health issues. Follow up information and counseling is
provided for those at high risk.
Additionally, employees must complete at least three of the following four activities:
1. Biometric Screen, as provided by the City. Employees are given a finger stick blood
draw and notified of their cholesterol, blood pressure, and glucose results. Follow up
literature and counseling is provided to employees who have high risk results.
2. Influenza Vaccination, as provided by the City. Employees are given a flu shot to
prevent sickness.
3. Preventive Medical Examination. Employees must complete an annual preventive exam
with their medical provider, or certify they are up to date on their medical preventive
services. Preventive medical services are provided free with the City of St. Louis Park
medical insurance.
4. Preventive Dental Examination. Employees must complete an annual preventive exam
with their dental provider, or certify they are up to date on their dental preventive
services. Preventive dental services are provided free with the City of St. Louis Park
dental insurance.
How will employees qualify for the Wellness Incentive? Benefit-eligible employees must
complete a form and certify they have completed the two required activities and at least three of
the four other eligible wellness activities in 2011 to receive the incentive in 2012.
What is the recommended incentive amount? It is recommended that the City of St. Louis Park
provide an additional $25 per month Employer Contribution to employees who successfully meet
the requirements of the Wellness Incentive Program. The $25 per month Wellness Incentive will
be provided to eligible employees in addition to the regular Employer Contribution for 2012.
The 2012 Employer Contribution amount has not yet been determined, but a recommendation of
this amount will be provided to Council (based on premium increases and budget) in fall 2011.
Other info? This program is currently offered as a one year incentive. Future incentives, if any,
will be recommended to Council after review of the first year. It is recommended that the full
Wellness Incentive amount be provided to ALL benefit earning employees (i.e., not pro-rated for
part-time employees) who successfully meet program requirements. If approved by Council,
staff will meet and confer with our union groups to offer the additional incentive.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
If approved, the Wellness Incentive amount will be reflected in the 2012 budget.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Offering a competitive benefits package helps in the recruitment and retention of connected,
engaged, and diverse staff.
Attachment: Resolution
Prepared by: Ali Fosse, HR Coordinator
Approved by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager
City Council Meeting of April 4, 2011 (Item No. 4d) Page 3
Subject: 2011-2012 Wellness Incentive Program
RESOLUTION NO. 11-____
RESOLUTION APPROVING
2011-2012 WELLNESS INCENTIVE PROGRAM
WHEREAS, the City Council has established a benefit plan that provides an effective
means for providing employee group benefits; and
WHEREAS, the City Council establishes contribution amounts for each calendar year;
and
WHEREAS, the administration of such plans will be in accordance with plan documents
as approved by the City Manager, who will also set policy and procedures for benefit level
classification and administration of plans; and
WHEREAS, organizations with healthy staff often report higher morale and
productivity, and lower absenteeism and health costs; and
WHEREAS, the City wishes to encourage and incent staff to participate in activities
designed to improve the health and wellness of our staff to reap more of the aforementioned
benefits;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park that a Wellness Incentive Program is approved as follows:
Benefit-eligible employees who successfully complete the components of the program as
determined by the City Manager in 2011 are eligible for the incentive in 2012, and
The amount of the incentive is set at $25 per month as additional Employer Contribution
in 2012. This amount is not pro-rated for part time employees (will be provided in full),
and
The City Manager has the authority to set final program criteria, determine if criteria has
been met, and has complete authority in awarding the incentive to staff.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council April 4, 2011
City Manager
Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Meeting Date: April 4, 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:
Receipt of Donation for International Society of Arboriculture Conference.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to Adopt Resolution Accepting Donation to the City to support the Environmental
Coordinator’s Attendance at the 2011 International Society of Arboriculture Conference.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Minnesota Statutes Section 465.03 requires that donations of real or personal property be
accepted by a resolution of the City Council adopted by a two-thirds majority of its members.
Does the City Council wish to accept a donation to the City of St. Louis Park to support
participation at an out-of-state conference by the Environmental Coordinator?
BACKGROUND:
The City of St. Louis Park’s Environmental Coordinator, Jim Vaughan, will represent the
Minnesota Society of Arboriculture (MSA) as their International Society of Arboriculture (ISA)
Council Representative at the 2011 Arboriculture Conference in Sidney Australia. July 22 – July
27, 2011. This conference is an annual international conference for arborists covering many
aspects in the science, technology, management and practice of urban tree care. The Minnesota
Society of Arboriculture recently elected Mr. Vaughan as their representative to the ISA. The
ISA requires each chapter representative (i.e. Mr. Vaughan) attend each annual ISA conference.
As a result of Mr. Vaughan’s election/appointment, the Minnesota Society of Arboriculture has
offered to pay all related conference expenses.
The City Attorney has reviewed this matter. His opinion is that state law permits the payment of
such expenses by this organization, regardless of whether the funds come from primary or
secondary sources. It is treated as a gift to the city and needs to be a resolution adopted by the
City Council determining that attendance at this event serves a public purpose and accepting the
gift. The resolution needs to be adopted before attendance at the conference. The City of St.
Louis Park will pay for travel, the conference and hotel accommodations up front and submit
receipts to MSA for reimbursement.
It is also important to note that, in general, 2011 travel for training and conferences will be
approved by the City Manager.
ABOUT MSA: The Minnesota Society of Arboriculture (MSA) is a non-profit organization with
members ranging from large corporate organizations, such as Xcel Energy, to small tree
companies to public employees. Their mission is to foster and promote the planting and
preservation of shade and ornamental trees. MSA promotes the science, technology and practice
of arboriculture and urban forestry, encouraging participation in continuing education programs
(i.e. Certified Arborist program) and an exchange of information and experience. Jim Vaughan is
and has been an active member of MSA for over 20 years.
City Council Meeting of April 4, 2011 (Item No. 4e) Page 2
Subject: Receipt of Donation for International Society of Arboriculture Conference
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
All costs related to this conference are covered by the Minnesota Society of Arboriculture with
no out-of-pocket costs to the City of St. Louis Park.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
Attachments: Resolution
Prepared by: Stacy Voelker, Administrative Secretary
Jim Vaughan, Environmental Coordinator
Reviewed by: Cindy Walsh, Director of Parks and Recreation
Approved by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager
City Council Meeting of April 4, 2011 (Item No. 4e) Page 3
Subject: Receipt of Donation for International Society of Arboriculture Conference
RESOLUTION NO. 11-_____
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING DONATION TO THE CITY TO SUPPORT
ENVIRONMENTAL COORDINATORS ATTENDANCE AT THE
2011 INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY OF ARBORICULTURE CONFERENCE
WHEREAS, the Minnesota Society of Arboriculture has offered to donate all travel,
lodging, and attendance related costs of the City’s Environmental Coordinator at the
International Society of Arboriculture Conference, July 22 - 27, 2011 in Sidney Australia to the
City of St. Louis Park for arborists covering many aspects in the science, management and
practice of urban tree care; and
WHEREAS, such donation will benefit the citizens of the City of St. Louis Park; and
WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes Section 465.03 requires that donations of real or
personal property be accepted by a resolution of the City Council adopted by a two-thirds
majority of its members.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park that the donation of all travel, lodging, and attendance related costs of the City’s
Environmental Coordinator at the International Society of Arboriculture Conference, July 22 -
27, 2011 in Sidney Australia by the Minnesota Society of Arboriculture is hereby accepted.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council April 4, 2011
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Meeting Date: April 4, 2011
Agenda Item #: 4f
OFFICIAL MINUTES
Parks and Recreation Advisory
Commission Meeting
January 19, 2011
7 p.m. – Meeting
1. Call to Order
Christina Barberot, Chair, called the meeting to order at 7 p.m.
Commission members present: James Beneke, George Foulkes, George Hagemann, Kirk
Hawkinson and Tom Worthington
Commission members absent: Sam Flumerfelt. Steve Hallfin
Staff present: Director of Parks and Recreation, Cindy Walsh, Recreation Superintendent, Rick
Birno, Recreation Coordinator, Lisa Abernathy, and Administrative Secretary, Stacy Voelker.
Members welcomed Jim Beneke and all introduced themselves.
2. Presentation: Friends of the Arts
Susan Schneck, coordinator for the Friends of the Arts, advised Friends of the Arts is a non-
profit organization consisting of 15 community members who do what they can to help support
individuals and the community celebrate arts. Ms. Schneck distributed background information
and reviewed their current programs.
Arts for Life Scholarships: The committee meets four times a year to review applications that are
received year-round. FoTA provides $5,000 per year to assist artists in what they want to do.
Requests vary and may include music classes, dance classes, floral design, etc. As an example,
this year the organization provided high school students $2,000 to go to orchestra hall.
Arts and Culture Grants: The Arts and Culture grants work with the City and the St. Louis Park
Community Foundation. In 2011, FoTA is funding five different groups in the community. This
supports organizations and builds bridges between the community and the creative community.
Our Town: This art program has a different name and theme every year. Past themes included
poetry and photography. Over 60 community members participated in the workshops. It was
great to see people get involved with poetry that did not connect with the community in other
ways.
Ms. Schneck advised the FoTA also provides a monthly email newsletter and will build and
improve their website with their new logo created this year.
Ms. Barberot explained FoTA works great with Parks and Recreation and continues to work on
enhancing communication with the school system and teachers. Ms. Barberot feels this is a great
opportunity for students to be aware of the scholarships and what all FoTA has to offer. Ms.
Schneck indicated the organization would like to be more connected and share resources and
having their office at Lenox Community Center has helped create a daily connection with
Community Education. Mr. Hagemann advised it’s a great way for students to participate in
what FoTA offers.
City Council Meeting of April 4, 2011 (Item No. 4f) Page 2
Subject: Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission Minutes January 19, 2011
The art in the entrance to The Rec Center, advised Ms. Barberot, was part of the grant program
last year and the theater performed in the Wolfe Park Amphitheater was also financed through
FoTA. Mr. Worthington inquired who makes the decision on the City’s public art and Ms. Walsh
indicated the FoTA are involved in all public art decisions with the City.
Mr. Hawkinson inquired if there are a lot of children home schooled in St. Louis Park and if
FoTA reaches out to them. FoTA attempts to reach all community members, Ms. Schneck
advised, but unsure how to ensure they receive the information. Ms. Wash indicated home school
groups enjoy Westwood Hills Nature Center and ice skating lessons at The Rec Center regularly.
The City could assist marketing to participants of home school activities.
Ms. Walsh thanked Ms. Schneck and FoTA; Ms. Schneck thanked the City for their activity. Mr.
Hagemann feels since arts is under Parks and Recreation, a great partnership has been created.
Members thanked Ms. Schneck and offered support for FoTA..
3. Approval of Minutes
a. December 1, 2010
It was moved by Commission member Hagemann, seconded by Commission member
Worthington to approve the Minutes as amended. Motion passed 5 – 0.
4. New Business
a. Arts and Culture Grant Update (Lisa Abernathy)
Ms. Walsh introduced Lisa Abernathy, Recreation Coordinator. Ms. Abernathy advised
the 2011 grant recipients were approved and distributed the list of selected recipients.
The grant process was described by Ms. Abernathy and she indicated one of the grant
winners, Georgia Kandiko, is also offering art classes this summer to teach how to create
mosaic tables. Once the classes are complete, the FoTA retains the mosaic tables.
The 2012 schedule was distributed by Ms. Abernathy members were advised the grant
program will be advertised in the April – August Parks and Recreation brochure to help
the program get started sooner. Applicants will have more time to submit their
applications and the committee will then have more time to review the applications with
the new schedule.
Ms. Walsh advised some of the items used in the art at the entrance of The Rec Center
were acquired from the Minnehaha Creek Clean up in 2010. She appreciates the vision of
the part pieces.
Mr. Beneke inquired on how the grant program is funded. Some funding comes from the
housing rehabilitation program, Ms. Walsh advised, which is federally funded. Mr.
Hagemann advised the strongest funds are from the City; then from the Community
Foundation, especially if special infinity for project. Members discussed funding
opportunities and were advised tax deductible donations are welcome to support the Arts
& Culture grant.
Members thanked Ms. Abernathy.
City Council Meeting of April 4, 2011 (Item No. 4f) Page 3
Subject: Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission Minutes January 19, 2011
b. Annual 2011 Work Plan Discussion
Ms. Walsh distributed a draft of last year’s goals and potential goals for 2011. Members
discussed.
Athletic Association and Park User Group Relationships: Members feel beneficial to
continue as it helps to keep the members, city and associations connected.
Commissions: It is beneficial to meet with other boards and commissions to move
forward on items such as property, bicycle trails, etc.
Minnehaha Creek clean-up: The clean-up is beneficial to the community and a great
activity to be part of.
Recreation Resources: Members, along with the City Council, have biked and canoed
various segments of St. Louis Park amenities. Ms. Walsh indicated the City Council is
interested in a bike ride this year to which Mr. Hagemann volunteered to lead event.
Staff Appreciation Luncheon: Members feel event is important to show their
appreciation. Mr. Hagemann suggested switching to a Tuesday or Thursday to avoid
hunting season. Staff will provide dates to avoid closer to the time of the event. Mr.
Hawkinson inquired if event should take place earlier in the year to include part-time
staff. Many part-time staff return to school in mid-August, Ms. Walsh indicated, and staff
holds a part-timers picnic toward the end of the season.
Playground Replacement Program: A non-profit organization will discuss this program at
the February or March meeting, Ms. Walsh indicated. The program ships old equipment
overseas to be utilized as they have different safety standards than the United States. The
program works with individual manufacturers of each playground to help recycle and
replace pieces of playground. Currently there are few cities that are involved in the
program, Ms. Walsh advised. The members indicated their interest in the program.
Ms. Barberot inquired of any goals should be added to which members had none.
c. Minnehaha Creek Clean Up Date
Members discussed dates for the clean up and decided on Saturday, April 16 with
Sunday, April 17 as the rain date. Mr. Foulkes suggested inquiring with Park
maintenance on where they see the greatest need for the clean up.
Patch.com was suggested by Ms. Walsh to market events as the City has been working
with them on marketing other events and items. Members and staff will discuss logistics
of the event at their March meeting.
d. Northside Park Update
Ms. Walsh advised the City Council approved Northside Park plans and specification and
authorize bids at their January 18, 2011 meeting. The City received an additional
$200,000, which totals $400,000, from the Youth Sports Grant program. Ms. Walsh
indicated she was contacted by Patch.com for information on what good is coming from
City Council Meeting of April 4, 2011 (Item No. 4f) Page 4
Subject: Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission Minutes January 19, 2011
professional baseball and how it’s helping to fund renovation. The Youth Sports Grant
program was initiated by professional baseball.
The development of the fire station will also begin this year and coincide with the park
renovation, advised Ms. Walsh. Demolition of Northside Park was completed in fall and
renovation will begin when road restrictions are lifted.
5. Old Business
a. Community Recreation Planning Process Update
Ms. Barberot encouraged all to complete the Community Recreation survey. Mr.
Hawkinson inquired if the survey is available in other mediums than online to which Ms.
Walsh indicated paper copies are available around the City also. Ms. Barberot
recommended members help get the word out as the survey must be completed by the
end of January.
Mr. Beneke inquired on talk of a civic center in parallel with the survey and potential
sites. Ms. Walsh advised Council’s intent of doing the survey is to obtain top priorities
from the community. Council can then create focus groups and utilize Decision
Resources to execute more in-depth questions then move forward with the study. Mr.
Foulkes feels the idea of a survey is to not only find what is wanted, but will also provide
costs associated with the ideas. Mr. Birno feels Council will review data and provide
course for staff once results are compiled.
When the survey report is compiled, Ms. Walsh will send to members.
6. Communications
a. Chair
Ms. Barberot complimented the City on great City-Wide survey. Ms. Barberot inquired if
the HVAC system will be replaced soon as its old; Mr. Birno believes it is in the schedule
for this year.
b. Commissioners
Mr. Worthington inquired on obtaining demographics of the City by census. Ms. Walsh
advised the housing department obtains demographics for their field. Smart Phones read
QR codes similar to barcodes, Mr. Worthington noted. The programs will create codes
which the web developer would put on the website and link to information. Kids could
then access the GLIF’s to learn more about the parks and a schedule for the parks. The
information can be printed on any thing and can be included anywhere. Smart phones
scan GLIF and bring to an informational website. Some Parks and interpretive sites are
beginning to use.
Mr. Foulkes welcomed Mr. Beneke to the commission.
Mr. Hawkinson inquired on the winter rinks which are doing well, advised Mr. Birno.
Katie Lee is supervising the winter rinks Ms. Abernathy indicated, and rinks are good.
City Council Meeting of April 4, 2011 (Item No. 4f) Page 5
Subject: Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission Minutes January 19, 2011
Mr. Worthington inquired if the Hockey Association provided an outdoor rink near The
Rec Center this year to which Mr. Birno advised no. The Hockey Association is holding
a “hockey weekend” at The Rec Center January 21-23, indicated Mr. Birno.
Mr. Beneke advised he was glad to be part of the Commission.
c. Program Report
Ms. Abernathy indicated staff has been discussing offering the Farmers Market from 10
a.m. to 1:30 p.m. at West End then at The Rec Center from 3 p.m. to 7 p.m. Vendors are
offered the same price and have the choice to do both or not. Mr. Birno advised the
distance is impacting vendors due to gas prices. Discussions indicated this may be
successful as they’d have more opportunity to sell items. Mr. Foulkes inquired on
feedback from vendors and Ms. Abernathy indicated the mid-season survey compiled
indicated vendors like the option. Ms. Abernathy advised the farmers market is ending at
the same time the concert series is beginning. Members discussed and feel West End is a
great area to offer the market.
d. Director Report
Ms. Walsh inquired on the schedule of upcoming Commission meetings. Members
discussed February and March meeting dates will remain same – the 3rd Wednesday of
each month.
Ms. Walsh advised the School District has a new Community Ed Director, Lisa Greene,
and suggested inviting her to an upcoming meeting. The Commission will discuss the
Minnehaha Creek clean-up on March 16 with Jim Vaughan at The MSC; Lisa Greene
will be invited to the April 27 meeting.
Staff held a grand opening for Birchwood Park on December 17, indicated Mr. Beane.
The event went well and the neighborhood is thrilled. Wednesday, May 18 is the
Community Open House at the MSC. Ms. Walsh indicated that is the same date as a
regular PRAC meeting and recommended members join the open house in lieu of the
PRAC meeting. Members agreed.
7. Adjournment
It was moved by Commission member Hawkinson to adjourn at 8:16 p.m. The motion passed 5 -
0.
Respectfully submitted,
Stacy Voelker
Stacy Voelker
Recording Secretary
Meeting Date: April 4, 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:
Vendor Claims.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to accept for filing Vendor Claims for the period March 12, 2011 through March 25,
2011.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
BACKGROUND:
The Finance Department prepares this report on a monthly basis for Council’s review.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
None.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
Attachments: Vendor Claims
Prepared by: Connie Neubeck, Account Clerk
3/28/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 6:29:22R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
1Page -Council Check Summary
3/25/2011 -3/12/2011
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
1,050.00INSPECTIONS G & A TRAINING10,000 LAKES CHAPTER
1,050.00
68.36PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYA-1 OUTDOOR POWER INC
68.36
34.74HOUSING REHAB BALANCE SHEET CONTRACTS PAYABLEABELSON, SHARON
34.74
462.00PRE-SCHOOL PROGRAMS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESABRAKADOODLE
462.00
3.85-WATER UTILITY BALANCE SHEET DUE TO OTHER GOVTSACCUITY INC
59.85WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES
3.85-SEWER UTILITY BALANCE SHEET DUE TO OTHER GOVTS
59.85SEWER UTILITY G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES
3.85-SOLID WASTE BALANCE SHEET DUE TO OTHER GOVTS
59.85SOLID WASTE G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES
3.85-STORM WATER UTILITY BAL SHEET DUE TO OTHER GOVTS
59.85STORM WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES
224.00
425.36VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A SMALL TOOLSACME TOOLS
425.36
87.58PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYADAMSON INDUSTRIES CORP
5.63-PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH DUE TO OTHER GOVTS
81.95
14,497.25REILLY BUDGET GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESAECOM INC
14,497.25
6,473.00H.V.A.C. EQUIP. MTCE BUILDING MTCE SERVICEALLIANCE MECH SRVCS INC
725.00PARK BUILDING MAINTENANCE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
7,198.00
72.16POLICE G & A TELEPHONEAMERICAN MESSAGING
72.16
96.73GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE OPERATIONAL SUPPLIESAMERIPRIDE LINEN & APPAREL SER
137.56PUBLIC WORKS OPS G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
89.54PARK MAINTENANCE G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
City Council Meeting of April 4, 2011 (Item No. 4g)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 2
3/28/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 6:29:22R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
2Page -Council Check Summary
3/25/2011 -3/12/2011
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
27.78ENTERPRISE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
97.90VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
61.82WATER UTILITY G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
61.82SEWER UTILITY G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
10.30STORM WATER UTILITY G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
583.45
5,005.56STREET CAPITAL PROJ BAL SHEET RETAINED PERCENTAGEAMES CONSTRUCTION
37,714.20CONSTRUCTION PAYMENTS IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
42,719.76
12.22-IT G & A BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEESANCHOR PAPER CO
1,223.86SUPPORT SERVICES G&A OFFICE SUPPLIES
1,211.64
734.61SYSTEM REPAIR OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESANDERSEN INC, EARL
734.61
197.39HOUSING REHAB BALANCE SHEET CONTRACTS PAYABLEAQUILA NEIGHBORHOOD ASSN
197.39
66.40GENERAL CUSTODIAL DUTIES CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SUPPLYARAMARK UNIFORM CORP ACCTS
152.20ENTERPRISE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
218.60
352.22PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYASPEN EQUIPMENT CO
352.22
1,125.00POLICE G & A TRAININGATOM
1,125.00
262.86PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYAUTO ELECTRIC OF BLOOMINGTON I
262.86
47.48FINANCE G & A OFFICE SUPPLIESBANKER'S EQUIPMENT SERVICE INC
47.48
112.69PARK GROUNDS MAINTENANCE OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESBEACON ATHLETICS
112.69
600.00HOLIDAY PROGRAMS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESBEALKE INDUSTRIES, ROBERT
600.00
City Council Meeting of April 4, 2011 (Item No. 4g)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 3
3/28/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 6:29:22R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
3Page -Council Check Summary
3/25/2011 -3/12/2011
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
2,500.00ESCROWSDEMO / BROOKSIDE TRAFFICBENTLEY, MATTHEW
2,500.00
187.96SEWER UTILITY G&A OFFICE SUPPLIESBERTELSON OFFICE PRODUCTS
187.96
263.08PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYBOYER TRUCK PARTS
263.08
2,426.03GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICEBOYER TRUCKS LAUDERDALE
2,426.03
665.56HOUSING REHAB BALANCE SHEET CONTRACTS PAYABLEBRONX PARK NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOC
100.00NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION GRANT PUBLIC LIABILITY INSURANCE
765.56
741.00OPERATIONSRADIO COMMUNICATIONSCALHOUN TOWERS APTS
741.00
8,687.37ADMINISTRATION G & A LEGAL SERVICESCAMPBELL KNUTSON PROF ASSOC
422.50GO BONDS-FIRE STATIONS G&A LEGAL SERVICES
255.00STREET CAPITAL PROJ G & A IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
150.00WATER UTILITY G&A LEGAL SERVICES
9,514.87
16.84-GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET DUE TO OTHER GOVTSCARDIAC SCIENCE INC
261.84OPERATIONSOPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
245.00
1,031.34IT G & A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICECARTRIDGE CARE
1,031.34
18,649.70TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT OFFICE EQUIPMENTCDW GOVERNMENT INC
18,649.70
60.00PUBLIC WORKS G & A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTATCEAM
120.00ENGINEERING G & A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT
180.00
5,088.56FACILITY OPERATIONS HEATING GASCENTERPOINT ENERGY
1,518.05PARK MAINTENANCE G & A HEATING GAS
City Council Meeting of April 4, 2011 (Item No. 4g)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 4
3/28/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 6:29:22R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
4Page -Council Check Summary
3/25/2011 -3/12/2011
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
233.14WESTWOOD G & A HEATING GAS
286.88NATURALIST PROGRAMMER HEATING GAS
7,059.45WATER UTILITY G&A HEATING GAS
329.84REILLY G & A HEATING GAS
327.19SEWER UTILITY G&A HEATING GAS
14,843.11
13,845.34FACILITY OPERATIONS HEATING GASCENTERPOINT ENERGY SERVICES IN
7,812.86ENTERPRISE G & A HEATING GAS
21,658.20
613.96GO BONDS-FIRE STATIONS G&A BUILDINGS & STRUCTURESCERTIFIED PLUMBING INC
613.96
19.54PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYCHRYSLER JEEP
19.54
2,300.00SEWER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICECICHY'S WATER & SEWER
2,300.00
69.61FACILITIES MCTE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIESCINTAS FIRST AID & SAFETY
69.61
6.45-GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET DUE TO OTHER GOVTSCITIZENS INDEPENDENT BANK
5.33IT G & A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE
60.00FINANCE G & A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT
66.08OPERATIONSGENERAL SUPPLIES
140.87OPERATIONSOPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
37.35OPERATIONSSMALL TOOLS
42.87OPERATIONSEQUIPMENT PARTS
250.00OPERATIONSSEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT
22.00-CABLE TV BALANCE SHEET DUE TO OTHER GOVTS
524.74CABLE TV G & A MACHINERY & AUTO EQUIPMENT
1,098.79
458.85CONCESSIONS/HOCKEY ASSOC CONCESSION SUPPLIESCOCA-COLA BOTTLING CO
458.85
258.40INSTRUCTIONAL SKATING LESSONS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESCOLBORN, CHRISTINE
258.40
218.30EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S WAGE GARNISHMENTSCOLLECTION SERVICES CENTER
City Council Meeting of April 4, 2011 (Item No. 4g)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 5
3/28/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 6:29:22R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
5Page -Council Check Summary
3/25/2011 -3/12/2011
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
218.30
159.95IT G & A DATACOMMUNICATIONSCOMCAST
159.95
100.00ORGANIZED REC G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPSCOSTCO WHOLESALE MEMBERSHIP
100.00WESTWOOD G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS
200.00
30.09SUPPORT SERVICES G&A OFFICE SUPPLIESCROWN MARKING INC
30.09
562.50BASKETBALLOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESCURRAN-MOORE, KIM
562.50
152.00FINANCE G & A AUDITING AND ACCOUNTING SERVICDEPOSITORY TRUST & CLEARING CO
152.00
296.10ENTERPRISE G & A ADVERTISINGDEX MEDIA EAST LLC
296.10
281.07PATCHING TEMPORARY EQUIPMENT PARTSDISCOUNT STEEL INC
281.07
36,948.00MUNICIPAL BLDG BUILDINGS & STRUCTURESDJ ELECTRIC SERVICES INC
36,948.00
5,676.45TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICEDLT SOLUTIONS INC
5,676.45
22,032.74SUPPORT SERVICES G&A POSTAGEDO-GOOD.BIZ INC
22,032.74
98.76OPERATIONSSUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPSEDM PUBLISHERS INC
98.76
1,566.38WIRING REPAIR OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESEGAN COMPANIES INC
1,566.38
24.00INSTRUCTIONAL SKATING LESSONS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESEINZIG, DEBORAH
24.00
City Council Meeting of April 4, 2011 (Item No. 4g)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 6
3/28/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 6:29:22R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
6Page -Council Check Summary
3/25/2011 -3/12/2011
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
4,734.16GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICEEMERGENCY APPARATUS MTNCE
4,734.16
426.98ICE RESURFACER MOTOR FUELSFERRELLGAS
426.98
60.43ADMINISTRATION G & A MEETING EXPENSEFISCHER, DEBBIE
60.43
200.00HOUSING REHAB BALANCE SHEET CONTRACTS PAYABLEFLANNIGAN, JANE
200.00
381.60WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICEFLOYD TOTAL SECURITY
381.60SEWER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE
381.61STORM WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE
1,144.81
1,301.63PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYFORCE AMERICA INC
1,301.63
94.39TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT OFFICE EQUIPMENTFRANZ REPROGRAPHICS
94.39
863.63NEIGHBORHOOD PUBLIC ART OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESFRIENDS OF THE ARTS
863.63
78.29TREE MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIESGARELICK STEEL CO
78.29
953.50ARENA MAINTENANCE BUILDING MTCE SERVICEGARTNER REFRIG & MFG INC
953.50
2,025.00BASKETBALLOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESGHIZONI, DAVE
2,025.00
624.42PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYGLASS DOCTOR
624.42
12.83POLICE G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIESGLOCK INC
12.83
4,371.72EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S LONG TERM CARE INSURGLTC PREMIUM PAYMENTS
City Council Meeting of April 4, 2011 (Item No. 4g)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 7
3/28/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 6:29:22R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
7Page -Council Check Summary
3/25/2011 -3/12/2011
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
4,371.72
188.70WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICEGOPHER STATE ONE-CALL INC
188.70
176.02PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYGRAINGER INC, WW
141.90WATER UTILITY G&A SMALL TOOLS
75.04SEWER UTILITY G&A SMALL TOOLS
392.96
600.00IT G & A COMPUTER SERVICESGREEN, HOWARD R COMPANY
600.00
5,054.01WATER UTILITY G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIESHAWKINS INC
5,054.01
533.00OPERATIONSGENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESHEALTHPARTNERS
533.00
50.00BASKETBALLOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESHENDERSON, TRACY
50.00
534.38IT G & A COMPUTER SERVICESHENNEPIN COUNTY INFO TECH
534.38
1,839.90POLICE G & A SUBSISTENCE SERVICEHENNEPIN COUNTY SHERIFF
1,839.90
66.00ASSESSING G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPSHENNEPIN COUNTY TAXPAYER SERVI
66.00
1,473.60OPERATIONSTRAININGHENNEPIN TECHNICAL COLLEGE
1,473.60
211.90GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIESHOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES
7.02ROUTINE MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT PARTS
62.22INSTALLATIONEQUIPMENT PARTS
103.88PARK MAINTENANCE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
451.43PARK BUILDING MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES
104.89PARK BUILDING MAINTENANCE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES
19.11PARK GROUNDS MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES
89.13TREE MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES
City Council Meeting of April 4, 2011 (Item No. 4g)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 8
3/28/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 6:29:22R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
8Page -Council Check Summary
3/25/2011 -3/12/2011
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
34.73WATER UTILITY G&A SMALL TOOLS
131.77WATER UTILITY G&A BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES
88.18SEWER UTILITY G&A BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES
88.19STORM WATER UTILITY G&A BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES
1,392.45
138.93FABRICATIONSMALL TOOLSHSBC BUSINESS SOLUTIONS
27.76WESTWOOD G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
166.69
1,601.75EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S UNION DUESI.U.O.E. LOCAL NO 49
1,601.75
225.00INSPECTIONS G & A TRAININGICC
225.00
2,640.17IT G & A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICEIKON OFFICE SOLUTIONS
2,640.17
1,053.28WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL SUPPLIESINDELCO
1,053.28
21.80PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYINTERSTATE POWER SYSTEMS INC
4,788.08GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE
4,809.88
887.06POLICE G & A POLICE EQUIPMENTINTOXIMETERS INC
887.06
175.05PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYINVER GROVE FORD
298.46GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE
473.51
81.72ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESIRON MOUNTAIN
91.86POLICE G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
44.79OPERATIONSGENERAL SUPPLIES
218.37
39.64PARK BUILDING MAINTENANCE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESJ & F REDDY RENTS
39.64
4,500.00ESCROWSDEMO / BROOKSIDE TRAFFICJJ DEVELOPMENT
City Council Meeting of April 4, 2011 (Item No. 4g)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 9
3/28/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 6:29:22R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
9Page -Council Check Summary
3/25/2011 -3/12/2011
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
4,500.00
2,500.00ESCROWSDEMO / BROOKSIDE TRAFFICJOHNSON, DAVID
2,500.00
1,442.13GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIESK & K SALES
1,442.13
276.92EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S WAGE GARNISHMENTSKELLER, JASMINE Z
276.92
2,429.50ESCROWSBADER DEV/ELLIPSE APTSKENNEDY & GRAVEN
2,429.50
15.80ENVIRONMENTAL G & A GENERAL SUPPLIESKRZESOWIAK, SARAH
15.80
609.18HOUSING REHAB BALANCE SHEET CONTRACTS PAYABLELAKE FOREST NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOC
609.18
144.64PATCHING TEMPORARY OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESLAKES GAS CO
33.32STORM WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES
177.96
2,226.00EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S UNION DUESLAW ENFORCEMENT LABOR SERVICES
2,226.00
78.35VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A GENERAL SUPPLIESLAWSON PRODUCTS INC
78.35
48.00INSPECTIONS G & A MECHANICALLAWSTUEN, AMANDA
48.00
5,556.49UNINSURED LOSS G&A UNINSURED LOSSLEAGUE OF MN CITIES INSURANCE
5,556.49
26,050.38ENGINEERING G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIESLEICA GEOSYSTEMS INC
26,050.38
198.00INSTRUCTIONAL SKATING LESSONS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESLENTNER, LAURA
198.00
City Council Meeting of April 4, 2011 (Item No. 4g)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 10
3/28/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 6:29:22R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
10Page -Council Check Summary
3/25/2011 -3/12/2011
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
18.20POLICE G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESLEXISNEXIS
18.20
2,309.64PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYLITTLE FALLS MACHINE INC
2,309.64
46,764.00IT G & A COMPUTER SERVICESLOGIS
50.00SUPPORT SERVICES G&A COMPUTER SERVICES
28,728.66TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT OFFICE EQUIPMENT
75,542.66
816.20PARK BUILDING MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIESLSV METALS INC
816.20
1,354.71PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYLUBRICATION TECHNOLOGIES INC
1,354.71
64.37ADMINISTRATION G & A MEETING EXPENSEM&T'S MUNCHIES
64.37
21,295.57PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYMACQUEEN EQUIP CO
21,295.57
150.00GREEN REMODELING PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESMANLOVE, BENJAMIN
150.00
162.50GREEN REMODELING PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESMARTIN, LOREN
162.50
850.00BASKETBALLOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESMASICA, BRENTON
850.00
8.97CLEANING/DEBRIS REMOVAL GENERAL SUPPLIESMCCOY, WILLIAM PETROLEUM FUELS
8.98PARK MAINTENANCE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
8.98WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES
26.93
208.00INSTRUCTIONAL SKATING LESSONS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESMCGREGOR-HANNAH, MAREN
208.00
636.00VOLLEYBALLOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESMETRO VOLLEYBALL OFFICIALS
636.00
City Council Meeting of April 4, 2011 (Item No. 4g)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 11
3/28/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 6:29:22R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
11Page -Council Check Summary
3/25/2011 -3/12/2011
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
298,059.29OPERATIONSCLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICEMETROPOLITAN COUNCIL
298,059.29
747.00IT G & A OFFICE EQUIPMENTMID AMERICA BUSINESS SYSTEMS
747.00
4,084.76PATCHING TEMPORARY OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESMIDWEST ASPHALT CORP
5,653.42WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE
9,738.18
748.03BLDG/GROUNDS OPS & MAINT BUILDING MTCE SERVICEMIDWEST OVERHEAD CRANE CORP
748.03
740.00WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESMIDWEST TESTING LLC
740.00
111.00ASSESSING G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESMINNEAPOLIS AREA ASSOC REALTOR
111.00
294.60PAWN FEES OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESMINNEAPOLIS FINANCE DEPT
294.60
1,225.00WATER UTILITY G&A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTATMINNESOTA AWWA
1,225.00
500.00OPERATIONSTRAININGMINNESOTA CHAPTER IAAI
500.00
605.00POLICE G & A TRAININGMINNESOTA CHIEFS OF POLICE
605.00
1,219.59EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S WAGE GARNISHMENTSMINNESOTA CHILD SUPPORT PYT CT
1,219.59
140.00ADMINISTRATION G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPSMINNESOTA CITY/COUNTY MANAGEME
140.00
21,574.00WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESMINNESOTA DEPT HEALTH
50.00WATER UTILITY G&A LICENSES
21,624.00
City Council Meeting of April 4, 2011 (Item No. 4g)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 12
3/28/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 6:29:22R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
12Page -Council Check Summary
3/25/2011 -3/12/2011
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
16.00EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S ACCRUED OTHER BENEFITSMINNESOTA NCPERS LIFE INS
16.00
25.00BOILER MTCE LICENSESMINNESOTA REVENUE
25.00
399.38PREVENTATIVE MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICEMINT CONDITION DETAILING
399.38
1,635.12COMMUNICATIONS/GV REIMBURSEABL EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICEMOTOROLA
1,635.12
807.93PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYMTI DISTRIBUTING CO
807.93
60.00HUMAN RESOURCES TRAININGMUNICIPALS
60.00INSPECTIONS G & A TRAINING
120.00
50.00ENGINEERING G & A TRAVEL/MEETINGSNACE
50.00
59.39PATCHING TEMPORARY EQUIPMENT PARTSNAPA (GENUINE PARTS CO)
1,836.82PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORY
153.94PREVENTATIVE MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES
796.49GENERAL REPAIR GENERAL SUPPLIES
28.82WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES
31.95SEWER UTILITY G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES
2,907.41
1,400.00BROOMBALLOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESNEUMANN, NEAL
1,400.00
102.63ADMINISTRATION G & A TELEPHONENEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS
153.91HUMAN RESOURCES TELEPHONE
448.24RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT TELEPHONE
102.63ASSESSING G & A TELEPHONE
153.91FINANCE G & A TELEPHONE
362.06EDA / HA REIMBURSEMENT TELEPHONE
851.38POLICE G & A TELEPHONE
391.96OPERATIONSTELEPHONE
102.63INSPECTIONS G & A TELEPHONE
City Council Meeting of April 4, 2011 (Item No. 4g)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 13
3/28/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 6:29:22R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
13Page -Council Check Summary
3/25/2011 -3/12/2011
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
302.78ENGINEERING G & A TELEPHONE
484.63PUBLIC WORKS OPS G & A TELEPHONE
147.74PARK AND REC G&A TELEPHONE
261.04ORGANIZED REC G & A TELEPHONE
294.62PARK MAINTENANCE G & A TELEPHONE
107.97ENVIRONMENTAL G & A TELEPHONE
230.86WESTWOOD G & A TELEPHONE
51.28REC CENTER/AQUATIC PARK SAL TELEPHONE
104.19VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A TELEPHONE
353.11WATER UTILITY G&A TELEPHONE
218.23SEWER UTILITY G&A TELEPHONE
68.96SOLID WASTE G&A TELEPHONE
5,294.76
738.00ORGANIZED REC G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESNORTH STAR ART GLASS INC
738.00
28.00TRAININGGENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESNORTH WORKS OCCUPATIONAL HEALT
28.00
424.71PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYNORTHERN SAFETY TECHNOLOGY INC
424.71
250.00ESCROWSPMC ESCROWOAKWOOD PARTNERS
250.00
196.00INSTRUCTIONAL SKATING LESSONS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESOBERSTAR, KATIE
196.00
200.64TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT OFFICE EQUIPMENTOCE
200.64
597.50SUPPORT SERVICES G&A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICEOFFICE DEPOT
81.24FINANCE G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES
38.83GENERAL INFORMATION OFFICE SUPPLIES
41.05INSPECTIONS G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
576.88PUBLIC WORKS G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES
35.27VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A OFFICE SUPPLIES
2.50HOUSING REHAB G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES
1,373.27
1,724.51PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYOKADA AMERICA
City Council Meeting of April 4, 2011 (Item No. 4g)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 14
3/28/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 6:29:22R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
14Page -Council Check Summary
3/25/2011 -3/12/2011
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
110.93-PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH DUE TO OTHER GOVTS
1,613.58
233.16PATCHING TEMPORARY EQUIPMENT PARTSOLSEN CHAIN & CABLE CO INC
233.16
85.50OFF-LEASH DOG PARK OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESON SITE SANITATION
85.50
179.10EMPLOYEE FLEX SPEND G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESOPTUM HEALTH FINANCIAL SERVICE
179.10
1,000.00ESCROWSPMC ESCROWPAULSON, LUANN LIMDELL
1,000.00
112.00BASKETBALLOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESPETERSEN, CHRISTA
112.00
11.00PUBLIC WORKS OPS G & A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTATPETTY CASH
29.75VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A LICENSES
16.73WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES
2.24WATER UTILITY G&A POSTAGE
7.50SEWER UTILITY G&A EQUIPMENT PARTS
23.00SEWER UTILITY G&A LICENSES
90.22
67.87WESTWOOD G & A GENERAL SUPPLIESPETTY CASH - WWNC
4.28BABIES AND TOTS GENERAL SUPPLIES
6.41HOME SCHOOL GENERAL SUPPLIES
78.56
143.24WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERSPJD INVESTMENTS
143.24
2,504.80INSTRUCTIONAL SKATING LESSONS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESPOLK, MARLA
2,504.80
362.00PARK MAINTENANCE G & A TELEPHONEPOPP TELECOM
362.00
5,500.00COMM & MARKETING G & A POSTAGEPOSTMASTER - PERMIT #603
262.93WATER UTILITY G&A POSTAGE
City Council Meeting of April 4, 2011 (Item No. 4g)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 15
3/28/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 6:29:22R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
15Page -Council Check Summary
3/25/2011 -3/12/2011
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
262.93SEWER UTILITY G&A POSTAGE
262.92SOLID WASTE COLLECTIONS POSTAGE
262.92STORM WATER UTILITY G&A POSTAGE
6,551.70
2,931.58TREE DISEASE PRIVATE CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICEPRECISION LANDSCAPE & TREE
2,931.58
1,207.50PE INVEST/REVIEW/PER IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDIPROGRESSIVE CONSULTING ENGINEE
2,756.52SEWER UTILITY G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
3,964.02
295.00POLICE G & A TRAININGPUBLIC AGENCY TRAINING COUNCIL
295.00
24.94PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYQUEST ENGINEERING INC
24.94
175.79IT G & A TELEPHONEQWEST
143.08COMMUNICATIONS/GV REIMBURSEABL TELEPHONE
318.87
29.95OPERATIONSSUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPSRAGAN COMMUNICATIONS INC
29.95
74.54REFORESTATION FUND OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESRAMANATHAN, PRADEEP
74.54
47.30WATER UTILITY G&A POSTAGERAPID GRAPHICS & MAILING
47.29SEWER UTILITY G&A POSTAGE
47.29SOLID WASTE COLLECTIONS POSTAGE
47.29STORM WATER UTILITY G&A POSTAGE
189.17
40.28POLICE G & A OFFICE SUPPLIESREGENCY OFFICE PRODUCTS LLC
40.28
3,947.34WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESRMR SERVICES
3,947.34
24.84OPERATIONSEQUIPMENT PARTSSAM'S CLUB
3.98WARMING HOUSES GENERAL SUPPLIES
City Council Meeting of April 4, 2011 (Item No. 4g)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 16
3/28/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 6:29:22R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
16Page -Council Check Summary
3/25/2011 -3/12/2011
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
21.50PARK BUILDING MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES
29.64WESTWOOD G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
79.96
328.96PARK BUILDING MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIESSAVITT BROS INC
328.96
250.00ERUTRAININGSCDIU TACTICAL TEAM
250.00
64.00INSTRUCTIONAL SKATING LESSONS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESSCHMIDT, KELLIE
64.00
36,517.14PE DESIGN IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDISEH
36,517.14
1,500.00ESCROWSPMC ESCROWSELDEN, MATTHEW
1,500.00
1,563.53PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDISHAW/STEWART LUMBER CO
1,563.53
1,401.65EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S UNION DUESSLP ASSOC OF FIREFIGHTERS #993
1,401.65
38.00ENGINEERING G & A TRAVEL/MEETINGSSLUC
38.00
50,387.85TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT OFFICE FURNITURE & EQUIPMENTSPECTRA LOGIC CORP
50,387.85
900.58INSPECTIONS G & A BUILDINGSPEEDLING BUILDERS, DOUG
900.58
2,096.43IT G & A DATACOMMUNICATIONSSPRINT
2,096.43
45.35ROUTINE MAINTENANCE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIESSPS COMPANIES INC
45.35
720.74CE INSPECTION IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDISRF CONSULTING GROUP INC
720.74
City Council Meeting of April 4, 2011 (Item No. 4g)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 17
3/28/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 6:29:22R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
17Page -Council Check Summary
3/25/2011 -3/12/2011
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
3,000.00EXPLORERSOPERATIONAL SUPPLIESST LOUIS PARK POLICE EXPLORERS
3,000.00
292.40PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYSTONEBROOKE EQUIPMENT INC
292.40
12.00POLICE G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIESSTREICHER'S
183.54ERUOPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
214.53PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORY
364.71VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES
774.78
980.61GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICESUBURBAN CHEVROLET
980.61
4,980.00REILLY BUDGET GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESSUMMIT ENVIROSOLUTIONS INC
4,980.00
42.90ADMINISTRATION G & A LEGAL NOTICESSUN NEWSPAPERS
42.90
500.00BASKETBALLOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESSWEELEY, DAVID
500.00
2,000.00POLICE G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESTEENS ALONE
2,000.00
97.00BUILDING MAINTENANCE BUILDING MTCE SERVICETERMINIX INT
97.00
12.00OPERATIONSOPERATIONAL SUPPLIESTEXA TONKA TAILORING
12.00
45.96ADMINISTRATION G & A LONG TERM DISABILITYTHE HARTFORD - PRIORITY ACCOUN
54.49HUMAN RESOURCES LONG TERM DISABILITY
16.55COMM & MARKETING G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY
42.64IT G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY
35.66ASSESSING G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY
67.80FINANCE G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY
115.75COMM DEV G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY
123.78POLICE G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY
City Council Meeting of April 4, 2011 (Item No. 4g)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 18
3/28/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 6:29:22R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
18Page -Council Check Summary
3/25/2011 -3/12/2011
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
78.55OPERATIONSLONG TERM DISABILITY
59.11INSPECTIONS G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY
44.59PUBLIC WORKS G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY
58.53ENGINEERING G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY
20.94PUBLIC WORKS OPS G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY
70.58ORGANIZED REC G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY
20.94PARK MAINTENANCE G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY
17.46ENVIRONMENTAL G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY
17.46WESTWOOD G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY
18.46REC CENTER/AQUATIC PARK SAL LONG TERM DISABILITY
17.96VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A LONG TERM DISABILITY
16.97HOUSING REHAB G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY
20.94WATER UTILITY G&A LONG TERM DISABILITY
1,998.91EMPLOYEE FLEX SPEND G&A LONG TERM DISABILITY
2,964.03
899.63ADMINISTRATION G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESTIMESAVER OFF SITE SECRETARIAL
899.63
2,463.47GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICETOWMASTER
2,463.47
80.67REFORESTATION FUND OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESTREGO, MARY
80.67
2,483.55PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYTRI STATE BOBCAT
2,483.55
41.87PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYTRUCK UTILITIES MFG CO
41.87
29.57PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYTURFWERKS
29.57
1,625.35SNOW PLOWING OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESTWIN CITY OUTDOOR SERVICES INC
1,625.35
30.00ADMINISTRATION G & A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTATTWIN WEST CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
30.00
2,263.61POLICE G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIESUNIFORMS UNLIMITED (PD)
1,957.18PATROLOPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
City Council Meeting of April 4, 2011 (Item No. 4g)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 19
3/28/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 6:29:22R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
19Page -Council Check Summary
3/25/2011 -3/12/2011
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
4,220.79
211.00EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S UNITED WAYUNITED WAY OF MINNEAPOLIS AREA
211.00
44.96VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A POSTAGEUPS STORE
112.20WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
157.16
8.60OPERATIONSTELEPHONEUSA MOBILITY WIRELESS INC
8.60
128.31GENERAL REPAIR GENERAL SUPPLIESVALLEY NATIONAL GASES WV LLC
33.03SEWER UTILITY G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES
161.34
2,661.94WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICEVALLEY-RICH CO INC
2,661.94
536.55PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT GARBAGE/REFUSE SERVICEWASTE MANAGEMENT OF WI-MN
2,344.01SOLID WASTE COLLECTIONS MOTOR FUELS
58,648.23SOLID WASTE COLLECTIONS GARBAGE/REFUSE SERVICE
24,487.83SOLID WASTE COLLECTIONS YARD WASTE SERVICE
24,641.55SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL GARBAGE/REFUSE SERVICE
110,658.17
1,102.51WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICEWATER CONSERVATION SERVICE INC
1,102.51
195.21CONCESSIONS/HOCKEY ASSOC CONCESSION SUPPLIESWATSON CO INC
195.21
1,025.00BASKETBALLOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESWELDON, DAN
1,025.00
779.22HOUSING REHAB BALANCE SHEET CONTRACTS PAYABLEWESTWOOD HILLS NEIGHBORHOOD AS
779.22
2,656.36SOFTBALLGENERAL SUPPLIESWESTWOOD SPORTS
2,656.36
567.08SPECIAL PROJECTS BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIESWHEELER HARDWARE
City Council Meeting of April 4, 2011 (Item No. 4g)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 20
3/28/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 6:29:22R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
20Page -Council Check Summary
3/25/2011 -3/12/2011
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
567.08
2,000.00ESCROWSDEMO / BROOKSIDE TRAFFICWHITTING PROPERTIES LLC
2,000.00
330.50SSD #5 G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESWOLNEY ELECTRIC LLC
330.50
15.00WESTWOOD G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPSWOOD DUCK NEWSGRAM
15.00
13,266.22FACILITY OPERATIONS ELECTRIC SERVICEXCEL ENERGY
22.23OPERATIONSELECTRIC SERVICE
29,184.67PUBLIC WORKS OPS G & A ELECTRIC SERVICE
4,477.83PARK MAINTENANCE G & A ELECTRIC SERVICE
362.86WESTWOOD G & A ELECTRIC SERVICE
26,789.39WATER UTILITY G&A ELECTRIC SERVICE
21.96OPERATIONSELECTRIC SERVICE
1,953.96REILLY BUDGET ELECTRIC SERVICE
2,944.97SEWER UTILITY G&A ELECTRIC SERVICE
1,268.72STORM WATER UTILITY G&A ELECTRIC SERVICE
272.38OPERATIONSELECTRIC SERVICE
80,565.19
81,248.72TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT OFFICE FURNITURE & EQUIPMENTXIOTECH CORP
81,248.72
35,095.18PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYYOCUM OIL CO INC
35,095.18
427.50PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYZIEBART OF MINNESOTA INC
27.50-PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH DUE TO OTHER GOVTS
400.00
2,439.43PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYZIEGLER INC
2,439.43
Report Totals 1,231,104.37
City Council Meeting of April 4, 2011 (Item No. 4g)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 21
Meeting Date: April 4, 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:
Amend Consultant Contract - Highway 7 / Louisiana Avenue Interchange Project.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to approve Amendment No. 3 to Contract 142-08 which provides additional engineering
consulting services for Phase 4 activities (Final Detail Design) for the Highway 7 / Louisiana
Avenue Interchange project, Project No. 2012-0100.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the City Council wish to pursue Phase 4 project development activities?
BACKGROUND:
History
The City’s Capital Improvement Program (C.I.P.) indentifies the Highway 7/Louisiana Avenue
intersection as a priority improvement project. The proposed project will provide for the
construction of a grade-separated interchange at Louisiana Avenue and Highway 7. The project
also includes pedestrian and bicycle friendly improvements along with re-configuration of the
frontage roads in order to improve access, safety, and traffic flow for both the Highway 7
corridor and Louisiana Avenue. This proposed improvement is essential in meeting long term
transportation and safety needs of both 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. In January 2011, Council approved Amendment 2 for additional Phase 3
activities as a result of additional efforts required to develop a final preferred concept,
participation in a Value Engineering Study, and the acceleration of Phase 4 environmental work
required by Mn/DOT.
At the recent Council workshop, Mike Rardin, Public Works Director reviewed this project
including the history and led the discussion on options for next steps by Council. It was the
consensus of the Council at this meeting to prepare an action item for Council review for
approval for work on Phase 4. As directed by Council, below is additional information on
current activity and Phase 4.
City Council Meeting April 4, 2011 (Item No. 8a) Page 2
Subject: Amend Consultant Contract - Highway 7 / Louisiana Avenue Interchange Project
Phase 3 Activities
Work is continuing on Phase 3 activities, Preliminary Design and Environmental Assessment. A
geometric layout of the preferred interchange concept has been completed and has recently
received final approval by Mn/DOT. A geometric layout is essentially a design of the roadway
alignment for all segments of the proposed interchange. The geometric layout must meet all the
design standards of Mn/DOT and FHWA.
A draft Environmental Assessment (EA) is undergoing agency final review by Mn/DOT and the
Federal Highway Agency (FHWA). The EA is anticipated to be published in mid-April and
made available for public comment. Final acceptance of the EA is anticipated by or before
August 1, 2011. No significant environmental concerns have been identified with this project.
Part of the EA process includes a traffic noise study. Results from the final evaluation have
determined that existing and future levels exceed state and federal noise standards in areas along
the northwest quadrant of the Highway 7/Louisiana Interchange Project area. As a result, the
project is required to consider noise mitigation measures such as noise walls along this stretch.
Staff is continuing with a public process to inform the nearby residents and property owners of
the noise analysis and to solicit feedback on noise mitigation measures. Surveys will be made to
determine whether or not there is support for constructing noise walls as part of the project.
Additional Professional Services for Phase 4 Activities
Phase 4 activities are generally described as Final Design and Plan Preparation. The activities
include detailed engineering work to complete plans and specifications needed for bidding. The
following is a list of tasks associated with this phase of the project:
Project Management
Public Involvement
Survey Work
Geotechnical Analysis
Drainage Design
Wetland Permitting
Roadway Design
Bridge Design
Lighting
Aesthetic Design and Landscape Architecture.
Right-of-Way acquisition activities will be conducted during, but are not included in SEH Phase
4 activities. Right-of-Way acquisition activities, as needed, will be contracted for separately
during Phase 4.
Should the City Undertake Phase 4 Activities?
As directed by Council in the recent worksession, staff has prepared information and is
recommending that Council give serious consideration to moving forward with the Phase 4
activities. By completing Phase 4 work, the project will be in a stronger position to secure
additional Federal or State funds should they become available. By not proceeding with Phase 4
activities it will be a certainty that the allocated federal dollars will no longer be available for this
project.
City Council Meeting April 4, 2011 (Item No. 8a) Page 3
Subject: Amend Consultant Contract - Highway 7 / Louisiana Avenue Interchange Project
Staff has identified the following pros and cons for moving forward into Phase 4:
Pros for completing Phase 4 work
Keeps project on schedule so that federal funds secured so far ($7,630,000) can be
utilized. Mn/DOT-Met Council requires all final project plans, documents, and right-of-
way activities to be concluded and submitted for Mn/DOT approval and Federal
authorization by the sunset date of March 31, 2012.
Keeps project on schedule so that state funds secured so far ($594,000) can be utilized.
The Mn/DOT Cooperative Agreement requires that this project be let (bids opened) by
June 30, 2012.
Places the City in a better position to compete for additional federal or state funding that
may become available.
Allows for the rehabilitation and upgrading of the regional sanitary waste interceptor line
that runs through the project area.
Allows area property owners to understand the impacts the project will have on their
property and permit them to plan accordingly.
Allows area redevelopment to occur in a timely, orderly manner consistent with this
eventual improvement.
Allows for LRT station area planning expected to begin in the near future.
Cons for completing Phase 4 work
Additional upfront costs carried by the City and the risk that remaining project funding
cannot be obtained.
Project Schedule
The work to this point has been proceeding to allow for construction of the project to begin in the
summer of 2012. Phase 4 services will need to commence prior to completion of the Phase 3
services in order to meet the 2012 construction start. A critical date that influences the project
schedule is the sunset date on the $7.63 million of federal 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. To meet this schedule, Phase 4
work needs to begin in early April, 2010.
A schedule summary is as follows:
March, 2011 – Geometric Layout Approved (Phase 3 activity)
April, 2011 – Begin Final Design (Phase 4 activity)
August, 2011 – EA completed and approved (concludes Phase 3 activities)
September - December 2011 – Right-of-Way Acquisition Process
January 2012 – Condemnation Initiated (only if needed)
January – March 2012 – Construction Plan Review/Revisions/Approval (Phase 4 activity)
March 31, 2012 – Federal Funding Sunset Date
May, 2012 – Advertise for Bids
June, 2012 – Open Bids
July, 2012 – Award Contract and Begin Construction
Council can chose to slow down or to stop work on this project at any point or time.
City Council Meeting April 4, 2011 (Item No. 8a) Page 4
Subject: Amend Consultant Contract - Highway 7 / Louisiana Avenue Interchange Project
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Estimated Contract Cost
SEH estimates the cost for performing Phase 4 activities at $958,600. 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. Should Council approve Phase 4 activities, the
professional services costs with SEH would then be estimated 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
Amendment No. 3 (Phase 4 work) $ 958,600
Total $ 1,800,148
Contract Terms
The following terms are incorporated into this contract:
1. Phase 4 contract work is scheduled for completion by the end of July, 2012.
2. Compensation is based on actual work performed with a maximum contract amount of
$1,800,148.
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.
Funding Sources and Opportunities
$7,630,000 in federal funds has been secured through the Met Council’s State Transportation
Program Urban Grant solicitation. $594,000 has been secured through the Mn/DOT Municipal
Agreement Program. Mn/DOT has also committed $1,000,000 in Access Management Funds
towards the project.
The estimated project costs and funding sources known at this time are:
Project Costs
Construction $16,500,000
Engineering $ 2,820,000
Right of Way $ 2,680,000
Total Costs $22,000,000
Funding Sources
Federal (STP) Funds $7,630,000
City (20% match – undetermined source) $2,398,000
Mn/DOT Access Management $1,000,000
Mn/DOT Cooperative Agreement $ 594,000
Total Committed Funds $11,622,000
Unfunded Amount $10,378,000
City Council Meeting April 4, 2011 (Item No. 8a) Page 5
Subject: Amend Consultant Contract - Highway 7 / Louisiana Avenue Interchange Project
Current funding for Phases 1, 2 and 3 is coming from HRA levy proceeds which have been
designated to pay for infrastructure improvements in redeveloping areas. HRA levy proceeds are
expected to be the source of funding for Phase 4 activities as well. A funding source for the
City’s required match noted above or other possible city costs has not yet been determined.
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: Contract Amendment No. 3
Prepared by: Jim Olson, Engineering Project Manager
Reviewed by: Mike Rardin, Public Works Director
Approved by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager
City Council Meeting April 4, 2011 (Item No. 8a) Page 6
Subject: Amend Consultant Contract - Highway 7 / Louisiana Avenue Interchange Project
AMENDMENT NO 3.
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
CONSULTING SERVICES CONTRACT NO. 142-08
THIS AGREEMENT is made on April 4, 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. On January 18, 2011 Amendment No. 2 was
approved for additional Phase 3 activities at an additional cost of $185,000 with a not to
exceed total contract cost of $ 841,548.
2. ITEM NO. 1: SCOPE OF SERVICES: This paragraph shall be amended to include
the additional Phase 4 engineering services outlined in the SEH proposal dated February
11, 2011.
3. ITEM NO. 2: TIME FOR PERFORMANCE OF SERVICES: This paragraph is
modified to reflect that Phase 4 activities are to be completed by the end of July, 2012.
4. ITEM NO. 3: COMPENSATION FOR SERVICES: Subject to the modifications set
forth herein, the not to exceed compensation amount shall increase by $958,600 from
$841,548 to $1,800,148.
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