HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011/11/21 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - RegularAGENDA
NOVEMBER 21, 2011
6:15 p.m. SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING -- Westwood Room
1. Call to Order
1a. Roll Call
2. Closed Executive Session
Attorney-Client meeting to discuss pending litigation, i.e., Javinsky-Wenzek v City of St. Louis
Park, with the City's Attorneys
3. Adjournment
7:00 p.m. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY -- Council Chambers
1. Call to Order
2. Roll Call
3. Approval of Minutes
3a. Economic Development Authority Minutes November 7, 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 Duke Realty Limited Partnership
Recommended Action: Motion to Adopt Resolution approving the First Amendment to
the Contract for Private Redevelopment By and Between the City of St. Louis Park, St.
Louis Park Economic Development Authority and Duke Realty.
Since the City is a party to the above Contract the City Council will likewise be asked to
approve the proposed First Amendment. Such approval will be on the November 21st
Consent Calendar.
7b. Third Amendment to Redevelopment Contract with Aquila Senior LLC
Recommended Action:
Motion to adopt the resolution approving the Third Amendment to the Contract for
Private Redevelopment By and Between St. Louis Park Economic Development
Authority and Aquila Senior 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
Meeting of November 21, 2011
City Council Agenda
2. Presentations -- None
3. Approval of Minutes
3a. City Council Meeting Minutes of November 7, 2011
3b. Special City Council Meeting Minutes of November 14, 2011
4. Approval of Agenda and Items on Consent Calendar
NOTE: The Consent Calendar lists those items of business which are considered to be routine and/or which
need no discussion. Consent items are acted upon by one motion. If discussion is desired by either a
Councilmember or a member of the audience, that item may be moved to an appropriate section of the
regular agenda for discussion. The items for the Consent Calendar are listed on the last page of the Agenda.
Recommended Action: Motion to approve the Agenda as presented and items listed on the Consent
Calendar; and to waive reading of all resolutions and ordinances. (Alternatively: Motion to add or remove items
from the agenda, or move items from Consent Calendar to regular agenda for discussion.)
5. Boards and Commissions -- None
6. Public Hearings
6a. Public Hearing – 2012 Liquor License Fees
Recommended Action: Mayor to close public hearing. Motion to approve Resolution
adopting 2012 liquor license fees for the license term March 1, 2012 through March 1,
2013 pursuant to M.S.A. Ch. 340A and section 3-59 of the St. Louis Park City Code.
6b. Public Hearing on Greensboro Condominium Association Housing Improvement Area (HIA)
Recommended Action: Mayor to open Public Hearing, take testimony, and then close
the Public Hearing.
Ÿ Motion to Adopt Resolution approving a housing improvement fee for the
Greensboro Condominium Association Housing Improvement Area pursuant to
Minnesota Statutes, Sections 428A.11 to 428A.21.
Ÿ Motion to Adopt First Reading of an ordinance establishing the Greensboro
Condominium Association Housing Improvement Area pursuant to Minnesota Statutes,
Sections 428A.11 to 428A.21 and to set Second Reading for December 5, 2011.
7. Requests, Petitions, and Communications from the Public -- None
8. Resolutions, Ordinances, Motions and Discussion Items
8a. Fretham Twelfth Addition – Preliminary Plat
Recommended Action: Motion to Adopt Resolution approving the Preliminary Plat for
six single-family lots known as Fretham Twelfth Addition.
8b. Amending the Plan by Neighborhood Section of Comprehensive Plan
Recommended Action: Motion to Adopt Resolution amending the Plan by
Neighborhood section of Comprehensive Plan and authorize publication of summary
resolution.
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 November 21, 2011
City Council Agenda
CONSENT CALENDAR
4a. Adopt Resolution supporting the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) in
creating and implementing a management plan to educate, control and prevent the spread
of aquatic invasive species through the watershed area
4b. Adopt Resolution authorizing parking restrictions on Gamble Drive east of Park Place
Boulevard
4c. Adopt Resolution authorizing parking restrictions on the 5600 block of Lake Street
4d. Adopt Resolution authorizing the elimination of permit parking restrictions in front of
3300 Huntington Avenue and 2716 Dakota Avenue
4e. Adopt Resolution Accepting the Project Report, Establishing Improvement Project No.
2010-1300 Approving Plans and Specifications, and Authorizing Advertisement for Bids
for Improvement Project No. 2010-1300
4f. Adopt Resolution approving the First Amendment to the Contract for Private
Redevelopment By and Between the City of St. Louis Park, St. Louis Park Economic
Development Authority and Duke Realty
4g. Approve for filing Housing Authority Minutes September 14, 2011
4h. 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: November 21, 2011
Agenda Item #: 3a
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
NOVEMBER 7, 2011
1. Call to Order
President Finkelstein called the meeting to order at 7:20 p.m.
Commissioners present: President Phil Finkelstein, Jeff Jacobs, Anne Mavity, Julia Ross, and
Sue Santa.
Commissioners absent: Paul Omodt and Susan Sanger.
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 October 17, 2011
The minutes were approved as presented.
4. Approval of Agenda
The agenda was approved as presented.
5. Reports - None
6. Old Business - None
7. New Business
7a. Third Amendment to Redevelopment Contract with PNMC Holdings
EDA Resolution No. 11-15
Mr. Hunt presented the staff report and explained that the EDA entered into a contract for
private redevelopment with PNMC Holdings in 1993 which called for the phased
construction of much of Park Nicollet’s campus, including the 3850 Building, 3900
Building, and the parking ramp serving the Clinic. He stated that under Phase II of the
Contract, Park Nicollet was required to construct at least 145,000 square feet of medical
office space on its campus and Park Nicollet had constructed 49,310 square feet and the
remaining 95,690 square feet had not occurred. As a result, Park Nicollet is in default of
EDA Meeting of November 21, 2011 (Item No. 3a) Page 2
Subject: EDA Meeting Minutes of November 7, 2011
the agreement. He advised that a proposed settlement had been reached with Park
Nicollet which addresses the default. To formalize the proposed agreement, the parties
the parties have agreed to enter into a Third Amendment to the Redevelopment Contract.
In summary, the agreement caps the qualified costs for which Park Nicollet would be
eligible for reimbursement at approximately $2.3 million and reduces this amount by
$500,000, resulting in a net remaining amount of tax increment of $1,815,000. He
indicated that final payment in 2012 would also result in early termination of the contract
and early decertification of the Excelsior Boulevard HSTI TIF District by nine years,
adding approximately $1 million or 1.4% in tax capacity to the City’s total tax base.
Commissioner Mavity expressed thanks to City staff and Park Nicollet for reaching a
settlement on this complex agreement. She requested confirmation that the settlement
will leave open the possibility for further development on the site. She also requested
further information regarding the direct benefits to the City as a result of the early
decertification of the TIF District.
Mr. Hunt replied that further development on the site will be possible under the terms of
the settlement. He stated that under the settlement Park Nicollet’s assistance would
essentially be reduced by more than $800,000 and that the total assistance to which it is
entitled would also be capped. He explained that Park Nicollet was entitled to receive up
to $9 million and to date, Park Nicollet had incurred approximately $6.2 million in
remediation expenses, resulting in substantial savings to the City. He added that by
terminating the TIF District early, approximately $1 million will be placed onto the
City’s tax rolls by 2013 instead of 2022.
It was moved by Commissioner Mavity, seconded by Commissioner Ross, to approve
EDA Resolution No. 11-15 Approving a Third Amendment to Contract for Private
Redevelopment Between the St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority, PNMC
Holdings, and Park Nicollet Health Services.
The motion passed 5-0 (Commissioners Omodt and Sanger absent).
7b. First Amendment to the Redevelopment Contract with M & L Anodizing
Properties, LLC. EDA Resolutions No. 11-13 and 11-14
Mr. Hunt presented the staff report and advised that M & L Anodizing Properties, aka
Hardcoat Inc., plans to acquire the former Flame Metals property at 7317 West Lake
Street and plans to renovate the building, construct a small addition and relocate its
operations there. He stated that Hardcoat plans to close on its financing this week and
immediately commence renovation work with the entire project to be completed by
summer 2012. He explained that the amendment provides an additional $80,000 in
financial assistance to help facilitate the proposed project for total funding of $500,000 to
be provided on a reimbursement basis with funds derived from the pooled tax increment
generated by nine TIF Districts. He noted that the amendment also extends the
commencement date to July 1st and extends the completion date to the end of next year.
He indicated that the amendment also sets the minimum market value of the site at $2.4
million which is lower than the $2.6 amount that Ehlers included in its assumptions,
which will likely generate approximately $166,000 in total tax increment net present
EDA Meeting of November 21, 2011 (Item No. 3a) Page 3
Subject: EDA Meeting Minutes of November 7, 2011
value over the nine year term, which is less than the previous estimate of $190,000. He
also presented the proposed second interfund agreement which allows the EDA to
reimburse itself an additional $80,000 in connection with the administration of the
Hardcoat TIF District.
Commissioner Santa requested further information regarding the reasons for the
amendment and what caused the delays experienced by Hardcoat.
Mr. Hunt explained that Hardcoat has been through a litany of requirements from the
Department of Agriculture which required further environmental testing on the property,
resulting in substantial delays to both closing as well as commencing the renovation and
expansion. He indicated as a result of these delays, Hardcoat had incurred substantial
additional costs resulting in over $500,000 in additional expenses and Hardcoat had
asked if the EDA would be willing to contribute another $80,000 to help move the project
forward.
Mr. Michael Kelner, owner of Hardcoat Inc., appeared before the Economic
Development Authority and expressed thanks to the EDA and City staff for their help
throughout this process. He advised that as of last Friday, he received a written response
from the Department of Agriculture indicating its acceptance of their plan and Hardcoat
has completed all remediation on the property from previous spills that occurred over
thirty years ago. He stated that all dirt has been removed and replaced and they are ready
to commence the project. He added that Hardcoat is scheduled to close on Thursday,
November 10th.
Commissioner Mavity stated that the EDA is supporting this because it feels this is in the
City’s best interest. She indicated the Construction Assistance Program seeks to create
jobs in the community and improve existing buildings. She requested further information
regarding the number of employees at Hardcoat. She also requested clarification
regarding the contract’s terms related to the conditions under which the CAP Loan would
not be a forgivable loan.
Mr. Kelner advised at the time that Hardcoat made its initial presentation to the EDA,
there were 12 employees working for Hardcoat and today, Hardcoat employs 18 people
on a full-time basis for a net increase of six employees.
Mr. Hunt explained that the contract requires Hardcoat to keep and hold the property in
good repair for five years and if it does not, or if the property is sold, Hardcoat would be
required to repay the entirety of the funding provided to it by the EDA.
It was moved by Commissioner Santa, seconded by Commissioner Ross, to approve EDA
Resolution No. 11-13 approving a First Amendment of a Contract for Private
Redevelopment By and Between the St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority and
M & L Anodizing Properties, LLC.
The motion passed 5-0 (Commissioners Omodt and Sanger absent).
EDA Meeting of November 21, 2011 (Item No. 3a) Page 4
Subject: EDA Meeting Minutes of November 7, 2011
It was moved by Commissioner Santa, seconded by Commissioner Ross, to approve EDA
Resolution No. 11-14 Authorizing Interfund Loan for Advance of Certain Costs in
Connection with the Hardcoat Tax Increment Financing District.
The motion passed 5-0 (Commissioners Omodt and Sanger absent).
8. Communications - None
9. Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 7:36 p.m.
______________________________________ ______________________________________
Secretary President
Meeting Date: November 21, 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 October 8, 2011 through November 11,
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
11/16/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:15:50R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
1Page -Council Check Summary
11/11/2011 -10/8/2011
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
100.00HOIGAARD 2010A DEBT SERV G&A FISCAL AGENT FEESBOND TRUST SERVICES CORP
100.00
5,780.75DEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A LEGAL SERVICESCAMPBELL KNUTSON PROF ASSOC
5,780.75
34.847015 WALKER-REYNOLDS WELD PROP HEATING GASCENTERPOINT ENERGY
34.84
53.00DEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A TRAININGCITIZENS INDEPENDENT BANK
32.00DEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A MEETING EXPENSE
85.00
5,458.00DEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESHOISINGTON KOEGLER GROUP INC
5,458.00
162.00AMERICAN INN PROP DEVELOPMENT LEGAL SERVICESKENNEDY & GRAVEN
162.00
5,027.787015 WALKER-REYNOLDS WELD PROP OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESKRECH, O'BRIEN, MUELLER & WASS
5,027.78
3,000.00HRA LEVY G&A LEGAL SERVICESLOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP
3,000.00
5,000.00DEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESMCCD
5,000.00
420.00DEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPSMNCAR EXCHANGE
420.00
224.39DEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A TELEPHONENEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS
224.39
Report Totals 25,292.76
EDA Meeting of November 21, 2011 (Item No. 5a)
Subject: EDA Vendor Claims Page 2
Meeting Date: November 21, 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 Duke Realty Limited Partnership.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to Adopt Resolution approving the First Amendment to the Contract for Private
Redevelopment By and Between the City of St. Louis Park, St. Louis Park Economic
Development Authority and Duke Realty.
Since the City is a party to the above Contract the City Council will likewise be asked to approve
the proposed First Amendment. Such approval will be on the November 21st Consent Calendar.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the EDA support correcting the legal description within the Redevelopment Contract as
specified in the proposed First Amendment?
BACKGROUND:
On December 17, 2007 the EDA and City approved a Redevelopment Contract with Duke Realty
related to The West End project near I-394 and Highway 100. This contract was substantially
modified to add the West End Apartments and change the schedule for building via an Amended
and Restated Redevelopment Contract approved on May 17, 2010. The project essentially
consists of three components – a lifestyle retail complex, an apartment building and a series of
Class A office buildings. The 350,000 SF lifestyle center is complete and 80% of the retail space
is leased. The upscale, 120–unit apartment building is expected to break ground late next spring.
Given the current office market, construction on the first of what is expected to be three or four
Class A office buildings (with 1.1 million SF between them) is not likely to occur until the
required commencement date which is March 1, 2014.
On October 27th, Duke Realty officially notified the City that it was selling the 1600 Tower and
MoneyGram office buildings to the Blackstone Group. These are the existing office buildings
across the street from The West End. Duke will continue to own The West End and remains
committed to building the 1.1 million square feet of future office buildings called for in the
Redevelopment Contract with the EDA and City.
The 1600 Tower and MoneyGram building are not part of The West End project even though
they have been carefully integrated into the redevelopment. The EDA is not required to review
or approve of the transfer of the properties to the Blackstone Group. However, when the
Redevelopment Contract was amended and restated in May 2010, the legal description that was
used inadvertently included the 1600 Tower and MoneyGram office building site. This was an
error. The parcel on which these office buildings sit was not part of the original legal description
for the Redevelopment Contract with Duke in 2007. The proper method for correcting this
inadvertent error is through an amendment to the Redevelopment Contract.
EDA Meeting of November 21, 2011 (Item No. 7a) Page 2
Subject: First Amendment to the Redevelopment Contract with Duke Realty Limited Partnership
Proposed First Amendment
The proposed First Amendment corrects the legal description related to The West End project
contained within the Redevelopment Contract with Duke Realty.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
There is no financial impact to the EDA or City for correcting the legal description within the
Redevelopment Contract with Duke Realty. This action is necessary for completion of the
ownership transfer of the 1600 Tower and MoneyGram office buildings to the Blackstone Group.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
The West End project is consistent with the City’s Vision; especially the Strategic Directions
concerning gathering places, public art, trails, sidewalks and transportation.
Attachments: Resolution Approving First Amendment
First Amendment to Redevelopment Contract with Duke Realty
Prepared by: Greg Hunt, Economic Development Coordinator
Reviewed by: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, EDA Executive Director and City Manager
EDA Meeting of November 21, 2011 (Item No. 7a) Page 3
Subject: First Amendment to the Redevelopment Contract with Duke Realty Limited Partnership
ST. LOUIS PARK ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RESOLUTION NO. 11-____
RESOLUTION APPROVING A FIRST AMENDMENT TO AMENDED AND RESTATED
CONTRACT FOR PRIVATE REDEVELOPMENT AMONG THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS
PARK, THE ST. LOUIS PARK ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND DUKE
REALTY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
BE IT RESOLVED By the Board of Commissioners ("Board") of the St. Louis Park
Economic Development Authority ("Authority") as follows:
Section 1. Recitals.
1.01. The Authority is currently administering its Redevelopment Project No. 1 ("Project")
pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.001 to 469.047 ("HRA Act"), and within the Project
has established The West End Tax Increment Financing District (“TIF District”).
1.02. The Authority and the City of St. Louis Park (“City”) entered into an Amended and
Restated Contract for Private Redevelopment Dated as of May 17, 2010 (the “Contract”), regarding
redevelopment of a portion of the property within the TIF District.
1.03. The parties have determined to a need to revise the Contract in certain respects, and to
that end have prepared a First Amendment to Amended and Restated Contract for Private
Redevelopment (the “First Amendment”).
1.04. The Board has reviewed the First Amendment and finds that the approval and
execution thereof and performance of the Authority's obligations thereunder are in the best interest
of the City and its residents.
Section 2. Authority Approval; Other Proceedings.
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 documents by such officials
shall be conclusive evidence of approval.
2.02. The President and Executive Director are hereby authorized to execute on behalf of
the Authority the First Amendment and any documents referenced therein requiring execution by
the Authority, and to carry out, on behalf of the Authority its obligations thereunder.
2.03. Authority staff and consultants are authorized to take any actions necessary to carry
out the intent of this resolution.
EDA Meeting of November 21, 2011 (Item No. 7a) Page 4
Subject: First Amendment to the Redevelopment Contract with Duke Realty Limited Partnership
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the Economic Development
Authority November 21, 2011
Executive Director President
Attest
Secretary
EDA Meeting of November 21, 2011 (Item No. 7a) Page 5
Subject: First Amendment to the Redevelopment Contract with Duke Realty Limited Partnership
FIRST AMENDMENT TO
AMENDED AND RESTATED CONTRACT FOR PRIVATE REDEVELOPMENT
THIS AGREEMENT, made as of the 21st day of November, 2011, by and between the
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, a Minnesota municipal corporation, (the “City”), and the ST.
LOUIS PARK ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, a public body corporate and
politic (the “Authority”), established pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.090 to 469.1081
(hereinafter referred to as the “Act”), and DUKE REALTY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, an
Indiana limited partnership (the “Redeveloper”).
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, the Authority was created pursuant to the Act and was authorized to transact
business and exercise its powers by a resolution of the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park
(the “City”); and
WHEREAS, the Authority has undertaken a program to promote redevelopment of land
that is characterized by blight and blighting factors within the City, and in this connection the
Authority has created Redevelopment Project No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as the “Project”) in the
City, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.001 to 469.047 (the “HRA Act”); and
WHEREAS, the Authority has established a redevelopment tax increment financing district
known as The West End Tax Increment Financing District (the “TIF District”) within the Project
and adopted a financing plan (the “TIF Plan”) for the TIF District in order to facilitate
redevelopment of certain property in the Project, all pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections
469.174 to 469.179; and
WHEREAS, the Authority, City and Redeveloper entered into an Amended and Restated
Contract for Private Redevelopment dated May 17, 2010 (the “Contract”), which described the
parties’ respective responsibilities regarding redevelopment of certain property in the TIF District
(referred to as the “Redevelopment Property”); and
WHEREAS, the parties have determined a need to modify the Contract solely to correct the
legal description of the Redevelopment Property and the Adjacent Property;
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. Schedule A to the Contract is revised to read as attached hereto.
2. The Contract remains in full force and effect, and is not modified except as expressly
provided herein.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Authority and the City have caused this Agreement to
be duly executed in its respective name and behalf and its seal to be hereunto duly affixed and
the Redeveloper has caused this Agreement to be duly executed in its name and behalf as of the
date first above written.
EDA Meeting of November 21, 2011 (Item No. 7a) Page 6
Subject: First Amendment to the Redevelopment Contract with Duke Realty Limited Partnership
ST. LOUIS PARK ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
By
Its President
By
Executive Director
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) ss.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ____ day of November, 2011
by Phillip Finkelstein and Thomas Harmening, the President and Executive Director, respectively,
of the Economic Development Authority of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, on behalf of the Authority.
Notary Public
EDA Meeting of November 21, 2011 (Item No. 7a) Page 7
Subject: First Amendment to the Redevelopment Contract with Duke Realty Limited Partnership
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
By
Its Mayor
By
City Manager
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) ss.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ____ day of November, 2011
by Jeff Jacobs and Thomas Harmening, the Mayor and City Manager, respectively, of the of the
City of St. Louis Park, on behalf of the City.
Notary Public
EDA Meeting of November 21, 2011 (Item No. 7a) Page 8
Subject: First Amendment to the Redevelopment Contract with Duke Realty Limited Partnership
DUKE REALTY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
By ____________________________________,
the Senior Vice President of Duke Realty
Corporation, an Indiana corporation and the general
partner of the above-named limited partnership
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) ss.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _____ day of ___________,
2011 by Pat Mascia, the Senior Vice president of Duke Realty Corporation, an Indiana corporation
and the general partner of Duke Realty Limited Partnership, an Indiana limited partnership, on
behalf of the partnership.
Notary Public
EDA Meeting of November 21, 2011 (Item No. 7a) Page 9
Subject: First Amendment to the Redevelopment Contract with Duke Realty Limited Partnership
SCHEDULE A
REDEVELOPMENT PROPERTY
Lots 1, 2, 3 and 4, Block 1; Lot 2, Block 2; and Outlot A, The Shops at West End, according to the
recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
GOLDEN VALLEY PROPERTY
Parcel 5:
Tract 1: Lot 1, Block 4, "Kavlis Cedardale" and that part of the vacated alley in said Block 4,
lying East of the center line thereof and between the extensions across it of the North and South
lines of said Lot 1, according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
Tract 2: That part of the North 693.61 feet of the Northeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of
Section 30, Township 29, Range 24 lying Westerly and Southerly of State Trunk Highway No.
100, also known as the Belt Line Highway, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
EXCEPT that portion taken by the State of Minnesota pursuant to Partial Final Certificate
recorded July 21, 1993 as Document No. 2401510.
(Torrens Property-Certificate of Title No. 1012734)
Parcel 6:
That part of vacated Raleigh Avenue and of vacated Douglas Avenue all according to the plat of
"Kavlis Cedardale" lying Westerly of the Westerly right of way line of State Trunk Highway No.
100 as described in the Final Certificate recorded in Book 412 of Miscellaneous Records, page
148 in the office of the County Recorder and lying Southerly of a line drawn from the Southwest
corner of Tract E, Registered Land Survey No. 864 and passing through a point on the East line
of said Tract E distant 18.18 feet North of the Southeast corner of said Tract E, Hennepin
County, Minnesota.
EXCEPT that portion taken by the State of Minnesota pursuant to Partial Final Certificate
recorded July 21, 1993 as Document No. 2401510.
(Torrens Property-Certificate of Title No. 1012686)
EDA Meeting of November 21, 2011 (Item No. 7a) Page 10
Subject: First Amendment to the Redevelopment Contract with Duke Realty Limited Partnership
Parcel 7:
Lots 2, 3, 4 and 6, Block 4 except that portion of said Lots taken for Belt Line Highway; Lots 7
to 12 inclusive, Block 4 and that part of Raleigh Avenue vacated lying between the Westerly
extension of the South line of said Lot 7 and the North line of said Lot 12 and that part of the
vacated alley in said Block 4 lying between the Easterly extensions of the North and South lines
of said Lot 7 and between the South line of said Lot 9 and the North line of said Lot 11 and that
part of the West 1/2 of the vacated alley in said Block 4 lying between the extensions of the
North and South lines of said Lot 8 and between the North and South lines of said Lot 12; ALL
in "Kavlis Cedardale", according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
That part of the following described property:
That part of vacated Raleigh and Douglas Avenues as shown on the plat of "Kavlis Cedardale"
lying between the extensions across said Avenues of the South and West lines of Lot 7, Block 4
and that part of said vacated Douglas Avenue adjoining Lots 6 and 7, Block 4 of said plat lying
between the Westerly line of Belt Line Highway and the extension across said Avenue of the
West line of said Lot 7, Block 4, "Kavlis Cedardale";
Which lies Northerly of a straight line extending between the Southwest corner of Tract E,
Registered Land Survey No. 864, Hennepin County, Minnesota and the Westerly right-of-way of
State Trunk Highway 100 passing through a point on the East line of said Tract E distant 18.18
feet North of the Southeast corner of said Tract E as measured along said East line, Hennepin
County, Minnesota.
EXCEPT that portion taken by the State of Minnesota pursuant to Partial Final Certificate
recorded July 21, 1993 as Document No. 2401510.
(Torrens Property-Certificate of Title No. 1012678)
Parcel 8:
That part of the South 60 feet of the North 753.61 feet of the Northeast Quarter of the Southwest
Quarter of Section 30, Township 29, Range 24, lying West of the Belt Line Highway, Hennepin
County, Minnesota.
EXCEPT that portion taken by the State of Minnesota pursuant to Partial Final Certificate
recorded July 21, 1993 as Document No. 2401510.
(Torrens Property-Certificate of Title No. 1012680)
ADJACENT PROPERTY
Lot 1, Block 2, The Shops at West End, according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County,
Minnesota.
Meeting Date: November 21, 2011
Agenda Item #: 7b
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:
Third Amendment to Redevelopment Contract with Aquila Senior LLC.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to adopt the resolution approving the Third Amendment to the Contract for Private
Redevelopment By and Between St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority and Aquila
Senior LLC.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the EDA support the removal of the asset restrictions on the sale of the initial units and
removal of the income and asset restrictions on the re-sale units under the Redevelopment
Contract related to Aquila Commons?
BACKGROUND:
On October 4, 2004, a Redevelopment Contract with Stonebridge Development (Aquila Senior,
LLC) was approved and a Housing TIF District was created to facilitate the redevelopment of the
former Talmud Torah School property located at 8200 West 33rd Street. As required under the
Contract, the Redeveloper was to demolish the existing school building and construct a 106-unit
senior cooperative housing development in its place called Aquila Commons. In return, the EDA
agreed to provide TIF assistance for the project in the maximum principal amount of $1,050,000.
Construction of Aquila Commons was fully completed in December 2007. After nearly four
years, 15 of the original 106 units remain unsold. In addition, some of the previously sold units
are now being resold. Currently there are 5 units up for resale. Thus the total number of units
currently for sale in the building is 20.
At the October 24th Study Session, the EDA was provided with an update on sales and marketing
efforts at Aquila Commons, the difficulty facing both, and proposed actions to stimulate unit
sales so as to make the building fully occupied and the project successful.
Need to Revisit Asset and Income Requirements within the Contract
At the time the Aquila Commons project was under consideration it was the intent of the EDA
that the project be primarily marketed to St. Louis Park senior residents in need of affordable,
for-sale, housing. In compliance with state requirements for Housing TIF Districts, 95% of the
housing units (that being 100 units) within the project were required to be occupied by
individuals whose family income was at or below certain federal income requirements. Although
not required by law, the EDA applied this income restriction to subsequent buyers as well. In
addition, the EDA imposed its own restrictions on the total assets buyers could have. This
restriction on total assets also applied to subsequent purchasers. Thus, the Contract included
restrictions on both income and assets of both original and subsequent unit purchasers within the
project. The requirements are as follows:
EDA Meeting of November 21, 2011 (Item No. 7b) Page 2
Subject: Third Amendment to Redevelopment Contract with Aquila Senior LLC
(i) At least 40 % (or 42) of the unit interests will be sold to persons with a household
income not exceeding 80% of the median income for the Minneapolis-St. Paul metropolitan
area, adjusted for family size. (Currently, 60% of the units within Aquila Commons have
been sold to persons with household incomes at or below this threshold).
(ii) At least 55% (or 58) of the unit interests will be sold to persons with household
income not exceeding 100% of the metropolitan area income median income.
(iii)For all units subject to either clause (i) or clause (ii) above, the buyer’s total assets
as of the date of sale may not exceed $500,000 on a net present value basis (the “Maximum
Assets”), determined in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. The
Maximum Assets will be adjusted on January 1, 2011 and January 1 of every fifth year
thereafter through the Termination Date, based on the cumulative increase in the United
States Bureau of Labor Statistics Consumer Price Index—All Urban Consumers for the
preceding five-year period.
This asset limit may be increased by up to an additional $250,000 based upon the most recent
assessed value of a buyer’s principal residence as expressed on the city’s tax rolls or the sale
price of a buyer’s principal residence. The $250,000 limit may be adjusted upwards annually
by three percent (3%) commencing on January 1, 2006.
The above requirements meant that the total asset limit for persons purchasing units within
Aquila Commons was originally set at $750,000 and has been subsequently adjusted annually.
On January 1, 2011, the maximum total asset limit was adjusted to $839,513 or less depending
on the value of the buyer’s home. At first blush this limit would appear to be a considerable sum
under which many seniors would expect to qualify. However, the reality is that many St. Louis
Park seniors have proven to be careful stewards of their assets and by the time they combine the
entirety of their savings and total pensions, along with net proceeds from the sale of their
principal residence in St. Louis Park, they exceed the EDA’s asset limits. This prevents them
from purchasing a unit within Aquila Commons. In some cases, potential purchasers did not have
pensions but were provided net payouts at the time of their retirement. Thus their total assets
well exceeded the asset restriction yet the income generated from their assets was very modest.
The asset restrictions are making it difficult for many of our residents to purchase units within
Aquila Commons resulting in a significant number of unsold units.
The sale of units within Aquila Commons has become an issue that will likely get worse as more
of the original units start to turnover. While some of the difficulty in selling units is certainly
attributable to the downturn in the real estate market, in many cases the asset restrictions have
become the major stumbling block to closing sales. Sales have been lost due to these asset
restrictions and, as a result, the property is beginning to develop a stigma within the local real
estate community as being a difficult place to purchase and re-sell units. Staff investigated
whether other coops have a similar provision and, as it turns out, Aquila Commons appears to be
the only senior cooperative housing project in Minnesota to have restrictions on purchaser’s
assets.
As stated previously, the EDA requires that units being resold must also meet income and asset
restrictions. The EDA is not required to have these restrictions. State and federal housing laws
pertaining to projects like Aquila Commons only stipulate that the initial buyers be income
qualified and include no such restriction on subsequent purchasers. The EDA imposed these
EDA Meeting of November 21, 2011 (Item No. 7b) Page 3
Subject: Third Amendment to Redevelopment Contract with Aquila Senior LLC
restrictions on the resale of units at Aquila Commons too. The intent was to continue to ensure
Aquila Commons was protected for seniors with modest incomes. However the 3% unit
appreciation limit built into the coop legal structure ensures that the property will continue to be
an affordable housing option for St. Louis Park seniors into the future. The reality is that the
income and asset restrictions create an obstacle for unit owners (and their heirs) when it comes
time to sell. As noted above, there are currently 5 units up for resale in the building – including
units which have been on the market for more than two years. In some cases, the re-sales are due
to the original buyer passing away and the unsold units are preventing estates from being settled.
Given the difficulty of reselling units, the number of units up for re-sale at the same time is likely
to become an increasing issue.
Recommendations
The income restrictions for initial buyers at Aquila Commons need to be retained in order for the
project to remain in compliance with statutory Housing TIF District requirements. The income
restrictions on the initial buyers will ensure seniors of modest means will benefit from the EDA’s
investment in making Aquila Commons a reality.
The asset restriction included in the Contract for all purchasers at Aquila Commons, while well
intended, has proven to be an impediment to unit sales and does not necessarily accomplish the
EDA’s goal of creating an affordable, for-sale, housing option for local seniors. Having units
continue unsold and vacant does not fulfill this goal, nor does it benefit the project or the coop
community. In fact, the more units remain vacant the greater the financial burden on the coop to
pay for the building’s maintenance costs. Lifting the asset restriction would be consistent with
both state and federal housing project requirements and, in so doing, would broaden the market
of potential buyers, streamline the administrative process for qualifying those buyers and
ultimately enable more units to be sold. For these reasons, Staff recommends that the asset
restriction on all unit purchasers at Aquila Commons be lifted.
Regarding the resale of units, it is recommended that both the income requirements and asset
restrictions be lifted. This too would be consistent with state and federal housing project
requirements. Eliminating restrictions will make it easier for St. Louis Park residents and their
families to sell their units and ensure the continued vitality of the Aquila Commons property.
The buyer interest in Aquila Commons has made it clear that Aquila Commons is meeting a
community need.
Terms of the Proposed Third Amendment
Consistent with the discussion at the October 24th Study Session, the proposed Third
Amendment to the Redevelopment Contract with Aquila Senior LLC removes the asset
restrictions on the sale of the initial units and the removes the income and asset restrictions on
the re-sale units at Aquila Commons. It also allows that if a unit is purchased by a third party for
a person (or persons) who meet the income requirements and who occupy the unit as their
principal residence, that unit would qualify as meeting the income requirements. This provision
would immediately free up one of the six units without income requirements and could stimulate
the sale of the remaining original units.
EDA Meeting of November 21, 2011 (Item No. 7b) Page 4
Subject: Third Amendment to Redevelopment Contract with Aquila Senior LLC
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Modifying the asset and income requirements contained in the Redevelopment Contract with
Aquila Senior, LLC as proposed will stimulate unit sales within Aquila Commons so as to make it
fully occupied and the project successful.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Aquila Commons is consistent with the City’s vision to be a community of diverse, high quality
housing.
Attachments: Resolution of Approval
Third Amendment to the Redevelopment Contract
Prepared by: Greg Hunt, Economic Development Coordinator
Reviewed by: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, EDA Executive Director and City Manager
EDA Meeting of November 21, 2011 (Item No. 7b) Page 5
Subject: Third Amendment to Redevelopment Contract with Aquila Senior LLC
ST. LOUIS PARK ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RESOLUTION NO. 11-____
RESOLUTION APPROVING THIRD AMENDMENT TO CONTRACT FOR PRIVATE
REDEVELOPMENT BETWEEN ST. LOUIS PARK ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY AND AQUILA SENIOR, LLC
BE IT RESOLVED By the Board of Commissioners ("Board") of the St. Louis Park
Economic Development Authority ("Authority") as follows:
Section 1. Recitals.
1.01. The Authority has determined a need to exercise the powers of a housing and
redevelopment authority, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections. 469.090 to 469.108 ("EDA
Act"), and is currently administering Redevelopment Project No. 1 ("Redevelopment Project")
pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.001 to 469.047 ("HRA Act").
1.02. The Authority and Aquila Senior, LLC (the “Redeveloper") have entered into that
certain Contract for Private Redevelopment dated as of October 4, 2004. (the “Contract”), setting
forth the terms and conditions of redevelopment of certain property within the Redevelopment
Project, generally described as the former Talmud Torah School site.
1.03. The Authority and the Redeveloper have entered into that certain First Amendment
to Contract for Private Redevelopment dated as of May 16, 2005 (the “First Amendment”).
1.04. The Authority and the Redeveloper have entered into that certain Second
Amendment to Contract for Private Redevelopment dated as of March 20, 2006 (the “Second
Amendment”).
1.05. The Redeveloper has determined that due to the ongoing economic downturn the
asset and income requirements of the Project significantly impact the ability to initially market
and sell new units, and resell units under the original and revised asset and income requirements
of the Project.
1.06. The Board has reviewed the Third Amendment to Contract for Private
Redevelopment (the “Third Amendment”) providing for revision of the asset and income
requirements in the Contract, and finds that the execution thereof and performance of the
Authority's obligations thereunder are in the best interest of the City and its residents.
Section 2. Authority Approval; Further Proceedings.
2.01. The Third 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 documents by such officials
shall be conclusive evidence of approval.
EDA Meeting of November 21, 2011 (Item No. 7b) Page 6
Subject: Third Amendment to Redevelopment Contract with Aquila Senior LLC
2.02. The President and Executive Director are hereby authorized to execute on behalf of
the Authority the Contract and any documents referenced therein requiring execution by the
Authority, and to carry out, on behalf of the Authority its obligations thereunder.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the Economic Development
Authority November 21, 2011
Executive Director President
Attest
Secretary
EDA Meeting of November 21, 2011 (Item No. 7b) Page 7
Subject: Third Amendment to Redevelopment Contract with Aquila Senior LLC
THIRD AMENDMENT TO CONTRACT FOR PRIVATE REDVELOPMENT
THIS THIRD AMENDMENT TO CONTRACT FOR PRIVATE REDVELOPMENT
(this “Second Amendment”), made as of the _____ day of __________, 2011, by and between
the ST. LOUIS PARK ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (the “Authority”), a
public body corporate and politic under the laws of Minnesota, and AQUILA SENIOR, LLC
(the “Redeveloper”), a Minnesota limited liability corporation.
WITNESSETH
WHEREAS, the Authority and the Redeveloper have entered into that certain Contract
for Private Redevelopment dated as of October 4, 2004 (the “Redevelopment Contract” or the
“Contract”), providing for the redevelopment of certain property defined in the Contract; and
WHEREAS, the Authority and the Redeveloper have entered into that certain First
Amendment to Contract for Private Redevelopment dated as of May 16, 2005 (the “First
Amendment”); and
WHEREAS, the Authority and the Redeveloper have entered into that certain Second
Amendment to Contract for Private Redevelopment dated as of March 20, 2006 (the “Second
Amendment”) (collectively, as amended, the “Contract”); and
WHEREAS, the Redeveloper has determined that due to the ongoing economic
downturn the asset and income requirements of the Project significantly impact the ability to
initially market and sell new units, and resell units under the original and revised asset and
income requirements of the Project; and
WHEREAS, the Authority and Redeveloper have determined to modify the Contract and
as described herein.
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:
Section 1. Section 4.5 Affordability Covenants., shall be amended to read as follows:
Section 4.5. Affordability Covenants. (a) The parties acknowledge that the TIF District is
a housing district under Section 469.174, subd. 11 of the TIF Act, and that the Minimum
Improvements are subject to the income restrictions for owner occupied housing under Section
469.1761, subd. 2 of the TIF Act (as supplemented by additional restrictions described in this
Section). Redeveloper agrees that, at all times through the Termination Date, it will ensure that
initial and all subsequent conveyances of unit interests in the Cooperative will be made to buyers
in accordance with the following terms:
(i) At least 40 % (or 42) of the unit interests will be sold to persons with a
household income not exceeding 80% of the median income for the Minneapolis-St. Paul
metropolitan area, adjusted for family size.
(ii) At least 55% (or 58) of the unit interests will be sold to persons with (1) in
the case of one and two-person households, household income not exceeding 100% of the
metropolitan area income median income, (2) in the case of three or more person
households, household income not exceeding 115% of the metropolitan area median income.
EDA Meeting of November 21, 2011 (Item No. 7b) Page 8
Subject: Third Amendment to Redevelopment Contract with Aquila Senior LLC
(iii) For all units subject to either clause (i) or clause (ii) above, the buyer’s
total assets (determined in accordance with the Public Housing Leasing and Occupancy
Plan adopted by the St. Louis Park Housing Authority) as of the date of sale may not
exceed $500,000 on a net present value basis (the “Maximum Assets”), determined in
accordance with generally accepted accounting principals. The Maximum Assets will be
adjusted on January 1, 2010 and January 1 of every fifth year thereafter through the
Termination Date, based on the cumulative increase in the United States Bureau of Labor
Statistics Consumer Price Index—All Urban Consumers for the preceding five-year period.
This asset limit may be increased by up to an additional $250,000 based upon the
most recent assessed value of a buyer’s principal residence as expressed on the city’s tax
rolls or the sale price of a buyer’s principal residence. The sale price of a principal
residence shall be evidenced by or closing documents substantiating the sale of the
principal residence and the net proceeds thereof. This $250,000 limit may be adjusted
upwards annually by three percent (3%) commencing on January 1, 2006.
(iii) (iv) For the purposes of this Section, household income must be
determined in accordance with Minnesota Housing Finance Agency (“MHFA”)
procedures for owner-occupied assistance programs. After the initial sale of a unit, the
household income limitations of clause (a) (i) or (ii) above, shall not apply to any
subsequent resale of that unit.
(b) The Redeveloper shall deliver or cause to be delivered written evidence
satisfactory to the Authority of the status of compliance with the covenants in this Section: (i)
upon initial sale of 50% of the units in the Minimum Improvements; (ii) upon completion of the
initial sale of all units; and (iii) thereafter on each January 15 through the Termination Date.
Such evidence must be consistent with MHFA procedures for owner-occupied housing
assistance programs. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary herein, a buyer is not required to
qualify for MHFA assistance, so long as the buyer otherwise meets the income limits described
in this Section. In determining compliance with this Section, the Authority will use the MHFA
median incomes for the year in which the closing on the sale of that unit interest in the
Cooperative occurs.
(c) Notwithstanding the foregoing, if a unit interest is purchased by a third party
for a person or persons who meet the income requirements of this Section 4.5 (a) (i) or (ii)
above, and who occupy such unit as their principal residence, such unit shall qualify as
meeting the income requirements of this Section 4.5 for initial purchases of the unit.
Section 2. Effective Date. This resolution shall be effective upon full execution of this
Third Amendment to the Contract.
Section 3. The Contract as amended, remains in full force and effect and is not modified
except as expressly provided above.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Authority and Redeveloper have caused this Third
Amendment to be duly executed by their duly authorized representatives as of the date first
above written.
EDA Meeting of November 21, 2011 (Item No. 7b) Page 9
Subject: Third Amendment to Redevelopment Contract with Aquila Senior LLC
ST. LOUIS PARK ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
By
Its President
By
Its Executive Director
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) ss.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ____ day of November,
2011 by Phillip Finkelstein and Thomas Harmening, the President and Executive Director of the
St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority, on behalf of the Authority.
Notary Public
[The Remainder Of This Page Has Been Left Blank Intentionally.]
EDA Meeting of November 21, 2011 (Item No. 7b) Page 10
Subject: Third Amendment to Redevelopment Contract with Aquila Senior LLC
AQUILA SENIOR, LLC
By _______________________________________
Its
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) ss.
COUNTY OF __________ )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _____ day of November,
2011, by _________________________, the _________________ of Aquila Senior, LLC, a
Minnesota limited liability company, on behalf of the company.
Notary Public
[The Remainder Of This Page Has Been Left Blank Intentionally.]
Meeting Date: November 21, 2011
Agenda Item #: 3a
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
NOVEMBER 7, 2011
1. Call to Order
Mayor Jacobs called the meeting to order at 7:37 p.m.
Councilmembers present: Mayor Jeff Jacobs, Phil Finkelstein, Anne Mavity, Julia Ross, and Sue
Santa.
Councilmembers absent: Paul Omodt and Susan Sanger.
Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), Deputy City Manager/Director of Human
Resources (Ms. Deno), and Recording Secretary (Ms. Hughes).
1a. Pledge of Allegiance
1b. Roll Call
2. Presentations - None
3. Approval of Minutes
3a. City Council Meeting Minutes of October 3, 2011
The minutes were approved as presented.
3b. Study Session Meeting Minutes of October 10, 2011
The minutes were approved as presented.
3c. City Council Meeting Minutes of October 17, 2011
The minutes were approved as presented.
3d. Study Session Meeting Minutes of October 24, 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. Adopt Resolution No. 11-108 accepting work and authorizing final payment in
the amount of $14,261.76 for the Dehumidification System project at Rec Center,
Contract No. 45-11.
City Council Meeting of November 21, 2011 (Item No. 3a) Page 2
Subject: City Council Meeting Minutes of November 7, 2011
4b. Adopt Resolution No. 11-109 amending and restating Resolution No. 11-30
regarding the On-Sale Intoxicating and Sunday Liquor License for Toby Keith I
Love This Bar probationary status extension for the license term through March 1,
2012.
4c. Adopt Resolution No. 11-110 reauthorizing a variance for West End Apartments.
4d. Approve Resolution No. 11-111 accepting a donation from the Minnesota
Cycling Team in the amount of $1,000 to be available for individuals who qualify
for financial assistance through the Parks and Recreation Department.
4e. Adopt a Resolution No. 11-112 in support of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed
District’s creek restoration project along Minnehaha Creek between Louisiana
Avenue S. and Meadowbrook Road.
4f. Adopt Resolution No. 11-113 authorizing the special assessment for the repair of
the water service line at 4000 Randall Avenue, St. Louis Park, MN - P.I.D. 06-
028-24-14-0014.
4g. Adopt Resolution No. 11-114 authorizing the special assessment for the repair of
the sewer service line at 3941 Dakota Avenue South, St. Louis Park, MN - P.I.D.
21-117-21-23-0042.
4h. Adopt Resolution No. 11-115 authorizing the special assessment for the repair of
the sewer service line at 4073 Utica Avenue South, St. Louis Park, MN - PID 07-
028-24-23-0078.
4i. Approve Amendment No. 2 to City Agreement No. 1897, between the City and
New Cingular Wireless (Cingular, f.k.a. AT&T) for communication antennas on
the city water tower at 2541 Nevada Avenue.
4j. Grant a drainage easement for 7301/7317 Lake Street West.
4k. Adopt Resolution No. 11-116 authorizing parking restrictions along the North Frontage
Road of County Road 25 from Ottawa Avenue to Raleigh Avenue.
4l. Approve for filing Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes August 25, 2011.
4m. Approve for filing Parks & Recreation Advisory Commission Minutes September
14, 2011.
4n. Approve for filing Human Rights Commission Minutes September 20, 2011.
4o. Approve for filing Planning Commission Minutes October 5, 2011.
It was moved by Councilmember Ross, seconded by Councilmember Santa, to approve
the Agenda and items listed on the Consent Calendar; and to waive reading of all
resolutions and ordinances.
The motion passed 5-0 (Councilmembers Omodt and Sanger 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
8a. 2012 Employer Benefits Contribution
Resolution No. 11-117
Ms. Deno presented the staff report and advised that the City was not expecting to change
carriers in 2012 or to get a 0% aggregate renewal, but through the efforts of Ms. Fosse
City Council Meeting of November 21, 2011 (Item No. 3a) Page 3
Subject: City Council Meeting Minutes of November 7, 2011
and the City’s consultant, the City was able to secure a bid from HealthPartners for a 0%
aggregate renewal with a substantially similar plan to the City’s previous carrier, Blue
Cross Blue Shield. She stated that preliminary budget discussions included a proposed
$35 per employee per month recommended increase; however, the HealthPartners quote
will allow the City to hold the line on its employer contribution of $815 per month for
full time benefit earning employees. She noted that the City’s Benefits Committee has
representatives from all the bargaining units and non-union employee groups and has
recommended to the City Manager to move to HealthPartners. She indicated that the
City was also able to secure a rate cap on its health insurance of no larger than 9% for
2013. She advised that the City is moving ahead with its Wellness Initiative at $25 per
employee per month as approved by Council earlier in the year. Dental and life insurance
rates will remain the same in 2012, long term disability rates will reflect a slight
reduction, and long term care, which is a voluntary benefit paid in full by those
employees who participate in the program, will see a slight adjustment in rates for 2012.
She added that the City will continue to offer four deferred compensation programs.
Mayor Jacobs expressed the City Council’s thanks to Ms. Deno and the entire Human
Resources staff for their efforts.
Councilmember Ross requested information regarding short term disability and whether
this is offered to the City’s employees.
Ms. Deno indicated the City’s personnel manual covers short term disability and
explained that when the City moved from flex leave, it incorporated the City’s short term
disability program for employees in the flex leave program.
It was moved by Councilmember Mavity, seconded by Councilmember Santa, to adopt
Resolution No. 11-117 establishing 2012 Employer Benefits Contribution.
The motion passed 5-0 (Councilmembers Omodt and Sanger absent).
9. Communications
Mayor Jacobs encouraged residents to vote tomorrow. He stated that residents can
contact the League of Women Voters or the City Clerk for their polling place and can
register at the polls.
10. Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 7:44 p.m.
______________________________________ ______________________________________
Nancy Stroth, City Clerk Jeff Jacobs, Mayor
Meeting Date: November 21, 2011
Agenda Item #: 3b
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
NOVEMBER 14, 2011
1. Call to Order
Mayor Jacobs called the meeting to order at 6:22 p.m.
Councilmembers present: Mayor Jeff Jacobs, Julia Ross, Susan Sanger, and Sue Santa.
Councilmembers absent: Phil Finkelstein, Anne Mavity, and Paul Omodt.
Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), City Clerk (Ms. Stroth), and Recording Secretary
(Ms. Hughes).
1a. Roll Call
2. Resolutions, Ordinances, Motions and Discussion Items
2a. Canvass Results of the Municipal General Election held November 8, 2011
Resolution No. 11-118
Ms. Stroth presented the staff report and official results of the Municipal General
Election held on November 8, 2011. She advised that 3,795 total votes were cast,
representing a turnout of 13%. She stated that the candidates certified by the election
judges are Mayor Jeff Jacobs, Councilmember At Large A Steve Hallfin, and
Councilmember At Large B Jake Spano.
It was moved by Councilmember Santa, seconded by Councilmember Ross, to adopt
Resolution No. 11-118 Canvassing Election Returns of St. Louis Park – November 8,
2011 Municipal General Election.
The motion passed 4-0 (Councilmembers Finkelstein, Mavity, and Omodt absent).
3. Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 6:24 p.m.
______________________________________ ______________________________________
Nancy Stroth, City Clerk Jeff Jacobs, Mayor
Meeting Date: November 21, 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:
Resolution Supporting Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Initiative to Address Aquatic
Invasive Species.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to adopt a resolution supporting the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) in
creating and implementing a management plan to educate, control and prevent the spread of
aquatic invasive species through the watershed area.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the City Council support the MCWD taking the lead role in creating and enforcing a
management plan for Aquatic Invasive Species (AIS)?
BACKGROUND:
The City of St. Louis Park received a letter from the MCWD asking for a resolution of support
for them to be the lead agency in an AIS management plan. The MCWD recognizes that AIS is a
growing concern across the state. There is a local urgency to find solutions. The MCWD believes
that they are in a position to help address this locally. They believe that starting now to gain
support from area cities allows them to be proactive in developing solutions. The philosophy
behind it is that a single entity covering a regional area is best suited to pursue potential solutions
to this problem.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
The city has not been asked for financial assistance at this time. The MCWD has taxing authority
and may, in the future, decide to increase staff as a result of the management program created.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Supporting this resolution would be consistent with our second strategic direction: “St. Louis
Park is committed to being a leader in environmental stewardship. This will increase
environmental consciousness and responsibility.”
Attachments: Resolution
Prepared by: Cindy Walsh, Director of Parks and Recreation
Jim Vaughan, Environmental Coordinator
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of November 21, 2011 (Item No. 4a) Page 2
Subject: Resolution Supporting MCWD Initiative to Address Aquatic Invasive Species
RESOLUTION NO. 11-___
RESOLUTION SUPPORTING THE MINNEHAHA CREEK
WATERSHED DISTRICT’S (“MCWD”) INITIATIVE CREATING,
IMPLEMENTING AND MANAGING A REGIONAL PLAN TO
CONTROL, EDUCATE AND PREVENT THE SPREAD OF
AQUATIC INVASIVE SPECIES (“AIS”) ACROSS THE WATERSHED AREA
WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park is a partner with the Minnehaha Creek Watershed
District and is supportive of the Watershed District’s goals for the creek within the City; and
WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park realizes that AIS are a significant threat to our
regions, lakes, rivers and Minnehaha Creek; and
WHEREAS, the City firmly believes a single entity covering a more regional area is best
suited to pursue potential solutions to this problem; and
WHEREAS, left unmanaged AIS will negatively impact local businesses, communities,
and the ability to enjoy recreation boating, fishing, swimming and other valuable natural
resources; and
WHEREAS, immediate action will help prevent the spread of AIS into local water
bodies.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park hereby supports the MCWD as the lead agency to prevent the spread of AIS and to use their
scientific expertise with staff and financial resources to create a district wide AIS management
program.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council November 21, 2011
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Meeting Date: November 21, 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:
Traffic Study Number 628: Authorize Installation of Parking Restrictions on Gamble Drive East
of Park Place Boulevard.
RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION:
Motion to Adopt Resolution authorizing parking restrictions on Gamble Drive east of Park Place
Boulevard.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the City Council wish to authorize the installation of the parking restrictions as noted in
this staff report?
The proposed action is consistent with City policy.
BACKGROUND:
The City’s Police Department has reported problems with cars parking on Gamble Drive, just
east of West End Boulevard (see attached map). This is a traffic lane, and the area was not
intended to allow parking when The West End was developed. However, there is no resolution
on file that prohibits it.
City staff finds this request reasonable, and is therefore recommending Council approve the
attached resolution authorizing the installation of “No Parking” restrictions on the north side of
Gamble Drive, from West End Boulevard to Duke Drive.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
The cost of enacting these controls is minimal and will come out of the general operating budget.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
None.
Attachments: Resolution
Map
Prepared by: Laura Adler, Engineering Program Coordinator
Reviewed by: Scott A. Brink, City Engineer
Michael Rardin, Director of Public Works
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of November 21, 2011 (Item No. 4b) Page 2
Subject: TS # 628: Authorize Installation of Parking Restrictions Gamble Dr at Park Place Blvd
RESOLUTION NO. 11-____
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING
INSTALLATION OF “NO PARKING” RESTRICTIONS
ON THE NORTH SIDE OF GAMBLE DRIVE
FROM WEST END BOULEVARD TO DUKE DRIVE
TRAFFIC STUDY NO. 628
WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota has been requested, has studied, and
has determined that the following traffic controls meet the requirements of the City’s policy for
installation of parking restrictions.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park, Minnesota, that the Director of Public Works is hereby authorized to install the following
controls:
1. “No Parking” on the north side of Gamble Drive from West End Boulevard to Duke
Drive.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council November 21, 2011
City Manager
Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
City Council Meeting of November 21, 2011 (Item No. 4b)
Subject: TS # 628: Authorize Installation of Parking Restrictions Gamble Dr at Park Place Blvd Page 3
Meeting Date: November 21, 2011
City Council 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:
Traffic Study Number 629: Authorize Installation of Parking Restrictions on the 5600 Block of
Lake Street.
RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION:
Motion to Adopt Resolution authorizing parking restrictions on the 5600 block of Lake Street.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the City Council wish to authorize the installation of the parking restrictions as noted in
this staff report?
The proposed action is consistent with City policy.
BACKGROUND:
The City received a request from a business owner at 5601 Lake Street to restrict parking in front
of his business. Currently, there are no parking restrictions in this area and the business owner
said that employees and bus riders are parking all day long in the space and there was no parking
available for customers. The request was to limit parking in the area to 2 hour parking, 7 a.m. to
5 p.m. Monday through Friday.
City staff sent out two letters to businesses and residents along this section of Lake Street,
requesting feedback on the proposal. There were no negative responses to the proposed
restrictions, and one resident suggested extending the 2 hour parking restrictions to the rest of the
block. Other residents have agreed. City staff finds this request reasonable, and is therefore
recommending Council approve the attached resolution authorizing the installation of two hour
parking restrictions on the 5600 block of Lake Street.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
The cost of enacting these controls is minimal and will come out of the general operating budget.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
None.
Attachments: Resolution
Map
Prepared by: Laura Adler, Engineering Program Coordinator
Reviewed by: Scott A. Brink, City Engineer
Michael Rardin, Director of Public Works
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of November 21, 2011 (Item No. 4c) Page 2
Subject: TS # 629: Authorize Installation of Parking Restrictions 5600 Block of Lake Street
RESOLUTION NO. 11-____
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING
INSTALLATION OF “TWO HOUR PARKING 7 A.M. TO 5 P.M.
MONDAY THROUGH FRIDAY” RESTRICTIONS ON
THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE 5600 BLOCK OF LAKE STREET
TRAFFIC STUDY NO. 629
WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota has been requested, has studied, and
has determined that the following traffic controls meet the requirements of the City’s policy for
installation of parking restrictions.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park, Minnesota, that the Director of Public Works is hereby authorized to install the following
controls:
1. “Two Hour Parking 7 a.m. to 5 p.m. Monday through Friday” on the south side of the
5600 block of Lake Street.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council November 21, 2011
City Manager
Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
City Council Meeting of November 21, 2011 (Item No. 4c) Page 3
Subject: TS # 629: Authorize Installation of Parking Restrictions 5600 Block of Lake Street
TS 629: Proposed Parking Restrictions on the 5600 Block of Lake Street
Proposed “2 Hour Parking, Monday through Friday, 7 a.m. to 5 p.m.”
Meeting Date: November 21, 2011
City Council 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:
Traffic Study Number 630: Authorize the Removal of Permit Parking Areas.
RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION:
Motion to Adopt Resolution authorizing the elimination of permit parking restrictions in front of
3300 Huntington Avenue and 2716 Dakota Avenue.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the City Council wish to remove the permit parking restrictions located in front of the
subject properties?
The proposed action is consistent with City policy.
BACKGROUND:
The City has a program for authorizing permit parking for residents who have a medical need for
parking adjacent to their homes. Each year, staff contacts residents who currently have permit
parking to ensure that it is still required. Several residents have notified the City that their permit
parking is no longer necessary and may be removed. Staff has already removed the permit
parking signs. The final step is to rescind the original resolutions authorizing the permit parking.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
The cost of removing these controls is minimal and will come out of the general operating
budget.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
None.
Attachments: Resolution
Prepared by: Laura Adler, Engineering Program Coordinator
Reviewed by: Scott A. Brink, City Engineer
Michael P. Rardin, Director of Public Works
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of November 21, 2011 (Item No. 4d) Page 2
Subject: TS # 630: Authorize the Removal of Permit Parking Areas
RESOLUTION NO. 11-_____
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ELIMINATION OF
PERMIT PARKING RESTRICTIONS IN FRONT OF
3300 HUNTINGTON AVENUE AND 2716 DAKOTA AVENUE
AND RESCINDING RESOLUTION NOS. 95-122 AND 04-109
WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota has been requested, has studied, and
has determined that traffic controls are no longer necessary at these locations.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park, Minnesota, that the Director of Public Works in hereby authorized to remove the following
traffic controls and rescind the following resolutions:
1. Rescind Resolution No. 95-122 for the existing permit parking restriction at 3300
Huntington Avenue.
2. Rescind Resolution No. 04-109 for the existing permit parking restriction at 2716 Dakota
Avenue.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council November 21, 2011
City Manager
Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Meeting Date: November 21, 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:
Project Report: Water Project - WTP #6 Rehabilitation - Project 2010-1300.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to Adopt Resolution accepting the project report, establishing Improvement Project No.
2010-1300 approving plans and specifications, and authorizing advertisement for bids for
Improvement Project No. 2010-1300.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the City Council wish to continue implementing planned improvements to the City’s water
utility system?
BACKGROUND:
History
The current 5-year CIP includes Project 2010-13000 which is the rehabilitation of Water
Treatment Plant No. 6 (WTP #6) located at 4241 Zarthan Avenue in the Brookside Neighborhood.
WTP #6 for the City of St. Louis Park consists of three buildings including the water treatment
plant, a high service pump building, and Wellhouse 12. Well 12 pumps water to the water
treatment plant which consists of two 10’ x 63’ horizontal pressure filters installed in 1963.
Radium, iron and manganese are removed from the water and the water is treated with fluoride
and chlorine. The treated water is stored in a 1.5 million gallon reservoir on site and then sent to
the distribution system by the high service pumps. Due to the age and condition of WTP #6,
rehabilitation and upgrades are necessary.
Proposed Work
This project will be conducted in a similar manner as the rehabilitations completed at WTP’s 1,
8, 10, and 16. The project will include the replacement of the sand filtration media inside the
filters along with several improvements and upgrades to the water treatment plant, high service
pump building, and Wellhouse 12.
The project generally consists of the following:
Spot repair of filter vessel coatings for both the interior and exterior surfaces
Install pressure sand filter media
Replace motor control center (pump controls)
Install variable frequency drive for well pump
Replace HVAC systems for well houses
Building interior restoration including painting and floor resurfacing
Chemical room storage upgrades
Replace piping valves and install new flow meters
Replace air compressor in the water treatment plant
Replace the electrical system in the chemical rooms and remove electric components no
longer needed
City Council Meeting of November 21, 2011 (Item No. 4e)
Subject: Project Report: Water Project - WTP #6 Rehabilitation - Project 2010-1300 Page 2
Project Timeline:
Should the City Council approve the Project Report, it is anticipated that the following schedule
could be met:
Approval of Plans/Authorization to Bid by City Council November 21, 2011
Advertise for bids Sun-Sailor November 24, 2011
Advertise for bids Construction Bulletin November 28, 2011
Mandatory Pre-Bid Meeting with Bidders Early December, 2011
Bid Opening December 21, 2011
Bid Tab Report to City Council; Award contract January 2, 2012
Construction January – April 2012
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATIONS:
This project is included in the city’s Capital Improvement Program (CIP) scheduled for
construction in 2012. The total estimated costs of the improvements are:
Estimated Costs
Construction Cost $782,700
Contingencies (5%) $ 39,300
Consulting Design, Engineering & Inspection $ 75,000
Administrative Cost (3%) $ 25,000
Total $922,000
Funding Sources
Water Utility Fund Amount $922,000
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not Applicable.
Attachment: Resolution
Prepared By: Jim Olson, Engineering Project Manager
Scott Anderson, Superintendent of Utilities
Reviewed By: Michael P. Rardin, Director of Public Works
Approved By: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of November 21, 2011 (Item No. 4e)
Subject: Project Report: Water Project - WTP #6 Rehabilitation - Project 2010-1300 Page 3
RESOLUTION NO. 11-____
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE PROJECT REPORT,
ESTABLISHING IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 2010-1300
APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS, AND AUTHORIZING
ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS FOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 2010-1300
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park has received a report from the
Engineering Project Manager related to the Rehabilitation of Water Treatment Plant No. 6.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park, Minnesota, that:
1. The Project Report regarding Project No. 2010-1300 is hereby accepted.
2. Such improvements as proposed are necessary, cost effective, and feasible as detailed in
the Project Report.
3. The proposed project, designated as Project No. 2010-1300, is hereby established and
ordered.
4. The plans and specifications for the making of these improvements, as prepared under the
direction of the City Engineer, or designee, are approved.
5. The City Clerk shall prepare and cause to be inserted at least two weeks in the official
newspaper and in the Construction Bulletin an advertisement for bids for the making of
said improvements under said-approved plans and specifications. The advertisement
shall appear not less than ten (10) days prior to the date and time bids will be received by
the City Clerk, and that no bids will be considered unless sealed and filed with the City
Clerk and accompanied by a bid bond payable to the City for five (5) percent of the
amount of the bid.
6. The City Engineer, or designee, shall report the receipt of bids to the City Council shortly
after the letting date. The report shall include a tabulation of the bid results and a
recommendation to the City Council.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council November 21, 2011
City Manager
Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Meeting Date: November 21, 2011
Agenda Item #: 4f
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
First Amendment to the Redevelopment Contract with Duke Realty Limited Partnership.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to Adopt Resolution approving the First Amendment to the Contract for Private
Redevelopment By and Between the City of St. Louis Park, St. Louis Park Economic
Development Authority and Duke Realty.
The City Council is being asked to approve the proposed First Amendment as the City is a party
to the above Contract.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the City Council support correcting the legal description within the Redevelopment
Contract as specified in the proposed First Amendment?
BACKGROUND:
On December 17, 2007 the EDA and City approved a Redevelopment Contract with Duke Realty
related to The West End project near I-394 and Highway 100. This contract was substantially
modified to add the West End Apartments and change the schedule for building via an Amended
and Restated Redevelopment Contract approved on May 17, 2010. The project essentially
consists of three components – a lifestyle retail complex, an apartment building and a series of
Class A office buildings. The 350,000 SF lifestyle center is complete and 80% of the retail space
is leased. The upscale, 120–unit apartment building is expected to break ground late next spring.
Given the current office market, construction on the first of what is expected to be three or four
Class A office buildings (with 1.1 million SF between them) is not likely to occur until the
required commencement date which is March 1, 2014.
On October 27th, Duke Realty officially notified the City that it was selling the 1600 Tower and
MoneyGram office buildings to the Blackstone Group. These are the existing office buildings
across the street from The West End. Duke will continue to own The West End and remains
committed to building the 1.1 million square feet of future office buildings called for in the
Redevelopment Contract with the EDA and City.
The 1600 Tower and MoneyGram building are not part of The West End project even though
they have been carefully integrated into the redevelopment. The EDA is not required to review
or approve of the transfer of the properties to the Blackstone Group. However, when the
Redevelopment Contract was amended and restated in May 2010, the legal description that was
used inadvertently included the 1600 Tower and MoneyGram office building site. This was an
error. The parcel on which these office buildings sit was not part of the original legal description
for the Redevelopment Contract with Duke in 2007. The proper method for correcting this
inadvertent error is through an amendment to the Redevelopment Contract.
City Council Meeting of November 21, 2012 (Item No. 4f) Page 2
Subject: First Amendment to Redevelopment Contract w/ Duke Realty Limited Partnership
Proposed First Amendment
The proposed First Amendment corrects the legal description related to The West End project
contained within the Redevelopment Contract with Duke Realty.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
There is no financial impact to the EDA or City for correcting the legal description within the
Redevelopment Contract with Duke Realty. This action is necessary for completion of the
ownership transfer of the 1600 Tower and MoneyGram office buildings to the Blackstone Group.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
The West End project is consistent with the City’s Vision; especially the Strategic Directions
concerning gathering places, public art, trails, sidewalks and transportation.
Attachments: Resolution Approving First Amendment
First Amendment to Redevelopment Contract with Duke Realty
Prepared by: Greg Hunt, Economic Development Coordinator
Reviewed by: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, EDA Executive Director and City Manager
City Council Meeting of November 21, 2012 (Item No. 4f) Page 3
Subject: First Amendment to Redevelopment Contract w/ Duke Realty Limited Partnership
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
RESOLUTION NO. 11-____
RESOLUTION APPROVING A FIRST AMENDMENT TO AMENDED AND
RESTATED CONTRACT FOR PRIVATE REDEVELOPMENT AMONG
THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, THE ST. LOUIS PARK ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND DUKE REALTY LIMITED
PARTNERSHIP
BE IT RESOLVED By the City Council (the “Council”) of the City of St. Louis Park
("City") as follows:
Section 1. Recitals.
1.01. The St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority (the “Authority”) is currently
administering its Redevelopment Project No. 1 ("Project") pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections
469.001 to 469.047 ("HRA Act"), and within the Project has established The West End Tax
Increment Financing District (“TIF District”).
1.02. The Authority and the City entered into an Amended and Restated Contract for
Private Redevelopment Dated as of May 17, 2010 (the “Contract”), regarding redevelopment of a
portion of the property within the TIF District.
1.03. The parties have determined to a need to revise the Contract in certain respects, and to
that end have prepared a First Amendment to Amended and Restated Contract for Private
Redevelopment (the “First Amendment”).
1.04. The Council has reviewed the First Amendment and finds that the approval and
execution thereof and performance of the City’s obligations thereunder are in the best interest of the
City and its residents.
Section 2. City Approval; Other Proceedings.
2.01. The First Amendment as presented to the Council is hereby in all respects approved,
subject to modifications that do not alter the substance of the transaction and that are approved by
the Mayor and City Manager provided that execution of the documents by such officials shall be
conclusive evidence of approval.
2.02. The Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized to execute on behalf of the City
the First Amendment, and any documents referenced therein requiring execution by the City, and to
carry out, on behalf of the City its obligations thereunder.
2.03. City staff and consultants are authorized to take any actions necessary to carry out
the intent of this resolution.
City Council Meeting of November 21, 2012 (Item No. 4f) Page 4
Subject: First Amendment to Redevelopment Contract w/ Duke Realty Limited Partnership
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council
November 21, 2011
City Manager Mayor
Attest
Secretary
City Council Meeting of November 21, 2012 (Item No. 4f) Page 5
Subject: First Amendment to Redevelopment Contract w/ Duke Realty Limited Partnership
FIRST AMENDMENT TO
AMENDED AND RESTATED CONTRACT FOR PRIVATE REDEVELOPMENT
THIS AGREEMENT, made as of the 21st day of November, 2011, by and between the
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, a Minnesota municipal corporation, (the “City”), and the ST.
LOUIS PARK ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, a public body corporate and
politic (the “Authority”), established pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.090 to 469.1081
(hereinafter referred to as the “Act”), and DUKE REALTY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, an
Indiana limited partnership (the “Redeveloper”).
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, the Authority was created pursuant to the Act and was authorized to transact
business and exercise its powers by a resolution of the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park
(the “City”); and
WHEREAS, the Authority has undertaken a program to promote redevelopment of land
that is characterized by blight and blighting factors within the City, and in this connection the
Authority has created Redevelopment Project No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as the “Project”) in the
City, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.001 to 469.047 (the “HRA Act”); and
WHEREAS, the Authority has established a redevelopment tax increment financing district
known as The West End Tax Increment Financing District (the “TIF District”) within the Project
and adopted a financing plan (the “TIF Plan”) for the TIF District in order to facilitate
redevelopment of certain property in the Project, all pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections
469.174 to 469.179; and
WHEREAS, the Authority, City and Redeveloper entered into an Amended and Restated
Contract for Private Redevelopment dated May 17, 2010 (the “Contract”), which described the
parties’ respective responsibilities regarding redevelopment of certain property in the TIF District
(referred to as the “Redevelopment Property”); and
WHEREAS, the parties have determined a need to modify the Contract solely to correct the
legal description of the Redevelopment Property and the Adjacent Property;
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. Schedule A to the Contract is revised to read as attached hereto.
2. The Contract remains in full force and effect, and is not modified except as expressly
provided herein.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Authority and the City have caused this Agreement to
be duly executed in its respective name and behalf and its seal to be hereunto duly affixed and
the Redeveloper has caused this Agreement to be duly executed in its name and behalf as of the
date first above written.
City Council Meeting of November 21, 2012 (Item No. 4f) Page 6
Subject: First Amendment to Redevelopment Contract w/ Duke Realty Limited Partnership
ST. LOUIS PARK ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
By
Its President
By
Executive Director
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) ss.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ____ day of November, 2011
by Phillip Finkelstein and Thomas Harmening, the President and Executive Director, respectively,
of the Economic Development Authority of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, on behalf of the Authority.
Notary Public
City Council Meeting of November 21, 2012 (Item No. 4f) Page 7
Subject: First Amendment to Redevelopment Contract w/ Duke Realty Limited Partnership
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
By
Its Mayor
By
City Manager
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) ss.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ____ day of November, 2011
by Jeff Jacobs and Thomas Harmening, the Mayor and City Manager, respectively, of the of the
City of St. Louis Park, on behalf of the City.
Notary Public
City Council Meeting of November 21, 2012 (Item No. 4f) Page 8
Subject: First Amendment to Redevelopment Contract w/ Duke Realty Limited Partnership
DUKE REALTY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
By ____________________________________,
the Senior Vice President of Duke Realty
Corporation, an Indiana corporation and the general
partner of the above-named limited partnership
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) ss.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _____ day of ___________,
2011 by Pat Mascia, the Senior Vice president of Duke Realty Corporation, an Indiana corporation
and the general partner of Duke Realty Limited Partnership, an Indiana limited partnership, on
behalf of the partnership.
Notary Public
City Council Meeting of November 21, 2012 (Item No. 4f) Page 9
Subject: First Amendment to Redevelopment Contract w/ Duke Realty Limited Partnership
SCHEDULE A
REDEVELOPMENT PROPERTY
Lots 1, 2, 3 and 4, Block 1; Lot 2, Block 2; and Outlot A, The Shops at West End, according to the
recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
GOLDEN VALLEY PROPERTY
Parcel 5:
Tract 1: Lot 1, Block 4, "Kavlis Cedardale" and that part of the vacated alley in said Block 4,
lying East of the center line thereof and between the extensions across it of the North and South
lines of said Lot 1, according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
Tract 2: That part of the North 693.61 feet of the Northeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of
Section 30, Township 29, Range 24 lying Westerly and Southerly of State Trunk Highway No.
100, also known as the Belt Line Highway, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
EXCEPT that portion taken by the State of Minnesota pursuant to Partial Final Certificate
recorded July 21, 1993 as Document No. 2401510.
(Torrens Property-Certificate of Title No. 1012734)
Parcel 6:
That part of vacated Raleigh Avenue and of vacated Douglas Avenue all according to the plat of
"Kavlis Cedardale" lying Westerly of the Westerly right of way line of State Trunk Highway No.
100 as described in the Final Certificate recorded in Book 412 of Miscellaneous Records, page
148 in the office of the County Recorder and lying Southerly of a line drawn from the Southwest
corner of Tract E, Registered Land Survey No. 864 and passing through a point on the East line
of said Tract E distant 18.18 feet North of the Southeast corner of said Tract E, Hennepin
County, Minnesota.
EXCEPT that portion taken by the State of Minnesota pursuant to Partial Final Certificate
recorded July 21, 1993 as Document No. 2401510.
(Torrens Property-Certificate of Title No. 1012686)
Parcel 7:
Lots 2, 3, 4 and 6, Block 4 except that portion of said Lots taken for Belt Line Highway; Lots 7
to 12 inclusive, Block 4 and that part of Raleigh Avenue vacated lying between the Westerly
extension of the South line of said Lot 7 and the North line of said Lot 12 and that part of the
vacated alley in said Block 4 lying between the Easterly extensions of the North and South lines
of said Lot 7 and between the South line of said Lot 9 and the North line of said Lot 11 and that
part of the West 1/2 of the vacated alley in said Block 4 lying between the extensions of the
City Council Meeting of November 21, 2012 (Item No. 4f) Page 10
Subject: First Amendment to Redevelopment Contract w/ Duke Realty Limited Partnership
North and South lines of said Lot 8 and between the North and South lines of said Lot 12; ALL
in "Kavlis Cedardale", according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
That part of the following described property:
That part of vacated Raleigh and Douglas Avenues as shown on the plat of "Kavlis Cedardale"
lying between the extensions across said Avenues of the South and West lines of Lot 7, Block 4
and that part of said vacated Douglas Avenue adjoining Lots 6 and 7, Block 4 of said plat lying
between the Westerly line of Belt Line Highway and the extension across said Avenue of the
West line of said Lot 7, Block 4, "Kavlis Cedardale";
Which lies Northerly of a straight line extending between the Southwest corner of Tract E,
Registered Land Survey No. 864, Hennepin County, Minnesota and the Westerly right-of-way of
State Trunk Highway 100 passing through a point on the East line of said Tract E distant 18.18
feet North of the Southeast corner of said Tract E as measured along said East line, Hennepin
County, Minnesota.
EXCEPT that portion taken by the State of Minnesota pursuant to Partial Final Certificate
recorded July 21, 1993 as Document No. 2401510.
(Torrens Property-Certificate of Title No. 1012678)
Parcel 8:
That part of the South 60 feet of the North 753.61 feet of the Northeast Quarter of the Southwest
Quarter of Section 30, Township 29, Range 24, lying West of the Belt Line Highway, Hennepin
County, Minnesota.
EXCEPT that portion taken by the State of Minnesota pursuant to Partial Final Certificate
recorded July 21, 1993 as Document No. 2401510.
(Torrens Property-Certificate of Title No. 1012680)
ADJACENT PROPERTY
Lot 1, Block 2, The Shops at West End, according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County,
Minnesota.
Meeting Date: November 21, 2011
Agenda Item #: 4g
MINUTES
St. Louis Park Housing Authority
City Hall – Westwood Room
Wednesday, September 14, 2011
5:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Commissioners Catherine Courtney, Renee DuFour, Trinicia Hill
Commissioner Metzger arrived at 5:03 p.m.
Commissioner Kaufman arrived at 5:08 p.m.
GUESTS PRESENT: Cheryl Davidson, Wayside House, Inc.
STAFF PRESENT: Jane Klesk, Kathy Larsen, Kevin Locke, Michele Schnitker,
Teresa Schlegel
1. Call to Order
The meeting was called to order at 5:01 p.m.
2. Approval of Minutes for July, 2011
The Board minutes of July 13, 2011 were unanimously approved.
3. Hearings – None
4. Reports and Committees – None
5. Unfinished Business – None
6. New Business
Commissioner Courtney requested that Election of Officers be tabled until all
Commissioners were present at the meeting.
a. Approval of Contract Extension – Wayside Project Based Housing Choice
Vouchers
Ms. Schnitker introduced Cheryl Davidson of Wayside House, Inc., who was
available to answer questions from the Commissioners. Ms. Schnitker stated that
the contract with Wayside for 15 units of project-based assistance will be
extended for an additional year, while both parties continue to seek replacement
housing subsidy to reduce Wayside’s reliance on project-based assistance at their
supportive housing development. Commissioner Kaufman moved to approve the
Amendment to the Housing Assistance Payments Contract between the Housing
Authority of St. Louis Park and Wayside House, Inc. Commissioner Metzger
seconded the motion, and the motion passed 5-0.
City Council Meeting of November 21, 2011 (Item No. 4g) Page 2
Subject: Housing Authority Meeting Minutes of September 14, 2011
b. Election of Officers
Ms. Schnitker presented the current slate of officers: Catherine Courtney, Chair,
Justin Kaufman, Vice Chair, and Renee DuFour, Secretary. After discussion,
Commissioner DuFour moved to approve the current slate of officers, and
Commissioner Metzger seconded the motion. The motion passed 5-0.
c. Amendments to Contracts between the Center for Energy and Environment (CEE)
and the St. Louis Park Housing Authority
Ms. Larsen recommended that the Board execute amendments to the Center for
Energy and Environment loan program contracts to include removal of the
Liability and Indemnification clauses in consideration for extending the terms of
the contracts to January 11, 2012. Commissioner DuFour moved to approve the
Seventh Amendment to the Loan Origination Agreement between Center for
Energy and Environment and Housing Authority in and for the City of St, Louis
Park (Discount Loan Program), the Third Amendment to the Loan Origination
Agreement between Center for Energy and Environment and Housing Authority
in and for the City of St. Louis Park (Move Up in the Park Program), and the
Third Amendment to the Loan Origination Agreement between Center for Energy
and Environment and Housing Authority in and for the City of St. Louis Park
(Live Where You Work Program). Commissioner Kaufman seconded the motion,
and the motion passed 5-0.
d. Approval to Amend the Public Housing Admissions and Continued Occupancy,
Resolution No. 607: MHOP Residency Preference
Ms. Schnitker explained that in order to comply with the requirements of the
Consent Decree and the agreement between the HA and Minneapolis Public
Housing Authority, the HA must establish a residency preference for applicants
living in Minneapolis who apply for the MHOP units at Louisiana Court.
Commissioner DuFour moved to approve Resolution No. 607, Amendment to
Chapter 4-Part III.B. Selection Method, of the Public Housing Admissions and
Continued Occupancy Policy, and Commissioner Metzger seconded the motion.
The motion passed 5-0
e. Approval of Acceptance of 2011 Capital Fund Program Allocation,
Resolution No. 608
Ms. Schlegel stated that the HA proposes to use 2011 CFP funds for continuing
interior renovation at Hamilton House and to repair two scattered-site roofs.
Commissioner DuFour moved to approve Resolution No. 608, Resolution of the
Housing Authority of St. Louis Park to accept the 2011 Capital Fund Program
Grant, and Commissioner Kaufman seconded the motion. The motion passed 4-0.
f. Semi Annual Housing Programs Report – First Half 2011
Ms. Larsen stated the purpose of the report is to update the HA Board of housing
programs and activity. The report was submitted to the City Council at its August
8, 2011 meeting. No action is required of the Board.
City Council Meeting of November 21, 2011 (Item No. 4g) Page 3
Subject: Housing Authority Meeting Minutes of September 14, 2011
7. Communications from Executive Director
a. Claims List – August & September, 2011
b. Communications
1. Monthly Report – August & September, 2011
2. Draft Financial Statements – August, 2011
8. Other
9. Adjournment
Commissioner DuFour moved to adjourn the meeting, and Commissioner Kaufman
seconded the motion. The motion passed 4-0. The meeting adjourned at 6:05 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
_________________________
Renee DuFour, Secretary
Meeting Date: November 21, 2011
Agenda Item #: 4h
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Vendor Claims.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to accept for filing Vendor Claims for the period October 8, 2011 through November 11,
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
11/16/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:13:35R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
1Page -Council Check Summary
11/11/2011 -10/8/2011
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
83.36FABRICATIONOTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES3M
83.36
416.00SKATEBOARD PROGRAMS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES3RD LAIR SKATEPARK
416.00
966.15SANDING/SALTING EQUIPMENT PARTSA&K EQUIPMENT CO INC
966.15
68.37PARK MAINTENANCE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIESA-1 OUTDOOR POWER INC
621.31TREE MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES
502.57TREE MAINTENANCE OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
1,192.25
5,500.00-GO BONDS-FIRE STATIONS BAL S RETAINED PERCENTAGEA.M.E. CONSTRUCTION CORP
110,000.00GO BONDS-FIRE STATIONS G&A BUILDINGS & STRUCTURES
104,500.00
2,500.00ESCROWSDEMO / BROOKSIDE TRAFFICAAA LAMBERTS LANDSCAPE PRODUCT
53.25STORM WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE
2,553.25
123.72HOLIDAY PROGRAMS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESABERNATHY, LISA
123.72
57.23SEWER UTILITY G&A EQUIPMENT PARTSABLE HOSE & RUBBER INC
57.23
11,747.86GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESABM JANITORIAL SERVICES
11,747.86
636.00PRE-SCHOOL PROGRAMS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESABRAKADOODLE
636.00
225.00MOVE-UP PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESACACIA ARCHITECTS LLC
225.00
2,731.50EMPLOYEE FLEX SPEND G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESADVANTAGE HEALTH CORPORATION
2,731.50
4,803.50WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESAE2S
1,524.29WATER UTILITY G&A IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
City Council Meeting of November 21, 2011 (Item No. 4h)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 2
11/16/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:13:35R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
2Page -Council Check Summary
11/11/2011 -10/8/2011
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
6,327.79
1,260.00PE INVEST/REVIEW/PER IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDIAECOM INC
11,605.49REILLY BUDGET GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
12,865.49
9,970.00PAINTINGOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESAERIAL PAINTING INC
9,970.00
92.98PARK MAINTENANCE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIESAIM ELECTRONICS
92.98
79.88OPERATIONSOPERATIONAL SUPPLIESAIRGAS NORTH CENTRAL
79.88
8,819.02-GO BONDS-FIRE STATIONS BAL S RETAINED PERCENTAGEALBERS MECHANICAL SERVICES INC
176,380.40GO BONDS-FIRE STATIONS G&A BUILDINGS & STRUCTURES
167,561.38
225.00MOVE-UP PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESALBERTSSON HANSEN ARCHITECTURE
225.00
282.91OPERATIONSREPAIRSALEX AIR APPARATUS INC
282.91
170.00CABLE TV G & A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICEALEX AUDIO & VIDEO
170.00
196.34ELEVATOR MTCE EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICEALL CITY ELEVATOR INC
196.34
300.00HALLOWEEN PARTY OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESALLDAFFER, BARBARA
300.00
1,603.13GENERAL REPAIR SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPSALLDATA
1,603.13
2,500.00ADMINISTRATION G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPSALLIANCE FOR INNOVATION
2,500.00
39,817.50MUNICIPAL BLDG IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDIALLIANCE MECH SRVCS INC
39,817.50
City Council Meeting of November 21, 2011 (Item No. 4h)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 3
11/16/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:13:35R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
3Page -Council Check Summary
11/11/2011 -10/8/2011
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
359.22SEALCOAT PREPARATION OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESALLIED BLACKTOP
359.22
369.00PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDIAMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING I
369.00
1,099.64CONSTRUCTION MATERIAL IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDIAMERICAN FLAGPOLE & FLAG CO
1,099.64
74.82POLICE G & A TELEPHONEAMERICAN MESSAGING
74.82
58.63PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYAMERICAN TIRE DISTRIBUTORS
58.63
273.47GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE OPERATIONAL SUPPLIESAMERIPRIDE LINEN & APPAREL SER
343.90PUBLIC WORKS OPS G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
279.44PARK MAINTENANCE G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
146.31ENTERPRISE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
279.32VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
140.74WATER UTILITY G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
140.73SEWER UTILITY G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
23.45STORM WATER UTILITY G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
1,627.36
1,168.90SUPPORT SERVICES G&A OFFICE SUPPLIESANCHOR PAPER CO
1,168.90
2,245.60INSTALLATIONOTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESANDERSEN INC, EARL
660.97FABRICATIONOTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
2,906.57
27.26WATER UTILITY G&A EQUIPMENT PARTSANDERSON, SCOTT
766.59WATER UTILITY G&A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT
793.85
958.35GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SUPPLYAPACHE GROUP OF MINNESOTA
661.13BUILDING MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES
1,619.48
152.19NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION GRANT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESAQUILA NEIGHBORHOOD ASSN
City Council Meeting of November 21, 2011 (Item No. 4h)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 4
11/16/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:13:35R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
4Page -Council Check Summary
11/11/2011 -10/8/2011
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
152.19
780.14GENERAL CUSTODIAL DUTIES CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SUPPLYARAMARK UNIFORM CORP ACCTS
780.14
1,185.14ARENA MAINTENANCE BUILDING MTCE SERVICEARENA SERVICES & PRODUCTS
1,185.14
375.00FACILITIES MCTE G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESARROW LIFT
375.00
445.50PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYASPEN EQUIPMENT CO
218.44GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE
663.94
433.75OPERATIONSOPERATIONAL SUPPLIESASPEN MILLS
433.75
34.21E-911 PROGRAM TELEPHONEAT&T
34.21
937.50POLICE G & A TRAININGATOM
937.50
170.95PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYAUTO ELECTRIC OF BLOOMINGTON I
170.95
238.50WATER UTILITY G&A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICEAUTOMATIC SYSTEMS INC
238.50
65.79GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICEAUTOMOBILE SERVICE
65.79
2,619.51GO BONDS-FIRE STATIONS G&A BUILDINGS & STRUCTURESAVI SYSTEMS INC
2,619.51
80.00INSPECTIONS G & A CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCEBAC LOCAL SERVICES ESCALATIONS
80.00
68.34ENVIRONMENTAL G & A LANDSCAPING MATERIALSBACHMAN'S PLYMOUTH
68.34
City Council Meeting of November 21, 2011 (Item No. 4h)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 5
11/16/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:13:35R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
5Page -Council Check Summary
11/11/2011 -10/8/2011
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
3,751.16REFORESTATIONLANDSCAPING MATERIALSBACHMANS
3,751.16
39.00HUMAN RESOURCES GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESBARNA, GUZY & STEFFEN LTD
39.00
50.00GREEN REMODELING PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESBARTO, DEREK
50.00
54.38BUILDING MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIESBATTERIES PLUS
126.10WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES
180.48
510.00E-911 PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESBCA MNJIS SECTION
510.00
1,220.55ARENA MAINTENANCE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIESBECKER ARENA PRODUCTS
8,913.38ARENA MAINTENANCE BUILDING MTCE SERVICE
10,133.93
1,400.00GO BONDS-FIRE STATIONS G&A RENTAL BUILDINGSBELT LINE PROPERTIES INC
1,400.00
467.50CLERICALTRAININGBENCHMARK LEARNING
467.50
41,875.00ESCROWSGENERALBENILDE-ST MARGARET'S SCHOOL
41,875.00
7,762.50REILLY BUDGET OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICEBERGERSON CASWELL INC
7,762.50
225.00MOVE-UP PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESBERGFORD ARCHITECTURE, JOHN
225.00
179.82WATER UTILITY G&A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CARBERTHIAUME, BRUCE
179.82
231.44ORGANIZED REC G & A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CARBIRNO, RICK
231.44
1,246.21CONSTRUCTION PAYMENTS IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDIBIT TECH INSTALLATION LLC
City Council Meeting of November 21, 2011 (Item No. 4h)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 6
11/16/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:13:35R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
6Page -Council Check Summary
11/11/2011 -10/8/2011
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
1,246.21
447.70NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION GRANT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESBLACKSTONE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSN
447.70
96.43E BYRNE JAG 2009-10 SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTATBLOMSNESS, MATT
96.43
12,000.00-PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH FOR FUTURE EXPENDITURESBNSF RAILWAY COMPANY
12,000.00PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH UNRESERV/UNDESIGN
12,000.00PARK MAINTENANCE G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
12,000.00
116.52INSTRUCTIONAL SKATING LESSONS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESBOBIER, HEIDI
116.52
2,623.40GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICEBOYER FORD TRUCKS
2,623.40
185.88PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYBOYER TRUCK PARTS
136.40GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE
322.28
1,377.51GO BONDS-FIRE STATIONS G&A LANDBRAUN INTERTEC CORPORATION
8,020.88GO BONDS-FIRE STATIONS G&A BUILDINGS & STRUCTURES
285.00WATER UTILITY G&A IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
9,683.39
570.00-GO BONDS-FIRE STATIONS BAL S RETAINED PERCENTAGEBREDEMUS HARDWARE COMPANY INC
11,400.00GO BONDS-FIRE STATIONS G&A BUILDINGS & STRUCTURES
10,830.00
260.00GOLFOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESBROOKVIEW GOLF COURSE
260.00
250.00NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION GRANT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESBROWNDALE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIA
250.00
215.00INSPECTIONS G & A MASSAGE THERAPY ESTABLISHMENTSBRUNES, THOMAS & THERESA
215.00
1,531.51PARK GROUNDS MAINTENANCE OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESBRYAN ROCK PRODUCTS INC
City Council Meeting of November 21, 2011 (Item No. 4h)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 7
11/16/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:13:35R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
7Page -Council Check Summary
11/11/2011 -10/8/2011
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
1,531.51
150.00GREEN REMODELING PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESBURKE, MICHAEL & KATE
150.00
4,586.28ADMINISTRATION G & A LEGAL SERVICESCAMPBELL KNUTSON PROF ASSOC
77.50GO BONDS-FIRE STATIONS G&A BUILDINGS & STRUCTURES
158.75STREET CAPITAL PROJ G & A IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
30.00WATER UTILITY G&A LEGAL SERVICES
4,852.53
12,000.00ESCROWSPMC ESCROWCARPENTER, KEN
12,000.00
1,144.62IT G & A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICECARTRIDGE CARE
1,144.62
247.48EMPLOYEE FLEX SPEND G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESCBIZ FINANCIAL SOLUTIONS INC
247.48
200.60INSPECTIONS G & A GENERAL SUPPLIESCDW GOVERNMENT INC
961.12TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT OFFICE EQUIPMENT
1,161.72
81.21PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYCEDAR SMALL ENGINE
81.21
13,228.18DISCOUNT LOAN PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESCENTER ENERGY & ENVIRONMENT
2,230.00MOVE-UP PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
34,260.00TRANSFORMATION LOAN OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
3,900.00LIVE WHERE YOU WORK PRGM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
53,618.18
335.43FACILITY OPERATIONS HEATING GASCENTERPOINT ENERGY
280.79PARK MAINTENANCE G & A HEATING GAS
17.69WESTWOOD G & A HEATING GAS
34.72NATURALIST PROGRAMMER HEATING GAS
1,861.43WATER UTILITY G&A HEATING GAS
37.36REILLY G & A HEATING GAS
48.18SEWER UTILITY G&A ELECTRIC SERVICE
675.93SEWER UTILITY G&A HEATING GAS
3,291.53
City Council Meeting of November 21, 2011 (Item No. 4h)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 8
11/16/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:13:35R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
8Page -Council Check Summary
11/11/2011 -10/8/2011
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
494.61FACILITY OPERATIONS HEATING GASCENTERPOINT ENERGY SERVICES IN
5,103.85ENTERPRISE G & A HEATING GAS
5,598.46
893.87SUPPORT SERVICES G&A OFFICE SUPPLIESCENTRAL ENVELOPE CORPORATION
893.87
10,400.00EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S OTHER RETIREMENTCENTRAL PENSION FUND
10,400.00
38.40E-911 PROGRAM TELEPHONECENTURY LINK
38.40
4,000.00ESCROWSDEMO / BROOKSIDE TRAFFICCERMAK, CINAMIN
4,000.00
603.32-GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET DUE TO OTHER GOVTSCHEMUNG SUPPLY
9,378.92SNOW PLOWING EQUIPMENT PARTS
8,775.60
385.00SOLID WASTE G&A OTHERCHINOOK BOOK
385.00
2,500.00SEWER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICECICHY'S WATER & SEWER
2,500.00
45.75FACILITIES MCTE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIESCINTAS FIRST AID & SAFETY
45.75
44.96-GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET DUE TO OTHER GOVTSCITIZENS INDEPENDENT BANK
26.45ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
64.00ADMINISTRATION G & A POSTAGE
17.22ADMINISTRATION G & A MEETING EXPENSE
18.87HUMAN RESOURCES GENERAL SUPPLIES
250.00HUMAN RESOURCES RECOGNITION
1,219.40HUMAN RESOURCES TRAINING
134.95COMM & MARKETING G & A TELEPHONE
45.92IT G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
2,349.15IT G & A OFFICE EQUIPMENT
104.80IT G & A TELEPHONE
182.35DESKTOP SUPPORT/SERVICES GENERAL SUPPLIES
City Council Meeting of November 21, 2011 (Item No. 4h)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 9
11/16/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:13:35R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
9Page -Council Check Summary
11/11/2011 -10/8/2011
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
35.00FINANCE G & A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT
461.72FINANCE G & A TRAVEL/MEETINGS
505.75COMM DEV PLANNING G & A TRAINING
70.39GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES
2,284.88GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE OTHER
15.98POLICE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
72.30POLICE G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
64.33POLICE G & A POLICE EQUIPMENT
244.97ERUTRAINING
369.00COMMUNICATIONS/GV REIMBURSEABL TRAINING
3,088.19E BYRNE JAG 2009-10 SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT
11.05OPERATIONSOFFICE SUPPLIES
105.31OPERATIONSGENERAL SUPPLIES
502.15OPERATIONSOPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
17.11OPERATIONSSMALL TOOLS
1,032.50OPERATIONSSUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS
154.82OPERATIONSTRAINING
39.90INSPECTIONS G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
59.95INSPECTIONS G & A TRAINING
115.83ENGINEERING G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES
450.00ENGINEERING G & A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT
1,159.09PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORY
216.20-PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH DUE TO OTHER GOVTS
52.13ORGANIZED REC G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES
47.00ORGANIZED REC G & A TRAINING
44.10ADULT PROGRAMS GENERAL SUPPLIES
1,504.00ADULT PROGRAMS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
2,666.25HOLIDAY PROGRAMS GENERAL SUPPLIES
446.24PARK MAINTENANCE G & A SMALL TOOLS
25.00PARK MAINTENANCE G & A TRAINING
42.73WESTWOOD G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES
209.35HALLOWEEN PARTY GENERAL SUPPLIES
682.93INSTRUCTIONAL SKATING LESSONS GENERAL SUPPLIES
196.17AQUATIC PARK BUDGET OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
199.48VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A OFFICE SUPPLIES
389.02VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES
120.00VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT
81.70-CABLE TV BALANCE SHEET DUE TO OTHER GOVTS
1,799.88TV PRODUCTION NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT
163.02OUTREACH & PROGRAMMING GENERAL SUPPLIES
496.59WATER UTILITY G&A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT
510.00SOLID WASTE RECYCLING GRANT SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT
City Council Meeting of November 21, 2011 (Item No. 4h)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 10
11/16/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:13:35R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
10Page -Council Check Summary
11/11/2011 -10/8/2011
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
24,524.36
750.00HUMAN RESOURCES ORGANIZATIONAL DEVELOPMENTCITIZENS LEAGUE
750.00
171.15INSTRUCTIONAL SKATING LESSONS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESCOLBORN, CHRISTINE
171.15
29,913.87ADMINISTRATION G & A LEGAL SERVICESCOLICH & ASSOCIATES
29,913.87
159.95IT G & A DATACOMMUNICATIONSCOMCAST
13.92-OPERATIONS GENERAL SUPPLIES
146.03
12,912.24SEALCOAT PREPARATION OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESCOMMERCIAL ASPHALT COMPANY
12,163.21PATCHING-PERMANENT OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
25,075.45
150.00ENGINEERING G & A TRAININGCOMMISSIONER OF TRANSPORTATION
150.00
4,600.00PARK EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESCONCRETE ETC INC
2,223.00AQUATIC PARK MAINTENANCE BUILDING MTCE SERVICE
1,777.25PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
8,600.25
543.02BUILDING MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIESCONTINENTAL RESEARCH CORP
543.02
16.23-GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET DUE TO OTHER GOVTSCOOKE JP CO
252.23INSPECTIONS G & A PRINTING & PUBLISHING
236.00
50.00POLICE G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPSCOSTCO WHOLESALE MEMBERSHIP
50.00
109.01OPERATIONSGENERAL SUPPLIESCOUNTRY FLAGS
109.01
471.88DARE PROGRAM OPERATIONAL SUPPLIESCREATIVE PRODUCT SOURCING INC
471.88
City Council Meeting of November 21, 2011 (Item No. 4h)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 11
11/16/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:13:35R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
11Page -Council Check Summary
11/11/2011 -10/8/2011
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
1,418.71-GO BONDS-FIRE STATIONS BAL S RETAINED PERCENTAGECROSSROAD CONSTRUCTION INC
28,374.20GO BONDS-FIRE STATIONS G&A BUILDINGS & STRUCTURES
26,955.49
7.83-GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET DUE TO OTHER GOVTSCROWN MARKING INC
121.78SUPPORT SERVICES G&A OFFICE SUPPLIES
113.95
150.00COMMUNITY OUTREACH G & A TRAININGCSHS-CENTER FOR SOMALIA HISTOR
150.00NEIGHBORHOOD OUTREACH TRAINING
300.00
238.82POLICE G & A SUBSISTENCE SUPPLIESCUB FOODS
36.10ERUTRAINING
274.92
1,083.96FACILITIES MCTE G & A BUILDING MTCE SERVICECUMMINS NPOWER LLC
446.28WATER UTILITY G&A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE
1,530.24
91.96REFORESTATION FUND OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESCURRAN-BAKKEN, ERIC
91.96
5,126.95SSD 1 G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESCUSTOM PRODUCTS & SERVICES
5,408.52SSD 2 G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
1,628.35SSD 3 G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
765.33SSD #4 G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
1,366.61SSD #5 G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
774.52SSD #6 G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
15,070.28
9,664.01WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESDAKOTA SUPPLY GROUP
9,664.01
897.96GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SUPPLYDALCO ENTERPRISES INC
1,037.52BUILDING MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES
1,935.48
63.55WATER UTILITY G&A OFFICE SUPPLIESDAY-TIMERS INC
63.55
City Council Meeting of November 21, 2011 (Item No. 4h)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 12
11/16/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:13:35R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
12Page -Council Check Summary
11/11/2011 -10/8/2011
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
14,502.19EMPLOYEE FLEX SPEND G&A UNEMPLOYMENTDEPT EMPLOYMENT & ECONOMIC DEV
14,502.19
7,969.89INSPECTIONS G & A DUE TO OTHER GOVTSDEPT LABOR & INDUSTRY
40.00BUILDING MAINTENANCE LICENSES
8,009.89
537.10ENTERPRISE G & A ADVERTISINGDEX MEDIA EAST LLC
537.10
327.64PATCHING-PERMANENT EQUIPMENT PARTSDISCOUNT STEEL INC
588.47SNOW PLOWING EQUIPMENT PARTS
366.54SANDING/SALTING EQUIPMENT PARTS
1,282.65
19,458.00INSTALLATIONOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESDJ ELECTRIC SERVICES INC
4,280.34PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT BUILDINGS & STRUCTURES
6,000.00PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
29,738.34
8,941.73GO BONDS-FIRE STATIONS G&A BUILDINGS & STRUCTURESDLR GROUP KKE
8,941.73
30.00ENGINEERING G & A PUBLIC WORKSDMJ CORPORATION
30.00
23,781.87SUPPORT SERVICES G&A POSTAGEDO-GOOD.BIZ INC
180.24NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION GRANT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
23,962.11
16,300.00STORM WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICEDRYDEN EXCAVATING INC
16,300.00
3,206.31TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT OFFICE EQUIPMENTDYNAMIC IMAGING SYSTEMS INC
3,206.31
592.61BUILDING MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIESECOLAB INC
592.61
80.46WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERSEDINA REALTY TITLE
80.46
City Council Meeting of November 21, 2011 (Item No. 4h)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 13
11/16/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:13:35R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
13Page -Council Check Summary
11/11/2011 -10/8/2011
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
358.00SYSTEM REPAIR OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESEGAN COMPANIES INC
358.00
1,585.002005A GO IMPROVEMENT BOND G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESEHLERS & ASSOCIATES INC
1,566.672007A UTIL REV BOND PROJECTS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
225.002010B UTIL REV BONDS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
783.332007A UTIL REV BOND PROJECTS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
225.002010B UTIL REV BONDS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
4,385.00
60.98INSPECTIONS G & A BUILDINGELDER-JONES BUILDING PERMIT SE
60.98
237.71SEWER UTILITY G&A EQUIPMENT PARTSELECTRIC PUMP INC
237.71
1,000.00ESCROWSPMC ESCROWELSTROM, MARTHA
1,000.00
90.67PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYEMERGENCY APPARATUS MTNCE
2,872.09GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE
2,962.76
900.08PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYEMERGENCY AUTOMOTIVE TECHNOLOG
900.08
745.00ESCROWSPMC ESCROWENTERPRISE RS LLC
745.00
292.04WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERSERICKSON, DEBBIE
292.04
73.22REFORESTATION FUND OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESERIKSON, ROY
73.22
2,992.00IT G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESESP SYSTEMS PROFESSIONALS INC
2,720.00NETWORK SUPPORT SERVICES GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
5,712.00
8,273.19STORM WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICEESS BROTHERS & SONS INC
8,273.19
City Council Meeting of November 21, 2011 (Item No. 4h)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 14
11/16/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:13:35R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
14Page -Council Check Summary
11/11/2011 -10/8/2011
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
34,699.12SOLID WASTE COLLECTIONS RECYCLING SERVICEEUREKA RECYCLING
34,699.12
202.78PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYFACTORY MOTOR PARTS CO
47.90VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES
380.30PREVENTATIVE MAINTENANCE CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SUPPLY
630.98
15.10SANDING/SALTING EQUIPMENT PARTSFASTENAL COMPANY
10.12PARK MAINTENANCE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
171.06BUILDING MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES
96.53SSD #5 G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
292.81
39.89HUMAN RESOURCES GENERAL SUPPLIESFEDEX
40.94GENERAL INFORMATION MAPS/PRINTED MATERIALS
33.78POLICE G & A POSTAGE
27.27E-911 PROGRAM POSTAGE
141.88
2,505.71WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESFERGUSON WATERWORKS
2,505.71
84.58CABLE TV G & A OFFICE EQUIPMENTFERRELL, LESLIE
84.58
187.68ICE RESURFACER MOTOR FUELSFERRELLGAS
187.68
229.00ADMINISTRATION G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPSFINANCE & COMMERCE
229.00
538.59OPERATIONSOPERATIONAL SUPPLIESFIRE EQUIPMENT SPECIALTIES INC
338.02OPERATIONSFIRE EQUIPMENT
876.61
70.00OPERATIONSSUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPSFIRE MARSHAL ASSOC OF MN
70.00
350.15OPERATIONSOPERATIONAL SUPPLIESFIRE SAFETY USA INC
350.15
City Council Meeting of November 21, 2011 (Item No. 4h)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 15
11/16/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:13:35R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
15Page -Council Check Summary
11/11/2011 -10/8/2011
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
136.80PARK EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIESFLAGSHIP RECREATION
136.80
914.00MUNICIPAL BLDG BUILDINGS & STRUCTURESFLOYD TOTAL SECURITY
914.00
31.16-PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH DUE TO OTHER GOVTSFORESTRY SUPPLIERS INC
484.42REFORESTATIONLANDSCAPING MATERIALS
453.26
139.63E BYRNE JAG 2009-10 SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTATFORSTER, JAY
139.63
285.00STORM WATER UTILITY G&A IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDIFOTH INFRASTRUCTURE & ENVIRONM
285.00
2,956.68-GO BONDS-FIRE STATIONS BAL S RETAINED PERCENTAGEFRATTALONE COMPANIES INC
59,133.68GO BONDS-FIRE STATIONS G&A BUILDINGS & STRUCTURES
56,177.00
2,745.37-PARK IMPROVE BALANCE SHEET RETAINED PERCENTAGEFRIEDGES LANDSCAPING INC
54,907.28PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
52,161.91
20.26WATER UTILITY G&A OFFICE SUPPLIESG S DIRECT
20.26
10.75NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION GRANT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESGAINES, MARY BETH
10.75
11.20HALLOWEEN PARTY PROGRAM REVENUEGALLAGHER, GAIL
11.20
26.72SANDING/SALTING EQUIPMENT PARTSGARELICK STEEL CO
833.63PARK EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES
860.35
3,471.55ARENA MAINTENANCE BUILDING MTCE SERVICEGARTNER REFRIG & MFG INC
3,471.55
40.26NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION GRANT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESGASPARD, CHRIS
40.26
City Council Meeting of November 21, 2011 (Item No. 4h)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 16
11/16/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:13:35R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
16Page -Council Check Summary
11/11/2011 -10/8/2011
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
64.04REFORESTATION FUND OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESGILLES, STEVE
64.04
45.95PARK BUILDING MAINTENANCE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIESGLASS & MIRROR OUTLET
45.95
205.59INSPECTIONS G & A GENERAL SUPPLIESGLEASON PRINTING
205.59
6,742.56AQUATIC PARK MAINTENANCE BUILDING MTCE SERVICEGLOBAL SPECIALTY CONTRACTORS I
6,742.56
4,220.80EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S LONG TERM CARE INSURGLTC PREMIUM PAYMENTS
4,220.80
1,138.25WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICEGOPHER STATE ONE-CALL INC
1,138.25
150.00FINANCE G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPSGOVERNMENT FINANCE OFFICERS AS
150.00
286.08GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIESGRAINGER INC, WW
122.91OPERATIONSOPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
558.37INSPECTIONS G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
120.46PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORY
142.80WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES
1,230.62
1,175.00SNOW PLOWING SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPSGREAT LAKES WEATHER SERVICE
1,175.00
119.64GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICEGREEN ACRES SPRINKLER CO
119.64
577.11WEED CONTROL OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESGREEN HORIZONS
577.11
833.22PARK GROUNDS MAINTENANCE LANDSCAPING SERVICEGREENLIFE SUPPLY LLC
187.03TREE MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES
1,020.25
City Council Meeting of November 21, 2011 (Item No. 4h)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 17
11/16/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:13:35R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
17Page -Council Check Summary
11/11/2011 -10/8/2011
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
798.60SEWER UTILITY G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESGULLICKSON, MARJORY
798.60
1,000.00ESCROWSDEMO / BROOKSIDE TRAFFICGUNN, GERALD DAMON
1,000.00
875.00SOCCEROTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESHACHEM, DRISS
875.00
200.00FOOTBALLOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESHAMILTON, MIKE
200.00
157.90-GO BONDS-FIRE STATIONS BAL S RETAINED PERCENTAGEHANSON STRUCTURAL PRECAST INC
3,158.00GO BONDS-FIRE STATIONS G&A BUILDINGS & STRUCTURES
3,000.10
27.75WESTWOOD G & A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CARHASLERUD, CARRIE
27.75
2,622.74BUILDING MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIESHAWKINS INC
8,378.70WATER UTILITY G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
11,001.44
119.15IRRIGATION MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIESHD SUPPLY WATERWORKS LTD
32.06WATER UTILITY G&A SMALL TOOLS
267.33STORM WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE
418.54
306.80STORM WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESHEDBERG AGGREGATES
306.80
188.77HALLOWEEN PARTY GENERAL SUPPLIESHEGNA, JESSICA
6.64HALLOWEEN PARTY CONCESSION SUPPLIES
195.41
534.38IT G & A COMPUTER SERVICESHENNEPIN COUNTY INFO TECH
2,265.00POLICE G & A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE
800.00OPERATIONSRADIO COMMUNICATIONS
256.00OPERATIONSEMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS
3,855.38
1,265.00OPERATIONSTRAININGHENNEPIN COUNTY MEDICAL CENTER
City Council Meeting of November 21, 2011 (Item No. 4h)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 18
11/16/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:13:35R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
18Page -Council Check Summary
11/11/2011 -10/8/2011
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
1,265.00
1,842.83POLICE G & A SUBSISTENCE SERVICEHENNEPIN COUNTY SHERIFFS OFFIC
1,842.83
2,700.00POLICE G & A SUBSISTENCE SERVICEHENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER
25,944.00PARK MAINTENANCE G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
302.98PARK MAINTENANCE G & A GARBAGE/REFUSE SERVICE
1,378.00ENTERPRISE G & A BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES
9,656.00PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT BUILDINGS & STRUCTURES
25.00EMPLOYEE FLEX SPEND G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
40,005.98
78.00INSPECTIONS G & A PLUMBINGHIGHVIEW PLUMBING INC
5,450.00SEWER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE
5,528.00
135.13GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIESHIRSHFIELDS
135.13
91.24REFORESTATION FUND OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESHOFFMANN, MICHAEL & JEAN
91.24
290.78TREE INJECTION TREE MAINTENANCEHOLLENHORST, THOMAS
290.78
405.17GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIESHOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES
11.04-SNOW PLOWING GENERAL SUPPLIES
134.78SNOW PLOWING EQUIPMENT PARTS
85.67SANDING/SALTING EQUIPMENT PARTS
86.33SNOW HAULING GENERAL SUPPLIES
16.96TRAFFIC CONTROL OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
138.65PARK MAINTENANCE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
326.49MOWINGGENERAL SUPPLIES
127.74PARK BUILDING MAINTENANCE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES
127.05BUILDING MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES
24.22WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES
1,462.02
79.99GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIESHOME HARDWARE
10.24ENGINEERING G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
95.76PARK MAINTENANCE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
City Council Meeting of November 21, 2011 (Item No. 4h)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 19
11/16/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:13:35R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
19Page -Council Check Summary
11/11/2011 -10/8/2011
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
266.97PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
15.48WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES
468.44
270.00ATHLETIC CAMPS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESHOPKINS-MINNETONKA RECREATION
270.00
223.42GENERAL REPAIR GENERAL SUPPLIESHOTSY EQUIPMENT OF MN
223.42
2,500.00ESCROWSDEMO / BROOKSIDE TRAFFICHOWARD, WILLIE
2,500.00
455.00KICKBALLOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESHOWES, JEFFREY
455.00
175.00KICKBALLOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESHOWES, KRISTINE
175.00
600.00IT G & A COMPUTER SERVICESHRGREEN
600.00
86.92WESTWOOD G & A GENERAL SUPPLIESHSBC BUSINESS SOLUTIONS
290.03HALLOWEEN PARTY GENERAL SUPPLIES
15.96SCHOOL GROUPS GENERAL SUPPLIES
10.99SCHOOLGENERAL SUPPLIES
403.90
202.45PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYI-STATE TRUCK CENTER
202.45
1,595.25EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S UNION DUESI.U.O.E. LOCAL NO 49
1,595.25
1,255.61WATER UTILITY G&A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICEIDEAL SERVICE INC
1,255.61
245.81POLICE G & A OFFICE SUPPLIESIDENTISYS
245.81
68.79REFORESTATION FUND OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESIDZOREK, EDWARD & JULIE
68.79
City Council Meeting of November 21, 2011 (Item No. 4h)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 20
11/16/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:13:35R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
20Page -Council Check Summary
11/11/2011 -10/8/2011
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
1,178.53IT G & A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICEIKON OFFICE SOLUTIONS
1,178.53
323.37WATER UTILITY G&A POSTAGEIMPACT PROVEN SOLUTIONS
323.37SEWER UTILITY G&A POSTAGE
323.37SOLID WASTE COLLECTIONS POSTAGE
323.38STORM WATER UTILITY G&A POSTAGE
1,293.49
4,975.14IT G & A TELEPHONEINTEGRA TELECOM
4,975.14
374.63PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYINVER GROVE FORD
374.63
10.00HUMAN RESOURCES TRAININGIPMA-HR MINNESOTA
10.00
182.27ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESIRON MOUNTAIN
134.16POLICE G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
316.43
240.00ENVIRONMENTAL G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPSISA
240.00
73.09WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERSJAVUREK, KAREN
73.09
392.88INSPECTIONS G & A PLUMBINGJECHE EXCAVATING
392.88
29,878.00SEWER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICEJEDLICKI INC, G F
29,878.00
9.60SPECIAL EVENTS GENERAL SUPPLIESJERRY'S MIRACLE MILE
47.26PARK MAINTENANCE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
16.34GENERAL REPAIR GENERAL SUPPLIES
20.94WATER UTILITY G&A EQUIPMENT PARTS
94.14
164.35IRRIGATION MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIESJOHN DEERE LANDSCAPES/LESCO
City Council Meeting of November 21, 2011 (Item No. 4h)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 21
11/16/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:13:35R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
21Page -Council Check Summary
11/11/2011 -10/8/2011
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
164.35
330.00KICKBALLOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESJOHNSON, SUSAN
330.00
10.00SPECIAL PROGRAMS PROGRAM REVENUEJORDAN, KELLY
10.00
836.75TREE MAINTENANCE CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICEK C GROVES TREE EXPERTS
836.75
905.20PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYKATH FUEL OIL SERVICE
905.20
553.84EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S WAGE GARNISHMENTSKELLER, JASMINE Z
553.84
96.00ESCROWSGRECO DEVELOP/WOODDALE POINTEKENNEDY & GRAVEN
45.00SUNSET RIDGE LEGAL SERVICES
141.00
260.00-WATER UTILITY BALANCE SHEET RETAINED PERCENTAGEKEYS WELL DRILLING CO
5,200.00CONSTRUCTION PAYMENTS IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
4,940.00
1,134.00OPERATIONSGENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESKIDCAPERS PORTRAITS
1,134.00
40.00TENNISPROGRAM REVENUEKIDS TEAM TENNIS
40.00
804.00NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION GRANT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESKIRCHNER, TODD
263.00NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION GRANT PUBLIC LIABILITY INSURANCE
1,067.00
325.00EMPLOYEE FLEX SPEND G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESKITCHENWERKS
325.00
282.22TREE INJECTION TREE MAINTENANCEKOEHLER, CHARLES
282.22
78,501.12GO BONDS-FIRE STATIONS G&A BUILDINGS & STRUCTURESKRAUS-ANDERSON CONSTRUCTION CO
City Council Meeting of November 21, 2011 (Item No. 4h)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 22
11/16/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:13:35R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
22Page -Council Check Summary
11/11/2011 -10/8/2011
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
78,501.12
4,219.00PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESKRECH, O'BRIEN, MUELLER & WASS
4,219.00
195.73GENERAL REPAIR GENERAL SUPPLIESKRUGE-AIR INC
195.73
60.34REFORESTATION FUND OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESKURZEKA, LOUISE
60.34
416.53RELAMPINGOTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESLARSON, JH CO
167.47SYSTEM REPAIR OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
475.10PARK BUILDING MAINTENANCE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES
430.39BUILDING MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES
1,489.49
7,769.82TREE REPLACEMENT TREE REPLACEMENTLAUREL TREE FARMS
7,769.82
2,226.00EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S UNION DUESLAW ENFORCEMENT LABOR SERVICES
2,226.00
192.71GENERAL REPAIR GENERAL SUPPLIESLAWSON PRODUCTS INC
192.71
6,780.00EMPLOYEE FLEX SPEND G&A League of MN Cities dept'l expLEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES
6,780.00
40.00ADMINISTRATION G & A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTATLEAGUE OF MN CITIES
40.00
650.00UNINSURED LOSS G&A UNINSURED LOSSLEAGUE OF MN CITIES INSURANCE
650.00
276.28INSTRUCTIONAL SKATING LESSONS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESLENTNER, LAURA
276.28
400.00BUILDING MAINTENANCE BUILDING MTCE SERVICELEVASSEUR, KURT
400.00
14.91WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERSLEVINE, IRVING
City Council Meeting of November 21, 2011 (Item No. 4h)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 23
11/16/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:13:35R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
23Page -Council Check Summary
11/11/2011 -10/8/2011
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
14.91
2,053.24MUNICIPAL BLDG IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDILIGHTING HOUSE USA INC
2,053.24
96.13PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYLIND ELECTRONICS INC
96.13
32,930.21E-911 PROGRAM OFFICE FURNITURE & EQUIPMENTLOFFLER COMPANIES
32,930.21
41,182.00IT G & A COMPUTER SERVICESLOGIS
11,535.03TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT OFFICE EQUIPMENT
52,717.03
184.98PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYLOWELL'S REFINISH MASTERS
184.98
2,408.13UNINSURED LOSS G&A UNINSURED LOSSMAACO AUTO PAINTING
2,408.13
93.43PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYMACQUEEN EQUIP CO
111.34SEWER UTILITY G&A EQUIPMENT PARTS
204.77
210.30HUMAN RESOURCES GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESMADDEN GALANTER HANSEN LLP
210.30
5,269.17SSD 1 G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESMAPLE CREST LANDSCAPE
177.00SSD 2 G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
177.00SSD 3 G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
354.00SSD #4 G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
5,977.17
210.00INSPECTIONS G & A TRAININGMBPTA
210.00
100.00SOCCEROTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESMCCHESNEY, CHARLIE
100.00
112.16REFORESTATION FUND OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESMCCHESNEY, WAYNE
112.16
City Council Meeting of November 21, 2011 (Item No. 4h)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 24
11/16/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:13:35R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
24Page -Council Check Summary
11/11/2011 -10/8/2011
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
144.01INSTRUCTIONAL SKATING LESSONS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESMCGREGOR-HANNAH, MAREN
144.01
607.21TREE INJECTION TREE MAINTENANCEMCIVOR & S M YASUDA, R S
607.21
924.03COMM DEV PLANNING G & A TRAININGMCMONIGAL, MEG
924.03
66.20EMPLOYEE FLEX SPEND G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESMECKLE, JODIE
66.20
125.00POLICE G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESMEDTOX LABORATORIES INC
125.00
1,000.00ESCROWSDEMO / BROOKSIDE TRAFFICMEIER, DWAYNE
1,000.00
40.00OPERATIONSSUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPSMEMA
40.00
126.92WESTWOOD G & A SMALL TOOLSMENARDS
70.72HALLOWEEN PARTY GENERAL SUPPLIES
197.64
106.28ARENA MAINTENANCE BUILDING MTCE SERVICEMERIT ELECTRIC COMPANY
106.28
87.69PUBLIC WORKS G & A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CARMERKLEY, SCOTT
87.69
16,144.12SEWER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERSMETHODIST HOSPITAL
16,144.12
297.28OPERATIONSEQUIPMENT PARTSMETRO FIRE INC
297.28
660.00VOLLEYBALLOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESMETRO VOLLEYBALL OFFICIALS
660.00
16,847.65INSPECTIONS G & A DUE TO OTHER GOVTSMETROPOLITAN COUNCIL
City Council Meeting of November 21, 2011 (Item No. 4h)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 25
11/16/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:13:35R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
25Page -Council Check Summary
11/11/2011 -10/8/2011
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
298,059.29OPERATIONSCLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICE
314,906.94
384.46GO BONDS-FIRE STATIONS G&A BUILDINGS & STRUCTURESMICHELS CORPORATION
6,907.24TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT POLICE EQUIPMENT
7,291.70
5,900.84IT G & A OFFICE EQUIPMENTMID AMERICA BUSINESS SYSTEMS
830.00POLICE G & A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE
2,832.06TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT OFFICE EQUIPMENT
9,562.90
550.00PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDIMIDWEST FENCE & MFG
550.00
3,665.00WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESMIDWEST TESTING LLC
3,665.00
366.00PAWN FEES OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESMINNEAPOLIS FINANCE DEPT
366.00
184.19HOLIDAY PROGRAMS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESMINNEAPOLIS OXYGEN CO
184.19
151.62EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S ACCRUED OTHER BENEFITSMINNESOTA BENEFIT ASSOC
151.62
245.08GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICEMINNESOTA CONWAY
245.08
1,018.88GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET CLEARING ACCOUNTMINNESOTA DEPT COMMERCE
1,018.88
155.00HUMAN RESOURCES RECRUITMENTMINNESOTA FIRE SVC CERT BD
155.00
16.00EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S ACCRUED OTHER BENEFITSMINNESOTA NCPERS LIFE INS
16.00
23.31-GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET DUE TO OTHER GOVTSMITOGRAPHERS INC
362.43INSPECTIONS G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
339.12
City Council Meeting of November 21, 2011 (Item No. 4h)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 26
11/16/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:13:35R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
26Page -Council Check Summary
11/11/2011 -10/8/2011
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
540.00WATER UTILITY G&A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTATMN AWWA
540.00
2.75-GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET DUE TO OTHER GOVTSMNFIAM BOOK SALES
42.75OPERATIONSTRAINING
40.00
65.40PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYMORRIE'S PARTS & SERVICE GROUP
65.40
17.60COMM DEV PLANNING G & A TRAININGMORRISON, GARY
89.09COMM DEV PLANNING G & A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR
106.69
119.24REFORESTATION FUND OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESMOSHER, NINA
119.24
34.02PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYMTI DISTRIBUTING CO
34.02
231.00REILLY BUDGET OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESMVTL LABORATORIES
231.00
95.00INSPECTIONS G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPSN E H A
95.00
1,980.00-GO BONDS-FIRE STATIONS BAL S RETAINED PERCENTAGENAC MECHANICAL & ELECTRICAL SE
39,600.00GO BONDS-FIRE STATIONS G&A BUILDINGS & STRUCTURES
37,620.00
7.90ROUTINE MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIESNAPA (GENUINE PARTS CO)
22.84SANDING/SALTING GENERAL SUPPLIES
1,518.88PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORY
19.81PARK MAINTENANCE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
1,497.28GENERAL REPAIR GENERAL SUPPLIES
63.19SSD 3 G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES
5.39WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES
69.37WATER UTILITY G&A EQUIPMENT PARTS
3,204.66
172.00INSPECTIONS G & A CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCENARULA, VIKAS
City Council Meeting of November 21, 2011 (Item No. 4h)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 27
11/16/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:13:35R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
27Page -Council Check Summary
11/11/2011 -10/8/2011
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
172.00
3,000.00ESCROWSPMC ESCROWNECHAS, JEFF
3,000.00
1,220.00EMPLOYEE FLEX SPEND G&A TUITIONNELSON, BRENDA
1,220.00
44.09VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A GENERAL SUPPLIESNEP CORP
44.09
1,161.25-GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET CLEARING ACCOUNTNEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS
104.36ADMINISTRATION G & A TELEPHONE
155.59HUMAN RESOURCES TELEPHONE
410.62RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT TELEPHONE
104.36ASSESSING G & A TELEPHONE
155.59FINANCE G & A TELEPHONE
360.58EDA / HA REIMBURSEMENT TELEPHONE
897.24POLICE G & A TELEPHONE
409.69OPERATIONSTELEPHONE
104.36INSPECTIONS G & A TELEPHONE
359.62ENGINEERING G & A TELEPHONE
510.35PUBLIC WORKS OPS G & A TELEPHONE
158.07PARK AND REC G&A TELEPHONE
352.55ORGANIZED REC G & A TELEPHONE
350.46PARK MAINTENANCE G & A TELEPHONE
109.70ENVIRONMENTAL G & A TELEPHONE
232.29WESTWOOD G & A TELEPHONE
69.49REC CENTER/AQUATIC PARK SAL TELEPHONE
105.60VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A TELEPHONE
413.22WATER UTILITY G&A TELEPHONE
219.49SEWER UTILITY G&A TELEPHONE
70.83SOLID WASTE G&A TELEPHONE
4,492.81
50.00HUMAN RESOURCES TRAININGNORTHSTAR CHAPTER
50.00
160.83-STREET CAPITAL PROJ BAL SHEET RETAINED PERCENTAGENORTHWEST ASPHALT CORP
3,216.55CONSTRUCTION PAYMENTS IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
3,055.72
City Council Meeting of November 21, 2011 (Item No. 4h)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 28
11/16/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:13:35R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
28Page -Council Check Summary
11/11/2011 -10/8/2011
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
2,980.00GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET UNREALIZED REVENUENORTHWEST METRO DRUG TASK FORC
2,980.00
150.00ORGANIZED REC G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPSNRPA
150.00
1,141.06PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYNUSS TRUCK & EQUIPMENT
1,141.06
12,663.21COMM & MARKETING G & A PRINTING & PUBLISHINGNYSTROM PUBLISHING
12,663.21
1,000.00POLICE G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESOAK KNOLL ANIMAL HOSPITAL
1,000.00
205.91INSTRUCTIONAL SKATING LESSONS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESOBERSTAR, KATIE
205.91
371.93ADMINISTRATION G & A OFFICE SUPPLIESOFFICE DEPOT
472.69HUMAN RESOURCES OFFICE SUPPLIES
87.64HUMAN RESOURCES ORGANIZATIONAL DEVELOPMENT
143.17SUPPORT SERVICES G&A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE
226.06FINANCE G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES
291.78POLICE G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES
32.22POLICE G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
158.60INSPECTIONS G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
302.50PUBLIC WORKS G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES
151.04ORGANIZED REC G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES
84.73WESTWOOD G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES
60.20WATER UTILITY G&A OFFICE SUPPLIES
2,382.56
20,014.13HABITAT FOR HUMANITY PERMANENT IMPROVEMNT REVOLVINGOLD REPUBLIC TITLE
20,014.13
58.13SANDING/SALTING EQUIPMENT PARTSOLSEN CHAIN & CABLE CO INC
262.80PARK MAINTENANCE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
320.93
4,605.39PORTABLE TOILETS/FIELD MAINT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESON SITE SANITATION
171.00OFF-LEASH DOG PARK OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
213.76WESTWOOD G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
City Council Meeting of November 21, 2011 (Item No. 4h)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 29
11/16/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:13:35R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
29Page -Council Check Summary
11/11/2011 -10/8/2011
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
108.21NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION GRANT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
53.44SOLID WASTE G&A OTHER
5,151.80
235.45EMPLOYEE FLEX SPEND G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESOPTUM HEALTH FINANCIAL SERVICE
235.45
133.20INSTRUCTIONAL SKATING LESSONS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESPAPP, MELISSA
133.20
497.66NEIGHBORHOOD PUBLIC ART OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESPARK THEATER COMPANY
497.66
300.00PARK GROUNDS MAINTENANCE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESPARKING MARKING INC
300.00
209.95INSTRUCTIONAL SKATING LESSONS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESPARR, MELISSA
209.95
139.12GENERAL REPAIR GENERAL SUPPLIESPARTS ASSOCIATES INC
139.12
1,000.00ESCROWSPMC ESCROWPATRIOT BUSINESS GROUP
1,000.00
425.00BUILDING MAINTENANCE BUILDING MTCE SERVICEPBBS EQUIPMENT CORP
425.00
30.04ENGINEERING G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIESPECCHIA, TOM
30.04
1,905.00COMM & MARKETING G & A PRINTING & PUBLISHINGPERNSTEINER CREATIVE GROUP INC
1,905.00
20.00HUMAN RIGHTS SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTATPETTY CASH
7.16POLICE G & A BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES
30.00POLICE G & A MEETING EXPENSE
21.50POLICE G & A LICENSES
78.66
25.61WESTWOOD G & A GENERAL SUPPLIESPETTY CASH - WWNC
14.39FAMILY PROGRAMS GENERAL SUPPLIES
City Council Meeting of November 21, 2011 (Item No. 4h)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 30
11/16/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:13:35R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
30Page -Council Check Summary
11/11/2011 -10/8/2011
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
8.35HALLOWEEN PARTY GENERAL SUPPLIES
48.35
1,000.00ESCROWSPMC ESCROWPEVZNER & YEROSHEVSKAYA
1,000.00
2,574.62PARK GROUNDS MAINTENANCE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESPHILIP'S TREE CARE INC
2,574.62
653.86WATER UTILITY G&A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICEPLANT & FLANGED EQUIPMENT
653.86
160.00CLERICALTRAININGPLEAA
160.00
100.00NEIGHBORHOOD OUTREACH TRAININGPLYMOUTH POLICE DEPARTMENT
50.00CLERICALTRAINING
100.00SUPERVISORYTRAINING
250.00
1,192.61INSTRUCTIONAL SKATING LESSONS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESPOLK, MARLA
1,192.61
8,115.83PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYPOMP'S TIRE SERVICE INC
8,115.83
722.50PARK MAINTENANCE G & A TELEPHONEPOPP TELECOM
722.50
39.20YOUTH PROGRAMS PROGRAM REVENUEPOST, MARNIE
39.20
4,500.00COMM & MARKETING G & A POSTAGEPOSTMASTER - PERMIT #603
471.73WATER UTILITY G&A POSTAGE
471.73SEWER UTILITY G&A POSTAGE
471.72SOLID WASTE COLLECTIONS POSTAGE
471.72STORM WATER UTILITY G&A POSTAGE
6,386.90
85.93PARK MAINTENANCE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIESPRAIRIE LAWN & GARDEN
85.93
City Council Meeting of November 21, 2011 (Item No. 4h)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 31
11/16/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:13:35R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
31Page -Council Check Summary
11/11/2011 -10/8/2011
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
319.70STORM WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICEPRAIRIE RESTORATIONS INC
319.70
7,214.59TREE DISEASE PUBLIC CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICEPRECISION LANDSCAPE & TREE
431.25PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT G&A IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
7,645.84
355.09IT G & A GENERAL SUPPLIESPRESSWRITE PRINTING INC
355.09
198.00ICE RESURFACER EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICEPRINTERS SERVICE INC
198.00
968.76WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESPROGRESSIVE CONSULTING ENGINEE
968.76
457.71BLDG/GROUNDS OPS & MAINT BUILDING MTCE SERVICEPUMP & METER SERVICE
220.71BLDG/GROUNDS OPS & MAINT EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE
678.42
1,090.00WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICEQ3 CONTRACTING
1,246.24SEWER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE
10,661.25STORM WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE
12,997.49
200.00GREEN REMODELING PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESQUAN, JAMES
200.00
54.26VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A POSTAGEQUICKSILVER EXPRESS COURIER
54.26
683.98ICE RESURFACER EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICER & R SPECIALTIES
683.98
5,900.00ESCROWSPMC ESCROWRABINOWITZ, JACOB & MIRIAM
5,900.00
2,455.91FACILITY OPERATIONS GARBAGE/REFUSE SERVICERANDY'S SANITATION INC
1,071.25REC CENTER BUILDING GARBAGE/REFUSE SERVICE
976.62SOLID WASTE COLLECTIONS GARBAGE/REFUSE SERVICE
4,503.78
City Council Meeting of November 21, 2011 (Item No. 4h)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 32
11/16/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:13:35R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
32Page -Council Check Summary
11/11/2011 -10/8/2011
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
54.51WATER UTILITY G&A POSTAGERAPID GRAPHICS & MAILING
54.51SEWER UTILITY G&A POSTAGE
54.51SOLID WASTE COLLECTIONS POSTAGE
54.50STORM WATER UTILITY G&A POSTAGE
218.03
71.22POLICE G & A OFFICE SUPPLIESREGENCY OFFICE PRODUCTS LLC
35.24POLICE G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
10.64PATROLOFFICE SUPPLIES
117.10
13.06-PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH DUE TO OTHER GOVTSRHOMAR INDUSTRIES INC
202.96GENERAL REPAIR GENERAL SUPPLIES
189.90
38.44ROUTINE MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIESRIGID HITCH INC
131.45PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORY
169.89
2,207.65WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESRMR SERVICES
2,207.65
48.00INSPECTIONS G & A MECHANICALRONS MECHANICAL INC
48.00INSPECTIONS G & A PLUMBING
96.00
299.19PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYROSENBAUER MINNESOTA LLC
9.21-PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH DUE TO OTHER GOVTS
289.98
255.00ADMINISTRATION G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPSROTARY CLUB OF SLP
85.00POLICE G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS
177.00POLICE G & A MEETING EXPENSE
517.00
248.02TREE INJECTION TREE MAINTENANCEROWLAND, JASON
248.02
622.01STORM WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICEROYAL CONCRETE PIPE INC
622.01
112.50GREEN REMODELING PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESSALMONSON, STEVE
City Council Meeting of November 21, 2011 (Item No. 4h)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 33
11/16/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:13:35R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
33Page -Council Check Summary
11/11/2011 -10/8/2011
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
112.50
71.96HUMAN RESOURCES RECOGNITIONSAM'S CLUB
75.45WESTWOOD G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
147.41
195.82BUILDING MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIESSCAN AIR FILTER INC
195.82
80.75INSTRUCTIONAL SKATING LESSONS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESSCHMIDT, KELLIE
80.75
98.28FITNESS PROGRAMS GENERAL SUPPLIESSCHRAMM, HOLLY
1,038.40FITNESS PROGRAMS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
1,136.68
16,501.79PE DESIGN IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDISEH
64,624.88CE INSPECTION IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
947.20SEWER UTILITY G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
308.00STORM WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
82,381.87
375.00HALLOWEEN PARTY OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESSEIFERT, JIM
375.00
69.68REFORESTATION FUND OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESSHADE, JOHN & HIROKO
69.68
1,282.07SKATING RINK MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIESSHERWIN WILLIAMS
1,282.07
60.00ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESSHRED-IT
11.50IT G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
28.00POLICE G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
99.50
146.85INSPECTIONS G & A BUILDINGSILVERBERG, DAVID
146.85
895.75GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICESIMPLEXGRINNELL LP
895.75
City Council Meeting of November 21, 2011 (Item No. 4h)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 34
11/16/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:13:35R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
34Page -Council Check Summary
11/11/2011 -10/8/2011
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
15,876.00WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESSIMPSON CO INC, M.E.
15,876.00
235.00INSPECTIONS G & A TRAININGSKALLET, DAVID
235.00
1,319.20EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S UNION DUESSLP ASSOC OF FIREFIGHTERS #993
1,319.20
2,144.00EMPLOYEE FLEX SPEND G&A TUITIONSMITH, ANDREA
2,144.00
1,560.00IT G & A DATACOMMUNICATIONSSPRINT
1,560.00
65.22SPLASH PAD MAINT - Oak Hill Pk GENERAL SUPPLIESSPS COMPANIES INC
61.43ARENA MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES
557.33WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES
683.98
1,647.67PE DESIGN IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDISRF CONSULTING GROUP INC
1,250.79CE INSPECTION IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
2,898.46
62,777.51CONVENTION & VISITORS BUREAU COST REIMBURSEMENT-VISIONST LOUIS PARK CONV & VISITORS
62,777.51
362.50GREEN REMODELING PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESST MARTIN, CHARLES
362.50
1,908.61PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYSTANDARD SPRING
1,908.61
24,848.15-GO BONDS-FIRE STATIONS BAL S RETAINED PERCENTAGESTEENBERG-WATRUD CONSTRUCTION
496,963.00GO BONDS-FIRE STATIONS G&A BUILDINGS & STRUCTURES
472,114.85
2,500.00ESCROWSDEMO / BROOKSIDE TRAFFICSTEINBRECHER COMPANIES
2,500.00
74.20OPERATIONSGENERAL SUPPLIESSTEMMER, LUKE
74.20
City Council Meeting of November 21, 2011 (Item No. 4h)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 35
11/16/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:13:35R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
35Page -Council Check Summary
11/11/2011 -10/8/2011
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
3,227.16PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYSTONEBROOKE EQUIPMENT INC
3,227.16
2,528.96PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYSUBURBAN TIRE WHOLESALE
2,528.96
5,262.50REILLY BUDGET GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESSUMMIT ENVIROSOLUTIONS INC
5,262.50
789.36ADMINISTRATION G & A LEGAL NOTICESSUN NEWSPAPERS
107.25SSD 1 G&A LEGAL NOTICES
107.25SSD 2 G&A LEGAL NOTICES
107.25SSD 3 G&A LEGAL NOTICES
107.25SSD #4 G&A LEGAL NOTICES
107.25SSD #5 G&A LEGAL NOTICES
107.25SSD #6 G&A LEGAL NOTICES
944.00SOLID WASTE G&A ADVERTISING
2,376.86
135.00WATER UTILITY G&A TRAININGSUSA
90.00SEWER UTILITY G&A TRAINING
45.00STORM WATER UTILITY G&A TRAINING
270.00
17.91SCHOOL GROUPS GENERAL SUPPLIESTARGET BANK
17.91
350.00POLICE G & A POLICE EQUIPMENTTASER INTERNATIONAL
350.00
300.00HUMAN RESOURCES SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPSTCALMC
300.00
225.00MOVE-UP PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESTEA2
225.00
18.00DARE PROGRAM OPERATIONAL SUPPLIESTEE'S PLUS
18.00
36.12ADMINISTRATION G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESTELELANGUAGE INC
36.12
City Council Meeting of November 21, 2011 (Item No. 4h)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 36
11/16/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:13:35R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
36Page -Council Check Summary
11/11/2011 -10/8/2011
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
1,088.13BUILDING MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICETENNANT SALES AND SERVICE CO.
1,088.13
67.00GENERAL REPAIR GENERAL SUPPLIESTERMINAL SUPPLY CO
67.00
97.00BUILDING MAINTENANCE BUILDING MTCE SERVICETERMINIX INT
97.00
45.96ADMINISTRATION G & A LONG TERM DISABILITYTHE HARTFORD - PRIORITY ACCOUN
56.45HUMAN 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
68.33FINANCE G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY
115.75COMM DEV G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY
123.78POLICE G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY
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
1,963.17EMPLOYEE FLEX SPEND G&A LONG TERM DISABILITY
2,930.78
36,189.45STREET CAPITAL PROJ BAL SHEET RETAINED PERCENTAGETHOMAS & SONS CONST INC
16,763.00CONSTRUCTION PAYMENTS IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
52,952.45
10,500.00ESCROWSPMC ESCROWTHOMPSON, BRAD
10,500.00
193.80INSTRUCTIONAL SKATING LESSONS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESTHOMPSON, HOLLY
City Council Meeting of November 21, 2011 (Item No. 4h)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 37
11/16/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:13:35R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
37Page -Council Check Summary
11/11/2011 -10/8/2011
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
193.80
723.94BUILDING MAINTENANCE BUILDING MTCE SERVICETHYSSENKRUPP ELEVATOR
723.94
1,116.13ADMINISTRATION G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESTIMESAVER OFF SITE SECRETARIAL
1,116.13
189.28PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYTOWMASTER
189.28
30.03SEWER UTILITY G&A GENERAL SUPPLIESTRACY, GREG
30.03
107.17PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYTRI STATE BOBCAT
107.17
205.44PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYTRUCK BODIES & EQUIPMENT INTL
205.44
3,000.00ESCROWSDEMO / BROOKSIDE TRAFFICTRUEBLOOD, MICHAEL & ALLISON
3,000.00
273.56GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE LANDSCAPING MATERIALSTRUGREEN - MTKA 5640
273.56
1,740.00HUMAN RESOURCES GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESTRUSIGHT
1,740.00
352.18TREE INJECTION TREE MAINTENANCETSATSOS, GEORGE & STEPHANIE
352.18
1,000.00ESCROWSPMC ESCROWTSE, FUNG PING
1,000.00
30.00ADMINISTRATION G & A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTATTWIN WEST CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
30.00
233.50POLICE G & A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICEUHL CO INC
233.50
349.39OPERATIONSOPERATIONAL SUPPLIESUNIFORMS UNLIMITED (FIRE)
City Council Meeting of November 21, 2011 (Item No. 4h)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 38
11/16/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:13:35R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
38Page -Council Check Summary
11/11/2011 -10/8/2011
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
349.39
530.18SUPPORT SERVICES OPERATIONAL SUPPLIESUNIFORMS UNLIMITED (PD)
433.83SUPERVISORYOPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
1,856.48PATROLOPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
48.00RESERVESOPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
2,868.49
300.00EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S WAGE GARNISHMENTSUNITED STATES TREASURY
300.00
618.00EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S UNITED WAYUNITED WAY OF MINNEAPOLIS AREA
618.00
150.00TRAININGTRAININGUNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA REGIST
150.00
17,747.66TREE DISEASE PRIVATE CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICEUPPER CUT TREE SERVICE
17,747.66
455.00HUMAN RESOURCES RECRUITMENTUS HEALTH WORKS MEDICAL GROUP
455.00
5.67-GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET DUE TO OTHER GOVTSUS IDENTIFICATION MANUAL
88.17POLICE G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
82.50
10.26WATER UTILITY G&A TELEPHONEUSA MOBILITY WIRELESS INC
10.26
87.20EMPLOYEE FLEX SPEND G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESVAIL, LORI
87.20
30,235.00-PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT B/S RETAINED PERCENTAGEVALLEY PAVING INC
604,699.94CONSTRUCTION PAYMENTS IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
574,464.94
4,987.82PARK MAINTENANCE G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESVALLEY-RICH CO INC
9,087.89WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE
14,075.71
224.23ENVIRONMENTAL G & A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CARVAUGHAN, JIM
City Council Meeting of November 21, 2011 (Item No. 4h)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 39
11/16/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:13:35R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
39Page -Council Check Summary
11/11/2011 -10/8/2011
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
224.23
73.72COMMUNICATIONS/GV REIMBURSEABL TELEPHONEVERIZON WIRELESS
73.72
460.00PARK MAINTENANCE G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESVIF II/PARK PLACE WEST
460.00
5,000.00ESCROWSDEMO / BROOKSIDE TRAFFICVIGER, JUSTIN & KRISTIN
5,000.00
749.19GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIESVIKING DISCOUNT BLINDS
749.19
352.69PARK BUILDING MAINTENANCE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIESVIKING ELECTRIC SUPPLY
352.69
189.54PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYVILLAGE CHEVROLET
189.54
300.00ESCROWSPMC ESCROWWALTER, MITCH & JACKIE
300.00
31.06COMM DEV PLANNING G & A OFFICE SUPPLIESWALTHER, SEAN
49.50COMM DEV PLANNING G & A MEETING EXPENSE
272.93COMM DEV PLANNING G & A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR
353.49
1,112.21SEWER UTILITY G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESWASTE MANAGEMENT OF WI-MN
5,001.24SOLID WASTE COLLECTIONS MOTOR FUELS
58,787.82SOLID WASTE COLLECTIONS GARBAGE/REFUSE SERVICE
24,566.22SOLID WASTE COLLECTIONS YARD WASTE SERVICE
30,150.00SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL GARBAGE/REFUSE SERVICE
6,609.34SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL YARD WASTE SERVICE
126,226.83
7,800.00WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICEWATER CONSERVATION SERVICE INC
7,800.00
5,429.00WATER UTILITY G&A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICEWEBER ELECTRIC
5,429.00
City Council Meeting of November 21, 2011 (Item No. 4h)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 40
11/16/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:13:35R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
40Page -Council Check Summary
11/11/2011 -10/8/2011
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
120.00SUPPORT SERVICES OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESWEST PAYMENT CENTER
120.00
182.30GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE OTHERWEST, RUTAGER
182.30
185.37WATER UTILITY G&A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CARWHITE, PERRY
185.37
158.75REFORESTATION FUND OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESWICK, JULIE
158.75
197.00ELECTRICAL SYSTEM MTCE BUILDING MTCE SERVICEWOLNEY ELECTRIC LLC
535.22SSD 1 G&A ELECTRIC SERVICE
553.00MUNICIPAL BLDG IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
1,285.22
58.78OFF-LEASH DOG PARK GENERAL SUPPLIESWRAP CITY GRAPHICS
384.75PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
443.53
14,138.64FACILITY OPERATIONS ELECTRIC SERVICEXCEL ENERGY
22.35OPERATIONSELECTRIC SERVICE
27,527.18PUBLIC WORKS OPS G & A ELECTRIC SERVICE
5,220.41PARK MAINTENANCE G & A ELECTRIC SERVICE
26.04BRICK HOUSE (1324)ELECTRIC SERVICE
61.27WW RENTAL HOUSE (1322)ELECTRIC SERVICE
492.71WESTWOOD G & A ELECTRIC SERVICE
33,362.52ENTERPRISE G & A ELECTRIC SERVICE
191.72GO BONDS-FIRE STATIONS G&A BUILDINGS & STRUCTURES
40,562.95WATER UTILITY G&A ELECTRIC SERVICE
30.46OPERATIONSELECTRIC SERVICE
1,993.12REILLY BUDGET ELECTRIC SERVICE
3,510.65SEWER UTILITY G&A ELECTRIC SERVICE
2,800.56STORM WATER UTILITY G&A ELECTRIC SERVICE
129,940.58
384.85TREE INJECTION TREE MAINTENANCEYANKTON, RICHARD
384.85
27,847.25PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYYOCUM OIL CO INC
27,847.25
City Council Meeting of November 21, 2011 (Item No. 4h)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 41
11/16/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:13:35R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
41Page -Council Check Summary
11/11/2011 -10/8/2011
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
270.28SANDING/SALTING EQUIPMENT PARTSZACKS INC
270.28
400.00NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION GRANT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESZANDER, LOIS
400.00
38.85WESTWOOD G & A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CARZEMBRYKI, MARK
38.85
896.81PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYZIEGLER INC
896.81
3,350.00-GO BONDS-FIRE STATIONS BAL S RETAINED PERCENTAGEZINTL INC
67,000.00GO BONDS-FIRE STATIONS G&A BUILDINGS & STRUCTURES
63,650.00
350.36FABRICATIONOTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESZIP PRINTING
350.36
Report Totals 3,633,083.20
City Council Meeting of November 21, 2011 (Item No. 4h)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 42
Meeting Date: November 21, 2010
Agenda Item #: 6a
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Public Hearing - 2012 Liquor License Fees.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Mayor to close public hearing. Motion to approve Resolution adopting 2012 liquor license fees
for the license term March 1, 2012 through March 1, 2013 pursuant to M.S.A. Ch. 340A and
section 3-59 of the St. Louis Park City Code.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the Council agree with the proposed increase in certain liquor license fees for 2012?
BACKGROUND:
Staff recently completed the 2011 fee study and, based on this analysis, staff is recommending
minor changes to 2012 liquor license fees. State law requires that the city adopt liquor license
fees at a public hearing and city ordinance permits the Council to set liquor license fees by
resolution.
The following is a list of the 2011 liquor license fees and proposed fees for 2012. These
proposed fees have been reviewed by the Department Director and the City Manager; and reflect
the limits set forth in state law and increased costs of providing administration and enforcement.
Liquor License Type 2011 Fee 2012 Fee
Effective 3/1/2012
Fee amount
set by:
Brewer Off-sale Malt Liquor $200 $200 City
Brewpub Off-sale Malt Liquor $150 $200 City
Off-sale 3.2 Malt Liquor $150 $200 City
Off-sale Intoxicating Liquor $380 $380 STATE
Off-sale Intoxicating Liquor fee per
M.S. 340A.408 Subd.3(c ) $280 $280 STATE
On-sale 3.2 Malt Liquor $750 $750 City
On-sale Intoxicating Liquor $8,500 $8,500 City
On-sale Sunday Liquor $200 $200 STATE
On-sale Wine $2,000 $2,000 STATE
Club (per members) 1 - 200 $300 $300 STATE
201 - 500 $500 $500 STATE
501 - 1000 $650 $650 STATE
1001 - 2000 $800 $800 STATE
2001 - 4000 $1,000 $1,000 STATE
4001 - 6000 $2,000 $2,000 STATE
6000+ $3,000 $3,000 STATE
Temporary Liquor License $100/day $100/day City
City Council Meeting of November 21, 2012 (Item No. 6a) Page 2
Subject: Public Hearing - 2012 Liquor License Fees
Police Background
Investigation Fees:
2011 Fee 2012 Fee Fee set by
New License Applicant
(non-refundable)
500 in-state applicant;
actual costs for out-of-state
applicant may be billed up to
a maximum of $10,000.
$500 in-state applicant;
actual costs for out-of-state
applicant may be billed up to a
maximum of $10,000.
STATE
New Store Manager $500 $500 STATE
On-sale license renewal
per 340A.412
$500 $500 STATE
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
State law sets the limits on what fees may be charged for certain types of liquor licenses. Where
there is no state restriction, the city can set the fee at an amount to reflect the cost of issuing the
license and other costs directly related to the enforcement. License fees may not be used as a
means of raising revenues.
Off-sale 3.2 Malt Liquor and Brewpub Off-sale Malt Liquor Fee Increase
Staff proposes increasing the current fee of $150 to $200 to cover the license administration and
enforcement costs including compliance checks. These proposed fees are consistent with other
cities and are consistent with the new $200 brewer off-sale malt liquor license fee that was
adopted July 2010.
Fee Comparison to Other Cities
St. Louis Park liquor fees are consistent with other metro cities fees. On-sale Intoxicating
License fees are always higher than other types of liquor license fees due to additional staff time
for police enforcement (restaurants are open Sundays and some have 2 a.m. closing) Off-sale
licenses require less police staff time due to the fact that alcohol is not consumed on the premises
and there are less hours of operation. Below is a comparison of other cities On-sale Intoxicating
License yearly fees:
Woodbury $ 10,200
Bloomington 9,600
Edina 8,755
Eden Prairie 8,750
Minnetonka 8,600
St. Louis Park 8,500
Plymouth 8,240
Maple Grove 8,000
Golden Valley 8,000
Eagan 7,300
VISION CONSIDERATION: None at this time.
Attachments: 2011 Liquor License Establishment by License Type
Resolution
Prepared by: Nancy Stroth, City Clerk
Reviewed by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of November 21, 2012 (Item No. 6a) Page 3
Subject: Public Hearing - 2012 Liquor License Fees
2011 Liquor License Establishments License Types
License Establishment Brewer
Off-sale
Brewpub
Off-sale
3.2
Off-sale
3.2
On-sale
Intox
On-sale
Sunday
On-sale
Intox
Off-sale
Wine
On-sale
Club
On-sale
License Issued by: City City City City City City State State State
American Legion-Frank L 200 500
Applebee's Grill Bar 8500 200
Best of India 750 2000
Bunny’s 8500 200
Byerly’s St. Louis Park 8500 200
Byerly’s Wine & Spirits 380
Cedar Lake Wine & Spirits 380
Chili’s Southwest Grill 8500 200
Chipotle Mexican Grill 750 2000
Cooper Irish Pub 8500 200
Costco Wholesale #377 380
Crave 8500 200
Cub Foods Knollwood 150
Four Firkins 380
Doubletree Park Place 8500 200
Grand City Buffet Inc 750 2000
Granite City Food & Brew 150 8500 200
Homewood Suites 750
Jennings’ Liquor Store 380
Kerasotes Theatres 8500 200
Knollwood Liquor 380
Liquor Barrel, Inc. 380
Little Szechuan 8500 200
Marriott Mpls West 8500 200
McCoy’s Public House 8500 200
Mill Valley Kitchen 8500 200
Minneapolis Golf Club 200 500
Noodle & Company 750 2000
Olive Garden #1424 8500 200
Park Tavern Lounge 8500 200
Pei Wei Asian Diner 750 2000
Rainbow Foods 150 380
Rojo Mexican Grill 8500 200
Sam’s Club #6318 150 380
Soprano 8500 200
Steel Toe Brewing 200
St. Louis Park Liquors 380
St. Louis Park Woodfire Grill 8500 200
Target Corporation 150
Taste of India 750 2000
Texas-Tonka Liquors 380
Texa-Tonka Lanes 8500 200
TGI Friday’s 8500 200
Thanh Do 750 2000
Toby Keith I Love this Bar 8500 200
Trader Joe’s 380
Vescio's 750 2000
Vintage Wine & Spiritz 380
Westwood Liquors 380
Wok in the Park 750 2000
Yangtze River Rest. 8500 200
Yum, Inc. 750 2000
TOTALS 200 150 600 8,250 187,000 4,800 5,320 20,000 1,000
City Council Meeting of November 21, 2012 (Item No. 6a) Page 4
Subject: Public Hearing - 2012 Liquor License Fees
RESOLUTION NO. 11-____
RESOLUTION ADOPTING 2012 LIQUOR LICENSE FEES
FOR THE LICENSE TERM
MARCH 1, 2012 – MARCH 1, 2013
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park as follows:
WHEREAS, the St. Louis Park City Code Section 3-59 authorizes the City Council to
establish annual fees for liquor licenses by resolution in amounts no greater that those set forth in
M.S.A. Chapter 340A; and
WHEREAS, it is necessary for the city to maintain fees in an amount necessary to cover
the cost of administration and enforcement of regulating liquor in the city; and
WHEREAS, fees called for within the Section 3-59 of the City Code and Minnesota State
Statute Chapter 340A are hereby set by this resolution for the 2012 license term effective March
1, 2012 through March 1, 2013; and
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park, Minnesota, fees for 2012 liquor licenses are hereby adopted as follows:
Liquor License Type: 2012 Fee
Effective 3/1/2012
Brewer Off-sale Malt Liquor $200
Brewpub Off-sale Malt Liquor $200
Off-sale 3.2 Malt Liquor $200
Off-sale Intoxicating Liquor $380
Off-sale Intoxicating Liquor fee per
M.S. 340A.408 Subd.3(c )
$280
On-sale 3.2 Malt Liquor $750
On-sale Intoxicating Liquor $8,500
On-sale Sunday Liquor $200
On-sale Wine $2,000
Club (per # members)
1 - 200 $300
201 - 500 $500
501 - 1000 $650
1001 - 2000 $800
2001 - 4000 $1,000
4001 - 6000 $2,000
6000+ $3,000
Temporary On-sale Liquor $100/day
City Council Meeting of November 21, 2012 (Item No. 6a) Page 5
Subject: Public Hearing - 2012 Liquor License Fees
Background Investigation Fee
New License Applicant
(non-refundable)
$500 in-state applicant;
actual costs for out-of-
state applicant may be
billed up to a maximum
of $10,000.
New Store Manager $500
On-sale license renewal
per 340A.412 Subd. 2
$500
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council November 21, 2011
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Meeting Date: November 21, 2011
Agenda Item #: 6b
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Public Hearing on Greensboro Condominium Association’s Housing Improvement Area (HIA).
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Mayor to open Public Hearing, take testimony, and then close the Public Hearing.
• Motion to Adopt Resolution approving a housing improvement fee for the Greensboro
Condominium Association Housing Improvement Area pursuant to Minnesota Statutes,
Sections 428A.11 to 428A.21.
• Motion to Adopt First Reading of an ordinance establishing the Greensboro
Condominium Association Housing Improvement Area pursuant to Minnesota Statutes,
Sections 428A.11 to 428A.21 and to set Second Reading for December 5, 2011.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the City Council wish to move forward with the creation of a Housing Improvement Area
for the Greensboro Condominium Association?
The City is authorized by the state to establish HIAs as a finance tool for private housing
improvements. An HIA is a defined area within a city where housing improvements are made
and the cost of the improvements are paid in whole or in part from fees imposed on the
properties within the area. The City adopted an HIA policy in 2001, and has established five
HIA’s. The Greensboro Condominium HIA proposal meets the intent of city policy. In the 2009
session, the state legislature extended the HIA statute for another three years.
BACKGROUND:
At the October 24, 2011 study session the Council received a report on the Greensboro
Condominium Association’s HIA proposal and request for a Public Hearing.
Petitions Submitted
In October 2011, the Association submitted signed petitions from a majority of owners
requesting the Council schedule a public hearing to establish the HIA and impose fees.
According to state statue, cities may only establish an HIA when 50% or more of the Association
owners petition the city to do so. As of November 14, 2011, petitions have been received from
56%, or 146 of the 260 owners – one of these owners has since submitted a written objection.
Objections/Veto Power
While a majority of owners support the improvements and city loan, there is a minority that
opposes the improvements and loan; nine owners have submitted written objections to the HIA.
It is anticipated that some or all of these owners will request to speak at the public hearing. The
HIA statute provides that owners may file a written objection with the city clerk prior to or
during the public hearing. It also provides a veto period following adoption of the ordinance.
At that time if 45% or more of the owners file a written objection to the ordinance – the
ordinance does not become effective. The issues of owners objecting to the HIA are discussed
in the “Homeowners Risks and Issues” section of this report.
City Council Meeting of November 21, 2011 (Item No. 6b) Page 2
Subject: Public Hearing on Greensboro Condominium Association’s Housing Improvement Area (HIA)
Funding
Staff is recommending that the HIA loan be funded using a combination of bonds and internal
funding. This hybrid approach is based on the city’s experience gained from the five established
HIAs, and Ehlers and Associates recommendations. The use of bonds will limit the amount of
city reserve funds that are tied up for a twenty year period and will ensure that city has sufficient
dollars available for other more immediate needs. The use of internal funds will earn interest
income for the city and decrease the cost of issuing bonds for the owners. It will also allow
owners the ability to pay-off the balance of their fee in the future.
A. Association Information
Greensboro Square Condominiums and Townhomes are located at the Southeast corner of
Louisiana Ave South and West Franklin Ave. It is somewhat unique in that the Association is
composed of both townhomes and condominiums.
There are 15 buildings with a total of 260 units:
- 58 three BR townhomes;
- 38 two BR townhomes;
- 164 one & two BR condominium apartments.
• It was built in 1970 and apartments converted to
condos in 1978.
• The 2011 median estimated market value (EMV) for
the condos is $72,000 and the range of EMV is
$66,000-$91,900.
• The 2011 median EMV for the townhomes is
$151,500, and units range from $128,000 - 157,000.
• 80% of the units are owner occupied.
B. History
In 2008, the Association first expressed interest in learning about the HIA process to possibly
assist with financing garage repairs. The Association conducted a physical needs assessment and
financial plan review known as a Reserve Study to provide a background for making decisions
related to property improvements. In December 2008 the Board decided not to pursue an HIA in
part due to the uncertainty of the 2008 market upheaval.
In September 2010, the Board and property management company, Gassen Property
Management, discussed possible financial assistance with staff. They expressed that ongoing
deferred maintenance needed to be addressed and that membership support for some level of
improvements existed. The association formed a renovation committee to evaluate the condition
of buildings and grounds, determine a scope of work and to explore options to finance the work.
On August 12, 2011 the Association submitted the preliminary application for the HIA.
C. Analysis of Application
The following analysis describes how the current proposal meets the City’s HIA policy and
intentions of the statute. The Association’s preliminary application has been reviewed by staff.
The City’s financial advisor, Ehlers and Associates and legal counsel, Kennedy and Graven,
have reviewed the HIA financing to ensure it is within applicable state statute and financial
requirements.
City Council Meeting of November 21, 2011 (Item No. 6b) Page 3
Subject: Public Hearing on Greensboro Condominium Association’s Housing Improvement Area (HIA)
1. The HIA meets City goals.
The proposed improvements meet the City goals in that they will preserve and upgrade the
existing housing stock in a neighborhood and increase energy efficiency of the buildings with
addition of a building wrap, hardi-board siding to replace failed siding, and improved
flashing and caulking of the buildings. The use of the HIA to assist with property
improvements is consistent with VISION and the City Council’s adopted Strategic Direction
to preserve existing housing stock and affordable ownership opportunities.
2. Unit market values meet guideline.
The units median estimated market values (EMV) of $72,000 for condos and $151,500 for
townhomes are within policy guidelines of median EMVs less than or equal to MN
Housing’s First Time Home Buyers limit of $298,000 in 2011.
3. The Association contracted with a third party to conduct a reserve study.
In September of 2008, the Association had a reserve study conducted by Reserve Advisors,
Inc. This study was updated in summer 2011. The study includes a physical needs
assessment, thirty year capital improvement plan and a financial analysis of the existing and
projected financial situation. The updated reserve study takes into account a loan to fund the
proposed HIA project. The funding plan indicates that projected association fee increases
will meet operational needs and the Association will be capable of funding future
improvements with their reserves.
4. Project Costs are reasonable and eligible for use of the HIA.
To ensure the proposed scope and cost was the most responsible possible, the Association’s
renovation committee hired consultants to assist with evaluating the needed repairs. These
consultants include an Owner’s Rep and Construction Manager; structural and civil
engineers, surveyor and architects. The renovation committee has been meeting weekly since
February, 2011, refining the scope of work and budget.
The proposed construction costs are estimated at $3,262,680 and include the following basic
improvements which are eligible uses for the HIA and are noted in Table 1.
a. Site improvements required due to poor soil conditions and age: repair & replace
sanitary sewer, storm water and water mains, grading corrections, complete asphalt, curb
and gutter replacement, sidewalk and stoop repair.
b. Exterior building repair: hardi-board siding and trim replacement to address failed siding,
balcony repair, roof repairs and replacement of condo common area windows and entry
doors.
c. Repair of all exterior garages. Residents voted on engineer designed alternatives to
address the exterior garages and opted to repair rather than replace the garages as a means
to keep costs affordable.
d. Replacement of unit windows will NOT be included in the project. Residents desiring
unit window replacement may pay to have it done in coordination with HIA work, but are
not required to.
City Council Meeting of November 21, 2011 (Item No. 6b) Page 4
Subject: Public Hearing on Greensboro Condominium Association’s Housing Improvement Area (HIA)
Table 1. Greensboro – Exterior Renovation Scope and Budget
Site Work Budget
Complete asphalt replacement, grade repairs, new concrete curb and gutter $692,622
Repair water main based on Bonestroo recommendations $54,307
Repair sanitary sewer based on Bonestroo recommendations $64,600
Repair storm sewer based on Bonestroo recommendations $154,965
Total Site Work $ 966,494
Resident Buildings
Siding - Remove and replace with new flux mansard design $852,832
New fronts (windows/doors) at condos, front, back, and side entries $ 92,000
Repair balconies as needed and repaint all balconies $185,200
Repair voids at slabs and patios, cable rerouting $ 28,000
Total Resident Buildings $ 1,158,032
Garages Repairs
Brick removal and siding install $ 139,597
Wall and roof framing repairs per Erickson Roed recommendations $ 217,965
Perimeter drain tile $11,424
New roof $276,924
New garage doors as required $79,950
Garage lockers $ 8,400
Garage contingency $108,879
Total Garages Repairs $843,139
Permits and Contingency
Permits $ 25,626
Contingency $269,389
Total Permits & Contingency $295,015
Subtotal Construction Costs $ 3,262,680
Table 2. shows the total project cost, which is estimated to be $3,835,000. The total project costs
includes the cost of issuing bonds, capitalized interest, the city’s administrative fee, construction
management, architectural and engineering fees, etc. The costs reflect the complexity of repairs
related to soil conditions in this area of town and the need to find solutions that will have lasting
value.
City Council Meeting of November 21, 2011 (Item No. 6b) Page 5
Subject: Public Hearing on Greensboro Condominium Association’s Housing Improvement Area (HIA)
Table 2. Greensboro Total Project Costs
Bond Issuance and City Costs Budget
Underwriter's Discount for Bond Issuance $47,938
Cost of Issuance (Bond Counsel, Financial Advisor) $43,000
Rounding for Bond Issuance $688
Capitalized Interest $143,019
City Soft Costs (City Admin Fee, Legal & Financial Advisor) $29,675
Total Bond Issuance and City Fees $264,320
Consultant Soft Costs Budget
Owner's Rep/Construction Manager $155,000
Architect $65,000
Structural and Civil Engineers $ 57,500
Surveying $12,000
Enclosure/Siding/Windows 3rd Party Inspection/Siding $7,500
Environmental Hygienist $5,000
Legal and Accounting $6,000
Total Soft Costs $ 308,000
Subtotal Construction Costs $ 3,262,680
Total Project Costs $ 3,835,000
5. The association’s process, timeline and communication meet and exceed statutory
requirements.
The Association’s communication regarding the HIA began in 2008, and re-emerged in 2010.
The Association has followed an extensive process in ensuring owners are and have been
aware of the status of the proposed project, and that residents have been afforded
opportunities to provide input.
On October 12 and October 21, the City Clerk received signed petitions from 146
Greensboro owners requesting the Council schedule a public hearing to establish the HIA
and impose fee. Petitions have been signed by 56% of the owners. City policy and State
Statute requires that 50% of the owners sign petitions. Prior to submitting the petitions the
association completed the following steps which meet statutory requirements.
a. In November 2010, the Association held a full membership meeting to discuss property
improvements and options to fund the improvements. The meeting was videotaped for
the Association’s use as well as being aired on the City’s cable channel.
b. In Feb 2011, the Association hired an owners’ rep to manage the three phases of the
renovation project; determining the scope, pre-construction phase and construction
phase. The association hired Blumenthal Architect, Bonestroo Surveying/Civil Engineering
and Roed Erickson Structural engineering to determine physical conditions and propose
solutions.
c. The Association’s website: www.greensborosquare.com devoted one section to the
renovation project known as the Greensboro Extreme Makeover, providing ongoing
status updates, meeting minutes and solicited input from residents.
City Council Meeting of November 21, 2011 (Item No. 6b) Page 6
Subject: Public Hearing on Greensboro Condominium Association’s Housing Improvement Area (HIA)
d. From February through September 2011, the renovation committee met almost weekly to
review findings, communicate status with residents and take input.
e. On April 28, 2011 the Association conducted a full membership meeting to inform
owners of the progress of the project.
f. The committee conducted two separate surveys of owners to garner input regarding
garage improvements and architectural design for the exterior siding project
g. On September 20, 2011 the Association conducted a full membership meeting to inform
owners of the final proposed project.
6. The HIA financing is necessary for this project.
The Greensboro Association applied for credit from Signature Bank and Klein Bank. Their
requests were denied based on insufficient income for the amount of credit requested, the
type of collateral was insufficient and the exposure amount was considered too large.
The HIA is designed to be a last resort finance tool for associations. It is also designed to
address obstacles some associations confront when applying for financing – generally
associations are limited by their lack of collateral, so they need to fund larger projects
through short term assessments to owners. The HIA provides affordable payment options,
averaging approximately $113 per month per unit. This payment will still allow association
fees to increase gradually to ensure adequate funds for operation and long term maintenance.
7. Fees and Loan Term.
The average fee per unit will be $14,762 with an annual average cost per unit of $1,354
including interest, payable over 20 years. The 20 year term provides an affordable annual fee
for owners. The range of the unit fees is from $6,016 to $25,294. Ehlers and Associates
have suggested estimating a conservative interest rate of 6.03%, which may be decreased
when bonds are actually sold and the city’s interest rate is known. Table 3. outlines the loan
terms.
Table 3. Loan Terms
Total Loan Amount $3,835,000
Term (years) 20
Interest Rate 6.03%
Average Annual Debt Service $335,167
Required Coverage (105%) $351,925
Total Units 260
Cost/Unit – Annual (Average) $1,354
Cost/Unit - Monthly (Average) $113
Average Assessment - Per/Unit if prepaid $14,762
If the HIA is approved, owners not prepaying would begin making payments with their 2013
real estate tax payments. Using a combination of bonds and an internal loan allows owners
flexibility in prepaying without interest or paying-off the loan in the future.
City Council Meeting of November 21, 2011 (Item No. 6b) Page 7
Subject: Public Hearing on Greensboro Condominium Association’s Housing Improvement Area (HIA)
The percentage of prepayments for the existing HIAs has been: forty percent for the Cedar
Trails HIA; twenty-five percent for Sungate One; sixteen percent for Wolfe Lake; and seven
percent for the Westmoreland Hills HIA and twenty-one percent for the Sunset Ridge HIA.
Preliminary estimates based on completed owner questionnaires indicate that eighteen
percent of the owners are considering pre-paying the fee if the Greensboro HIA is approved.
8. Association's desired method of fee imposition
The 2010 Legislature enacted legislation amending the HIA State Statute. It requires that if
the fee is imposed “on a basis other than the tax capacity or square footage of the housing
unit, the Council must make a finding that the alternative basis for the fee is more fair and
reasonable.” Previous St. Louis Park HIAs used two methods of imposing fees: 1) the
percentage of ownership, which was based on square footage of housing units, and 2) costs
of limited common area improvements assigned to specific units.
The Greensboro Association is seeking to base fees on a three-tiered system, which is
consistent with the formula they use to calculate association dues, and considered to be a fair
method.
a. All common area costs including site work, financing, and soft costs would be assessed to
each unit based on the percentage of common area ownership which is based on unit
square footage.
b. All common building areas improvements would be assessed to each unit based on the
percentage of building common area ownership, which is based on unit square footage.
c. Limited common areas include garages, lockers and balconies. These costs would be
assessed to each unit based on the cost of improvements associated with that unit. If a
unit has no garage, the owner would not pay for other units’ garage improvements. The
same would hold true with lockers and balconies.
The attached memo drafted by Kennedy & Graven, describes the proposed fee and provides a
factual basis for the Council's use in making its required findings that the proposed three
tiered system is more fair and reasonable and meets statutory requirements.
D. Homeowner risks and issues
1. Residents opposing the HIA have expressed concern about the costs and necessity of
improvements and the cost of borrowing funds. They have stated that:
a. Replacing the failed siding is cosmetic and unnecessary.
b. Garage repairs are not critical and too expensive.
c. They would prefer the repairs be made incrementally as reserve funds are available.
The Association’s board, renovation committee which met weekly, and consultants have
discussed the concerns raised by HIA opponents. They have concluded that proposed scope
of work is necessary to needed repairs, and that timeliness of the repairs will prevent further
costly emergency piecemeal repairs.
City Council Meeting of November 21, 2011 (Item No. 6b) Page 8
Subject: Public Hearing on Greensboro Condominium Association’s Housing Improvement Area (HIA)
2. Residents opposing the HIA have expressed concern that the petition process, which is
mandated and guided by the State, is confusing for owners. They have also expressed
concern about the integrity of the petition count.
The Association held three full membership meetings to inform owners of the proposed
scope of work, cost and process, in addition to open weekly renovation committee meetings.
City staff attended membership meetings to explain and describe the city’s role and explain
the petition process. Staff has been available and has met with and taken calls from residents
requesting information about the process. Additionally, the Greensboro website has provided
an ongoing update of the process.
The city’s attorney, Kennedy and Graven drafted the petition according to statute, along with
an information piece explaining the process and fees. The Association’s attorney mailed and
collected the petitions. The signed petitions were then submitted to the City Clerk’s office.
The Clerk’s office compared the owners name on each petition with the Hennepin County
Property database. Two owners reviewed and counted each petition with staff to confirm the
number of petitions submitted was 146. During this verification it was noted that one owner
both submitted a petition and an objection.
3. Financial burden to owners. The terms of the HIA loan (relatively low interest rate and long
term) provides modest income homeowners an affordable means to pay for the
improvements. The following measures have been taken to assist owners that are burdened
by the proposed fee:
a. The special assessment hardship deferral for low income seniors and low income disabled
owners allows the fee, including interest, to be deferred until the owner occupant sells or
transfers title. A survey was sent to all owners and twelve have indicated they may be
eligible for the hardship deferral.
b. Community Action Partnership of Suburban Hennepin (CAPHS) provides financial
counseling at no cost to St. Louis Park residents and owners have received information to
access this service.
c. There are currently nine units in foreclosure – the bank and investor owners of these units
will be obligated to pay the fee, just as they are obligated to pay real estate taxes on the
properties.
d. By funding the HIA with a combination of bonds and internal funding, owners will have
more flexibility in paying off the assessment in the future.
E. City Issues
1. How best to fund HIA loans.
The City has alternative mechanisms to fund the HIA improvements: while the HIA law
anticipates cities using their bonding authority to fund HIA loans, cities can use their own
funds. For the HIAs that the city has previously created internal funds have been used for the
smaller projects. These projects were $1,400,000 or less and were funded from the City’s
Development Fund or the Housing Rehab Fund. One HIA, Sunset Ridge, was too large
($3.9M) to fund internally and was funded through bonds.
City Council Meeting of November 21, 2011 (Item No. 6b) Page 9
Subject: Public Hearing on Greensboro Condominium Association’s Housing Improvement Area (HIA)
Staff, with assistance from Ehlers & Associates, recommends using a combination of internal
funds (approximately $1,100,000), and issuing bonds for the remaining amount
(approximately $2,700,000) of the project. This hybrid funding combination addresses both
the city’s and owners' interests:
a. Use of bonds limits the amount of city’s reserve funds that will be tied up for a twenty
year period.
b. Use of internal funds generates interest income for the city.
c. Reducing the amount of bonds will slightly decrease the cost of issuance, which in turn
decreases the total finance cost for residents.
d. The use of internal funds allows owners the flexibility to pay off the assessment in the
future which provides flexibility when selling their unit.
2. How the City is protected from financial risk.
a. Repayment of the loan is made through owner’s real estate tax payments.
b. In foreclosure events, tax liabilities including special assessments, must be paid by any
party that purchases the unit. In this arena, HIA fees have been treated the same as
special assessments.
c. There is 105% debt coverage.
d. The development agreement allows the City to obtain assignment of association’s assets.
The agreement also can require associations to pay on behalf of delinquent members if
payments are not made.
e. The delinquency rate of existing HIA fees is low and consistent with the citywide
property tax delinquency rate of less than 1%.
f. The association, as required by statute, conducted a reserve study of capital needs and
long term financials. The financial plan outlines the long term feasibility of financing
future improvements.
g. The Development Agreement provides additional contractual conditions to ensure
financial stability of associations. The agreement will require that the association:
• Use professional property management.
• Submit annual audits and update financial plans to demonstrate capability for ongoing
maintenance & operations.
• Demonstrate that monthly association dues are sufficient to build reserves to a
sustainable level or increase monthly dues to a sufficient level.
3. On-going maintenance of townhomes and condos a critical community need.
There are roughly 2700 townhome and condo units in St. Louis Park. The majority of them
are over 25 years old. For the strength of our neighborhoods and the whole community, it is
important that these homes be well maintained. Deteriorating housing would be a huge risk
for the community if allowed to happen.
In spring of 2009, the Inspection Department conducted a visual review of all condominium
and townhome complexes in St. Louis Park to determine the extent of potential complexes in
need of exterior maintenance. A handful of complexes were identified as needing repair
including Westmoreland Hills and Sunset Ridge which have established HIAs, and
City Council Meeting of November 21, 2011 (Item No. 6b) Page 10
Subject: Public Hearing on Greensboro Condominium Association’s Housing Improvement Area (HIA)
completed improvements. The Greensboro Square complex has been on the City’s radar as
an association with building issues related to poor soil conditions and deferred exterior
maintenance. The other association known to be interested in applying for a loan is
Westwood Hill Villas at 2200 Nevada Ave, with 60 units and a very preliminary estimated
construction cost of $1,000,000.
NEXT STEPS:
The next steps follow the Public Hearing.
November 21, 2011 Public Hearing
December 5, 2011 2nd Reading of HIA Ordinance
January 19, 2012 Veto Period Ends
Effective Date of Ordinance
February 16, 2012 Prepayment Period Ends
Hardship Deferment Application Deadline
March 2012 Sale of Bonds and Construction Starts
2013 Fee will appear on property tax statements beginning 2013
BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
The project costs, legal and financial advisor fees incurred by the city are included in the project
budget. The city would receive an administrative fee of one-half of one percent of the project
cost, or $19,175.
The combination of funding, bonds and internal funds will alleviate the concern that city reserve
funds be tied up for a twenty year period and will ensure that city has sufficient dollars available
for other more immediate needs. It will also allow the city to generate interest income.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
This project is consistent with VISION’s commitment to ensure a diversity of well-maintained
housing and affordable single-family home ownership.
Attachments: 1. Resolution Approving a Housing Improvement Fee for the Greensboro
Condominium Association HIA
2. Ordinance Establishing the Greensboro Condominium Association
Improvement Area
3. Greensboro HIA Memo
4. Photos
5. Summary of Established HIAs
6. HIA Policy
Prepared by: Kathy Larsen, Housing Programs Coordinator
Reviewed by: Kevin Locke, Director of Community Development
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
RESOLUTION NO. 11-____
RESOLUTION APPROVING A HOUSING IMPROVEMENT FEE FOR THE
GREENSBORO CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION HOUSING IMPROVEMENT AREA
PURSUANT TO MINNESOTA STATUTES, SECTIONS 428A.11 to 428A.21
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park as follows:
Section 1. Recitals.
1.01. The City of St. Louis Park ("City") is authorized under Minnesota Statutes, Sections
428A.11 to 428A.21 (the "Act") to establish by ordinance a housing improvement area within which
housing improvements are made or constructed and the costs of the improvements are paid in whole
or in part from fees imposed within the area.
1.02. The St. Louis Park City Council (“Council”) adopted a Housing Improvement Area
policy on July 16, 2001.
1.03. By Ordinance No. _________ adopted on November 21, 2011 (the "Enabling
Ordinance"), the Council has established the Greensboro Condominium Owners Association
Housing Improvement Area in order to facilitate certain improvements to property known as the
"Greensboro Condominium Owners Association", all in accordance with the Housing Improvement
Area policy.
1.04. In accordance with Section 428A.12 of the Act, owners of at least 50 percent of the
housing units within the Greensboro Condominium Owners Association Housing Improvement
Area have filed a petition with the City Clerk requesting a public hearing regarding imposition of a
housing improvement fee for the Greensboro Condominium Owners Association Housing
Improvement Area.
1.05. The Council has on November 21, 2011 conducted a public hearing, duly noticed in
accordance with Section 428A.13 of the Act, regarding adoption of this resolution at which all
persons, including owners of property within the Greensboro Condominium Owners Association
Housing Improvement Area, were given an opportunity to be heard.
1.06. The Council finds that the Greensboro Condominium Owners Association Housing
Improvement Area meets each of the approval criteria contained in the Housing Improvement Area
Policy (listed as 5.01A- 5.01M), including the criterion that a majority of the condominium
association owners support the project and the Housing Improvement Area financing.
1.07. Prior to the date hereof, Greensboro Condominium Owners Association (the
"Condominium Association") has submitted to the City a financial plan prepared by Reserve
Advisors, Inc., an independent third party acceptable to the City and the Condominium Association,
that provides for the Condominium Association to finance maintenance and operation of the
common elements in the Greensboro Condominium Owners Association and a long-range plan to
conduct and finance capital improvements therein, all in accordance with Section 428A.14 of the
Act.
City Council Meeting of November 21, 2011 (Item No. 6b)
Subject: Public Hearing on Greensboro Condominium Association’s Housing Improvement Area (HIA)Page 11
1.08. For the purposes of this Resolution, the terms "Greensboro Condominium Owners
Association Housing Improvement Area" and "Housing Improvements" have the meanings
provided in the Enabling Ordinance.
Section 2. Housing Improvement Fee Imposed.
2.01. The City hereby imposes a fee on each housing unit within the Greensboro
Condominium Owners Association Housing Improvement Area (the "Housing Improvement Fee"),
as specified in Exhibit A attached hereto, which Housing Improvement Fee is imposed (i) for
Common Elements based on the square footage (percentage of undivided ownership) of each unit,
and imposed for Limited Common Elements based on a pro rate share of the total cost of the
Limited Common Elements divided among those housing units actually benefiting from
improvements to said Limited Common Elements, all as prescribed in the Amended and Restated
Declaration of Greensboro Condominium.
2.02. The Council hereby finds that the Housing Improvement Fee for the Common
Elements is imposed on the basis of square footage of each unit, and that the basis for imposing the
Housing Improvement Fee for the Limited Common Elements is more fair and equitable than a fee
based on square footage or tax capacity. This finding is based on the reasoning set forth in the
Memorandum to the Council from City staff dated November 11, 2011 and on file with the City
Clerk, which Memorandum is incorporated herein by reference.
2.03. The owner of any housing unit in the Greensboro Condominium Owners
Association Housing Improvement Area may prepay the Housing Improvement Fee in total and
without interest thereon between the effective date of this resolution and February 16, 2012. The
amount of the prepayment is shown under the heading Total Cost (Prepayment Amount) in Exhibit
A. Partial prepayment of the Housing Improvement Fee shall not be permitted. Prepayment must
be made to the City Treasurer. After expiration of the prepayment period on February 16, 2012,
owners may, before November 30 of any year, prepay in whole the unpaid installment of the Total
Cost, with interest thereon at the rate of 6.03% accrued to the end of the calendar year in which the
Total Cost is paid. If prepayment is made after November 30, the amount prepaid must include
interest through the end of the following calendar year.
2.04. If the Total Prepayment Fee is not paid between the effective date of this resolution
and February 16, 2012, the Housing Improvement Fee shall be imposed as an annual fee, in the
amount shown under the heading Annual Fee in Exhibit A. The Housing Improvement Fee shall be
imposed in equal installments, beginning in 2013, for a period no greater than 20 years after the first
installment is due and payable. The Annual Fee shall be deemed to include interest on the unpaid
portion of the total Housing Improvement Fee. Interest shall begin to accrue on January 1, 2013 at
an annual interest rate of 6.03 percent per annum. The Annual Fee shall be structured such that
estimated collection of the Annual Fee will produce at least five percent in excess of the amount
needed to meet, when due, the principal and interest payments on the Housing Improvement Fee.
2.04. Unless prepaid between the effective date of this resolution and February 16, 2012,
the Housing Improvement Fee shall be payable at the same time and in the same manner as
provided for payment and collection of ad valorem taxes, as provided in Minnesota Statutes,
Sections 428A.15 and 428A.05. As set forth therein, the Housing Improvement Fee is not included
in the calculation of levies or limits on levies imposed under any law or charter.
City Council Meeting of November 21, 2011 (Item No. 6b)
Subject: Public Hearing on Greensboro Condominium Association’s Housing Improvement Area (HIA)Page 12
2.05 A de minimis fee may be imposed by Hennepin County for services in connection to
administration required in order for the fee to be made payable at the same time and in the same
manner as provided for payment and collection of ad valorem taxes.
Section 3. Notice of Right to File Objections.
3.01. Within five days after the adoption of this Resolution, the City Clerk is authorized and
directed to mail to the owner of each housing unit in the Greensboro Condominium Owners
Association Housing Improvement Area: a summary of this Resolution; notice that owners subject
to the Housing Improvement Fee have a right to veto this Resolution if owners of at least 45 percent
of the housing units within the Greensboro Condominium Owners Association Housing
Improvement Area file a written objection with the City Clerk before the effective date of this
Resolution; and notice that a copy of this Resolution is on file with the City Clerk for public
inspection.
Section 4. Effective Date.
4.01. This Resolution shall be effective 45 days after adoption hereof.
Section 5. Filing of Housing Improvement Fee.
5.01. The City Clerk shall file a certified copy of this resolution together with a final update
of Exhibit A hereto to the Hennepin County Director of Taxation to be recorded on the property tax
lists of the county for taxes payable in 2013 and thereafter.
Approved by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park this 21st day of November, 2011.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council November 21, 2011
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
City Council Meeting of November 21, 2011 (Item No. 6b)
Subject: Public Hearing on Greensboro Condominium Association’s Housing Improvement Area (HIA)Page 13
City of St. Louis ParkHousing Improvement Area - Greensboro Assessment AllocationBuilding Type Unit #Building Unit #Building #Ownership PercentageTotal Common Cost Ownership Percentage Total Common Cost Garage Locker BalconyTotal Limited Common Cost1,295,869.83$ 356,085.70$ 6,786.49$ 36.19$ 400.00$ 572,319.00$ 1101 7414 0.0023161093,001.38$ 0.0049977031,779.61$ 136.19$ 4,817.18$ 1,325.55$ 6,142.73$ 563.70$ 11,273.95$ 2102 7414 0.0023161093,001.38$ 0.0049977031,779.61$ 136.19$ 4,817.18$ 1,325.55$ 6,142.73$ 563.70$ 11,273.95$ 3103 7414 0.0034475424,467.57$ 0.0074391082,648.96$ 16,786.49$ 13,903.02$ 1,973.09$ 15,876.11$ 1,456.90$ 29,137.95$ 4104 7414 0.0036472064,726.30$ 0.0078699452,802.37$ 16,786.49$ 14,315.17$ 2,087.37$ 16,402.54$ 1,505.21$ 30,104.11$ 5105 7414 0.0024492183,173.87$ 0.0052849271,881.89$ 136.19$ 5,091.94$ 1,401.73$ 6,493.68$ 595.90$ 11,918.06$ 6106 7414 0.0025823293,346.36$ 0.0055721511,984.16$ 16,786.49$ 12,117.02$ 1,477.92$ 13,594.93$ 1,247.56$ 24,951.23$ 7107 7414 0.0024492183,173.87$ 0.0052849271,881.89$ 136.19$ 5,091.94$ 1,401.73$ 6,493.68$ 595.90$ 11,918.06$ 8108 7414 0.0025823293,346.36$ 0.0055721511,984.16$ 16,786.49$ 12,117.02$ 1,477.92$ 13,594.93$ 1,247.56$ 24,951.23$ 9109 7414 0.0024492183,173.87$ 0.0052849271,881.89$ 136.19$ 5,091.94$ 1,401.73$ 6,493.68$ 595.90$ 11,918.06$ 10110 7414 0.0035806524,640.06$ 0.0077263332,751.24$ 16,786.49$ 14,177.79$ 2,049.28$ 16,227.06$ 1,489.10$ 29,782.06$ 11111 7414 0.0036472064,726.30$ 0.0078699452,802.37$ 16,786.49$ 14,315.17$ 2,087.37$ 16,402.54$ 1,505.21$ 30,104.11$ 12112 7414 0.0023161093,001.38$ 0.0049977031,779.61$ 136.19$ 4,817.18$ 1,325.55$ 6,142.73$ 563.70$ 11,273.95$ 13114 7414 0.0023161093,001.38$ 0.0049977031,779.61$ 136.19$ 4,817.18$ 1,325.55$ 6,142.73$ 563.70$ 11,273.95$ 14201 7414 0.0025157733,260.11$ 0.0054285391,933.03$ 11436.19$ 5,629.33$ 1,439.82$ 7,069.15$ 648.71$ 12,974.25$ 15202 7414 0.0026488833,432.61$ 0.0057157622,035.30$ 117,186.49$ 12,654.40$ 1,516.01$ 14,170.41$ 1,300.37$ 26,007.41$ 16203 7414 0.0036472064,726.30$ 0.0078699452,802.37$ 117,186.49$ 14,715.17$ 2,087.37$ 16,802.54$ 1,541.91$ 30,838.25$ 17204 7414 0.003713764,812.55$ 0.0080135562,853.51$ 117,186.49$ 14,852.55$ 2,125.46$ 16,978.01$ 1,558.01$ 31,160.30$ 18205 7414 0.0025157733,260.11$ 0.0054285391,933.03$ 11436.19$ 5,629.33$ 1,439.82$ 7,069.15$ 648.71$ 12,974.25$ 19206 7414 0.0026488833,432.61$ 0.0057157622,035.30$ 117,186.49$ 12,654.40$ 1,516.01$ 14,170.41$ 1,300.37$ 26,007.41$ 20207 7414 0.0025157733,260.11$ 0.0054285341,933.02$ 11436.19$ 5,629.33$ 1,439.82$ 7,069.15$ 648.71$ 12,974.25$ 21208 7414 0.0025157733,260.11$ 0.0054285341,933.02$ 11436.19$ 5,629.33$ 1,439.82$ 7,069.15$ 648.71$ 12,974.25$ 22209 7414 0.0026488833,432.61$ 0.0057157622,035.30$ 117,186.49$ 12,654.40$ 1,516.01$ 14,170.41$ 1,300.37$ 26,007.41$ 23210 7414 0.0036472064,726.30$ 0.0078699452,802.37$ 117,186.49$ 14,715.17$ 2,087.37$ 16,802.54$ 1,541.91$ 30,838.25$ 24211 7414 0.003713764,812.55$ 0.0080135562,853.51$ 117,186.49$ 14,852.55$ 2,125.46$ 16,978.01$ 1,558.01$ 31,160.30$ 25212 7414 0.0025157733,260.11$ 0.0054285391,933.03$ 11436.19$ 5,629.33$ 1,439.82$ 7,069.15$ 648.71$ 12,974.25$ 26214 7414 0.0025157733,260.11$ 0.0054285391,933.03$ 11436.19$ 5,629.33$ 1,439.82$ 7,069.15$ 648.71$ 12,974.25$ 27215 7414 0.0021164452,742.64$ 0.0045668661,626.20$ 11436.19$ 4,805.02$ 1,211.28$ 6,016.30$ 552.10$ 11,041.92$ 28301 7414 0.0026488833,432.61$ 0.0057157622,035.30$ 117,186.49$ 12,654.40$ 1,516.01$ 14,170.41$ 1,300.37$ 26,007.41$ 29302 7414 0.0025157733,260.11$ 0.0054285391,933.03$ 11436.19$ 5,629.33$ 1,439.82$ 7,069.15$ 648.71$ 12,974.25$ 30303 7414 0.0036472064,726.30$ 0.0078699452,802.37$ 117,186.49$ 14,715.17$ 2,087.37$ 16,802.54$ 1,541.91$ 30,838.25$ 31304 7414 0.003713764,812.55$ 0.0080135562,853.51$ 117,186.49$ 14,852.55$ 2,125.46$ 16,978.01$ 1,558.01$ 31,160.30$ 32305 7414 0.0025157733,260.11$ 0.0054285391,933.03$ 11436.19$ 5,629.33$ 1,439.82$ 7,069.15$ 648.71$ 12,974.25$ 33306 7414 0.0025157733,260.11$ 0.0054285391,933.03$ 11436.19$ 5,629.33$ 1,439.82$ 7,069.15$ 648.71$ 12,974.25$ 34307 7414 0.0021164452,742.64$ 0.0045668661,626.20$ 11436.19$ 4,805.02$ 1,211.28$ 6,016.30$ 552.10$ 11,041.92$ 35308 7414 0.0026488833,432.61$ 0.0057157622,035.30$ 117,186.49$ 12,654.40$ 1,516.01$ 14,170.41$ 1,300.37$ 26,007.41$ 36309 7414 0.0025157733,260.11$ 0.0054285391,933.03$ 11436.19$ 5,629.33$ 1,439.82$ 7,069.15$ 648.71$ 12,974.25$ 37310 7414 0.0036472064,726.30$ 0.0078699452,802.37$ 117,186.49$ 14,715.17$ 2,087.37$ 16,802.54$ 1,541.91$ 30,838.25$ 38311 7414 0.003713764,812.55$ 0.0080135562,853.51$ 117,186.49$ 14,852.55$ 2,125.46$ 16,978.01$ 1,558.01$ 31,160.30$ 39312 7414 0.0025157733,260.11$ 0.0054285391,933.03$ 11436.19$ 5,629.33$ 1,439.82$ 7,069.15$ 648.71$ 12,974.25$ 40314 7414 0.0026488833,432.61$ 0.0057157622,035.30$ 117,186.49$ 12,654.40$ 1,516.01$ 14,170.41$ 1,300.37$ 26,007.41$ 41315 7414 0.0025157733,260.11$ 0.0054285391,933.03$ 11436.19$ 5,629.33$ 1,439.82$ 7,069.15$ 648.71$ 12,974.25$ 42101 7412 0.0023161093,001.38$ 0.0049977031,779.61$ 136.19$ 4,817.18$ 1,325.55$ 6,142.73$ 563.70$ 11,273.95$ 43102 7412 0.0023161093,001.38$ 0.0049977031,779.61$ 136.19$ 4,817.18$ 1,325.55$ 6,142.73$ 563.70$ 11,273.95$ 44103 7412 0.0034475424,467.57$ 0.0074391082,648.96$ 16,786.49$ 13,903.02$ 1,973.09$ 15,876.11$ 1,456.90$ 29,137.95$ 45104 7412 0.0036472064,726.30$ 0.0078699452,802.37$ 16,786.49$ 14,315.17$ 2,087.37$ 16,402.54$ 1,505.21$ 30,104.11$ 46105 7412 0.0024492183,173.87$ 0.0052849271,881.89$ 136.19$ 5,091.94$ 1,401.73$ 6,493.68$ 595.90$ 11,918.06$ 47106 7412 0.0025823293,346.36$ 0.0055721511,984.16$ 16,786.49$ 12,117.02$ 1,477.92$ 13,594.93$ 1,247.56$ 24,951.23$ 48107 7412 0.0024492183,173.87$ 0.0052849271,881.89$ 136.19$ 5,091.94$ 1,401.73$ 6,493.68$ 595.90$ 11,918.06$ 49108 7412 0.0024492183,173.87$ 0.0052849271,881.89$ 136.19$ 5,091.94$ 1,401.73$ 6,493.68$ 595.90$ 11,918.06$ 50109 7412 0.0025823293,346.36$ 0.0055721511,984.16$ 16,786.49$ 12,117.02$ 1,477.92$ 13,594.93$ 1,247.56$ 24,951.23$ 51110 7412 0.0035806524,640.06$ 0.0077263332,751.24$ 16,786.49$ 14,177.79$ 2,049.28$ 16,227.06$ 1,489.10$ 29,782.06$ 52111 7412 0.0036472064,726.30$ 0.0078699452,802.37$ 16,786.49$ 14,315.17$ 2,087.37$ 16,402.54$ 1,505.21$ 30,104.11$ 53112 7412 0.0023161093,001.38$ 0.0049977031,779.61$ 136.19$ 4,817.18$ 1,325.55$ 6,142.73$ 563.70$ 11,273.95$ 54114 7412 0.0023161093,001.38$ 0.0049977031,779.61$ 136.19$ 4,817.18$ 1,325.55$ 6,142.73$ 563.70$ 11,273.95$ 55215 7412 0.0021164452,742.64$ 0.0045668661,626.20$ 11436.19$ 4,805.02$ 1,211.28$ 6,016.30$ 552.10$ 11,041.92$ 56 201 74120.0026488833,432.61$ 0.0057157622,035.30$ 117,186.49$ 12,654.40$ 1,516.01$ 14,170.41$ 1,300.37$ 26,007.41$ 57 202 74120.0025157733,260.11$ 0.0054285391,933.03$ 11436.19$ 5,629.33$ 1,439.82$ 7,069.15$ 648.71$ 12,974.25$ 58 203 74120.0036472064,726.30$ 0.0078699452,802.37$ 117,186.49$ 14,715.17$ 2,087.37$ 16,802.54$ 1,541.91$ 30,838.25$ 59 204 74120.003713764,812.55$ 0.0080135562,853.51$ 117,186.49$ 14,852.55$ 2,125.46$ 16,978.01$ 1,558.01$ 31,160.30$ 60 205 74120.0025157733,260.11$ 0.0054285391,933.03$ 11436.19$ 5,629.33$ 1,439.82$ 7,069.15$ 648.71$ 12,974.25$ 61 206 74120.0026488833,432.61$ 0.0057157622,035.30$ 117,186.49$ 12,654.40$ 1,516.01$ 14,170.41$ 1,300.37$ 26,007.41$ 62 207 74120.0025157733,260.11$ 0.0054285391,933.03$ 11436.19$ 5,629.33$ 1,439.82$ 7,069.15$ 648.71$ 12,974.25$ 63 208 74120.0025157733,260.11$ 0.0054285391,933.03$ 11436.19$ 5,629.33$ 1,439.82$ 7,069.15$ 648.71$ 12,974.25$ 64 209 74120.0025157733,260.11$ 0.0054285391,933.03$ 11436.19$ 5,629.33$ 1,439.82$ 7,069.15$ 648.71$ 12,974.25$ 65 210 74120.0036472064,726.30$ 0.0078699452,802.37$ 117,186.49$ 14,715.17$ 2,087.37$ 16,802.54$ 1,541.91$ 30,838.25$ 66 211 74120.003713764,812.55$ 0.0080135562,853.51$ 117,186.49$ 14,852.55$ 2,125.46$ 16,978.01$ 1,558.01$ 31,160.30$ 67 212 74120.0025157733,260.11$ 0.0054285391,933.03$ 11436.19$ 5,629.33$ 1,439.82$ 7,069.15$ 648.71$ 12,974.25$ CondosCommon Common ElementsBuidling Common ElementsLimited Common ElementsTotal Cost to Owner (Before soft and loan financing costs)* Annual Fee (105% of Total Costs)Total P & I Paid Per Unit (105%) - Non prepaid onlyTOTAL COSTS (PREPAYMENT AMOUNT)Total Financing & Soft CostsCity Council Meeting of November 21, 2011 (Item No. 6b) Subject: Public Hearing on Greensboro Condominium Association’s Housing Improvement Area (HIA)Page 14
Building Type Unit #Building Unit #Building #Ownership PercentageTotal Common Cost Ownership Percentage Total Common Cost Garage Locker BalconyTotal Limited Common Cost1,295,869.83$ 356,085.70$ 6,786.49$ 261.58$ 400.00$ 572,319.00$ 68 214 74120.0026488833,432.61$ 0.0057157622,035.30$ 117,186.49$ 12,654.40$ 1,516.01$ 14,170.41$ 1,300.37$ 26,007.41$ 69 315 74120.0021164452,742.64$ 0.0045668661,626.20$ 11436.19$ 4,805.02$ 1,211.28$ 6,016.30$ 552.10$ 11,041.92$ 70 301 74120.0026488833,432.61$ 0.0057157622,035.30$ 117,186.49$ 12,654.40$ 1,516.01$ 14,170.41$ 1,300.37$ 26,007.41$ 71302 7412 0.0025157733,260.11$ 0.0054285391,933.03$ 11436.19$ 5,629.33$ 1,439.82$ 7,069.15$ 648.71$ 12,974.25$ 72303 7412 0.0036472064,726.30$ 0.0078699452,802.37$ 117,186.49$ 14,715.17$ 2,087.37$ 16,802.54$ 1,541.91$ 30,838.25$ 73304 7412 0.003713764,812.55$ 0.0080135562,853.51$ 117,186.49$ 14,852.55$ 2,125.46$ 16,978.01$ 1,558.01$ 31,160.30$ 74305 7412 0.0025157733,260.11$ 0.0054285391,933.03$ 11436.19$ 5,629.33$ 1,439.82$ 7,069.15$ 648.71$ 12,974.25$ 75306 7412 0.0026488833,432.61$ 0.0057157622,035.30$ 117,186.49$ 12,654.40$ 1,516.01$ 14,170.41$ 1,300.37$ 26,007.41$ 76307 7412 0.0025157733,260.11$ 0.0054285391,933.03$ 11436.19$ 5,629.33$ 1,439.82$ 7,069.15$ 648.71$ 12,974.25$ 77308 7412 0.0025157733,260.11$ 0.0054285391,933.03$ 11436.19$ 5,629.33$ 1,439.82$ 7,069.15$ 648.71$ 12,974.25$ 78309 7412 0.0026488833,432.61$ 0.0057157622,035.30$ 117,186.49$ 12,654.40$ 1,516.01$ 14,170.41$ 1,300.37$ 26,007.41$ 79310 7412 0.0036472064,726.30$ 0.0078699462,802.38$ 117,186.49$ 14,715.17$ 2,087.37$ 16,802.54$ 1,541.91$ 30,838.25$ 80311 7412 0.003713764,812.55$ 0.0080135562,853.51$ 117,186.49$ 14,852.55$ 2,125.46$ 16,978.01$ 1,558.01$ 31,160.30$ 81312 7412 0.0025157733,260.11$ 0.0054285391,933.03$ 11436.19$ 5,629.33$ 1,439.82$ 7,069.15$ 648.71$ 12,974.25$ 82314 7412 0.0025157733,260.11$ 0.0054285391,933.03$ 11436.19$ 5,629.33$ 1,439.82$ 7,069.15$ 648.71$ 12,974.25$ 83107 7318 0.0024492183,173.87$ 0.0052849271,881.89$ 136.19$ 5,091.94$ 1,401.73$ 6,493.68$ 595.90$ 11,918.06$ 84108 7318 0.0024492183,173.87$ 0.0052849271,881.89$ 136.19$ 5,091.94$ 1,401.73$ 6,493.68$ 595.90$ 11,918.06$ 85109 7318 0.0025823293,346.36$ 0.0055721511,984.16$ 1 6,786.49$ 12,117.02$ 1,477.92$ 13,594.93$ 1,247.56$ 24,951.23$ 86110 7318 0.0035806524,640.06$ 0.0077263332,751.24$ 1 6,786.49$ 14,177.79$ 2,049.28$ 16,227.06$ 1,489.10$ 29,782.06$ 87111 7318 0.0036472064,726.30$ 0.0078699452,802.37$ 1 6,786.49$ 14,315.17$ 2,087.37$ 16,402.54$ 1,505.21$ 30,104.11$ 88112 7318 0.0023161093,001.38$ 0.0049977031,779.61$ 136.19$ 4,817.18$ 1,325.55$ 6,142.73$ 563.70$ 11,273.95$ 89114 7318 0.0023161093,001.38$ 0.0049977031,779.61$ 136.19$ 4,817.18$ 1,325.55$ 6,142.73$ 563.70$ 11,273.95$ 90101 7318 0.0023161093,001.38$ 0.0049977031,779.61$ 136.19$ 4,817.18$ 1,325.55$ 6,142.73$ 563.70$ 11,273.95$ 91102 7318 0.0023161093,001.38$ 0.0049977031,779.61$ 136.19$ 4,817.18$ 1,325.55$ 6,142.73$ 563.70$ 11,273.95$ 92103 7318 0.0034475424,467.57$ 0.0074391082,648.96$ 1 6,786.49$ 13,903.02$ 1,973.09$ 15,876.11$ 1,456.90$ 29,137.95$ 93104 7318 0.0036472064,726.30$ 0.0078699452,802.37$ 1 6,786.49$ 14,315.17$ 2,087.37$ 16,402.54$ 1,505.21$ 30,104.11$ 94105 7318 0.0025823293,346.36$ 0.0055721511,984.16$ 1 6,786.49$ 12,117.02$ 1,477.92$ 13,594.93$ 1,247.56$ 24,951.23$ 95106 7318 0.0024492183,173.87$ 0.0052849271,881.89$ 136.19$ 5,091.94$ 1,401.73$ 6,493.68$ 595.90$ 11,918.06$ 96207 7318 0.0025157733,260.11$ 0.0054285391,933.03$ 11436.19$ 5,629.33$ 1,439.82$ 7,069.15$ 648.71$ 12,974.25$ 97208 7318 0.0026488833,432.61$ 0.0057157622,035.30$ 117,186.49$ 12,654.40$ 1,516.01$ 14,170.41$ 1,300.37$ 26,007.41$ 98209 7318 0.0025157733,260.11$ 0.0054285341,933.02$ 11436.19$ 5,629.33$ 1,439.82$ 7,069.15$ 648.71$ 12,974.25$ 99210 7318 0.0036472064,726.30$ 0.0078699452,802.37$ 117,186.49$ 14,715.17$ 2,087.37$ 16,802.54$ 1,541.91$ 30,838.25$ 100 211 7318 0.003713764,812.55$ 0.0080135562,853.51$ 117,186.49$ 14,852.55$ 2,125.46$ 16,978.01$ 1,558.01$ 31,160.30$ 101 212 7318 0.0025157733,260.11$ 0.0054285371,933.02$ 11436.19$ 5,629.33$ 1,439.82$ 7,069.15$ 648.71$ 12,974.25$ 102 214 7318 0.0026488833,432.61$ 0.0057157622,035.30$ 117,186.49$ 12,654.40$ 1,516.01$ 14,170.41$ 1,300.37$ 26,007.41$ 103 215 7318 0.0021164452,742.64$ 0.0045668661,626.20$ 11436.19$ 4,805.02$ 1,211.28$ 6,016.30$ 552.10$ 11,041.92$ 104 201 7318 0.0025157733,260.11$ 0.0054285391,933.03$ 11436.19$ 5,629.33$ 1,439.82$ 7,069.15$ 648.71$ 12,974.25$ 105 202 7318 0.0025157733,260.11$ 0.0054285391,933.03$ 11436.19$ 5,629.33$ 1,439.82$ 7,069.15$ 648.71$ 12,974.25$ 106 203 7318 0.0036472064,726.30$ 0.0078699452,802.37$ 117,186.49$ 14,715.17$ 2,087.37$ 16,802.54$ 1,541.91$ 30,838.25$ 107 204 7318 0.003713764,812.55$ 0.0080135562,853.51$ 117,186.49$ 14,852.55$ 2,125.46$ 16,978.01$ 1,558.01$ 31,160.30$ 108 205 7318 0.0025157733,260.11$ 0.0054285391,933.03$ 11436.19$ 5,629.33$ 1,439.82$ 7,069.15$ 648.71$ 12,974.25$ 109 206 7318 0.0026488833,432.61$ 0.0057157622,035.30$ 117,186.49$ 12,654.40$ 1,516.01$ 14,170.41$ 1,300.37$ 26,007.41$ 110 3077318 0.0025157733,260.11$ 0.0054285391,933.03$ 11436.19$ 5,629.33$ 1,439.82$ 7,069.15$ 648.71$ 12,974.25$ 111 3087318 0.0026488833,432.61$ 0.0057157672,035.30$ 117,186.49$ 12,654.40$ 1,516.01$ 14,170.41$ 1,300.37$ 26,007.42$ 112 3097318 0.0025157733,260.11$ 0.0054285391,933.03$ 11436.19$ 5,629.33$ 1,439.82$ 7,069.15$ 648.71$ 12,974.25$ 113 310 7318 0.0036472064,726.30$ 0.0078699452,802.37$ 117,186.49$ 14,715.17$ 2,087.37$ 16,802.54$ 1,541.91$ 30,838.25$ 114 311 7318 0.003713764,812.55$ 0.0080135562,853.51$ 117,186.49$ 14,852.55$ 2,125.46$ 16,978.01$ 1,558.01$ 31,160.30$ 115 312 7318 0.0025157733,260.11$ 0.0054285391,933.03$ 11436.19$ 5,629.33$ 1,439.82$ 7,069.15$ 648.71$ 12,974.25$ 116 314 7318 0.0026488833,432.61$ 0.0057157672,035.30$ 117,186.49$ 12,654.40$ 1,516.01$ 14,170.41$ 1,300.37$ 26,007.42$ 117 315 7318 0.0021164452,742.64$ 0.0045668661,626.20$ 11436.19$ 4,805.02$ 1,211.28$ 6,016.30$ 552.10$ 11,041.92$ 118 301 7318 0.0025157733,260.11$ 0.0054285371,933.02$ 11436.19$ 5,629.33$ 1,439.82$ 7,069.15$ 648.71$ 12,974.25$ 119 302 7318 0.0025157733,260.11$ 0.0054285391,933.03$ 11436.19$ 5,629.33$ 1,439.82$ 7,069.15$ 648.71$ 12,974.25$ 120 303 7318 0.0036472064,726.30$ 0.0078699452,802.37$ 117,186.49$ 14,715.17$ 2,087.37$ 16,802.54$ 1,541.91$ 30,838.25$ 121 304 7318 0.003713764,812.55$ 0.0080135562,853.51$ 117,186.49$ 14,852.55$ 2,125.46$ 16,978.01$ 1,558.01$ 31,160.30$ 122 305 7318 0.0026488833,432.61$ 0.0057157622,035.30$ 117,186.49$ 12,654.40$ 1,516.01$ 14,170.41$ 1,300.37$ 26,007.41$ 123 306 7318 0.0025157733,260.11$ 0.0054285391,933.03$ 11436.19$ 5,629.33$ 1,439.82$ 7,069.15$ 648.71$ 12,974.25$ 124 101 7316 0.0023161093,001.38$ 0.0049977031,779.61$ 136.19$ 4,817.18$ 1,325.55$ 6,142.73$ 563.70$ 11,273.95$ 125 114 7316 0.0023161093,001.38$ 0.0049977031,779.61$ 136.19$ 4,817.18$ 1,325.55$ 6,142.73$ 563.70$ 11,273.95$ 126 112 7316 0.0023161093,001.38$ 0.0049977031,779.61$ 136.19$ 4,817.18$ 1,325.55$ 6,142.73$ 563.70$ 11,273.95$ 127 111 7316 0.0036472064,726.30$ 0.0078699452,802.37$ 1 6,786.49$ 14,315.17$ 2,087.37$ 16,402.54$ 1,505.21$ 30,104.11$ 128 110 7316 0.0035806524,640.06$ 0.0077263332,751.24$ 1 6,786.49$ 14,177.79$ 2,049.28$ 16,227.06$ 1,489.10$ 29,782.06$ 129 109 7316 0.0025823293,346.36$ 0.0055721511,984.16$ 1 6,786.49$ 12,117.02$ 1,477.92$ 13,594.93$ 1,247.56$ 24,951.23$ 130 108 7316 0.0024492183,173.87$ 0.0052849271,881.89$ 136.19$ 5,091.94$ 1,401.73$ 6,493.68$ 595.90$ 11,918.06$ * Annual Fee (105% of Total Costs)Total P & I Paid Per Unit (105%) - Non prepaid onlyCondosCommon Common ElementsBuidling Common ElementsLimited Common ElementsTotal Cost to Owner (Before soft and loan financing costs)Total Financing & Soft CostsTOTAL COSTS (PREPAYMENT AMOUNT)City Council Meeting of November 21, 2011 (Item No. 6b) Subject: Public Hearing on Greensboro Condominium Association’s Housing Improvement Area (HIA)Page 15
Building Type Unit #Building Unit #Building #Ownership PercentageTotal Common Cost Ownership Percentage Total Common Cost Garage Locker BalconyTotal Limited Common Cost1,295,869.83$ 356,085.70$ 6,786.49$ 261.58$ 400.00$ 572,319.00$ 131 107 7316 0.0024492183,173.87$ 0.0052849271,881.89$ 136.19$ 5,091.94$ 1,401.73$ 6,493.68$ 595.90$ 11,918.06$ 132 106 7316 0.0025823293,346.36$ 0.0055721511,984.16$ 1 6,786.49$ 12,117.02$ 1,477.92$ 13,594.93$ 1,247.56$ 24,951.23$ 133 105 7316 0.0024492183,173.87$ 0.0052849271,881.89$ 136.19$ 5,091.94$ 1,401.73$ 6,493.68$ 595.90$ 11,918.06$ 134 104 7316 0.0036472064,726.30$ 0.0078699452,802.37$ 1 6,786.49$ 14,315.17$ 2,087.37$ 16,402.54$ 1,505.21$ 30,104.11$ 135 103 7316 0.0034475424,467.57$ 0.0074391082,648.96$ 1 6,786.49$ 13,903.02$ 1,973.09$ 15,876.11$ 1,456.90$ 29,137.95$ 136 102 7316 0.0023161093,001.38$ 0.0049977031,779.61$ 11436.19$ 5,217.18$ 1,325.55$ 6,542.73$ 600.40$ 12,008.08$ 137 201 7316 0.0025157733,260.11$ 0.0054285391,933.03$ 11436.19$ 5,629.33$ 1,439.82$ 7,069.15$ 648.71$ 12,974.25$ 138 215 7316 0.0021164452,742.64$ 0.0045668661,626.20$ 11436.19$ 4,805.02$ 1,211.28$ 6,016.30$ 552.10$ 11,041.92$ 139 214 7316 0.0026488833,432.61$ 0.0057157622,035.30$ 117,186.49$ 12,654.40$ 1,516.01$ 14,170.41$ 1,300.37$ 26,007.41$ 140 212 7316 0.0025157733,260.11$ 0.0054285391,933.03$ 11436.19$ 5,629.33$ 1,439.82$ 7,069.15$ 648.71$ 12,974.25$ 141 211 7316 0.003713764,812.55$ 0.0080135562,853.51$ 117,186.49$ 14,852.55$ 2,125.46$ 16,978.01$ 1,558.01$ 31,160.30$ 142 210 7316 0.0036472064,726.30$ 0.0078699452,802.37$ 117,186.49$ 14,715.17$ 2,087.37$ 16,802.54$ 1,541.91$ 30,838.25$ 143 209 7316 0.0025157733,260.11$ 0.0054285391,933.03$ 11436.19$ 5,629.33$ 1,439.82$ 7,069.15$ 648.71$ 12,974.25$ 144 208 7316 0.0025157733,260.11$ 0.0054285391,933.03$ 11436.19$ 5,629.33$ 1,439.82$ 7,069.15$ 648.71$ 12,974.25$ 145 207 7316 0.0026488833,432.61$ 0.0057157622,035.30$ 117,186.49$ 12,654.40$ 1,516.01$ 14,170.41$ 1,300.37$ 26,007.41$ 146 206 7316 0.0025157733,260.11$ 0.0054285391,933.03$ 11436.19$ 5,629.33$ 1,439.82$ 7,069.15$ 648.71$ 12,974.25$ 147 205 7316 0.0025157733,260.11$ 0.0054285391,933.03$ 11436.19$ 5,629.33$ 1,439.82$ 7,069.15$ 648.71$ 12,974.25$ 148 204 7316 0.003713764,812.55$ 0.0080135562,853.51$ 117,186.49$ 14,852.55$ 2,125.46$ 16,978.01$ 1,558.01$ 31,160.30$ 149 203 7316 0.0036472064,726.30$ 0.0078699452,802.37$ 117,186.49$ 14,715.17$ 2,087.37$ 16,802.54$ 1,541.91$ 30,838.25$ 150 202 7316 0.0026488833,432.61$ 0.0057157622,035.30$ 117,186.49$ 12,654.40$ 1,516.01$ 14,170.41$ 1,300.37$ 26,007.41$ 151 301 7316 0.0025157733,260.11$ 0.0054285391,933.03$ 11436.19$ 5,629.33$ 1,439.82$ 7,069.15$ 648.71$ 12,974.25$ 152 315 7316 0.0021164452,742.64$ 0.0045668661,626.20$ 11436.19$ 4,805.02$ 1,211.28$ 6,016.30$ 552.10$ 11,041.92$ 153 314 7316 0.0026488833,432.61$ 0.0057157622,035.30$ 117,186.49$ 12,654.40$ 1,516.01$ 14,170.41$ 1,300.37$ 26,007.41$ 154 312 7316 0.0025157733,260.11$ 0.0054285391,933.03$ 11436.19$ 5,629.33$ 1,439.82$ 7,069.15$ 648.71$ 12,974.25$ 155 311 7316 0.003713764,812.55$ 0.0080135562,853.51$ 117,186.49$ 14,852.55$ 2,125.46$ 16,978.01$ 1,558.01$ 31,160.30$ 156 310 7316 0.0036472064,726.30$ 0.0078699452,802.37$ 117,186.49$ 14,715.17$ 2,087.37$ 16,802.54$ 1,541.91$ 30,838.25$ 157 309 7316 0.0025157733,260.11$ 0.0054278541,932.78$ 11436.19$ 5,629.08$ 1,439.82$ 7,068.91$ 648.69$ 12,973.80$ 158 308 7316 0.0025157733,260.11$ 0.0054278541,932.78$ 11436.19$ 5,629.08$ 1,439.82$ 7,068.91$ 648.69$ 12,973.80$ 159 307 7316 0.0026488833,432.61$ 0.0057157622,035.30$ 117,186.49$ 12,654.40$ 1,516.01$ 14,170.41$ 1,300.37$ 26,007.41$ 160 306 7316 0.0026488833,432.61$ 0.0057157622,035.30$ 117,186.49$ 12,654.40$ 1,516.01$ 14,170.41$ 1,300.37$ 26,007.41$ 161 305 7316 0.0025157733,260.11$ 0.0054285391,933.03$ 11436.19$ 5,629.33$ 1,439.82$ 7,069.15$ 648.71$ 12,974.25$ 162 304 7316 0.003713764,812.55$ 0.0080135562,853.51$ 117,186.49$ 14,852.55$ 2,125.46$ 16,978.01$ 1,558.01$ 31,160.30$ 163 303 7316 0.0036472064,726.30$ 0.0078699452,802.37$ 117,186.49$ 14,715.17$ 2,087.37$ 16,802.54$ 1,541.91$ 30,838.25$ 164 302 7316 0.0025157733,260.11$ 0.0054285391,933.03$ 11436.19$ 5,629.33$ 1,439.82$ 7,069.15$ 648.71$ 12,974.25$ 0.4634347 3,192,290.74$ 0.999998630 1,068,256.61$ 13653 607 913 591,159.32$ 1,547,795.61$ 1,409,870.50$ 1,813,028.11$ 166,375.49$ 3,327,509.77$ Total P & I Paid Per Unit (105%) - Non prepaid onlyCondosCommon Common ElementsBuidling Common ElementsLimited Common ElementsTotal Cost to Owner (Before soft and loan financing costs)Total Financing & Soft CostsTOTAL COSTS (PREPAYMENT AMOUNT)* Annual Fee (105% of Total Costs)TOTALCity Council Meeting of November 21, 2011 (Item No. 6b) Subject: Public Hearing on Greensboro Condominium Association’s Housing Improvement Area (HIA)Page 16
Owner TotalBuilding TypeNumber of UnitsUnit # Building #Ownership PercentageTotal Common Cost Ownership Percentage Total Common Cost Garage Locker BalconyTotal Limited Common CostTotal Cost to Owner (Before cost of loan)1,295,869.83$ 206,083.16$ 6,786.49$ -$ -$ 572,319.00$ 165 7453 7453 0.0051912816,727.22$ 0.0269896195,562.106$ 16,786.49$ 19,075.82$ 2,971.07$ 22,046.89$ 2,023.17$ 40,463.38$ 166 7449 7449 0.0051247246,640.98$ 0.0266435985,490.797$ 16,786.49$ 18,918.26$ 2,932.98$ 21,851.24$ 2,005.21$ 40,104.30$ 167 7445 7445 0.0049916146,468.48$ 0.0259515585,348.179$ 16,786.49$ 18,603.15$ 2,856.80$ 21,459.95$ 1,969.31$ 39,386.15$ 168 7441 7441 0.0049916146,468.48$ 0.0259515585,348.179$ 16,786.49$ 18,603.15$ 2,856.80$ 21,459.95$ 1,969.31$ 39,386.15$ 169 7437 7437 0.0049916146,468.48$ 0.0259515585,348.179$ 16,786.49$ 18,603.15$ 2,856.80$ 21,459.95$ 1,969.31$ 39,386.15$ 170 7433 7433 0.0049916146,468.48$ 0.0259515585,348.179$ 16,786.49$ 18,603.15$ 2,856.80$ 21,459.95$ 1,969.31$ 39,386.15$ 171 7429 7429 0.0049916146,468.48$ 0.0259515585,348.179$ 16,786.49$ 18,603.15$ 2,856.80$ 21,459.95$ 1,969.31$ 39,386.15$ 172 7425 7425 0.0049916146,468.48$ 0.0259515585,348.179$ 16,786.49$ 18,603.15$ 2,856.80$ 21,459.95$ 1,969.31$ 39,386.15$ 173 7421 7421 0.0051247246,640.98$ 0.0266435985,490.797$ 16,786.49$ 18,918.26$ 2,932.98$ 21,851.24$ 2,005.21$ 40,104.30$ 174 7417 7417 0.0051912816,727.22$ 0.0269896195,562.106$ 16,786.49$ 19,075.82$ 2,971.07$ 22,046.89$ 2,023.17$ 40,463.38$ 175 7413 7413 0.0051912816,727.22$ 0.0269896195,562.106$ 16,786.49$ 19,075.82$ 2,971.07$ 22,046.89$ 2,023.17$ 40,463.38$ 176 7409 7409 0.0051247246,640.98$ 0.0266435985,490.797$ 16,786.49$ 18,918.26$ 2,932.98$ 21,851.24$ 2,005.21$ 40,104.30$ 177 7405 7405 0.0049916146,468.48$ 0.0259515585,348.179$ 16,786.49$ 18,603.15$ 2,856.80$ 21,459.95$ 1,969.31$ 39,386.15$ 178 7401 7401 0.0049916146,468.48$ 0.0259515585,348.179$ 16,786.49$ 18,603.15$ 2,856.80$ 21,459.95$ 1,969.31$ 39,386.15$ 179 7361 7361 0.0049916146,468.48$ 0.0259515585,348.179$ 16,786.49$ 18,603.15$ 2,856.80$ 21,459.95$ 1,969.31$ 39,386.15$ 180 7357 7357 0.0049916146,468.48$ 0.0259515585,348.179$ 16,786.49$ 18,603.15$ 2,856.80$ 21,459.95$ 1,969.31$ 39,386.15$ 181 7353 7353 0.0049916146,468.48$ 0.0259515585,348.179$ 16,786.49$ 18,603.15$ 2,856.80$ 21,459.95$ 1,969.31$ 39,386.15$ 182 7349 7349 0.0049916146,468.48$ 0.0259515585,348.179$ 16,786.49$ 18,603.15$ 2,856.80$ 21,459.95$ 1,969.31$ 39,386.15$ 183 7345 7345 0.0051247246,640.98$ 0.0266435985,490.797$ 16,786.49$ 18,918.26$ 2,932.98$ 21,851.24$ 2,005.21$ 40,104.30$ 184 7341 7341 0.0051912816,727.22$ 0.0269896195,562.106$ 16,786.49$ 19,075.82$ 2,971.07$ 22,046.89$ 2,023.17$ 40,463.38$ 185 7337 7337 0.0051912816,727.22$ 0.0269896195,562.106$ 16,786.49$ 19,075.82$ 2,971.07$ 22,046.89$ 2,023.17$ 40,463.38$ 186 7333 7333 0.0051247246,640.98$ 0.0266435985,490.797$ 16,786.49$ 18,918.26$ 2,932.98$ 21,851.24$ 2,005.21$ 40,104.30$ 187 7329 7329 0.0049916146,468.48$ 0.0259515585,348.179$ 16,786.49$ 18,603.15$ 2,856.80$ 21,459.95$ 1,969.31$ 39,386.15$ 188 7325 7325 0.0049916146,468.48$ 0.0259515585,348.179$ 16,786.49$ 18,603.15$ 2,856.80$ 21,459.95$ 1,969.31$ 39,386.15$ 189 7321 7321 0.0049916146,468.48$ 0.0259515585,348.179$ 16,786.49$ 18,603.15$ 2,856.80$ 21,459.95$ 1,969.31$ 39,386.15$ 190 7317 7317 0.0049916146,468.48$ 0.0259515585,348.179$ 16,786.49$ 18,603.15$ 2,856.80$ 21,459.95$ 1,969.31$ 39,386.15$ 191 7313 7313 0.0049916146,468.48$ 0.0259515585,348.179$ 16,786.49$ 18,603.15$ 2,856.80$ 21,459.95$ 1,969.31$ 39,386.15$ 192 7309 7309 0.0049916146,468.48$ 0.0259515585,348.179$ 16,786.49$ 18,603.15$ 2,856.80$ 21,459.95$ 1,969.31$ 39,386.15$ 193 7305 7305 0.0051247246,640.98$ 0.0266435985,490.797$ 16,786.49$ 18,918.26$ 2,932.98$ 21,851.24$ 2,005.21$ 40,104.30$ 194 7301 7301 0.0051912816,727.22$ 0.0269896195,562.106$ 16,786.49$ 19,075.82$ 2,971.07$ 22,046.89$ 2,023.17$ 40,463.38$ 227 7235 7235 0.0051912816,727.22$ 0.0269896195,562.106$ 16,786.49$ 19,075.82$ 2,971.07$ 22,046.89$ 2,023.17$ 40,463.38$ 228 7231 7231 0.0051247246,640.98$ 0.0266435985,490.797$ 16,786.49$ 18,918.26$ 2,932.98$ 21,851.24$ 2,005.21$ 40,104.30$ 229 7227 7227 0.0049916146,468.48$ 0.0259515585,348.179$ 16,786.49$ 18,603.15$ 2,856.80$ 21,459.95$ 1,969.31$ 39,386.15$ 230 7223 7223 0.0049916146,468.48$ 0.0259515585,348.179$ 16,786.49$ 18,603.15$ 2,856.80$ 21,459.95$ 1,969.31$ 39,386.15$ 231 7219 7219 0.0049916146,468.48$ 0.0259515585,348.179$ 16,786.49$ 18,603.15$ 2,856.80$ 21,459.95$ 1,969.31$ 39,386.15$ 232 7215 7215 0.0049916146,468.48$ 0.0259515585,348.179$ 16,786.49$ 18,603.15$ 2,856.80$ 21,459.95$ 1,969.31$ 39,386.15$ 233 7211 7211 0.0051247246,640.98$ 0.0266435985,490.797$ 16,786.49$ 18,918.26$ 2,932.98$ 21,851.24$ 2,005.21$ 40,104.30$ 234 7207 7207 0.0051912816,727.22$ 0.0269896195,562.106$ 16,786.49$ 19,075.82$ 2,971.07$ 22,046.89$ 2,023.17$ 40,463.38$ 0.19 249,252.20$ 1.000000012 206,083.16$ 38 0 0 257,886.72$ 713,222.08$ 110,081.87$ 823,303.95$ 75,551.83$ 1,511,036.65$ Buidling Common ElementsLimited Common ElementsTOTALCommon Common Elements* Annual Fee (105% of Total Costs)Total P & I Paid Per Unit (105%) - Non prepaid onlyTOTAL COSTS (PREPAYMENT AMOUNT)Total Financing & Soft Costs2-BedroomCity Council Meeting of November 21, 2011 (Item No. 6b) Subject: Public Hearing on Greensboro Condominium Association’s Housing Improvement Area (HIA)Page 17
Owner TotalBuilding TypeNumber of UnitsUnit # Building #Ownership PercentageTotal Common Cost Ownership Percentage Total Common Cost Garage Locker BalconyTotal Limited Common CostTotal Cost to Owner (Before cost of loan)1,295,869.83$ 396,663.21$ -$ -$ 7,000.00$ 572,319.00$ 195 7233 7233 0.0060564937,848.43$ 0.0175947746,979.20$ 17,000.00$ 21,827.63$ 3,466.25$ 25,293.87$ 2,321.13$ 46,422.67$ 196 7229 7229 0.0059899367,762.18$ 0.0174013926,902.49$ 17,000.00$ 21,664.67$ 3,428.15$ 25,092.82$ 2,302.68$ 46,053.68$ 197 7225 7225 0.0057902737,503.44$ 0.0168213456,672.41$ ‐$ 14,175.85$ 3,313.88$ 17,489.73$ 1,604.97$ 32,099.48$ 198 7221 7221 0.0057902737,503.44$ 0.0168213456,672.41$ ‐$ 14,175.85$ 3,313.88$ 17,489.73$ 1,604.97$ 32,099.48$ 199 7217 7217 0.0057902737,503.44$ 0.0168213456,672.41$ ‐$ 14,175.85$ 3,313.88$ 17,489.73$ 1,604.97$ 32,099.48$ 200 7213 7213 0.0057902737,503.44$ 0.0168213456,672.41$ ‐$ 14,175.85$ 3,313.88$ 17,489.73$ 1,604.97$ 32,099.48$ 201 7209 7209 0.0059899367,762.18$ 0.0174013926,902.49$ ‐$ 14,664.67$ 3,428.15$ 18,092.82$ 1,660.32$ 33,206.35$ 202 7205 7205 0.0060564937,848.43$ 0.0175947746,979.20$ ‐$ 14,827.63$ 3,466.25$ 18,293.87$ 1,678.77$ 33,575.34$ 203 7451 7451 0.0060564937,848.43$ 0.0175947446,979.19$ ‐$ 14,827.61$ 3,466.25$ 18,293.86$ 1,678.77$ 33,575.32$ 204 7447 7447 0.0059899367,762.18$ 0.0174013926,902.49$ 17,000.00$ 21,664.67$ 3,428.15$ 25,092.82$ 2,302.68$ 46,053.68$ 205 7439 7439 0.0057902737,503.44$ 0.0168213456,672.41$ ‐$ 14,175.85$ 3,313.88$ 17,489.73$ 1,604.97$ 32,099.48$ 206 7435 7435 0.0059233837,675.93$ 0.0172080436,825.80$ ‐$ 14,501.73$ 3,390.06$ 17,891.80$ 1,641.87$ 32,837.40$ 207 7431 7431 0.0059233837,675.93$ 0.0172080436,825.80$ ‐$ 14,501.73$ 3,390.06$ 17,891.80$ 1,641.87$ 32,837.40$ 208 7427 7427 0.0057902737,503.44$ 0.0168213456,672.41$ ‐$ 14,175.85$ 3,313.88$ 17,489.73$ 1,604.97$ 32,099.48$ 209 7423 7423 0.0059899367,762.18$ 0.0174013926,902.49$ 17,000.00$ 21,664.67$ 3,428.15$ 25,092.82$ 2,302.68$ 46,053.68$ 210 7419 7419 0.0060564937,848.43$ 0.0175947446,979.19$ 17,000.00$ 21,827.61$ 3,466.25$ 25,293.86$ 2,321.13$ 46,422.65$ 211 7411 7411 0.0060564937,848.43$ 0.0175947446,979.19$ 17,000.00$ 21,827.61$ 3,466.25$ 25,293.86$ 2,321.13$ 46,422.65$ 212 7407 7407 0.0059899367,762.18$ 0.0174013926,902.49$ 17,000.00$ 21,664.67$ 3,428.15$ 25,092.82$ 2,302.68$ 46,053.68$ 213 7403 7403 0.0057902737,503.44$ 0.0168213456,672.41$ ‐$ 14,175.85$ 3,313.88$ 17,489.73$ 1,604.97$ 32,099.48$ 214 7351 7351 0.0059233837,675.93$ 0.0172080436,825.80$ ‐$ 14,501.73$ 3,390.06$ 17,891.80$ 1,641.87$ 32,837.40$ 215 7347 7347 0.0059233837,675.93$ 0.0172080436,825.80$ ‐$ 14,501.73$ 3,390.06$ 17,891.80$ 1,641.87$ 32,837.40$ 216 7343 7343 0.0057902737,503.44$ 0.0168213456,672.41$ ‐$ 14,175.85$ 3,313.88$ 17,489.73$ 1,604.97$ 32,099.48$ 217 7339 7339 0.0059899367,762.18$ 0.0174013926,902.49$ 17,000.00$ 21,664.67$ 3,428.15$ 25,092.82$ 2,302.68$ 46,053.68$ 218 7335 7335 0.0060564937,848.43$ 0.0175947446,979.19$ ‐$ 14,827.61$ 3,466.25$ 18,293.86$ 1,678.77$ 33,575.32$ 219 7331 7331 0.0060564937,848.43$ 0.0175947446,979.19$ 17,000.00$ 21,827.61$ 3,466.25$ 25,293.86$ 2,321.13$ 46,422.65$ 220 7327 7327 0.0059899367,762.18$ 0.0174013926,902.49$ 17,000.00$ 21,664.67$ 3,428.15$ 25,092.82$ 2,302.68$ 46,053.68$ 221 7323 7323 0.0057902737,503.44$ 0.0168213456,672.41$ ‐$ 14,175.85$ 3,313.88$ 17,489.73$ 1,604.97$ 32,099.48$ 222 7319 7319 0.0059233837,675.93$ 0.0172080436,825.80$ ‐$ 14,501.73$ 3,390.06$ 17,891.80$ 1,641.87$ 32,837.40$ 223 7315 7315 0.0059233837,675.93$ 0.0172080436,825.80$ ‐$ 14,501.73$ 3,390.06$ 17,891.80$ 1,641.87$ 32,837.40$ 224 7311 7311 0.0057902737,503.44$ 0.0168213456,672.41$ ‐$ 14,175.85$ 3,313.88$ 17,489.73$ 1,604.97$ 32,099.48$ 225 7307 7307 0.0059899367,762.18$ 0.0174013926,902.49$ 17,000.00$ 21,664.67$ 3,428.15$ 25,092.82$ 2,302.68$ 46,053.68$ 226 7303 7303 0.0060564937,848.43$ 0.0175947446,979.19$ 17,000.00$ 21,827.61$ 3,466.25$ 25,293.86$ 2,321.13$ 46,422.65$ 235 2004 2004 0.0059899367,762.18$ 0.0174013926,902.49$ ‐$ 14,664.67$ 3,428.15$ 18,092.82$ 1,660.32$ 33,206.35$ 236 2006 2006 0.0059233837,675.93$ 0.0172080436,825.80$ ‐$ 14,501.73$ 3,390.06$ 17,891.80$ 1,641.87$ 32,837.40$ 237 2008 2008 0.0059233837,675.93$ 0.0172080436,825.80$ ‐$ 14,501.73$ 3,390.06$ 17,891.80$ 1,641.87$ 32,837.40$ 238 2010 2010 0.0057902737,503.44$ 0.0168213456,672.41$ ‐$ 14,175.85$ 3,313.88$ 17,489.73$ 1,604.97$ 32,099.48$ 239 2012 2012 0.0059899367,762.18$ 0.0174013926,902.49$ 17,000.00$ 21,664.67$ 3,428.15$ 25,092.82$ 2,302.68$ 46,053.68$ 240 2014 2014 0.0059899367,762.18$ 0.0174013926,902.49$ ‐$ 14,664.67$ 3,428.15$ 18,092.82$ 1,660.32$ 33,206.35$ 241 2016 2016 0.0059899367,762.18$ 0.0174013926,902.49$ ‐$ 14,664.67$ 3,428.15$ 18,092.82$ 1,660.32$ 33,206.35$ 242 2018 2018 0.0059899367,762.18$ 0.0174013926,902.49$ 17,000.00$ 21,664.67$ 3,428.15$ 25,092.82$ 2,302.68$ 46,053.68$ 243 2020 2020 0.0057902737,503.44$ 0.0168213456,672.41$ ‐$ 14,175.85$ 3,313.88$ 17,489.73$ 1,604.97$ 32,099.48$ 244 2022 2022 0.0059899367,762.18$ 0.0174013926,902.49$ ‐$ 14,664.67$ 3,428.15$ 18,092.82$ 1,660.32$ 33,206.35$ 245 2024 2024 0.0059899367,762.18$ 0.0174013926,902.49$ ‐$ 14,664.67$ 3,428.15$ 18,092.82$ 1,660.32$ 33,206.35$ 246 2026 2026 0.0057902737,503.44$ 0.0168213456,672.41$ ‐$ 14,175.85$ 3,313.88$ 17,489.73$ 1,604.97$ 32,099.48$ 247 2028 2028 0.0059899367,762.18$ 0.0174013926,902.49$ 17,000.00$ 21,664.67$ 3,428.15$ 25,092.82$ 2,302.68$ 46,053.68$ 248 2030 2030 0.0059899367,762.18$ 0.0174013926,902.49$ 17,000.00$ 21,664.67$ 3,428.15$ 25,092.82$ 2,302.68$ 46,053.68$ 249 2032 2032 0.0059899367,762.18$ 0.0174013926,902.49$ 17,000.00$ 21,664.67$ 3,428.15$ 25,092.82$ 2,302.68$ 46,053.68$ 250 2034 2034 0.0059899367,762.18$ 0.0174013926,902.49$ 17,000.00$ 21,664.67$ 3,428.15$ 25,092.82$ 2,302.68$ 46,053.68$ 251 2036 2036 0.0057902737,503.44$ 0.0168213456,672.41$ ‐$ 14,175.85$ 3,313.88$ 17,489.73$ 1,604.97$ 32,099.48$ 252 2038 2038 0.0059899367,762.18$ 0.0174013926,902.49$ ‐$ 14,664.67$ 3,428.15$ 18,092.82$ 1,660.32$ 33,206.35$ 253 2054 2054 0.0059899367,762.18$ 0.0174013926,902.49$ ‐$ 14,664.67$ 3,428.15$ 18,092.82$ 1,660.32$ 33,206.35$ 254 2052 2052 0.0057902737,503.44$ 0.0168213456,672.41$ ‐$ 14,175.85$ 3,313.88$ 17,489.73$ 1,604.97$ 32,099.48$ 255 2050 2050 0.0059899367,762.18$ 0.0174013926,902.49$ 17,000.00$ 21,664.67$ 3,428.15$ 25,092.82$ 2,302.68$ 46,053.68$ 256 2048 2048 0.0059899367,762.18$ 0.0174013926,902.49$ ‐$ 14,664.67$ 3,428.15$ 18,092.82$ 1,660.32$ 33,206.35$ 257 2046 2046 0.0059899367,762.18$ 0.0174013926,902.49$ ‐$ 14,664.67$ 3,428.15$ 18,092.82$ 1,660.32$ 33,206.35$ 258 2044 2044 0.0059899367,762.18$ 0.0174013926,902.49$ 17,000.00$ 21,664.67$ 3,428.15$ 25,092.82$ 2,302.68$ 46,053.68$ 259 2042 2042 0.0057902737,503.44$ 0.0168213456,672.41$ ‐$ 14,175.85$ 3,313.88$ 17,489.73$ 1,604.97$ 32,099.48$ 260 2040 2040 0.0059899367,762.18$ 0.0174013926,902.49$ ‐$ 14,664.67$ 3,428.15$ 18,092.82$ 1,660.32$ 33,206.35$ 0.34 446,066.53$ 1.000000068 396,663.23$ 0 0 20 140,000.00$ 982,729.77$ 197,004.63$ 1,179,734.39$ 108,260.26$ 2,165,205.11$ 1.00 3,887,609.47 2.999998710 1,671,003.00 13691 607 933 989,046.03 3,243,747.45 1,716,956.99 3,816,066.93 350,187.58 7,003,751.53 Limited Common Elements3‐BedroomTOTALGRANDTOTALTotal P & I Paid Per Unit (105%) - Non prepaid only* Annual Fee (105% of Total Costs)TOTAL COSTS (PREPAYMENT AMOUNT)Total Financing & Soft CostsCommon Common ElementsBuidling Common ElementsCity Council Meeting of November 21, 2011 (Item No. 6b) Subject: Public Hearing on Greensboro Condominium Association’s Housing Improvement Area (HIA)Page 18
ORDINANCE NO. ____-11
ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING THE GREENSBORO CONDOMINIUM
OWNERS ASSOCIATION HOUSING IMPROVEMENT AREA PURSUANT
TO MINNESOTA STATUTES, SECTIONS 428A.11 to 428A.21
BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park as follows:
Section 1. Recitals.
1.01. The City of St. Louis Park ("City") is authorized under Minnesota Statutes, Sections
428A.11 to 428A.21 (the "Act") to establish by ordinance a housing improvement area within which
housing improvements are made or constructed and the costs of the improvements are paid in whole
or in part from fees imposed within the area.
1.02. The St. Louis Park City Council (“Council”) adopted a Housing Improvement Area
policy on July 16, 2001.
1.03. The City has determined a need to establish the Greensboro Condominium Owners
Association Housing Improvement Area as further defined herein, in order to facilitate certain
improvements to property known as the "Greensboro Condominium Owners Association” all in
accordance with the Housing Improvement Area policy.
1.04. The City has consulted with the Greensboro Condominium Owners Association (the
“Condominium Association”) and with residents in the proposed Greensboro Condominium
Owners Association Housing Improvement Area regarding the establishment of the Greensboro
Condominium Owners Association Housing Improvement Area and the housing improvements to
be constructed and financed under this ordinance.
Section 2. Findings.
2.01. The Council finds that, in accordance with Section 428A.12 of the Act, owners of at
least 50 percent of the housing units within the proposed Greensboro Condominium Owners
Association Housing Improvement Area have filed a petition with the City Clerk requesting a public
hearing regarding establishment of such housing improvement area.
2.02. The Council has on November 21, 2011, conducted a public hearing, duly noticed in
accordance with Section 428A.13 of the Act, regarding adoption of this ordinance, at which all
persons, including owners of property within the proposed Greensboro Condominium Owners
Association Housing Improvement Area, were given an opportunity to be heard.
2.03. The Council finds that, without establishment of the Greensboro Condominium
Owners Association Housing Improvement Area, the Housing Improvements (as hereinafter
defined) could not be made by the condominium association for, or the housing unit owners in, the
Greensboro Condominium Owners Association.
2.04. The Council further finds that designation of the Greensboro Condominium Owners
Association Housing Improvement Area is needed to maintain and preserve the housing units within
such area.
2.05. The Council further finds that by Resolution No. _____ adopted on the date hereof,
the City has provided full disclosure of public expenditures, loans, bonds, or other financing
arrangements in connection with the Greensboro Housing Improvement Area, and has determined
City Council Meeting of November 21, 2011 (Item No. 6b)
Subject: Public Hearing on Greensboro Condominium Association’s Housing Improvement Area (HIA)Page 19
that the Greensboro Condominium Owners Association will contract for the Housing
Improvements.
2.06. The City will be the implementing entity for the Greensboro Condominium Owners
Association Housing Improvement Area and the improvement fee.
2.07. The Council finds that the Greensboro Condominium Owners Association Housing
Improvement Area meets each of the approval criteria contained in the Housing Improvement Area
Policy (listed as 5.01A- 5.01M), including the criterion that a majority of the condominium
association owners support the project and the Housing Improvement Area financing. The
Condominium Association presented evidence to the Council adequate to demonstrate that these
criteria were met, including presentation to the Council of the petitions described in 2.01 above.
Section 3. Housing Improvement Area Defined.
3.01. The Greensboro Condominium Owners Association Housing Improvement Area is
hereby defined as the area of the City legally described in Exhibit A.
3.02. The Greensboro Condominium Owners Association Housing Improvement Area
contains 260 housing units as of the date of adoption of this ordinance, along with garage units and
common areas.
Section 4. Housing Improvements Defined.
4.01. For the purposes of this ordinance and the Greensboro Condominium Owners
Association Housing Improvement Area, the term "Housing Improvements" shall mean the
following improvements to housing units, garages, and common areas within the Greensboro
Condominium Owners Association Housing Improvement Area: Site Work: Complete asphalt
pavement replacement including grade repairs, new concrete curb and gutter. Repair water main,
sanitary sewer and storm sewer. Resident Buildings: Remove siding and replace with new flux
mansard design. New aluminum store fronts (windows/doors) at condo building, front, back,
and side entries. Repair balconies as needed and repaint all balconies. Repair voids at slabs and
patios. Garages Repairs: Brick removal and siding install, wall and roof framing repairs.
Install perimeter drain tile, new roof, new garage doors as required and install garage lockers.
Possible common items if funds allow: Brick repair, sidewalk repair, community building
interior renovations, pool renovations.
4.02. Housing Improvements shall also be deemed to include:
(a) all costs of architectural and engineering services in connection with the activities
described in Section 4.01;
(b) all administration, legal and consultant costs in connection with the Greensboro
Condominium Owners Association Housing Improvement Area; and
(c) costs of arranging financing for the Housing Improvements under the Housing
Improvement Act; and
(d) interest on the internal loan as described in Sections 5.04 and 6.01.
Section 5. Housing Improvement Fee.
City Council Meeting of November 21, 2011 (Item No. 6b)
Subject: Public Hearing on Greensboro Condominium Association’s Housing Improvement Area (HIA)Page 20
5.01. The City may, by resolution adopted in accordance with the petition, hearing and
notice procedures required under Section 428A.14 of the Act, impose a fee on the housing units
within the Greensboro Condominium Owners Association Housing Improvement Area, at a rate,
term or amount sufficient to produce revenues required to finance the construction of the Housing
Improvements (hereinafter referred to as the "Housing Improvement Fee"), subject to the terms and
conditions set forth in this Section.
5.02. The Housing Improvement Fee shall be imposed for Common and Building
Common Elements based on the square footage (percentage of undivided ownership) of each unit,
and shall be imposed for Limited Common Elements based on the actual cost of garages, lockers
and balconies for each unit, all as prescribed in the Amended and Restated Declaration of
Greensboro Condominium.
5.03. The Housing Improvement Fee shall be imposed and payable for a period no greater
than 20 years after the first installment is due and payable.
5.04. Housing unit owners shall be permitted to prepay the Housing Improvement Fee in
accordance with the terms specified in the resolution imposing the fee.
5.05. The Housing Improvement Fee shall not exceed the amount specified in the notice
of public hearing regarding the approval of such fee; provided, however, that the Housing
Improvement Fee may be reduced after approval of the resolution setting the Housing Improvement
Fee, in the manner specified in such resolution.
Section 6. Housing Improvement Area Loan and Bonds.
6.01. At any time after a contract with the Condominium Association for construction of
all or part of the Housing Improvements has been entered into or the work has been ordered, and the
period for prepayment without interest of the Housing Improvement Fee has begun as described in
Section 5.04 hereof, the Council may begin disbursement to the Condominium Association of the
proceeds of an internal loan (the “Loan”) of available City funds in the principal amounts necessary
to finance a portion of the cost of the Housing Improvements that have not been prepaid, together
with administrative costs.
6.02. In addition to the Loan, at any time after the period for prepayment without interest
of the Housing Improvement Fee has ended, the City may issue its bonds secured by Housing
Improvement Fees, as authorized pursuant to Section 428A.16 of the Act, in a principal amount
necessary to finance the portion of the cost of the Housing Improvements not financed through the
Loan.
Section 7. Annual Reports.
7.01. On March 1, 2013, and each March 1 thereafter until there are no longer any
outstanding obligations issued under the Act in connection with the Greensboro Condominium
Owners Association Housing Improvement Area, Greensboro Condominium Owners Association
(and any successor in interest) shall submit to the City Clerk a copy of the condominium
association's audited financial statements.
7.02. The Condominium Association (and any successor in interest) shall also submit to
the City any other reports or information at the times and as required by any contract entered into
between that entity and the City.
Section 8. Notice of Right to File Objections.
City Council Meeting of November 21, 2011 (Item No. 6b)
Subject: Public Hearing on Greensboro Condominium Association’s Housing Improvement Area (HIA)Page 21
8.01. Within five days after the adoption of this ordinance, the City Clerk is authorized
and directed to mail to the owner of each housing unit in the Greensboro Condominium Owners
Association Housing Improvement Area: a summary of this ordinance; notice that owners subject to
the proposed Housing Improvement Fee have a right to veto this ordinance if owners of at least 45
percent of the housing units within the Greensboro Condominium Owners Association Housing
Improvement Area file a written objection with the City Clerk before the effective date of this
ordinance; and notice that a copy of this ordinance is on file with the City Clerk for public
inspection.
Section 9. Amendment.
9.01. This ordinance may be amended by the Council upon compliance with the public
hearing and notice requirements set forth in Section 428A.13 of the Act.
Section 10. Effective Date.
10.1. This ordinance shall be effective 45 days after adoption hereof.
Read, approved and adopted and ordered published at a regular meeting of the City Council
of the City of St. Louis Park on November 21, 2011.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council November 21, 2011
City Manager Mayor
Attest: Approved as to form and execution:
City Clerk City Attorney
City Council Meeting of November 21, 2011 (Item No. 6b)
Subject: Public Hearing on Greensboro Condominium Association’s Housing Improvement Area (HIA)Page 22
EXHIBIT A TO ORDINANCE NO. ____-11
Legal description
City Council Meeting of November 21, 2011 (Item No. 6b)
Subject: Public Hearing on Greensboro Condominium Association’s Housing Improvement Area (HIA)Page 23
394395v1 MNI SA140-110
MEMORANDUM
To: Members of the City Council, St. Louis Park, MN
From: Kathy Larsen, Housing Programs Coordinator
Re: Greensboro Housing Improvement Area
Date: November __, 2011
Greensboro Condominium Association (“Greensboro”) has submitted a petition to
the City of St. Louis Park (the “City”) requesting the establishment of a Housing
Improvement Area (“HIA”) pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 428A (the “Act”) in
order to finance several improvements to its buildings. Greensboro has submitted a
Owner Cost Allocation powerpoint presentation (the “Presentation”) containing its
proposed method of imposing fees on owners of the Greensboro units to pay for the
improvements. Pursuant to Section 428A.14, subdivision 1 of the Act, the City Council
must review the proposed method of imposing fees for HIA improvements. If the fee is
imposed “on a basis other than the tax capacity or square footage of the housing unit, the
council must make a finding that the alternative basis for the fee is more fair and
reasonable.” This memorandum describes Greensboro’s reasoning behind the proposed
fees, and provides a factual basis for the City Council’s use in making its required
findings.
A. Condominium Documents and Laws
Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 515 (the “Condominium Act”) provides that all
physical portions of a condominium property shall be designated as “Common Areas and
Facilities” (all portions of the property other than the individual apartments), “Limited
Common Areas and Facilities” (a portion of the Common Areas and Facilities designated
by the condominium declaration as reserved for the exclusive use of one apartment), or
“Apartments” (a portion of the property with designated boundaries and intended for
separate ownership and occupancy). Pursuant to Section 515.11 of the Condominium
Act, the declaration of a condominium shall govern the precise definitions of Common
Areas and Facilities and Limited Common Areas and Facilities for that condominium.
The Amended and Restated Declaration of Greensboro Condominium (the
“Declaration”) defines the various elements making up the Greensboro physical structure
and governs who is responsible for maintenance and replacement of these elements.
According to the Declaration and consistent with the Condominium Act, all portions of
Greensboro except the Apartments are considered “Common Areas and Facilities”, and
the Greensboro Association is responsible for the maintenance, repair and replacement of
these areas. The Declaration separately defines “Limited Common Areas and Facilities”
City Council Meeting of November 21, 2011 (Item No. 6b)
Subject: Public Hearing on Greensboro Condominium Association’s Housing Improvement Area (HIA)Page 24
394395v1 MNI SA140-110
as “those Common Areas and Facilities such as designated garages, balconies, patios and
storage compartments […] which are assigned and reserved for the exclusive use of
Owners and/or Occupants of individual Apartments.” Because these elements are a
subset of the Common Areas and Facilities, Greensboro is responsible for the
maintenance, repair and replacement of these areas as well.
B. Proposed Greensboro Fees
The improvements contemplated by Greensboro include site work including
asphalt pavement, utility work, and grading (referred to in the Presentation as the
“Common-Common Cost Items”); replacement of siding, trim, and common
windows/doors (the “Building-Common Cost Items”); and repair and painting of
individual apartments’ balconies, along with repair and renovation of individual garages
and storage lockers (the “Limited Common/Unit Cost Items”).
Greensboro contains both townhomes and apartment buildings with differing
construction features and amenities. Greensboro proposes to set its fees based on two
tiers, and further allocates the cost of certain Improvements in the first tier according to
the type of building requiring the Improvements.
Within the first tier of costs, Greensboro determined that the Common-Common
Cost Items will benefit all apartments in the same way, regardless of building type.
Therefore, this category of Improvements is allocated to each apartment based on the
total cost of the Common-Common Cost Items, multiplied by the percentage of
ownership in Greensboro allocated to that apartment. For the Building-Common Cost
Items, Greensboro first determined the cost of the Building-Common Cost Items
allocable to each building, then allocated the per-building cost to each apartment in that
type of building in the same percentage of ownership manner as the Common-Common
Cost Items.
The second tier of costs allocates an additional fee for Limited-Common/Unit
Cost Items to a given apartment based on the actual cost of Improvements to the Limited
Common Areas and Facilities serving that apartment.
Greensboro’s rationale for basing the fee for the Limited-Common/Unit Cost
Items on actual cost rather than ownership percentage is based on fairness. The Limited-
Common/Unit Cost Items include improvements to garages, balconies, and storage units.
Many of the apartments at Greensboro lack one or more of these amenities. If the owner
of an apartment with a balcony pays the same amount as a second apartment owner with
the same ownership percentage but without a balcony, the second owner will effectively
subsidize the first owner’s balcony repairs without gaining any benefit from those repairs.
Greensboro therefore asserts that it is more equitable to assess individual apartment
owners for the actual cost of improvements to amenities that benefit only their apartment,
rather than to base this portion of the fee on ownership percentage.
City Council Meeting of November 21, 2011 (Item No. 6b)
Subject: Public Hearing on Greensboro Condominium Association’s Housing Improvement Area (HIA)Page 25
394395v1 MNI SA140-110
C. Comparison to Tax Capacity and Square Footage Basis
1. The cost allocation proposed by Greensboro for both the Common-
Common Cost Items and the Building-Common Cost Items is based on each apartment’s
percentage of ownership. The Greensboro ownership percentages are, in turn, based on
the square footage of each apartment. Therefore, the cost allocation for these categories
of Improvements is based on square footage rather than an alternative basis, and the
Council may make the finding that this fee is fair and reasonable per se.
2. The cost allocation for the Limited-Common/Unit Cost Items is not based
on tax capacity or square footage, but rather on actual cost of these Improvements to each
individual apartment. The Condominium Act and the Declaration both provide that
individual owners may be charged for the repair and maintenance of Limited Common
Areas and Facilities, so this allocation meets the relevant legal requirements. In addition,
the Council could rationally make a finding that basing the fee for the Limited-
Common/Unit Cost Items on the actual cost to each apartment is more fair and reasonable
than basing this fee on tax capacity or square footage. Greensboro has provided evidence
that basing the fee for Limited Common Areas and Facilities on percentage of ownership
would financially penalize the owners of some units while allowing others to pay less
than the actual cost of their improvements. Likewise, basing the fee on tax capacity fails
to account for the whether individual apartments include balconies or garages, leading to
the same potentially skewed result. Basing the cost allocation for the Limited-
Common/Unit Cost Items on the actual cost of these Improvements for each apartment is
the most financially equitable method of ensuring that Improvements benefiting a single
apartment will not be subsidized by other, non-benefiting apartments.
City Council Meeting of November 21, 2011 (Item No. 6b)
Subject: Public Hearing on Greensboro Condominium Association’s Housing Improvement Area (HIA)Page 26
City Council Meeting of November 21, 2011 (Item No. 6b) Subject: Public Hearing on Greensboro Condominium Association’s Housing Improvement Area (HIA)Page 27
City Council Meeting of November 21, 2011 (Item No. 6b) Subject: Public Hearing on Greensboro Condominium Association’s Housing Improvement Area (HIA)Page 28
City Council Meeting of November 21, 2011 (Item No. 6b) Subject: Public Hearing on Greensboro Condominium Association’s Housing Improvement Area (HIA)Page 29
City Council Meeting of November 21, 2011 (Item No. 6b) Subject: Public Hearing on Greensboro Condominium Association’s Housing Improvement Area (HIA)Page 30
City Council Meeting of November 21, 2011 (Item No. 6b) Subject: Public Hearing on Greensboro Condominium Association’s Housing Improvement Area (HIA)Page 31
City Council Meeting of November 21, 2011 (Item No. 6b) Subject: Public Hearing on Greensboro Condominium Association’s Housing Improvement Area (HIA)Page 32
City Council Meeting of November 21, 2011 (Item No. 6b) Subject: Public Hearing on Greensboro Condominium Association’s Housing Improvement Area (HIA)Page 33
City Council Meeting of November 21, 2011 (Item No. 6b) Subject: Public Hearing on Greensboro Condominium Association’s Housing Improvement Area (HIA)Page 34
City Council Meeting of November 21, 2011 (Item No. 6b) Subject: Public Hearing on Greensboro Condominium Association’s Housing Improvement Area (HIA)Page 35
City Council Meeting of November 21, 2011 (Item No. 6b) Subject: Public Hearing on Greensboro Condominium Association’s Housing Improvement Area (HIA)Page 36
City Council Meeting of November 21, 2011 (Item No. 6b) Subject: Public Hearing on Greensboro Condominium Association’s Housing Improvement Area (HIA)Page 37
City Council Meeting of November 21, 2011 (Item No. 6b) Subject: Public Hearing on Greensboro Condominium Association’s Housing Improvement Area (HIA)Page 38
City Council Meeting of November 21, 2011 (Item No. 6b)
Subject: Public Hearing on Greensboro Condominium Association’s Housing Improvement Area (HIA)Page 39
City Council Meeting of November 21, 2011 (Item No. 6b)
Subject: Public Hearing on Greensboro Condominium Association’s Housing Improvement Area (HIA)Page 40
City Council Meeting of November 21, 2011 (Item No. 6b)
Subject: Public Hearing on Greensboro Condominium Association’s Housing Improvement Area (HIA)Page 41
Summary of Established Housing Improvement Areas (2011)AssociationNumber of UnitsLoan AmountMedian EMV Year EstablishedAvg Fee/UnitInterest RateTerm YearsExpirationSource of Funds# of Hardship Deferrals # Prepayments Outstanding Balance 12/31/2010Cedar Trails
Condominium
Association
280 $1,366,000 $112.80 2002 $4,878 6.30% 10 2012 HRF 0 50 $128,811
Sungate One
Association 20 $183,884 $131,700 2006 $9,194 5.90% 10 2016 HRF 0 2 $64,394
Wolfe Lake
Condominiums 130 $1,238,000 $127,300 2007 $9,754 5.85% 15 2022 HRF 0 10 $828,561
Westmoreland
Hills Owners
Association
72 $1,026,125 $101,400 2008 $14,250 5.85% 15 2023 HRF 7 12 $843,172
TOTALS 742 $7,749,204 $4,968,344
$3,103,406
Sunset Ridge
Condominium
Association
240 $3,935,195 2009 $16,625 5.60%$118,500 20 2031 Bonds 6 50
City Council Meeting of November 21, 2011 (Item No. 6b)
Subject: Public Hearing on Greensboro Condominium Association’s Housing Improvement Area (HIA)Page 42
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
HOUSING IMPROVEMENT AREA POLICY
1. PURPOSE
1.01 The purpose of this policy is to establish the City's position relating to the use of
Housing Improvement Area (HIA) financing for private housing improvements.
This policy shall be used as a guide in processing and reviewing applications
requesting HIA financing.
1.02 The City shall have the option of amending or waiving sections of this policy
when determined necessary or appropriate.
2. AUTHORITY
2.01 The City of St. Louis Park has the authority to establish HIAs under 1994
Minnesota Laws, Chapter 587, Article 9, Section 22 through 3 1, and extended in
2000, M.S. 428A.21
2.02 Within a HIA, the City has the authority to:
A. Make housing improvements
B. Levy fees and assessments
C. Issue bonds to pay for improvements
2.03 The City Council has the authority to review each HIA petition, which includes
scope of improvements, association’s finances, long term financial plan, and
membership support.
3. ELIGIBLE USES OF HIA FINANCING
3.01 As a matter of adopted policy, the City of St. Louis Park will consider using HIA
financing to assist private property owners only in those circumstances in which
the proposed private projects address one or more of the following goals:
A. To promote neighborhood stabilization and revitalization by the removal of
blight and/or the upgrading of the existing housing stock in a neighborhood.
B. To correct housing or building code violations as identified by the City
Building Official.
C. To maintain or obtain FHA mortgage eligibility for a particular condominium
or townhome association or single family home within the designated HIA.
D. To increase or prevent the loss of the tax base of the City in order to ensure the
long-term ability of the City to provide adequate services for its residents.
City Council Meeting of November 21, 2011 (Item No. 6b)
Subject: Public Hearing on Greensboro Condominium Association’s Housing Improvement Area (HIA)Page 43
E. To stabilize or increase the owner-occupancy level within a neighborhood or
association.
F. To meet other uses of public policy, as adopted by the City of St. Louis Park
from time to time, including promotion of quality urban design, quality
architectural design, energy conservation, decreasing the capital and operating
costs of local government, etc.
4. HIA APPROVAL CRITERIA
4.01 All HIA financed through the City of St. Louis Park should meet the following
minimum approval criteria. However, it should not be presumed that a project meeting
these criteria would automatically be approved. Meeting these criteria creates no
contractual rights on the part of any association.
A. The project must be in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning
Ordinances, or required changes to the Plan and Ordinances must be under active
consideration by the City at the time of approval.
B. The HIA financing shall be provided within applicable state legislative
restrictions, debt limit guidelines, and other appropriate financial requirements
and policies.
C. The project should meet one or more of the above adopted HIA Goals of the
City of St. Louis Park.
D. The term of the HIA should be the shortest term possible while still making the
annual fee affordable to the association members. The term of any bonds or other
debt incurred for the area should mature in 20 years or less.
E. The association in a HIA should provide adequate financial guarantees to
ensure the repayment of the HIA financing and the performance of the
administrative requirements of the development agreement. Financial guarantees
may include, but are not limited to the pledge of the association's assets including
reserves, operating funds and/or property.
F. The proposed project, including the use of HIA financing, should be supported
by a majority of the owners within the association. The association should
include the results of a membership vote along with the petitions to create the
area.
G. The Association must have adopted a financial plan that provides for the
Association to finance maintenance and operation of the common elements within
the Association and a long-range plan to conduct and finance capital
improvements therein, which does not rely upon the subsequent use of the HIA
tool.
City Council Meeting of November 21, 2011 (Item No. 6b)
Subject: Public Hearing on Greensboro Condominium Association’s Housing Improvement Area (HIA)Page 44
H. HIA financial assistance is last resort financing and should not be provided to
projects that have the financial feasibility to proceed without the benefit of HIA
financing. Evidence that the association has sought other financing for the project
should be provided and should include an explanation and verification that an
assessment by the association is not feasible along with letters from private
lenders or other evidence indicating a lack of financing options.
I. The homeowner's association must be willing to enter into a development
agreement, which may include, but is not limited to, the following terms:
establishment of a reserve fund
staffing requirements
annual reporting requirements
conditions of disbursement
required dues increases
notification to new owners of levied fees
J. The improvements financed through the HIA should primarily be exterior
improvements and other improvements integral to the operation of the project,
e.g. boilers. In the case of a homeowner's association, the improvements should
be restricted to common areas. The improvements must be of a permanent nature.
The association must have a third party conduct a facility needs assessment to
determine and prioritize the scope of improvements.
K. HIA financing should not be provided to those projects that fail to meet good
public policy criteria as determined by the Council, including: poor project
quality; projects that are not in accord with the Comprehensive Plan, zoning,
redevelopment plans, and the City policies; projects that provide no significant
improvement to the neighborhood and/or the City; and projects that do not
provide a significant increase in the tax base and/or prevent the loss of tax base.
L. The financial structure of the project should receive a favorable review by the
City's Financial Advisor and Bond Counsel. The review will include a review of
performance and level of outstanding debt of previous HIAs.
M. The average market value of units in the association should not exceed the
maximum home purchase price for existing homes under the State’s first time
homebuyer program. (In 2001, the metro amount is $175,591)
N. The association is to submit an application along with application fee as set
from time to time by resolution of the City Council.
Adopted by the City of St. Louis Park on the 16th day of July 2001.
City Council Meeting of November 21, 2011 (Item No. 6b)
Subject: Public Hearing on Greensboro Condominium Association’s Housing Improvement Area (HIA)Page 45
Meeting Date: November 21, 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:
Fretham Twelfth Addition – Preliminary Plat
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to adopt a resolution approving the Preliminary Plat for six single-family lots known as
Fretham Twelfth Addition.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the Preliminary Plat meet the City Code requirements and goals of the Comprehensive Plan?
Does the City Council wish to approve the Preliminary Plat?
BACKGROUND:
Comprehensive Plan: Low Density Residential
Zoning: R-1 Single Family Residential
Description of Request:
Requested is a Preliminary Plat to allow for the subdivision of two lots at 8910 and 8920
Minnetonka Boulevard into six (6) new lots. Four lots would be serviced by Ensign Blvd, and
two lots would share an access to Minnetonka Blvd.
Background:
The proposed subdivision involves two existing lots of 53,748 square feet and 22,691 square feet
for a total of 76,435 square feet (approximately 1.75 acres). The lots would be subdivided into
six lots ranging from 9,356 square feet to 14,480 square feet in size. Each proposed lot exceeds
the minimum lot size of 9,000 square feet and the minimum lot width requirements in the R-1
Zoning District. The minimum lot width requirement in the R-1 Zoning District is 75 feet
measured at the front yard setback; for corner lots, the minimum width is 85 feet. The lots meet,
or exceed, the minimum lot width requirements.
Location:
The proposed subdivision is located on
the south shore of Cobble Crest Lake
and north of Minnetonka Boulevard in
the western part of the City, and is fully
within the Cobblecrest neighborhood. It
is located just west of three subdivisions
approved in 2007 and 2010 known as
“Fretham 9th Addition”, “Westling
Estates”, and “Eldridge 1st Addition”. The
Cobblecrest neighborhood is primarily
single family homes, built around the
1950s.
City Council Meeting of November 21, 2011 (Item No. 8a) Page 2
Subject: Fretham Twelfth Addition – Preliminary Plat
Subdivision Analysis
The proposed subdivision meets the general conditions of the Zoning Ordinance related to
minimum required lot size (9,000 square feet), and minimum required lot width (75 feet for
interior lot, 85 feet for corner lots). Other issues addressed in the application are reviewed below.
Lot Lot Area Lot Width Lot Depth
1 14,480 sf 75 ft 145 ft
2 14,279 sf 75 ft 205 ft
3 12,595 sf 75 ft 170 ft
4 11,762 sf 85 ft 139 ft
5 9,356 sf 75 ft 128 ft
6 11,067 sf 123 ft 142 ft
Street Access:
Lots 1-3 are proposed to front on Ensign Ave S. Lots 4-6 are proposed to front on Minnetonka
Blvd. Hennepin County has requested, however, that the driveway access to Lot 4 come off of
Ensign Ave S, and that Lots 5and 6 have a shared access in a similar manner as was done for
Lots 1 and 2 of Westling Estates. The proposed Preliminary Plat has incorporated this request.
Topography & Shape:
The property is mostly flat, except a steep 29 foot slope along the shore of Cobble Crest Lake.
Under Section 36-157 of the Subdivision Ordinance, this slope should be considered an
environmentally sensitive area.
Section 36-157(Protected Areas) of the City Code states that subdivisions that include
environmentally sensitive land, such as wetlands, steep slopes, and other areas shall clearly
require all necessary measures of protection to ensure against adverse environmental impacts.
Protection can include measures such as easements, large lots, building restrictions, etc.
The slope is heavily vegetated with trees and underbrush. The proposed subdivision was designed
to not disturb the slope and vegetation, so grading for construction of a new home or any aspect
of the subdivision including the storm water drainage system will not occur within the slope.
City Council Meeting of November 21, 2011 (Item No. 8a) Page 3
Subject: Fretham Twelfth Addition – Preliminary Plat
As shown in the exhibit below, the location of the proposed home on Lot 1 will not impact the
slope, and is located a distance from the slope and lake in a manner that is consistent with the
existing homes along the lake.
Street Dedication:
Hennepin County requested a dedication of seven feet of road right-of-way along Minnetonka
Blvd. This is consistent with other subdivisions along Minnetonka Blvd. The proposed
Preliminary Plat has incorporated this request.
Sidewalk:
The Subdivision Ordinance requires the construction of a sidewalk along all public streets with
access for all new homes. The requirement, which calls for a five-foot wide section of sidewalk,
allows for the sidewalk to be constructed in the right-of-way. In this case, the sidewalk is
proposed to be located on the east side of Ensign Ave S and on the north side of Minnetonka
Ave. The proposed Preliminary Plat is in compliance with this section.
Lot Shape & Building placement:
The Subdivision Ordinance includes recommendations for lot dimension and shape. It also
requires that for any lots that are not rectangular in shape, the developer must show that a house
can reasonably be constructed on it.
1. Lots 3, 4 & 5 are rectangular in shape.
2. Lots 1, 2 & 6 are not rectangular in shape due to the odd shape of the parcels being
subdivided. For each of these lots, the developer has shown in the attached exhibits that a
house at least equal in size to those of the neighborhood can be constructed on each of them.
These lots are not rectangular for the following reasons:
Existing house, not
included in subdivision
Existing house,
to be removed
Existing house, not
included in subdivision
Possible location
of new house
City Council Meeting of November 21, 2011 (Item No. 8a) Page 4
Subject: Fretham Twelfth Addition – Preliminary Plat
a. Lot 1 is at the end of a cul-de-sac, and therefore has a slightly pie shape typical of a cul-
de-sac lot.
b. Lot 2 would be rectangular in shape except that the back property line is not parallel to
the front due to the odd shape of the existing parcel. Also, additional land was added to
the lot to create a second lake-front lot.
c. Lot 6 would also be rectangular in shape except that the east property line is not at right-
angle to Minnetonka Blvd. This is the result of the shape of the existing parcel.
The applicant has included building pads for each site showing how the setback requirements of
the R-1 Zoning District could be met. The proposed homes would be approximately 3,000
square feet, with a two or three car attached garage.
Tree Replacement & Landscaping:
Tree Removal Summary
There are 33 significant trees totaling 506 caliper inches on the site.
12 significant trees will be removed totaling 212 caliper inches.
70 caliper inches of trees are required by city code to be replanted.
The existing lot has trees scattered throughout the site. Concentrations of trees and scrub brush
exist along Minnetonka Blvd and along the south shore of Cobble Crest Lake. There are 33
significant trees on the site, comprising a total of 506 caliper inches of total trees. The applicant
intends to remove 12 significant trees, adding up to a total of 212 caliper inches. Using the
Zoning Ordinance formula for tree replacement, a total of 70 caliper inches of significant trees
must be replaced. Trees and scrub brush will not be removed from the slope along the south side
of Cobble Crest Lake.
The applicant is proposing to plant the required trees in the following manner:
• Along Minnetonka Blvd to provide screening from the road.
• One boulevard tree will be planted in the front yard of each lot as required by city code.
• Along the east property line to provide screening between the subdivision and the existing lot
to the east and to provide vegetation around the storm water pond to enhance its aesthetics.
The tree replacement requirements are shown to be met. A financial guarantee will be submitted
to guarantee compliance.
Ensign Avenue:
Existing conditions on Ensign Ave:
The existing Ensign Ave right-of-way is 60 feet wide, which meets the 60 foot minimum
required for residential streets with parking on both sides. The road surface of Ensign Ave is 27
feet wide, which is two feet short of the 29 feet minimum required for a residential street with
parking on one side. There are currently no parking restrictions on Ensign Ave.
There are currently seven lots on Ensign Ave. Five of the lots have houses with driveways that
extend onto Ensign Ave. One lot has a house with a driveway that extends to Minnetonka Blvd,
which could be easily modified to extend to Ensign Ave. The last lot does not have a house on
it, but there is nothing known about the lot to prevent one from being constructed with a
driveway that would extend onto Ensign Ave. The proposed preliminary plat will add two
City Council Meeting of November 21, 2011 (Item No. 8a) Page 5
Subject: Fretham Twelfth Addition – Preliminary Plat
additional lots on Ensign Ave, and it proposes to remove the existing home that has the driveway
that extends to Minnetonka Blvd. Each of the proposed lots will have a driveway that extends to
Ensign Ave.
Results of proposed preliminary plat:
The result of the proposed plat is that there will be two additional lots on Ensign Ave, and four
additional driveways.
The City Fire and Engineering Departments reviewed the impact the proposed subdivision may
have on Ensign Ave, and determined that the street and cul-de-sac, while smaller than the city
standard, is sufficient to handle the additional two lots.
Drainage and Utility Easements:
The applicant has included the easements required by the Subdivision Ordinance. The new
easements allow for the placement of drainage and utilities between the properties. As required,
the easements are provided with 10’ for all exterior lot lines, and 5’ for all interior lot lines.
Additional easements are located to protect the proposed stormwater improvements. Staff is also
requesting additional drainage and utility easement to protect the slope along Cobble Crest Lake
and the existing overhead power lines along the south shore of Cobble Crest Lake.
The proposed Preliminary Plat does not show the additional easement over the slope. The
easement is listed as a condition of approval, and can be added to the final plat without impacting
buildable area of the lots.
Utilities:
The utility plan was reviewed and approved by the City Engineering Department with
conditions. The Engineering Department concluded that existing utilities along Minnetonka
Blvd and Ensign Ave are adequate to service the proposed subdivision. Stubs off of existing
sanitary sewer and water lines will be added as needed to provide services to the new homes.
The stormwater pond will outlet by an underground pipe to an existing manhole located in the
Ensign Ave S cul-de-sac. As requested by the Engineering Department, the manhole structure
will be upgraded by the applicant to accommodate the additional pipe and water. All electrical
and phone connections servicing the new homes will be placed underground.
Stormwater Management:
A dry pond will be constructed across portions of the back yard of lots 2, 3, 5 and 6. The pond
will have an average depth of approximately one foot, and will be planted with wetland tolerant
grasses and trees. The pond will be protected by a drainage and utility easement to prevent it
from being altered or built on. The limits of the pond easements are shown on the preliminary
plat. The dimensions and depth of the pond are shown on the grading plan. Both plans are
attached to the report for your review.
The City Engineering Department reviewed the stormwater management plan, and determined
that it complies with the City regulations. The review indicates that the proposed Preliminary Plat:
1. Will meet the Minnehaha Creek Watershed’s requirements.
2. Does not increase the amount of runoff from the property.
3. Meets the 100 year and 10 year discharge limits.
City Council Meeting of November 21, 2011 (Item No. 8a) Page 6
Subject: Fretham Twelfth Addition – Preliminary Plat
Minnehaha Creek Watershed District:
Steve Christopher, Regulatory Program Manager for the Watershed District submitted written
confirmation that the proposed Preliminary Plat will meet their requirements.
Permits from the Watershed District will be required prior to beginning construction on the site.
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources:
The Department of Natural Resources (DNR) has jurisdiction over Cobble Crest Lake, so plans
were submitted to them for review. They responded that no comments or revisions are required.
Park Dedication / Trail dedication:
Based on the goals found in the Comprehensive Plan, no new parks are planned for this area of
the City; therefore, the applicant will be required to make a payment in lieu of park dedication.
The park dedication ($1,500 per lot) and trail dedication ($225 per lot) payments, due before the
City releases the final plat, are as follows:
• Park dedication: $6,000
• Trail dedication: $900
Public Process:
Neighborhood Meeting:
The applicant held a neighborhood meeting on Tuesday, September 13, 2011.
Planning Commission:
The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on September 21, 2011. Comments were
received from the public. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the Preliminary
Plat on a 4-0 vote. Excerpts of the Planning Commission minutes are attached for your review.
Comments were received at the Neighborhood Meeting on Tuesday, September 13th. The
comments are listed below along with recommendations resulting from the meeting.
1. Water quality pertaining to runoff to Cobble Crest Lake. Runoff should be treated and
cleaned to prevent trash and silt from reaching the lake. The water will be treated in a pond
located on the back side of lots 2, 3, 5 and 6. The pond will outlet into the public storm water
system located in Ensign Ave S after treatment.
2. The slope to Cobble Crest Lake should be untouched. The slope is steep and vegetated. It
should not be altered. The slope will not be altered, and the existing trees and brush will
remain untouched. The slope will be protected by a construction fence during grading of the
development and construction of the new homes.
3. The loss of trees. A 33 inch oak is proposed to be removed on Lot 1, and trees along
Minnetonka Blvd are proposed to be removed. The trees along Minnetonka Blvd provide a
nice screen. These trees are proposed to be removed. The oak is located too close to the
proposed building pad. The building pad cannot be moved further back from the oak without
impacting the slope to Cobble Crest Lake. Therefore, it was decided to remove the oak.
City Council Meeting of November 21, 2011 (Item No. 8a) Page 7
Subject: Fretham Twelfth Addition – Preliminary Plat
4. The proposal has too many lots. The proposal is too dense, and will resemble the previous
subdivision at Boone Ave and Minnetonka Blvd. The proposed subdivision has six lots all
over the 9,000 square foot minimum lot size required in the R-1 zoning district. The lots
range from 9,356 square feet to 14,480 square feet, with an average size of 12,256 square
feet.
The subdivision at Boone Ave has three lots with frontage on three roads. The lots are 9,700,
9,834 and 8,238 square feet in area. A variance was granted to Lot 1 to go from the 9,000
square feet minimum lot area down to 8,238 square feet. A second variance was granted to
Lot 3 for lot width to go from the required minimum of 85 feet to 73 feet.
As the lot size and width numbers above reveal, the Boone Ave subdivision is more compact
than the proposed subdivision. The lots proposed in this subdivision are on average 25%
bigger than those on Boone Ave. Also, there are no variances proposed for this subdivision.
5. One lot should be removed so Lot 4, the corner lot, can truly face Ensign Blvd like lots 1-3
do, instead of fronting on Minnetonka Blvd as proposed. Lot 4 is 11,740 square feet in area.
This is big enough so that a house can be placed on it to meet the 30 foot front yard setback
on both Ensign Ave and
Minnetonka Blvd, and still have
sufficient open space on the
north side of the house.
6. If the house on Lot 4 faces
Ensign Ave, then this would
result in the property having a
small “back yard” to the east of
the house, and a large “side
yard” to the north of the house.
This is true, however this
configuration is not uncommon
for a corner lot. When given a
choice, the home owner will
typically desire to have the
driveway access off the less
traveled road. As the illustration
shows, even though the drive-
way and front of the house faces
Ensign Ave, the layout is not
unreasonable.
City Council Meeting of November 21, 2011 (Item No. 8a) Page 8
Subject: Fretham Twelfth Addition – Preliminary Plat
7. There are too many lots facing Ensign Ave. The lot widths of the proposed lots should
resemble the existing wider lots on the west side of Ensign Ave. There are currently 4 lots on
the west side of Ensign Ave, the subdivision proposes four additional lots on the east side.
The following table compares the lot widths of the existing lots on the west side of Ensign
Ave and the lot widths proposed by this subdivision.
Existing lots on west side Proposed lots
Address Lot Width Lot Width Lot #
2932 Ensign Ave 66 feet 75 feet 1
2950 Ensign Ave 95 feet 75 feet 2
2962 Ensign Ave 100 feet 75 feet 3
2980 Ensign Ave 146 feet 140 feet 4
Total: 407 feet 365 feet
The west side of Ensign Ave has slightly more frontage on the road due to the bulb of the
cul-de-sac which is entirely slanted to the west side, and due to the fact that Minnetonka Blvd
is slightly askew to Ensign Ave. The proposed lots meet the minimum lot width
requirements, and are comparable in size to lots in the neighborhood. Staff believes the
proposed lots fit within the Character of the Cobblecrest Neighborhood.
8. The house on Lot 1 should receive a front yard variance to be located closer to the street
than code allows so it will line up better with the existing house to the west.
The house on Lot 1 could be moved
slightly forward to transition from
the existing house to the west which
has a 17 foot front setback to the
proposed house on Lot 2 which will
be setback 30 feet. As the exhibit
shows, none of the existing houses
around the cul-de-sac meet the
required 30 foot setback. Reducing
the front setback, however, results in
a more garage-forward design
because the lot gets narrower as the
house is brought forward. The
impact on the existing house is
minimal as the new house will be
adjacent to the neighbor’s garage,
and will not impede any existing
views from the house. A variance
was not requested by the applicant;
therefore, the plan is to require the 30 foot front setback.
9. The existing house to the west of Lot 1 is approximately 4.5 feet from the side property line.
Could the proposed house on Lot 1 be moved further from the side lot line than the code
minimum of six feet to provide more space between the two houses? If the proposed house
was built at the six foot setback line, then there would be 10.5 feet between the two houses.
If both houses met the six foot side setback, then there would be 12 feet between the two
houses. A condition of approval could be placed on Lot 1 requiring the house to be at least
City Council Meeting of November 21, 2011 (Item No. 8a) Page 9
Subject: Fretham Twelfth Addition – Preliminary Plat
7.5 feet from the side property line. This would restore the 12 foot distance between the two
houses. The lot line would stay as proposed, so the existing house would still be 4.5 feet
from the lot line, but the proposed house would be 7.5 feet from the lot line. The Planning
Commission included this additional setback as a condition in their recommendation.
10. The overhead power lines along Cobble Crest Lake are within arm’s reach, and should be
raised. A condition of approval was included stating that the power line be reviewed by Xcel
as a condition of the plat, and raised as needed.
Recommendation:
The Preliminary Plat meets the requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance and also meets the
Zoning Ordinance requirements for the R-1 Zoning District. Therefore, the Planning
Commission and staff recommends adoption of the attached Resolution approving the
Preliminary Plat for six single-family lots known as Fretham Twelfth Addition.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
None.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
The proposed subdivision meets the vision goals for diverse housing options within the
community, and will add to the City’s stock of “move up” housing, based on goals adopted by
the City Council.
Attachments: Proposed Resolution
Location Map
Preliminary Plat
Excerpts from Planning Commission Minutes
Prepared by: Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator
Reviewed by: Meg McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor
Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of November 21, 2011 (Item No. 8a) Page 10
Subject: Fretham Twelfth Addition – Preliminary Plat
RESOLUTION NO. 11-____
RESOLUTION GIVING APPROVAL FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT OF
FRETHAM TWELFTH ADDITION
BE IT RESOLVED BY the City Council of St. Louis Park:
Findings
1. Lakewest Development Company, LLC, owner and subdivider of the land
proposed to be platted as Fretham Twelfth Addition has submitted an application for approval of
preliminary plat of said subdivision in the manner required for platting of land under the St.
Louis Park Ordinance Code, and all proceedings have been duly had thereunder.
2. The proposed preliminary plat for six single-family lots has been found to be in
all respects consistent with the City Plan and the regulations and requirements of the laws of the
State of Minnesota and the ordinances of the City of St. Louis Park.
3. The proposed plat is situated upon the following described lands in Hennepin
County, Minnesota, to-wit:
That part of Section 18, Township 117, Range 21, Hennepin County, Minnesota
described as follows: commencing on the North line of said Section 18, at a point
920.53 feet West of the North Quarter corner of said section; thence deflecting
left 47 degrees, 11 minutes a distance of 54.55 feet in the Southwesterly direction,
thence deflecting left 82 degrees a distance of 288.36 feet to the Northerly line of
Minnetonka Boulevard as the same is laid out and traveled; thence deflecting right
120 degrees 05 minutes a distance of 109.79 feet along said Northerly line; thence
deflecting right 59 degrees 55 minutes a distance of 362.49 feet to a point in the
North line of said Section 18; thence deflecting to the right 120 degrees 11
minutes a distance of 192.30 feet along said North line to the point of beginning.
Also that part of Section 7, Township 117, Range 21, described as follows:
Commencing on the South line of said Section 7 at a point 920.53 feet West of the
South Quarter corner of said section; thence deflecting right 132 degrees 49
minutes a distance of 97.33 feet in the Northeasterly direction; thence deflecting
left 129 degrees 13 minutes a distance of 72.50 feet; thence deflecting right 36
degrees 24 minutes a distance of 60 feet; thence deflecting left 6 degrees 03
minutes a distance of 170 feet; thence deflecting left 73 degrees 08 minutes a
distance of 131.82 feet; thence deflecting left 90 degrees a distance of 162.72 feet
to the South line of said Section 7; thence deflecting left 50 degrees 49 minutes
along said South line 192.30 feet to the point of beginning, which lies
Southeasterly of the Southeasterly boundary line of the following described tract:
All that part of Section 7, and Section 18, Township 117, Range 21, described as
follows: Commencing on the South line of said Section 7, and Section 18,
Township 117, Range 21, described as follows: Commencing on the South line
of said Section 7 at a point 920.53 feet West of the South Quarter corner of said
City Council Meeting of November 21, 2011 (Item No. 8a) Page 11
Subject: Fretham Twelfth Addition – Preliminary Plat
section; thence deflecting right 132 degrees and 49 minutes a distance of 97.33
feet in a Northeasterly direction; thence deflecting left 129 degrees and 13
minutes a distance of 72.50 feet; thence deflecting right 36 degrees and 24
minutes a distance of 60.0 feet; thence deflecting left 6 degrees and 03 minutes a
distance of 51.85 feet; which is the actual point of beginning of the land to be
described, thence continuing Northwesterly on last described line 118.15 feet;
thence deflecting left 73 degrees and 08 minutes a distance of 131.82 feet; thence
deflecting left 90 degrees a distance of 162.72 feet to the South line of said
Section 7; thence continuing in Southeasterly direction along last described line
12.0 feet; thence Northeasterly in a straight line 177.5 feet more or less to the
point of beginning.
and
That part of the Northeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter (NE ¼ of NW ¼) of
Section 18, Township 117, Range 21, Hennepin County, Minnesota, described as
follows: Commencing at a point in the North line of Minnetonka Boulevard as
the same is located and travelled across said NE ¼ of NW ¼, which point is 388.7
feet West at right angles from the East line of the Southwest Quarter of Section,
Township 117, Range 21, produced South; thence Southwesterly along said
Northerly line of Minnetonka Boulevard 509.79 feet to point of beginning of the
parcel of land to be described; thence Southwesterly along said North line
continued 181.16 feet; thence right 98 degrees 08 minutes parallel to the West line
of said NE ¼ of NW ¼ of said Section 18, a distance of 253.2 feet; thence in a
direct line 289.50 feet to point of beginning; said direct line making an angle of
59 degrees 55 minutes with the Northerly line of Minnetonka Boulevard.
Conclusion
The proposed preliminary plat of Fretham Twelfth Addition is hereby approved and
accepted by the City as being in accord and conformity with all ordinances, City plans
and regulations of the City of St. Louis Park and the laws of the State of Minnesota,
subject to the following conditions:
1. The application for final plat shall meet the following conditions:
a. Plans shall include a final landscape plan for all tree planting and tree
preservation planned for the site.
b. All conditions for stormwater management shall be met. The pond shall be
shaped in a natural manner, and include landscaping.
c. The stormwater catch basin located at the north end of the Ensign Ave S cul-de-
sac shall be replaced by the applicant as required by the City Engineering
Department.
2. Prior to starting any site work, the following conditions shall be met:
a. Assent form and official exhibits must be signed by the applicant and owner.
b. All necessary permits must be obtained.
c. All Minnehaha Creek Watershed Management permits must be issued.
d. A minimum three foot tall orange construction fence be installed along the top
edge of the slope to protect the slope and vegetation. The fence shall remain
City Council Meeting of November 21, 2011 (Item No. 8a) Page 12
Subject: Fretham Twelfth Addition – Preliminary Plat
during the construction of the subdivision, and may be removed from a lot after a
house is constructed on the lot.
3. The applicant shall comply with the following conditions during construction:
a. All City noise ordinances shall be complied with, including that there be no
construction activity between the hours of 10:00 PM and 7:00 AM.
b. Loud equipment shall be kept as far as possible from residences at all times.
c. The site shall be kept free of dust and debris that could blow onto neighboring
properties.
d. Public streets shall be maintained free of dirt and shall be cleaned as necessary.
e. The Zoning Administrator may impose additional conditions if it becomes
necessary in order to mitigate the impact of excavation on surrounding properties.
4. Lot 1 shall have a minimum side yard setback of 7.5 feet along the west property line.
5. Lot 1 shall not have a walk-out basement.
6. Lot 4 shall have a driveway access to Ensign Ave S only.
7. Lots 5 and 6 shall have a shared driveway access.
8. Lots 1 and 2 shall have a drainage and utility easement that extends over the entire
slope, and encompasses the existing power line.
9. The pond shall be planted with water tolerant grasses, shrubs and trees.
10. All electrical and phone utilities servicing the new homes are to be placed
underground.
11. Sidewalks shall be installed along Minnetonka Blvd and Ensign Ave per City
Engineer’s requirements.
12. Park dedication fees of $6,000 must be received by the City prior to filing a final plat.
13. Trail dedication fees of $900 must be received by the City prior to filing a final plat.
14. Applicant shall submit financial security in the form of a cash escrow or letter of
credit in the amount of $1,000 to insure that a signed Mylar copy of the final plat is
provided to the City.
15. Applicant shall submit a financial security in the form of cash escrow or letter of
credit in the amount of 125% of the costs of tree replacement, public improvements,
landscaping, repair/cleaning of public streets and utilities, and to guarantee the
provision of as-built drawings for all new public infrastructure to the City.
16. The applicant shall pay an administrative fine of $750 per violation of any condition
of this approval.
17. Developer or owner shall pay an administrative fee of $750 per violation of any
condition of this approval.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by City Council November 21, 2011
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
City Council Meeting of November 21, 2011 (Item No. 8a) Page 13
Subject: Fretham Twelfth Addition – Preliminary Plat
Location Map
City Council Meeting of November 21, 2011 (Item No. 8a)
Subject: Fretham Twelfth Addition – Preliminary Plat Page 14
City Council Meeting of November 21, 2011 (Item No. 8a)
Subject: Fretham Twelfth Addition – Preliminary Plat Page 15
City Council Meeting of November 21, 2011 (Item No. 8a)
Subject: Fretham Twelfth Addition – Preliminary Plat Page 16
City Council Meeting of November 21, 2011 (Item No. 8a)
Subject: Fretham Twelfth Addition – Preliminary Plat Page 17
City Council Meeting of November 21, 2011 (Item No. 8a)
Subject: Fretham Twelfth Addition – Preliminary Plat Page 18
City Council Meeting of November 21, 2011 (Item No. 8a)
Subject: Fretham Twelfth Addition – Preliminary Plat Page 19
City Council Meeting of November 21, 2011 (Item No. 8a)
Subject: Fretham Twelfth Addition – Preliminary Plat Page 20
EXCERPTS OF OFFICIAL MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
September 21, 2011 – 6:00 p.m.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MEMBERS PRESENT: Lynne Carper, Claudia Johnston-Madison, Dennis Morris,
Carl Robertson
MEMBERS ABSENT: Robert Kramer, Richard Person, Larry Shapiro
STAFF PRESENT: Meg McMonigal, Gary Morrison, Nancy Sells
3. Hearings
A. Preliminary Plat Fretham Twelfth Addition
Location: 8910 and 8920 Minnetonka Boulevard
Applicant: Lakewest Development
Case No.: 11-18-S
Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator, presented the staff report. Lakewest
Development (Curt Fretham) is requesting a Preliminary Plat to allow for the subdivision
of two lots at 8910 and 8920 Minnetonka Boulevard into six (6) new lots. He stated there
is a proposal for Lots 5 and 6 to share a common driveway access onto Minnetonka Blvd.
Lots 1, 2 and 3 will have access onto Ensign Ave. Lot 4 as a corner lot could have access
onto either street; however Hennepin County and City staff are requesting that the access
be directed onto Ensign Ave.
Mr. Morrison discussed the 7 foot road dedication along Minnetonka Blvd.
He spoke about the stormwater plan for the area which is to create a small area in the
back of Lots 2 and 3, primarily 3. It was originally shown to be a wet pond but most
recently is proposed to be a dry retention pond, only a foot or two deep.
Mr. Morrison spoke about the house on Lot 1, on the north end of the cul-de-sac. He
spoke about the grade change of 29 ft. from the top of the bluff down to the lake. The
idea is to protect that bluff. Staff has asked, and the developer agrees, that the bluff
should not be graded or disturbed in any way. Therefore, it is proposed that the house
will not have a walk-out basement.
Mr. Morrison said at the neighborhood meeting held on September 13th there were a
couple of requests regarding placement of the house (Lot 1) in relation to the west
property line and also to the front property line along Ensign. He said this would require
a variance for the front yard setback. As part of that consideration, when the request for a
greater side yard and lesser front yard is combined, it affects the shape of the house.
The lot is somewhat of a pie shape as it is on the end of a cul-de-sac. As the house is
moved forward the width of the house starts to shrink. This results in a house that is more
garage forward. Mr. Morrison said this didn’t come to a resolution at the neighborhood
City Council Meeting of November 21, 2011 (Item No. 8a)
Subject: Fretham Twelfth Addition – Preliminary Plat Page 21
meeting. Mr. Morrison noted that comments received at the neighborhood meeting, along
with recommendations resulting from the meeting, are included in the staff report.
Mr. Morrison stated that staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat subject to
conditions in the staff report, and six additional conditions: 1) Lot 1 shall not have a
walk-out basement; 2) that the house on Lot 1 shall be a least 7.5 ft. from the west
property line; 3) Lot 4 shall have access to Ensign Ave. S. only; 4) Lot 4 shall have a 30
ft. setback on both Minnetonka Blvd. and Ensign Ave. S.; 5) Lots 5 and 6 shall have a
shared driveway access; and 6) that the pond shall be planted with water tolerant grasses,
shrubs and trees.
Commissioner Carper remarked about the irregular shape of Lot 2.
Mr. Morrison said part of the issue with Lot 2 is the angular shape of the parent parcel,
itself. He said the main part of Lot 2 where the house would sit is a standard rectangular
shape.
Commissioner Carper asked if there was any discussion with the developer about
combining Lots 1 and 2 into something more regular and then expand Lot 3.
Mr. Morrison responded said there were conversations about combining lots but the
conclusion they came to was that Lots 1, 2 and 3 are well over the 9,000 sq. ft. minimum.
Given the size of the lots and the fact that the houses will be up front, it leaves a backyard
area that is fairly typical and common.
Commissioner Carper asked who would be responsible for maintenance of the dry pond.
Mr. Morrison said there will be an easement over the pond and the City will be
responsible for the pond.
Commissioner Morris asked how the City would access the pond.
Mr. Morrison said there will be a 20 foot easement between Lots 2 and 3. There will also
be additional easement along Lot 6 which provides access.
Commissioner Robertson commended staff and the developer for a very straightforward
proposal which meets all zoning and guiding.
Mr. Morrison replied that it was the developer’s intent to have no variances on the plat.
Curt Fretham, applicant, spoke about concerns he has with two of the additional six
conditions. He is concerned about No. 2 (Lot 1) with respect to the 7.5 ft. setback from
the west property line. He said the homes will be custom homes and he‘d like the
property owner to have some discretion about placement of garage and some of those
factors. He said he understands and appreciates the neighbors’ concerns. Mr. Fretham
said he wonders if there isn’t another way to provide more space on that side other than a
setback. He added that maybe it won’t be impactful because the house designed there
works well there anyway.
City Council Meeting of November 21, 2011 (Item No. 8a)
Subject: Fretham Twelfth Addition – Preliminary Plat Page 22
Mr. Fretham spoke about concern with condition No. 4 regarding Lot 4 having a 30 ft.
setback from Minnetonka Blvd. and Ensign Ave. as it restricts what the homeowner
could do. Corner lots generally have the ability to have a reduced setback on one of the
two sides. He said he hoped there would be some latitude from staff and the Commission
on conditions No. 2 and 4.
Commissioner Carper asked if Mr. Fretham was the builder.
Mr. Fretham responded that he is not a builder. He said he works with a number of
builders. He also works with potential homeowners. He said there will probably be one
or two builders on the site.
Commissioner Carper asked if Mr. Fretham would be willing to sell the lots individually
without any criteria for the buildings on it.
Mr. Fretham replied that was a fair statement.
Commissioner Robertson asked what the typical side yard setback is for a corner lot.
Mr. Morrison said the side yard abutting the street is 15 feet. The requirement for the
corner lot in this case came from the request to have the access for Lot 4 onto Ensign
Ave. So the thought was if the house was going to face Ensign, then it should be
consistent with the other houses along Ensign.
Commissioner Robertson commented that many houses have their access off an alley, so
just because the access is off of Ensign doesn’t mean the house will face Ensign. He
thought it should be left to someone with design skills to finesse that and not constrain
through zoning.
Commissioner Morris asked if Mr. Fretham is the land subdivider and could sell off all
parcels or individual parcels, could new owners of lots then come in and ask for
variances?
Mr. Morrison responded the thought was if the standard was established now, 30 ft.
setback off of Ensign, if someone comes forward with a design for the house primarily
facing Minnetonka, the owner would have to come back for a variance for a 15 ft.
setback.
Meg McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor, said plats are reviewed such that they
don’t have to have variances, but a property owner can always request a variance in the
future. She added that the lots are fairly big and there doesn’t appear to be any reason
that variances would be needed in the future.
Commissioner Robertson asked if there are corner lots throughout the city with a 15 ft.
setback, why would this one need 30 ft?
Ms. McMonigal said perhaps the modification would be if the house faces Ensign then it
is setback 30 ft. so it’s in line with the houses on Lots 1, 2 and 3. If it faces Minnetonka
then it should be in line with Lots 5 and 6.
City Council Meeting of November 21, 2011 (Item No. 8a)
Subject: Fretham Twelfth Addition – Preliminary Plat Page 23
Mr. Fretham had questions about determining which way the house faces. He said he
sees the 30 ft. as overly restrictive and a hardship placed on this corner lot.
Commissioner Robertson commented that street access doesn’t determine the front of
house, but which face the front entry door is on is the perceived front of house.
Ms. McMonigal said the intent was that in either case if it is set back 30 ft. from both
streets there isn’t an issue with it feeling forward compared to the other houses.
Mr. Fretham said even if the normal setback is there, it doesn’t mean that house would
get pushed up.
Chair Johnston-Madison opened the public hearing.
Dean Gutzke, 2920 Ensign Ave. S., asked if any traffic counts have been done in the
area.
Ms. McMonigal responded there might be some traffic counts on Minnetonka Blvd.
Mr. Gutzke said traffic counts should be done now since there are a number of new
developments in the area.
Mr. Gutzke said he appreciated the feedback and consideration given at the neighborhood
meeting. He stated there still isn’t a resolution on the setback for one of the lots. He
asked what the process was for a firm resolution on this issue.
Commissioner Morris asked if Mr. Gutzke’s concern for traffic counts was for
Minnetonka Blvd. or Ensign Ave.
Mr. Gutzke responded he was concerned about both streets.
Commissioner Morris asked about parking on Ensign.
Mr. Gutzke said there is limited parking in front of residences on Ensign. Guests often
have to park across the street and cross Minnetonka Blvd. on foot. Four new driveways
will restrict parking even further.
Mr. Gutzke asked staff to review setbacks.
Mr. Morrison said the minimum front setback is 30 ft., minimum sideyard setback is 6 ft.,
and minimum rearyard is 25 ft.
Mr. Gutzke spoke about the Cavell/Boone development which has the same builder and
was approved by the Planning Commission.
Ms. McMonigal noted that there was a picture of the layout of Fretham 9th Addition in
the staff report.
City Council Meeting of November 21, 2011 (Item No. 8a)
Subject: Fretham Twelfth Addition – Preliminary Plat Page 24
Mr. Gutzke discussed the corner lot, Lot 3, of Fretham 9th Addition. He remarked this is
an example of how houses can be packed on a plat that meet criteria on paper, but the
reality of it is something different. He encouraged commissioners to drive by this site
before a decision is made on Fretham Twelfth Addition.
Mr.Gutzke asked if the project had been discussed with the Minnehaha Creek Watershed.
Mr. Morrison replied that the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District has a copy of the
plan. The City’s Public Works Dept. has also reviewed the plan and has determined that
it essentially meets the requirements, although they haven’t looked at the revision yet.
He said he has not personally had contact with the Watershed District as those
conversations take place with engineers in Public Works.
Mr. Gutzke said he received an email on September 21st from the Watershed District
which said they are not aware of this project. Mr. Gutzke said there will be a significant
drainage impact. He said he will be speaking to the Watershed District about the project.
He spoke about a current drainage area that goes right into the lake. The 100 ft. pipe
freezes up and water goes right into the lake. There is no natural barrier, just pipe which
freezes up every year. More homes and driveways and sidewalks are going to produce
more run-off. He said water won’t flow uphill from all the new lots going into the pond.
It looks good on paper but the reality will be tough. One area is already flooding.
Mr. Gutzke discussed average lot sizes and actual buildable space.
Ms. McMonigal said the proposed lots are not average lot sizes but actual lot sizes. The
minimum requirement is 9,000 sq. ft. Sometimes the lot will be in green space or sloped
area. 9,000 isn’t a minimum buildable area, but a minimum overall lot size. She said the
developer has to show on the plat documents that there is adequate building area to place
a home on the flat portion of the lot.
Robert Slavik, 2962 Ensign Ave. S., asked what would prevent a homeowner from
putting a load of dirt on the dry pond.
Mr. Morrison said there will be a drainage easement over the pond that prevents that
situation.
Mr. Slavik commented that corner lots are always a problem so why not do this right.
He said the neighborhood isn’t against building houses but this proposal is maximizing
everything. The existing lots in the neighborhood are much bigger than the proposed lots.
The code is being met and everything is being maximized but it doesn’t fit in with the
neighborhood. He spoke about problems with Fretham 9th Addition and the Westling
Estates. He recommended that 4 lots rather than 6 lots would be a better neighborhood fit.
David Marquis, 2932 Ensign Ave. S., spoke about the character of the neighborhood. He
spoke about the setbacks of all the existing homes in relation to the street. He said he
would prefer to see smaller houses with more reasonable setbacks for some kind of
continuity to the neighborhood. He added that it is very unfortunate that the brick house
on the corner will be torn down as part of this project. He said it is a wonderful structure,
a beautiful home and it is well situated on the lot.
City Council Meeting of November 21, 2011 (Item No. 8a)
Subject: Fretham Twelfth Addition – Preliminary Plat Page 25
Tom Burt, 2980 Ensign Ave. S., asked about distance between house 4 and 5, and 5 and 6.
Mr. Morrison said at this time it is the minimum setback required which is 6 ft. on each
side. So if the houses are built at the minimum setback they would be 12 feet apart, but
they can be further away from the property line.
In response to Mr. Burt’s question about distance between houses 5 and 3 and 4 and 3,
Mr. Morrison said lot 5 would be the rear yard setback which would have to be at least 25
ft. from the property line. Lot 3 could be as close as 6 ft.; however that is pretty far back
in the lot. Technically they could be 31 ft. at the closest point. Mr. Morrison said these
are standard setbacks in the R-1 zoning district.
Mr. Burt asked if the developer is proposing a 30 ft. setback on house 4.
Mr. Morrison stated the developer has concerns with the 30 ft. setback which staff has
recommended. This recommendation came out of the neighborhood meeting.
In response to Mr. Burt’s questions about setbacks and orientation of the house, Mr.
Morrison said there is a difference in setbacks only for the shape of the lot. In looking at
the shape of the lot for a corner lot, the narrower of the two is considered the front. The
way the house is oriented is up to the owner of the house.
Mr. Burt asked about the city timeline.
Ms. McMonigal said after Planning Commission makes its recommendation preliminary
plat requests go to the City Council in approximately one month. If approved, the
developer has to prepare a final plat which addresses any issues that came up and then
finalize everything and submit a final plat to the City Council at a public meeting for
review and approval. The entire process takes a couple of months.
Stephanie Slavik, 2962 Ensign Ave. S., said her family moved to St. Louis Park 7 ½
years ago for schools, location to employers, character of the mature neighborhoods, the
house, and the street. She remarked the proposal of 6 homes is hard to see happen.
Because it meets code doesn’t make it right. Ms. Slavik is concerned about her home
value and her neighborhood value. She said she is concerned that this is the third
development in their neighborhood in the last two years. It feels like a trend. She said
she’s concerned about the vision of the city overdeveloping every green space and
opportunity that comes along. She doesn’t think this is what the city is about. They will
be sacrificing peace and quiet. It will be disappointing to look at these gigantic homes. It
will be very disappointing to see this is the vision of where St. Louis Park is going. She
concluded by saying 6 homes is too many.
Pat Greene, 8900 Minnetonka Blvd., said she agreed with the neighbors’ comments. She
said most of the surrounding homes are single level and now they will surround a big
white elephant. She asked if there would be fencing around the pond.
Commissioner Robertson said the dry pond will have a 1 ½ ft. depression and will hardly
be noticeable. It will collect water, have native vegetation, and become a swampy area
but it is not a pool.
City Council Meeting of November 21, 2011 (Item No. 8a)
Subject: Fretham Twelfth Addition – Preliminary Plat Page 26
Ms. Greene said she was concerned about children’s safety near the pond. She asked
about the main gas line on Minnetonka Blvd.
Mr. Morrison responded that the gas line won’t be altered or relocated.
Marty Campion, project engineer, said all the small utilities were notified when the
survey was prepared. They were all on site locating their utilities. The gas line runs
parallel to Minnetonka Blvd. It will be within the easement that will be established in the
front yards along Minnetonka Blvd.
As no one else was present wishing to speak, the Chair closed the public hearing.
Chair Johnston-Madison stated that all commissioners are long term residents of the city
and all have seen changes in their own neighborhoods over time.
Commissioner Robertson said he understands the neighborhood reaction. He said the
commission looks at a balance between zoning, setbacks, watershed and green space.
He stated that the City’s Housing Summit identified a disparity or shortage of certain
housing and wants a good healthy mix of housing. The City has been slightly lacking in
larger single family homes. Commissioner Robertson said the developer’s proposal meets
City requirements and long term goals.
Commissioner Morris asked staff to address the problem regarding insufficient capacity
of the outlet pipe from the manhole to the lake. He asked that Public Works be made
aware that it may need to be upgraded, especially since the development will increase
water flow into it.
Commissioner Morris suggested that Ensign Ave. may need to be widened for parking
and increased traffic.
Commissioner Morris said he strongly recommended that the frontage on Minnetonka
Blvd. be established for Lot 4.
Commissioner Carper said he was empathetic and sympathetic with the neighborhood.
He discussed a past study which looked at having different property size minimums
depending on neighborhood characteristics. He said there was no support outside of the
Lake Forest neighborhood. Subsequent to the study, property owners of large lots began
subdividing in anticipation that there could be some restrictions. Commissioner Carper
added that the Commission needs to comply with the zoning ordinance.
Commissioner Morris made a motion recommending approval of the Preliminary Plat
subject to all conditions in the staff report and subject to the additional conditions
presented by staff with the exception of condition No. 4. Commissioner Robertson
seconded the motion and the motion passed on a vote of 4-0.
City Council Meeting of November 21, 2011 (Item No. 8a)
Subject: Fretham Twelfth Addition – Preliminary Plat Page 27
Meeting Date: November 21, 2011
Agenda Item #: 8b
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE: Amending the Plan by Neighborhood Section of Comprehensive Plan.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to adopt Resolution Amending the Plan by Neighborhood section of the Comprehensive
Plan and authorize publication of summary resolution.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
The 2009 Comprehensive Plan update set forth policy direction and created plans city-wide. The
Plan by Neighborhood section of the Comprehensive Plan takes the policies and plans in the
overall Comprehensive Plan to the neighborhood level, and highlights each neighborhood’s input
and priorities for the future. The policies of the Comprehensive Plan are carried through at the
neighborhood level; new policy directions are not proposed in this amendment.
BACKGROUND:
Strong neighborhoods are the backbone of St. Louis Park. In 2009 the City facilitated a city-
wide neighborhood input process to update the “Plan by Neighborhood” section of its
Comprehensive Plan that was originally adopted in 1998. Over 150 citizens and business owners
participated in the process, giving valuable input on what is important at the neighborhood level.
Participants worked on identifying neighborhood features as well as priorities for the future. The
input, as well as detailed information for each neighborhood, has been updated and is now ready
for finalizing.
Attached is the Introduction and one of the neighborhood plans, South Oak Hill, as a sample.
The Plan by Neighborhood section is a very large document. Thus, the entire plan and each
individual neighborhood’s plan are on the City’s web site:
http://www.stlouispark.org/comprehensive-plan/plan-by-neighborhood.html
Plan by Neighborhood Elements
St. Louis Park has valued the preservation and enhancement of each neighborhood. The Plan by
Neighborhood section shows that each has a unique sense of identity based on location, natural
features, history, development character and residents. Ideally, strong neighborhoods also
provide connectedness and support for a wide range of individuals and families, a source of
friendship and neighbors to rely upon if the need arises.
Each neighborhood plan consists of the following components:
• History and Character
• Neighborhood Features Map and Table
• Neighborhood Analysis Table
• Recent Plans and Studies (Directly Relevant to Each Neighborhood)
• 2030 Land Use Plan Map
• 2030 Comprehensive Plan Improvement Priorities
• Neighborhood Improvement Opportunities (Identified by Neighborhood Input Process)
• Neighborhood Improvement Priorities Map
City Council Meeting of November 21, 2011 (Item No. 8b) Page 2
Subject: Amending the Plan by Neighborhood Section of Comprehensive Plan
Summary of Input
Much of the input from neighbors reinforced the city’s existing Comprehensive Plan policies, as
well as echoing the direction in the City’s Vision statement.
Neighborhood input, given by individual neighborhoods, neighborhood planning areas, as well
as city-wide input, identified the following neighborhood priorities:
• Increasing neighborhood walkability
• Improving traffic calming measures to create safer and more livable neighborhood streets.
• Reducing nuisances.
• Enhancing public natural areas and open spaces.
• Expanding the network of bike routes.
• Expanding and improving neighborhood commercial nodes as walkable destinations.
• Retaining and attracting small businesses to neighborhood commercial nodes.
• Improving the compatibility between adjacent industrial areas and residential areas.
• Mitigating the nuisances created by freight rail lines adjacent to residential areas.
• Improving access from the neighborhoods to the North Cedar Lake Regional Trail.
• Neighborhood Identity and Gathering Places.
Process
Following the input process, the city’s consultant HKGi created the Plan by Neighborhood
section. In the spring of 2011 it was shared with neighborhood leaders. A public hearing was
held by the Planning Commission on October 5, 2011 and neighborhood leaders were notified
that the plan was being finalized and the plans were available on the city’s web site.
Staff provided the Council with a study session report on this matter for the November 14 study
session.
Recommendation
The Planning Commission held a public hearing on October 5, 2011; no one was present to
comment. The Planning Commission recommended adoption of the Plan by Neighborhood
chapter of the Comprehensive Plan.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable at this time
VISION CONSIDERATION:
St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged community, with an aim toward
strengthening neighborhoods.
Attachments: Resolution
Plan by Neighborhood - Introduction
South Oak Hill Plan by Neighborhood Section
Prepared by: Meg J. McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor
Reviewed by: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of November 21, 2011 (Item No. 8b) Page 3
Subject: Amending the Plan by Neighborhood Section of Comprehensive Plan
RESOLUTION NO. 11-____
RESOLUTION AMENDING THE PLAN BY NEIGHBORHOOD SECTION (OF THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
FOR THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
WHEREAS, the 2030 Comprehensive Plan was adopted by the City Council on
December 21, 2009 following a public hearing and due consideration thereof, and
WHEREAS, the Plan by Neighborhood section of the Comprehensive Plan was
subsequently updated and revised, and
WHEREAS, a community input process involving over 150 neighbors and business
owners was completed to provide information and input from neighborhoods, and
WHEREAS, the revised Plan by Neighborhood section will replace the existing section,
providing updated information and detail, along with input from neighbors, and
WHEREAS, Vision St. Louis Park directions have been incorporated and integrated in
the Plan by Neighborhood, and
WHEREAS, the Plan will prepare the community for anticipated desirable change,
thereby bringing about significant savings in both private and public expenditures, and
WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan is a living document intended to reflect physical,
social, economic, and environmental conditions and promote a desirable planning framework,
and
WHEREAS, the use of such Comprehensive Plan will insure a safer, more pleasant, and
more economical environment for neighborhoods and will promote the public health, safety, and
general welfare for the community, and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the proposed Plan by
Neighborhood section of the Comprehensive Plan on October 5, 2011, following published
notice in the official newspaper on September 8, 2011, September 15, 2011, and September 22,
2011, and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of St. Louis Park recommended
adoption of the Plan by Neighborhood section of the Comprehensive Plan, and
WHEREAS, the contents of Planning Case File 11-22-CP are hereby entered into and
made part of the public hearing record and the record of decision for this case.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of St. Louis Park that
the revised Plan by Neighborhood section of the Comprehensive Plan is hereby amended and
incorporated into the City’s Comprehensive Plan as section VI. F.
City Council Meeting of November 21, 2011 (Item No. 8b) Page 4
Subject: Amending the Plan by Neighborhood Section of Comprehensive Plan
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council November 21, 2011
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
City Council Meeting of November 21, 2011 (Item No. 8b) Page 5
Subject: Amending the Plan by Neighborhood Section of Comprehensive Plan
SUMMARY FOR PUBLICATION
RESOLUTION NO. 11-____
RESOLUTION AMENDING THE PLAN BY NEIGHBORHOOD SECTION
OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
FOR THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
This resolution states that the Plan by Neighborhood Section of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan
has been approved.
Adopted by the City Council November 21, 2011
Contingent upon approval of the Metropolitan Council
Jeffrey W. Jacobs /s/
Mayor
A copy of the full text of this resolution is available for inspection with the City Clerk.
Published in St. Louis Park Sailor: December 1, 2011
VI. F. Plan by Neighborhood
SEPTEMBER 2011
www.stlouispark.org
City Council Meeting of November 21, 2011 (Item No. 8b)
Subject: Amending the Plan by Neighborhood Section of Comprehensive Plan Page 6
Environmental Stewardship
2 ComprehensivePlan
IV. Why We Are A Livable Community
Introduction
IV-F2 ComprehensivePlan
Plan by Neighborhood Index
NORTHEAST
Blackstone……………………….....................................................................................................................IV-F12
Cedarhurst........................................................................................................................................................IV-F18
Eliot...................................................................................................................................................................IV-F24
Eliot View…………………….........................................................................................................................IV-F30
NORTHWEST
Cedar Manor……………………....................................................................................................................IV-F36
Crestview……………………..........................................................................................................................IV-F42
Kilmer……………………...............................................................................................................................IV-F48
Pennsylvania Park……………………............................................................................................................IV-F54
Shelard Park……………………......................................................................................................................IV-F60
Westdale……………………............................................................................................................................IV-F66
Westwood Hills……………………................................................................................................................IV-F72
Willow Park……………………......................................................................................................................IV-F78
WEST CENTRAL
Amhurst……………………............................................................................................................................IV-F84
Aquila……………………................................................................................................................................IV-F90
Cobblecrest…………………….......................................................................................................................IV-F96
Minnehaha…………………….......................................................................................................................IV-F102
Oak Hill……………………...........................................................................................................................IV-F108
Texa Tonka…………………….......................................................................................................................IV-F114
CENTRAL
Birchwood…………………….........................................................................................................................IV-F120
Bronx Park………………………....................................................................................................................IV-F126
Lenox……………………................................................................................................................................IV-F132
Sorenson……………………...........................................................................................................................IV-F138
EAST CENTRAL
Fern Hill……………………...........................................................................................................................IV-F144
Lake Forest…………………….......................................................................................................................IV-F150
Triangle……………………............................................................................................................................IV-F156
SOUTHEAST
Browndale……………………........................................................................................................................IV-F162
Minikahda Oaks……………………..............................................................................................................IV-F168
Minikahda Vista……………………..............................................................................................................IV-F174
Wolfe Park……………………........................................................................................................................IV-F180
SOUTHWEST
Brooklawns…………………….....................................................................................................................IV-F186
Brookside……………………........................................................................................................................IV-F192
Creekside……………………........................................................................................................................IV-F198
Elmwood……………………........................................................................................................................IV-F204
Meadowbrook……………………................................................................................................................IV-F210
South Oak Hill……………………..............................................................................................................IV-F216
City Council Meeting of November 21, 2011 (Item No. 8b)
Subject: Amending the Plan by Neighborhood Section of Comprehensive Plan Page 7
Environmental Stewardship
3 ComprehensivePlan
IV. Why We Are A Livable Community
Introduction
IV-F3 ComprehensivePlan
Neighborhood Planning Areas
Plan Created: July 25, 2011
Prepared By: St. Louis Park Community Development
Ü
0 0.5 10.25
Miles
Neighborhood Planning Areas
§¨¦394
§¨¦394
£¤169
£¤169
Û7
Æÿ100
Æÿ100Northwest
Northeast
West Central
East Central
Central
Southeast
Southwest
City Council Meeting of November 21, 2011 (Item No. 8b)
Subject: Amending the Plan by Neighborhood Section of Comprehensive Plan Page 8
Environmental Stewardship
4 ComprehensivePlan
IV. Why We Are A Livable Community
Introduction
IV-F4 ComprehensivePlan
Introduction
Vision For Neighborhoods
St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged
community.
St. Louis Park’s Plan by Neighborhood is guided by the City’s
vision of creating and maintaining a very “livable community”
built upon strong neighborhoods. The ideal neighborhood has a
center, public gathering places, identifiable edges, and a walkable
environment. Although each neighborhood has a unique history,
development pattern, character, challenges, and opportunities, all
neighborhoods should ideally provide a healthy living environment
with convenient access to essential community services, including
transportation options, jobs, parks and open space, shopping,
services, entertainment, and other urban amenities.
Strong neighborhoods are the backbone of St. Louis Park being a
healthy community. As the community and neighborhoods face
inevitable change over time, the City values the preservation and
enhancement of each neighborhood’s unique sense of identity
based on its location, natural features, history, development
character and residents. Ideally, strong neighborhoods also
provide connectedness and support for a wide range of individuals
and families, a source of friendship and neighbors you can rely
upon if the need arises.
To support its Livable Community Vision, St. Louis Park has
established ten Livable Community Principles consisting of the
following:
1. Walkable, mixed-use neighborhoods
2. Life-cycle housing choices
3. Higher density, mixed-use development
4. Human scale development
5. Transit-oriented development
6. Multi-modal streets and pathways
7. Preserved and enhanced natural environment
8. Attractive and convenient public gathering places
9. Public art, heritage, and culture
10. Unique community and neighborhood identity
Most of these Livable Community Principles explicitly address
the desired character of the community’s neighborhoods and
the major role strong neighborhoods play in creating a livable
community.
Where We Have Been
Although St. Louis Park’s early urban development in the late 19th
century began by progressing outward from the original village
center, at the intersection of the Minneapolis & St. Louis Railroad
(now CP Rail) and Wooddale Avenue, this concentric growth
pattern was overtaken by outward expansion from Minneapolis.
A secondary influence was the two streetcar lines that extended
outward from Minneapolis in the early 20th century: St. Louis
Park Line along West Lake Street/Minnetonka Boulevard and the
Como-Harriet Line along the south edge of the City. The City’s
City Council Meeting of November 21, 2011 (Item No. 8b)
Subject: Amending the Plan by Neighborhood Section of Comprehensive Plan Page 9
Environmental Stewardship
5 ComprehensivePlan
IV. Why We Are A Livable Community - DRAFT
Introduction
IV-F5 ComprehensivePlan
Environmental Stewardship
5 ComprehensivePlan
IV. Why We Are A Livable Community
Introduction
IV-F5 ComprehensivePlan
Eliot
Aquila
Lenox
Fern Hill
Wolfe Park
Oak Hill
BlackstoneWestwood Hills
Birchwood
Elmwood
Sorensen
Triangle
Creekside
Bronx Park
Cedar Manor
Cobblecrest
Lake Forest
Texa Tonka
Willow Park
Minikahda Vista
Browndale
South Oak HillKilmer
BrooklawnsMeadowbrook
Eliot View
Cedarhurst
Shelard Park
Brookside
Minne-
haha
Pennsylvania
Park
Crest-
view
AmhurstWest-
dale
Minikahda
Oaks
City of St. Louis Park Neighborhoods
Neighborhood Map Created: November 3, 2008
Prepared By: St. Louis Park Information Resources
Neighborhoods
Shelard Parkway
I-394 I-394
Flag AveHighway 169Edgemore DrTexas AveLouisiana AveHwy 7
Texas AveExcelsior WayHwy 100Hwy 100Soo Line RRHwy 7
Minnetonka Blvd
28th St W
Burlington
N
o
r
t
h
e
r
n
R
R
France AveExcelsi
or
Bl
v
d
Natchez Ave44th St
Northw
e
st
er
n
R
R
Douglas Ave
22nd St W
Hwy 7
0 0.5 1
Miles
Ü
RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS
City Council Meeting of November 21, 2011 (Item No. 8b)
Subject: Amending the Plan by Neighborhood Section of Comprehensive Plan Page 10
Environmental Stewardship
6 ComprehensivePlan
IV. Why We Are A Livable Community - DRAFT
Introduction
IV-F6 ComprehensivePlan
Environmental Stewardship
6 ComprehensivePlan
IV. Why We Are A Livable Community
Introduction
IV-F6 ComprehensivePlan
oldest neighborhoods with traditional street grids are located
in these areas – south, east and central - with more suburban
neighborhood development patterns occurring in the western
and northern areas of the community. Homes in the older and
more traditional neighborhoods have an average year built in the
1930s and 1940s with the oldest homes built in the 1920s and
earlier. The newer and more suburban neighborhoods contain
homes primarily built in the 1950s and after. Approximately
60% of the City’s housing stock was constructed in a short time
period following WWII, from the late 1940s through the 1950s,
primarily as starter homes for GI Bill families.
Neighborhood planning began in St. Louis Park in the mid-
1980s with the establishment of the Neighborhood Watch/Block
Captain Program in 1983. In 1990, the City Council formed
the Neighborhood Revitalization Task Force to address the need
for and the benefits of developing a neighborhood revitalization
program. Based on the Task Force’s recommendation to pursue
such a program, the City Council appointed the Neighborhood
Revitalization Committee and directed this group to implement
a neighborhood revitalization program. In 1992, the City
established a Neighborhood Revitalization Commission (NRC).
The purposes of the NRC were to:
• Create and maintain a sense of community
• Improve the appearance of neighborhoods
• Increase the feeling of security
• Identify and satisfy social needs
• Work toward achieving a high quality of life in St. Louis
Park
In 1991, the Neighborhood Revitalization Committee identified
neighborhoods defining neighborhood boundaries primarily by
rail corridors, major streets, natural features and/or municipal
borders. The exceptions are the smallest neighborhoods which are
mainly isolated residential subdivisions, including Minikahda
Oaks, Amhurst, Minnehaha, Westdale, Crestview, Kilmer and
Shelard Park. The final neighborhood boundaries were drawn
after residents were surveyed about their perceptions of their
neighborhoods. This city-wide survey also was used to determine
what St. Louis Park residents liked and did not like about their
neighborhoods. The City of St. Louis Park has defined 35
neighborhoods that encompass the entire land area of the City.
These neighborhoods are diverse in land area and population,
ranging from 30 to 2,000 acres in area and from 100 to 3,000
residents. Figure 1 shows a map of the 35 neighborhoods.
In 1996, the City established the pilot Neighborhood
Revitalization Grant Program that provides funding specifically
for neighborhood improvement activities and projects.
In 1998, a full-time staff position was created to focus on the
coordination of neighborhood programs, organizations and
activities.
The Plan by Neighborhood has been a chapter of the City’s
Comprehensive Plan since 2000.
City Council Meeting of November 21, 2011 (Item No. 8b)
Subject: Amending the Plan by Neighborhood Section of Comprehensive Plan Page 11
Environmental Stewardship
7 ComprehensivePlan
IV. Why We Are A Livable Community
Introduction
IV-F7 ComprehensivePlan
Eliot
Aquila
Lenox
Fern Hill
Wolfe Park
Oak Hill
BlackstoneWestwood Hills
Birchwood
Elmwood
Sorensen
Triangle
Creekside
Bronx Park
Cedar Manor
Cobblecrest
Lake Forest
Texa Tonka
Willow Park
Minikahda Vista
Browndale
South Oak HillKilmer PondBrooklawnsMeadowbrook
Eliot View
Cedarhurst
Shelard Park
Brookside
Minne-
haha
Pennsylvania
Park
Crest-
view
AmhurstWest-
dale
Minikahda
Oaks
Residential Neighborhood Type
Neighborhood Map
Created: March 2011
Prepared By: St. Louis Park Information Resources
High Density Residential
Mixed Density Residential
Medium Density Residential
Low Density Residential
Neighborhoods
Shelard Parkway
I-394 I-394
Flag AveHighway 169Edgemore DrTexas AveLouisiana AveHwy 7
Texas AveExcelsior WayHwy 100Hwy 100Soo Line RRHwy 7
Minnetonka Blvd
28th St W
Burlington
N
o
r
t
h
e
r
n
R
R
France AveExcelsi
or
Bl
v
d
Natchez Ave44th St
Northw
e
st
er
n
R
R
Douglas Ave
22nd St W
Hwy 7
0 0.5 1
Miles
Ü
Legend
High Density Residential
Mixed Density Residential
Medium Density Residential
Low Density Residential
RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD TYPE
City Council Meeting of November 21, 2011 (Item No. 8b)
Subject: Amending the Plan by Neighborhood Section of Comprehensive Plan Page 12
Environmental Stewardship
8 ComprehensivePlan
IV. Why We Are A Livable Community
Introduction
IV-F8 ComprehensivePlan
Where We Are Today
Neighborhood Housing Options
Overall, St. Louis Park’s mix of residential land uses and housing
types is distributed around the community. Some neighborhoods
contain a balanced mix of housing options within them, while
others contain predominately one type of housing, either single-
family detached houses, medium density housing, or high
density housing. Figure 2 shows a map of the 35 neighborhoods
categorized by their mix/type of housing options. About a third
of the community’s neighborhoods (11 neighborhoods) contain a
broad mix of housing options. About half of the neighborhoods
(18 neighborhoods) contain predominately low density residential
land uses as measured by percentage of housing units that are
single-family detached houses. Just two (2) neighborhoods contain
predominately medium density residential land uses. Four (4)
neighborhoods contain predominately high density residential
land uses.
Neighborhood Commercial Areas
St. Louis Park contains neighborhood commercial corridors along
some its major community roadways, consisting of the following
corridors:
• Excelsior Boulevard East
• Excelsior Boulevard West
• Minnetonka Boulevard East (scattered between France
Avenue and Highway 100)
• Walker-Lake Streets Area
• Wayzata Boulevard / I-394 frontage (primarily east of
Louisiana Avenue)
St. Louis Park contains a number of neighborhood commercial
nodes at key street intersections within the community, including
the following:
• Texas and Minnetonka (TexaTonka)
• Minnetonka & Louisiana
• Minnetonka & Dakota
• Minnetonka & Lake
• Louisiana & Cedar Lake Road
• Louisiana & 27th Street
In addition to neighborhood commercial areas, St. Louis Park
has the Park Commons “Town Center” and three (3) community
commercial centers (Knollwood, Miracle Mile, and Park Place
Boulevard/The Shops at the West End).
Neighborhood Parks
There are 30 neighborhood parks, with most of the community’s
35 neighborhoods having their own neighborhood park. Those
neighborhoods without their own neighborhood park have a
neighborhood or community park located near them. The City
does not have any current plans to acquire additional land for park
purposes. Among the amenities found in neighborhood parks are
play structures, athletic fields, community gardens, ponds, athletic
courts, lakes, trails, sun/picnic shelters, park buildings, limited
vehicle parking, sliding hills, and winter skating areas. In addition
to neighborhood parks, St. Louis Park has community parks (8),
community playfields (5), passive open spaces (20), historical
parks (3), regional trails (2), and two golf courses (one public, one
private).
City Council Meeting of November 21, 2011 (Item No. 8b)
Subject: Amending the Plan by Neighborhood Section of Comprehensive Plan Page 13
Environmental Stewardship
9 ComprehensivePlan
IV. Why We Are A Livable Community
Introduction
IV-F9 ComprehensivePlan
Neighborhood Programs
The City’s Neighborhood Watch/Block Captain Program continues
to be a voluntary crime prevention program aimed at reducing
the likelihood of becoming a crime victim. It works by teaching
simple, yet proven crime prevention techniques and building a
relationship among neighbors and between the neighborhood
and the Police Department. There are approximately 300 Block
Captains throughout the City today.
Twenty-eight (28) of St. Louis Park’s 35 neighborhoods are
represented by an organized neighborhood association. These
groups can rally residents together to solve a problem or voice an
opinion on a special issue. They can also hold neighborhood get-
togethers, organize park clean-ups, or share services (trading home
maintenance for child care, for example). Many neighborhoods
publish newsletters listing upcoming events and neighborhood
news.
The City has a full-time Community Liaison position focused on
the coordination of neighborhood programs, organizations and
activities.
The City has a Neighborhood Revitalization Grant Program
that offers funding to organized neighborhoods for activities
or projects that are targeted to enhance or build community
within neighborhoods. For example, these grants can be used
for community building activities, communications such as
newsletters, and service projects. This grant program had $30,000
available in 2010 with a $2,000 maximum per neighborhood and
$600 maximum per event.
The City has a staff Outreach Connection Group which meets
monthly to keep departments connected with each other and
neighborhood activities.
Where We Are Headed
Neighborhood Planning Areas
As part of the updating process for the Plan by Neighborhood
chapter, seven (7) Neighborhood Planning Areas (NPAs) were
established to more efficiently facilitate neighborhood input
and identify common neighborhood issues and opportunities.
The seven (7) NPAs clusters the 35 neighborhoods into larger
geographic areas separated by the community’s most significant
“edges”, which are major roadways (MN Hwy 100, MN Hwy 7,
and Louisiana Avenue) and the rail corridors. Based on the success
of using the seven (7) NPAs to attract neighborhood input for
the Plan by Neighborhood update project, the City intends to
use the NPAs as a more effective and efficient means of seeking
neighborhood input in the future. Figure 3 shows a map of the
seven (7) NPAs, which are:
• Northeast : Blackstone, Cedarhurst, Eliot, Eliot View
• Northwest: Cedar Manor, Crestview, Kilmer, Pennsylvania
Park, Shelard Park, Westdale, Westwood Hills, Willow Park)
• West Central: Amhurst, Aquila, Cobblecrest, Minnehaha,
Oak Hill, Texa Tonka
• Central: Birchwood, Bronx Park, Lenox, Sorenson
• East Central (Fern Hill, Lake Forest, Triangle)
• Southeast (Browndale, Minikahda Oaks, Minikahda Vista,
Wolfe Park)
• Southwest (Brooklawns, Brookside, Creekside, Elmwood,
Photo: Adjo Habia / SLP Friends of the Arts
City Council Meeting of November 21, 2011 (Item No. 8b)
Subject: Amending the Plan by Neighborhood Section of Comprehensive Plan Page 14
Environmental Stewardship
10 ComprehensivePlan
IV. Why We Are A Livable Community
Introduction
IV-F10 ComprehensivePlan
Meadowbrook, South Oak Hill)
Neighborhood Improvement Priorities
As a means to update the Plan by Neighborhood chapter and gain
neighborhood input on the updated Comprehensive Plan, the
City facilitated a neighborhood input process in spring 2009. This
neighborhood input process was organized around the seven (7)
NPAs. Analysis and evaluation of this neighborhood input at three
levels – 35 individual neighborhoods, seven (7) NPAs, and city-wide
– resulted in some key findings. Based on the neighborhood input
received, the following improvements emerged as neighborhood
priorities:
• Increasing neighborhood walkability by expanding both the
network of sidewalks and trails
• Improving traffic calming measures to create safer and more
livable neighborhood streets
• Reducing nuisances, particularly noise and light impacts
from streets, rail lines, industrial areas, and larger
commercial areas
• Enhancing public natural areas and open spaces within and
adjacent to neighborhoods
• Expanding the network of bike routes
• Expanding and improving neighborhood commercial nodes
as walkable neighborhood destinations
• Retaining and attracting small businesses to neighborhood
commercial nodes
• Improving the compatibility between adjacent industrial
areas and residential areas
• Mitigating the nuisances created by freight rail lines adjacent
to residential areas
• Improving access from the neighborhoods to the
North Cedar Lake Regional Trail, particularly adjacent
neighborhoods north of the Burlington Northern Santa Fe
railroad tracks.
Neighborhood Identity and Gathering Places
As a fully developed community, St. Louis Park neighborhoods
will experience change and improvement primarily through
reinvestment in existing development, public improvements,
and site redevelopment. All of these investments represent
opportunities to improve the neighborhood’s identity or character
and create more and/or improved neighborhood gathering places.
Public gathering places can consist of both publicly-owned (e.g.
parks, plazas, sidewalks, trails, civic facilities, schools, libraries)
and privately-owned (e.g. religious facilities, cafes, coffee shops,
entertainment venues) spaces. Future parks, streets, trails and
other public facility projects should incorporate opportunities to
enhance neighborhood identity and gathering places.
In particular, a neighborhood’s unique parks and open spaces
provide valuable opportunities for strengthening neighborhood
identity and gathering places. Likewise, redevelopment and major
property reinvestment projects have the potential to enhance
neighborhoods. For instance, new private development could
incorporate a public plaza, public art, benches, wider sidewalks,
transit amenities, neighborhood-related architecture or unique
signage.
Active Living Neighborhoods
The City is committed to improving the community’s network of
pedestrian and bicycle facilities to enhance all neighborhoods as
places that enable more active lifestyles and convenient connections
City Council Meeting of November 21, 2011 (Item No. 8b)
Subject: Amending the Plan by Neighborhood Section of Comprehensive Plan Page 15
Environmental Stewardship
11 ComprehensivePlan
IV. Why We Are A Livable Community
Introduction
IV-F11 ComprehensivePlan
to desirable neighborhood amenities. Each neighborhood plan
identifies the pedestrian, bicycle and transit improvement priorities
specifically related to that neighborhood.
Since streets represent the major portion of a neighborhood’s
public realm and pedestrian/bicycle facilities, improvements to
make streets more pedestrian and bike-friendly are critical. Some
of the most significant challenges to improving neighborhood
pedestrian and bicycle networks involve crossings at rail lines, state
highways and county highways, therefore, the community and the
neighborhoods will often need to partner with these other entities
to truly make the desired improvements.
Neighborhood Housing Options
St. Louis Park’s population is projected to grow and diversify
over the next twenty years. While St. Louis Park will experience
demographic changes in line with national, regional and metro
trends, the City’s existing housing stock also influences the
community’s future demographic composition. For example, the
community’s large number of smaller starter homes attracts more
single persons, younger families, and smaller households to the
community. If St. Louis Park wants to enable residents to remain
in the community and their neighborhood, throughout their
lives, the community needs to offer a sufficiently diverse range of
housing options.
Many neighborhoods will benefit from opportunities to diversify
their housing options through redevelopment and rehabilitation,
especially larger homes for families, senior housing, affordable
housing, and non-traditional owner-occupied housing. Each
neighborhood plan identifies whether or not the neighborhood has
significant redevelopment potential that could add new housing
options in the neighborhood.
Neighborhood Commercial Areas
The 2030 Comprehensive Plan identifies the City’s need to conduct
a study of the community’s existing neighborhood commercial
corridors and nodes. Significant changes have occurred in the
community’s transportation patterns, development patterns,
commercial competition and consumers’ buying habits that present
major challenges for many of the commercial corridors and nodes.
This study would identify and evaluate these challenges as well as
market viability and revitalization opportunities.
In general, reinvestment or redevelopment in many neighborhood
commercial areas is challenged by inadequate space for business
expansions, parking, and storm water management. Neighborhood
commercial corridors and nodes may offer attractive opportunities
for adding new housing options, such as residential in mixed-
use buildings. These neighborhood centers also can have
significant potential for enhancing neighborhoods as important
public gathering places, transportation nodes, and significantly
contributing to a neighborhood’s sense of identity.
Format of Each Neighborhood Plan
Each neighborhood plan consists of the following components:
• History and Character
• Neighborhood Features Map and Table
• Neighborhood Analysis Table
• Recent Plans and Studies (Directly Relevant to Each
Neighborhood)
• 2030 Land Use Plan Map
• 2030 Comprehensive Plan Improvement Priorities
• Neighborhood Improvement Opportunities (Identified by
Neighborhood Input Process)
• Neighborhood Improvement Priorities Map
City Council Meeting of November 21, 2011 (Item No. 8b)
Subject: Amending the Plan by Neighborhood Section of Comprehensive Plan Page 16
Environmental Stewardship
216 ComprehensivePlan
IV. Why We Are A Livable Community
F. Plan By Neighborhood - South Oak Hill Neighborhood
IV-F216 ComprehensivePlan
Neighborhood Features Map:
South Oak Hill Neighborhood
History and Character
The South Oak Hill neighborhood is in the southern portion
of the city, located on the south side of MN Hwy 7 between
Texas Avenue and the CP Rail (MN & S Spur) line. Louisiana
Avenue is the primary north-south street running through the
neighborhood. This diverse neighborhood encompasses a small
residential neighborhood, industrial areas, and some commercial
businesses. Minnehaha Creek runs through the southwest corner
of the neighborhood. The neighborhood’s boundaries are MN
Hwy 7 (north); Texas Avenue (west); CP Rail/Bass Lake Spur
line and Cedar Lake LRT Regional Trail (south); and CP Rail/
Louisiana OaksLouisiana Oaks
Aquila ParkAquila Park
Oak Hill ParkOak Hill Park
Edgebrook ParkEdgebrook Park
Walker FieldWalker Field
Sunset Sunset
ParkPark
Freedom Park Freedom Park
(Paul Frank)(Paul Frank)
Elie Park/Elie Park/
Tower ParkTower Park
Justad ParkJustad Park
Isaac Walton League/CreeksideIsaac Walton League/Creekside
Jorvig ParkJorvig Park
Parkview Parkview
ParkPark
HIGHWAY 7
LAKE
36TH
34TH
WALKER
OXFOR
D
37TH 1STRHODE ISLANDLI
B
R
A
R
Y2NDGORHAM
BRUNSWICKZINRANEXCELS
I
O
R
NORTH
DAKOTAGOODRICH
EDGEB
R
O
O
K
DIVISION
HAMILTON
34 1/2YUKON
POWELL LOUISIANATAFTCOLORADOB
R
OW
N
L
OW
PENNSYLVANIAHOSPITAL SERVICEMEADOWBROOKR
E
P
U
B
L
I
C
BLAKEPHILLIPSMONI
TO
RDECATUR BLACKSTONEO
A
K
L
E
A
F
CAMBRIDGEWYOMING
WOODLANDBROOKVIEWTARGET SERVICESUNSET RIDGEBRUNS
W
I
C
K
37THWYOMINGDAKOTA35THVIRGINIA33RDYUKON
41STBOONERHODE
ISLAND DAKOTA34THAQUILA
QUEBECCOLORADOBOONEALABAMAVIRGINIA33RD
35TH UTAHHIGHWAY 7
EDGEWOODSUMTERIDAHOOXFORD
33RD
I
D
A
H
OTEXAS
BRUNSWICK36THXYLON
RHODE ISLANDSUMTERDAKOTAUTAHXYLONLAKEVIRGINIA33RD
G
E
O
R
G
I
A
39TH BRUNSWICKOREGON37TH
QUEBECCAMBRIDGEPENNSYLVANIAHIGHWAY 7
MEADOWBROOKHIGHWAY 7
COLORADOW
O
O
D
D
A
L
ECAVELL
Knollwood Mall
Methodist
Hospital
St. Louis Park
High School
Municipal
Svc Center
Central
Community
Center
Prince of Peace
Lutheran Church
Hennepin County
Library - SLP
Fire Station 1
Church of the
Holy Family
36TH ST W WALKER ST
BLAKE RD NLOUISIANA AVE SOXFOR
D
S
TAQUILA
AVE
S
W
O
O
D
D
A
L
E
A
V
E
MEADOWBROOK RDLAKE ST
WTEXAS AVE SKnollwood Christian
Church
O a k P o n d
S o u t h O a k P o n d
City Council Meeting of November 21, 2011 (Item No. 8b)
Subject: Amending the Plan by Neighborhood Section of Comprehensive Plan Page 17
Environmental Stewardship
217 ComprehensivePlan
IV. Why We Are A Livable Community
F. Plan By Neighborhood - South Oak Hill Neighborhood
IV-F217 ComprehensivePlan
MN & S Spur line (east). The neighborhood shares its western
and southern borders with the City of Hopkins.
The residential neighborhood is oriented around Lake Street and
consists primarily of single-family houses with some duplexes.
South Oak Hill is one of the City’s oldest neighborhoods as
it was part of an 1892 subdivision called “Rearrangement of
St. Louis Park”. More than a dozen houses still existing in the
neighborhood were constructed before 1900. The neighborhood
park, Edgebrook Park, is located on the south edge of the
neighborhood. As a linear park located along the rail line, it
connects to the South Oak Pond open space area, which has
a city trail along the western side of the pond that connects
between Louisiana Ave and the Cedar Lake LRT Regional Trail.
A neighborhood creek side access point to Minnehaha Creek is
provided in the southwest corner of the neighborhood.
The industrial areas on the east and west sides of Louisiana
Avenue are considered part of the Oxford/Louisiana Industrial
Park. A number of industrial buildings line the west side of
Louisiana Ave between MN Hwy 7 and the rail line, which
essentially surround the South Oak Pond. East of Louisiana
Ave, the MN Hwy 7 Corporate Center development, which was
completed in 2007, is an example of the City’s evolution toward
new industrial buildings that meet contemporary business
needs. In 2006, the big box retail building on the east side of
Louisiana Ave was completed. An electrical substation is located
on the east edge of the neighborhood next to the rail line.
The MN Hwy 7 & Louisiana Ave intersection is planned
for a future upgrade to a separated grade interchange, which
is intended to improve the flow and safety of traffic through
this busy intersection. A future LRT station is planned at the
intersection of Louisiana Ave and the rail line as part of the
Southwest LRT line. These major transportation changes will
also have a major influence on redevelopment opportunities in
this area.
Neighborhood Features Information
Neighborhood Name:South Oak Hill
Institutions:Prince of Peace Lutheran Church
Parks (active):Edgebrook Park, Oak Hill/Louisiana Oaks Park (immediately north of the neighborhood)
Open spaces (passive):Minnehaha Creek, South Oak Pond
Major streets:MN Hwy 7 (Principal Arterial)
Louisiana Avenue (Minor Arterial)
Lake Street, MN Hwy 7 frontage road (Minor Collectors)
Transit corridors:Louisiana Ave, Texas Ave, 36th St, 37th St
Walkways:Louisiana Ave, Lake Street, Quebec Ave, South Oak Pond Trail
Bikeways:Cedar Lake LRT Regional Trail
Commercial corridors &
nodes:
Knollwood Mall (Community Commercial Center)
Walker-Lake Streets Area (Commercial Corridor)
Industrial areas:Oxford/Louisiana Industrial Park (just south of neighborhood), CP Rail (both the Bass Lake
Spur and the MN & S Spur) lines
City Council Meeting of November 21, 2011 (Item No. 8b)
Subject: Amending the Plan by Neighborhood Section of Comprehensive Plan Page 18
Environmental Stewardship
218 ComprehensivePlan
IV. Why We Are A Livable Community
F. Plan By Neighborhood - South Oak Hill Neighborhood
IV-F218 ComprehensivePlan
Neighborhood Analysis Information
Neighborhood Name:South Oak Hill
Neighborhood spatial size:194.7 acres or 0.30 square miles
Total number of housing units
(2009):
298
Housing units occupied /
occupancy rate:
296 (99.3%)
Housing ownership / rental mix:95.3% homestead / 4.7% non-homestead
Housing annualized turnover
rate 2004-2009:
4.7% homestead, 19.0% non-homestead
Average age of housing (single-
family detached):
1947
Connectivity of neighborhood
streets:
Street connectivity in and out of the neighborhood is
significantly limited due to railroad corridors (east and
south), MN Hwy 7 (north), and South Oak Pond (central).
Proximity/access to retail/
services:
Convenient access to commercial businesses along Louisiana
Ave and the Walker-Lake Streets Area commercial corridor
northwest of the neighborhood. Access to community-
scale retail and services at the Knollwood community
commercial center.
Proximity/access to transit:Convenient access to bus routes on Louisiana Ave, Texas
Ave, 36th St, and 37th St.
Proximity/access to parks/open
space:
Neighborhood parks: Edgebrook Park
Community parks: Oak Hill Park & Louisiana Oaks Park
(immediately north of the neighborhood)
Vehicle traffic volumes of streets
and intersections:
MN Hwy 7 is approaching its design capacity and the Texas
Ave/MN Hwy 7 intersection is anticipated to continue
exceeding its design capacity.
Pedestrian / bicycle facilities:Strengths: Sidewalks along Louisiana Ave; Cedar Lake LRT
Regional Trail runs through the neighborhood.
Weaknesses: Lack of designated north-south bikeway
within the neighborhood that connects to surrounding
destinations; gaps in sidewalks, including connections to
parks and open spaces.
2030 Planned land use mix:
SOUTH OAK HILL
17%15%
28%
40%
Under Age 35 Age 35 to 54
Age 55 to 74 Age 75 or more
Age mix of households:
SOUTH OAK HILL3%
97%
Single Family Detached
Duplex/Triplex
South Oak Hill
8%
8%
24%
4%
8%
3%
31%
12%
2%
RL CIV COM O BP
IND PRK RRR ROW
Mix of housing types:
Refer to 2030 Plan Land Use Map in
Section IV-B for land use code abbreviations
City Council Meeting of November 21, 2011 (Item No. 8b)
Subject: Amending the Plan by Neighborhood Section of Comprehensive Plan Page 19
Environmental Stewardship
219 ComprehensivePlan
IV. Why We Are A Livable Community
F. Plan By Neighborhood - South Oak Hill Neighborhood
IV-F219 ComprehensivePlan
South Oak Neighborhood Sign
Recent Plans and Studies – Directly Relevant to
South Oak Hill Neighborhood Planning
• Active Living: Sidewalks & Trails Plan
• Southwest Transitway (LRT) Study
• Southwest Transitway Station Area Plan (Louisiana Station)
HIGHWAY 7
LAKE
36TH
34TH
WALKER
37TH 1STRHODE ISLANDLI
B
R
A
R
Y2NDGORHAM
BRUNSWICKZINRANEXCELS
I
O
R
NORTH
DAKOTAEDGEB
R
O
O
K
DIVISION
HAMILTON
34 1/2YUKON
POWELL TAFTCOLORADOBR
O
W
N
L
O
W
PENNSYLVANIAHOSPITAL SERVICERE
P
U
B
L
I
C
BLAKEM
O
N
I
T
O
R
O
A
K
L
E
A
F
CAMBRIDGEWYOMING
WOODLANDBROOKVIEWTARGET SERVICESUNSET RIDGEBRUNS
W
I
C
K
37THWYOMINGDAKOTA35THVIRGINIA33RDYUKON
41STBOONERHODE IS
LAND DAKOTA34THAQUILA
QUEBECCOLORADOBOONEVIRGINIA33RD
35TH UTAHHIGHWAY 7
EDGEWOODSUMTEROXFORD
ID
A
H
OTEXAS
BRUNSWICK36THXYLON
RHODE ISLANDSUMTERDAKOTAUTAHXYLONLAKE33RD
G
E
O
R
G
I
A
39TH BRUNSWICKOREGON37TH
QUEBECCAM BRIDGEPENNSYLVANIAHIGHWAY 7
MEADOWBROOKHIGHWAY 7
COLORADOWO
O
D
D
A
L
E
36TH ST W WALKER ST
BLAKE RD NLOUISIANA AVE SOXFOR
D
S
T
A
Q
U
I
L
A
A
V
E
S WO
O
D
D
A
L
E
A
V
E
MEADOWBROOK RDLAKE ST
W
O a k P o n d
S o u t h O a k P o n d
2030 Land Use Plan Map:
City Council Meeting of November 21, 2011 (Item No. 8b)
Subject: Amending the Plan by Neighborhood Section of Comprehensive Plan Page 20
Environmental Stewardship
220 ComprehensivePlan
IV. Why We Are A Livable Community
F. Plan By Neighborhood - South Oak Hill Neighborhood
IV-F220 ComprehensivePlan
2030 Comprehensive Plan Improvement Priorities
• Land Use / Economic Development & Redevelopment
»Commercial corridor study area – Excelsior Boulevard
West
»Neighborhood commercial node study area – None
»Southwest Transitway station area – Louisiana
• Housing
»Potential housing growth area – Louisiana LRT station
area, Walker-Lake area
• Transportation
»Transportation corridor study areas – CP Rail line
»Future bikeways – Louisiana Ave, Texas Ave, Walker
St/36th St
»Future sidewalk gaps to be constructed – Louisiana
Ave, 36th St
»Future City trails – Minnehaha Creek (Excelsior Blvd/
Cty Rd 3 to Meadowbrook Rd), CP Rail line (potential
regional trail)
»Future pedestrian bridge – None
»Future walk/bike street crossing improvements –
Excelsior Blvd/Cty Rd 3 & Yosemite Ave
»Future transit improvements – Louisiana Ave LRT
station, transit shelter at Texas Ave & MN Hwy 7
»Freight Rail Relocation Study - Hennepin County
Regional Railroad Authority
»North-south regional trail feasibility study - Three
Rivers Park District
South Oak Hill Neighborhood Improvement
Opportunities (Identified by Neighborhood
Process)
• Consider rezoning industrial land on west side of South
Oak Pond to non-industrial
• Explore potential for relocating the railroad train switching
functions
• Fill in sidewalk gaps on arterial and collector streets,
including on Texas Ave to connect to the Knollwood
commercial center
• Improve pedestrian crossing at MN Hwy 7 & Louisiana
Ave
• Provide an additional access to Edgebrook Park at
intersection of Taft Ave & Edgebrook Drive
• Explore potential for creating loop trail around South Oak
Pond
• Explore potential for regional trail in the CP Rail line
• Explore potential for nature trails along Minnehaha Creek
• Improve environmental quality and sustainability of
Minnehaha Creek
• Add park facilities to Edgebrook Park, such as tennis courts,
pavilion/shelter with picnic tables, formal entrance
• Add designated north-south bikeways in the neighborhood
• Improve Cedar Lake LRT Regional Trail crossings of
Wooddale Ave and Belt Line Blvd
• Improve compatibility between the residential
neighborhood and the industrial park and railroad tracks
• Increase/improve retail businesses near the neighborhood,
such as Knollwood, MN Hwy 7, and Louisiana Ave
City Council Meeting of November 21, 2011 (Item No. 8b)
Subject: Amending the Plan by Neighborhood Section of Comprehensive Plan Page 21
Environmental Stewardship
221 ComprehensivePlan
IV. Why We Are A Livable Community
F. Plan By Neighborhood - South Oak Hill Neighborhood
IV-F221 ComprehensivePlan
Neighborhood Improvement Priorities Map:
Louisiana OaksLouisiana Oaks
Aquila ParkAquila Park
Rec Center / Wolfe ParkRec Center / Wolfe Park
Oak Hill ParkOak Hill Park
Edgebrook ParkEdgebrook Park
Texa-Tonka Park/Texa-Tonka Park/Lake VictoriaLake Victoria
Browndale ParkBrowndale Park
Ainsworth Ainsworth ParkPark
Walker FieldWalker Field
Birchwood Birchwood ParkPark
Carpenter Park/Carpenter Park/
Skippy FieldSkippy Field
Bronx ParkBronx Park
Keystone Keystone
ParkPark
LILAC PARKLILAC PARK
Oregon Oregon
ParkPark
Sunset Sunset
ParkPark
Center ParkCenter Park
Roxbury Roxbury
ParkPark
Webster ParkWebster Park
Freedom Park Freedom Park
(Paul Frank)(Paul Frank)
Elie Park/Elie Park/
Tower ParkTower Park
Knollwood Knollwood
GreenGreen
Justad ParkJustad Park
Isaac Walton League/CreeksideIsaac Walton League/Creekside
Rainbow Rainbow ParkPark
Jorvig ParkJorvig Park
Sunshine ParkSunshine Park
Jackley ParkJackley Park
Town Green Town Green
ParkPark
Parkview Parkview
ParkPark
HIGHWAY 7
MINNETONKA
LAKE
36TH
34TH
27TH
WALKER
41STGEORGIAFLORIDAOXFOR
D
YOSEMITE37TH 1ST35TH
WOOD
D
A
L
ERHODE ISLANDLI
B
R
A
R
Y ALABAMA39TH2ND HIGHWAY 10028TH
AQUILA31ST
GORHAMVERNON26TH
BRUNSWICKZARTHANTOLEDO32ND
ZINRANMARYLAND42ND
EXCELS
I
O
R
NORTH
BROOKSIDESALEMWEBSTER40THXENWOOD
BROOKDAKOTA29TH
GOODRICH
EDGEB
R
O
O
K
43 1/2BOONEDIVISION
HAMILTON
MACKEYMORNINGSIDE
VALLA
C
H
E
R
30 1/2
34 1/2XYLON
44THYUKONRALEIGHBURDPOWELLCOOLIDGELOUISIANACAVELLTAFT35 1/2
COLORADOBR
O
W
N
L
O
W
DARTWOLFE
VICTORIASTANLEN
32 1/2
SERVICEBROWNDALE33RD
PENNSYLVANIAHOSPITAL SERVICEMEADOWBROOKRE
P
U
B
L
I
C
BLAKEPHILLIPSVERMONTINDEPENDENCEM
O
N
I
T
O
R
PARK CENTERDECATURBLACKSTONEGLENO
A
K
L
E
A
F
GETTYSBURGPRIVATE
PARK C
O
M
M
O
N
SHILLSBORO
WOOD
42 1/2
CAMBRIDGE GRANDWYOMINGMINNEHAHA
EB HWY7 TO SB HWY169WOODLANDBROOKVIEWENSIGN TOLEDO AVE S TO NB HWY100 STEXA TONKA
OAK PARK VILLAG
E
TARGET SERVICEPARK NICOLLETAUTO CLUB
DEVANEY
FREDE
R
I
C
K
SUNSET RIDGEHOBARTOREGONBOONEXENWOODBRUNS
W
I
C
KFLAG32ND ALABAMARALEIGHPRIVATEZARTHANWYOMING37TH
FLAG
28TH
42ND
WALKERDAKOTA
WYOMINGZARTHAN34THQUEBEC31ST PRINCETONYOSEMITEDAKOTACAVELL35TH
RHODE ISLAND
VIRGINIA43 1/2PRINCETON
BROOK33RD
YUKONYOSEMITE41ST SALEM31ST
32ND
MEADOWBROOK WEBSTERBOONE29TH
BLACKSTONEUTICAPRIVATE
QUENTIN36TH
BROWNDALEOTTAWAWEBSTER41STBRUNSWICKBLACKSTONEYOSEMITEZARTHANRHODE
IS
LAND DAKOTAHAMPSHIRERALEIGH
34THAQUILAGETTYSBURG
QUEBECCOLORADOWEBSTERBOONEPRINCETONALABAMA31ST
RALEIGHVIRGINIAWEBSTER31ST
33RD
42ND
33RD
LOUISIANA
SALEMNEVADAEDGEWOOD35TH
32ND
UTAHHIGHWAY 7QUEBEC
EDGEWOODSUMTERALABAMAJERSEYXENWOODPARK CENTER32ND
IDAHOOXFORD TOLEDO29THAQUILAYUKONUTICA
33RD OTTAWAVERNON31ST
ID
A
H
OJORDAN
WEBSTER29TH
WOODDALETEXASPENNSYLVANIADECATURXENWOODXYLONCOLORADOBRUNSWICKSUMTERHILLSBOROGETTYSBURGQUEBEC36TH QUENTININDEPENDENCEXYLONUTAHQUENTINRHODE ISLANDSUMTERDAKOTA32ND
RALEIGH26TH
UTAHXYLONLAKEVIRGINIASALEMBOONEOTTAWA33RD
28TH
31
S
T
XENWOODG
E
O
R
G
I
AVIRGINIA TOLEDO27TH
39TH BRUNSWICKOREGONZINRAN37TH KENTUCKYQUEBEC28TH
CAMBRIDGE
PRINCETONENSIGNSALEM25THBOONE
PENNSYLVANIA28TH
HIGHWAY 7 EDGEWOODHIGHWAY 100MEADOWBROOK31STYOSEMITE
HIGHWAY 7VIRGINIA
OTTAWAZARTHANWEBSTERCOLORADOAQUILA29THBRUNSWICK RALEIGHWO
O
D
D
A
L
ECAVELL PRINCETONKnollwood Mall
Methodist
Hospital
Park Nicollet
Clinic
Miracle Mile
St. Louis Par k
High Schoo l
Rec Center
Excelsior & Grand
Texa-Tonka MallAquila
Primary
Center
Municipal
Svc Center
Central
Community
Center
Groves
Learning
Center
Beth El SynagoguePeter Hobart Prim Center
Police
Station
Cedar Manor Inter CenterWestwood Lutheran Church
USPS -
St. Louis Park
South
City Hall
Susan Lindgren
Inter Center
Lenox
Senior
Center
Brookside Condos
Prince of Peace
Lutheran Church
Aldersgate Methodist
St. George's
Episcopal
Evangelical Free Church
Wooddale Evangelical
Lutheran
Hennepin County
Library - SLP
Fire Station 1
Church of the
Holy Family
Most Holy
Trinity Church
Holy
Family
School
USPS - St. Louis Park North First
Lutheran
Church
Luthern Church of the ReformerMINNETONKA BLVD
BLAKE RD S36TH ST W
HIGHWAY 100 SWALKER ST
5TH AVE NBLAKE RD NOAK RIDGE RDLOUISIANA AVE SOXFOR
D
S
T DAKOTA AVE SYOSEMITE AVE SBROOKSIDE AVEA
Q
U
I
L
A
A
V
E
S VIRGINIA AVE SWO
O
D
D
A
L
E
A
V
E
SWO
O
D
D
A
L
E
A
V
E
5TH AVE SMEADOWBROOK RDNB HWY169 TO HWY7SB HWY100 TO 50TH ST WHWY7 TO NB HWY169 STOLEDO AVE S TO NB HWY100 S7TH ST
S
TO
NB
HWY169SB HWY169 TO 7TH ST SNB HWY100 S TO EXCELSIOR BLVDLAKE ST
WTEXAS AVE S28TH ST W
36TH ST W
Quest Academy
Twin City Fellowship
Slavic Church
Emmanuel
Calvary Worship
Center
Timothy Lutheran
Church
Knollwood Christian
Church
Anglican Church
St. Dunstan's
O a k P o n d
S o u t h O a k P o n d
City Council Meeting of November 21, 2011 (Item No. 8b)
Subject: Amending the Plan by Neighborhood Section of Comprehensive Plan Page 22